[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[Issue]
[Pages 16963-17417]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 16963]]
VOLUME 150--PART 13
SENATE--Thursday, July 22, 2004
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Saxby Chambliss, a Senator from the State of Georgia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Today's prayer will be offered by our guest
Chaplain, Pastor Gene Arey, New Harvest Worship Center, Waynesboro, VA.
______
prayer
The guest Chaplain offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Father God, I come to You today on behalf of the Senators of the
United States of America and the people they are called to serve. I
thank You that we are one Nation under You, the land of the free and
the home of the brave.
I pray for our Senators as they seek Your favor, Your will, and Your
righteous blessings for America. I pray that Your guidance, strength,
and wisdom will be upon them as they make important decisions and
ponder the future of this great Nation. As our Senators complete this
session, bring them special favor.
Father, I pray for our President and our civic and military leaders.
Grant them the wisdom to discern Your perfect will and to desire to
walk in Your ways.
Finally, Lord, I pray for those loved ones who are deployed in harm's
way. Please comfort them and protect the military forces stationed
around the globe.
In the name of our Lord Jesus, I pray. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Saxby Chambliss led the Pledge of Allegiance, as
follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Stevens).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, July 22, 2004.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Saxby Chambliss, a Senator from the State of Georgia, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Ted Stevens,
President pro tempore.
Mr. CHAMBLISS thereupon assumed the Chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will conduct a
period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with the first 30
minutes under the control of the majority leader and the second 30
minutes under the control of the Democratic leader.
Following morning business, the Senate will resume executive session
consideration of Henry Saad to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Sixth
Circuit. The order from last night provides for up to three cloture
votes beginning at 11 a.m. on the Sixth Circuit nominations. First is
on Henry Saad, to be followed by a vote on Richard Griffin and then
David McKeague. Therefore, Senators can expect the first votes of the
day around 11 o'clock this morning.
Also we will turn to consideration of the defense appropriations
conference report when it arrives from the House. We will be monitoring
their action on that bill so that we can determine when we may begin
debate on that bill this afternoon.
I don't believe there is a need for a great deal of debate on the
defense measure; however, we will confer with the Democratic leadership
on a time agreement for this afternoon. There are a number of other
legislative and executive items we are attempting to clear before we
depart for the August adjournment. We will be processing those
throughout the day as well.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be a period for the transaction of morning business for statements
only for up to 60 minutes, with the first half of the time under the
control of the majority leader or his designee and the second half of
the time under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time and ask that it
not be taken from the allocated time to our Democratic caucus this
morning.
____________________
HONORING NATIVE AMERICAN HEROES
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Americans are united today in concern for
the safety and well-being of our men and women in uniform--especially
those who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, risking their lives to
advance human freedom.
This morning, I would like to speak about the extraordinary service
of a group of soldiers from two earlier wars.
We know these men today as ``the code talkers.''
They were Native American soldiers who used the languages of their
tribes to send strategic military communications during World Wars I
and II. Their
[[Page 16964]]
impenetrable codes saved the lives of countless American troops in
Europe and throughout the Pacific.
The Navajo code talkers are the best-known of these men. Three years
ago, they were honored, rightly, with congressional medals.
But the Navajo were not the only code talkers. Soldiers from at least
15 other Indian Nations--including the Cherokee, Choctaw, Comanche,
Pawnee, Seminole, Osage, Kiowa and Hopi nations--also served as code
talkers. And 11 code talkers came from the Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota
nations, known to many as the Great Sioux Nation.
Of those 11, nine--John Bear King of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe;
Simon Broken Leg and Iver Crow Eagle, Sr., of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe;
Eddie Eagle Boy and Phillip LaBlanc, of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe;
Baptiste Pumpkinseed of the Oglala Sioux Tribe; Edmund St. John of the
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe; and Walter C. John of the Santee Sioux Tribe of
Nebraska--have all passed on.
Charlie Whitepipe is one of the two surviving Lakota code talkers.
In 1941, he enlisted in the United States Army. He was already in
training in California when Pearl Harbor was attacked. The following
day, he shipped out to Hawaii.
From Hawaii, his unit was sent to the Pacific island nation of New
Guinea.
It was in New Guinea that another soldier, from Sioux Falls, told his
commanding officer that Charlie Whitepipe would make a good forward
observer because--in his words--``the Sioux are stealthy, sneaky,
people.''
The characterization angered White-
pipe, but it apparently impressed his commanding officer.
Charlie Whitepipe spent the next 2 years in New Guinea as a forward
observer and radio man, moving ahead of his unit and communicating in
Lakota with a ship-based partner to direct artillery fire at enemy
troops.
In 1944, he was shipped home, suffering from malaria and jungle rot,
the result of months spent in water-filled foxholes.
After an honorable discharge, he returned to Rosebud, married, and
raised six children with his wife.
He spent 30 years working as a lineman with the rural electric
association, helping to bring electricity to the Rosebud Reservation
and other parts of rural South Dakota. In his son's words, ``He got up
and went to work 6 days a week and on the 7th day, he got up and took
his family to church.''
Charlie Whitepipe turned 86 this month. He suffers today from a
profound hearing loss caused in part by artillery explosions.
His family remains the center of his life.
Clarence Wolf Guts is the other surviving Lakota code talker.
He enlisted in the Army 7 months after Pearl Harbor with his friend
and cousin, Iver Crow Eagle, Sr.
During Ranger training in Alabama, an officer discovered that the
cousins could both speak, read, and write Lakota. As Mr. Wolf Guts
recalls it, that officer ``thought he'd hit the jackpot.''
Clarence Wolf Guts was assigned to travel with a general in the
Pacific, and Iver Crow Eagle was assigned as a radio operator for a
colonel.
For the next 3 years, the cousins jumped from one Pacific island to
the next, pushing the Japanese back.
They also helped develop a phonetic alphabet based on Lakota that was
later used to develop a Lakota code.
One day, as bullets and shrapnel exploded around him, Clarence Wolf
Guts whispered a prayer in Lakota:
Bring me home, God, and I will praise your name always.
His prayer was answered.
Clarence Wolf Guts returned safely to Pine Ridge in 1946, married
and--like Charlie Whitepipe--raised six children.
Today, at 80, he marches with veterans groups whenever he can.
The Yankton Sioux were among the first Native American soldiers to
use a native language to confound enemy troops, in World War I. Through
two world wars, no native language or code based on an indigenous
American language was ever broken.
What makes the code talkers story even more extraordinary to some is
the fact that these men chose to fight for the United States at all.
As young boys, Charlie Whitepipe and Clarence Wolf Guts spoke only
Lakota. Like most of the code talkers, however, they were forced to
attend schools in which they were forbidden to speak their native
language.
Students who broke the English-only rules were punished harshly; many
were beaten, some even to death.
It was part of a sad, brutal chapter in our Nation's history in which
the United States Government and other institutions tried to strip
Indian children of their tribal identities.
Despite that history, despite the failure of the United States
Government to honor its treaty obligations and other commitments to
tribes, Native Americans have long had a higher rate of military
service than any other group in America.
Another young Lakota soldier, Sheldon Hawk Eagle, was laid to rest in
the National Cemetery in the Black Hills just before Thanksgiving last
year. Like so many Lakota people before him, he died serving this
Nation.
This past Fourth of July, I was honored to march with other veterans
at a powwow at the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Reservation in South Dakota.
Among the veterans who marched with us that day were two members of the
tribe who were home on leave from Iraq.
That evening, at our State's annual Fourth of July fireworks
celebration at Mount Rushmore, South Dakotans paid special tribute to
the Lakota code talkers.
There have been other tributes as well. But there is at least one
more honor the Lakota code talkers are due.
I strongly believe that Congress should pass the Code Talkers
Recognition Act this year to award our Nation's highest honor, the
Congressional Medal, to the Lakota code talkers and all Native American
code talkers who served in both world wars.
This is a bipartisan bill. Senator Inhofe introduced it, and I am
proud to be a cosponsor, along with my fellow South Dakotan, Tim
Johnson, and others. A similar bill passed the House in 2002 but was
blocked in the Senate by members of the other party.
Historians can debate which code talkers communicated in actual codes
and which communicated essential military information using only their
native languages. What is beyond debate, however, is the courage of
veterans such as Charlie Whitepipe and Clarence Wolf Guts and the
extraordinary value of their wartime service to our Nation. Let us work
together to pass the Code Talkers Recognition Act this year before we
lose any more of these heroes.
Let us also agree that we will honor the service of the code talkers
by funding veterans health programs adequately, and ensuring that
veterans in tribal communities have reasonable access to VA facilities.
Let us also honor our Government's treaty obligations to fund Indian
health care, so that tribal veterans and their families are not denied
essential care.
Finally, we should honor the code talkers by working to preserve the
rich, ancient languages they used to preserve our freedom.
Many of those languages are on the verge of extinction. Of the 300
indigenous languages once spoken in America, only 150 are still spoken
today. Of those, only 20 are still spoken by several generations.
Experts warn that without immediate, dramatic action by Native
Americans, tribal governments and schools, and the Federal Government
to encourage their preservation and perpetuation, Lakota and all of the
native languages of America will die by the year 2050.
Language is the most effective means we have to transmit our values,
our beliefs, and our collective memories from one generation to the
next. For that reason, Native Americans and tribal communities
particularly benefit from preserving the languages of their ancestors.
But they are not alone. Imagine how World War II might have turned
out had we not had the code talkers.
In 1990, with Senator Inouye's leadership, Congress established the
Native
[[Page 16965]]
American Languages Act to ``preserve, protect and promote the rights
and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice and develop Native
American languages.''
Last year, Senator Inouye introduced amendments to that law to
support the creation within tribal communities of immersion schools and
language survival ``nests,'' to teach these languages to the next
generation.
Let's pass those amendments this year. There is no time to waste.
Let's also work together to adequately fund Indian schools and to
include in all Federal education policies the flexibility tribal
educators need to include native languages, history and culture in
their curriculums.
Indian parents, and tribal leaders and educators, in South Dakota
care deeply about this. And President Bush specifically called for such
flexibility in the Executive order on Indian education he signed less
than three months ago.
Soldiers go to war to give their children the chance to live better
lives. What better way can we honor the code talkers than to support
schools in which their descendants can learn the native languages that
helped to save our Nation?
The result of such efforts will be a healthier, happier Indian
population. And who knows what we will all learn in the process?
Mr. President, these remarks have been translated into Lakota by
Elizabeth Little Elk, a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. I ask
unanimous consent that the Lakota translation of my words be printed in
the Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Honoring Native American Heroes, Preserving Native American Languages
Tunkasila Mila Hanska Oyate ki lel un gluwitapi. Na taku le
ecunkupi ke he, wiyan nahan wicasa le un okicize el un pelo.
Iyotan winyan na wicasa kowakatan unpi hel Iraq nahan
Afghanistan. Takuwe heciya unpi ki hena oyate ki nawicakinjin
pelo.
Le hihani ki taku wan iwowablakin kte ehani wicasa eya
makasitomani okicize el apa pelo.
Lena akicita ki tokeske wacinwicayau ki he ta wowiye ki un
woglakapi, ho nahan he un wicakpe ota nin pelo.
Sina Gleska Oyate etan Wicasa eya makocesitomani slolwicaya
pelo. Ehani waniyetu yamni he han Tunkasila wicasa ki lena
wicayuonihan pelo.
Sina Gleska Oyate ki isnalapi sni, nainjeyan lena oyate ki
pi Cherokee, Choctaw, Comanche, Pawnee, Seminole, Osage,
Kiowa, nahan Hopi akicita he tanpi. Ho, nahan wicasa ake
wanji Oceti Sakowin u pelo.
Le ake wanji ki he John Bear King of the Standing Rock
Sioux Tribe; Simon Broken Leg and Iver Crow Eagle, Sr. of the
Rosebud Sioux Tribe; Eddie Eagle Boy and Phillip LaBlanc of
the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe; Baptiste Pumpkinseed of the
Oglala Sioux Tribe; Edmund St. John of the Crow Creek Sioux
Tribe; and Walter C. John of the Santee Sioux Tribe of
Nebraska--numlala ni unpi. Charlie Whitepipe hecena niun.
1941 he han akicita el ic'icu, hetan California ekta
iyeyapi nahan heceya un he han Pearl Harbor tiektiyapi. He
ihaniyuhehan Hawaii ekta iyeyapi, ho nahan hetan New Guinea
ekta iyeya pelo.
New Guinea ekta un hehan wicasa wan Inyan oblecahan etanhan
itancan ki okiyaki na Charlie Whitepipe atunwan ki waste kte
cin Lakota ki lila wicasapi sni hanan waecun unspepi yelo. Le
wicasa ki waeyo hehan Charlie Whitepipe iyohpi sni cin Lakota
ki hececapi sni, eyas itacan ki hecetula ca Charlie Whitepipe
waniyutu num atuwan wicasa heca. Ho nahan, Lakota woiye un
wata wan el Lakota wan kici woglake.
1944 hehan lila kuje ca glicuyapi.
Charlie Whitepipe gli hahan taicutun na wakanyeja sakpe
icahwice.
Ho hetan waniyetu wikcemna yamni Rural Electric Association
hel wowasecun. Ta cinca wan atkuku ki anpetu ki oyohi
wasecun, ho nahan anpetu wakan canasna tiwahe tawa ki iyuha
wakekiye awinca iye.
Wana Charlie Whitepipe waniyetu saglokan ake sakpe. Lehanl
wicasa ki le nunhcan natakuni nahun sni icin okicize ekta un,
hehanl wanapobiyab ki nuge ki yusicapi. Wicasa ki let tiwahe
tawa ki tehkila.
Clarence Wolf Guts injiyan nahahcini un, nahan injiya
Lakota woiye nahan woglake un okicize ekta wacinuanpi.
Ta kola ku kici, Iver Crow Eagle, Sr., akicita el ici'cupi.
Alabama ekta eye wicayapi. Heciya itacan ki wanji ablezina
Iver nahan Clarence Lakota woglaka nahan wayawa okihipi. Mr.
Wolf Guts oglakina akicita itacan ki lila oiyokipi.
Clarence Wolf Guts akicita ota itacan ki omani. Ho nahan,
Iver Crow Eagle, Sr., injeyan akicita itaca wan ki cin
wasecun. Lena Wicasa ki tahansi kiciyapi.
Waniyetu yamni Iver nahan Clarence wita ecehcel manipi.
Lakota wowiye un wowapi wan kagapi. Le wowapi ki akicita ki
unpi. Anpetu wanji Clarence wacekiya, ``Wakan Tanka tanyan
waki hantas ohihanke wanjini cecicin kte.''
Clarence wacekiye ki he osi'icu.
Clarence Wolf Guts Pine Ridge ekta Tanya gli. Taicutun
nainjiyan wakanyeja sakpe icahwice.
Lehanl waniyetu wikcemna saglokan. Akicita ki mani cansna
el opa.
Tuwa tokiya Lakol woiye un okicize el un ki he Ihuntuwan
Dakota Oyate ki epi. World War I nahan World War II Lakota
woiye okicize el un ki ogahniga sni ca, lial taku ota ecun na
eyab okihipi.
Lena wicasa ki toheki lila wohanke ki he lena wicasa ki
okicize el unpi, nahan iyeca hena hecunpi.
Charlie Whitepipe nahan Clarence Wolf Guts wakanyeja pu
hehan Lakota ecela unspepi. Ho eyas, wana wayapi hehan Lakota
woglake okihip sni. Wasicu ecela woglaka okihipi. Lakota
woglaka hantas awicapapi naha tehiya wicakowap. Nahan hunh
t'api.
Le iwanglakap cansna lila oyohsice na waste sni. Hehan Mila
Hanska ki Oceti Sakowin Oyate tehkiya wicakowapi. Lakol
wicoh'an ki unkip wacinpi.
Lecel oyate ki owicakowap eyas hecana wicasa na winyan
ici'cu. Mila Hanska Oyate okicize wanji el iyab canasna
Lakota winyan na wicasa akita el eci'cupi.
Akicita wan Sheldon Hawk Eagle eciyapi ca He Sapa National
Cemetary el eyonpap le waniyetu hehan le koskalaka ki okicize
el lecala t'e.
Le 4th of July hehan akicita ki manipi ca ob wamani. Le
Sisseton-Wahpeton Reservation el mawani. Hehan wicasa num
Iraq ekta okicize hetan glipi.
He hanhepi hehan He Sapa ekta akicita wica uonihanpi ca el
waun.
Akicita ki wica yuonihanpi ota, ho eyas, Lakota woiye
akicita ki hena isnala wicayuonihan wacin.
Taku wan lila iblukcan ki he le akicita eya woiye ki hena
Tunkasila wicayuonihan ki waste kte. World War I na World War
II makasitomani akicita eya iwaglake ki lena woyuonihan
wakantuye ic'u wacin.
Wowapi wan lel awahi, le wowapi tuweki iyuha ikipi kte.
Senator Inhofe kici, nahan Tim Johnson awahi. Waniyetu nupa
hehan wowapi lecel unkohipi, eyas hunk sam kahinhpeya
najinpi.
Akicita eya Charlie Whitepipe na Clarence Wolf Guts oyate
ecetkiya waencunpi le un wayuonihan wakantuya wicun'kup waste
ke yelo. Lena wicasa ki ecani el un kte sni, ca le waniyetu
ki unkigluwitap na wowapi ki le unyuwastepi ki waste ktelo.
Lankun taku ecun'kun kte ki he akicita ki lena taky
ewojawab ki hena wicunkub ki waste kte. Akicita okuju tipi
hena muza ska iyena yuhap ki waste kte. Lena oyate ki
Wolakota wowapi waste kte. Lena oyate ki Wolakota wowapi
wanji kici unkagapi. Taku wowapi ki le na eya ki unkinyejan
ecunkun waste ke.
Na lena winyan na wicasa ki wicasyuonihanpi ki ta woiye ki
un inipi.
Makasitomni lakol woiye ki lila oh'kankoya takuni sni ehani
kohta yamni woiye waglakapi le hanl wikcemna num woiye
waglapi.
Tuwiki yuha takun ecunp sni tantas lakol wichoh'an nahan
lakol woye ki wanic'in kte.
Lakol wicoh'an na lakol woiye ki un wakanyeja ki tan
icagapi. Lena ungluzapi ki waste kte. Lecel oyate ki niupi
kte.
1990 hehan Senator Inouye wowapi wan lel ahi, ho ca iyuha
walakapi, na luwastepi. He wowapi ki Lakota Oyate ki
makasitomni lakol wicoh'an na woiye yuwas'ake.
Senator Inouye nakun wowapi lel ahi he owayawa tipi ki lena
muza ska wicaku hecel lakol wicoh'an ki wakanyeja ki unspe
okte.
Ateyapi Bush wowapi wan caje ki owa. Wowapi wan woiye ke
lena tanyan wacin kte, ca wowapi yamni el caje ke owa. Le
wowayepi ki waste.
Akicita ki okicize el yapi hecel ta wakanyeja ki tanyan
unpi kte, na tiwahe oyunihanpi uncinpi. Le wowapi ki
unyunwastepi wacin.
Le ecunkunpi ki hanta taku unkablezap seca?
Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. I ask the Chair to notify me after 15 minutes of my time
has expired.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will so notify the
Senator.
____________________
9/11 COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the report from the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks upon the United States will be coming out today.
There has been some dribbling out of information about what that report
might contain, but we are not going to know for sure the full content
of that report until we get a briefing. I am excited that a good
portion of the report is
[[Page 16966]]
going to be released to the public. I am always of the belief that we
need to have an open dialog about issues and where there are
shortcomings so that we can come up with the answers and solutions that
will serve us best.
I do not think any one group of people or even one individual has all
the answers. So I think the more dialog we can get as a result of this
report, the better. But I do think it serves us well to think about
where we are today, and how it is we got to where we are.
The President came into office about 3\1/2\ years ago. He was elected
in 2000. He had not even been in office a full year when all of a
sudden we had 9/11. What has emerged is that we have a serious problem
with terrorism.
Historically, if we look back through the 1990s, we see that there
was an emerging problem, which many of us did not recognize as serious
as it turned out to be, and most of us did not realize that a series of
events would eventually culminate into 9/11 and eventually a finishing
off of the war with Iraq. There was a pattern, in looking back.
By the way, it is always easy to look back and say we should have
done this and we should have done that, but it is much more difficult
to be prospective and say this is the information that is before us and
this is what is going to happen in the future.
What was happening in the 1990s was a persistent pattern of boldness
in the size and the number of terrorist attacks that were occurring
throughout the world. They started with car bombs, and we still have
car bombs today. Then they added attacks on embassies. We had an attack
on the Khobar Towers. We had an attack on the USS Cole. We had planes
bombed by terrorists. We had a partially successful attack from
terrorists in New York, and then all of a sudden it built up to the
ultimate, which was the 9/11 attack in this country which brought down
the Twin Towers in New York, and there was also an attack on the
Pentagon, which is the first time this country had been attacked on its
own soil since Pearl Harbor.
This was very much an awakening for the Congress, as well as the
American people. This President should be commended for rising to the
challenges of 9/11, and I think we have the right President in office
at the right time. He sent a strong message to the world that was
important to send, and that message was that we are not going to
tolerate terrorism, and if there are any other countries that are going
to support terrorist attacks, either directly or indirectly, they are
going to be considered part of the problem as we resolve these issues
related to terrorism.
As a result, he had to take some very strong stances. We had to take
some very strong positions.
Eventually, what evolved is that Afghanistan was the center. The
President dealt first with Afghanistan. Afghanistan was pretty much the
center of a lot of the terrorist activities. The Government had been
taken over by the terrorists. Afghanistan as a country was being used
as a training ground for terrorists who were exporting terrorism
throughout the world.
Today, Afghanistan is now a democracy, moving toward more freedom for
its people, and getting terrorism under control. It has some challenges
with economic growth, but I think President Karzai has done a
tremendous job. This all happened because of strong action by this
President in moving forward.
We saw that many of these terrorist groups, al-Qaida, for example,
had their origins in Saudi Arabia. We saw many terrorist groups that
were raising money through Saudi Arabia. Today, Saudi Arabia has
recognized the problem and taken some very strong actions. They are
working with the United States to control terrorism within their own
country.
We have Libya and Muammar Qadhafi, who was exporting terrorism and
actually attempting to develop a nuclear weapons program in his own
country. Now he has backed off and said, look, we want to work with the
United States. He has come out and publicly opposed terrorism. He has
given up his nuclear program. The nuclear inspectors can now go into
his country and look for nuclear materials.
We have made remarkable progress in Afghanistan. I know we have
remarkable progress in Saudi Arabia. We have made remarkable progress
in Libya. Even in North Korea we seem to sense more willingness on
their part at least to sit down with the United States and negotiate
with the United States on how it is we can move toward a more peaceful
environment.
Finally, that brings us to Iraq. I think that is another remarkable
achievement for this administration. Even though there are some
differences of opinion about how this should have been handled, the
fact is a large majority of the Senate, working with the President and
working with the United Nations, realized terrorism was a problem and
Iraq was a part of this problem.
The President decided to invade Iraq and Saddam Hussein. It was a
good decision. I need to remind Members this war started actually
before then. It started under his father, the first President George
Bush. The first President George Bush had to deal with an invasion by
Saddam Hussein into the country of Kuwait. He soundly defeated Saddam
Hussein. Saddam Hussein agreed to sign a treaty and in that treaty he
agreed to allow inspectors into his country. He agreed to many
provisions that were being stipulated by the United Nations. He agreed
to certain no-fly zones.
We attempted to enforce those no-fly zones as he was constantly
shooting at our planes. After the first conflict, Saddam Hussein
ignored what he had agreed to with the first President George Bush.
Then we had the United Nations inspectors going in and looking for
nuclear materials, weapons of mass destruction, and they were kicked
out of that country.
The Congress and the United Nations all agreed this was an unstable
situation and something needed to be done with Saddam Hussein. So
George Bush, who is now our President, made the right decision in
saying we need to go into Iraq and we need to deal with this unstable
situation because it is a persistent threat to world peace. If we do
not deal with the problem now, it is only going to get worse with time.
I have to say this President has done a great job. He has the support
of the American people.
Now this national commission on terrorist attacks upon the United
States is going to reveal some shortcomings and we are going to need to
address those. Our Nation has a leader who has made it clear that
winning the war on terror is the defining moment for the civilized
world.
Since September 11, 2001, President Bush has taken some bold steps to
ensure the safety and security of the United States, specifically
against terrorist organizations and the nation states that support
them. Specifically, since President Bush has taken office, the United
States, under his leadership, has overthrown two terrorist regimes,
rescued two nations and liberated over 50 million people, captured or
killed close to two-thirds of known senior al-Qaida operatives,
captured or killed 45 of the 55 most wanted in Iraq, including Iraq's
deposed dictator, Saddam Hussein, who is now sitting in jail, hunted
down thousands of terrorist and regime remnants in Iraq, disrupted
terrorist cells on most continents and likely prevented a number of
planned attacks. This is an astounding record of accomplishment for our
commander in chief and his national security staff.
We also have to recognize the phenomenal job of our men and women in
our military services. They have been phenomenal and I do not think we
can repeat that enough. We are very fortunate to have their dedication
and commitment, not only of the men and women who are serving in these
services, but their families and their communities back home who
support them.
The United States went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq risking
significant loss of life and treasure to protect our way of life. Our
goals are clear and twofold: Destroy the nexus of terrorism and weapons
of mass murder that personify the two ousted regimes and create in
their stead stable democratic states able to participate in the modern
world community.
We succeeded in our first goal, having killed or captured
perpetrators and
[[Page 16967]]
supporters of the enemy terrorists. The courageous people of
Afghanistan and Iraq are making remarkable progress toward adoption of
constitutional reforms to secure momentum toward lasting democratic
independence. Nevertheless, we still have work to do.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction clearly identified what we have all known for some
time, our intelligence has not performed in as desirable a way as we
would like and in some cases has raised some issues about some of the
decisions we had to make in this Congress.
As a former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I say to my
colleagues that few employees in the Federal Government are as
dedicated as those who work for our intelligence agencies. They are
hard-working individuals who believe their work is critical to our
Nation's national security, and they provide us good information. As
policymakers, we also have to recognize the information they give us is
not always absolute. A lot of time it is a little bit of information
here, a little bit of information there, and we have to put it together
and say this is a likely event that is going to happen or this is
likely what is happening. It is not absolute in many regards, and we
have to treat it that way.
I think that is the way the President treated it, and I think that is
the way the Congress has looked at much of the information that we
received right after 9/11 and how terrorism is affecting us. That is
why it was so frustrating to learn our intelligence agencies did not
connect many of the dots in regard to September 11 and again failed to
provide reliable information on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
programs.
We clearly have a considerable amount of work to do. As the Senate
Intelligence Committee recommended, we need to improve the process by
which analysts, collectors, and managers fuse intelligence and produce
judgments for policymakers, but that is not new. We have been facing
this problem for some time. I am glad we are taking it more seriously.
We need to greatly enhance almost every aspect of the intelligence
community's human intelligence efforts. We need to address the tendency
to build upon the judgments of previous assessments without including
the uncertainties in those assessments.
I will note the Senate Intelligence Committee's report did conclude
that the intelligence community's judgments regarding Saddam Hussein's
government's link to terrorist organizations were reasonable. Equally
important was the Senate Intelligence Committee's conclusion that the
exaggeration of the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
capabilities was not the result of political pressure.
As we prepare for the 9/11 Commission's report, I think it is
appropriate that we thank the people who served on the Commission for
their service to this country. Their service will go a long way to
helping our Nation prevent future attacks.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Who seeks recognition?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise to make remarks today on two
important subjects with which we are currently dealing in the Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
____________________
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, ``Did the Bush administration
manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons program to
justify an invasion of Iraq?'' This is the central question posed by
discredited Ambassador Joe Wilson in his July 6, 2003, op-ed published
by the New York Times.
Wilson alleged the answer to the question was ``yes'', and a
political firestorm ensued. Indeed, the year-long furor over the
infamous 16 words stemmed from Mr. Wilson's disproved claims.
Many of the President's fiercest critics have since argued the Bush
administration misled the country into war, a truly incendiary charge.
Lord Butler's comprehensive report includes the real 16-word
statement we should focus on. Here is what he had to say:
We conclude that the statement in President Bush's State of
the Union address . . . is well founded.
It is well founded. Yet the New York Times threw its hat into the
ring early and ran an editorial on July 12, 2003 amplifying Wilson's
irresponsible claim and flaming the fires of this pseudo-scandal. This
is what they had to say:
Now the American people need to know how the accusation got
into the speech in the first place, and whether it was put
there with an intent to deceive the nation. The White House
has a lot of explaining to do.
Will the New York Times, which printed 70 stories that repeated Joe
Wilson's claims, now retract this editorial? Will it acknowledge on the
editorial page the truth about Joe Wilson?
Rather than displaying caution and restraint, too many American
politicians raced, like the New York Times, to echo this outrageous
allegation.
Early into the fray was the senior Senator from North Carolina. On
July 22, 2003, Fox News played a clip from one of Senator Edwards'
rallies in which he repeats Wilson's attacks on the President's
honesty. Senator Edwards claims:
Nothing is more important than the credibility of the
president of the United States and the words that come out of
his mouth at the State of the Union are, in fact, the
responsibility of the president.
According to the correspondent at the rally:
Edwards blasted the president's 16-word State of the Union
sentence on British intelligence information that Iraq sought
nuclear weapons material from Africa.
Now a candidate for the Vice Presidency, Senator Edwards will have
many media opportunities to set the record straight about his view of
the President's State of the Union speech. In the name of fairness, I
sure hope he will.
Not to be outdone, the Senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator
Kennedy, delivered an attack on the Bush administration this January.
Senator Kennedy repeated Wilson's distortions, and claimed:
The gross abuse of intelligence was on full display in the
president's State of the Union address last January, when he
spoke the now infamous 16 words. . . . And as we all know
now, that allegation was false. . . . President Bush and his
advisers should have presented their case honestly.
When will Senator Kennedy acknowledge that the President's claim was
``well founded?'' The junior Senator from Massachusetts has also
accused the President of misleading the country. An Associated Press
report from 2003 includes an exchange between Senator Kerry and a woman
on the campaign trail. Here is how it went.
When a woman asked whether U.S. intelligence on Iraq was
doctored, Kerry replies that Americans were ``clearly
misled'' on two specific pieces of intelligence. ``I will not
let him off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to
America's credibility . . .
That is the junior Senator from Massachusetts. Let me quote another
AP report about Senator Kerry from last summer:
Kerry said Bush made his case for war based on U.S.
intelligence that now appear to be wrong--that Iraq sought
nuclear material from Africa.
Now that Joe Wilson's claims have been completely discredited, the
junior Senator from Massachusetts has a chance to set the record
straight. But will he?
I mentioned yesterday the distinguished Minority Leader had repeated
Joe Wilson's discredited claims on the Senate Floor. Just last month,
Senator Daschle said:
Sunlight, it's been said, is the best disinfectant. But for
too long, the administration has been able to keep Congress
and the American people in the dark . . . serious matters,
such as the manipulation of intelligence about Iraq, have
received only fitful attention.
The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Report reached the following
conclusions that directly refute the serious charges made by the
President's critics:
Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that
Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or
pressure analysts to change their judgments related
[[Page 16968]]
to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the
Vice President's visits to the CIA were attempts to pressure
analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by
those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's WMD
programs, or did pressure analysts to change their
assessments.
Let us not allow honesty to become a casualty of the campaign season.
My colleagues now have an opportunity--and I am sure they will take
it--to set the record straight about their support of Mr. Wilson's
outrageous claims. In the name of fairness, will they?
____________________
NOMINATIONS TO THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on another matter, we will be voting
later this morning on the nominations of Henry Saad, David McKeague,
and Richard Griffin to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
As this chart shows, the Sixth Circuit covers Michigan, Ohio,
Kentucky, and Tennessee.
For the last 2 years, the Sixth Circuit has been trying to function
with 25 percent of its seats empty. That vacancy rate is, as it has
been, the highest vacancy rate in the Nation. Not surprisingly, the
Judicial Conference has declared all four of these vacant seats to be
``judicial emergencies.''
For the last 3 years, I have taken to the floor to decry the crushing
burden under which the Sixth Circuit operates. The years change but one
seemingly immutable fact remains: The Sixth Circuit remains the slowest
circuit in the Nation by far. According to the Administrative Office of
the Courts, last year the Sixth Circuit was a full 60-percent slower
than the national average. According to the AOC, the national average
for disposing of an appeal is 10\1/2\ months, but in the Sixth Circuit
it takes almost 17 months to decide an appeal. That means in another
circuit, if you file your appeal at the beginning of the year, you get
your decision around Halloween. But in the Sixth Circuit, if you file
your appeal at the same time, you get your decision after the following
Memorial Day, over a half a year later. If you can believe it, each
year the disparity between the Sixth Circuit and its sister circuits
gets worse.
In 2001 and 2002, the Sixth Circuit was the slowest circuit in the
country, just like last year. In those years, the average time for
decision was 15.3 and 16 months, respectively, but last year the delay
jumped up to almost 17 months. So clearly my constituents and the other
residents of the circuit are suffering more and more as the years go
by.
What is the reason for this sorry state of affairs? An intra-
delegation dispute from years ago when nearly a quarter of the current
Senate wasn't even here. Nor, I might add, was the current President
around for that dispute either. He, too, has nothing to do with it.
This dispute drags on year after year. As I understand it, although
only two seats were involved in this dispute, six nominees, including
four circuit nominees, continue to be bottled up.
Frankly, I don't know whose fault it was it has been so long. But I
do know that neither the 4 million people in Kentucky, nor the 6
million people in Tennessee, nor the 11 million people in Ohio--nor
their Senators--were any part of it.
They are all suffering for it, though, as are the 10 million people
from Michigan.
The Michigan legislature has in fact passed a resolution calling on
us, the U.S. Senate, to confirm these nominees. I ask consent that a
copy of this resolution from the Michigan State Senate be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Senate Resolution No. 127
Whereas, The Senate of the United States is perpetuating a
grave injustice and endangering the well-being of countless
Americans, putting our system of justice in jeopardy in
Michigan and the states of the Sixth Circuit of the federal
court system; and
Whereas, The Senate of the United States is allowing the
continued, intentional obstruction of the judicial
nominations of four fine Michigan jurists: Judges Henry W.
Saad, Susan B. Neilson, David W. McKeague, and Richard A.
Griffin, all nominated by the President of the United States
to serve on the United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals;
and
Whereas, This obstruction is not only harming the lives and
careers of good, qualified judicial nominees, but it is also
prolonging a dire emergency in the administration of justice.
This emergency has brought home to numerous Americans the
truth of the phrase ``justice delayed is justice denied'';
and
Whereas, Both of Michigan's Senators continue to block the
Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate from holding
hearings regarding these nominees. This refusal to allow the
United States Senate to complete its constitutional duty of
advice and consent is denying the nominees the opportunity to
address any honest objections to their records or
qualifications. It is also denying other Senators the right
to air the relevant issues and vote according to their
consciences. This is taking place during an emergency in the
United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals with the backlog
of cases; and
Whereas, We join with the members of Michigan's
congressional delegation who wrote Chairman Orrin Hatch on
February 26, 2003, to express their concern that ``if the
President's nominations are permitted to be held hostage, for
reasons not personal to any nominee, then these judicial
seats traditionally held by judges representing the citizens
of Michigan may be filled with nominees from other states
within the Sixth Circuit. This would be an injustice to the
many citizens who support these judges and who have given
much to their professions and government in Michigan''; and
Whereas, We are concerned about the Sixth Circuit as a
whole, a circuit court understaffed, with 4 of its 16 seats
vacant, knowing that the Sixth Circuit ranks next to last out
of the 12 circuit courts in the time it takes to complete its
cases. Since 1996, each active judge has had to increase his
or her number of decisions by 46%--more than three times the
national average. In the recent past, the Sixth Circuit has
taken as long as, 15.3 months to reach a final disposition of
an appeal. With the national average at only 10.9 months,
this means the Sixth Circuit takes over 40% longer than the
national average to process a case; and
Whereas, The last time the Sixth Circuit was this
understaffed, former Chief Judge Gilbert S. Merritt said that
it was handling ``a caseload that is excessive by any
standard.'' Judge Merritt also wrote that the court was
``rapidly deteriorating, understaffed and unable to properly
carry out their responsibilities''; and
Whereas, Decisions from the Sixth Circuit are slower in
coming, based on less careful deliberation, and, as a result,
are less likely to be just and predictable. The effects on
our people, our society, and our economy are far-reaching,
including transaction costs. Litigation increases as people
strive to continue doing business when the lines of swift
justice and clear precedent are being blurred; and
Whereas, President Bush has done his part to alleviate this
judicial crisis. Over the past two years, he has nominated
eight qualified people to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,
with three of them designated to address judicial
emergencies. Four of these nominees continue to languish
without hearings because of the obstruction of the two
Michigan Senators; Now therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate, That we memorialize the United
States Senate and Michigan's United States Senators to act to
continue the confirmation hearings and to have a vote by the
full Senate on the Michigan nominees to the United States 6th
Circuit Court of Appeals; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to
Michigan's United States Senators and to the President of the
United States Senate.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, that is 31 million people, who continue
to suffer because our colleagues on the other side refuse to confirm
any of these four Michigan nominees to the Sixth Circuit.
Indeed, two of the seats we are talking about were not even involved
in this dispute. President Clinton never nominated anyone to the seat
to which Henry Saad was nominated. That vacancy arose on January 1,
2000.
And the seat to which David McKeague was nominated did not even
become vacant until the current Bush administration on August 15, 2001.
So what the Senators from Michigan seek to do is hold up one-fourth
of an entire circuit because of a past intra-delegation dispute about
two of these six seats, the genesis of which occurred many years ago.
As to disputes on judicial nominees, the Senators from Michigan do
not have a monopoly on disappointment. There are several Republican
nominees who were nominated by George H.W.
[[Page 16969]]
Bush, who waited a year or more for a hearing, and who never got one. I
note Sixth Circuit nominee John Smietanka, D.C. Circuit nominee John
Roberts and Fourth Circuit nominee Terry Boyle, just to name a few.
The remedy for disappointment is not to take out your frustration on
the populace of an entire circuit. Nor is it to demand that a President
cede his constitutional power to another branch. It is to do what this
President has done: re-nominate the person when your party is in the
Oval Office.
Let us be clear. We are not talking about any particular problems
with the nominees, including Judge Saad, who would be the first Arab-
American on any Federal circuit court and who has been endorsed by both
the Chamber of Commerce and the United Auto Workers. That is a pretty
tall order.
Quite frankly, it wouldn't matter who from Michigan the President put
in the slot: if his name were Henry Ford rather than Henry Saad the
result would be the same--my colleagues from Michigan would filibuster
the nominee.
Why? Presumably because the Michigan Senators didn't get to pick
Judge Saad or other Michigan nominees to the Sixth Circuit.
What we are talking about, then, is Senators wanting to adorn
themselves with the power of co-nomination.
Let us get back to first principles. Democrat Senators do not get to
pick circuit court judges in Republican administrations. In fact,
Republican Senators--myself included--do not get to pick circuit court
judges in Republican administrations.
The Constitution gives the power to the President, and the President
alone, to nominate. We all know as a matter of custom that Senators
have a good deal of influence over who gets to be a district judge but
little or no influence over who gets to be a circuit judge. Presidents
of both parties have been unwilling to delegate the picking of circuit
court judges to Senators. It is a Presidential prerogative and we
shouldn't rewrite the Constitution to allow Senators--especially those
of the opposite party--to nominate judges.
By tradition, the President may consult with individual Senators. But
the tradition of ``consultation'' does not transform individual
Senators into co-Presidents.
The President is not required to share his constitutional power with
Senators, or with a ``non-partisan'' commission for that matter.
We have started a new precedent around here by filibustering judges;
this is something that I and the vast majority of the Republican caucus
opposed during the Clinton administration and refused to engage in,
although Republicans had profound differences with many Clinton
nominees.
In fact, 95 percent of the current Senators who never voted for a
judicial filibuster are Republicans.
Let me say that again.
Ninety-five percent of the current Senators who never voted for a
judicial filibuster are Republicans.
Our Democrat friends have started this troubling precedent. They have
filibustered seven nominees and are now approaching double digits.
If my Democrat friends want to set another precedent, namely that
Senators in opposite parties get to pick a President's circuit court
nominees, I have news for you: this precedent may well be used when
there's a Democrat in the Oval Office whether that is next year or next
decade.
In closing, I don't get to pick Republican circuit nominees, and I
don't think Democrats should get to do so in a Republican
administration either. That is the President's job.
The Senate may establish a contrary precedent today. But if it does,
I and other Republican Senators may invoke it the next time there is a
Democrat in the White House. So I urge my Democrat friends to be wary
of the steps they are taking because they are leading us down a
dangerous path from which there may be no return.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
____________________
APPROVAL OF JUDGES
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I can remember a famed lawyer named Melvin
Belli who came to Las Vegas to try a case. The law at the time was you
had to associate with a local attorney. Belli was very articulate and
was so good at speaking to the court and the jury. When he finished,
the Las Vegas lawyer stood and said, well, what he meant to say. This
same lawyer said: When in doubt, wave your arms, scream and shout.
I think that is what we heard today on the Senate floor.
But what is really present in the Senate is the fact that we have
approved 199 judges. We have turned down 6. There are crocodile tears
that really are not necessary.
In this situation, if we followed the Republican rule established by
the Thurmond rule, there would be no judges approved during the month
of July. But we have indicated that we would be willing to approve
judges during the month of July, and we have done that. I have spoken
to a number of Republican Senators who indicated we would do that. The
situation involving these three involve not only substance but
procedure--199 to 6. That is the rule.
On behalf of Senator Daschle, I ask unanimous consent Senator
Landrieu be recognized for 10 minutes and Senator Schumer be recognized
for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
____________________
COLONEL JON M. ``JAKE'' JONES
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to honor an exemplary
soldier, a loyal American, a loving father, and a devoted husband. Our
friend and neighbor, Colonel Jon Jones passed away on June 6 after a
courageous battle with brain cancer that he waged on his own terms.
Until the week of his death, Jon lived life to the fullest and did not
allow cancer to define him or to diminish his dream. Rather, he chose
to be a husband, father and soldier until the end. His death has been a
profound loss to his colleagues in the Army, his neighbors, his
friends, and especially to his family. I say to his wife Cynthia, to
his two children Nick and Lena, who are here with us today, our Nation
is grateful for your family's service and sacrifice.
Jon was born and raised in California. His mother was a teacher, and
the influence she had on him was apparent throughout his life. He
attended high school outside of Sacremento, and graduated from Cal
State at Sacramento. He went the extra mile to participate in the ROTC
program at UC-Davis, because his own school had abolished ROTC during
the Vietnam war.
He graduated in 1980 as a distinguished military graduate and was
commissioned as a regular Army military intelligence officer. He met
Cynthia while he was in officers' basic course in Arizona, and they
married in 1981. His career in the Army took Cynthia, Nick, and Lena to
Turkey, Germany, and South Korea; and his last deployment was to Kuwait
and to Iraq.
Jon died two weeks shy of serving 24 years in the U.S. Army and only
12 days from his change of command. For almost 2 years he successfully
led the Army's only deployable echelons-above-corps contingency force
protection military intelligence brigade. The men and women who served
under him, as well as his colleagues and senior officers, testified to
his leadership in a time of war. One soldier called it a privilege to
be under Colonel Jones' command, and described his strength and
leadership as going well beyond what this soldier had seen in any other
military officer.
Throughout the war, in addition to his mission, Jon's focus was on
the health, welfare, and safety of every soldier and civilian who
served with him. When his brigade was deployed for 9 months to support
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, he succeeded in
that mission and brought every one of his soldiers home.
A month after bringing his brigade home, Jon was diagnosed with an
aggressive brain tumor. He was entitled to retirement, but he chose
instead to stay in the Army. As he told a colleague: ``Quitting was not
an option.'' Another person might have headed for the shore and waited
for his time in
[[Page 16970]]
comfortable surroundings, but this was not the path for Jon Jones.
At the time of his diagnosis, he had a battalion preparing to
redeploy to Iraq, and the thought of leaving them went against
everything he stood for. In fact, in the months preceding his death, in
between his own treatments and surgeries, Jon went to Kuwait and Iraq
several times to support and bolster his troops.
Before he passed away, Jon was nominated for the Distinguished
Service Medal, for unparalleled dedication to duty. This citation
states that his accomplishments will have a lasting effect on national
security formulation at the highest levels. Later today, in a room near
this distinguished Chamber, Jon's widow Cynthia will accept this medal
on her husband's behalf.
Jon's commanding generals, some of whom are also with us today,
accepted his decision to stay in the Army and continue in command
throughout his treatments. Perhaps they would have encouraged a lesser
officer to retire, but Jon was too valuable a soldier to lose.
Unfortunately, the Army, and especially the military intelligence
community, realizes every day how valuable COL Jake Jones was. Perhaps
the words of one of his fellow officers said it best when he stated:
Jake Jones did more than command a Brigade in war. He
commanded the respect and confidence of his peers, his
superiors, and his soldiers. He had a special aura about
him--a calming presence that bespoke competence and reason.
All of the virtues that made Jon a good soldier also made him a
devoted husband and father. In a career that takes you away from your
family for extended periods of time, he made it home for his children's
birthdays and other special events. The only birthday of Nick's he ever
missed was last year when duty to country called him to stay in Iraq.
He made it home in time for Lena's birthday last year, and only God's
call home kept him from making that commitment this year.
He was driven to be a good example to his children and to make them
proud. This drive contributed to his desire to continue in command even
as he fought his own personal battle with a fierce enemy. Although his
time with Nick and Lena was inexplicably cut short, I know the love he
gave them and the lessons he taught them will shore them up, inspire
them, and comfort them throughout their lifetime.
Mentor, hero, charismatic leader, humble individual, inspiring
commander, confident, patient, steadfast, stalwart, a rock--these are a
few of the descriptions used to communicate the man he was. Jon had the
determination and perseverance to accomplish any task with which he was
presented.
The role in life he cherished the most, after the role of father, was
that of a mentor, whether to his soldiers or to his children. He simply
loved to teach. Having been raised by a mother who was a teacher, he
paid her the greatest compliment a child can give a parent: He followed
in her footsteps. He taught those of us who knew him how much fun it
was to live, and that quitting was not an option.
Jon Jones was a friend of our family, a neighbor, and an inspiration
to all who knew him. His death is our Nation's loss. Rarely does a
soldier so capable and so completely committed step forward to answer
the call to service. And rarely has a family been so blessed to have
such a father and husband.
May it be recorded this day that the people of the United States are
grateful to COL Jon Jones for his years of service in the U.S. Army.
His memory will live on in the hearts and minds of the many who knew
him, admired him, followed him, and loved him.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana yields the floor.
The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized to speak in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
____________________
THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am going to speak on two issues: first,
the imminent release of the final report of the 9/11 Commission, and
then on the three judges we are voting on shortly.
First, on the imminent release of the report: First, I thank the
commissioners. They have done an incredible job. In this town, racked
by partisanship, to come up with bipartisan recommendations is an
amazing accomplishment in itself. But when you look at what the
recommendations are and the thoroughness with which the Commission
investigated the mistakes that were made in the past, the report
assumes even greater magnitude.
We will have a real challenge in Washington, at each end of
Pennsylvania Avenue, to make sure these recommendations are
implemented.
The area I want to touch on right now is homeland security, but I do
want to say the reforms that were recommended, in terms of intelligence
gathering, were right on the money. Many of us were puzzled after 9/11,
learning that the FBI knew this little piece of information and an
agent in another part of the FBI knew another piece, and the CIA knew
this piece and that piece. The question was, why weren't these pieces
tied together, which might have drawn the picture of what was going to
happen? And I underline the word ``might.'' Who knows if it would have?
But it certainly would have given us better odds.
The reason, as the Commission unveiled, is very simple: These
intelligence agencies do not talk to one another. They regard the
intelligence they have gathered, their work product, as so valued that
they do not want to give it up to another agency. The recommendations
of the Commis-
sion are outstanding--outstanding--in terms of requiring the
intelligence agencies to talk to one another.
I am very pleased the Commission did not engage in the blame game or
finger pointing but, rather, looked at the facts--just the facts,
ma'am; that seems to be their underlying view--and then looked at
recommendations based on those facts so that another 9/11, God forbid,
would never happen again.
There is a particular area that has not received too much focus that
I want to mention today. That is homeland security. The Commission's
report shows that while mistakes were made in intelligence gathering
and while mistakes after September 11 have certainly been made in
fighting the war overseas--we need a strong foreign policy, a muscular
foreign policy to fight terrorism--those are mistakes of commission. In
a brave new world, a post-September 11 world, anyone is going to make
certain mistakes. The mistakes that have been made on homeland
security, on protecting our Nation from another terrorist attack, are
mistakes of omission. We are simply not doing enough. That is what the
Commission's report is going to reveal when they release it at 11:30. I
have been briefed on it already, and I guess many Members are being
briefed today.
To win this war on terror--it is the same as a good sports team. We
need a good offense, we need a good defense. Most of the focus has been
on the offense. There has been verbiage devoted to homeland security,
but the actual dollars, the actual focus, the actual changes that have
to be made are not being made, plain and simple.
The bottom line is that in area after area, when billions of dollars
are required, the administration recommends and Congress allocates tens
of millions of dollars. They do not do nothing. They don't want to say
we are not putting any money into port security, rail security, truck
security, or improving security at the borders. But they do the bare
minimum essential to get away with saying we are doing something.
It is frustrating to me, particularly coming from New York and
knowing too many of the people who were lost on September 11, that we
are not fighting a war--it is a war on homeland security--the way we
are fighting a war overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is
interesting is the technology is there. We know how to detect nuclear
materials which, God forbid, might be shipped into this country. We
know how to detect explosives if somebody
[[Page 16971]]
were to walk into a railroad station or Disney World or somewhere else
loaded with explosives that they might detonate. We know how to make
our truck security more secure so people cannot use truck bombs. We
know how to tighten up the borders.
The question is twofold: will and money. We are not doing either. As
we stand here today, what are we doing in the Senate? We are debating
three judges from Michigan who we know will not pass in a controversial
and partisan way while Homeland Security appropriations languish. It
has not been brought to the Senate. Why? What are our priorities? This
is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is not a liberal or
conservative issue. This is an American issue. We want to preserve our
homeland security. We want to make people secure. We want to make
people safe.
Over and over again, we are not doing what we should be doing. The
number of bills introduced and even passed out of committee to tighten
homeland security are too many. It is not just homeland security
legislation, it is legislation on ports, legislation on borders. Over
these past few months, the Senate has been occupied by partisan
political issues when nonpartisan and bipartisan issues that are far
more important related to homeland security languish.
I hope the Commission's report is a clarion call. Let's get our act
together. Again, this is not a partisan issue. This should not
instigate fighting with one another. We should just do it.
I wish the White House in their budgets had allocated more money.
When people in the Senate, both Democrat and Republican, said, We need
to do this, that, and the other, had the President said, Yes, sir,
right on--but we do not have that. We do not have leadership on
homeland security. That is what the Commission's report shows.
Being a great leader and being a strong leader does not just mean
fighting wars overseas in this brave new post-September 11 world; it
means tightening things up at home. The bottom line is simple: Why
aren't we protecting our airplanes from shoulder-held missiles which we
know the terrorists have? Why aren't we saying more than 5 percent of
the big containers that come to our ports on the east coast, the west
coast, the gulf coast, should be inspected to see if they might contain
materials that could hurt us? Why aren't we doing more to protect the
borders? My State of New York has a large northern border. They have
not allocated the dollars, the bottom line is they do not have enough
manpower at the borders to prevent terrorists from sneaking in. They
are doing a great job with the resources they have, but Lord knows they
don't have them. We are not doing any of these things.
I point out one other thing the Commission has mentioned--here,
Congress is as much to blame as the White House--and that is the
allocation of homeland security funds. The Commission is very strong on
this issue. The moneys that go to police, fire, and the others who are
our first responders--we learned in New York how valuable they were.
The report today will show the number of people who died below where
the planes hit the World Trade Center towers was few--too many, but
few--because of the great job the police and the firefighters did. Yet
we are treating that money as pork barrel.
My State has greater needs than, say, the State with the smallest
population, Wyoming. Yet Wyoming gets much more money on a per capita
basis. To the credit of the administration, that did not happen the
first year we allocated homeland security money. Mitch Daniels, a true
conservative, the head of OMB, says he does not want to waste these
dollars. He is sending dollars to the places of greatest need. I might
have wanted more dollars, but at least the dollars that were allocated
were allocated fairly. But now we have slipped away from that. Frankly,
we do not hear the voice of Tom Ridge, who was the successor as we
created a new Homeland Security Department, saying, allocate this money
fairly. We do not hear the voice of the President, and we do not hear
the voices of the House and Senate.
This wonderful report is very critical of what our Nation is doing on
homeland security. It is saying we are not doing enough in area after
area. I hope and pray this report will be a wakeup call. We do not want
to be in the ``what if'' situation. God forbid there is another
terrorist attack and the next morning we say: What if? What if we had
done the job? What if the attack was by shoulder-held missiles? And we
say: What if we had done the job. What if the attack was from ships and
ports? We say: What if we had done the job on port security or on the
rails? Or because someone got across our borders and shouldn't have? We
do not want to be in a ``what if'' situation.
____________________
JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, my colleague from Michigan is here, and I
know she will probably want to speak on the three votes on judges.
The first point I make is, I would much rather be debating the
Homeland Security bill than these judges. Where are our priorities in
this body? What are we doing? We have had weeks and weeks where many
have called for bringing Homeland Security appropriations to the
Senate. Instead, we have been debating all the political footballs. I
know it is a Presidential election year, I know it is election season,
but some things should have a higher calling.
On this particular issue, I make one point before yielding the floor
to my colleague from Michigan. Anyone who thinks this is a tit-for-tat
game at least misreads the Senator from New York. Were there bad things
done on judges when Bill Clinton was President by the Republican-
controlled Senate? You bet. But that does not motivate me in terms of
what we ought to do in the future.
What motivates me is that in the issue of appointing judges--and I
remind the American people that now 200 judges have been approved and 6
have been rejected. My guess is the Founding Fathers, given that they
gave the Senate the advice and consent process, would have imagined a
greater percentage should be rejected.
I am always mindful of the fact that one of the earliest nominees to
the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Rutledge, from the neighboring State of the
Presiding Officer, South Carolina, nominated by President George
Washington, was rejected by the Senate because they didn't like his
views on the Jay Treaty. That Senate, which had a good number of
Founding Fathers in it--the actual people who wrote the Constitution,
many of them became Senators the next year or two--didn't have any
qualms about blocking a judge they thought was unfit.
Now all of a sudden when this body stops 6 of 200, we hear from the
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue: That is obstructionist.
That is not obstructionist. That is doing our job. The Constitution
didn't give the President the sole power to appoint judges. It was
divided. In fact, for much of the Constitutional Convention the
Founding Fathers thought the Senate ought to appoint the judges and
only at the last minute did they say the President, with the advice and
consent of the Senate.
This President--regretfully, in many instances--has not consulted the
Senate. The two Senators from Michigan--they happen to be of a
different party than the President but we know they enjoy working with
the other party--were not consulted. I know it can be done. We have
done it in my State of New York. We don't have a single vacancy in
either the district courts or the Second Circuit because finally, after
I said I was not going to allow judges to go through unless I was
consulted, the White House came and consulted, and there is a happy
result. All the vacancies are filled. The judges tend to be
conservative, but they are mainstream people. I may not agree with them
on a whole lot of issues, but they have all gone forward. In Michigan
we have had no consultation.
Today when I vote against these three nominations, I am not just
backing up two Senators from Michigan; I am defending the Constitution.
That is what all of us who vote this way will
[[Page 16972]]
do. Because for the President to say on judges, it is my way or the
highway, no compromise, is just not what the Founding Fathers intended.
It is not good for America. It tends to put--whoever is President--
extreme people on the bench instead of the moderate people we need.
I regret that we have come to vote on these judges, but I have no
qualms that I will vote and recommend to my colleagues that we vote
against all three.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Would the Chair advise the Senator from Nevada what the
status of the floor is at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes remaining under morning
business.
Mr. REID. I yield that time back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded back.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF HENRY W. SAAD TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session and resume consideration of Calendar No.
705, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Henry W. Saad,
of Michigan, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11
a.m. shall be equally divided between the chairman and the ranking
member or his designee.
Mr. REID. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Leahy, I designate 5
minutes to the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin. If there is any time
remaining on our side, following his presentation, the Senator from New
York is yielded the remainder of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the issues which we are going to vote on
today relate to a principle. The principle is that we should provide
hearings to people who are nominated by Presidents. When those hearings
are denied in order to preserve vacancies so that a subsequent
President can make the appointments, that is wrong. That is what
happened with Clinton appointees to Michigan judgeships. Two women,
highly qualified, were appointed. One was denied a hearing over 4
years, the longest time in the history of the Senate, never given a
hearing by the Judiciary Committee. The second nominee, highly
qualified, was denied a hearing for over a year and a half by the
Judiciary Committee.
This happened in a number of States. It happened to a nominee from
Ohio, whose name was Markus, who testified as to why he was denied a
hearing because he asked the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who
were in the majority as to why he was never given a hearing. He was
nominated for an Ohio vacancy to the Sixth Circuit. There are four
States in our circuit: Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan. He
testified in front of the Judiciary Committee as to what happened, why
he was never given a hearing.
. . . Senator DeWine and his staff and Senator Hatch's staff
and others close to him were straight with me. Over and over
again they told me two things: There will be no more
confirmations to the 6th Circuit during the Clinton
Administration, and this has nothing to do with you; don't
take it personally--it doesn't matter who the nominee is,
what credentials they may have or what support they may have.
. . . On one occasion, Senator DeWine told me ``This is
bigger than you and it's bigger than me.'' Senator Kohl, who
had kindly agreed to champion my nomination within the
Judiciary Committee, encountered a similar brick wall. . . .
The fact was, a decision had been made to hold the vacancies
and see who won the presidential election. With a Bush win,
all those seats could go to Bush rather than to Clinton
nominees.
That is not an acceptable tactic. It should not be allowed to
succeed. That is the fundamental issue with these nominees, as to
whether that tactic of denying hearings--in one case for over 4 years
and another case for a year and a half, to two highly qualified women
appointed by President Clinton--is going to work. Senator Stabenow and
I are determined that it should not work. But we are also determined to
try to accomplish a bipartisan solution.
There is a rare opportunity here, because of the number of vacancies
to the Sixth Circuit--there are four Michigan vacancies on the Sixth
Circuit--to have a bipartisan solution. Two have been proposed to the
White House. Senator Stabenow and I have proposed that there be a
bipartisan commission appointed in Michigan to make recommendations on
these nominations. Whether these two women succeed in getting those
recommendations is not the point and it is not assured. We don't know.
Recommendations would not be binding upon the President, nor on the
Senate. They are simply recommendations. That has been rejected by the
White House.
When Senator Leahy was the chairman, when Democrats were in the
majority in the Senate, he made a suggestion, a proposal to the White
House as to how to solve this problem. The White House rejected that
one as well.
Senator Stabenow and I have pursued bipartisan solutions to this
deadlock. We are going to continue to pursue solutions. But what we
will not do and the Senate should not do, in terms of the principle
involved here of denying hearings year after year after year to
nominees in the Judiciary Committee in order to keep those seats vacant
so the next President can make the appointment, this principle, it
seems to me, is not in all of our interests.
Even Judge Gonzales has acknowledged there were wrongs. He said: That
was wrong. That was wrong to deny Judiciary Committee hearings. That is
not right.
And he is right. We are going to try to correct that wrong. It can be
corrected in a bipartisan way. But for these nominations to simply be
approved and for cloture to be invoked is not the way to achieve a
bipartisan solution.
One final comment, if I have another minute. How much time do I have
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
Madam President, for over 4 years, we made efforts to get hearings
first for Judge White, who is a court of appeals judge in Michigan, and
for Kathleen McCree Lewis, who is a noted appellate lawyer from
Michigan in the Sixth Circuit. Two pages of efforts were made to get
hearings. I am not going to read them all. All I can say is, month
after month after month Senator Daschle, Senator Leahy, and others
pleaded with the Republican majority, the majority leader, and the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee for hearings. We came to the floor
and made speeches, even after the blue slip was returned from Senator
Abraham.
There is a blue-ship issue here because Senator Abraham did not
originally return the blue slip on these judges. But even after the
blue slip was returned, there were no hearings provided.
There is a huge issue always, whether blue slips were returned or
returned with objections, whether two Senators from a State who have
objections should be overridden and the nomination should proceed. That
is an issue which affects all of us, and all of us should give a great
deal of thought as to whether, if two Senators from a State object to a
nominee, that nomination should proceed. That gets to the advise and
consent clause of the Constitution. But when blue slips are returned,
which is the case with these
[[Page 16973]]
two judges, there was still a refusal to hold hearings. That is
unacceptable. That tactic should not work, and I hope cloture will not
be invoked on these three nominations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the handling of the nominations of Henry
Saad, Richard Griffin, and David McKeague in the Judiciary Committee
and here on the Senate floor sets an unfortunate precedent, and will be
long remembered in the annals of this Chamber for the double standard
it embodies. In collusion with a White House of the same party, the
Senate's Republicans have engaged in a series of changed practices and
broken rules. The home-State Senators of these nominees opposed
proceeding on them any further until and unless they are able to reach
a bipartisan solution with the White House, but their interests have
been disregarded. In the process Republicans have trampled on years of
tradition, practice and comity. This sort of behavior may not easily be
repaired, but must be exposed.
Before I discuss the specifics of the Michigan nominations, I would
like to review the recent history of Republican rule breaking, bending,
and changing with regard to nominations for lifetime judicial
appointments. Over the last 3\1/2\ years, the good faith efforts of
Senate Democrats to repair the damage done to the judicial confirmation
process over the previous 6 years has been sorely tested and met with
nothing but divisive partisanship. Rule after rule has been broken or
twisted until the process so long agreed upon is hardly recognizable
anymore.
The string of transparently partisan actions taken by the Senate's
Republican majority took a wrong turn in January of last year. It was
then that one hearing was held for three controversial circuit court
nominees, scheduled to take place in the course of a very busy day in
the Senate. There was no precedent for this in the years that
Republicans served in the majority and a Democrat was in the White
House.
Then, two of the nominees from that hearing were voted out of the
committee in clear violation of committee rules. Despite his prior
statements acknowledging the proper operation of rule IV in February,
which should operate to preserve the minority's right to debate, the
chairman declared that Rule IV no longer applied. I spent months
working to reach an agreement to move forward the nominees voted out in
violation of rule IV and reach an understanding that this important
rule would not be violated again. However, in connection with the
nomination of William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit the chairman again
overrode the rights of the minority in order to rush to judgment on a
controversial circuit court nominee. The assurances given to us that
minority rights would be respected and the Senate would not take up
nominations sent to the Senate floor in violation of our rights were
broken.
The Republican majority also supported and facilitated the
unprecedented renomination and consideration of Priscilla Owen to a
seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, for which she
already had been rejected by the Judiciary Committee. That, too, was
unprecedented.
The other rule breaking I want to discuss is the one directly
relevant to the Michigan nominees. It is the tradition of the ``blue-
slip,'' the mechanism by which home-State Senators were, until the last
2 years, able to express their approval of or opposition to judicial
nominees from their home States.
For many years, at least since the time of Judiciary Committee
Chairman James Eastland, the committee has sought the consent of a
judicial nominee's home-State Senators by sending them a letter and a
sheet of blue paper asking whether or not they approve of the nominee.
This piece of paper, called a blue slip, formalized a courtesy long
extended to home-State Senators. It was honored without exception when
Chairman Hatch chaired the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton
administration. Not once during those six years when the committee was
considering the nominations of a Democratic President, did the chairman
proceed on a nominee unless two approving, or positive blue slips had
been returned. One non-returned blue slip, let alone one where a
Senator indicated disapproval of the nominee, was enough to doom a
nomination and prevent any consideration. For that matter, it seemed
that so long as one Republican Senator had an objection, it was
honored, even if they were not home-State Senators like Senator Helms
of North Carolina objecting to an African-American nominee from
Virginia, or Senator Gorton of Washington objecting to nominees from
California.
When President Clinton was in office, the chairman's blue slip sent
to Senators, asking their consent, said this:
Please return this form as soon as possible to the
nominations office. No further proceedings on this nominee
will be scheduled until both blue slips have been returned by
the nominee's home state senators.
When President Bush began his term, and Senator Hatch took over the
chairmanship of this committee, he changed his blue slip to drop the
assurance he had always provided Republican Senators who had an
objection. He eliminated the statement of his consistent practice in
the past by striking the sentence that provided: ``No further
proceedings on this nominee will be scheduled until both blue slips
have been returned by the nominee's home state senators.'' Now he just
asks that the blue slip be returned as soon as possible, disregarding
years of tradition and respect for the interests of the home-State
Senators. Can there be any other explanation for this other than the
change in the White House? It is hard to imagine.
This change in policy has worked a severe unfairness on the interests
of Senators Levin and Stabenow. They objected to the nominations of
Henry Saad, Richard Griffin, and David McKeague for reasons they have
explained in detail. From the very beginning, they have been crystal
clear with the President and the White House about their objections,
and they have done everything possible to reach a compromise. Their
concerns ought to be respected, not rejected in favor of partisan
political rule-bending.
This is not the first time the blue slip rule has been broken. Last
year the Judiciary Committee, under Republican leadership, took the
unprecedented action of proceeding to a hearing on President Bush's
controversial nomination of Carolyn Kuhl to the Ninth Circuit, over the
objection of Senator Boxer. When the senior Senator from California
announced her opposition to the nomination at the beginning of a
Judiciary business meeting, I suggested that further proceedings on
that nomination ought to be carefully considered and noted that the
committee had never proceeded on a nomination opposed by both home-
State Senators once their opposition was known. Nonetheless, in one in
a continuing series of changes of practice and position, the committee
was required to proceed with the Kuhl nomination, and a divisive vote
was the result. The Senate has withheld consent to that nomination
after extended debate.
Continuing with the Saad nomination, and going further with Griffin
and McKeague, the committee made more profound changes in its
practices. When a Democratic President was doing the nominating and
Republican Senators were objecting, a single objection from a single
home-State Senator stalled any nomination. There is not a single
example of a single time that Chairman Hatch went forward with a
hearing over the objection or negative blue slip of a single Republican
home-State Senator during the years that President Clinton was the
nominating authority. But now that a Republican President is doing the
nominating, no amount of objecting by Democratic Senators is
sufficient. Republicans overrode the objection of one home-State
Senator with the Kuhl nomination. Republicans outdid themselves when
they overrode the objections of both home-State Senators and forced the
Saad, McKeague and Griffin nominations out of committee.
We will hear a lot of arguments from the other side about the history
of the
[[Page 16974]]
blue slip, and of the practices followed by other chairmen, including
Senator Kennedy and Senator Biden. What I doubt we will hear from the
other side of the aisle is the plain and simple truth of the two
conflicting policies the Republicans have followed. While it is true
that various chairmen of the Judiciary Committee have used the blue-
slip in different ways--some to work unfairness, and others to attempt
to remedy it--it is also true that each of those chairmen was
consistent in his application of his own policy--that is, until now.
In addition, I think the Senate and the American people need to
recall the party-line vote by which Senate Republicans defeated the
confirmation to the District Court in Missouri of an outstanding
African-American judge named Ronnie White. In connection with that
vote, a number of Republican Senators who voted against Judge White
justified their action as being required to uphold the role of the
Missouri home-State Senators who opposed the nomination. Any Senator
who voted against the nomination of Ronnie White and does not vote with
Senators Levin and Stabenow today will need to find another explanation
for having opposed Judge White or explain why suddenly the rules that
applied to Judge White do not apply today.
I know Republican partisans hate being reminded of the double
standards by which they operated when asked to consider so many of
President Clinton's nominees. I know that they would rather exist in a
state of ``confirmation amnesia,'' but that is not fair and that is not
right. The blue slip policy in effect, and enforced strictly, by
Republicans during the Clinton administration operated as an absolute
bar to the consideration of any nominee to any court unless both home-
State Senators had returned positive blue slips. No time limit was set
and no reason had to be articulated.
Remember also that before I became chairman in June of 2001, all of
these decisions were being made in secret. Blue slips were not public,
and they were allowed to operate as anonymous holds on otherwise
qualified nominees.
A few examples of the operation of the blue slip process and how it
was scrupulously honored by the committee during the Clinton Presidency
are worth remembering. Remember, in the 106th Congress alone, more than
half of President Clinton's circuit court nominees were defeated
through the operation of the blue slip or other such partisan
obstruction.
Perhaps the most vivid is the story of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where Senator Helms was permitted to
resist President Clinton's nominees for 6 years. Judge James Beaty was
first nominated to the Fourth Circuit from North Carolina by President
Clinton in 1995, but no action was taken on his nomination in 1995,
1996, 1997, or 1998. Another Fourth Circuit nominee from North
Carolina, Rich Leonard, was nominated in 1995, but no action was taken
on his nomination either, in 1995 or 1996. The nomination of Judge
James Wynn, again a North Carolina nominee to the Fourth Circuit, sent
to the Senate by President Clinton in 1999, languished without action
in 1999, 2000, and early 2001 until President Bush withdrew his
nomination.
A similar tale exists in connection with the Fifth Circuit where
Enrique Moreno, Jorge Rangel and Alston Johnson were nominated but
never given confirmation hearings.
Perhaps the best documented abuses are those that stopped the
nominations of Judge Helene White, Kathleen McCree Lewis and Professor
Kent Markus to the Sixth Circuit. Judge White and Ms. Lewis were
themselves Michigan nominees. Republicans in the Senate prevented
consideration of any of President Clinton's nominees to the Sixth
Circuit for years.
When I became chairman in 2001, I ended that impasse. The vacancies
that once plagued the Sixth Circuit have been cut in half. Where
Republican obstruction led to 8 vacancies on that 16-judge court,
Democratic cooperation allowed 4 of those vacancies to be filled. The
Sixth Circuit currently has more judges and fewer vacancies than it has
had in years.
Those of us who were involved in this process in the years 1995-2000
know that the Clinton White House bent over backwards to work with
Republican Senators and seek their advice on appointments to both
circuit and district court vacancies. There were many times when the
White House made nominations at the direct suggestion of Republican
Senators, and there are judges sitting today on the Ninth Circuit and
the Fourth Circuit, in the district courts in Arizona, Utah,
Mississippi, and many other places only because the recommendations and
demands of Republicans Senators were honored.
In contrast, since the beginning of its time in the White House, this
Bush administration has sought to overturn traditions of bipartisan
nominating commissions and to run roughshod over the advice of
Democratic Senators. They attempted to change the exemplary systems in
Wisconsin, Washington, and Florida that had worked so well for so many
years. They ignored the protests of Senators like Senator Boxer who not
only objected to the nominee proposed by the White House, but who, in
an attempt to reach a true compromise, also suggested Republican
alternatives. And today, despite the best efforts of the well-respected
Senators from Michigan, who have proposed a bipartisan commission
similar to their sister state of Wisconsin, we see the administration
has flatly rejected any sort of compromise.
The double standards that the Republican majority has adopted
obviously depend upon the occupant of the White House. The change in
the blue slip practice marks only one example of their disregard for
the rules and practices of committees and the Senate. In the Judiciary
Committee, the Republican majority abandoned our historic practice of
bipartisan investigation in the Pryor nomination, as well as the
meaning and consistent practice of protecting minority rights through a
longstanding committee rule, rule IV, that required a member of the
minority to vote to cut off debate in order to bring a matter to a
vote. Republicans took another giant step in the direction of unbridled
partisanship through the hearings granted Judges Kuhl, Saad, Griffin
and McKeague.
During the past year and a half we have also suffered through the
scandal of the theft of staff memoranda and files from the Judiciary
computer by Republican staff, a matter which is now under criminal
investigation by the Department of Justice. It is all part of a pattern
that has included bending, changing and even breaking this committee's
rules to gain partisan advantage and to stiffen the White House's
influence over the Senate.
The partisan Republican motto seems to be ``by any means necessary.''
If stealing computer files is helpful, do it. If rules protecting the
minority are inconvenient, ignore them. If traditional practices are an
impediment, break them. Partisan Republicans seem intent on turning the
independent Senate into a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Presidency and
our independent Federal judiciary into an activist arm of the
Republican Party.
Senate Republicans are now intent on violating ``the Thurmond Rule''
and the spirit of the cooperative agreement reached earlier this year
by which 25 additional judicial nominees have been considered and
confirmed. The Thurmond Rule dates back at least to July 1980 when the
Reagan campaign urged Senate Republicans to block President Carter's
judicial nominees. Over time, Senator Thurmond and Republican leaders
refined their use of and practices under the rule to prevent the
consideration of lifetime judicial appointments in the last year of a
Presidency unless consensus nominees. Consent of the majority and
minority leaders as well as the chairman and ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee came to be the norm. The agreement earlier this
year on the 25 additional judicial nominees considered and confirmed
was consistent with our traditions and the Thurmond Rule.
Senate Republicans abused their power in the last year of President
Clinton's first term, in 1996. They
[[Page 16975]]
would not allow a single circuit court nominee to be considered by the
Senate that entire session and only allowed 17 noncontroversial
district court nominees confirmed in July. No judicial nominees were
allowed a vote in the first 6 months of that session or the last 5
months of that Presidency.
In 2000, we had to work hard to get Senate Republicans to allow votes
on judicial nominees, even in the wake of searing criticism of their
obstructionism by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
After July 4, 2000, the only judicial nominees confirmed were by
consensus.
In stark contrast to their practices in 1996 and 2000, the Republican
leadership of the Senate is now seeking to force the Senate into
confirmations of judicial nominees they know to be highly
controversial. That is wholly inconsistent with the Thurmond Rule and
with their own past practices. Republican partisans seem intent on
another contrived partisan political stunt. They insist on staging
cloture votes on judicial nominees late in a Presidential election year
knowing that they have broken rule after rule and practice after
traditional practice just to force the controversial nominations before
the Senate. They are manufacturing confrontation and controversy. Like
the President, they seek division over cooperation with respect to the
handful of most controversial judicial nominees for lifetime
appointments.
Reports this week are that the Republican leadership is setting up
unilaterally to change the Senate's historic rules to protect the
minority. According to press accounts, some Republicans leaders are
planning to have Vice President Cheney, acting as President of the
Senate, declare that the Senate's longstanding cloture rule is
unconstitutional and then have his fellow party members sustain that
partisan power grab. When this radical might-makes-right approach was
advocated last year, some Republican had reservations about sacrificing
the Senate's rights to freedom of debate. Traditional conservatives who
understand the role of the Senate as part of the checks and balances in
our Constitution recognized the enormity of damage that would be caused
to this institution by empowering such a partisan dictatorship. From
this week's reports, sensible Senate Republicans are being cast aside
and overridden by the most strident.
Norm Ornstein observed: ``If Republicans unilaterally void a rule
that they themselves have employed in the past, they will break the
back of comity in the Senate.'' Republicans call this the so-called
``nuclear action,'' because it would destroy the Senate as we know it.
It is unjustified and unwise. It is ironic that Republicans blocked
nearly 10 times as many of President Clinton's judicial nominees as
those of President Bush denied consent. Apparently, clearly Republican
partisans will apparently stop at nothing in their efforts to aid and
abet this White House in the efforts to politicize the Federal
judiciary.
Both of the Senators from Michigan are respected Members of the
Senate. Both are fair-minded. Both are committed to solving the
problems caused by Republican high-handedness in blocking earlier
nominees to the Sixth Circuit. Both of these home-State Senators have
attempted to work with the White House to offer their advice, but their
input was rejected. They have suggested ways to end the impasse on
judicial nominations for Michigan, including a bipartisan commission
along the lines of a similar commission in Wisconsin. This is a good
idea and a fair idea. I am familiar with the work of bipartisan
screening commissions. Vermont and its Republican, Democratic and
Independent Senators had used such a commission for more than 25 years
with great success. I commend the Senators representing Michigan for
their constructive suggestion and for their good faith efforts to work
with this White House in spite of the administration's refusal to work
with them.
Some Senators have said we need to forget the unfairness of the past
on nominations and start on a clean slate. But the way to wipe that
slate clean is through cooperation now, and moving forward together--
not with the petulant, partisan unilateralism that we have seen so
often from this administration.
Although President Bush promised on the campaign trail to be a uniter
and not a divider, his practice once in office with respect to judicial
nominees has been more divisive than those of any President. Citing the
remarks of a White House official, The Lansing State Journal reported,
for example, that the President is simply not interested in compromise
on the existing vacancies in the State of Michigan. It is unfortunate
that the White House is not willing to work toward consensus with all
Senators.
Under our Constitution, the Senate has an important role in the
selection of our judiciary. The brilliant design of our Founding
Fathers established that the first two branches of Government would
work together to equip the third branch to serve as an independent
arbiter of justice. As columnist George Will has written, ``A proper
constitution distributes power among legislative, executive and
judicial institutions so that the will of the majority can be measured,
expressed in policy and, for the protection of minorities, somewhat
limited.'' The structure of our Constitution and our own Senate rules
of self-governance are designed to protect minority rights and to
encourage consensus. Despite the razor-thin margin of recent elections,
the Republican majority is not acting in a measured way but in
disregard for the traditions of bipartisanship that are the hallmark of
the Senate.
When there was a Democratic President in the White House, circuit
court nominees were delayed and deferred, and vacancies on the Courts
of Appeals more than doubled under Republican leadership from 16 in
January 1995, to 33 when the Democratic majority took over part way
through 2001.
Under Democratic leadership, we held hearings on 20 circuit court
nominees in 17 months. Indeed, while Republicans averaged 7
confirmations to the circuit courts every 12 months for the last
President, the Senate under Democratic leadership confirmed 17 in its
17 months with an historically uncooperative White House.
With a Republican in the White House, the Republican majority shifted
from the restrained pace it had said was required for Clinton nominees,
into overdrive for the most controversial of President Bush's nominees.
In 2003 alone, 13 circuit court judges were confirmed. This year more
hearings have been held for nominees in just 5 months than were held in
all of 1996 or all of 2000. One hundred and ninety-eight of President
Bush's nominees have been confirmed so far--more than in all 4 years of
President Reagan's first term, when he had a Republican Senate to work
with, more than in the Presidency of the first President Bush and more
than in the last term of President Clinton.
Many of the 198 nominees who have been confirmed for this President
have proceeded by consensus out of committee and on the Senate floor. I
would have hoped that the scores of nominees agreed upon by home-State
Senators of both parties, voted out of committee unanimously and
confirmed without opposition in the full Senate would have been a
lesson for the President. I would have hoped that the Michigan
Senators' principled and reasoned opposition to the way the Sixth
Circuit nominations have occurred would have been a starting point from
which to reach a compromise. But, as with so many other nominees and so
many other issues, compromise was not forthcoming from this White
House. Instead, they have refused to acknowledge the wrong done to
President Clinton's nominees to the very same court, and they have
refused to budge. It is a shame.
The Judiciary Committee has now reported more than 200 of President
Bush's judicial nominees. Most have been reported with the support of
Democratic Senators. Some have been contentious and some have been so
extreme that they have not garnered bipartisan support and have been
problematic. We have demonstrated time and again that when we unite and
work
[[Page 16976]]
together we make progress. Republicans have too often chosen, instead,
to seek to pack the courts and tilt them out of balance and to use
unfounded allegations of prejudice to drive wedges among Americans for
partisan political purposes.
We have more Federal judges currently serving than at any time in our
Nation's history and we have succeeded in reducing judicial vacancies
to the lowest level in decades. Even Alberto Gonzales, the White House
Counsel, conceded that: ``If you look at the total numbers, I think one
could draw the conclusion that we've been fairly successful in having a
lot of the president's nominees confirmed.'' The Republican leader in
the Senate has termed our efforts ``steady progress.'' The White House
would be even more successful if they would work with us to resolve
this situation in the Sixth Circuit.
Senate Democrats had demonstrated our good faith in confirming 100 of
President Bush's judicial nominees in our 17 months in the Senate
majority. We have now cooperated in the confirmation of more judicial
nominees for President Bush than President Reagan achieved working hand
in hand with a Republican Senate majority. We have already confirmed
more judges this Congress than were confirmed before the presidential
elections in 1996. We fulfilled our commitment in accord with the
agreement reached with the White House to consider 25 additional
judicial nominees already this year. We have demonstrated not only our
willingness to cooperate but we have done so to achieve historic
confirmation numbers and historically low numbers of judicial
vacancies. I have come to recognize that no good deed we do in
correcting the Republican abuses of the past goes unpunished.
Unfortunately, this President has also chosen to nominate for some
important circuit court seats some candidates who on their merits are
not deserving of lifetime appointments. It appears that Judge Saad is
one of those nominees. Clearly the Senators from Michigan have grave
concerns.
I also have concerns about the nominee, his legal judgment, and his
ability to be fair. While Judge Saad was an attorney his practice
primarily consisted of defending large corporations against employees'
claims of race discrimination, age discrimination, sexual harassment
and wrongful termination. A review of Judge Saad's cases on the
Michigan Court of Appeals raises concerns because he frequently favored
employers in complaints brought by workers, even in the face of
extremely sympathetic facts.
For example, in Cocke v. Trecorp Enterprises, a young Burger King
employee was aggressively and repeatedly sexually harassed and
assaulted by her shift manager. More than once, she reported this
treatment to her other shift managers who promised to take care of it.
The trial court prevented her case from going to the jury but Judge
Saad dissented from an appellate decision reversing the trial court.
Judge Saad ignored the legal standard of review followed by the
majority and would have protected the corporation from responsibility
for the shift manager's notorious and unlawful behavior.
Also, in Coleman v. Michigan, a female corrections officer brought a
sexual harassment suit against her employer, the State of Michigan.
This officer was assaulted and nearly raped by an armed prisoner.
According to the officer's complaint, after this terrible attack, her
supervisor insinuated that she provoked the attack because of her
attire. The supervisor made the officer come to his office on a regular
basis to check the appropriateness of her clothing and he frequently
called her to discuss personal matters, such as her relationship with
her boyfriend. Despite these serious allegations, the trial court
granted summary disposition in favor of the State of Michigan. Judge
Saad joined in the Michigan Court of Appeals' per curiam opinion
affirming the trial court's grant of summary disposition. The
corrections officer appealed his decision to the Michigan Supreme
Court, which reversed and held that her claims constituted sufficient
evidence to go to trial.
In another case, Fuller v. McPherson Hospital, a jury who heard live
testimony was persuaded to conclude that a woman had endured sexual
harassment from her immediate supervisor and other superiors. The trial
court vacated the jury findings because it found that the plaintiff had
not complained of the harassment while working at the hospital. On
appeal, the panel reinstated the jury's finding of sexual harassment
but Judge Saad dissented. Unfortunately, his dissent in this case was
only two sentences and failed to address his colleagues' legal
conclusions.
I cannot speak in open session about all concerns but I can note a
temperament problem, as evidenced by an e-mail he sent, a copy of which
he mistakenly sent to Senator Stabenow as well. In Judge Saad's e-mail
he displays not only shockingly bad manners, but appalling judgment and
a possible threatening nature.
In the e-mail exchange, Judge Saad is writing to someone named Joe,
forwarding him a copy of another e-mail sent by Senator Stabenow in
response to a letter of support for Saad's nomination. In her response
Senator Stabenow politely and reasonably explains the basis for her
continuing objection to the nomination, explaining that she understands
the writer's ``concerns and frustrations,'' thanking them, and offering
her help in the future. Apparently this type of courteous explanation
was too much for Judge Saad. Here is what he wrote in response to the
Senator's explanation:
She sends this standard response to all those who inquire
about this subject. We know, of course, that this is the game
they play. Pretend to do the right thing while abusing the
system and undermining the constitutional process. Perhaps
some day she will pay the price for her misconduct.
I know that Senator Stabenow does not need me to defend her, and I
doubt that sort of personal threat concerns her, but I think Judge
Saad's message deserves some attention. It shows a shocking lack of
good judgment, a pronounced political viewpoint, and a total absence of
respect for the process undertaken by Senators of good faith and good
will.
As soon as they saw this e-mail message, both Michigan Senators wrote
to the President's Counsel, Alberto Gonzales, alerting him to the
offensive comments. While I do not believe Judge Gonzales or the
President ever responded, 2 weeks later Judge Saad did get around to
sending a ``non-apology.'' He wrote:
I write regarding your and Senator Levin's recent letter to
Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President (a copy of
which you sent to me), relating to an e-mail message that I
meant to send only to a close personal friend of mine.
Unfortunately, this e-mail, which commented on my pending
nomination, was inadvertently sent to your office. I regret
that the e-mail was sent to you and certainly apologize for
any personal concern this may have caused you. I have a great
deal of respect for our political institutions and meant no
lack of respect to you.
He cannot bring himself to say he is sorry for his words, to
apologize for accusing a Senator of abusing the system she so respects,
or even for expressing the hope that she would ``pay for her conduct.''
Instead he is sorry that he was caught, and if what he said may have
caused Senator Stabenow ``personal concern.''
Apart from all of the procedural problems with this nomination, I
have serious concerns about giving lifetime tenure to someone with this
stunning lack of judgment.
I also have concerns about parts of the record of Richard Griffin. As
a judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals since 1989, Judge Griffin has
handled and written hundreds of opinions involving a range of civil and
criminal law issues. Yet, a review of Judge Griffin's cases on the
Michigan Court of Appeals raises concerns. He has not been shy about
interjecting his own personal views into some of his opinions,
indicating that he may use the opportunity, if confirmed, to further
his own agenda when confronted with cases of first impression.
For example, in one troubling case involving the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), Doe v. Mich. Dep't of Corrections, Judge
Griffin allowed the State disability claim of disabled prisoners to
proceed, but wrote that, if
[[Page 16977]]
precedent had allowed, he would have dismissed those claims. Griffin
authored the opinion in this class action brought by current and former
prisoners who alleged that the Michigan Department of Corrections
denied them certain benefits on the basis of their HIV-positive status.
Although Judge Griffin held that the plaintiffs had stated a claim for
relief, his opinion makes clear that he only ruled this way because he
was bound to follow the precedent established in a recent case decided
by his court. Moreover, he went on to urge Congress to invalidate a
unanimous Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Scalia, holding
that the ADA applies to State prisoners and prisons. He wrote, ``While
we follow Yeskey, we urge Congress to amend the ADA to exclude
prisoners from the class of persons entitled to protection under the
act.''
In other cases, he has also articulated personal preferences that
favor a narrow reading of the law, which would limit individual rights
and protections. For example, in Wohlert Special Products v. Mich.
Employment Security Comm'n, he reversed the decision of the Michigan
Employment Security Commission and held that striking employees were
not entitled to unemployment benefits. The Michigan Supreme Court
vacated part of Judge Griffin's decision, noting that he had
inappropriately made his own findings of fact when ruling that the
employees were not entitled to benefits. This case raises concerns
about Judge Griffin's willingness to distort precedent to reach the
results he favors.
In several other cases, Judge Griffin has gone out of his way to
interject his conservative personal views into his opinions. The
appeals courts are the courts of last resort in over 99 percent of all
Federal cases and often decide cases of first impression. If confirmed,
Judge Griffin will have much greater latitude to be a conservative
judicial activist.
It is ironic that Judge Griffin's father who, as Senator in 1968,
launched the filibuster of the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Abe
Fortas to serve as Chief Justice. Former Senator Griffin led a core
group of Republican Senators in derailing President Johnson's
nomination by filibustering his nomination on the floor of the United
States Senate. Eventually, Justice Fortas withdrew his nomination. I
know that the Republicans here will call any attempt to block Judge
Griffin's nomination ``unconstitutional'' and ``unprecedented,'' but
his father actually helped set the precedent for blocking nominees on
the Senate floor.
Finally, I turn to David McKeague, his record, and questions. In
particular, I am concerned about Judge McKeague's decisions in a series
of cases on environmental issues. In Northwoods Wilderness Recovery v.
United States Forest Serv., 323 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2003), Judge
McKeague would have allowed the U.S. Forest Service to commence a
harvesting project that allowed selective logging and clear-cutting in
areas of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The appellate court reversed him
and found that the Forest Service had not adhered to a ``statutorily
mandated environmental analysis'' prior to approval of the project,
which was dubbed ``Rolling Thunder.''
Sitting by designation on the Sixth Circuit, Judge McKeague joined in
an opinion that permitted the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) broadly
to interpret a clause of the National Environmental Policy Act in a way
that would allow the TVA to conduct large-scale timber harvesting
operations without performing site-specific environmental assessments.
Help Alert Western Ky., Inc. v. Tenn. Valley Authority, 1999 U.S. App.
LEXIS 23759 (6th Cir. 1999). The majority decision in this case
permitted the TVA to determine that logging operations that covered
2,147 acres of land were ``minor,'' and thus fell under a categorical
exclusion to the environmental impact statement requirement. The
dissent in this case noted that the exclusion in the past had applied
only to truly ``minor'' activities, such as the purchase or lease of
transmission lines, construction of visitor reception centers and on-
site research.
Judge McKeague also dismissed a suit brought by the Michigan Natural
Resources Commission against the Manufacturer's National Bank of
Detroit, finding that the bank was not liable for the costs of
environmental cleanup at sites owned by a ``troubled borrower.'' See
Kelley ex rel. Mich. Natural Resources Comm'n v. Tiscornia, 810 F.
Supp. 901 (W.D. Mich. 1993). The bank took over the property from Auto
Specialties Manufacturing Company when it defaulted on its loans. The
Natural Resources Commission argued that the bank should be responsible
for taking over the cost of cleanup because it held the property when
the toxic spill occurred, but Judge McKeague disagreed.
In Miron v. Menominee County, 795 F. Supp. 840 (W.D. Mich. 1992),
Judge McKeague rejected the efforts of a citizen who lived close to a
landfill to require the Federal Aviation Administration to enjoin
landfill cleanup efforts until an environmental impact statement
regarding the efforts could be prepared. The citizen contended that if
the statement were prepared, the inadequacies of a State-sponsored
cleanup would be revealed and appropriate corrective measures would be
undertaken to minimize further environmental contamination and wetlands
destruction. Holding that the alleged environmental injuries were
``remote and speculative,'' Judge McKeague denied the requested
injunctive relief.
In Pape v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9253
(W.D. Mich.), Judge McKeague seems to have ignored relevant facts in
order to prevent citizen enforcement of environmental protections. Dale
Pape, a private citizen and wildlife photographer, sued the U.S. Corps
of Army Engineers under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 (RCRA), alleging that the Corps mishandled hazardous waste
in violation of RCRA, destroying wildlife in a park near the site.
Despite the Supreme Court's holding in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
that ``the desire to use or observe an animal species, even for purely
esthetic purposes, is undeniably a cognizable interest for purpose of
standing,'' and even though RCRA specifically conferred the right for
citizen suits against the government for failure to implement orders or
to protect the environment or health and safety, Judge McKeague
dismissed the case, holding that plaintiff lacked standing to sue.
Judge McKeague found plaintiff's complaint insufficient on several
grounds, in particular plaintiff's inability to establish which site
specifically he would visit in the future. Plaintiff had stated in his
complaint that he ``has visited the `area around' the RACO site `at
least five times per year' and that he has made plans to vacation in
`Soliders Park' located `near' the RACO site in early October 1998,
where he plans to spend his time `fishing, canoeing, and photographing
the area.''' Comparing Pape's testimony with that of the Lujan
plaintiff, who had failed to win standing after he presented general
facts about prior visits and an intent to visit in the future, Judge
McKeague rejected Pape's complaint as too speculative, based on the
Court's holding in Lujan that:
[Plaintiffs'] profession of an ``intent'' to return to the
places [plaintiffs] had visited before--where they will,
presumably, this time, be deprived of the opportunity to
observe animals of the endangered species--is simply not
enough to establish standing. . . . Such ``some day''
intentions--without any description of concrete plans, or
indeed, even any specification of when the some day will be--
do not support a finding of the ``actual or imminent'' injury
that our cases require.
In concluding that ``the allegations contained in plaintiff's first
amended complaint fail to establish an actual injury because they do
not include an allegation that plaintiff has specific plans to use the
allegedly affected area in the future,'' Judge McKeague seemed to
ignore completely the detailed fact description that Pape submitted in
his amendment complaint. The judge further asserted that there was no
causal connection between the injury and the activity complained of,
and that, in any case, the alleged injury was not redressable by the
suit.
On another important topic, that of the scheme of enforcing the civil
and constitutional rights of institutionalized persons, I am concerned
about one
[[Page 16978]]
of Judge McKeague's decisions. In 1994, (United States v. Michigan, 868
F. Supp. 890 (W.D. Mi. 1994)), he refused to allow the Department of
Justice access to Michigan prisons in the course of its investigation
into some now notorious claims of sexual abuse of women prisoners by
guards undermines the long-established system under the Constitutional
Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act. That law's investigative and
enforcement regime is unworkable if the Department of Justice is denied
access to State prisons to determine if enough evidence exists to file
suit, and Judge McKeague's tortured reasoning made it impossible for
the investigation to continue in his district.
I know that concern for the rights of prisoners who have often
committed horrendous criminal acts is not politically popular, but
Congress enacted the law and expected its statute and its clear intent
to be followed. It seems to me that Judge McKeague disregarded
legislative history and the clear intent of the law, and that sort of
judging is of concern to me.
I also note my disappointment in his answer to a question I sent him
about a presentation he made in the fall of 2000, when he made what I
judged to be inappropriate and insensitive comments about the health
and well-being of sitting Supreme Court Justices. In a speech to a law
school audience about the impact of the 2000 elections on the courts,
Judge McKeague discussed the possibility of vacancies on the Court over
the following year. In doing so he felt it necessary to not only refer
to--but to make a chart of--the Justices' particular health problems,
and ghoulishly focus on their life expectancy by highlighting their
ages. He says he does not believe he was disrespectful, and used only
public information. There were other, better ways he could have made
the same point, and it is too bad he still cannot see that.
The people of the Sixth Circuit deserve better than this. And the
American people, the independent Federal judiciary, the U.S. Senate,
all deserve better than the double standard that is now squarely on
display for all to see.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I yield the time remaining to me to the
Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the Democratic side.
Mr. LEVIN. Parliamentary inquiry: I thought there was 15 minutes on
each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 7 minutes on each side.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, since nobody
is here and we are voting at 11, that Senator Stabenow be given 4
minutes to discuss this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I thank my
colleague and friend from New York.
I rise to support the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan, my
friend and colleague, who has spoken very eloquently about what we are
about to vote on.
Today we will be asked to vote to close debate and proceed to a final
vote on three judges who have been nominated by the President to the
Sixth Circuit in Michigan. We are asking that colleagues vote no and
give us an opportunity to work out this situation in a bipartisan way.
We have been very close. I appreciate Chairman Hatch's efforts to work
with us, Senator Leahy, and others who have worked with us and proposed
bipartisan solutions. I still believe we can develop a solution if we
do not proceed with this vote today. If we do not vote for cloture, I
believe we can continue to work together in a bipartisan way to resolve
this issue.
It is always difficult when the President nominates people for the
bench. Oftentimes people will say: Why not give the President his
nominees? We know this is different from the Cabinet. I have voted to
give the President his team, his Cabinet, because they are with him for
his 4-year term, and they are part of his team. Except for those few
exceptions I believed were too extreme, I supported individuals I
personally would not select to be in a Cabinet, but it is his team.
In the case of the judiciary, this is the third branch of Government.
As we learn from reading simple high school government books, in the
beginning of the debate of our Founders, those at the Constitutional
Convention gave the full authority to the Senate. Then there was
further discussion and they said possibly the President should appoint
the third branch of Government. In the end, they said this is so
important that this judiciary, this third branch of Government, be
independent of the other two branches that we are going to split the
authority in half. We are going to give half to the President of the
United States to make nominations, and the other half to the Senate to
consult and to confirm.
Our concern is that in the case of Michigan, working together has not
been happening. It is not about two Senators; it is about the people we
represent. We represent 9 million people in the State of Michigan whose
voices are heard through our input to the President.
My distinguished colleague from New York spoke about the fact that he
and his colleague from New York, opposite parties of the President,
have worked with him and have had agreement on judges they believe were
mainstream, who were appropriate for the bench, and they have been able
to work together to do that.
Why in New York and not Michigan? Why in California and not Michigan?
Why in Washington but not Michigan? Why in Wisconsin but not Michigan?
The issue for us today on behalf of the people of our State is we are
asking for the same consideration, the same ability to have input about
people who will serve us long past this President, people who will
serve us long past the next President, people who have lifetime
appointments and make decisions that affect our lives in every facet of
the laws that affect us, from the workplace to the home to the
environment to civil rights. These judges make decisions that affect
each of us, and it is our responsibility to be involved and make sure
we are working with the White House, whoever that is, to have the very
best choices that are balanced and mainstream and will continue on long
beyond most of us who are serving in the Senate.
This is important, and it is with great disappointment that I rise
today to ask for a ``no'' vote on cloture because we have been
attempting to work this out now for almost 3 years. Unfortunately, this
move to get this vote at this time does not help us get to a fair
bipartisan conclusion. It is an effort that will only get in the way of
that happening.
I ask colleagues to join with us in saying no to the motion to close
debate and invoking cloture, and I ask colleagues to give us an
opportunity, that same opportunity that anyone on this floor would ask,
the same opportunity that others have been given, to work together with
this White House to develop recommendations on the Sixth Circuit and
nominees we all believe are in the best interest of the people of
Michigan and in the best interest of the people of the country.
I yield back my time, Madam President, and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I
will take a couple of minutes before the vote to express my views with
regard to Judge Saad. There is no question in my mind that Judge Saad
is competent, decent, and honorable--a person of great temperament,
great legal ability and great capacity. That is what all of the people
who know him best say. He also has a ``very good'' recommendation from
the American Bar Association. So he has fit the bill there.
The real problem has been in the prior administration, we were unable
to get two judges through, Judge Helene White and Kathleen McCree
Lewis, both of whom are nice people. I tried to do my best to get them
[[Page 16979]]
through, but we could not because there was zero consultation at the
time, and by the time we got to the end, it got into another set of
problems and, frankly, they did not get confirmed.
The two Senators from Michigan have been very upset about that, and
if I were to put myself in their shoes I would feel the same way,
perhaps.
The fact of the matter is these are three excellent people who could
do a very good job on the bench, and Judge Saad certainly in this
particular case is very capable of doing the job. So are Judge Richard
Griffin and Judge David W. McKeague. I will continue to work to try and
resolve the problems that exist with the Michigan Senators, but these
people deserve up-or-down votes and should have up-or-down votes.
Some have said if two Senators are against a nomination in their
State, that should be the end of it. That is not true, and it never has
been with regard to a circuit court of appeals nominees. Every
administration has guarded its right to nominate and put forth circuit
court of appeals nominations, and in most cases at least one or two of
the Senators have been cooperative in helping.
In this particular case, both Senators feel aggrieved because of the
prior two judges and in the process have had some difficulty with Judge
Saad. I assure the Senate that Judge Saad is an excellent person. He
deserves this position. There is no question about Griffin and
McKeague. They are two excellent judges and have great reputations in
the State of Michigan. They deserve to be voted up or down today. I
hope the people will vote for cloture. It is the right thing to do.
We should not be filibustering Federal judges. It has never been done
before, and I recommend to all of our colleagues to vote for cloture in
all three cases.
I yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 11 a.m.
having arrived, 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,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Executive
Calendar No. 705, Henry W. Saad, of Michigan, to be United
States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, Vice James L.
Ryan, retired.
Bill Frist, Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander, Charles
Grassley, Mike Crapo, Pete Domenici, Lincoln Chafee,
Mitch McConnell, Ted Stevens, George Allen, Lindsey
Graham, John Warner, Jeff Sessions, John Ensign, Trent
Lott, Jim Talent, Pat Roberts.
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
Executive Calendar No. 705, the nomination of Henry W. Saad, of
Michigan, to be United States Circuit Court Judge for the Sixth
Circuit, shall be brought to a close.
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 160 Ex.]
YEAS--52
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--46
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Edwards
Kerry
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52 and the nays are
46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________
NOMINATION OF RICHARD A. GRIFFIN TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
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,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Executive
Calendar No. 789, Richard A. Griffin of Michigan, to be U.S.
circuit judge for the Sixth Circuit.
Bill Frist, Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander, Charles
Grassley, Mike Crapo, Pete Domenici, Lincoln Chafee,
Mitch McConnell, Ted Stevens, George Allen, Lindsey
Graham, John Warner, Jeff Sessions, John Ensign, Trent
Lott, Jim Talent, Pat Roberts.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are considering the
nominations of Judge Richard Griffin and Judge David W. McKeague, who
have been nominated by President Bush to serve on the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. These individuals each have a
sterling resume and a record of distinguished public service. So I rise
today to express my enthusiastic support for the confirmation of Judge
Richard Griffin and Judge David W. McKeague to the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals.
It is unfortunate that we have to continue coming to the floor to
vote on cloture motions, to end debate on these nominations, rather
than the Senate being able to vote up or down on the merits of the
nomination. This unprecedented abuse of the process, by filibuster, to
prevent a majority of the Senate from exercising its will is truly
disturbing. What is going on is a hijacking of the constitutional
process of advice and consent.
This abuse of the process isn't just being used on these two
nominees. Unfortunately, we have now reached double-digit filibusters.
There are ten judicial nominees who have been subjected to a
filibuster. They are Miguel Estrada, D.C. Circuit; Priscilla Owen, 5th
Circuit; William Pryor, 11th Circuit; Charles Pickering, 5th Circuit;
Carolyn Kuhl, 9th Circuit; Janice Rogers Brown, D.C. Circuit; Williams
Myers, 9th Circuit; Henry Saad, 6th Circuit; David McKeague, 6th
Circuit; and Richard Griffin, 6th Circuit. In addition to these ten
individuals, there are five additional Circuit Court nominations that
are threatened to be filibustered--Claude Allen, 9th Circuit; Terrence
Boyle, 4th Circuit; Susan Neilson, 6th Circuit; Brett Kavanaugh, D.C.
Circuit; and William Haynes, 4th Circuit.
These individuals being filibustered represent a cross section of
America
[[Page 16980]]
and include men and women as well as members of various minority
groups. And they are decent individuals with outstanding records in the
law, in public service and in their States and communities.
It appears that these nominations are being tied up as some sort of
payback for the way President Clinton's nominees were treated. However,
a review of the record will demonstrate that this contention is without
merit. What is happening is the creation of a stalemate for political
purposes.
The current controversy surrounding the nomination of Henry Saad to
be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit dates back a
decade. At the end of President George H.W. Bush's administration two
Michigan nominees to the federal courts were denied hearings by the
Democratic Senate and failed to attain confirmation. Those nominees
were John Smientanka and Henry Saad, whose nomination we are
considering again today.
As President Clinton named his nominees to fill judicial vacancies,
there was no expectation, let alone demand, that the two previous
nominees be renominated by a new administration. Accordingly, President
Clinton did nominate Michigan nominees to both the Sixth Circuit and
the district courts. In fact, nine of those nominees were confirmed. A
majority were confirmed during Republican control of the Senate.
Two nominees, Helene White and Kathleen McCree Lewis, failed to
attain confirmation. The primary circumstance for their failed
nomination was the lack of consultation with one of the home State
senators. In his letter to then White House Counsel Beth Nolan, Senator
Abraham wrote to express his astonishment and dismay that President
Clinton forwarded the nomination for a Sixth Circuit seat without any
advance notice or consultation.
What was particularly troubling was that Senator Abraham had worked
with the previous White House Counsel, Mr. Ruff, to improve the
consultation process. In fact, despite previous difficulties, Senator
Abraham had fully cooperated with the administration in advancing the
nominations of a number of Michigan nominees. Unfortunately, the
situation again deteriorated and the White House reverted to its
previous pattern of lack of consultation. In fact, Senator Abraham was
not consulted and in fact was told by the White House Counsel that
despite earlier representations, the administration felt under no real
obligation to do anything of the kind.
Because of the White House's lack of consultation, the nominations of
the two individuals did not move forward. This was consistent with my
well stated policy, communicated to Mr. Ruff, that if good faith
consultation has not taken place, the Judiciary Committee will treat
the return of a negative blue slip by a home state Senator as
dispositive and the nominee will not be considered.
At the end of the Clinton presidency, the nominations of Ms. White
and Ms. Lewis were returned to the President unconfirmed. Their
renomination was urged by Senators Levin and Stabenow at the beginning
of President Bush's administration. During the spring and summer of
2001, there was considerable consultation by the President with the
Michigan Senators regarding nominations to judicial vacancies, and the
Sixth Circuit in particular.
While the White House protected its constitutional prerogative to
nominate individuals to the judiciary, there was an offer to consider
nominating both of the two individuals to Federal judgeships in
Michigan in an effort to advance the process. These overtures were not
only rebuffed, but in fact holds were requested to be placed on all
Sixth Circuit nominations.
This was an unfortunate escalation of the dispute, and was
particularly unfair to other States in the Sixth Circuit. In addition,
this left the circuit at half-strength. Fortunately, we have been able
to confirm non-Michigan judges to the circuit court.
I regret that the cycle of acrimony and partisanship has escalated
over the past decade. I believe the Bush administration made a good
faith offer and regrets that the compromise was not accepted. However,
even as the Judiciary Committee gives appropriate consideration to the
views of home State senators, it is not in the public interest to
permit this partisan obstructionism to continue.
So let me summarize regarding the treatment of Michigan judicial
nominees. During the current Bush presidency the Senate has confirmed
no Michigan judges. Six nominations are pending. During the Clinton
presidency the Senate confirmed nine Michigan judges. Although two
Michigan nominees were left unconfirmed at the end of the Clinton
presidency, two nominees were also left without hearings at the end of
President Bush's term in 1993. During the first Bush presidency the
Senate confirmed six Michigan judges. Two nominations were returned to
the President.
So for those who like to keep score, the Michigan judge tally is as
follows: Current President Bush: 0-6; President Clinton: 9-2; former
President Bush: 6-2. The record is clear that previous Presidents were
treated fairly by the Senate. It is time to give President Bush the
same courtesy and move forward with his Michigan Judges to the Sixth
Circuit and the District Courts. We can begin by approving the cloture
motions we will vote on today for Henry Saad, Richard Griffin, and
David McKeague.
Yesterday I spoke about the qualifications of Henry Saad. I would
like to say a few words about the qualifications of the other two
nominees whom we are voting on today.
Judge Griffin has exceptional qualifications for the Federal
appellate bench. After graduating from the University of Michigan Law
School in 1977, Judge Griffin spent 11 years in the private practice of
law first as an associate at Williams, Coulter, Cunning-
ham, Davison & Read from 1977-1981, then as a partner from 1981-1985.
In 1985, Judge Griffin founded the firm Read & Griffin, in Traverse
City, MI.
During his private practice Judge Griffin specialized in automobile
negligence, premises liability, products liability, and employment law.
Additionally, he provided pro bono legal services as a volunteer
counselor and attorney with the Third Level Crisis Center. In 1988,
Judge Griffin was elected to the Michigan Court of Appeals. He was
elected to retain his seat in 1996 and again in 2002.
Judge Griffin was first nominated to this position by President
George W. Bush on June 26, 2002. He was renominated to this seat on
January 7, 2003. He is universally respected as one of the best judges
in Michigan. He is not a controversial nominee. Yet he has been waiting
for a vote for over 750 days because my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle are, once again, playing politics with the Federal judiciary.
Judge Griffin has an exemplary record that includes service as both a
committed advocate and an impartial jurist. The American Bar
Association has rated him well qualified for this position. Although
the ABA rating used to be the gold standard as far as my Democratic
colleagues were concerned, I am only half joking when I say that an ABA
rating of well qualified seems to have become the kiss of death for
President Bush's judicial nominees. Miguel Estrada, Carolyn Kuhl, David
McKeague, William Haynes, Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen, all
received Well Qualified ratings from the ABA, and all are, or were,
being filibustered by Democrats. Judge Griffin deserves to fare better,
and I certainly hope we can give his nomination an up-or-down vote on
the Senate floor.
Simply put, Judge Griffin--along with the other qualified nominees to
the Sixth Circuit--deserves a vote. I urge my colleagues to do what is
right and join me in supporting his confirmation to the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals.
Judge David McKeague has also been nominated to serve on the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge McKeague was first nominated to fill a
Federal judgeship in 1992, when the first President Bush nominated him
for a seat on the United States District Court for the Western District
of Michigan. The
[[Page 16981]]
Judiciary Committee voted him to the floor with several other district
court nominees en bloc, without any objection, and the full Senate
confirmed him to the Federal bench by unanimous consent. Since 1992, he
has served with distinction in the Western District of Michigan, and
since 1994 has regularly been designated to sit on panels and draft
appellate opinions for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On November 8, 2001, President Bush nominated Judge McKeague for a
seat on the Sixth Circuit, the position for which we are considering
him today. When no action was taken on his nomination during the 107th
Congress, President Bush renominated him to the Sixth Circuit on
January 7, 2003. As with the other nominees, it is time for the Senate
to vote up or down on this nomination.
In Judge McKeague, we have a jurist with impressive credentials who
will honor his hometown of Lansing and serve with great distinction as
a Sixth Circuit judge, as he already has for more than a decade as a
Federal district judge in western Michigan.
Judge McKeague graduated from the University of Michigan in 1968 and
then attended the University of Michigan Law School. Upon his
graduation from law school in 1971, he joined the law firm of Foster,
Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., in Lansing, MI, and in 1976 was elected a
shareholder and director of the firm. Judge McKeague served on the
firm's executive committee in various offices, and was chairman of the
firm's government and commerce department, from 1979 until his
confirmation to the Federal bench in February 1992, where he serves as
a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Michigan.
Since 1994, Judge McKeague regularly has participated by designation
on, and authored appellate opinions for, panels of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. So he already has considerable
experience in handling Federal appellate cases--in fact, I understand
that none of the decisions he has authored for the Sixth Circuit have
been reversed--and I am certain that experience will serve him well
once he is handling cases full time on the Sixth Circuit.
Judge McKeague has been active as a member of several community,
local, and professional organizations, including the Judicial
Conference of the United States, the Federal Judicial Center, the
Michigan State and Ingham County bar associations, the board of
directors of a community museum that provides science education for
children, Junior Achievement, which provides business education to high
school students, and Camp Highfields, a private facility that provides
housing and counseling for troubled youth. He has also been active as a
member of the Wharton Center for the Performing Arts Advisory Council,
the American Inns of Court, the Catholic Lawyers Guild, and the
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. While in private
practice and since his service on the Federal bench began, he has
directed and participated in numerous seminars, moot court
competitions, and trial advocacy programs at high schools, universities
and law schools throughout Michigan. In addition, prior to his
confirmation to the Federal bench, he served 6 years in the United
States Army Reserve. Since 1998, he has also served as an adjunct
professor of law at Michigan State University's Detroit College of Law,
where he teaches Federal jurisdiction.
Judge McKeague is a distinguished and well-respected Federal judge
who, in the words of one of his current colleagues on the Federal
district court, ``let the law and the facts take him where they take
him.'' He will make an outstanding addition to the Sixth Circuit, and I
urge my colleagues to vote for his confirmation.
Let me make something absolutely clear: We need to vote on these
nominations because it is critical that these Sixth Circuit vacancies
are filled as expeditiously as possible.
The Sixth Circuit has a vacancy rate of 25 percent, and the four
vacancies are all deemed judicial emergencies by the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts. Among the twelve United States Courts of
Appeal, the Sixth Circuit is last in the timeliness of its disposition
of cases. For the 12-month period ending September 30, 2003, the median
time interval from filing of Notice of Appeal to final disposition was
16.8 months. This was nearly 10 months longer than the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals which was the fastest court that year at 7 months. By
comparison, the average disposition time for appeals in all Circuits
was about 10\1/2\ months.
Mike Cox, the Attorney General for the State of Michigan, wrote to
the committee last year:
My office alone has over 430 cases currently pending before
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Those cases range the
gamut of the law, from habeas matters involving horrendous
murders to cases involving matters of broad public policy. .
. . [O]n behalf of the citizens of my state, I urge you to
quickly approve Judge Saad's nomination, and begin easing the
vacancy crisis that has lingered far too long at the Sixth
Circuit.
District judges and U.S. attorneys within the Sixth Circuit have
publicly stated that the vacancy rate in the Sixth Circuit has slowed
the administration of justice. Accordingly, nine members of Michigan's
Congressional delegation have written to the Judiciary Committee,
expressing their deep concern over the persistence of the Michigan
vacancies and urging us to confirm President Bush's Michigan nominees.
Under such circumstances, with the understanding that we will continue
to work to resolve the Michigan Senators' concerns, we simply must move
forward on these nominations and confirm Judge Saad, Judge Griffin, and
Judge McKeague to the Sixth Circuit.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the call for a quorum
has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
nomination of Richard A. Griffin, of Michigan to be United States
Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit shall be brought to a close.
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 161 Ex.]
YEAS--54
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--44
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Edwards
Kerry
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are
44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
[[Page 16982]]
____________________
NOMINATION OF DAVID W. McKEAGUE TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Executive
Calendar No. 790, David W. McKeague, of Michigan, to be U.S.
circuit judge for the Sixth Circuit.
Bill Frist, Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander, Charles
Grassley, Mike Crapo, Pete Domenici, Lincoln Chafee,
Mitch McConnell, Ted Stevens, George Allen, Lindsey
Graham, John Warner, Jeff Sessions, John Ensign, Trent
Lott, Jim Talent, Pat Roberts.
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
nomination of David W. McKeague, of Michigan, to be United States
Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, shall be brought to a close.
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
Gregg) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Are there any
other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 162 Ex.]
YEAS--53
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--44
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Edwards
Gregg
Kerry
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are
44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
GENOCIDE IN SUDAN
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in
expressing my continued grave concern about the situation in Darfur,
Sudan. For months now, Members of Congress have come to the floor to
express their outrage at the situation in Darfur. All credible evidence
indicates that what is unfolding in Darfur is genocide. Already, an
estimated 30,000 civilians have been killed. More than 130,000 refugees
have fled to Chad, and more than 1 million people have been displaced.
Numerous credible reports document the widespread use of rape as a
weapon against female civilians. Entire communities have been razed,
mosques destroyed, and wells poisoned, guaranteeing that a grave
humanitarian crisis will continue to unfold for many months or even
years. And now reports indicate that terrified survivors are being
forced to return to their homes, which have been utterly destroyed, in
a context of serious insecurity by Government officials who apparently
view their own suffering citizens as something like a source of
embarrassment.
Those of us who have followed developments in Sudan for many years
see a horrifying familiarity in this crisis. The Government of Sudan
has deliberately provoked a humanitarian catastrophe before in an
attempt to repress dissent, and so for months now Members have come to
the floor to speak out about this crisis.
I have written and spoken to administration officials, to U.N.
officials, and to European officials to call for action and a firm
unified message to Khartoum. I have raised the issue, as have many
colleagues, in numerous Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings.
This April, my colleague, Senator Brownback, and I introduced S. Con.
Res. 99 condemning the actions of the Sudanese Government. I have
joined many of my colleagues in supporting Senator DeWine's effort to
direct urgently needed funds to Darfur for humanitarian relief, and I
am a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 124 acknowledging the genocide that is
unfolding in Darfur, and I commend the leadership of Senators Corzine
and Brownback, the sponsors of this legislation.
This is a tremendously difficult and complex situation. I commend the
Secretary of State for traveling to Darfur to raise the profile on this
issue. I commend the efforts of the USAID to respond to the urgent
humanitarian needs in CHAD and IDPs in Darfur.
The administration can and must do more. First, the President needs
to put in charge a senior official who can speak authoritatively to
Khartoum and to key regional players, someone who is focused on Sudan
exclusively each and every day. It is almost inexplicable that this has
not been done to date.
Since our former colleague, Senator Jack Danforth, left his post as
the President's special envoy for Sudan to serve as U.S. Ambassador to
the United Nations, it appears that no one has been in charge of this
issue on a day-to-day basis while this genocide unfolds. What kind of
signal does this send about our seriousness? We need someone senior,
with knowledge of the African and Arab worlds, put in place today to
coordinate U.S. policy and deliver authoritative U.S. messages on a
daily basis, to seize on fleeting opportunities, eliminate any
confusion, match available resources with urgent needs, and constantly
hold the Sudan Government's feet to the fire.
We also need serious thinking today about how to improve the security
situation in Darfur. To date, the Government of Sudan has utterly
failed to honor its commitments to disarm the janjaweed and to stop
their brutal campaign.
Our strategy cannot simply consist of waiting for them to act. This
is the same regime that orchestrated this misery in the first place. We
cannot leave them in the driver's seat. So even as we push
diplomatically for meaningful action from Khartoum, even as we do the
hard work of building a strong, unified multilateral coalition to send
a clear message about the serious consequences that will result from
continued intransigence, we must develop plans to help people in spite
of the Government of Sudan's policies. That means finding a way to
provide security for Darfur's vulnerable populations and for the
humanitarian organizations working to assist them.
We need to be working now to collect testimony and evidence so that
those responsible for atrocities in Darfur can be held accountable for
their crimes. This must not be an afterthought. It is
[[Page 16983]]
a central part of our obligation. And in addition to appropriately and
sensitively collecting testimony, we should be making plans today to
develop strategies to reach the survivors of rape in Darfur with
medical assistance, counseling, and community-based support strategies
to help address issues of stigma.
Ultimately, we need to think about underlying issues of political
disenfranchisement that stoked the initial conflict in Darfur. The
North-South peace process made real progress, and I applaud the efforts
of the many African, European, and American diplomats who worked so
hard to help the parties come to agreement. But the process only
created real political space for two entities, the Government of Sudan
and the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement of the South. Neither the
South nor the North are monolithic. We need to think today about
political accommodations that can give the disenfranchised a voice in
determining their own destiny.
I share the outrage of my colleagues. But I know that the people of
Darfur--the malnourished children, the victims of rape, the broken
families struggling to survive--this people need more than our outrage.
They need our action.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded and I be permitted to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, when major and hard-fought legislation
nears enactment, the rhetoric on this floor can get a little
overheated. Supporters of the measure sometimes overstate the
importance of the legislation or exaggerate its benefits. Opponents
make doomsday predictions of what will happen if the bill becomes law.
Only the passage of time can answer those arguments, but by the time
that answers are available, the Senate has often has moved on to other
battles.
Today, I want to take a few minutes on the floor to call the
attention of my colleagues and the American people to some promising
indications that the doomsday predictions of opponents of the McCain-
Feingold bill have not come to pass. As we told the Senate at the time,
McCain-Feingold will not solve every problem in our campaign finance
system, and it hasn't. Lately, there has been significant controversy
over so-called ``527 organizations,'' which the FEC has permitted to
operate in violation, I believe, of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1974.
Nonetheless, McCain-Feingold is working as it was intended to work.
It closed the political party soft money loophole, and it has restored
some sanity to a system that had truly spun out of control over the
last several elections. While it is still too early to reach a final
conclusion, it appears that the cynics and the doubters were wrong. And
that is good news for the American people.
When the Senate considered the McCain-Feingold bill in March 2001, we
had just finished a hotly contested Presidential election in 2000.
Nearly $500 million of soft money was raised in that election by the
two political parties, almost double what was raised in the 1996
election. Nearly two-thirds of that total was given by just 800 donors,
who contributed over $120,000 each to the parties. The biggest donors
contributed far more than that. The most generous soft money donor,
AFSCME, gave almost $6 million, all to the Democratic party. SEIU gave
a total of $4.3 million, mostly to the Democrats. AT&T gave a total of
$3.7 million to the parties, the Carpenters and Joiners Union $2.9
million, Freddie Mac and Philip Morris, $2.4 million. Then we had the
``double givers''--companies that gave money to both parties. In 2000,
there were 146 donors that gave over $100,000 in soft money to both of
the political parties.
The appearance of corruption created by this avalanche of soft money
was overwhelming. The public knew it; and we all knew it in our hearts.
And the Supreme Court knew it when it upheld the McCain-Feingold bill
against constitutional challenge in the case of McConnell v. FEC. The
Court stated the following:
As the record demonstrates, it is the manner in which
parties have sold access to federal candidates and
officeholders that has given rise to the appearance of undue
influence. Implicit (and, as the record shows, sometimes
explicit) in the sale of access is the suggestion that money
buys influence. It is no surprise then that purchasers of
such access unabashedly admit that they are seeking to
purchase just such influence. It was not unwarranted for
Congress to conclude that the selling of access gives rise to
the appearance of corruption.
In this election cycle, I am happy to report, political party soft
money is no more. Not reduced, not held in check, not capped--it is
just gone. I consider this one of the most significant developments in
American politics in the last 50 years. In 2002, a colleague told me on
this floor that he had just finished making an hour of calls asking for
large soft money contributions. He said he felt like taking a shower.
Now, many of my colleagues, including some who did not support our
bill, tell me how happy they are to not have to make those calls any
more. That's a huge change in how we spend our time, and how we relate
to people who have a big stake in what we do on this floor.
But what about the political parties? When we were debating McCain-
Feingold, we had a real difference of opinion on how the bill would
affect the parties. On one side were Senators who argued passionately
that the bill would kill the political parties.
One Senator said the following during our debate:
This legislation seeks, quite literally, to eliminate any
prominence for the role of political parties in American
elections.
This legislation favors special interests over parties and
favors some special interests over other special interests.
Equally remarkable is the patchwork manner in which this
legislation achieves its virtual elimination of political
parties from the electoral process.
The same Senator claimed:
But under this bill, I promise you, if McCain-Feingold
becomes law, there won't be one penny less spent on
politics--not a penny less. In fact, a good deal more will be
spent on politics. It just won't be spent by the parties.
Even with the increase in hard money, which I think is a good
idea and I voted for, there is no way that will ever make up
for the soft dollars lost.
There isn't any way, he said, that they will ever make up for the
soft dollars lost.
Twenty months after the McCain-Feingold bill went into effect as the
law of the land, our two great political parties are alive and well.
Apparently they do have something to offer to the American people other
than fundraisers for lobbyists. A new study by Anthony Corrado and Tom
Mann of the Brookings Institution reports that through the first 18
months of the 2004 election cycle, the national party committees raised
$615 million in hard money alone, which was more than the $540 million
that they had raised in hard and soft money combined at a comparable
point in the 2000 election cycle. Let me say that again. As of June 30,
the parties had raised more in hard money in this election cycle than
they had raised in hard and soft money combined at a similar point in
the 2000 cycle.
Remember the Senator who said there was ``no way'' that the parties
could make up for the soft money they would lose under the McCain-
Feingold bill. Well it turns out that Senator was wrong.
The parties are not just surviving, they are thriving. And they are
doing this not just by taking advantage of the increased contribution
limits instituted by McCain-Feingold. Corrado and Mann state the
following:
While these increases in the contribution limits have
provided the parties with millions of additional dollars, the
growth in party funding in 2004 is largely the result of a
remarkable surge in the number of party donors. Both parties
have added hundreds of thousands of new small donors to their
rolls.
The numbers are truly astonishing. The Republican National Committee
[[Page 16984]]
has added a million new donors. The NRCC added 400,000 new contributors
in 2003. The DNC has recruited more than 800,000 new small donors
through direct mail alone. And these numbers don't include any new
online contributions in 2004. And, of course, they don't include the
hundreds of millions of dollars in hard money raised by the two major
party presidential candidates.
The parties are stronger than they were before not just because they
have raised more money than in 2000. Small contributors are a much
better indicator of strength than big contributors. Small contributors
volunteer, they are involved, they vote, and they inspire others to
contribute and vote. I believe McCain-Feingold saved the political
parties from the oblivion to which they were sending themselves with
their reliance on the easy fix of soft money.
The argument over the effect of the bill on the political parties was
just one of the disagreements we had when the bill was considered back
in 2001. Another dispute concerned what would happen to all that soft
money that had previously been contributed to the parties. Opponents of
the bill expressed absolute certainty that the money contributed to the
parties would simply migrate to less accountable outside groups. One
Senator said the following during our debate:
Why do we want to ban soft money to political parties, that
funding which is now accountable and reportable? This ban
would weaken the parties and put more money and control in
the hands of wealthy individuals and independent groups who
are accountable to no one.
Another Senator quoted a prominent Republican lawyer who
said: ``The world under McCain-Feingold is a world where the
loudest voices in the process are third-party groups.''
Those of us who supported the bill certainly recognized that some
donors would look for alternative ways to influence the political
process. But we also thought that much of the money that was being
given to the political parties was being given under duress. We argued
that if Members of Congress and other public officials weren't asking
for the money, much of it wouldn't be given at all. We had heard from
countless corporate executives that the soft money system, which many
had called legalized bribery, was really more like legalized extortion.
I will never forget the words of Ed Kangas the former CEO of Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu. He said:
Businesses should not have to pay a toll to have their case
heard in Washington. There are many times when CEOs feel like
the pressure to contribute soft money is nothing less than a
shakedown.
In 1999, on this floor, I said the following in a debate with another
Senator who actually supported the soft money ban, but asserted that
soft money would simply flow to outside groups:
I have this chart. It is a list of all the soft money
double givers. These are corporations that have given over
$150,000 to both sides. Under the Senator's logic, these very
same corporations--Philip Morris, Joseph Seagram, RJR
Nabisco, BankAmerica Corporation--each of these would
continue making the same amount of contributions; they would
take the chance of violating the law by doing this in
coordination with or at the suggestion of the parties, and
they would calmly turn over the same kind of cash to others,
be it left-wing or right-wing independent groups?
I have to say . . . I am skeptical that if they cannot hand
the check directly to the political party leaders, they will
take those chances.
On this dispute, with 3\1/2\ months to go before the election, the
jury is still out. But once again, the early indications are that the
doomsday predictions of opponents of the bill will not come to pass.
Not long ago, the Wall Street Journal reported that it surveyed the
20 top corporate donors in the 2002 election cycle and more than half,
including Microsoft, Citigroup, and Pfizer, are resisting giving large
contributions to the outside groups, the 527s, that are trying to raise
unlimited contributions since the parties can no longer accept them. As
the article noted:
The reticence illustrates an uneasiness on the part of some
of the corporations to get sucked back into the world of
unlimited political contributions that they thought campaign
reform had left behind.
According to a Washington Post article in June:
[E]lection law lawyers said corporations are showing
significant reluctance to get back into making ``soft money''
donations after passage of the McCain-Feingold law.
According to the Center for Public Integrity, which maintains the
most complete database of information on 527s using the reports
required by the disclosure bill we passed in 2000, 527s that focus on
federal elections along with labor-funded 527s have raised
approximately $150 million as of June 30. This is far less than the
$254 million that had been raised in soft money by the parties at a
similar point in the 2000 election cycle and less than half of the $308
million raised in the first 18 months of the 2002 cycle. It is, of
course, possible that 527 fundraising will pick up significantly in the
wake of the FEC's determination in May that it will likely not regulate
these groups as political committees in this election cycle. But the
underlying problem with raising money for these organizations remain.
That is very simple. It is central to this whole issue. They cannot
offer the kind of access and influence that made the parties such
effective soft money seekers prior to the enactment of McCain-Feingold.
There is no doubt that ideologically motivated wealthy individuals
will continue to seek ways to influence elections. Most of the money
being donated to the 527s is coming from such people. I continue to
believe that many of these groups, since their stated goal is to
influence federal elections, should be required to register as federal
PACs, which can accept contributions of only $5,000 per year from
individuals. But even if they continue to operate outside the law, they
are not going to replace the political parties. Without significant
corporate support, they simply cannot raise the kind of money that the
parties raised in 2000, much less the amounts that would have been
raised under the old system in this election cycle.
So to those who forecast or believed the doomsday scenarios back in
2001 and 2002 when we considered the bill, or who continue to believe
them today, I suggest you look at the numbers. McCain-Feingold is
working, and the Senate should be proud that it passed. As we approach
the 2004 elections, and the airwaves become saturated with political
advertising, note the difference. Party ads are paid for with the
contributions of millions of hardworking Americans proud to participate
in the political process and looking to parties and to their government
to represent them, not the special interests that used to write the big
checks.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent I be recognized to speak in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
9/11 Commission Report
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this may be the last day of Senate
activity before we take a recess for August. In that recess, both major
political parties will have their conventions in Boston and New York.
Members will be back home in their States, some campaigning, some
spending time with their families--a period of time we all look forward
to each year. However, we leave this Senate with a great deal of
unfinished business.
This morning, Governor Tom Kean, a former Governor of New Jersey, and
Congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana gave a briefing to Members of the
Senate on the 9/11 Commission Report. Let me say at the outset that
those two individuals, Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton, as well
as every member of this Commission, performed a great service for the
United States of America. They have produced a report which, frankly,
is a bargain. They were given an appropriation of some $15 million,
they had 80 staff people, and over
[[Page 16985]]
a very short period of time by congressional standards did a more
thorough analysis of the events leading up to September 11 than any
analysis that has been done by a congressional committee. They did it
in a bipartisan fashion, an analytical fashion, and they did it not
looking for someone to blame or someone to assign responsibility but,
rather, to learn so they would learn as a Commission and we would learn
as a nation how to make America safer.
As Governor Kean this morning went through this Commission report, he
outlined all of the occurrences, starting with the initial bombing of
the World Trade Center many years ago, that led up to September 11. As
he read the list, it went longer and longer and longer, all of the
clear evidence we had accumulated of activities by al-Qaida and other
terrorists threatening the United States of America. When you heard
this list, you reached the same conclusion he did; that is, why didn't
we see it coming?
There was so much evidence leading in that direction. Governor Kean
and Congressman Hamilton said many of our leaders, many of our
agencies, many Members of Congress, and many American people were still
thinking about the threat and danger of our world in terms of a cold
war. Now we were facing a new danger, a danger which was not obvious to
us, and very few people were prescient enough to see it coming.
He talked about how these al-Qaida terrorists on 9/11, with a budget
of less than half a million dollars, managed to see weaknesses in our
system of security, that they could bring a 4-inch bladed knife on a
plane but not a 6-inch bladed knife. All they needed was a 4-inch
knife. They used box cutters. They came on planes and threatened the
crews and commandeered the aircraft. They knew the doorways to the
pilots' cabin were not reinforced or locked. They put all this together
into this hideous plan of theirs to crash airplanes into the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Well, the facts were there for us to see, and most of us missed it.
But this Commission said: We need to look beyond that. We need to look
to the next question: What should we be doing to make certain America
is safer? What should we have learned from 9/11? And they identified
several areas.
Congressman Hamilton said: We need more imagination. At one point he
said--I suppose halfway in jest--we should have been reading more Tom
Clancy novels and thinking about possibilities rather than just
analyzing the way things had always been. We needed to make sure we
developed imagination, developed a program that could respond to these
new threats, capabilities. And we needed to make certain we had done
everything we could to organize and manage our Government assets so
they could be used most effectively.
Our friends in the military understand that. It is the reason why the
United States of America has the best military in the world. About 10
years ago, Senator Goldwater and Congressman Nichols proposed some
dramatic reforms in the military and its management to try to stop this
competition among the branches in the military and bring them together,
and it has worked. This cooperative effort has made our military even
that much better today.
Well, this Commission report suggests we need to do the same thing
when it comes to the 15 different intelligence agencies across our
Government that are responsible for collecting and analyzing
information, to warn us of dangers ahead. Fifteen different agencies,
with many extremely talented people, some with the most sophisticated
technology in the world, but often dealing with obstacles and hurdles
between agencies that should not exist.
They gave us examples: that one agency would know of the 19
terrorists on 9/11 and that many of them were dangerous people, but it
was not communicated to the Federal Aviation Administration to keep
them off airplanes; that we would establish standards which said: If
you were identified by our Government as a dangerous person, we are
going to search your baggage, but we are not going to stop you from
getting on a plane. All of these things suggest we need to be smarter
and better and tougher in the future.
The proposals they came up with are going to be controversial. They
will be discussed at length by Members of Congress and a lot of others.
But they are on the right track.
First: to give to one person new authority over these intelligence
agencies. Senator Feinstein of California, my colleague, has one
approach. The Commission has another approach. But the idea is to vest
in that person more authority to get the job done.
Second: to force together all these different agencies, 15 different
agencies, into a counterterrorism network that works and cooperates.
That is something that is long overdue.
And then, third: to look at Congress, because we have a role in this,
too. Congress did not do as good a job as it could have done. We have a
Senate Intelligence Committee, of which I am proud to be a part, and
the House Intelligence Committee. But we need more oversight. We need
to be able to develop the skills, with staff and our own commitment, to
ask hard questions of these intelligence agencies, to ask what they are
doing, whether they are being imaginative enough, whether they are
cooperating with other agencies.
We need to ask hard questions about the appropriations for these
agencies. I happen to serve on the Intelligence Committee and on the
Appropriations Committee. So I sat through both hearings recently. I
will tell you what happened in our Appropriations Committee hearing. It
was a meeting of the Defense Subcommittee, in the closed room upstairs.
Then-Director of the CIA George Tenet presented a lengthy analysis of
the intelligence threats to the United States, about 150 pages, and
went through it. On about page 110, he started talking about the
appropriations. That is what we were there for. We were there to
discuss the money needed for our intelligence operations. But the first
110 out of 150 pages were all about the threats around the world and
how serious they might be.
When it came time for members of the Appropriations subcommittee to
ask questions, they dwelled on the front part of Mr. Tenet's
presentation, the first 110 pages. They dwelled on questions related to
threats to the United States.
I am way down the line on that committee. By the time it came, an
hour and a half later, to my questions, I said to Director Tenet: May I
ask you a question about your appropriations? It was the first question
asked about that at that hearing. We spent less than 10 minutes asking
about the money that was to be spent and why.
My question to Director Tenet at the time was: What is the most
significant part of your budget? How has it changed from last year? And
why do we need it?
Well, that is an obvious question in any Appropriations hearing. But
we never got to it until extremely late in the hearing. We can do
better.
One of the suggestions from Congressman Hamilton is to look for a
joint Intelligence Committee between the House and the Senate. There is
only one viable analogy, when we did the same thing with atomic energy
40 years ago. No one in Congress today served at that time. It would be
interesting to see how it worked.
Another is to give to the Senate Intelligence Committee and House
Intelligence Committee authorizing-appropriating authority. For most
people following this debate, this sounds so arcane it does not sound
important, but it is: to give to one committee the authority to look at
the programs and how they are working and then look at the budget and
see how it matches up. That is important.
We need to expand the Senate Intelligence Committee staff. We do not
have enough people. How can we possibly keep track of 15 different
agencies, thousands of employees, the reaches of these agencies into
countries all around the world, in the heavens above and the Earth
below, and do
[[Page 16986]]
this with literally a handful of staff people?
On the Senate Intelligence Committee, which I have served on for 4
years, I have one staff person whom I share with another Senator. That
is not good enough. Part-time staff will not do the job.
Again, let me say, the 9/11 Commission report is a great service to
America. The men and women who spent the time to make it a reality
deserve our thanks and praise. President Bush was right yesterday. This
is not a matter of blaming President Clinton or blaming President Bush.
We are called on, as Members of Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, to
think of ways to change the law to make America safer. I think that is
what people across America expect of us.
Let me tell you what we can do today in a bipartisan fashion. We are
hours away from leaving. We will be off, as I said, for the August
recess. We will leave behind this Senate Calendar of pending
legislation. On the back page of this calendar, the first item: the
Homeland Security appropriations bill. It has been on this calendar
since June 17--over a month now. We will leave town. We will leave
Washington for 6 weeks, without passing the Homeland Security
appropriations bill.
We should have done that a long time ago. We should be moving toward
a conference to make sure that when October 1 comes, the new fiscal
year, we are ready to move, we are ready to send the resources that are
necessary not only to the Department of Homeland Security but to State
and local first responders. That is a critical issue.
Let me give you an example. The President's budget request for
Homeland Security has a total appropriation of $32.6 billion. This is a
7.7-percent increase over last year. In the House of Representatives,
they appropriated $33.1 billion, slightly more than the Senate. But the
problem is within the appropriations request itself.
President Bush's budget request for the Department of Homeland
Security represents a dramatic cut of $1 billion in money for State and
local first responders. I have said it repeatedly, God forbid another
act of terrorism hits the United States. People in the streets of
America are not likely to look for the number of the White House or of
the Senate. They will dial 911. They will be looking for first
responders in their community.
When we cut money, as the President's budget does, for State and
local first responders, we are shortchanging our line of defense, our
hometown line of defense against terrorism.
When you make these cuts to these State and local units of
government, let me give you an example of some of what we in Illinois
and other places may find at risk.
We need the money that has been cut in the President's budget for
homeland security. We need it to specially train and equip local and
State teams, firefighters, policemen, medical responders. We need it
for interoperable communications.
I was surprised to learn a few years ago that in my State of
Illinois, with 12.5 million people, there is no single network for the
police and firefighters and ambulance services and hospital trauma
centers to communicate. They each have different radio systems,
different frequencies. What is wrong with this picture? We need them
all together. If something should happen in my State or in a
neighboring State, in South Carolina, wherever it happened to be, the
first responders in that State should have a common communications
system. When President Bush's budget cuts money for State and local
responders, it reduces the likelihood that we can develop those
systems. We need standardized training, methods to share intelligence,
and we need mutual aid plans.
Most people, when they think of dangers and threats in the State of
Illinois, automatically think of the great city of Chicago that may be
a target. I hope it never happens. We had an exercise 2 years ago to
try to simulate what might happen if we had such a tragedy. We quickly
learned that if something did happen, we would need a dramatic increase
of first responders, that the existing police and firefighters in
Chicago and most major cities were inadequate to the task. We would
almost have to double their numbers. That means reaching out to
surrounding communities in mutual aid, so if it is a situation in
downtown Chicago or in a suburban area, surrounding units would come to
their assistance. That is done today over and over again across
America. When the tornado hit Utica, IL, a few months ago, they had
fire departments and first responders from all over the region coming
together. But in order to make this mutual aid happen, we need money
for the State and local responders to develop it. That line in the
budget was cut by President Bush. It needs to be restored by Congress.
We need to do that before we go home.
Within this same Senate calendar, you will also find other provisions
of homeland security, such as a provision to increase the safety and
security of nuclear powerplants. We have six nuclear powerplants in
Illinois. These are important for us. They provide more than half of
our electricity. They need better protection. We need better
coordination of the fire and police and medical units around them.
We also have in our State--and it is probably the reason why we have
been as prosperous as we have throughout our history--so much
transportation, intermodal facilities. I visited at the old Joliet
arsenal out in the area where Shell is. All of these trainyards and
interstate highways--each one of them is vulnerable and needs to have
special protection. We are a significant source of our Nation's food
supply. We have many great universities.
Our State is not unique. Virtually every State can tell the same
story of areas where we need to focus our attention and resources. We
have these four bills on the calendar that would address some aspects.
One of the bills provides for greater security and defense of nuclear
power facilities. That is one that is obvious. We will leave the Senate
today without enacting that legislation and moving it to conference
committee.
We also have a provision for the chemical industry. Obviously, here
is a part of the private sector that is really vulnerable. Legislation
has been developed to make it safer, and it sits on the calendar while
we spend our time spinning our wheels on the Senate floor.
The same thing for our ports with the thousands of containers that
come in on a daily basis, and our rail facilities. Each one of these
areas has a special piece of legislation on this calendar that we have
failed to address as we leave to go on our August recess. I hope there
won't come a moment in the next 6 weeks when we look back and say: We
really should have done our work. We should have spent less time on the
Senate floor embroiled in these political debates that spin our wheels
and go nowhere and more time doing things people care about.
Further Important Issues
I have devoted this period of time in my speech on the 9/11
Commission report and homeland security, but I will say that we are
remiss if we leave Washington without thinking of other issues that
have a direct impact on the families and businesses across America.
Some are extremely obvious. Pick a State. Pick a city. Go to any
business, large or small, and ask them their No. 1 headache today. It
is likely that most will respond: The cost of health insurance. It is a
cost which is crippling businesses, denying coverage to many people, it
continues to go up and out of sight, and reduces protection for the
people who are supposed to be helped.
What have we done in Washington in the Senate on the issue of the
affordability of quality health care and health insurance? Absolutely
nothing. We don't even talk about it. We act as if it is not a problem.
It is the No. 1 complaint of businesses and unions and families in
Illinois. How can this representative body, charged with changing the
laws and making life better in America, have a session that is void of
any meaningful debate on the cost and availability of quality health
care? We will have done that. We will adjourn without having seriously
considered it.
[[Page 16987]]
The second issue is the state of the economy, whether we are prepared
to help those industries which have struggled during the last
recession, particularly manufacturing, whether our trade laws are
adequately enforced, whether we are training and equipping the
workforce of the future.
The third issue is obvious to most: What are we going to do about
energy? Are we going to continue to be dependent for decades to come on
the Middle East, drawing us into the intrigue of Saudi Arabia and those
surrounding countries and all the other sources or are we going to move
toward energy independence? We had a debate on an energy bill that went
nowhere. Sadly, that bill didn't get very serious about the real
issues. Can you imagine a debate on energy policy in America that does
not even address the question of the fuel efficiency of America's cars
and trucks? That was our debate. We decided, because the special
interest groups, the manufacturers, and some of their workers didn't
want to get into energy efficiency, that we would consider an energy
bill that did not address the No. 1 area of consumption of energy in
America--the fuel efficiencies of cars and trucks.
We can do better. America can have a good, strong, growing economy
that is environmentally responsible and energy efficient. We have done
it before, and we can do it again. What is lacking is leadership, on
the floor of the Senate, in the House, and in the White House. That is
critically important.
Of course, the one issue I started with is the issue that I will end
with--America's security defense. As we speak on the Senate floor
today, just a few minutes away by car are Walter Reed Hospital and the
Bethesda Naval Medical Center. In the wards and rooms of those two
great medical institutions are men and women who served our country
valiantly in Iraq, many of whom suffered extremely serious injuries. I
have been out with colleagues to visit with them from time to time and
can't help but be impressed. They are the best and brightest in
America. They are young men and women who stood up, took the oath, put
on the uniform, and risked their lives for America. My heart goes out
to them every day and many just like them who are serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan and all around the world.
We have to be mindful of the fact that our situation in Iraq is a
long-term commitment. No matter what you might have thought when we
decided to invade Iraq--and I was one of 23 Senators who voted against
the use-of-force resolution at that time--we all come together now
believing that we need to provide every resource our men and women in
uniform need to finish their mission and come home safely. That is
something that should never be far from our minds, as well as the
question of what we are going to do to make America safer here at home.
We talk about a war on terrorism, but former Senator Bob Kerrey of
Nebraska at the 9/11 Commission meeting made an observation we should
not forget. He said to Donald Rumsfeld and George Tenet, who appeared
before the Commission, that it really isn't a war on terrorism.
Terrorism is a tactic. The question is, Who is the enemy using the
terrorism tactic? That is the real question. What should we be doing
now to discover the plots and dangers across the world that might come
to threaten the United States but also to reach out to the next
generation in countries around the world to let them know we are a
compassionate, caring people with values they can share and that their
lives will be better for that.
It goes beyond military strength and intelligence. It goes into
diplomacy and leadership around the world so that this country, as we
may hear from time to time, is not only strong at home but respected
around the world.
We can do our part. We need to reach out in different areas where we
have not as much in the past. Yesterday, I spoke on the floor about the
situation in the Sudan. It is a situation where literally a thousand
people a day are losing their lives to what is a horrible genocide
occurring in that country. We need to do more.
The United States has spent over $100 million so far in food aid. We
need to be a political force, too, to push that Sudanese Government to
do what is right and to work with the United Nations so that we say to
the world: The United States is not interested in treasure or
territory; we are a caring people, a humanitarian people who care about
some of the poorest places on Earth, such as the Sudan.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. I also thank my friend from Tennessee, Senator Alexander.
I know he wants to speak as well. I will not be long.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
(The remarks of Mr. Wyden pertaining to the introduction of S. 2723
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Alexander pertaining to the introduction of S.
2721 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
9/11 Commission Report
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, this morning at about 10 a.m. we were
given an opportunity to meet with Governor Kean and Lee Hamilton, the
cochair of the 9/11 Commission. That is the subject of the news today.
I know both men well. I know Governor Kean better. We served as
Governors at the same time. I have known a lot of Governors. He was
Governor of New Jersey at the time he served. My judgment was he was
the best Governor in the country. Those leadership characteristics
certainly showed themselves with this report.
Mr. Hamilton said he had been working actively with the directors of
the CIA in every administration since Lyndon Johnson. In a few words,
he gave us a very impressive presentation. I believe this is an
impressive report. It is an impressive committee. It has had impressive
leadership, and it certainly will command my attention as one Senator.
I intend to read it all the way through, and I intend to take seriously
the recommendations. I hope all Americans will take time to read it.
Terrorism, as they remind us, whether or not we like it, is the
greatest challenge today to our national security. It will be for our
lifetimes and perhaps much longer than that.
This is a hard matter for us to come to grips with in the United
States of America, because it seems too remote from us. It seems as if
it is on television. That is hard to say after 9/11 when 3,000 people
were killed in an hour.
But as Mr. Hamilton gave his report to us, he emphasized four areas
of failure--not President Bush's failure, not President Clinton's
failure, but our failure. In fact, he said both Presidents were active
and busy and interested and working hard on the threat. But in these
four areas, we as a country failed.
First was the failure of imagination. We didn't imagine what could
have happened that day. Second was a failure of policy. A third was a
failure of capability. And fourth was a failure of management.
It made me think, if I may give a personal reflection. I have thought
about it many times because I have heard various people suggest, ``Why
didn't President Bush think of this?'' or ``Why didn't President
Clinton think of this?'' As the Chair knows, I was busy in the mid
1990s trying to occupy the same seat President Bush occupies today. I
was a candidate for President of the United States in 1994, 1995, and
1996. I thought back many times. It never once occurred to me a group
of
[[Page 16988]]
people might fly airplanes into the World Trade Center and into the
Pentagon and try to fly them into the Capitol.
It never occurred to me. And it also never occurred to me that if I
should by some chance be successful in that race, that within a year
and a half of taking office I would suddenly be interrupted in a
meeting in Florida with some schoolchildren, and in a short period of
time I would have to decide whether to shoot down a plane load of U.S.
citizens on a commercial airline headed toward Washington, DC. It never
occurred to me.
I thought for a long time: Maybe that is just me. Maybe I am naive
and have not had enough experience, but I have asked other public
officials with a lot more experience. I did not ask the Presiding
Officer, whose husband was a candidate for our country's highest
office, if that occurred whether they might have to shoot down such an
airplane. Maybe with her background in transportation, she would have
thought of that, but I didn't. And I think most policymakers did not.
Obviously, many people in intelligence didn't.
What Mr. Hamilton was saying, and Governor Kean, is we are going to
have to imagine all of the things that could be done, some of us at
least, and think about them and take those things very seriously in the
future.
As fortunate as we are to live in this big country with remote, safe
places, far away from a lot of the fighting we see on television, an
unfortunate part of living in today's world is there are real threats
and we are going to have to imagine those things that even candidates
for the highest office in our land a few years ago would not have ever
imagined.
I salute the Commission for its work. I thank them for it. I like the
fact that it is unanimous, without a single dissent, without a
dissenting opinion. I thank them for their job.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
financial solicitations on military bases
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern about
a rider included in the Department of Defense appropriations conference
report that we will be taking up shortly. This rider is from the House
Defense appropriations bill. It will limit the ability of the
Department of Defense to address deceptive sales practices on our
military bases.
This week, the New York Times has published a two-part series which
included disturbing reports of financial advisers taking advantage of
service men and women on our military installations. These articles
contained evidence which indicate that recently enlisted service
members are required, at many installations, to attend mandatory
financial advisory classes. In those classes, it has been discovered
that sales agents use questionable tactics to sell insurance and
investments that may not fit the needs of our young men and women in
uniform.
Mr. President, I commend to my colleagues the articles from the July
20 and July 21 editions of the New York Times titled ``Basic Training
Doesn't Guard Against Insurance Pitch to G.I.'s'' and ``Insurers Rely
on Congress to Keep Access to G.I.'s.''
Mr. President, as you well know, our men and women in uniform today
are being called upon to sacrifice, sometimes--for more than 900 of
them--the ultimate sacrifice. All of them are separated from their
families. They are putting their lives at risk in the service of our
Nation.
It is almost unimaginable that in addition to their sacrifice they
would be exposed to less than scrupulous financial advisers at the
installations at which they serve. However, instead of protecting our
service members, a culture of financial abuse persists on our military
bases. As soon as I learned of these reports, I immediately wrote to
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, asking for an immediate
investigation of these practices, as well as immediate action to
prevent these abuses from continuing.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Secretary
Rumsfeld be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2004.
Hon. Donald Rumsfeld,
Secretary of Defense,
Department of Defense, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: I write to urge you to conduct an
immediate investigation into reports about efforts by
financial advisors to take advantage of our men and women in
uniform through the use of deceptive sales practices. I am
greatly alarmed by these reports which indicate that recently
enlisted service members at many installations are required
to attend mandatory financial advisory classes in which sales
agents use questionable tactics to sell insurance and
investments that may not fit the needs of people in uniform.
Today our men and women in uniform are being called upon to
sacrifice, be separated from their families, and to put their
lives at risk in service of their nation. They should not,
under any circumstances, be exposed to less than scrupulous
financial advisors at the installations at which they serve.
However, instead of protecting our service members, a culture
of financial abuse persists at military installations. It
should not be too much to expect that our service men and
women are protected from this behavior through the
enforcement of post policies and regulations restricting
disreputable financial practices. In short, our men and women
in uniform should never be the unwitting prey of self-
interested sales agents at military installations.
In addition to conducting a thorough investigation, I urge
you to establish a financial education program for enlistees
and review the practices whereby sales agents are given
unfettered access to new recruits. This financial education
program should include a component that equips soldiers to
recognize that an attempt is being made to entice them to
purchase financial services that are not in their best
interest.
With our men and women in uniform serving bravely in Iraq,
Afghanistan and elsewhere, we owe it to them to make sure
they are not solicited for questionable financial schemes at
the installations where they live.
I thank you for your consideration of my request and look
forward to your response.
Sincerely yours,
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Mrs. CLINTON. I have also written to and spoken to both Chairman
Warner and Ranking Member Levin from the Senate Committee on Armed
Services, to ask for hearings on this issue when we return in
September. However, I was alerted yesterday that there is a provision
in the Department of Defense conference report that would prohibit the
Department of Defense from taking immediate action to address these
financial abuses on our military installations.
Specifically, section 8133 of the conference report does not allow
any changes to the Department of Defense Directive 1344.7, entitled
``Personal Commercial Solicitation on DOD Installations,'' until 90
days after a report containing the results of an investigation
regarding insurance premium allotment processing is submitted to the
House Committee on Government Reform and the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
With that investigation still ongoing, it could be months--maybe
years, for all we know--until any changes are made to these abusive
practices. During that time, more of our young men and women will fall
prey to these unscrupulous agents who sell them financial products they
do not need and they barely understand.
Yesterday, I sent a letter to Senators Stevens and Byrd, the
distinguished chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, as well as to Senator Inouye, the ranking member of the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, to express my concern
about the inclusion of this provision in the conference report of the
DOD appropriations bill and to urge them to take action to remove this
rider.
I understand a similar provision, with an even longer delay before
DOD can take action, was included in the House Defense authorization
bill. I am a conferee in the House-Senate conference on the Defense
authorization
[[Page 16989]]
bill, and I intend to do everything I can to include language that will
allow the Department of Defense to immediately address this troubling
issue without having to wait several months while our men and women in
uniform continue to be fleeced.
I hope I will have the support of my colleagues who are also
conferees on the Department of Defense authorization bill. I look
forward to working with Senators on the Committee on Appropriations to
figure out the best way to address this issue.
The problem of financial advisers taking advantage of our service men
and women is one that requires immediate action. It is almost hard to
believe, as the two articles in the New York Times so poignantly point
out, that young men and women, who have a lot on their minds--such as
leaving their families; oftentimes worrying about young wives left
alone, taking care of children; or parents who are worried about their
safety; trying to get the training they need; trying to get prepared
for the dangerous missions they will face in Afghanistan, Iraq, and
elsewhere--would be required, in many instances, to attend these
meetings, which could do a lot to help educate them.
In fact, in my letter to Secretary Rumsfeld I ask there be financial
education provided to these young men and women and oftentimes, if
possible, where there are large bases, to the spouses who are left
behind. I have visited bases where particularly young wives--often as
young as 17, 18, 19 years old--are seeing their husbands leave for
overseas deployments. They do not know how to keep a checkbook. They do
not know how to pay bills. They have gone literally from their parents'
home into a new, young marriage, oftentimes under the pressure of an
impending deployment--usually of their husbands--and now, all of a
sudden, they are left to try to deal with the financial demands of
running a household. They should be given help. They should not be
taken advantage of.
It strikes me as just regrettable that we would permit the
solicitation for questionable financial schemes at the very military
installations where these young men and women live prior to asking them
to go into harm's way.
There certainly is a role for additional insurance, for other kinds
of investment information to be provided, but not in a situation where
the people doing the presentations are often former military officers
or high-ranking noncommissioned officers, who purport to and present
themselves as people in authority, and often lay the groundwork for a
very rushed and somewhat coercive atmosphere, where these young men and
women sign things they do not understand. It is somewhat reminiscent of
many of our college students, who are in comparable age and group
settings, who are given the hard sells for credit cards and insurance
policies they do not understand. So I think there is a tremendous
opportunity for legitimate financial education and for helping our
military service members know what their needs are, and then to meet
those needs.
I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee
on Armed Services, as well as Senators on the Committee on
Appropriations, to find a solution to this problem. I regret these
riders were injected into the DOD appropriations subcommittee
conference report that we will vote up or down this afternoon.
I will certainly support the appropriations bill because there are
much-needed resources in it for our military and other ongoing needs
that are within the purview of the Department of Defense that we need
to be funding.
Report of the 9/11 Commission
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I salute the 9/11 Commission for an
extraordinary job well done and an act of real patriotism. The men and
one woman who served on this Commission were asked to do a very
difficult task, to try to separate themselves from their prior
associations. These are all political people. Not everyone ran for
political office, but the distinguished chair and vice chair certainly
did and other members as well. These are all people who understand our
political process and who with great distinction have served their
party as well as our country, but they put that to one side when it
came to working together. This 9/11 Commission report is a great
testimony to their willingness to search hard for the truth, to get at
the facts, to then explain, in understandable language, whatever they
could discover about the events leading up to
9/11.
This report not only is educational and informative, but it is an
urgent call to action. There are recommendations that ask the branches
of our Government, the executive and legislative, as well as the
American public, to understand we are up against a determined and
committed adversary. Therefore, we have to think differently. We have
to organize differently. We cannot act as though business as usual is
sufficient. The recommendations from this Commission will ask this body
to reorganize itself, to have a different approach to the oversight of
intelligence. I hope we will respond to that request and
recommendation.
There have been many other commissions, led by distinguished
Americans, who have plowed the same ground, who have come forth with
worthwhile and compelling recommendations which, frankly, have been
ignored. We ignore this one at our peril.
I have stood in this spot numerous times, most recently just a week
ago Thursday, to ask what are we doing. We sometimes act as though
there is no threat beyond what our young men and women in the military
face in the mountains of Afghanistan or the streets of Baghdad. This
threat is real and it is here. It is among us. We know enough to
understand that there are credible reports of plans underway as I speak
to strike again.
If one reads this report--and I hope every American does, and I hope
this is assigned in junior high schools and high schools and colleges
because this is not just a report to be read by decisionmakers, to be
read by political leaders, this is a report that should be read by
every American--they cannot help but be struck by the ongoing threat we
face.
I perhaps feel it more strongly because we know that in every report
of any credibility, New York is always mentioned. Therefore, I have to
ask: Are we doing our part even now, before we get to the point of
considering the Commission's recommendations? Why aren't we considering
homeland security right now? Why have we done nearly everything but
consider the appropriations for homeland security, consider the very
good legislation offered on both sides of the aisle to try to have a
better approach to everything from port security to providing our first
responders with the resources they need, to disbursing Federal funds
based on threat and not treating it, as the Commission rightly says,
like some kind of revenue sharing? Obviously, that will mean New York
will get more than any other place, probably followed closely by
Washington, DC, but those are the places of highest risk and threat.
The work before us is obvious. But I have to confess to a certain
level of frustration that we have not even addressed what is within our
purview. Now we are being asked by the 9/11 Commission to be even more
imaginative, to be willing to change the turf, to remove some of the
authority some have in order to better organize ourselves going
forward.
At the press conference today, one of our distinguished former
Members who served in this body for a number of years, Senator Bob
Kerrey, summed it up. He said, knowing as he does how this town works
and how this body works, how this Congress works, he was hopeful but
not optimistic that we would face up to our responsibilities.
What does it take for us to realize that the partisan bickering, the
divisiveness, the point scoring, and the political gamesmanship have no
place in the ongoing serious war against terror?
I hope, as a result of the fine work of this Commission and the path
it has charted that we should follow into the future, we will rise to
the occasion. There are recommendations certainly for the White House,
the FBI, the CIA,
[[Page 16990]]
the Department of Defense, the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
the Department of Homeland Security. There are many recommendations
that go to the administration, that go to the executive branch, that
regardless of who is our President after November, that President will
have to address. But that does not let the Congress off the hook. We
have not fulfilled our responsibilities of oversight, and we now must
take seriously the recommendations of these patriotic, hard-working,
thoughtful Commissioners.
This report cannot be allowed to sit on a shelf somewhere. I hope we
will take it in the spirit it is offered, as not just a bipartisan but,
frankly, nonpartisan report; that we will immediately, under the
leadership we have in this Senate, begin to figure out how we will
fulfill the hope this Commission offers us; that we will be better
prepared, better organized to play our part in the struggle against
terrorism. I certainly will look forward to working with my colleagues
in order to do that. I trust and hope that I can afford to be
optimistic and that we will be able to prove our former colleague and
one of the Commissioners, Senator Kerrey, wrong to a limited extent,
that we can be both hopeful and optimistic that the Senate, the
Congress, and our Government will live up to the obligations this
report lays out so clearly.
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.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about what
so many Americans are thinking about as they turn on their television
today, and that is the 9/11 Commission report that is being issued by
many of our former colleagues and partners in trying to address the
security needs of our Nation. I am sure many Americans are going to
want to know from this 9/11 report, is it going to result in us getting
off our orange alert? Is it going to help us in providing better
security across America?
One of the things we have to think about is the fact that this report
now needs to be put into legislative action by this body. I thank the
Commission, including Governor Keane, former Congressman Hamilton, and
former Senator Slade Gorton, for their contribution to this report and
their hard work. The voluminous report has a lot of recommendations,
but I would like to call out two or three of those recommendations that
are particularly important for us as a body to address when we return
in September.
First and foremost is the need for us to focus on international
cooperation. We in the Northwest learned that lesson very well when
Ahmed Ressam came across the Canadian border with a car full of
explosives on his way to LAX Airport. Many people in America know that
story and know that a good customs agent was able to stop Ressam and
confiscate those goods, and that act was never perpetrated on American
soil. We also know after that, 9/11 did happen. So the question for us
in America is, What are we going to do to make sure we have good
international cooperation?
What is interesting about the Ressam case is Mr. Ressam started his
efforts in Algiers, was successful in getting into France, then
successful in creating a new identity and getting into Canada. Even
though that was an illegal entry into Canada, he was able to remain in
Canada and then create a Canadian passport and birth certificate and
try to gain access to the United States.
As I said, the route he took through several countries to try to get
to Port Angeles, WA, to start his journey shows the need we have in
this country for international cooperation as it relates to our visa
program and our visa standards. This is something we have seen a delay
in in the last several years and something we need to pay particular
attention to in the Senate to make sure this visa standard program gets
implemented and gets implemented as soon as possible.
While we in the United States can have a visa entry program based on
a biometric standard, that standard will only be as good as the
standard that is then adopted by Canada and Mexico, our European
partners, our Middle East allies, and various other countries around
the world. By that, I mean if Mr. Ressam had entered France on a
biometric standard which showed, perhaps with fingerprints or facial
recognition, who Ahmed Ressam was, the various times he tried to
perpetrate a false identity to get into the United States, we would be
able to track that individual.
We know this is very important because we know that of the hijackers
on 9/11, many of them had various trips back and forth to the United
States. While we want to continue to have good international commerce
with many countries and have people travel to the United States, we
need a better security system with our visa standard, and we should
make a top priority of getting such international cooperation based on
biometrics.
I can say the same for international cooperation on port security.
Washington State, being the home to many ports, needs to focus on the
fact that cargo containers come in every day into the ports of Seattle,
Tacoma, Vancouver, and various parts of Washington State. What we need
is not to wait until the last minute for cargo containers to get into
the Seattle area to find out whether they have explosives or whether
the containers have been tampered with, but to have point of origin
cooperation with countries all over the world to make sure that
security system is deployed at the time the cargo leaves its port.
Here are two examples, one of human deployment of people coming to
the United States and another of goods and services in which
international cooperation is essential. That is why I take to heart the
recommendation on page 20 of the 9/11 Commission report, the executive
summary saying that:
Unifying strategic intelligence and operational planning
against Islamic terrorists across foreign-domestic divide
with a National Counterterrorism Center.
What I believe the report is saying is we have to have the
cooperation of our allies and the global community in fighting
terrorism and doing so in a cooperative effort if we are going to be
successful in the United States.
Secondly, while I think the report emphasizes the focus of a flat
organization, from my 2 years on the Judiciary Committee and review of
the incidents of 9/11 through the FBI and their organization and
changes that have been made to that organization, one thing that is
very clear about the 9/11 report is that a flat, decentralized
organization and network of information must be accomplished.
While the report does talk about consolidation and the central focus,
the important thing to understand is we are facing an asymmetrical
threat by terrorists. We are not facing a superpower. We are not facing
a well-oiled, well-heeled organization with a lot of support that we
can track, detect, and analyze on a large-scale basis; it is very
decentralized, with a lot of information flowing from a lot of
different cells through different parts of the international community.
What is important about that is if we are going to face that
asymmetrical threat and meet that challenge, having a large bureaucracy
facing an asymmetrical threat of lots of cells presents a challenging
problem.
That is why it is very important, as Special Agent Coleen Rowley
pointed out to many of the people in the intelligence community and the
FBI community, the information that existed in different FBI offices
throughout America but was not shared, was not pieced together with the
other intelligence information by the CIA about potential people
entering and exiting the country, needs to be pieced together in a flat
organization.
Critical to this report and our success is for us to monitor the new
organizations and agencies, such as Homeland Security, the structure of
the FBI and CIA, and any new structures coming out of the 9/11 report
to make sure
[[Page 16991]]
we are keeping a flat organization. That flat organization is about
getting access to as much information as possible.
Just as the Intelligence Committee report released by my colleagues
in the last 10 days showed and just as this 9/11 report shows, the
third thing we need to do is make sure we use the information we
acquire and put much more focus and analysis behind that. While that
sounds simple and it sounds like something that can be easily
forgotten, I remind my colleagues that in 1998, ADM David Jeremiah,
under a CIA governance order study, was asked the question: Why did the
CIA miss India's testing of a nuclear bomb? Why did we as a country not
really understand that was happening? Well, the No. 1 recommendation
from that report was not enough analysis, and we had a culture that was
not really assessing the 21st century threats to our country.
That is a report that was done in 1998 about a particular part of
intelligence, in a particular part of the world, that missed something.
We had a report that basically is saying the same things the 9/11
report is saying today, that information and analysis are critical to
our success on international efforts at understanding information and
potential threats or use of weapons of mass destruction.
To me, it is very important that we take to heart the fact that we
need more analysts, and how that analyst structure is going to work. We
live in an information age. You can say that terrorists, in their
decentralized structure, are going to create much more information
about their prospects, their attention to different projects, their
communication with cells across the globe. It is this information that
we need to acquire, put together, and have analysts working on, on an
ongoing basis.
It is safe to say we need a dramatic increase in the number of
analysts that we need to recruit into Government, new processes to put
this information into a network, and access and assess it on an ongoing
basis. I believe this is going to be a very hard challenge for us in
Congress because we will see it as something that an agency is assigned
to do, and we will forget about the challenges that face each of these
agencies as they change their culture and change their structure.
We must keep in mind we are facing a threat of a very decentralized
nature. To face a threat of a very decentralized nature we must build
organizations and teams of people, including analysts, who also think
in a decentralized way.
The report also talks about technology and the role that technology
can play. I am a big proponent of technology in this information age.
Something like a biometric standard on fingerprints and identification
can be helpful. The report goes into a great deal of detail about
implementing those at borders, at airports, at various other
facilities. Yes, I want to expedite the speed and flow of individuals
in and out of the country and have the United States continue to remain
a great place where people want to visit. But in adopting these
technology solutions, we need to work hard, as the 9/11 report says, to
make sure the civil liberties and privacy rights of individuals are
protected.
The United States has its privileges. The right to privacy is one of
those. So we need to work on this recommendation in the report with
that in mind. I think the structure within the FBI and Homeland
Security needs to have someone, as these recommendations are
implemented, who can--as databases are created, as information is
assessed--help create the safeguards that are necessary.
But that should not impede us from working on an international basis
to make sure that information about terrorist threats is shared through
numerous countries in the world, and shared on a systematic database
form with the United States. That is where I believe we have been
lacking since 9/11. We have had a visa program and standard that we set
in the PATRIOT Act and other bills as an objective. Yet we have failed
to execute those. We should use this report today to continue our
sharpened focus on getting that standard implemented so we can be sure
the same people, like the 9/11 attackers, are not moving in and out of
the country.
This report is so critical for us now to join together on these
specific recommendations. We must not continue to focus on the past but
focus on what we can do to get off of orange alert. It is important
that we look at international cooperation, organizations, resources for
analysts, new technology, and protecting civil liberties. But as I
think about this issue, I think about the significant threats we face
from those asymmetrical forms. Yet the results of those could be very
catastrophic. That is why we need to get this program implemented.
I look to my colleagues, when we return in September, to keep away
from what now has been an analysis of the past and look forward to
implementing these solutions as quickly as possible, giving Americans
better security in the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Troubling Trends
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise this morning because issues are
brought to mind that somehow or other have slipped into the background.
For example, look at this morning's Washington Post and see there is
disturbing news about the impending retirement of air traffic
controllers. This is a subject I have dealt with, even in my previous
terms, and certainly in my current term in the Senate, sounding the
alarm that we are going to be woefully short of people to replace
retirees. We have to be certain that in the middle of what is an
impending crisis because of the lack of skilled professionals in the
towers, we do not turn to the subject of commercializing this.
We went through an enormous amount of pain and dislocation when we
took the baggage screeners out of commercial hands and put them into
Government hands because we knew they would operate more efficiently.
Now the conversation goes that we are trying as well to go back with
our screeners and put that function into commercial hands.
I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, July 22, 2004]
FAA Faces Exodus of Traffic Controllers
(By Karin Brulliard)
Federal officials said yesterday that they are preparing to
deal with a nationwide wave of retirements by air traffic
controllers over the next decade and that passenger safety
will not be jeopardized.
Regional officials with the Federal Aviation Administration
are gauging how a potential exodus of nearly half the
nation's air traffic controllers will affect individual
airports, including Reagan National, Dulles International and
Baltimore-Washington International, said Doug Simons, manager
at National's control tower.
``Neither the FAA nor its controllers will permit the
system to operate in ways that are unsafe or with staffing
that is inadequate to the task,'' Simons told reporters
yesterday. ``We will be there, with the numbers of people we
need, everywhere, at all times.''
The FAA estimates that nearly half of the nation's 15,000
air traffic controllers will be eligible for retirement
before 2013. Many of the potential retirees were hired in
1982 after President Ronald Reagan fired more than 11,000
striking members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers
Organization the year before.
In the Washington region, nearly 700 air traffic
controllers direct more than 3,000 daily flights from six
towers and radar centers. Ten percent of those controllers
will be eligible to retire in 2006, said FAA spokesman Greg
Martin.
Paul Rinaldi, alternate vice president of the National Air
Traffic Controllers Association's eastern region said at
least one-third of the controllers at Dulles and BWI will be
eligible to retire or will reach the mandatory retirement age
of 56 by 2008.
The association has warned in recent weeks that the
retirements, if not headed off by aggressive recruiting and
increased funding, could cause a controller shortage that
would result in chronic flight delays, overstressed
controllers and safety risks.
[[Page 16992]]
If we don't have the adequate number of certified
controllers to work this system, basically we're not going to
be able . . . to safely meet the needs of the traveler,
Rinaldi said.
The association, which represents 30,000 controllers
nationwide, has called on Congress to appropriate an
additional $14 million to the FAA to hire controllers. The
current budget is $6.2 billion. To stave off a crisis, at
least 1,000 controllers must be hired annually for the next
three to five years, Rinaldi said. The FAA hired 762
controller in 2003.
The retirements will come at a time when air traffic is
expected to increase dramatically because of expanded flight
schedules, new budget airlines, and growth in the private and
charter plane industrys.
A shortage could hit Dulles especially hard. The flight
schedule there is expanding rapidly, partly because of the
arrival of Independence Air, a discount airline that has been
based there since June, Rinaldi said.
The FAA says it is uncertain how many new controllers will
be needed and which of the nation's 300 air traffic
facilities will need them, Simons said. He said the agency is
studying the situation at each of the facilities and will
deliver a report to Congress in December.
In the meantime, the agency said, it is taking steps to
stem a potential shortage. It has proposed raising the
controller retirement age and is focusing on advancements in
technology to help reduce the dependence on air traffic
controllers.
It is also streamlining controller training, an extensive
process that can take up to five years, officials said.
``The task at hand is not simply to hire a number of new
controllers, but the right number,'' Simons said.
Union representatives say there is no time to wait. Hiring
must start now so that enough veteran controllers are still
in towers to train recruits, said John Carr, national
president of the Air Traffic Controllers Association.
``When it comes to having eyes on the skies, we need help
and we need help now,'' Carr said.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. That speaks to the leadership we have. We see a
headline that says, ``War Funds Dwindling, GAO Warns.'' That is
terrible. We have spent a ton of money.
One thing all of us can agree upon, whether Democrat or Republican,
is that we want our troops protected. We want them to be able to
conduct their responsibilities in Iraq and Afghanistan with the best
equipment they can get. Frankly, I have been looking for some time now
at a way to compensate these service people for the 90 days of extended
term that has been demanded by this administration. I want to get a
$2,000-a-month extra stipend to help them weather the financial storm.
The emotional, family storm is terribly painful. We see an unusual
number of suicides--far greater than we have seen in past wars--because
of the emotional distress. It is overpowering. Soldiers are away from
their families for a year. They are often people with little children.
These are people, largely in the Reserve Corps, who are often young,
have young families, and are trying to take care of their family and
financial needs at the same time--paying the mortgage payments, paying
for the normal sustenance of life.
That could not get heard here. It wasn't allowed to be brought up.
There are other things that I consider detrimental to the purported
support we want to give our troops. I agree all of us in this body want
to do what we can for those who are serving so dutifully and
courageously. But we see, no matter what we have allocated, the funds
are short. We have a lack of sufficient numbers of service people
there, and we are trying to find our way out of that. We now find that
a promise made recently that we would go from 130,000 down to 90,000
service people there is now kind of canceled. It has fallen into the
background. We are going to maintain 130,000 people there.
I submit that is not enough. We know darned well that is not enough
because all we have to do is look at the casualty count and we see now
we have finally gone over 900 dead in Iraq.
We see we are miscalculating on all fronts--whether it is financial,
whether it is service, whether it is the kind of equipment we should
have had early on.
I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, July 22, 2004]
War Funds Dwindling, GAO Warns
(By Jonathan Weisman)
The U.S. military has spent most of the $65 billion that
Congress approved for fighting the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan and is scrambling to find $12.3 billion more from
within the Defense Department to finance the wars through the
end of the fiscal year, federal investigators said yesterday.
The report from the Government Accountability Office,
Congress's independent investigative arm, warned that the
budget crunch is having an adverse impact on the military as
its shifts resources to Iraq and away from training and
maintenance in other parts of the world. The study--the most
detailed examination to date of the military's funding
problems--appears to contradict White House assurances that
the services have enough money to get through the calendar
year.
Already, the GAO said, the services have deferred the
repair of equipment used in Iraq, grounded some Air Force and
Navy pilots, canceled training exercises and delayed
facility-restoration projects. The Air Force is straining to
cover the cost of body armor for airmen in combat areas,
night-vision gear and surveillance equipment, according to
the report.
The Army, which is overspending its budget by $10.2 billion
for operations and maintenance, is asking the Marines and Air
Force to help cover the escalating costs of its logistics
contract with Halliburton Co. But the Air Force is also
exceeding its budget by $1.4 billion, while the Marines are
coming up $500 million short. The Army is even having trouble
paying the contractors guarding its garrisons outside the war
zones, the report said.
White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the Defense
Department continues to believe that extra funds will not be
needed this fiscal year. President Bush had requested a $25
billion reserve to cover shortfalls that may arise between
Oct. 1, when the new fiscal year begins, and February, when
the White House plans to submit a detailed funding request
for military operations. But for now, Duffy said, there are
no plans to tap the reserve. He added: ``This president has
said repeatedly the troops will have what they need, when
they need it. That's why he has stood steadfastly in support
of funding for our troops.''
Lt. Col. Rose-Ann Lynch, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon's
comptroller, said that though the fiscal 2004 budget is
tight, ``the department still anticipates sufficient funding
to finance ongoing operations.''
Democrats quickly pounced on the report, charging that the
Bush administration is turning a blind eye to military
funding issues to avoid adding to the overall budget deficit
or conceding that the Iraq operations are off-course.
``George W. Bush likes to call himself a wartime president,
yet in his role as commander in chief, he has grossly
mismanaged the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq,''
contended Mark Kitchens, national security spokesman for
Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry. ``He went to
war without allies, without properly equipping our troops and
without a plan to win the peace. Now we find he can't even
manage a wartime budget.''
The GAO report detailed just why a $65 billion emergency
appropriation has proved to be insufficient. When Bush
requested that money, the Pentagon assumed that troop levels
in Iraq would decline from 130,000 to 99,000 by Sept. 30,
that a more peaceful Iraq would allow the use of more cost-
effective but slower sea lifts to transport troops and
equipment, and that troops rotating in would need fewer
armored vehicles than the service members they replace.
Instead, troop levels will remain at 138,000 for the
foreseeable future, the military is heavily dependent on
costly airlifts and the Army's force has actually become more
dependent on heavily armored vehicles. The weight of those
vehicles, in turn, has contributed to higher-than-anticipated
repair and maintenance costs. Higher troop levels have also
pushed up the cost of the Pentagon's massive logistical
contract with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root.
About 4,000 Navy personnel in Iraq and Kuwait were not
expected to be there, contributing to a $931 million hole in
the Navy's budget for fiscal 2004. The Marine Corps was
supposed to have decreased its presence in Iraq but instead
has 26,500 Marines in the country and an additional two
expeditionary units supporting the war on terrorism.
The strain is beginning to add up, the GAO said. The hard-
hit Army faces a $5.3 billion shortfall in funds supporting
deployed forces, a $2 billion budget deficit for the
refurbishing of equipment used in Iraq and a $753 million
deficit in its logistics contract. The Army also needs $800
million more to cover equipment maintenance costs and $650
million to pay contractors guarding garrisons.
The Air Force has decreased flying hours for pilots,
eliminated some training, slowed civilian hiring and
curtailed ``lower priority requirements such as travel,
supplies and equipment,'' the report said.
The Pentagon comptroller told GAO investigators that the
Defense Department has sufficient funds to cover the
shortfalls, provided Congress gives officials more authority
to transfer money among accounts.
[[Page 16993]]
But the GAO report warned that there will be a serious
downside to that approach, especially the deferral of
maintenance and refurbishing plans until next year.
``We believe that the deferral of these activities will add
to the requirements that will need to be funded in fiscal
year 2005 and potentially later years and could result in a
`bow wave' effect in future years,'' the report cautioned.
``Activities that are deferred also run the risk of costing
more in future years.''
A ``bow wave'' refers to a time when deferred costs
confront Congress all at once, making it impossible to meet
the demands.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. When I look at the morning paper, I see examples of
what the administration has failed to do. Look at the status of things
in Washington, DC. I assume it is a representative city of urban
centers across the country. We see the D.C. gap in wealth is growing.
I ask unanimous consent to have that article entitled ``D.C. Gap In
Wealth Growing'' printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, July 22, 2004]
D.C. Gap in Wealth Growing
Uneducated Suffer Most, Study Shows
(By D'Vera Cohn)
The gap between rich and poor is as great in the District
as in any other major city and has grown more here than in
most places, a widening chasm that troubles government
leaders.
A study to be released today by the D.C. Fiscal Policy
Institute said the top 20 percent of the city's households
have 31 times the average income of the 20 percent at the
bottom. The gap in the District is fed by extremes at both
ends: The poor have less average income than in most of the
country's 40 biggest cities, and the rich have more.
The persistent gap between rich and poor has been fueling
debate over whether the national economic recovery is helping
all Americans. The study deepens the picture of an
increasingly fractured city, where poverty and wealth both
grew in the last decade. The average household income for the
top group was $186,830, and the average income for the
poorest group was $6,126.
``The rich got richer and the poor didn't get richer,''
said Stephen Fuller, a regional economist at George Mason
University in Fairfax. ``The poor can't afford to get out of
Washington to the suburbs. . . . Our wealthy class got
wealthier in the 1990s, and it didn't trickle down to the
bottom.''
The new report identifies the District, Atlanta and Miami
as the big U.S. cities with the largest income gaps.
Another recent analysis, by the Lewis Mumford Center at the
State University of New York at Albany, found that the
District now ranks higher among economically polarized cities
than it did in 1990. The analysis, by Brian Stults, a
sociology professor at the University of Florida, employed a
standard technique to analyze income inequality and ranked
the District among the five big cities with the largest gap
between rich and poor.
The D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute study measured 1999
income, but a co-author, Ed Lazere, said the income gap is
not likely to have closed since then. Nationally, the gap
between rich and poor widened from the 1970s until the early
1990s, and has inched up slightly since.
The trend, experts say, reflects a growing gap in wages
between skilled, educated workers and those with no skills,
as well as social changes such as a growing number of single
parents, who have lower incomes than married couples.
Although some gap is expected, they see the trend as a
disturbing reflection of an economy in which people without
college educations will be stuck at the bottom.
The city's richest and poorest households could not be more
different, according to Lazere's analysis. Half of the
richest households, with incomes starting at $89,814, are
married. Among the poorest, where incomes topped out at
$14,000, six in 10 were single, living alone. Single mothers
accounted for less than 10 percent of the richest households,
and more than a quarter of the poorest ones. Nearly all the
working-age adults held jobs in the richest households, but
only about half did in the poorest ones.
Using numbers from another census survey, Lazere's study
calculated that the incomes of the city's richest households
rose 38 percent over the decade, while those of the poorest
went up 3 percent.
Tony Bullock, a spokesman for Mayor Anthony A. Williams
(D), said the gap is the product of complex forces, including
poor city services and poor schooling, that have persisted
for decades and cannot be fixed overnight.
``We have a large concentration of poverty where no matter
what we seem to do to bring investment into the District, a
certain population is not able to access the kind of
employment opportunities that come from a growing tax base,''
he said. ``But it is our hope that we can improve in the
future.''
Bullock said the attractiveness of the city to high-income
households is good for its tax base, and the study agreed. It
said high-income families in the Washington region are more
likely to live in the city than are affluent families in most
other big metro areas.
Those at the top benefit from the District's unique job
bank of high-paid employment related to the federal
government, including lobbying and contracting. A single
young professional can earn $100,000 in his or her first year
out of law school.
At the other end of the income scale, Lazere's study said,
the D.C. minimum wage, $6.15 an hour, is worth less when
inflation is taken into account than it was worth in 1979.
The purchasing power of the city's maximum welfare benefit--
$379 for a family of three--fell by nearly a third over the
decade, it said.
A bill co-sponsored by D.C. Council members David A.
Catania (R-At Large) and Sandy Allen (D-Ward 8) would raise
the D.C. minimum wage to $6.60 an hour next year and to $7 an
hour by January 2006. It would be the first increase since
1997 in the D.C. minimum wage, which is set at $1 above the
federal level. Catania said yesterday that he is confident
that it will pass, and that he also wants the city to beef up
its training programs for less-skilled workers.
``I don't want to focus so much on income disparity,'' he
said. ``The government should focus more on how to lift these
workers out of poverty and help them make better wages.''
Lazere said he is concerned that the mayor's efforts to
boost the city's population by 100,000 over the next decade
and attract high-income residents could squeeze out the poor
through gentrification if the city does not expand its
assistance to low-income workers.
``At the high end, the city already is attractive.'' he
said. ``Specific policies to attract more high-income
families may not be needed and may exacerbate the problems
for our neediest residents.''
INCOME GAP
[The income gap between the richest and poorest households is at least
as wide in the District as in the nation's other big cities, according
to a new study by the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute. The average income
of the city's richest households was about 31 times that of the poorest
ones.\1\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Ratio of
income Average highest
Rank and city bottom income top income to
fifth of fifth of lowest
households households income
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Washington, D.C................... $6,126 $186,830 30.5
2. Atlanta........................... 5,858 172,773 29.5
3. Miami............................. 4,294 125,934 29.3
4. New York.......................... 5,746 159,631 27.8
5. Newark............................ 3,747 93,680 25.0
6. Boston............................ 5,832 145,406 24.9
7. Los Angeles....................... 7,124 162,639 22.8
8. Fort Lauderdale, Fla.............. 7,831 176,053 22.5
9. Cincinnati, Ohio.................. 5,440 117,086 21.5
10. Oakland, Calif................... 7,642 163,931 21.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Census 2000 data analyzed by the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute. The
difference between D.C., Atlanta and Miami may not be statistically
significant.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. If you look at the chart and see what has happened in
terms of the difference in the wage scales, it is atrocious.
The wage scale gap at the top of the ladder goes up $186,000 and the
people at the bottom of the ladder are at $6,000. Once again, we see a
failure of responsibility.
I see on television a message that says, ``My name is George W. Bush
and I approve of this message.'' We see talk about the number of votes
John Kerry has missed but we don't see in the same message what John
Kerry did when he was in Vietnam. Even though he disagreed with the
war, he went there and served bravely. He got three Purple Hearts, a
Bronze Star, and a Silver Star--medals of bravery. One of the instances
that got him that medal was pulling out of the water one of his
colleagues who was practically drowning as bullets were flying
overhead. He stopped that boat he was in command of and pulled his
friend and subordinate out of the water. We don't see that. Instead, it
says John Kerry missed these votes.
Yes. John Kerry is a man who is always devoted to duty. Right now
what he is doing is important. All of us think the votes are very
important here, but very often these votes are already predetermined by
the numbers in the majority and the numbers in the minority--not that
we should miss votes. But he has a more important task. He has a task
of changing the leadership in this country and making sure we are
paying attention to our responsibilities to the community at large and
not just to a particular moment in time but, rather, in the total
picture of leadership.
In my view, it is not how one runs government. What we see is a
question of leadership in the administration--the question of
leadership of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. If you look at
their prior leadership positions, you will see similar problems.
[[Page 16994]]
For instance, take Vice President Cheney's recent leadership of
Halliburton. How did he transform that company?
My experience in the corporate world was a very good experience. I,
with two other fellows--all three of us coming from poor homes, two
brothers--started a business over 50 years ago. It was a very small
business in its beginning days. We had a few dollars of borrowed
money--not much. We started a business that never looked like it was
going to mature. It took us 12 years to get to the stage where we could
apply computer technology to our business. Today that company we
started--three poor kids with no resources to begin with--has over
40,000 employees and the longest growth record of any company in
America, a growth of 10 percent each and every year for 42 years in a
row. We grew at 10-percent earnings each and every year. It is
remarkable.
I give that background not to boast but, rather, to try to make a
point, the point being that there is a culture associated with our
company--a culture, I am proud to say, has never been challenged in
over 50 years of business, a culture that says whatever we do we have
to be honest with our customers, honest with our employees, honest with
our shareholders, and honest with the public at large. That sets the
corporate culture. It tells you how we want that company to operate.
A CEO has an impact on a company that should endure beyond his or her
years of service. I want to use that example to reflect on what has
happened with Halliburton, one of America's largest companies.
In the wake of early leadership, Halliburton has been associated with
bribes, kickbacks, violating terrorist sanctions laws, and sweetheart,
no-bid Government deals. It doesn't sound very pretty, and it is not.
To make matters worse, Vice President Cheney still receives salary
checks from Halliburton for well over $150,000 each and every year. It
has been 4 years now, somewhere around $700,000. He still holds over
400,000 unexercised Halliburton stock options. They are exercisable to
2009. He left the company 4 years ago. If the administration continues
its service, he will have 4 more years. That is 2008, by my count. But
the options exercise in 2009.
It is unconscionable that he would have a financial association with
this company that disgraced corporate leadership in a time of war.
When I was in the Army a long time ago, I enlisted in 1942. I was 18
years old. During that period of time that America was fighting for its
life, it was unthinkable that a company could profiteer while a war was
going on; unthinkable. It would have been considered traitorous
behavior.
But here we are in a session where the Vice President is undermining
our Nation's ethical credibility here and abroad.
On September 14, 2003, the Vice President was asked about his
relationship with Halliburton and the no-bid contracts on ``Meet the
Press.'' This is what triggered my interest. I listened very carefully,
because I have respect for the office, and I think Dick Cheney is
someone who wants to do the right thing but it has hasn't come out that
way. Vice President Cheney told Tim Russert:
I have severed all of my ties with the company, gotten rid
of all of my financial interest. I have no financial interest
in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over 3
years.
There is a problem with that statement. When he said it, he held over
400,000 Halliburton stock options and continued to receive a deferred
salary from the company.
In fairness, the Vice President has said, well, this is insured
income, took out an insurance policy not dependent on the operating
results of Halliburton. I take him at his word. He said he is going to
give profits away from the stock option exercise to charitable
institutions, philanthropic institutions.
But it is better for him if the company does well. He has these
options, and even if he wants to give away the profits, the more
profits the better if you look at the institutes he is giving the
profits to. But he does hold 433,000 unexercised Halliburton stock
options. Even though most of the exercise prices are above the current
market price, the majority of the options, as I mentioned earlier,
extend to 2009.
Any optionholder has to hope that the stock price will surge relative
to the value of the options in excess. One way it can happen is to be
sure that lucrative contracts keep coming from whatever source, whoever
the customer is. In this case, the customer is the U.S. Government, and
it is happening.
In the first quarter of 2004, Halliburton's revenues were up 80
percent from the first quarter of 2003. Why? Wall Street analysts point
to one simple factor--the company's massive Government contracts in
Iraq.
In addition, as I said, to the stock options, Vice President Cheney
continues to receive a deferred salary. Halliburton has paid the Vice
President a salary of at least $150,000 a year since he has been Vice
President of the United States. I think it is wrong and it ought to
stop.
I heard the Vice President's defense: The deal was locked in in 1999;
there was no way for him to get out of his deferred salary deal. That
is not so. A little checking of the facts shows otherwise. I have
obtained the terms of Vice President Cheney's deferred salary contract
with Halliburton. The bottom line is that the deferred salary agreement
was not set in stone.
In fact, one need only look at the ethics agreement of Treasury
Secretary Snow to see what the Vice President should have done in order
to avoid taking the salary from a private corporation while in public
office. Secretary Snow took six different deferred compensation
packages as a lump sum upon taking office. The Vice President is not a
victim of Halliburton's generosity. He could have attempted to take the
deferred salary as a lump sum.
In the meantime, what has happened to Vice President Cheney's former
company? For starters, Halliburton overcharged the Pentagon a $27.4
million fee for meals served to troops abroad. The company billed
taxpayers for meals never served to our troops. This is not Senator
Lautenberg's concoction. These are the facts printed in news media,
printed in contract agreements, printed in Pentagon papers.
Another Pentagon investigation is continuing after an audit found
Halliburton overcharged the Army by $61 million for gasoline delivered
to Iraq as part of its no-bid contract to operate Iraq's oil industry.
Now whistleblowers, former Halliburton employees, have revealed
Halliburton employees would abandon $85,000 trucks because of flat
tires--do not bother to fix them, get rid of it--or the need for an oil
change. Dump the truck; we can bill the taxpayers. The whistleblowers
also said Halliburton spent $45 for 30 canned cases of soda when local
Kuwaiti supermarkets charged about $7. Halliburton has a cost-plus
contract so they get reimbursed for their spending plus a calculated
percentage of profit. That system is being heartily abused and is
costing taxpayers a lot of money.
In my view, Halliburton is a company that suffers from failures in
leadership, the same type of leadership that continues.
These overcharges are confirmed when the Pentagon, the Department of
Defense, is refusing to pay bills of $160 million comprised of the
elements I talked about. The auditors at the Pentagon said, Don't pay
them; we do not owe that kind of money.
Those are overcharges, Mr. President.
In the meanwhile, we see the attack on Senator Kerry, our colleague.
They are saying he has misplaced priorities; he missed votes in the
Senate. What they are unwilling to admit is Senator Kerry and all of us
are on a critical mission such as those he took on in Vietnam. What he
is doing is not purposeless, it is not something to be made fun of. He
is working for a safer, stronger America at home and respect for us
across the world.
I wish President Bush would talk about the things he did or failed to
do and that he would want to correct, such as protecting the purchasing
power of working families, eliminating
[[Page 16995]]
the creation of larger and larger deficits, protecting the solvency of
Medicare, now estimated to be insolvent in 2019.
How about the costs of gasoline to the average person in this country
since this administration has taken over? And $2.40 a gallon is not
unusual for high test; $2.19 for regular gas is not unusual. I don't
hear the President saying he wants to correct that problem.
No, he would rather try to say John Kerry deserted his
responsibilities, he is soft on defense. He received three Purple
Hearts. Citizens do not get Purple Hearts for nothing. They even wanted
to challenge the depth of one wound to see whether it was deserving of
a Purple Heart.
Look at the cost of prescription drugs. Where are we going with that
if drug prices go higher and higher? But we do not hear any protest. As
a matter of fact, we had a Medicare bill that says within its content
that Medicare is forbidden to negotiate with the drug companies to try
to get a lower price because of the huge volume of purchasing for
Medicare beneficiaries. The VA negotiates drug prices and it brings the
prices way down, much lower, 20, 30 percent lower than those the
Medicare beneficiaries pay.
How about improving the job market? We see what is happening in the
stock market. If that is to be a barometer of where we are going, it is
a terrible indication. The market has been reeling from shock and in an
awesome decline from where it was. This market that was supposed to be
making everybody, the pensioners and the mutual funds and the
investors, happy is not doing so.
We should be hearing from President Bush about what he is going to do
to correct the problems so worrisome to American families today:
whether they can afford their mortgage, whether they can afford to
educate their kids, whether they can afford to take care of a
grandparent, if necessary, whether they could guarantee that someone
who can learn can get an education. Those are the things we would like
to hear.
Stop this insidious criticism, personal criticism, of Senator John
Kerry. Look at John Kerry's record and look at the record of this
administration. What a comparison that is. The Nation is tired of
hearing this negative stuff. Talk about positive things. Talk about
what you are going to do for America, not about what the other guy
failed to do. Talk about what you failed to do and are ready to
correct.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 1039
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to legislative session to consider S. 1039, the Wastewater
Treatment Works Security Act of 2003, that the bill be read a third
time and passed, and that the Senate return to executive session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will my friend restate the unanimous consent
request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator asks for a restatement of the
request?
Mr. REID. Yes, please.
Mr. INHOFE. Of course.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
legislative session to consider S. 1039, the Wastewater Treatment Works
Security Act of 2003, that the bill be read a third time and passed,
and that the Senate return to executive session.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, in committee
I voted for this matter, to have it reported out. The ranking member,
Senator Jeffords, did not, as did a number of other people who are in
the minority. Their belief is this bill does not require wastewater
systems to do basic tasks such as even completing a vulnerability
assessment. Senator Jeffords believes this legislation is a step
backward from existing law for drinking water plants and what we have
agreed to already for chemical plants. So because of that, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to at least mention this is a
bill that is in the committee I chair. It is one that has been
requested by virtually every community we have in Oklahoma. In fact,
the Senator who is presiding right now was a cosponsor of this bill. It
passed the committee by a vote of 12 to 6. It passed the House of
Representatives, once on a voice vote and the second time by a vote of
413 to 2--413 to 2. Virtually every Republican and Democrat voted for
it. In fact, every Democrat voted for it. Only two Republicans did not
vote for it. The House cosponsors include Congressman Jim Oberstar.
Wastewater treatment works are responsible for treating municipal and
industrial waste to a level clean enough to be released into the
Nation's waterways. I have to say, I cannot think of any one bill that
means more to local communities. Having been a mayor of a major
community at one time, this is a very critical bill. It is one I am
hoping there will be no objection to when we come back from this recess
in September.
With that, 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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
9/11 Commission Report
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to comment about the 9/
11 Commission report. I think it is an excellent report. Its
recommendations ought to be implemented and they ought to be
implemented soon by the Congress. Given the fact that we are near
gridlock in an election season and it is very unlikely in September
when we come back from the August recess we will get anything done, I
think we ought to consider coming back after the election and
implementing the recommendations of the report. Why? Because the only
way we protect ourselves from the enemies whom we call terrorists is to
have accurate and timely information.
The terrorist uses surprise and stealth, and the only way to defeat
that is by having accurate and timely intelligence.
So whatever we need to do to avoid the colossal intelligence failure
we had on September 11 and the colossal intelligence failure we had
again prior to going into Iraq, we best get about the job of correcting
that information gathering, information flow, and information analysis
so we can try to continue to thwart the attempts at doing damage to us.
Is it not interesting what the 9/11 Commission report said? It
specifically defined the terrorist as someone who is usually an
Islamist fundamentalist who has warped the teachings of Islam so that
it becomes a passion of hatred, and out of that wanting to do damage to
the free world. Of course, we being the superpower are the target of
that.
It was also noteworthy in the Commission's report, as they are
suggesting how to restructure the intelligence apparatus, they have
suggested having a national intelligence director and that the
counterterrorism center would be a compendium that would report to him.
It is also interesting that they still wanted to keep the
administration of intelligence gathering and analysis from direct
political involvement. So the Commission did not recommend the new
intelligence chief be a member of the President's Cabinet but rather be
what they have defined as the National Intelligence Director. Then in
all of these subdepartments that have a
[[Page 16996]]
myriad of filling out a flow chart, an organizational chart, it is
interesting how all of the different components of intelligence, the
CIA, the DIA, the FBI, would then fit together into this new apparatus.
We only have to remember that about a month ago we had another major
information failure, and this was at the time of President Reagan's
funeral. We had the Governor of Kentucky on his State airplane, having
been given clearance by the FAA to come in and land at Washington
National Airport, and his transponder was not working. He had been
given clearance by the FAA, but the FAA was not communicating with the
military. So the military, seeing a blip on the radar moving to the
center of Washington, without a transponder, sent out the alert and, of
course, everybody in this U.S. Capitol building and in all of those
office buildings off to the side of this building got the emergency
evacuate order, so much so that the Capitol Police, bless their hearts,
were shouting at the top of their lungs, get out of the building, run,
there is an inbound aircraft.
So how many more of these do we need to have before we come to the
commonsense reality that we are not collating and coordinating all of
this information like we ought to? So, we best get on the process of
reforming the system.
Now we have a good blueprint with which to do it. We have an
opportunity to make America safer--and, with our allies, quite a bit.
That leads me to the next subject I want to talk about, our allies.
The 9/11 Commission report also says something that many of us in this
Chamber have been saying for some period of time: You can't go out and
be successful in the war on terror until you can bring in a lot of
colleagues, a lot of allies, in a coordinated and planned effort so you
internationalize the effort. We did that brilliantly 13 years ago in
the gulf war. We did that again brilliantly in Afghanistan when we
started going after bin Laden. But we didn't do that in Iraq.
Especially, we didn't do it in Iraq after a brilliant military victory.
We didn't do it in the occupation.
What the 9/11 Commission is pointing out is that if you want to
improve the intelligence-gathering mechanism and analysis, then you
have to internationalize the effort. That stands to reason.
Fortunately, through Interpol and direct one-to-one relationships
with other countries' intelligence services, we get a lot of that
information. But as the 9/11 Commission said, we have to do a lot more.
The 9/11 Commission also told us something that we didn't know. It
said the country of Iran may have facilitated al-Qaida. It did not
suggest that Iran's Government knew anything about the planning for the
September 11 attack, but it suggested that some of those operatives
passed through Iran.
There have been a number of us in this body who have been talking
about Iran; that after September 11, and the importance of going after
al-Qaida, that the next imminent threat to the interest of the United
States were the countries of Iran and North Korea. Why? Because they
are trying to acquire or already are building nuclear capability.
Therefore, I think it is very important that we get our act together
and implement this Commission report for many reasons. That is just one
additional reason.
I see the esteemed chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee
has come into the Chamber. I want to say in his presence, as he knows,
as one of the members of his committee, on a completely different
subject, I have spoken out time and time again about the plight and the
determination to find some evidence about CAPT Scott Speicher, the Navy
pilot who was shot down on the first night of the gulf war in 1991.
There is a report in the Washington Times--and I will make reference
directly only to what is reported in today's Washington Times--and what
the Washington Times says is that a Speicher team has left and has
given up the search. I hope that is not true. The family who lives in
my State, in Jacksonville, FL, deserves to have closure. The family has
been through a trauma like hardly any of us could believe. The
Washington Times gives a great deal of detail. I don't know if it is
true or not, but if it is, then what this country owes to that family
is to keep searching. If a team has been returned, as the Washington
Times has stated, then it is important that whatever the size of that
team, that we have a presence. As long as the U.S. military is located
there, a fallen flier in the future will always have the confidence to
know we are not going to leave him or her there alone, and we are
coming to get you. We didn't do that with Scott Speicher.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. WARNER. First and foremost, I can't comment on the Washington
Times article. But yesterday, in the course of an Armed Services
Committee briefing by General Dayton, who at this point in time is also
briefing the Senate Intelligence Committee--and I just left the
Intelligence Committee meeting to come to the floor--the matter was
discussed. That much I will confirm, as appropriate. As a member of the
Committee of the Armed Services, my able friend knows that at every
juncture our committee, largely through yourself and Senator Roberts
most often, brings up a current report on that.
I will not say, other than it was a matter that was discussed, and
General Dayton shared with us his views. But I wish to point out, in
discussing it with General Dayton, he finds that whatever was carried
today, reflects it as his views, and he simply wants to say the final
decision rests with the Secretary of the Navy, not General Dayton, as
to the course of this investigation. So that much I will say. Beyond
that, I believe, regrettably, it was a top secret briefing, but
nevertheless information might well have gotten out. That is
regrettable.
I thank the Senator for bringing it up. I, too, join you in fervently
wishing and praying for Scott Speicher. The Senator has to be commended
for the amount of time he has spent on this situation.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank my colleague, my esteemed chairman. I
am a devoted member of his committee, under his leadership. I thank the
Senator from Virginia for all the personal encouragement he has given
to me as we have relentlessly kept after this, trying to find some
evidence.
I do want to say, since my colleague mentioned General Dayton, I
think he performed magnificently. He, of course, had many other
responsibilities other than just the search for CAPT Speicher. He had
all the responsibilities of the search for weapons of mass destruction.
But he had a special team that was led by Major Eames, who has now been
promoted to lieutenant colonel. That young officer was as devoted as
any that I could ever imagine in the search, when I visited with him in
his headquarters in Baghdad. At the time we had actually gone to one of
the cells where we thought maybe it was Scott Speicher's initials on
the wall, having been scratched into the stucco: MSS.
All those leads did not pan out. But there are other leads they need
to follow. It is my hope the U.S. military will continue to do that,
even though General Dayton is not in Iraq anymore, and he deserves to
be home. Even though Colonel Eames is not in Iraq.
If those leads would be continued, Colonel Eames would, in fact, be
back in Iraq in a heartbeat, following up that new information.
I want to take the occasion of reminding the Senate that this Senator
will continue to speak out on this issue, to remind the U.S. military
of its obligation to continue to search for evidence so the case of
Scott Speicher can be brought to closure.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my colleague. He has worked very
hard on the Speicher case and undoubtedly his commitment will carry
forward. I suggest, based on what was said yesterday, that he will be
in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy. He has the authority to
make disclosures as he sees fit about this
[[Page 16997]]
case, but I believe General Dayton, in a very professional and
conscientious way, will discharge his duties.
The 9/11 Commission Report
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to provide this Senator's
observations, very preliminary though they may be, with regard to the
report of the 9/11 Commission which was made public today.
Yesterday I joined about a dozen or so Senators, the distinguished
majority leader, and others to receive a brief private briefing. That
was our first official glimpse of this report. I have not had the
opportunity to, of course, go through this rather prodigious volume--
each Member received a copy--but I do intend to do so because I think
it is a very important contribution by this Commission. I think many
parts of it can provide a roadmap for things that must be done.
It has been my privilege to serve in the Senate--this is my 26th
year, and I commit to work with other colleagues, all colleagues, to
see what we can do to strengthen our ability, not only in intelligence,
but across the board in all areas of national security.
As privileged as I am to be the chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, I am prepared to listen to how the responsibilities of that
committee should be changed for the better. I will not participate in
any obstruction simply because of turf. I have been here too long.
Also, this changed world in which we live is so very different than
when I came to this institution a quarter of a century ago, and most
particularly in the aftermath of the tragedy of 9/11.
So I think it is incumbent upon all of us in the Congress and,
indeed, the executive branch to have a strong self-examination of the
areas covered by this report; to use this report, along with input from
other commissions, groups, and individuals, as a sort of roadmap to
guide us into those areas which need to be carefully reviewed.
Out of that process, which I hope is a carefully thought through, not
rushed, deliberative process, I hope will evolve such changes as we,
Congress, deem necessary to strengthen our capability to deter and, if
necessary, engage further in this war against terrorism. So, therefore,
I say with respect, I welcome the recommendations of the Commission. I
commit to study them and commit to work with my colleagues.
Yesterday a specific question was put to the two cochairmen of the 9/
11 Commission: Is America safer today? And their unhesitating
acknowledgment was it is safer today, and I agree it is. Is it as safe
as we need? None of us believe that. But I think conscientious efforts
have been made all along the way to make this a safer Nation, and we
have, in large measure, succeeded with the goals within the timetable
we have had.
I am disappointed, however, that there was not more thorough dialog
between the 9/11 Commission and Members of the Congress. I do not take
that personally. I did have an opportunity to visit in my office some 2
weeks ago--a very pleasant visit--with one member, at which time we
exchanged views. Somehow I do not feel that was the type of
consultation that enabled us to get into the report and make
constructive contributions. I do not suggest all 535 Members of
Congress troop up before the 9/11 Commission. We do not have time to do
that. Somehow it seems to me a better balance could have been struck
between the knowledge and the ideas we have in the institution of the
legislative branch of our Government that could have been shared with
this Commission. After all, the Commission was, in many respects,
created as a consequence of the actions of Congress.
Having said that, I am going to take some specific issue with this
rather sweeping indictment that we have been dysfunctional in our
oversight.
All throughout my public service, I have been privileged to have a
number of jobs, and I am very humble about it, but I am far from
perfect, and I have always welcomed constructive advice and criticism.
But this time this dysfunctional brush that was wiped across struck me
as not fair to certain things I personally have a knowledge of that
were done by this body, the Senate.
I will start back some years ago in 1987 when, as a member of the
Armed Services Committee, we structured the Goldwater-Nichols
legislation which had sweeping ramifications in our overall defense
setup. It has been hailed since that period of time as a landmark
achievement by the Congress to begin to transform our military from the
cold war era to the era of the threats today which are so diverse and
so different as compared to those we confronted during World War II and
in the immediate aftermath of the cold war.
That was quite an accomplishment and, in large measure, is owing to
Senator Goldwater and Congressman Nichols. Again, I had the privilege
to serve with those two men for many years, long before we started the
Goldwater-Nichols Act.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee--and I say with humility
and personal pride, I was a close personal friend of Senator Goldwater.
I admired him so much and looked forward to the times we worked
together and traveled together. I remember Congressman Nichols bore the
scars of World War II, having been a very courageous serviceperson in
that war. He was extremely conscientious about his duties on the House
Armed Services Committee. These two giants in the way of thinking got
together and relentlessly drove this legislation through both bodies of
the Congress, and it has withstood the test of time.
Contemporaneous with this, I remember my dear friend with whom I came
to the Senate, Senator Cohen, who later became, after he resigned from
the Senate, Secretary of Defense. We worked together as a team with
others to carve out of the Department of Defense, taking from the Army,
the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines some of the best and the
brightest to create the Special Operations Command.
While today most colleagues have seen their magnificent performance
worldwide, particularly as a front line against terrorism, I remind
them it was a tough and long struggle, vigorously resisted by the
Department of Defense, to create this new entity and to give them their
dedicated assets of modest naval vessels, modest number of airplanes,
and other equipment which was their own. But we succeeded. Today those
forces have established themselves in the contemporary military history
of this country as an essential part of our military structure, much
admired by all, much envied by all, and their performance record is
second to none. I do not mean to suggest by that they have outpaced or
outperformed the basic elements, particularly combat-committed elements
of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. No, it is that the whole
military looks with a sense of pride toward their accomplishments. I am
proud to have been a part of establishing this important part of our
armed forces.
Then in 1999, when I was privileged for the first time to become
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I went in there and I
changed basically a structure that had been in place for decades, the
subcommittee structure. Again, I carved out a new subcommittee called
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. This is 1999. This
is not in the aftermath of 9/11. This is 1999.
I must say, I have had the constructive support of the members of the
committee, and by pure coincidence--I am speaking of the Subcommittee
on Emerging Threats and Capabilities--the first chairman of that
subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, just
walked into the Chamber, and perhaps he will have a word or two about
the functions of that subcommittee.
Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague, I was saying the
9/11 Commission has brushed the Congress as being sort of
dysfunctional, and I was going back in history. The Senator from Kansas
was one of my principal supporters on establishing the Subcommittee on
Emerging Threats and Capabilities. He has been ranking member or
chairman of that subcommittee, and under his leadership and that of the
full committee, we have achieved a great deal, and have helped
[[Page 16998]]
the Department of Defense move forward in the areas of joint
experimentation, homeland defense, counterter-
rorism, and future technologies and concepts that will be needed to
confront future threats.
That subcommittee was directed to look forward a decade and determine
what are the threats that are going to face the United States of
America and how best our Department of Defense needs to transform
itself and allocate assets and men and women to take up the positions
of responsibility to meet those threats.
That subcommittee has done its work and done it admirably and has
measurably enhanced the overall strength of our military today.
My distinguished colleague, Senator Roberts from Kansas, is chairman
of the Intelligence Committee. I am privileged to serve on that
committee today. In years past, I was privileged to serve 8 years. We
have this rotation in the Senate, and this is my second tour on that
committee. When I was vice chairman, together with other members of
that committee, we fought hard against the cuts in intelligence.
I ask unanimous consent that portions of the minority view report be
printed into the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Minority Views of Senators Warner, Danforth, Stevens, Lugar, and Wallop
The United States must maintain and strengthen U.S.
intelligence capabilities to provide for the future security
of the Nation and for the protection of its interests around
the globe. The U.S. should commit more resources to
achievement of that objective than the fiscal year 1994
intelligence authorization bill reported by the Select
Committee on Intelligence would provide.
The U.S. faced grave security risks during the Cold War,
but it faced them in an international environment that was
comparatively stable and predictable. With the end of the
Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its
Warsaw Pact military alliance, the U.S. had hoped for a ``New
World Order'' with stable and steady progress toward greater
democracy, freedom and free enterprise. What the U.S. faces
in the post-Cold War era, however, is a more chaotic
environment with multiple challenges to U.S. interests that
complicate the efforts of the U.S. and cooperating nations to
achieve the desired progress. In an unstable world of diverse
and increasing challenges, the need for robust and reliable
U.S. intelligence capabilities has grown rather than
diminished.
America faces a world in which:
Ethnic, religious and social tensions spawn regional
conflicts;
A number of nations possess nuclear weapons and the means
to deliver them on a target;
Other nations seek nuclear, chemical or biological weapons
of mass destruction and the means to deliver them;
Terrorist organizations continue to operate and attack U.S.
interests (including here at home, as the bombing of the
World Trade Center in New York reflects);
International drug organizations continue on a vast scale
to produce illegal drugs and smuggle them into the U.S.; and
U.S. economic interests are under constant challenge.
The United States continues to have a vital interest in
close monitoring of developments in the independent republics
on the territory of the former Soviet Union. The U.S.
Government needs accurate and timely intelligence on the
nuclear arsenals, facilities and materials located in Russia,
Ukraine and other republics; the economic and military
restructuring in the republics; and the ethnic, religious and
other social turmoil and secessionist pressures in the
republics.
To the extent that the end of the Cold War allows a
reduction of U.S. resources devoted to intelligence
capabilities focused on military capabilities of countries on
the territory of the former Soviet Union, the U.S. should
reallocate the gained resources to strengthen intelligence
capabilities to deal with growing risks to America's
interests. The U.S. should make such resources available for
strengthened intelligence capabilities focused on the
problems with which the U.S. Government must deal in the
coming decades, including proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, terrorism, international narcotics trafficking,
and the illegal transfer of U.S. high technology. In many
intelligence disciplines, investment in research and
development is needed now to yield intelligence capabilities
a decade from now. Absent needed investment, capabilities
will not be available when needed and existing capabilities
will erode.
At the same time as risks to U.S. interest grow, U.S.
military power will decline as the U.S. draws down
substantially the size of its armed forces following victory
in the Cold War. With a diverse and growing array of risks to
U.S. interests and a reduced commitment of resources to the
Nation's defense, the U.S. will grow increasingly dependent
for its security and the protection of its interests abroad
upon its intelligence capabilities--the Nation's eyes and
ears. Indeed, the substantial cuts of recent years in defense
budgets have been premised directly upon the strengthening of
intelligence support to the remaining, smaller armed forces.
Reducing the Nation's intelligence capabilities magnifies
significantly the risks attendant to reductions in resources
devoted to the Nation's defense. As this Committee noted in
discussing legislation to assist in managing the personnel
reductions at the Central Intelligence Agency, ``. . .
maintaining a strong intelligence capability is particularly
important when military forces are being substantially
reduced . . .'' (S. Rept. 103-43, p. 3).
The U.S. will depend on effective foreign intelligence in
allocating scarce U.S. national security resources
effectively. To protect America's interests in times of peace
and of conflict, U.S. policymakers and military commanders
will depend heavily upon early warning of trouble and early
and extensive knowledge of the activities, capabilities and
intentions of foreign powers. Effective intelligence will
multiply substantially the effectiveness of the smaller U.S.
military force.
A sampling of the deployment of the U.S. armed forces
abroad in the past four years illustrates risks to American
interests in the post-Cold War world, likely uses of U.S.
military forces in the future, and the importance of
effective intelligence in supporting military operations. In
late 1989, American troops in Operation JUST CAUSE liberated
Panama from the Noriega dictatorship that suppressed
Panamanian democracy and threatened U.S. personnel. In 1990
and 1991 in Operations DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM
American and coalition forces liberated Kuwait from Iraqi
occupation, and those forces remain on station in and around
the Arabian Peninsula to enforce United Nations sanctions on
Iraq. American forces have rescued American diplomats caught
in civil insurrections abroad. U.S. forces have assisted in
stemming the flow of illegal immigrants into the United
States. U.S. forces have undertaken humanitarian relief
operations, to feed hungry people and provide them medical
care. The U.S. has assigned its forces as part of or in
support of United Nations peacekeeping forces in many
countries, including Bosnia, Macedonia, Somalia, and
Cambodia. In every one of these operation--from massive
operations on the scale of DESERT STORM to the smallest
humanitarian relief operations--the successful accomplishment
of missions by the U.S. armed forces and the protection of
American troops have depended directly upon the high quality
and timeliness of the intelligence available to American
forces.
Reductions in U.S. intelligence capabilities in this period
of international instability are unwise and do not serve the
Nation's long-term security interests. Defense of America and
America's interests abroad requires a greater commitment of
resources to U.S. intelligence capabilities than the fiscal
year 1994 intelligence authorization bill provides.
John Warner.
John C. Danforth.
Ted Stevens.
Richard G. Lugar.
Malcolm Wallop.
Mr. WARNER. I have the report that accompanied the 1994 bill. This
was written in July of 1993. This report covered the ensuing fiscal
year. I wrote the minority views, which were joined in by other
colleagues on the committee at that time: Senator Danforth, who is now
our Ambassador to the United Nations; Senator Stevens, who is currently
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee; Senator Lugar, who is
currently chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; and our former
colleague, Senator Wallop.
Here is what we had to say, and I do not think this is dysfunctional
participation, but I will let my colleagues judge for themselves after
I have read portions of this report.
The minority views of the following Senators:
The United States must maintain and strengthen U.S.
intelligence capabilities to provide for the future security
of the Nation and for the protection of its interests around
the globe. The U.S. should commit more resources to
achievement of that objective than the fiscal year 1994
intelligence authorization bill reported by the Select
Committee on Intelligence would provide.
We were, of course, members of that select committee.
The U.S. faced grave security risks during the Cold War,
but it faced them in an international environment that was
comparatively stable and predictable. With the end of the
Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its
Warsaw Pact military alliance, the U.S. had hoped for a ``New
World Order'' with stable and steady progress toward greater
democracy, freedom and free enterprise. What the U.S. faces
in the post-Cold War era, however, is a more chaotic
environment with multitude challenges to U.S.
[[Page 16999]]
interests that complicate the efforts of the U.S. and
cooperating nations to achieve the desired progress. In an
unstable world of diverse and increasing challenges, the need
for robust and reliable U.S. intelligence capabilities has
grown rather than diminished. America faces a world in which:
Ethnic, religious and social tensions spawn regional
conflicts; a number of nations possess nuclear weapons and
the means to deliver them on a target; other nations seek
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction
and the means to deliver them; terrorist organizations
continue to operate and attack U.S. interests (including here
at home, as the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York
reflects)--
This is 1993. It is interesting. It was June 30, just about this
time--
international drug organizations continue on a vast scale to
produce illegal drugs and smuggle them into the U.S.; and
U.S. economic interests are under constant challenge.
To the extent that the end of the Cold War allows a
reduction of U.S. resources devoted to intelligence
capabilities focused on military capabilities of countries on
the territory of the former Soviet Union, the U.S. should
reallocate the gained resources to strengthen intelligence
capabilities to deal with growing risks to America's
interests. The U.S. should make such resources available for
strengthened intelligence capabilities focused on the
problems with which the U.S. Government must deal in the
coming decades, including proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, terrorism, international narcotics trafficking,
and the illegal transfer of U.S. high technology.
I shall not read further because I will put it in the Record.
This is not dysfunctional action by legislators; this is legislators
looking into the future and seeing much of what is occurring today. I
only wish we had the opportunity to advise the 9/11 Commission of this
and other contributions by many others in this Chamber at that period
of time who were in the service of the Senate and their States. This
was not dysfunctional.
In the days ahead, we do need to look at how best to organize the
intelligence elements of our national security structure, along with
many other components. We must not, however, do anything precipitously.
In the specific area of intelligence, our intelligence services, even
with the flaws that have been recently pointed out, are the best in the
world, by far. They are not perfect, and their business is, by
definition, one of uncertainty--best judgments made with the
information that is currently in hand. Any changes we make must be
carefully constructed to preserve existing excellence, while improving
other functions.
As we consider any changes, we must remember that intelligence is an
integral part of military operations. Recent military operations by our
forces in Afghanistan and Iraq have been extraordinarily successful, in
large part because of excellent intelligence, and because of the close
relationship between military operations and intelligence that has been
so carefully built over the years. Intelligence is part of a whole
Department of Defense, as well as part of a larger intelligence
community. Moving defense intelligence functions under the authority of
another cabinet-level official could have unintended consequences--we
must move with careful deliberation.
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. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Tribute To Tom Diemer
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the retiring
dean of the Ohio press corps. Tom Diemer, a veteran reporter who spent
more than 26 years at the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, has left
the paper to pursue another career.
Tom is one of those rare reporters who truly do ``get it.'' Tom
understands Ohio. He understands Ohio government. He understands Ohio
politics and certainly national politics. He understands what his
readers need and what they want to know.
Tom Diemer began working at the Columbus bureau of the Plain Dealer
in 1978. A few years later, in 1981, Tom was promoted to bureau chief.
When the opportunity came in 1985 to join the Plain Dealer's Washington
bureau, Tom took it. During his career here in Washington, Tom has
covered four Ohio U.S. Senators: first, Howard Metzenbaum and John
Glenn; later on, myself and then George Voinovich.
With a healthy dose of skepticism, Tom reported to his readers in
Cleveland about the activities in the U.S. Senate. But Tom was never a
reporter to take a press release at face value or a prepared statement
at face value. I think Tom was a skeptic in a good sense of the term.
He required his sources and those he got information from to make the
case to him, and he questioned them, questioned them hard. He asked
them questions that showed he was looking for the story behind the
story. Whether it was local issues, such as the Great Lakes or the
Euclid Corridor, or national issues, such as a war declaration or the
PATRIOT Act, we could always expect Tom to dig deeper and go further
with his line of questioning than just about anybody else.
Tom would want to know the implications of a certain story or he
would want some ``color'' for his story so he could capture the
``feel'' of an event for his readers. He would want to be able to take
his readers here to Washington and let them feel and understand how
things really work in our Nation's Capital.
I always got the feeling that when Tom wrote a story, his editors got
off pretty easily. They really did not have to do much work. However
Tom wrote it, that was probably just about the way the story appeared
in the Plain Dealer because Tom got it right. No matter how tough his
questions were to me, I always knew any story I read by Tom Diemer
would be fair and accurate.
In Washington, Tom came to lead the Ohio press corps. His expertise
about Ohio politics often made him the go-to person for C-SPAN or CNN
or any of the national reporters anytime they needed someone to analyze
the Ohio political scene during an election year.
I have always appreciated Tom's great professionalism, his
thoroughness, his frankness, his fairness, his kindness, and the way he
deals honestly, forthrightly with people.
Tom Diemer will still be writing, but he is leaving the Plain Dealer
to set out now on his own. I certainly will miss him. I will miss my
frequent contact with him. I certainly wish him the best of luck.
Transportation Safety
Mr. President, I would like to turn to the issue of highway safety.
Over 43,000 people lost their lives on our Nation's highways last year.
That is one death every 12 minutes or the equivalent of two Boeing 747-
400s filled to capacity going down every week with no survivors.
This past May, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
NHTSA, released its 2003 traffic safety report, which details when,
where, and why so many Americans lose their lives on our roads. This
information gives us an idea of how effective our efforts are at the
local, State, and national levels and where we need to focus resources
in the future to help save lives. Based on the preliminary 2003 data,
we have, tragically, a long way to go.
Overall, fatalities increased 1 percent, from 42,815 in 2002 to
43,220 in the year 2003. This is the fourth consecutive increase in
annual traffic fatalities. This is truly bad news, particularly in
light of the progress we made throughout the 1990s, when the norm was a
reduction in fatalities each year. On the other hand, the number of
deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled stayed constant at 1.5
from 2002 to 2003. While not an increase, this figure does show how
difficult it will be to reach the Secretary of Transportation's very
aggressive goal of reaching 1.0 fatalities per 100 million vehicle
miles traveled by the year 2008.
The 2003 report also includes a number of other findings that shed
light on the direction our country is taking as far as highway safety.
Among other things, the report states the following:
[[Page 17000]]
Standard passenger car fatalities are down but deaths in sports
utility vehicles, SUVs, are up in the past year, with most of the
increase coming from rollover crashes. NHTSA estimates this trend may
continue as SUVs grow as a share of sales volume.
Motorcycle crash deaths are up 11 percent from last year, now
totaling 3,592. Further, drunk driving death rates are essentially
unchanged from 2002, with 40 percent of crash fatalities involving
alcohol in the year 2003.
Further, the number of fatal crashes involving young drivers, those
between 16 and 20, declined by 3.7 percent, from 7,738 in 2002 to 7,542
in the year 2003.
While the report does bring welcome news with regard to young drivers
who are much more vulnerable while driving than adults, it is also
clear that progress needs to be made in a host of other areas,
particularly rollover crashes and drunk driving. I have been working in
the Senate, along with others, to see that we do just that through
safety issues we have added and that the Senate added to the 6-year
highway bill currently under consideration by the joint House-Senate
conference committee.
These initiatives are designed to advance our ability to test
vehicles for passenger protection and rollover crashes, get consumers
vital crash test information when they need it most, and increase
seatbelt use and reduce drunk driving through nationwide high-
visibility traffic safety enforcement campaigns. Combined with
increased seatbelt use, something that in my State of Ohio, Ohio State
Senator Jeff Armbruster is working diligently to enforce in Columbus,
better driver education, which the Ohio Department of Public Safety is
focusing on, and responsible practices, such as using a designated
driver, can in fact make a real difference.
These initiatives are contained in the Senate-passed bill that is
currently being considered by the House-Senate conference committee. It
is vitally important that they remain in this conference committee.
They will, in fact, save many lives.
Traffic safety affects all of us. We all have a role to play in
making sure that when the 2004 numbers come out early next year, they
are headed in the right direction.
In a related matter, I would also like to discuss a very important
development in the effort to make our Nation's roads safer. Earlier
this month, Delaware became the 50th and last U.S. State to adopt a .08
blood-alcohol content per se drunk driving standard. Now every State in
the Union has that standard.
This development constitutes the culmination of many years of work
here in the Senate to get tough, uniform drunk driving laws on the
books across our country. In 2000, the Senate took decisive action to
help stop drunk driving by implementing mandatory sanctions for States
that do not adopt a .08 per-se standard. Now we are finally seeing the
full realization of this effort, as all 50 States now have .08 laws.
This is so important from a safety perspective because the fact is
that a person with a .08 blood-alcohol concentration level is seriously
impaired. When a person reaches .08, his or her vision, balance,
reaction time, hearing, judgment, and self-control are severely
impaired. Additionally, critical driving tasks, such as concentrated
attention, speed control, braking, steering, gear-changing and lane-
tracking, are negatively impacted at .08.
Beyond these facts, there are other scientifically sound reasons to
have a national .08 standard. First, the risk of being in a crash
increases gradually with each blood-alcohol level, but then rises
rapidly after a driver reaches or exceeds .08 compared to drivers with
no alcohol in their systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration reports that in single-vehicle crashes, the relative
fatality risk for drivers with blood alcohol levels between .05 and .09
is over eleven times greater than for drivers with blood alcohol levels
of zero.
Second, .08 blood alcohol laws have proven results in reducing
crashes and fatalities. Some studies have found that .08 laws reduce
the overall incidence of alcohol fatalities by 16 percent and also
reduced fatalities at higher blood alcohol levels. Now that all 50
States have a .08 law, we will have the opportunity to see its effects
on a much larger scale.
The reduction in alcohol-related fatalities since the 1970s is not
attributable to one single law or program. Rather, it is the result of
a whole series of actions taken by State and Federal Government and the
tireless efforts of many organizations, such as Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, Students Against Drunk Driving, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the Alliance of
Auto Manufacturers, and many others.
I thank my friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, for his
continued dedication to fighting drunk driving. His hard work and
perseverance have made the nationwide .08 standard possible. Mr.
President, .08 was definitely a legislative effort worth fighting for,
and now that all 50 States have a companion law in effect, I believe we
will see why.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Job Growth: Good Jobs
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, shortly we will be going to the Defense
bill and we will have a UC in a little bit on that. While we are
waiting for some final approval on language, I want to take this
opportunity to comment on the economy, job growth, and jobs.
Earlier this week, Chairman Greenspan presented his semiannual
monetary policy report to Congress. The chairman's conclusion needs to
be highlighted. He said: ``Economic developments of the United States
have generally been quite favorable in 2004'' and that this favorable
situation ``increasingly supports the view that the expansion is self-
sustaining.''
On the same day the chairman presented his upbeat, optimistic
assessment of the economy to the Senate Banking Committee, the
Department of Labor released its latest report on State-by-State
employment figures for June. The Department of Labor report presents
hard data that shows the unemployment rate has fallen in 47 States
since last June--47 States. Nonfarm payroll employment increased in 41
States in June. Over the past year, employment has increased in 46
States. Today, 37 States have unemployment rates at or below the
national unemployment rate of 5.6 percent in June. Further, since last
August, the economy has generated 1.5 million private sector jobs, and
an average of more than 250,000 jobs have been created each month over
the last 4 months. Finally, today, more Americans are working than at
any time in this country's history--over 139 million Americans.
Unable to refute this good news, this positive news, this real and
continually improving news on the job front, some of our Democratic
Senators and colleagues, including the presumptive Democratic
Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees, have tried a whole new
approach in attacking this positive news. They now have decided: OK,
maybe there have been jobs created, but they are not good jobs; they
are low-paying jobs. This is a new approach. As former President Ronald
Reagan would say: There they go again.
The question was asked directly of Chairman Greenspan by my
colleague, Senator Dole, on Tuesday:
Does your analysis show that the current jobs being created
are basically lower wage jobs with little or no benefits?
The chairman's answer, in one uncharacteristic word for him:
No.
More recently, the University of Pennsylvania's nonpartisan Annenberg
Public Policy Center supported research found that after analyzing data
over the last year from the Bureau of
[[Page 17001]]
Labor Statistics, there was ``solid growth in employment in relatively
higher paying occupations,'' including construction workers, health
care professionals, business managers, and teachers, and virtually no
growth in relatively lower paying occupations, such as office clerks
and assembly line workers.
Factually, the study concluded that we have seen ``good evidence that
job quality has increased over the past year or more.''
I asked my staff to similarly analyze the data since the most recent
job growth began last August. Using the current population survey data
distributed by 11 industries broken down by 14 occupations, 154
categories of workers, there were in these 154 categories 1.8 million
jobs created and 110,000 jobs lost since last August.
The median weekly earnings for these 154 categories in 2003 was $541.
Of the gross 1.8 million jobs created since last August, 1.4 million
were in categories where their weekly wage exceeded the median wage of
all workers in 2003. In other words, 77 percent of all the jobs created
since last August have been in occupations with weekly earnings above
the median.
Of the 1.8 jobs created since last August, 461,000 were in
occupations with weekly earnings below the median, or 27 percent of the
jobs created were in those below median earnings jobs. Only about
110,000 jobs created since last August have been in occupations at the
median.
The conclusion, supported by other objective analyses, higher paying
jobs are growing faster than other jobs in this recovery.
My friends on the other side of the aisle who are looking hard to
find a way to spread pessimism across the political landscape of this
election year are simply wrong in saying the quality of jobs being
created is low.
Chairman Greenspan just simply disagrees. The nonpartisan Annenberg
Public Policy Center-supported research disagrees, and hard data from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics disagree.
Economic growth is on track, job growth is good, and the quality of
those jobs is high. I hope my Democratic friends could at least try to
get their facts correct, and when they do they will find this latest
attempt to discredit the progress made is a canard.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in executive session.
Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Dodd pertaining to the introduction of S. 2755
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005--CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
granting of this request, the official Senate copy of the Defense
appropriations conference report having been presented to the desk, the
Senate proceed to 2 hours for debate only, with 1 hour equally divided
between the chairman and ranking member of the committee and 1 hour
equally divided between Senator McCain and Senator Inouye; provided
further that following that time the Senate proceed to a vote on
adoption of the Defense appropriations conference report with no
intervening action or debate and points of order waived; further, that
when the Senate receives the official papers from the House, the vote
on passage appear at the appropriate place in the Record following the
receipt of those papers; and, finally, this agreement is null and void
if the House does not agree to the conference report.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if all goes
well, Members will not use the full 2 hours. This, I think, is the only
remaining vote Members would have to worry about tonight unless
something untoward happens. Is that right?
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we have several business items, one of
which has Transportation, Coast Guard, and other issues. The assistant
Democratic leader is right with his implication that this is going to
be in all likelihood the only rollcall vote. It is absolutely critical
that Members understand we have other items we have to address tonight.
We need to do that, and finish with this vote, if all goes well.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if everything goes well, Members may have a
vote on this very important conference report.
There is no objection on this side.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, after the vote on the Defense
appropriations, will there be opportunities for Senators to speak on
other subjects?
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, there will be. We will be happy to be here
through the night for morning business--at some reasonable hour, I
hope. We will be here for a while.
Mr. DAYTON. I thank the majority leader.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
4613) ``making appropriations for the Department of Defense
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other
purposes,'' having met, have agreed that the House recede
from its disagreement of the amendment of the Senate, and
agree to the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to
the same.
Signed by all of the conferees on the part of both Houses.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings in the
Congressional Record of Tuesday, July 20, 2004 (No. 101--Book II).)
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, our Appropriations Committee is pleased
to present to the Senate the Defense Appropriations Conference Report
for the Fiscal Year 2005. I believe passage of this measure today
represents the earliest date the Defense bill has ever been sent to the
President for signing.
This conference report symbolizes a balanced approach to fulfilling
the financial needs for the Department for the fiscal year 2005.
It provides $416.2 billion in new discretionary spending authority
for the Department of Defense. This amount includes $25 million in
emergency spending requested by the President for the fiscal year 2005
costs associated with the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That
provision becomes effective immediately upon the signing of this bill
by the President.
The conference report fully funds key readiness programs critical to
the global war on terrorism such as land forces training, helicopter
flying hours, ship steaming days, and spare parts.
It fully funds the 3.5 percent military pay raise proposed in the
President's budget, and increases levels for basic allowance for
housing, eliminating service members' average out-of-pocket housing
from 3.5 percent to zero in 2005.
It provides $1.5 billion above the President's budget request for
Army and Marine Corps recapitalization of combat and tactical vehicles,
helicopters, and ammunition, and provides a total of $18.2 billion for
the Defense Health Program, an increase of $2.5 billion over the fiscal
year 2004 enacted level.
I urge all Members to support the men and women in uniform who risk
their lives for our country each day by voting for this measure.
I would like to thank Larry Lanzillota, the Acting Department of
Defense Comptroller, for his hard work, dedication, and diligence
throughout the past year. He has done a superb job
[[Page 17002]]
and we wish him success in his future endeavors.
I also thank my cochairman, Senator Inouye, for his support and
valuable counsel, and recognize him for any statement he wishes to
make.
I wish to put in the Record the names of the diligent staff members
who have worked on this bill night and day to be able to present it to
the Senate at this time, as follows:
Charlie Houy, Betsy Schmid, Nicole DiResta, Sid Ashworth, Jennifer
Chartrand, Kraig Siracuse, Tom Hawkins, Kate Kaufer, Lesley Kalan,
Alycia Farrell, Brian Potts, Brian Wilson, Janelle Treon, and Mazie
Mattson.
I yield to my friend from Hawaii, if he wishes to make an opening
statement.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Defense
appropriations conference report that passed the House earlier today.
First, I wish to commend my chairman, Senator Stevens, and his
capable staff for this agreement.
The proposals provided by the conference report represent a careful
balance between the recommendations of each body. Moreover, it provides
what the Defense Department needs for the coming year.
This is a good bill. It represents a fair compromise. It is the
product of a lot of hard work by the chairman and members of the
committee. I recommend all my colleagues support it.
Let me highlight just a couple of key items in this measure.
In meeting the conference committee priorities, the bill supports
the men and women in uniform. It approves a 3.5 percent pay raise for
them. It funds health care requirements to include benefits that are
authorized for our guard and reserve forces. And, most important in
this very challenging time, it provides significant increases for force
protection--specifically up armored ``humvees'', body armor, better
helmets, armor plating for other vehicles and new technology to try and
counter improvised explosive devices.
The bill provides substantial resources to enhance investment
programs in the Defense Department to support key programs like the V-
22, the F-22, the new DDX destroyer, the littoral combat ship, missile
defense and significant increases in Army equipment for Stryker combat
vehicles, trucks, and helicopters.
But, I want to inform my colleagues that this bill does not rubber
stamp the administration's desires. It reduces many programs for which
insufficient justification has been provided. While we recognize that
the country needs to continue to enhance its space capabilities,
members of the Appropriations Committee have learned the hard way that
improvements must be developed prudently. It is a waste of resources to
try and accelerate complex new technologies in the manner recommended
by civilian officials in the Defense Department.
The bill also provides $25 billion in emergency spending, the amount
requested, but it allocates the funds to meet the priorities and needs
of the individual military departments, not the blank check sought by
the administration. It provides adequate safeguards on these funds to
ensure proper congressional oversight and requires stringent reporting
requirements on its use.
I point out also that there are a few items in here that do not fall
under the jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee. I will defer to
others to speak to those.
This is a good bill. It represents a fair compromise. It is the
product of a lot of hard work by the Chairman and Members of the
committee. I encourage all my colleagues to support it.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore (Mr. Chambliss). Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleague from Hawaii, I
reserve the remainder of our time. Senator Byrd has his time, Senator
McCain will have his time, and we will withhold our time.
Our time is reserved?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes.
Who yields time?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 30 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may require from my
allotted time.
Yesterday, the General Accounting Office released a shocking report
about the state of funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Simply put, our troops are running out of money. But the White House
denies that there is a problem.
The findings in the General Accounting Office report are alarming.
The Army is overspending its fiscal year 2004 operations in maintenance
funds to the tune of $10.2 billion. The Air Force urgently needs
another $1.4 billion this fiscal year, and the Marines are short by
$500 million. Our military is cutting back on training at the same time
that retired service members are being pressed back into uniform to be
sent overseas. These budget problems are being compounded by the fact
that the White House planned on having only 99,000 troops in Iraq by
this point instead of the 140,000 troops we will have there for the
foreseeable future. This is the most astounding evidence to date that
the administration has fundamentally mismanaged the financing for the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President did not bother to put a
single dime, not one thin dime, in his February budget request for
these wars. He insisted that more funding would not be needed until
January 2005.
Even when the administration flip-flopped and came to Congress on May
13, 2004, to ask for a $25 billion emergency reserve fund, top
administration officials denied that there was an urgent need for more
funds to support our troops in the field. Deputy Defense Secretary
Wolfowitz described the $25 billion which is contained in the
conference report of the Defense appropriations bill now before the
Senate as an insurance plan. That is the way Mr. Wolfowitz described
it. Secretary Wolfowitz stated in his testimony to the Armed Services
Committee that our troops would not run out of funds until February or
March 2005.
I didn't buy that line. The administration has fallen down on the job
in budgeting for these wars, and his budget projections simply are not
to be trusted. I say ``these wars'' because we are fighting two wars,
one war in Afghanistan, which is the result of the al-Qaida attack upon
the United States on September 11, 2001. That was an attack upon the
United States by those individuals who had hijacked planes and flown
them into the World Trade Towers, into the Pentagon, and into the field
in Pennsylvania. That was one war. I supported Mr. Bush on that war. I
support that war today.
The second war is the Bush war, the war that is of Mr. Bush and his
ring of people around him in the White House. That is the Bush war.
That was an attack upon a sovereign nation which had not provoked us,
which had not attacked us. That was an attack on a nation in support of
the Bush doctrine of preemption. I did not support that war then, and I
do not support it today.
I did not buy that line. The administration has fallen down on the
job of budgeting for these wars, and its budget projections simply are
not to be trusted. It should have been clear to anyone who has picked
up a newspaper in the last 6 months that our troops were beginning to
run low on funds, but the administration sent witnesses bearing only
rosy scenarios.
To add insult to injury, the White House asked for a $25 billion
blank check on the heels of Bob Woodward's revelations in his book,
``Plan of Attack,'' about the Pentagon hiding from Congress $700
million in spending to prepare for war in Iraq. This was an astounding
request.
Thankfully, Congress has seen through the administration's double
dealing on funding our troops. I thank the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Senator Ted Stevens, and his colleague, the
ranking member of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Senator
Daniel Inouye, for working to pierce the fog of rhetoric to reshape
this $25 billion reserve fund to
[[Page 17003]]
best help our troops while protecting the constitutional prerogatives
of Congress.
Instead of being a $25 billion blank check, $23 billion of these
funds--that is, 92 percent--is made available for regular
appropriations accounts. This means that Congress will be better able
to track how these additional funds are used. In addition, the $25
billion in funding will be available for our troops as soon as this
bill is signed into law. They will not have to wait until October 1 to
purchase the critical equipment our troops need to survive in the
combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, I thank Senator Stevens
and Senator Inouye for working with me to promote fiscal responsibility
and accountability for how these funds are to be used.
Despite the improvements made to the administration's request for
funding for the war, I continue to have serious concerns about the
direction of the so-called peacetime defense budget; that is, the huge
amount of funds not related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This
bill contains $391.2 billion for the Pentagon, not including $25
billion for the cost of the wars. That is a massive increase over the
$287.1 billion appropriated for the Pentagon as recently as fiscal year
2001.
The administration claims this explosion in defense spending is
necessary to transform our military into a faster, lighter, and
stronger fighting force. But today's Los Angeles Times states that the
Army is delaying by 2 years the launch of its first modernized unit
that is supposed to be the centerpiece of this defense transformation
effort.
In this age of sky-high deficits, could it be that we are getting
less bang for more bucks? How else can the administration explain a
stalled transformation effort when defense spending has risen 36
percent in 4 years? If this rate of growth continues, this country will
soon be spending half a trillion per year on the defense establishment,
with no assurance that those funds are being well spent.
The Pentagon's accounting systems are a mess, an absolute mess.
Despite Secretary Rumsfeld's promise to me at his confirmation hearing
in January 2001 to get this problem fixed, the General Accounting
Office has recently issued serious warnings that his accounting reform
effort is headed down the wrong track.
In fact, this Defense appropriations bill cuts funds from this
accounting reform effort precisely because the Defense Department's
program to fix its accounting systems is underperforming. Tens of
millions of taxpayer dollars that were supposed to have been put to use
in establishing a robust system of financial accountability remain
unspent. This Congress made the wise decision not to throw more money
at a problem that is not being fixed. When Secretary Rumsfeld gets his
accounting reform program back on its feet, I will be the first Senator
in line to support all necessary funds for that purpose.
Senators should also realize this Defense appropriations bill brings
back from conference something that was never included in the Senate-
passed bill and something that was never included in the House-passed
bill. It includes a deeming resolution to increase the annual
discretionary spending limit to $821.9 billion for the fiscal year
2005.
The failure of this Congress to pass its annual budget has led to
this move to include a deeming resolution in the Defense appropriations
bill, signaling the complete breakdown in this year's budget process.
Setting aside the fact that this provision violates rule XXVIII of
the Standing Rules of the Senate, Senators should know that this
deeming resolution authorizes $11 billion less than what the
Congressional Budget Office says is necessary to maintain current
services, adjusted for inflation. That $11 billion is needed to
maintain services to our veterans, fund health care and education
programs for our seniors and our youth, and maintain our mass transit
and highway programs.
In a time of war, each dollar devoted to our military must be put to
full use. No matter how many additional hundreds of billions Congress
may approve for the Pentagon, defense spending without accountability
ultimately hurts our troops in the field.
Each dollar that is spent on wasteful contracts, each dollar that is
lost in an accounting maze, is one less dollar for our troops to buy
ammunition, to buy fuel, to buy body armor. There must also be a budget
so Congress can know the spending plan for our troops on the
battlefield will be supported in the coming months and years.
The administration would do well to listen--just to listen; get off
its high horse, swallow its false pride, and listen--to this
commonsense message. Stop the budget gamesmanship that only endangers
the lives of our fighting men and women. Enough of the political
posturing that denies that our military in the field may have urgent
needs. The President of the United States must take responsibility for
the fiscal mess that he has created.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
during this quorum call be charged against the time of the Senator from
Hawaii and my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
allocated to the Senator from Arizona be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains, Mr. President?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Approximately 1 hour 10 minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. May I inquire if the Senator from West Virginia wishes
to use any further time at this time?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield, I
will respond. I do intend to. I would hope that the cloakroom would
find out if any Senators on my side want any time on this bill.
Mr. STEVENS. That is the reason I have reserved our time and Senator
Inouye reserved his time also. I have been notified of no Senator on my
side who wishes to use part of my time. I don't know about the Senator
from Hawaii. He indicates he has had no requests.
It appears Senator Byrd would be the last person to make a statement.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I speak, in part, on another matter, but basically
with reference to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. I would
hope to title my remarks at this point ``Homeland Insecurity.''
In a mere matter of days, we will officially kick off the 2004
Presidential election season, with the convening of the Democratic
convention in Boston. The political activities and festivities in
Boston will also mark the beginning of a tense interlude between the
conventions and the November elections, during which the Nation has
been told to brace for the possibility of a large-scale terrorist
attack on the United States.
[[Page 17004]]
Earlier this month, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and FBI
Director Robert Mueller went on national television to warn the
American people that credible evidence pointed to plans by al-Qaida to
launch a large-scale attack on the United States before the November
elections in an effort to disrupt our democratic process. Yet in the
weeks since our Nation's top Homeland Security officials issued that
blunt and alarming warning, the administration appears to have buried
its head in the sand, carrying on with business as usual, seemingly
oblivious to the gathering danger predicted by its own experts.
This morning the Washington Times newspaper published on its front
page a chilling account of shadowy groups of Middle Eastern men
carrying out surveillance at airports, probing security measures,
conducting what appear to be dry runs on our aircraft. The reports are
anecdotal, but regardless of whether the article turns out to be
accurate or merely an example of scare-mongering, it raises serious
questions and underscores serious flaws in the administration's
preparedness to respond to another terrorist attack on the United
States.
Following the tragic events of September 11, protecting the Nation's
commercial aircraft became the top antiterrorism priority of the
Federal Government in this country. The administration established a
firm goal for the number of Federal air marshals so that a high
percentage of critical flights could be protected. The exact number of
air marshals is classified. However, it is no secret that the Federal
Air Marshals Program has never reached the staffing level deemed
necessary to protect the American people in the wake of the September
11 attacks.
Worse, as commercial air travel rebounds to its highest level since
the September 11 attacks, the number of Federal air marshals is
actually declining, falling 9 percent below the meager staffing level
that the program was initially able to achieve and far further below
the administration's stated goal.
As air marshals leave the program, budget constraints prohibit the
hiring of replacements. The number of air marshals continues to
dwindle, and the number of critical flights they are able to cover
remains on a steady downward spiral. That is enough to make your hair
stand on end.
At a time when Americans have been told, in the starkest terms
possible, that al-Qaida is moving forward with plans to attack our
homeland, the administration continues to twiddle its thumbs and allow
our homeland defenses, including protection of commercial aircraft, to
erode.
While the Bush administration claims progress in the war on terror
and asserts that it is making the Nation safer, the facts belie the
rhetoric. The assertions are hollow. The administration has
consistently put homeland security on the back burner. At the prodding
of Congress, the administration grudgingly created the Cabinet-level
Department of Homeland Security. Senator Stevens and I wrote language
into appropriation bills providing that the head of Homeland Security
would require confirmation. No, the administration didn't want to send
Mr. Ridge up before the Appropriations Committee until Senator Stevens
and I joined in writing that language. Since the creation of this
Department, the administration has failed to provide the Department
with the resources needed to make Americans safer.
The Senate, I am sorry to say, is somewhat complicit in the
administration's negligence. The Senate has danced right along to the
White House tune. As Brutus said, in scolding Cicero for attempting to
toady up to Antony:
Our ancestors would have scorned even a gentle master.
Although the Senate Appropriations Committee passed the Homeland
Security bill more than a month ago, it has been languishing--now get
this. Let me say that again. Hear me. Although the Senate
Appropriations Committee passed the Homeland Security appropriations
bill more than a month ago, that bill has been languishing on the shelf
since then and has yet to see the light of day on the Senate floor.
That is the bill making appropriations for homeland security. That is
the bill for your protection, may I say to the people who are watching
this Senate through those electronic lenses. It is your protection,
your security, your children's protection, your property, your
community. And yet that bill has been languishing, where? On the shelf
since then and has yet to see the light of day on this Senate floor.
For some reason which I cannot divine, this do-nothing Senate--hear
me--for some reason which I cannot divine, this do-nothing Senate,
under the Senate Republican leadership, has bottled up the Homeland
Security bill, refusing to allow the Senate to debate it and pass it
and send it to the President of the United States.
Here we are, the Senate is about to go out for 45 days, and what
about your safety out there? What about the safety of the American
people? What about the safety of the communities of this country? What
about the safety of the children who attend the schools of this
country? What about them? Are they going to have to wait 45 days before
this bill making appropriations for homeland defense is to even be
called up and debated in this Senate? Yes. We are going to go home. We
are going to go home and leave those people unprotected insofar as new
moneys are concerned for the Department of Homeland Security.
Fie on the administration that would treat the American people so
cavalierly. Here is a bill that has been waiting. This is not Senator
Stevens' fault. His Appropriations Committee, of which I am the ranking
member, has reported out this bill days and days ago. We should have
taken that bill up and passed it. Where is it now? It is bottled up,
and there are no chances--none--of calling this appropriations bill up
before we go home for a 45-day recess. Go home. Go home. And yet amidst
all of this, this administration has been issuing dire warnings about
al-Qaida and what may happen in this country in the meantime, and
particularly during a time when the American people are going through
the democratic processes of nominating a President and Vice President
of the United States.
Now, if that isn't enough to make the hair curl, I would like to know
what we need to make it curl.
Unlike the billions upon billions of dollars in funding that the
President has demanded from Congress to fight his war in Iraq, he has
been strangely silent on the need to appropriate homeland security
funding to better protect you, Senators, you, the American people at
home.
In the wake of the most recent terrorist alert, one would think--
wouldn't one think--that the President of the United States would have
called on Congress to provide supplemental funding for new measures to
thwart the threat from al-Qaida? Wouldn't one think that?
There are so many weak links in our homeland security network for
which added resources could be a true lifesaver. The country needs
additional funds to secure our mass transit systems, to increase the
inspection of air and ship cargo containers, and, yes, to increase the
number of Federal air marshals.
Yet the White House is doing nothing in this regard--nothing,
nothing--to press Congress to move on this Homeland Security
appropriations bill before we close the doors and go home.
If the reports of pilots and flight attendants and air marshals cited
in the Washington Times article are accurate, our Nation's aircraft may
be under a renewed threat of attack. If the ``credible evidence'' cited
by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the FBI is
accurate, then the United States is entering an extremely--extremely--
dangerous period. And if the chairman of the so-called 9/11 Commission
was correct in the assessments he made today--I believe he was--then
the United States must face up to the mistakes it made in the past and
to the probability of another terrorist attack of even greater
magnitude than that which shook the Nation on September 11, 2001.
Yet the White House is doing nothing in this regard. By pretending
that
[[Page 17005]]
funding for homeland security can wait, and by refusing to acknowledge
that additional resources are needed to protect the Nation, the
administration is callously playing fast and loose with the safety of
the American people.
I hope and I pray that America remains safe over the coming months. I
hope and pray that the reporting is wrong. I hope and pray that the
evidence collected by our homeland security experts is off the mark. I
hope and pray that the political conventions will be the scenes of
nothing more sinister than elbowing for a better view of the platform.
Above all, I hope and pray that the administration will come to its
senses, drop its pretension that all is well with homeland security,
and provide the financial resources required to truly protect the
American people at home.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the
floor.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, the 9/11 Commission released its
report and the Commission Chairman, Thomas H. Kearn, said that an
attack ``of even greater magnitude is possible--even probable.'' In
fact, intelligence assessments have long warned that al-Qaida is
seeking weapons of mass destruction to use against Americans in the
United States.
The 9/11 Commission specifically recommended today: ``Support the
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program'' and went on to state that it
``is now in need of expansion, improvement, and resources.'' Yet the
conference report before us today includes a rescission insisted upon
by the other body of $50 million in fiscal year 2003 funding for
cooperative threat reduction programs. In other words, although this
bill appropriates $409 million for these programs in fiscal year 2005,
12 percent of that amount from prior appropriations is being taken
away. I think that is a huge mistake.
These programs, known as ``Nunn-Lugar'' programs after former Senator
Sam Nunn and the current distinguished chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, assist countries of the former
Soviet Union in the safe and secure transportation, storage and
dismantlement of nuclear weapons and nuclear and chemical materials, as
well as preventing the diversion of nuclear materials or equipment. So,
we have just cut funding for programs that will help keep nuclear
weapons out of the hands of terrorists.
There has been some confusion about the impact of this cut. The
official at the Defense Department charges with administering these
programs believes that she will be able to move funds around
sufficiently to prevent the cancellation of any programs, this time. I
hope she is right.
The cooperative threat reduction programs are notorious for how
slowly the money is obligated. That is not because the programs are
unneeded, or because federal employees are not doing their jobs.
Rather, pay-outs are slow because cooperation from the countries
concerned and various statutory certifications are required before the
funds can be used.
This fact makes the program a tempting target for those looking for a
pot of money to raid. But such critical programs must not be looked at
as ``bill payers'' for other defense needs.
Neither should we view cooperative threat reduction programs as
``foreign aid.'' That red herring must be put to rest. As former
Defense Secretary Bill Perry used to say, CTR is ``defense by other
means.'' There is no more pressing national security need than to
secure the sources of weapons of mass destruction and keep them out of
the hands of terrorists.
I want to put the House on notice today that I will vigorously oppose
further cuts in these programs. And should any deobligation of funds be
necessary because of this cut, I will urge the President and the
Secretary of Defense to reprogram funds to prevent the cancellation of
programs and contracts.
We have no greater responsibility than to protect our Nation from an
attack with weapons of mass destruction and I, for one, will not stand
for this critical program to be chipped away until it becomes
ineffective.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I want to discuss the Defense
Appropriations conference report. I want to say upfront this
legislation is extremely important. At a time when our soldiers are
still in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world, this
legislation provides resources they need.
This bill is all the more important because costs of war in Iraq are
spiraling upward. The GAO has just reported that there is a shortfall
of over $12 billion in funding for war costs for fiscal year 2004. This
is on top of the $87 billion supplemental that we passed last year.
This year's Defense Appropriations bill makes $25 billion in emergency
reserve funding for war costs available immediately, helping to cover
this shortfall and ensure that our troops have what they need in Iraq.
It is important to note that much more is likely to be needed in
2005. CBO recently estimated that military operations in 2005 could
cost $55-$60 billion. These estimates demonstrate that the Bush
administration has failed to budget properly for the war in Iraq and
continues to understate the likely cost of these operations.
While this Defense conference report is extremely important, I want
to make clear that I am deeply disappointed with the budget provisions
that were added to this conference report behind closed doors by the
majority, without any debate in the House or Senate. In what I believe
is an unprecedented move, the majority has inserted deeming language
into this defense conference report--setting the overall fiscal year
2005 discretionary spending level at $821 billion. This deeming
language should have been debated in the Senate. It is entirely
inappropriate to add this language outside the scope of conference
without any debate by the Senate or by the Budget Committee. Clearly it
was added because the majority knows that members of the Senate will
not want to oppose a defense bill while our troops are in harm's way.
This is no way to govern. It sets a terrible precedent. Since a
conference report is not amendable, the majority is effectively
stifling the ability of the Senate to fully debate and amend the
deeming language. But that seems to be the point here. The majority
does not want to give the Senate the opportunity to fully debate and
amend this language.
We wouldn't be in this position if the majority had passed a budget
resolution this year. That is where the overall spending and revenue
amounts are supposed to be determined. Yet, because the majority's
leadership has refused to restore a strong paygo rule that applies to
both tax cuts and spending, the Senate has been unable to get an
agreement on a budget. Despite the record deficits we now face, the
majority and the Bush administration are still fixated on passing more
and more unpaid-for tax cuts. The Bush administration's fiscally
irresponsible leadership is driving our nation's finances right off the
cliff--and at the worst possible time, on the brink of the retirement
of the baby boom generation.
I mentioned that there was no debate on this deeming language.
Governing this way is bound to lead to mistakes. In drafting this
deeming language, the majority has left out the firewall provisions
that guarantee that the gas tax contributions of our Nation's motorists
will be used to finance the Nation's highway and mass transit. We have
had highway and mass transit firewalls in place for the last 6 years to
ensure that funding for those programs is not diverted to other areas.
But now, under this deeming language, the firewalls will be eliminated
and those highway and mass transit funds could be pilfered to cover
shortfalls in other areas of the budget. I think this is a significant
mistake--a horrible precedent to set in advance of a highway
reauthorization bill.
As I said earlier, the funding for our troops contained in this bill
is very important. But I want to be clear how disappointed I am in the
way the majority is operating here and in the way they, along with the
Bush administration, are dangerously undermining our Nation's fiscal
and economic security.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today we are considering the conference
report
[[Page 17006]]
for the fiscal year 2005 Defense appropriations act. While I recognize
the importance of passing this legislation prior to the upcoming
recess, I am once again disappointed that we are acting on the
appropriations measure prior to enactment of the Defense Authorization
Act.
The responsibilities of authorizers and appropriators are expected to
be distinct. The Defense Authorization Act lays out the blueprint for
the policies and funding levels for the Department of Defense and its
programs. The role of the Appropriations Committee is to allocate
funding based on policies provided by authorizations bills. In reality,
the appropriators' function, however, has expanded dramatically, and
the Appropriations Committee now engages in significant policy decision
making and micromanagement, largely usurping the role of the
authorizing committees. I remain hopeful that we will complete action
on the Defense authorization act when we return in September in order
to provide further clarification of congressional intent to the
Department of Defense.
In the meantime, enactment of the Defense appropriations legislation
is very important, and it will enable us to continue to meet our
obligations to support service members in the fight against terror. The
conference report includes many critical funding provisions to which I
lend strong support, such as the funding to increase Army end strength
by 20,000 soldiers. Unfortunately, although not surprisingly, the
conference report also includes a large number of unauthorized and
unrequested provisions.
While I appreciate the hard work and the laudable intentions of the
members of the Appropriations Committee, the number of earmarks
contained in this conference report is alarming. This conference report
and accompanying statement of the managers contains close to 2,000
earmarks totaling $8.9 billion in Member adds.
With Americans deployed across the globe fighting terror, and with
looming budget deficits at home, the Congress faces some tough choices.
We must find a way to uphold our fiscal responsibility while fully
providing for our military needs. The costs that go along with the
conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq demand now, more than ever, a new
fiscal sanity in approaching our appropriations bills. A half-a-
trillion dollar budget deficit means we simply cannot afford business
as usual. We simply cannot continue the binge of pork barrel spending
that consumes an ever growing proportion of our Federal budget. While
the cost of an individual project may get lost in the fine print of
lengthy bills, together, they all do real damage. Collectively, these
earmarks significantly burden American taxpayers.
Not surprisingly, along with the growth in deficit spending over the
past few years, there has also been a significant growth in earmarks
and pork barrel spending. In fact, according to information compiled by
the Congressional Research Service, CRS, the total number of earmarks
has grown from 4,126 in fiscal year 1994 to 14,040 in fiscal year 2004.
That is an increase of 240 percent in 10 years. In dollar terms, the
earmarking has risen from $26.6 billion to $47.9 billion over the same
period.
Based on the calculations of my office, the fiscal year 2002 Defense
appropriations act contained $3.7 billion in pork. The conference
report on the fiscal year 2003 Defense appropriations act contained
$8.1 billion in pork. The fiscal year 2004 Senate-passed Defense
appropriations act contained well over $4 billion in pork. This year
$8.9 billion was added in the conference report and the statement of
the managers, which is more than twice the number in last year's
Senate-passed version of the legislation. This is real money. Every
year, countless important military and domestic programs go unfunded or
underfunded. I find it hard to understand why we can find the money to
pay for member add-ons, but then have to battle to fund concurrent
receipt or the survivor benefit plan.
The Joint Chiefs provided a list of critical requirements above what
was provided for in the President's budget request. That list totaled
nearly $18 billion for fiscal year 2005. I believe that if we have the
resources, we should do all we can to provide additional defense
funding for items and programs which the Joint Chiefs need. But
instead, we routinely fund programs just because they are important to
a particular state or district represented by a powerful Member of
Congress. I find this practice to be a disservice to our military men
and women, as well as to all American taxpayers.
Once again, the appropriators' addiction to tanker recapitalization
is too great for any amount of medication. The whole tanker love affair
reads like a bad novel. It is very suspect that the Appropriations
Committee added $100 million in this conference report under the
heading ``Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund.'' Fortunately, the Senate
provision prevailed and Chairman Stevens, as he publicly stated he
would do, did not allow the House earmark for Boeing 767 tankers to
carry through conference. On that point, the Tanker Replacement Fund is
muted. Only the report language makes reference to the ``current tanker
replacement program of record''--that program, undisput
edly, is the KC-X program which is in the Air Force's Future Years
Defense Program.
Over the past 3 years, I have spoken at length on the Senate floor on
the Boeing 767 tanker lease--it is difficult to understand why we are
still debating a tanker program when no money has been included in the
President's defense budget submitted to Congress. Further, the Senate
Armed Services Committee did not authorize any funding for tanker
recapitalization for fiscal year 2005. The Chief of Staff of the Air
Force, General John P. Jumper, USAF, did not request advance
procurement for tanker replacement in his ``Fiscal Year 2005 Unfunded
Priority List,'' totaling nearly $4 billion, which he submitted to
Congress in March 2005. The reason is simple--tanker replacement money
is not needed now. However, the appetite for this scandal-riddled
program is too great, despite the unethical acts of serious misconduct
by Air Force officials and the firing of several senior Boeing
officers, including the very top of the corporation. It is hard to
comprehend why the appropriators continue to put tanker
recapitalization ahead of greater priorities for our servicemen and
women.
Having said this, I congratulate the appropriators for considering
the recent Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Aerial
Refueling Requirements. Critically, the Defense Science Board task
force found there is no compelling material or financial reason to
initiate a replacement program prior to the completion of the Analysis
of Alternatives, AoA, and the Mobility Capabilities Study, MCS.
Moreover the task force observed that the Air Force greatly overstated
both the amount of corrosion throughout the KC-135 fleet and the KC-
135's operation and support cost growth. It also found that the KC-135E
can fly to 2040. In other words, the `dominating rationale' cited by
the Air Force to Congress for having taxpayers pay billions of dollars
more for leasing Boeing's KC-767A tankers than they would for buying
them outright, has been conclusively shown to be without merit. The Air
Force's representations on this issue remains a matter of continuing
investigative concern. The likelihood that the analysis of
alternatives, AOA, and mobility capabilities study, MCS, if done
properly, will recommend an acquisition method for these tankers now
known to be wholly unsuitable here, is probably minimal. So the
Secretary's decision appears fatal to at least the lease component of
the proposal.
I look forward to seeing the language in the fiscal year 2005 Defense
appropriations act reconciled with the fiscal year 2005 National
Defense Authorization Act, which remains in conference. The language in
the Senate version of the Defense authorization bill is valuable in
that for the first time, it will inject much needed sunlight on a
program whose development has been largely insulated from public
scrutiny. The tanker provision in the authorization bill ensures that
any effort by the Air Force to replace its fleet of tankers
[[Page 17007]]
is done responsibly, as is the case with most defense programs,
however, that has not been the case so far. We should expect no less
from the Air Force.
Let me briefly highlight just some of the egregious examples of pork
contained either in the conference report or the statement of managers
for FY 2005:
$3.5 million sleep deprivation research. Last night, my
staff was here late into the night, conducting tests in sleep
deprivation, as they compiled the seventy-plus pages of pork
found in the joint explanatory statement. The results: they
are tired.
$3.4 million for USMC Hitchhiker. Back in my day, you could
give a Marine a ride for free.
$1 million for the Deep Digger.
$1 million for repair to the Biathlon Trail at Fort
Richardson, Alaska.
$1 million to restore the Woody Island and its historic
structures.
$110 million for the Advanced Procurement of F-15s. The air
Force has decided to procure the F-22 to replace the F-15.
Yet this earmark keeps the F-15 production line open, so I
question the necessity of the F-22 procurement in the numbers
of aircraft and at the funding levels requested by the Air
Force. Apparently we just decided to pay for both.
$1.9 million, for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
celebration. You don't need to have the exploration skills of
Lewis and Clark to see that this is a path to higher
deficits.
$1 million for the Center for Optical Logic Devices. I am
the first one who would pay for logic if we could insert some
into our political process, but this earmark won't do it.
$7.7 million for the Chameleon Miniaturized Wireless
System. Chameleons change colors; but one thing does not
change is the unrequested provisions in appropriations bills.
$2 million for the Air Battle Captain program at the
University of North Dakota. This provision sends students
from West Point to North Dakota for their flight lessons.
Instead of letting flight schools compete for the ability to
train these cadets, we have earmarked their training to North
Dakota. We are putting parochial interests over the necessity
to provide the best training possible for the best price to
our Army cadets.
$4.2 million for the LISA inspector. This sounds very
interesting.
$3.4 million dollars for Project Albert. Hey Hey Hey! Seems
like Albert could get pretty fat off all the pork in this
bill.
$2.8 million for the C-135 Improved Waste Removal System.
We need to improve the way we remove waste from this bill.
Maybe combined with the Deep Digger, we can find a way.
I use humor in describing some of these earmarks, but the damage they
do is deadly serious. They pull money away from legitimate funding
priorities and they waste taxpayer dollars. Each year, many of the same
earmarks appear in appropriations legislation, and each year I come to
the floor and point them out to my colleagues. Some of the
appropriators' perennial favorite projects include:
$4.3 million for the Smart Truck. This provision, which
directly lines the pockets of the auto industry in Detroit,
is not exactly smart.
$7.5 million for the 21st Century Truck. This program has
been around for years and not once has the Department of
Defense requested funding for it. While I'm sure we all would
love to jump into a truck that could be in a James Bond
movie, I'm not sure it is appropriate for the Department of
Defense to pay for it.
$5.6 million for the New England Manufacturing Supply
Chain. This is above and beyond the $14 million for this
project already earmarked over the last two years.
$33.9 million for the Maui Space Surveillance System. Why
should we provide $44 million for this system, when there are
many observatories in the United States, such as the Lowell
Observatory in Arizona, that already offers many of the same
benefits as the Maui site?
$1 million for the Brown Tree Snakes. Once again, the brown
tree snake has slithered its way into our defense
appropriation bill. I'm sure the snakes are a serious
problem, but a defense appropriations act is not the
appropriate vehicle to address this issue.
There are many earmarks that funnel dollars to worthy programs--such
as breast cancer research, but there is no compelling national defense
reason for these items to be on this piece of legislation. This type of
critical research should be funded through the Labor/HHS appropriations
bill. Our soldiers and sailors need to be provided with the best
equipment, housing, and support possible. Scarce defense dollars should
be used for these defense purposes, not others.
Once again, the appropriations earmarks in this defense conference
report are funneled primarily in to the home States of those Members
who sit on the Appropriations Committee. If you look at the plus-ups in
the Counter-Drug Activities the earmarking becomes clear. Plus-ups are
included for the following States: Florida, Indiana, Tennessee, Alaska,
Hawaii, West Virginia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico. All of these
states, I repeat, all of these States have Members on the
Appropriations Committee in either the House or Senate. I find it hard
to believe that only States represented by appropriators have drug
problems.
I could go on and on listing examples of pork in this legislation. We
would fulfill our objectives better if we reassessed our spending
priorities.
This year's conference report also includes a number of ``Buy
America'' provisions. For example, it prevents the foreign purchase of
welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain four inches in diameter and
under. Another provision ensures, that all carbon, alloy or steel
plates are produced in the United States. Whew. I know we will sleep
better at night knowing that all of our carbon plates are manufactured
in the U.S. Yet another section prohibits the Department of Defense
from purchasing supercomputers from a foreign source.
I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on
readiness of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. Every
year, Buy America restrictions cost the Department of Defense and the
American taxpayers over $5.5 billion. From a philosophical point of
view, I oppose these types of protectionist policies, and from an
economic point of view they are ludicrous. Free trade is both an
important element in improving relations among nations and essential to
economic growth. From a practical standpoint, Buy America restrictions
could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in international
markets and also could result in the loss of existing business from
long-standing trade partners. Not to mention that procurement policy
determined in the Defense authorization bill, not in the appropriations
bill.
I also want to comment briefly about a provision contained in this
Defense appropriations conference report that is entirely unrelated to
funding our national defense needs.
A so-called ``technical amendment'' was added to the Senate measure
at the surprise of a number of us who have been on record for opposing
such a provision when efforts were made to add it to other legislative
measures. Despite the fact that a member of my staff was on the floor
during the debate on the Defense appropriations bill and we had been
assured the opportunity to review all amendments prior to their
adoption, one amendment was suddenly accepted without the review or
concurrence of myself or my staff. That amendment rewrites the Fiscal
Year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill to allow for 23--States plus the
District of Columbia, to receive over $300 million in additional
funding for highway project earmarks. Of course, this project funding
is on top of the funding they already receive under what many of us
consider to be an unfair formula whereby the gas taxes of donor states
are transferred to pay for the roads in donee states.
With the adoption of this new provision that has been retained in the
pending conference report, 23 States plus the District of Columbia, the
majority of which are already donee States and receiving more funding
than they contribute, will now receive even more money to pay for
earmarked projects included in the Omnibus. Again, this funding is in
addition to the funding distributed by formula. While the appropriators
are taking action to ensure their earmarks are funded outside the
formula, 27 States, the majority of which are donor States and already
subsidizing other States' highways, will get no benefit, thereby
exasperating highway funding inequity.
While it doesn't surprise me that the appropriators found a vehicle
for their provision; it does surprise me that they would act in such an
orchestrated manner when they knew fully their efforts faced opposition
if done so in what most of us consider to be regular order,
[[Page 17008]]
whereby objectionable amendments are not added just because they are
supported by the bill managers. One of the many Senatorial courtesies
we all hold dear is that we usually can take Members at their word and
that their rights will not be ignored simply for political expediency.
Sadly, that was not the case with the adoption of this provision.
The ongoing conference on the highway reauthorization bill is on
life-support. If the House, Senate, and administration can reach an
agreement on an overall funding level, I will certainly do all that I
can as a conferee to ensure that earmarks are counted towards each
State's formula distribution. It is only fair that we ensure that once
a formula is determined; a formula that I am confident will still
include donors and donees, that earmarks are not permitted to further
shortchange donor States' highway funding.
I also want to point out that buried at the end of the bill text is a
legislative rider that changes our immigration laws. This provision
carves out workers in the fish roe processing industry from numerical
limitations under the H-2B visa program. While I will be the first to
testify to the need to reform our immigration system, and have done so
repeatedly, we should not begin to do it on the Defense Appropriations
bill by giving a benefit to one small segment of the fishing industry.
This is not the way to legislate. There are severe problems with our
H-2B visas. We reached the numerical cap on visas early this year and
dependent industries are now struggling to hire the labor they need to
operate. The H-2B is just one example of our flawed immigration system;
yet carving out a fix for parochial interests; without addressing the
overall problem is shortsighted. While owners of fish roe processing
facilities benefit from the help powerful members of the Appropriations
Committee, every other industry- facing a labor shortage because of
this cap will continue to suffer.
I wish it were not necessary for me to come to the Senate floor with
every appropriations bill to criticize the amount of unrequested
spending in the legislation. I do so because I believe it is critical
for American taxpayers to understand where the money from their pockets
is really going. I urge my colleagues to stop ``porking up'' our
appropriations bills. In a time of huge spending deficits and scarce
dollars, it is long past time to stop feeding at the rough. We can do
better.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the conference report to accompany H.R.
4613, the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year
2005, provides $391.170 billion in budget authority and $416.011
billion in outlays in fiscal year 2005 for the Department of Defense.
Of these totals, $239 million is for mandatory programs in fiscal year
2005.
The bill further provides $28.2 billion in budget authority in fiscal
year 2004 designated as emergency requirements. Of this total $26.8
billion is for defense purposes and $1.3 billion is for non-defense
purposes.
The fiscal year 2004 emergency funds for defense include $25 billion
in supplemental appropriations for on-going operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. While the President requested these funds for fiscal year
2005, the conference report makes these funds available on enactment.
The conference report also includes a repeal of a $1.8 billion defense
rescission enacted in the 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill, P.L. 108-
199--in effect appropriating a new $1.8 billion for defense. In total,
the $26.8 billion in fiscal year 2004 emergency defense budget
authority generates $19.3 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2005.
The bill provides $500 million for wildland fire suppression for
2004. These funds are consistent with amounts assumed in the 2005
budget resolution. The conference report also includes the following
non-defense funds: $685 million for the Iraq embassy and diplomatic
security expenses; $50 million for convention security in New York City
and Boston; and $95 million for Sudan humanitarian assistance.
The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in fiscal year
2005, including emergencies, of $390.931 billion. This amount is $1.684
billion less than the President's request and equal to the 302(b)
allocations adopted by the House of Representatives. This amount is
$68.4 billion less than fiscal year 2004 enacted levels when
supplemental appropriations are included. When supplemental
appropriations are not included the conference report provides $20.8
billion more than last year's enacted level.
The conference report also provides a 2005 302(a) allocation to the
Senate Appropriations Committee. This will ensure that adequate
enforcement tools are available as the Senate considers the remaining
appropriation bills. The allocation in the conference report is
consistent with the levels envisioned in S. Con. Res. 95, the
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2005.
I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee
for bringing this legislation before the Senate, and I ask unanimous
consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the
bill be inserted in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
H.R. 4613, 2005 DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS.--SPENDING COMPARISONS--
CONFERENCE REPORT
[Fiscal Year 2005, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
Purpose Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference report:\1\
Budget authority............. 390,931 239 391,170
Outlays...................... 415,772 239 416,011
House 302(b) allocation:\2\
Budget authority............. 390,931 239 391,170
Outlays...................... 415,987 239 416,226
2004 Enacted:
Budget authority............. 459,374 226 459,600
Outlays...................... 424,429 226 424,655
President's request:
Budget authority............. 392,615 239 392,854
Outlays...................... 418,639 239 418,878
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............. 390,931 239 391,170
Outlays...................... 415,594 239 415,833
Senate-passed bill:
Budget authority............. 383,773 239 384,012
Outlays...................... 401,566 239 401,805
CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............. 0 0 0
Outlays...................... -215 0 -215
2004 Enacted:
Budget authority............. -68,443 13 -68,430
Outlays...................... -8,657 13 -8,644
President's request:
Budget authority............. -1,684 0 -1,684
Outlays...................... -2,867 0 -2,867
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............. 0 0 0
Outlays...................... 178 0 178
Senate-passed bill:
Budget authority............. 7,158 0 7,158
Outlays...................... 14,206 0 14,206
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\In addition to the amounts shown above, the bill includes $19.902
billion in emergency outlays in 2005 flowing from the $27.656 billion
emergency supplemental included in Titles IX and X of H.R. 4613 for
2004. The bill also contains $500 million BA and $340 million outlays
in 2004 for wildland fire suppression.
\2\This table compares Senate action to the House 302(b) allocation for
information purposes only, not for budget enforcement purposes. The
House has deemed 302(b) allocations for 2005 based on the 302(a)
appropriations allocation set out in the conference agreement on S.
Con. Res. 95, the 2005 budget resolution, which the House has passed.
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, may I address a question to my colleague
from West Virginia?
There are no more requests for time. We are prepared to yield back
the remainder of our time and go to a vote. Is the Senator from West
Virginia prepared to yield back the remainder of his time?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, not having had any other requests for
time, I ask that all time remaining be rescinded.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw that request.
Mr. REID. If the Senator will allow us the opportunity, we have some
people who are not expecting the vote to occur right now.
Mr. President, if the distinguished chairman of the committee will
allow a 5-minute quorum call, we think we will have this matter worked
out very quickly.
Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw my request and concur and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page 17009]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I direct this question to the distinguished
Senator from Alaska, the chairman of the committee, who has worked so
hard on this bill. Would he and Senator Byrd allow the vote to begin at
7:15?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am very willing to enter into such an
agreement. Have the yeas and nays been requested?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, they have not.
Mr. STEVENS. I request the yeas and nays on final passage, when that
occurs. I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall commence at 7:15.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I ask the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley--we
have about 4 minutes until the vote occurs. Would he like to speak for
that period of time?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa be
recognized until 7:15, when the vote occurs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized until 7:15.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S.
2762 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 7:15 has arrived. The question is
on agreeing to the conference report to accompany H.R. 4613. The yeas
and nays have been requested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Harkin), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 163 Leg.]
YEAS--96
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Edwards
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Kerry
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table is agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I inserted in the Record the name of
staff members who worked on this bill. I compliment them. I need a
round of applause for the staff. This is record time for this bill. It
is a very good bill. It is essential. Emergency funds will be available
as soon as the President signs it.
I thank all Senators for their cooperation today to get this bill
passed before we go home for recess.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a
period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to
10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
____________________
THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT AND THE STATUS OF INTELLIGENCE IN THE UNITED
STATES
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss
briefly the 9/11 Commission report and to comment on the status of
intelligence in the United States.
In a context where we have been put on notice by the Director of the
FBI and the Secretary of Homeland Security that we may expect an attack
by al-Qaida on U.S. soil some time between now and the election, it is
of utmost importance we move ahead to put under a single umbrella all
of the intelligence agencies in the United States.
The 9/11 Commission report is one further statement that there is a
need to put all the intelligence agencies under one umbrella. When we
debated the Homeland Security bill back in 2002, I made the submission
on the floor of the Senate repeatedly--on September 3, September 10,
September 30, November 14, and November 19--that I thought it
imperative the new Secretary of Homeland Security should have the
authority to direct--not just to ask but to direct--all of the
intelligence agencies, to have some effective structure to put all of
the intelligence agencies under one umbrella.
I submitted that contention based upon my view that had all of the
information been at hand, the attack on 9/11 might well have been
prevented. Had the FBI Phoenix report gotten to the right people in
headquarters, had the information on Zacarias Moussaoui been properly
handled with an appropriate standard for probable cause, had the
terrorists in Kuala Lumpur been kept out of the United States--known by
the CIA, but let in by Immigration and Naturalization--had those facts
and others been pulled together, 9/11 might well have been prevented.
When I chaired the Intelligence Committee in the 104th Congress, it
was apparent to me at that time all of the intelligence agencies should
be under one umbrella. I made that suggestion in legislation at that
time. The Scowcroft report has made the same conclusion. We recently
had a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee which pointed out
many deficiencies in the CIA. Today we have had the report by the 9/11
Commission, all of which leads to one conclusion, which is hard to
dispute; and that is, all the intelligence agencies ought to be under
one umbrella.
At a news conference earlier today, Senator McCain, Senator
Lieberman, Senator Bayh, and I announced our intention to take the 9/11
Commission report and put it into legislative language, to introduce it
when we return after the August break. In so doing, we are not
subscribing to all of the provisions of the 9/11 Commission
conclusions. But we agree there ought to be a focus of attention, and
there ought to be debate, and there ought to be action at an early
date.
It was suggested during the course of that news conference that when
we come back in a post-election session, which I think is a virtual
certainty, we take up the issue of reorganizing the intelligence
structure in the United States. If we do not come back in a post-
election session as lameducks to finish much of the unfinished
business, or to finish all of the unfinished business, then the
suggestion was made there ought to be a special session. I repeat that
in cosponsoring legislation to encompass the 9/11 Commission report, it
is not in total agreement with
[[Page 17010]]
all of the provisions. I have reservations as to whether it is
appropriate to designate a Director as opposed to a Secretary with
Cabinet rank to take on the onerous job of struggling with the culture
of concealment of the FBI and the culture of concealment of the CIA and
the resistance of the Defense Intelligence Agency. We will have an
opportunity to consider that in a legislative package.
When the Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction filed its report
in 1999--a commission which I cochaired, a commission which came out of
the recommendations of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the 104th
Congress when I chaired the Intelligence Committee--the structure was
to give the Vice President of the United States the responsibility to
coordinate all of the activities of weapons of mass destruction because
it was so important and because if you wanted to deal with the
Secretaries of the various Departments, it would require somebody of
the stature of the Vice President to do that.
It may be that we will revisit the concept of having the Vice
President undertake that kind of a responsibility because we are
dealing with very strong, powerful forces, which have already started
resistance--from the Department of Defense not wanting to give up power
or fiscal control; resistance by the CIA, with the Acting Director
speaking out very forcefully in opposition to the 9/11 Commission's
prospective conclusions, even before the report was filed, and in
defending what the CIA had done. There is much which has to be examined
as to where the FBI stands.
When we examined the letter from Special Agent Coleen Rowley--13
pages, single spaced--at a Judiciary Committee oversight hearing in
June of 2002, we found out the FBI did not even have the right standard
for probable cause for a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act.
When we have seen what the CIA has done in the very strong criticism
levied a few weeks ago by the Senate Intelligence Committee, we see
there is much, much which has to be done. There have to be improvements
in the FBI. There have to be improvements in the CIA. And all of this
now comes into sharp focus with the events culminating in today's
filing of the 9/11 Commission report--again, especially at a time when
we are under siege and under threat of an al-Qaida attack between now
and the election.
Recent disclosures by the Senate Intelligence Committee have
documented the failures of the CIA to accurately inform the country,
including the President and Congress, concerning the facts or judgments
on whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. As a result,
some are now questioning whether the United States made the right
judgment on going to war with Iraq.
The action on going to war with Iraq, I submit, cannot appropriately
be judged by 20/20 hindsight. Based on the facts at hand, when the
Senate voted, the judgment to approve the use of force cannot
rightfully be faulted. The vote of 77 to 23 encompassed a majority of
Democrats, including Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards.
The decision to use preemptive force was based on the standard of
international law which warrants anticipatory self-defense when the
threat of attack is imminent so that the defense of preemption is
warranted.
This standard was enunciated in 1842 by Secretary of State Daniel
Webster in dealing with the so-called Caroline incident.
In the floor debate on the force resolution on October 10, 2002, I
quoted Hugo Grotius, considered the father of international law, who
said in his 1925 book ``The Law of War and Peace'' that a nation may
use self-defense in anticipation of attack when there is a ``present
danger.'' He said, ``it is lawful to kill him who is preparing to
kill.''
In that floor statement, I also quoted another eminent authority on
international law, Elihu Root, who said in 1914 that international law
did not require a nation to wait to use force in self-defense until it
is too late to protect itself.
It is important to revisit the Iraq war vote not to second-guess
ourselves but to learn from that experience as we view escalating
problems around the world which may pose an imminent threat to this
country. It is important that our intelligence agencies present the
full picture to decisionmakers, in particular the President, Secretary
of Defense, Secretary of State, and the Congress, so the subtleties may
be considered in making complicated judgments. Had the decisionmakers
been presented with more objective comprehensive information concerning
Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, it is doubtful that the
``imminence'' test under international law would have been met.
It is important, in reviewing the incidents, that we not engage in
self-flagellation. The comments coming out of Great Britain are
informative and instructive. The New York Times reported on July 14
that:
A major British report released Wednesday found extensive
failures both in intelligence gathering on illicit weapons
and the government's use of that intelligence to justify the
Iraq war. But it cleared Prime Minister Tony Blair of
accusations that he or his government distorted the evidence
to build a case for war.
The Times further reported:
Like an earlier inquiry led by Lord Hutton, the report
exonerated the government of the charge that it deliberately
exaggerated the threat posed by Mr. Hussein in an effort to
deceive the public and Parliament. ``No single individual is
to blame,'' Lord Butler said. ``This was a collective
operation.''
I suggest very close similarities between British intelligence and
U.S. intelligence and the reliance of the executive branch and the
reliance of Congress in our vote to use force and in the action of the
British, that the self-criticism ought not to be levied in the context
of the findings by the British report that clears Prime Minister Blair
of accusations that he or his Government distorted the evidence to
build the war and the finding by Lord Hutton that no single individual
is to blame but, rather, it was a collective operation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
____________________
JOB CREATION
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the
majority leader, and I agree with him on many subjects, but earlier
tonight he had some pretty harsh words for some of the economic
statements that I and others of my colleagues have been making in
recent weeks. He called them ``canards'' which is a nice sounding word
but means they are false statements.
I feel compelled to rise and present what I think is a better version
of the facts which, as we can see, are very different. The majority
leader, as I understood his argument, was saying the new jobs that are
now being created in the economy are better paying on average than the
average of other jobs that were in existence in the year 2003. But that
misses the essential point, which is that most of those newly created
jobs pay less and offer lower benefits than the over 2.5 million jobs
lost during the first 2\1/2\ years of the Bush administration. Most of
those jobs were good-paying manufacturing jobs, and most of them have
not come back. Many of them have been transferred to other countries
with lower wages and no standards. They are not coming back at all.
Those are the jobs that the unemployed workers of America are now
finding and that are paying on average thousands of dollars less than
the jobs those workers held before the recession began in March of
2001. They are among the millions of Americans whose incomes have
fallen, who used to have jobs with health insurance but now don't.
I quote from an editorial in today's New York Times in part which
states:
From three different vantage points . . . the same basic
picture emerges: While there has been an increase in job
creation over the past four months--an unusually belated and
anemic spurt by historical standards--the bulk of the
activity has been at the low end of the quality spectrum. The
Great American Job Machine is not even close to generating
the surge of the high-powered jobs that is
[[Page 17011]]
typically the driving force behind greater incomes and
consumer demand.
This puts households under enormous pressure. Desperate to
maintain lifestyles, they have turned to far riskier sources
of support. Reliance on tax cuts has led to record budget
deficits, and borrowing against homes has led to record
household debt. These trends are dangerous and unsustainable,
and they pose a serious risk to economic recovery.
We hear repeatedly that the employment disconnect is all
about productivity--that America needs to hire fewer workers
because the ones already working are more efficient. This may
well be true, but there is a more compelling explanation:
global labor arbitrage. Under unrelenting pressure to cut
costs, American companies are now replacing high-wage workers
here with like-quality, low-wage workers abroad.
It was only a matter of time before the globalization of
work affected the United States labor market. The character
and quality of American job creation is changing before our
very eyes. Which poses the most important question of all:
what are we going to do about it?
That is a subject which both of our major party candidates for
President this year need to address--what are we going to do about it?
The response of President Bush and his economic apologists thus far
is to deny even the reality. Fortunately, we have their own earlier
predictions by which to measure today's economic facts.
In May of 2003, the President's own Council of Economic Advisers
stated that his what was then called jobs and growth plan of more
deficit-driving tax cuts for the rich and the super-rich would result
in the creation, they said, of 5.5 million new jobs by the end of this
year. Congress passed the President's plan, and it took effect in July
of 2003. The actual number of jobs created in the past 12 months is
over 2.2 million fewer jobs than the President's Council of Economic
Advisers forecast. In fact, the job creation in this country has failed
to meet the President's forecasts in 10 of the last 12 months.
Once again, the administration trots out their favorite apologist,
Chairman Greenspan, whose salary now should be paid by the President's
reelect committee rather than the American taxpayers, who preached
fiscal responsibility for 8 years to President Clinton's administration
and to the Congress at that time and was instrumental in creating a
balanced Federal budget in the year 2000, after taking out the Social
Security trust fund--the first time in 40 years that the budget of the
Federal Government, the operating accounts were balanced. He then
turned around and has acquiesced with every tax cut that has been
passed and which has led to the deficits that now exceed over $500
billion a year and which the nonpartisan Concord Coalition, chaired by
former Republican Senator Rudman, has called the most reckless fiscal
policy in this Nation's history.
Mr. Greenspan, who acquiesced in those, now comes forward and says
the tax cuts prevented a deeper recession. In part, he is probably
correct that the child tax credit, which certainly passed here with
overwhelming bipartisan support, and the 10-percent bracket had those
benefits, but certainly nobody could say eliminating the estate tax in
2010 was a force in either dampening the recession or speeding our
recovery, nor did making the top tax brackets for the rich and the
super-rich even lower, according to most economists, result in that
kind of economic stimulus. In fact, the Federal Reserve's own
econometric forecast states that public spending is a better multiplier
for jobs and economic growth than the tax cuts.
He has gone farther in the last day to say the reason we have lower
paying jobs in America is now because American workers are not well
enough educated. It is pretty hard to understand how the educational
quality of the American workforce could change from what it was prior
to the recession when employment had expanded at a robust pace for
almost 8 years to where it is less than 3 years later. In fact, the
reality is that many American workers are overeducated for the jobs
that are available, as the New York Times editorial and other economic
analyses have attested. We are not providing the jobs in this economy
that people need with the talents they have. We are not providing the
jobs people need to maintain the standards of living they enjoyed
before. And we are not providing enough jobs for the unemployed and
underemployed people of this country. That is the reality, not a
canard.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
____________________
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2004--CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R.
2443, the Coast Guard reauthorization bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R.
2443), to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for
fiscal year 2004, to amend various laws administered by the
Coast Guard, and for other purposes, having met, after full
and free conference, have agreed that the House recede from
its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and agree to
the same with an amendment, signed by all conferees on the
part of both Houses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to
the consideration of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings in the
Congressional Record of Tuesday, July 20, 2004 (Volume 150, Number
101)).
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today as the chairman of the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and I am pleased to
announce today the successful completion of the conference report for
H.R. 2443, The Coast Guard Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. The
conference report will provide the Coast Guard with the authorization
bill it desperately needs to carry out all its missions, protect the
homeland, and ultimately prepare for the future.
This legislation will provide the Coast Guard with an authorization
for fiscal year 2004 and several critical programs. First and foremost,
it authorizes the funding and personnel levels it needs to fulfill its
obligation to the maritime communities of this Nation. It will provide
the Coast Guard with $5.4 B in authorized operating expenses, and a
$1.1 B authorization for the Integrated Deepwater Program designed to
allow the Coast Guard to continue the prosecution of its traditional
missions, while at the same time combating new and emerging threats.
Additionally, the conference report authorizes an increase in the
active duty personnel to 45,500 personnel, an increase of nearly 8,000,
including an authorization for up to 6,700 officers that are
desperately needed to fill critical homeland security positions.
The Secretary of homeland security is now authorized to require vital
electronic navigation systems onboard vessels the Secretary deems
necessary in order to improve and facilitate safe navigation.
A National Coast Guard Museum will be established in New London, CT
that will exemplify the fine traditions and heritage that the United
States Coast Guard possesses, yet until today, has been unable to
properly display. This legislation will now allow the public to witness
first hand, the legacy of what once was the Lifesaving Service, now
evolved into the modern-day Coast Guard.
This legislation also provides many provisions which improve the
Coast Guard's ability to recruit, reward, and retain high-quality
personnel. It addresses personnel management and quality of life issues
by providing for a critical skills training bonus, retaining
commissioned officers with essential skill sets and experiences,
expanding property authorities to ease housing shortages, and includes
several measures that grant parity with the other Armed Services. There
are also many provisions regarding Law Enforcement, Marine Safety, and
Environmental Protection which allow the Coast Guard to better
accomplish its many missions.
[[Page 17012]]
Further, the legislation requires increased reporting and targeting
for inspection of cargo containers headed to the United States. It also
provides for increased research and development to improve and deploy
port security technology. There are also a number of provisions that
clarify the role of the Coast Guard in leading the United States'
efforts to improve port and maritime security.
This legislation was crafted in a bi-partisan fashion and it provides
the Coast Guard with a solid foundation to do its job both now, and in
the future. I am proud to give the Coast Guard the resources it needs
to carry out its many essential missions that will result in saved
lives, seized contraband, a cleaner environment, and ultimately the
protection of our homeland.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I am pleased that the conference committee charged with
resolving the differences between the House and Senate versions of H.R.
2443 has reached final agreement on the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2004. Through this bill, Congress underscores our
support for a strong and effective Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard has always taken on an impressive array of tasks that
are important for our national security, the protection of our
resources, and the safety of our mariners. After the tragic events of
September 11, 2001, we have asked the Coast Guard to take on even more
responsibility for our maritime security, all the while continuing to
excel in their traditional missions.
This legislation provides an authorization of $8,167,610,000 for the
Coast Guard's fiscal year 2005 budget, an increase of 19 percent over
fiscal year 2004, and important new authority for the Coast Guard to
better execute its missions. Of this, $5,404,300,000 is authorized for
the Coast Guard's operating expenses, an increase of 14 percent over
fiscal year 2004, with $100 million allocated to cover the costs of the
Coast Guard's new tempo demands. This will assure that the traditional
core missions of the Coast Guard--such as search and rescue of mariners
in distress and protection of our living marine resources--are not
compromised. Most importantly, we authorized approximately $300 million
for port security that was not requested by the President. I believe
the provision of these funds are essential to the security of our
ports, our waterways, and our maritime transportation industry. In
particular, the funds will help implement the Coast Guard's Automatic
Identification System, AIS, to track the movement of foreign vessels
operating in U.S. waters.
I have always been a firm supporter of providing the Coast Guard with
the tools it needs to get the job done. The Coast Guard needs to
upgrade its core assets, in particular, its aging fleet of cutters. The
Integrated Deepwater Program is the Coast Guard's program for achieving
these upgrades, and the administration has not requested sufficient
funding in its budgets to even keep this program on track. The bill
authorizes $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2005 for the Deepwater Program.
This sends an important signal we support the Coast Guard's
modernization effort. I do have some reservations as to whether the
Coast Guard can in reality absorb such a large increase over last
year's levels, an issue that GAO raised in testimony before the Senate
Commerce Committee this year. However, we can consider this issue
further when we take up the Department of Homeland Security, DHS,
appropriations bill. I am pleased the conference agreed to procurement
management improvements by requiring the Coast Guard to report on how
it intends to implement recent GAO recommendations, including measures
to increase competition of subcontracts, and how it intends to alter
the mix of legacy and replacement assets in the future, as well as
expected costs of any changes to its original plan. Unless there are
significant changes to the way the Deepwater contracting business is
conducted, there will be enormous problems in the future that may
ultimately undermine this program.
I would also like to thank the conferees for supporting the inclusion
of various measures that were addressed in S. 2279, the Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2004, MTSA 2004, a bill that I
introduced to enhance implementation of MTSA 2002. I remain very
concerned about the current implementation of port security measures
and will continue to demand review of implementation policies to ensure
that we are aggressively implementing effective security measures.
Specifically, the conference agreement includes important requirements
to review and improve cargo security programs. We must have concrete
cargo security programs in place to detect and prevent cargo containers
from being used in a terrorist attack. In the event we are attacked
through our ports, we then need to be able to reopen U.S. ports to the
commerce that sustains so much of our Nation's economy, with some
degree of confidence. We are far from where we should be. Cargo
security programs must require that we can verify the contents do not
include weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, cargo security programs
must be continually inspected to ensure their compliance. Documentary
evaluation of cargo information, while important, does not substitute
for physical verification. Our motto should not continue to be:
``trust, but don't verify''.
I also am pleased that the Coast Guard will be reviewing and
reporting on Joint Operations Centers such as Operation SeaHawk.
Operation SeaHawk, established in Charleston, SC, is providing law
enforcement an opportunity to coordinate their law enforcement and
security missions, and is being utilized to help implement the security
and contingency response plans for the whole area. I feel confident
that this model will be found to provide the best structure to
coordinate law enforcement activities of the various agencies that are
involved in port security and provide a model for the Coast Guard to
utilize Area Maritime Security plans.
I am also pleased that the final bill includes a number of important
provisions to address important natural resource issues. For example,
the bill includes a number of provisions regarding the Oil Pollution
Act, including a program to provide loans to fishermen and aquaculture
producers who are damaged by oil spills, a requirement for using
electronic charts which will reduce oil spill incidents, as well as a
report on a number of important issues such as the feasibility of
speeding up the requirement for double hulls, and the state of health
of the oil pollution trust fund. The bill also requires the Coast Guard
to improve its coordination on fisheries enforcement with NOAA and
State and local authorities. Finally, it mandates that the Coast Guard
must cooperate with NOAA in analyzing ship routing measures for certain
ports that would reduce ship strikes of the North Atlantic right whale.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I commend Senator McCain, Senator Hollings,
and the rest of the conference committee for their hard work on this
bipartisan authorization bill. This legislation provides an
authorization of $8.168 billion for the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2005
budget, an increase of 19 percent over fiscal year 2004. This
conference agreement also includes important new authority for the
Coast Guard to better carry out its missions and meet the growing
responsibilities of a post-September 11 environment.
Sadly, when it comes to funding homeland security needs, I believe
the congressional intent expressed in this bill will, yet again, be
ignored at the White House.
This conference report authorizes $5.4 billion for the Coast Guard's
operating expenses account--an increase of 14 percent over fiscal year
2004 levels and over $231 million above the President's fiscal year
2005 request for the Coast Guard.
Over 20 months ago, the President signed the Homeland Security Act
creating the Department of Homeland Security. With respect to the Coast
Guard, that act required that, ``. . .the authorities, functions, and
capabilities of the Coast Guard to perform its missions shall be
maintained intact and without significant reduction. . . .''
Unfortunately, the administration has not held up its end of the
bargain.
[[Page 17013]]
The administration has failed to provide the Coast Guard with
sufficient budgets to maintain both traditional missions and new
homeland security responsibilities. As a result, since September 11,
2001, there has been severe degradation in the Coast Guard's
traditional mission areas. Because of the administration's negligence,
the number of hours the Coast Guard is spending on many of its mission
areas has dropped dramatically as compared to pre-September 11, 2001.
Drug enforcement is down 41 percent; fisheries enforcement is down 26
percent; search and rescue is down 22 percent; and marine safety is
down 41 percent. The administration's fiscal year 2005 request for the
Coast Guard falls well short in addressing these serious deficiencies.
This conference report also provides $1.1 billion for the Coast
Guard's program to modernize and/or replace some 100 cutters and 200
aircraft over a multi-year period, called Deepwater. This is $334
million above the administration's request and puts the program on
track to be completed in 15 years, compared to 22 years as proposed by
the administration. Since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the Coast
Guard's ships and planes are being used more today than ever in the
Coast Guard's history. The Coast Guard Commandant makes no bones about
the fact that recapitalizing operational assets is his No. 1 priority.
In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland
Security, the Commandant testified that the current condition of the
aging, technologically obsolete fleet, threatens Coast Guard mission
performance. He testified that Coast Guard assets are in a ``declining
readiness spiral.''
The question that must be asked is, if Coast Guard assets are in a
``declining readiness spiral,'' why has the administration failed to
address the situation. Despite the Commandant's plea for help, the
President's budget for the Deepwater program will take 22 years to
complete. Twenty-two years. This is 2 years slower than the capital
improvement program envisioned when Deepwater was conceived prior to
the tragic events of September 11th.
The funding authorized in this bill addresses some of the operational
and capital deficiencies that have been ignored by the administration.
It is a good bill. However, as a result of the President setting
arbitrary limits on discretionary spending, the Homeland Security
Appropriations bill, at whatever point the Republican leadership
decides to allow the Senate to debate the measure, will not come close
to funding the Coast Guard at the levels set in this bill.
By all indications, the President will sign this bill into law.
Unfortunately, it will likely be thrown into the pile of other homeland
security promises that have gone unfulfilled.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. Since the Coast Guard was last
authorized in 2002 as part of the Maritime Transportation Security Act
of 2002, its responsibilities and needs have continued to evolve. Last
year I introduced the Senate Coast Guard Authorization bill (S. 733),
the underlying bill of this conference report, to address many of these
concerns. We have successfully finished this critical conference and I
strongly believe we need to move forward expeditiously and pass this
conference report as soon as possible so that we can provide the Coast
Guard with the authorization bill it desperately needs.
In April, as Chair of the Oceans, Fisheries, and Coast Guard
subcommittee, I held a hearing to examine the Coast Guard's readiness
concerns; review the challenges it faces in balancing its homeland
security and traditional missions; and ensure that we provide this
service with the fiscal year 2005 budget it needs to carry out all of
its many responsibilities.
During this hearing the Coast Guard Commandant, Admiral Collins,
presented a stark picture of his service's increasing maintenance
costs. I was struck by Admiral Collins' testimony as he laid out the
depths of the legacy asset sustainment problems faced by the Coast
Guard. I am greatly concerned about the toll such a high operational
tempo is taking on his antiquated ships and aircraft and ultimately on
his personnel.
The conference report we are considering will provide many important
authorizations for the Coast Guard. First and foremost, it would
authorize the funding and personnel levels it needs. In recent years we
have seen an unprecedented growth in the Coast Guard's budget--more
than 30 percent over the past 2 years alone--but this has not been
enough. We must provide the Coast Guard with the funding it needs to
restore its non-homeland security missions--such as search and rescue,
fisheries enforcement, and marine environmental protection--to near
their pre-September 11th levels.
Additionally, while we have increased the number of Coast Guard
personnel by more than 4,000, we have not raised the statutory cap on
its authorized number of officers. We are rectifying this before the
Coast Guard reaches its cap and is forced to terminate reserve officer
contracts or delay some officer's deserved commissions and promotions.
The Conference report raises this cap to 6,700 and prevents the Coast
Guard from being forced to implement these drastic measures which would
unfairly impact individual officers.
Secondly, we all know that the Coast Guard currently operates the
third oldest of the world's 39 similar naval fleets with several
cutters dating back to World War II. The administration's fiscal year
2005 request would put this program on a 22-year time line, which is 2
years behind the original 20-year plans. This is simply not acceptable.
I strongly believe that we must authorize the acceleration of this
critical program because it is the best and most cost effective way to
remedy the Coast Guard's readiness problems and provide it with the
tools it needs to carry out all of its missions. That is why, I am
extremely pleased with the $1.1 billion authorization for the Deepwater
program in this Conference report, which if fully funded, will
accelerate the program to a 15-year time line.
This conference report also provides many non-controversial
provisions which improve the Coast Guard's ability to recruit, reward,
and retain high-quality personnel. It addresses personnel management
and quality of life issues by providing for a critical skills training
bonus, retaining commissioned officers with essential skill sets and
experiences, expanding property authorities to ease housing shortages,
and includes several measures that grant parity with the other Armed
Services. There are also many provisions requested by the
administration regarding Law Enforcement, Marine Safety, and
Environmental Protection which allow the Coast Guard to better
accomplish its many missions.
This conference report was crafted in a bi-partisan fashion and it
provides the Coast Guard with a solid foundation to do its job. I thank
all of the Members who have actively participated in its development. I
am proud to give the Coast Guard my full support, and the resources it
needs to carry out its many essential missions.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
conference report be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, and any statements relating to the conference report be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The conference report was agreed to.
____________________
PRESERVING THE ABILITY OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION TO INSURE
MORTGAGES
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2712
and the Senate then proceed to its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2712) to preserve the ability of the Federal
Housing Administration to insure mortgages under sections 238
and 519 of the National Housing Act.
[[Page 17014]]
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill
be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the
Record, without intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 2712) was read the third time and passed, 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. AMENDMENT TO GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM
ACCOUNT.
Under the heading ``Federal Housing Administration--General
and Special Risk Program Account'' in title II of Division G
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-
199), in the first proviso, strike ``$25,000,000,000'' and
insert ``$29,000,000,000''.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we have actually a lot of business that we
are doing and wrapping up for the night. In fact, we are going on
recess for the conventions for the next several weeks. Most of the
business has been completed, but there will be a lot of very important
business that we will be conducting over the next several hours, but we
will get it done tonight.
This particular piece of business has to do with patient safety. For
me, it means a lot because I can see up close both the importance of
this legislation, and have watched it legislatively as it has traveled
through its various iterations. So to be able to propound this
unanimous consent request is something that we can briefly comment on
shortly.
____________________
PATIENT SAFETY AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2003
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now
proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 387, S. 720.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 720) to amend title IX of the Public Health
Service Act to provide for the improvement of patient safety
and to reduce the incidence of events that adversely affect
patient safety.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill
which had been reported from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
(Strike the part shown in black brackets and insert the part shown in
italic.)
S. 720
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 ``Patient Safety and Quality
Improvement Act''.
[SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
[(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
[(1) In 1999, the Institute of Medicine released a report
entitled To Err is Human that described medical errors as the
eighth leading cause of death in the United States, with as
many as 98,000 people dying as a result of medical errors
each year.
[(2) To address these deaths and injuries due to medical
errors, the health care system must identify and learn from
such errors so that systems of care can be improved.
[(3) In their report, the Institute of Medicine called on
Congress to provide legal protections with respect to
information reported for the purposes of quality improvement
and patient safety.
[(4) The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee
of the Senate held 4 hearings in the 106th Congress and 1
hearing in the 107th Congress on patient safety where experts
in the field supported the recommendation of the Institute of
Medicine for congressional action.
[(5) Myriad public and private patient safety initiatives
have begun. The Quality Interagency Coordination Taskforce
has recommended steps to improve patient safety that may be
taken by each Federal agency involved in health care and
activities relating to these steps are ongoing.
[(6) The research on patient safety unequivocally calls for
a learning environment, rather than a punitive environment,
in order to improve patient safety.
[(7) Voluntary data gathering systems are more supportive
than mandatory systems in creating the learning environment
referred to in paragraph (5) as stated in the Institute of
Medicine's report.
[(8) Promising patient safety reporting systems have been
established throughout the United States and the best ways to
structure and use these systems are currently being
determined, largely through projects funded by the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality.
[(9) The Department of Health and Human Services has
initiated several patient safety projects. The Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations
issued a patient safety standard that went into effect on
July 1, 2001, and the peer review organizations are
conducting ongoing studies of clinical performance
measurement of care delivered to beneficiaries under the
medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security
Act.
[(10) Many organizations currently collecting patient
safety data have expressed a need for legal protections that
will allow them to review protected information so that they
may collaborate in the development and implementation of
patient safety improvement strategies. Currently, the State
peer review protections provide inadequate conditions to
allow the sharing of information to promote patient safety.
[(11) In 2001, the Institute of Medicine released a report
entitled Crossing the Quality Chasm that found that the
United States health care system does not consistently
deliver high quality care to patients.
[(b) Purposes.--It is the purpose of this Act to--
[(1) encourage a culture of safety and quality in the
United States health care system by providing for legal
protection of information reported voluntarily for the
purposes of quality improvement and patient safety; and
[(2) ensure accountability by raising standards and
expectations for continuous quality improvements in patient
safety through the actions of the Secretary of Health and
Human Services.
[SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.
[Title IX of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 299
et seq.) is amended--
[(1) in section 912(c), by inserting ``, in accordance with
part C,'' after ``The Director shall'';
[(2) by redesignating part C as part D;
[(3) by redesignating sections 921 through 928, as sections
931 through 938, respectively;
[(4) in section 938(1) (as so redesignated), by striking
``921'' and inserting ``931''; and
[(5) by inserting after part B the following:
[``PART C--PATIENT SAFETY IMPROVEMENT
[``SEC. 921. DEFINITIONS.
[``In this part:
[``(1) Non-identifiable information.--The term `non-
identifiable information' means information that is presented
in a form and manner that prevents the identification of any
provider, patient, and the reporter of patient safety data.
[``(2) Patient safety data.--The term `patient safety data'
means--
[``(A) any data, reports, records, memoranda, analyses,
deliberative work, statements, root cause analyses, or
quality improvement processes that could result in improved
patient safety or health care quality, that are--
[``(i) collected or developed by a provider for the purpose
of reporting to a patient safety organization;
[``(ii) reported to a patient safety organization for
patient safety or quality improvement processes;
[``(iii) requested by a patient safety organization
(including the contents of such request);
[``(iv) reported to a provider by a patient safety
organization;
[``(v) collected or developed by a patient safety
organization; or
[``(vi) reported among patient safety organizations, after
obtaining authorization; or
[``(B) information related to corrective actions taken in
response to patient safety data;
for the purpose of improving patient safety, health care
quality, or health care outcomes.
[``(3) Patient safety organization.--The term `patient
safety organization' means a private or public organization
or component thereof that performs the following activities
(which are deemed to be necessary for the proper management
and administration of such organization or component
thereof):
[``(A) The conduct, as its primary activity, of efforts to
improve patient safety and the quality of health care
delivery.
[``(B) The collection and analysis of patient safety data
that are voluntarily submitted by a provider.
[``(C) The development and dissemination of information to
providers with respect to
[[Page 17015]]
improving patient safety, such as recommendations, protocols,
or information regarding best practices.
[``(D) The utilization of patient safety data to carry out
activities under this paragraph and for the purposes of
encouraging a culture of safety and of providing direct
feedback and assistance to providers to effectively minimize
patient risk.
[``(E) The maintenance of confidentiality with respect to
individually identifiable health information.
[``(F) The provision of appropriate security measures with
respect to patient safety data.
[``(G) The certification to the Agency that the patient
safety organization satisfies the criteria of this paragraph
for the period in which the organization is carrying out such
duties.
[``(4) Provider.--The term `provider' means--
[``(A) a provider of services (as defined in section
1861(u) of the Social Security Act) and a person furnishing
any medical or other health care services (as defined in
section 1861(s)(1) and (2) of such Act) through, or under the
authority of, such a provider of services;
[``(B) a physician (as defined in section 1861(r) of such
Act);
[``(C) any other person, including a pharmacist, who is
engaged in the delivery of medical or other health services
(as defined in section 1861(s)(1) and (2) of such Act) in a
State and who is required by State law or regulation to be
licensed or certified by the State to engage in the delivery
of such services in the State;
[``(D) a renal dialysis facility, ambulatory surgical
center, pharmacy, physician or health care practitioner's
office, long term care facility, behavioral health
residential treatment facility, or clinical laboratory; or
[``(E) any other person or entity specified in regulations
by the Secretary after public notice and comment.
[``SEC. 922. CONFIDENTIALITY AND PEER REVIEW PROTECTIONS.
[``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, and subject to this section, patient safety data shall
be privileged and confidential.
[``(b) Scope of Privilege.--Subject to the provisions of
subsection (c), patient safety data to which subsection (a)
applies shall not be--
[``(1) subject to a civil, criminal, or administrative
subpoena;
[``(2) subject to discovery in connection with a civil,
criminal, or administrative proceeding;
[``(3) disclosed pursuant to section 552 of title 5, United
States Code (commonly known as the Freedom of Information
Act) or any other similar Federal or State law;
[``(4) admitted as evidence or otherwise disclosed in any
civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding; or
[``(5) utilized in an adverse employment action or in the
evaluation of decisions made in relation to accreditation,
certification, credentialing or licensing of an individual,
that is based on such individual's participation in the
development, collection, reporting, or storage of patient
safety data in accordance with this part.
[``(c) Disclosure Requirements.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to prohibit one or more of the following
disclosures (which are deemed to be necessary for the proper
management and administration of the patient safety
organization):
[``(1) Disclosures by a provider in complying with
authorized requests for the provision of information to which
subsection (a) applies (such as a patient's medical record or
other relevant information) that is in the control of such a
provider and that has been developed, maintained, or exists
separately from the process by which the provider collects or
develops information for reporting to a patient safety
organization.
[``(2) Disclosures by a provider or patient safety
organization of patient safety data as part of a disciplinary
proceeding relating to a provider, or a criminal proceeding,
if such a disclosure of such patient safety data is--
[``(A) material to the proceeding;
[``(B) within the public interest; and
[``(C) not available from any other source.
[``(3) Disclosures by a provider or patient safety
organization of relevant information to the Food and Drug
Administration, or to a person that is subject to the
jurisdiction of such Administration, with respect to an
Administration-regulated product or activity for which that
entity has responsibility, for the purposes of activities
related to the quality, safety, or effectiveness of such
Administration-regulated product or activity, subject to
section 520(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
[``(4) Disclosures by a provider or patient safety
organization of information to which subsection (a) applies
to carry out activities described in paragraph (2)(A) (i)
through (vi) or (3) of section 921.
[``(d) Transfer of Information.--The transfer of any
patient safety data by a provider to a patient safety
organization shall not be treated as a waiver of any
privilege or protection established under this part or
established under State law.
[``(e) Penalty.--Except as provided in subsection (c) and
as otherwise provided for in this section, it shall be
unlawful for any person to disclose any patient safety data
described in subsection (a). Any person violating the
provisions of this section shall, upon conviction, be fined
in accordance with section 934(d).
[``(f) No Limitation of Other Privileges.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to limit other privileges that are
available under Federal or State laws that provide greater
peer review or confidentiality protections than the peer
review and confidentiality protections provided for in this
section.
[``(g) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to alter or affect the implementation of any
provision of section 264(c) of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
191; 110 Stat. 2033) or any regulation promulgated under such
section.
[``SEC. 923. NATIONAL DATABASE.
[``(a) Authority.--
[``(1) In general.--In conducting activities under this
part, the Secretary may provide for the establishment and
maintenance of a database to receive relevant non-
identifiable patient safety data, or may designate entities
to collect relevant non-identifiable patient safety data,
that is voluntarily reported by patient safety organizations
upon the request of the Secretary.
[``(2) Use of data.--Data reported to any database
established or designated under paragraph (1) shall be used
to analyze regional variations and national statistics
related to patient safety and health care quality. The
information resulting from such analyses may be included in
the annual quality reports prepared under section 913(b)(2).
[``(b) Standards.--In developing or designating a database
under subsection (a)(1), the Secretary may determine common
formats for the voluntary reporting of non-identifiable
patient safety data, including necessary data elements,
common and consistent definitions, and a standardized
computer interface for the processing of such data. To the
extent practicable, such standards shall be consistent with
the administrative simplification provisions of part C of
title XI of the Social Security Act.
[``(c) Confidentiality.--Any non-identifiable patient
safety data that is transferred to the database under this
section shall be privileged and confidential.
[``SEC. 924. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
[``The Secretary, acting through the Director, may provide
technical assistance to patient safety organizations. Such
assistance shall include annual meetings for patient safety
organizations to discuss methodology, communication, data
collection, or privacy concerns.
[``SEC. 925. PROMOTING THE INTEGRATION OF HEALTH CARE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS.
[``(a) Development.--Not later than 36 months after the
date of enactment of the Patient Safety and Quality
Improvement Act, the Secretary shall develop or adopt
voluntary national standards that promote the integration of
health care information technology systems.
[``(b) Updates.--The Secretary shall provide for the
ongoing review and periodic updating of the standards
developed under subsection (a).
[``(c) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall provide for the
dissemination of the standards developed and updated under
this section.
[``SEC. 926. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
[``There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may
be necessary to carry out this part.''.
[SEC. 4. STUDIES AND REPORTS.
[(a) Medical Technologies and Therapies.--
[(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall enter into a contract with an appropriate
research organization for the conduct of a study to assess
the impact of medical technologies and therapies on patient
safety, patient benefit, health care quality, and the costs
of care as well as productivity growth. Such study shall
determine--
[(A) the extent to which the current health care system's
use of labor versus the use of technology has contributed to
increases in the share of the gross domestic product that is
devoted to health care and the impact of medical technologies
and therapies on such increases;
[(B) the extent to which early and appropriate introduction
and integration of innovative medical technologies and
therapies may affect the overall productivity and quality of
the health care delivery systems of the United States; and
[(C) the relationship of such medical technologies and
therapies to patient safety, patient benefit, health care
quality, and cost of care.
[(2) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall prepare and submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report containing the results of the
study conducted under paragraph (1).
[(b) State Laws Relating to Patient Safety Peer Review
Systems.--
[(1) Survey.--The Attorney General shall conduct a survey
of State laws that relate to
[[Page 17016]]
patient safety data peer review systems, including laws that
establish an evidentiary privilege applicable to data
developed by such systems, and shall review the manner in
which such laws have been interpreted by the courts.
[(2) Report.--Not later than 9 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prepare and
submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and
Commerce of the House of Representatives, a report concerning
the results of the survey conducted under paragraph (1).]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Patient Safety and Quality
Improvement Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In 1999, the Institute of Medicine released a report
entitled To Err is Human that described medical errors as the
eighth leading cause of death in the United States, with as
many as 98,000 people dying as a result of medical errors
each year.
(2) To address these deaths and injuries due to medical
errors, the health care system must identify and learn from
such errors so that systems of care can be improved.
(3) In their report, the Institute of Medicine called on
Congress to provide legal protections with respect to
information reported for the purposes of quality improvement
and patient safety.
(4) The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee of
the Senate held 4 hearings in the 106th Congress and 1
hearing in the 107th Congress on patient safety where experts
in the field supported the recommendation of the Institute of
Medicine for congressional action.
(5) Myriad public and private patient safety initiatives
have begun. The Quality Interagency Coordination Taskforce
has recommended steps to improve patient safety that may be
taken by each Federal agency involved in health care and
activities relating to these steps are ongoing.
(6) The research on patient safety unequivocally calls for
a learning environment, rather than a punitive environment,
in order to improve patient safety.
(7) Voluntary data gathering systems are more supportive
than mandatory systems in creating the learning environment
referred to in paragraph (6) as stated in the Institute of
Medicine's report.
(8) Promising patient safety reporting systems have been
established throughout the United States and the best ways to
structure and use these systems are currently being
determined, largely through projects funded by the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality.
(9) Many organizations currently collecting patient safety
data have expressed a need for legal protections that will
allow them to review protected information and collaborate in
the development and implementation of patient safety
improvement strategies. Currently, the State peer review
protections are inadequate to allow the sharing of
information to promote patient safety.
(b) Purposes.--It is the purpose of this Act to--
(1) encourage a culture of safety and quality in the United
States health care system by providing for legal protection
of information reported voluntarily for the purposes of
quality improvement and patient safety; and
(2) ensure accountability by raising standards and
expectations for continuous quality improvements in patient
safety.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.
Title IX of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 299 et
seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 912(c), by inserting ``, in accordance with
part C,'' after ``The Director shall'';
(2) by redesignating part C as part D;
(3) by redesignating sections 921 through 928, as sections
931 through 938, respectively;
(4) in 934(d) (as so redesignated), by striking the second
sentence and inserting the following: ``Penalties provided
for under this section shall be imposed and collected by the
Secretary using the administrative and procedural processes
used to impose and collect civil money penalties under
section 1128A of the Social Security Act (other than
subsections (a) and (b), the second sentence of subsection
(f), and subsections (i), (m), and (n)), unless the Secretary
determines that a modification of procedures would be more
suitable or reasonable to carry out this subsection and
provides for such modification by regulation.'';
(5) in section 938(1) (as so redesignated), by striking
``921'' and inserting ``931''; and
(6) by inserting after part B the following:
``PART C--PATIENT SAFETY IMPROVEMENT
``SEC. 921. DEFINITIONS.
``In this part:
``(1) Non-identifiable information.--
``(A) In general.--The term `non-identifiable information'
means information that is presented in a form and manner that
prevents the identification of a provider, a patient, or a
reporter of patient safety data.
``(B) Identifiability of patient.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the term `presented in a form and manner
that prevents the identification of a patient' means, with
respect to information that has been subject to rules
promulgated pursuant to section 264(c) of the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42
U.S.C. 1320d-2 note), that the information has been de-
identified so that it is no longer individually identifiable
health information as defined in such rules.
``(2) Patient safety data.--
``(A) In general.--The term `patient safety data' means--
``(i) any data, reports, records, memoranda, analyses (such
as root cause analyses), or statements that could result in
improved patient safety or health care quality or health care
outcomes, that are--
``(I) collected or developed by a provider for reporting to
a patient safety organization, provided that they are
reported to the patient safety organization within a
reasonable period of time;
``(II) requested by a patient safety organization
(including the contents of such request);
``(III) reported to a provider by a patient safety
organization; or
``(IV) collected from a provider or patient safety
organization or developed by a patient safety organization;
or
``(ii) any deliberative work or process or oral
communications with respect to any patient safety data
described in clause (i).
``(B) Limitation.--The term `patient safety data' shall not
include information (including a patient's medical record)
that is collected or developed separately from and that
exists separately from patient safety data. Such separate
information or a copy thereof submitted to a patient safety
organization shall not itself be considered as patient safety
data.
``(3) Patient safety organization.--The term `patient
safety organization' means a private or public organization
or component thereof that performs all of the following
activities (which are deemed to be necessary for the proper
management and administration of such organization or
component thereof), and that is currently listed by the
Secretary as a patient safety organization pursuant to
section 924(c):
``(A) The conduct, as its primary activity, of efforts to
improve patient safety and the quality of health care
delivery.
``(B) The collection and analysis of patient safety data
that are submitted by more than one provider.
``(C) The development and dissemination of information to
providers with respect to improving patient safety, such as
recommendations, protocols, or information regarding best
practices.
``(D) The utilization of patient safety data for the
purposes of encouraging a culture of safety and of providing
direct feedback and assistance to providers to effectively
minimize patient risk.
``(E) The maintenance of a process to preserve
confidentiality with respect to the information that is not
non-identifiable.
``(F) The provision of appropriate security measures with
respect to patient safety data.
``(G) The submittal to the Secretary of a certification
pursuant to section 924.
``(4) Provider.--The term `provider' means--
``(A) a person licensed or otherwise authorized under State
law to provide health care services, including--
``(i) a hospital, nursing facility, comprehensive
outpatient rehabilitation facility, home health agency,
hospice program, renal dialysis facility, ambulatory surgical
center, pharmacy, physician or health care practitioner's
office, long term care facility, behavior health residential
treatment facility, clinical laboratory, or health center; or
``(ii) a physician, physician assistant, nurse
practitioner, clinical nurse specialist, certified registered
nurse anesthetist, certified nurse midwife, psychologist,
certified social worker, registered dietitian or nutrition
professional, physical or occupational therapist, pharmacist,
or other individual health care practitioner; or
``(B) any other person specified in regulations promulgated
by the Secretary.
``SEC. 922. PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROTECTIONS.
``(a) Privilege.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
Federal, State, or local law, patient safety data shall be
privileged and, subject to the provisions of subsection (c),
shall not be--
``(1) subject to a Federal, State, or local civil,
criminal, or administrative subpoena;
``(2) subject to discovery in connection with a Federal,
State, or local civil, criminal, or administrative
proceeding;
``(3) disclosed pursuant to section 552 of title 5, United
States Code (commonly known as the Freedom of Information
Act) or any other similar Federal, State, or local law;
``(4) admitted as evidence or otherwise disclosed in any
Federal, State, or local civil, criminal, or administrative
proceeding; or
``(5) utilized in a disciplinary proceeding against a
provider.
``(b) Confidentiality.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of Federal, State, or local law, and subject to the
provisions of subsections (c) and (d), patient safety data
shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed.
``(c) Exceptions to Privilege and Confidentiality.--Nothing
in this section shall be construed to prohibit one or more of
the following uses or disclosures:
``(1) Disclosure by a provider or patient safety
organization of relevant patient safety data for use in a
criminal proceeding only after a court makes an in camera
determination that such patient safety data contains evidence
of an intentional act to directly harm the patient.
``(2) Voluntary disclosure by a provider or patient safety
organization of information to the Food and Drug
Administration, or to a person that is subject to the
jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration, with
respect to a Food and Drug Administration-regulated product
or activity for which that entity has responsibility, for the
purposes of activities related to the quality, safety, or
effectiveness of a Food
[[Page 17017]]
and Drug Administration-regulated product or activity or a
Food and Drug Administration proceeding.
``(3) Voluntary disclosure of non-identifiable patient
safety data by a provider or a patient safety organization.
``(4) Voluntary disclosure by a provider of patient safety
data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for
public health surveillance, investigation, or other public
health activities.
``(d) Protected Disclosure and Use of Information.--Nothing
in this section shall be construed to prohibit one or more of
the following uses or disclosures:
``(1) Disclosure by a provider or patient safety
organization of information to which subsections (a) or (b)
applies to carry out activities described in paragraph (2) or
(3) of section 921.
``(2) Use or disclosure by a provider or patient safety
organization of patient safety data in connection with
providing treatment, improving patient safety, health care
quality or administrative efficiency, or any other customary
activity of the provider or in obtaining payment.
``(3) Disclosure of patient safety data among patient
safety organizations.
``(4) Disclosure of patient safety data by a provider or
patient safety organization to grantees or contractors
carrying out patient safety research, evaluation, or
demonstration projects authorized by the Director.
``(5) Disclosure of patient safety data by a provider to an
accrediting body that accredits that provider.
``(e) Continued Protection of Information.--Patient safety
data used or disclosed in accordance with subsection (d)
shall continue to be privileged and confidential in
accordance with subsections (a) and (b) and shall not be
disclosed--
``(1) by an entity that possessed such information before
such use or disclosure; or
``(2) by an entity to which the information was disclosed;
unless such additional disclosure is permitted under
subsection (d).
``(f) Limitation on Actions.--
``(1) Patient safety organizations.--Except as provided in
subsection (c), no action may be brought or process served
against a patient safety organization to compel disclosure of
information collected or developed under this part whether or
not such information is patient safety data.
``(2) Providers.--An accrediting body shall not take an
accrediting action against a provider based on the good faith
participation of the provider in the collection, development,
reporting, or maintenance of patient safety data in
accordance with this part. An accrediting body may not
require a provider to reveal its communications with any
patient safety organization established in accordance with
this part.
``(g) Disclosure or Use of Information.--
``(1) In general.--Except with respect to the specific
patient safety data that is used or disclosed, the disclosure
or use of any patient safety data in accordance with
subsection (c) or (d) shall not be treated as a waiver of any
privilege or protection established under this part.
``(2) Inadvertent disclosure or use.--The inadvertent
disclosure or use of patient safety data shall not waive any
privilege or protection established under this part with
respect to such data.
``(h) Reporter Protection.--
``(1) In general.--A provider may not take an adverse
employment action, as described in paragraph (2), against an
individual based upon the fact that the individual in good
faith reported information--
``(A) to the provider with the intention of having the
information reported to a patient safety organization; or
``(B) directly to a patient safety organization.
``(2) Adverse employment action.--For purposes of this
subsection, an `adverse employment action' includes--
``(A) loss of employment, the failure to promote an
individual, or the failure to provide any other employment-
related benefit for which the individual would otherwise be
eligible; or
``(B) an adverse evaluation or decision made in relation to
accreditation, certification, credentialing, or licensing of
the individual.
``(i) Enforcement.--
``(1) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsections (c)
and (d) and as otherwise provided for in this section, it
shall be unlawful for any person to negligently or
intentionally disclose any patient safety data described in
subsection (a) and any such person shall, upon adjudication,
be assessed in accordance with section 934(d).
``(2) Relation to hipaa.--The penalty provided for under
paragraph (1) shall not apply if the defendant would
otherwise be subject to a penalty under the regulations
promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2
note) or under section 1176 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1320d-5) for the same disclosure.
``(3) Equitable relief.--Without limiting remedies
available to other parties, a civil action may be brought by
any aggrieved individual to enjoin any act or practice that
violates subsection (h) and to obtain other appropriate
equitable relief (including reinstatement, back pay, and
restoration of benefits) to redress such violation.
``(4) Actions against state employees.--Notwithstanding
subsection (a), with respect to a State employer, the
privilege described in such subsection shall not apply to
such employer unless the employer consents, in advance, to be
subject to a civil action under paragraph (3).
``(j) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to--
``(1) limit other privileges that are available under
Federal, State, or local laws that provide greater
confidentiality protections or privileges than the privilege
and confidentiality protections provided for in this section;
``(2) limit, alter, or affect the requirements of Federal,
State, or local law pertaining to patient-related data that
is not privileged or confidential under this section;
``(3) alter or affect the implementation of any provision
of section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-191; 110 Stat.
2033), section 1176 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1320d-5), or any regulation promulgated under such sections;
``(4) limit the authority of any provider, patient safety
organization, or other person to enter into a contract
requiring greater confidentiality or delegating authority to
make a disclosure or use in accordance with subsection (c) or
(d); and
``(5) prohibit a provider from reporting crime to law
enforcement authorities.
``SEC. 923. PATIENT SAFETY NETWORK OF DATABASES.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall maintain a patient
safety network of databases that provides an interactive
evidence-based management resource for providers, patient
safety organizations, and other persons. The network of
databases shall have the capacity to accept, aggregate, and
analyze nonidentifiable patient safety data voluntarily
reported by patient safety organizations, providers, or other
persons.
``(b) Network of Database Standards.--The Secretary may
determine common formats for the reporting to the patient
safety network of databases maintained under subsection (a)
of nonidentifiable patient safety data, including necessary
data elements, common and consistent definitions, and a
standardized computer interface for the processing of such
data. To the extent practicable, such standards shall be
consistent with the administrative simplification provisions
of part C of title XI of the Social Security Act.
``SEC. 924. PATIENT SAFETY ORGANIZATION CERTIFICATION AND
LISTING.
``(a) Certification.--
``(1) Initial certification.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2), an entity that seeks to be a patient safety
organization shall submit an initial certification to the
Secretary that the entity intends to perform the activities
described in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section 921(3).
``(2) Delayed certification of collection from more than
one provider.--An entity that seeks to be a patient safety
organization may--
``(A) submit an initial certification that it intends to
perform the activities described in subparagraph (A) through
(F) of section 921(3) other than the activities described in
subparagraph (B) of such section; and
``(B) within 2 years of submitting the initial
certification under subparagraph (A), submit a supplemental
certification that it performs the activities described in
section 921(3)(B).
``(3) Expiration and renewal.--
``(A) Expiration.--An initial certification under paragraph
(1) or (2)(A) shall expire on the date that is 3 years after
it is submitted.
``(B) Renewal.--
``(i) In general.--An entity that seeks to remain a patient
safety organization after the expiration of an initial
certification under paragraph (1) or (2)(A) shall, within the
3-year period described in subparagraph (A), submit a renewal
certification to the Secretary that the entity satisfies the
criteria described in subparagraph (A) through (F) of section
921(3).
``(ii) Term of renewal.--A renewal certification under
clause (i) shall expire on the date that is 3 years after
that date on which it is submitted, and may be renewed in the
same manner as an initial certification.
``(b) Acceptance of Certification.--Upon the submission by
an organization of an initial certification pursuant to
subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2)(A), a supplemental certification
pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(B), or a renewal certification
pursuant to subsection (a)(3)(B), the Secretary shall review
such certification and--
``(1) if such certification meets the requirements of
subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), or (a)(3)(B), as
applicable, the Secretary shall notify the organization that
such certification is accepted; or
``(2) if such certification does not meet such
requirements, as applicable, the Secretary shall notify the
organization that such certification is not accepted and the
reasons therefore.
``(c) Listing.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the Secretary shall compile and maintain a
current listing of patient safety organizations with respect
to which the Secretary has accepted a certification pursuant
to subsection (b).
``(2) Removal from listing.--The Secretary shall remove
from the listing under paragraph (1)--
``(A) an entity with respect to which the Secretary has
accepted an initial certification pursuant to subsection
(a)(2)(A) and which does not submit a supplemental
certification pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(B) that is
accepted by the Secretary;
``(B) an entity whose certification expires and which does
not submit a renewal application that is accepted by the
Secretary; and
``(C) an entity with respect to which the Secretary revokes
the Secretary's acceptance of the entity's certification,
pursuant to subsection (d).
[[Page 17018]]
``(d) Revocation of Acceptance.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if
the Secretary determines that a patient safety organization
does not perform any activity described in subparagraph (A)
through (F) of section 921(3), the Secretary may, after
notice and an opportunity for a hearing, revoke the
Secretary's acceptance of the certification of such
organization.
``(2) Delayed certification of collection from more than
one provider.--A revocation under paragraph (1) may not be
based on a determination that the organization does not
perform the activity described in section 921(3)(B) if--
``(A) the listing of the organization is based on its
submittal of an initial certification under subsection
(a)(2)(A);
``(B) the organization has not submitted a supplemental
certification under subsection (a)(2)(B); and
``(C) the 2-year period described in subsection (a)(2)(B)
has not expired.
``(e) Notification of Revocation or Removal From Listing.--
``(1) Supplying confirmation of notification to
providers.--Within 15 days of a revocation under subsection
(d)(1), a patient safety organization shall submit to the
Secretary a confirmation that the organization has taken all
reasonable actions to notify each provider whose patient
safety data is collected or analyzed by the organization of
such revocation.
``(2) Publication.--Upon the revocation of an acceptance of
an organization's certification under subsection (d)(1), or
upon the removal of an organization from the listing under
subsection (c)(2), the Secretary shall publish notice of the
revocation or removal in the Federal Register.
``(f) Status of Data After Removal From Listing.--
``(1) New data.--With respect to the privilege and
confidentiality protections described in section 922, data
submitted to an organization within 30 days after the
organization is removed from the listing under subsection
(c)(2) shall have the same status as data submitted while the
organization was still listed.
``(2) Protection to continue to apply.--If the privilege
and confidentiality protections described in section 922
applied to data while an organization was listed, or during
the 30-day period described in paragraph (1), such
protections shall continue to apply to such data after the
organization is removed from the listing under subsection
(c)(2).
``(g) Disposition of Data.--If the Secretary revokes the
acceptance of an organization's certification under
subsection (d)(1) and removes the organization from the
listing as provided for in subsection (c)(2), with respect to
the patient safety data that the organization received from
providers, the organization shall--
``(1) with the approval of the provider and another patient
safety organization, transfer such data to such other
organization;
``(2) return such data to the provider of that patient
safety data; or
``(3) if returning such data to the provider is not
practicable, destroy such data.
``SEC. 925. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
``The Secretary, acting through the Director, may provide
technical assistance to patient safety organizations,
including annual meetings for patient safety organizations to
discuss methodology, communication, data collection, or
privacy concerns.
``SEC. 926. PROMOTING THE INTEROPERABILITY OF HEALTH CARE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS.
``(a) Development.--Not later than 36 months after the date
of enactment of the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement
Act of 2003, the Secretary shall develop or adopt voluntary
national standards that promote the electronic exchange of
health care information.
``(b) Updates.--The Secretary shall provide for the ongoing
review and periodic updating of the standards developed under
subsection (a).
``(c) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall provide for the
dissemination of the standards developed and updated under
this section.
``SEC. 927. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may
be necessary to carry out this part.''.
SEC. 4. STUDIES AND REPORTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall enter into a contract (based upon a competitive
contracting process) with an appropriate research
organization for the conduct of a study to assess the impact
of medical technologies and therapies on patient safety,
patient benefit, health care quality, and the costs of care
as well as productivity growth. Such study shall examine--
(1) the extent to which factors, such as the use of labor
and technological advances, have contributed to increases in
the share of the gross domestic product that is devoted to
health care and the impact of medical technologies and
therapies on such increases;
(2) the extent to which early and appropriate introduction
and integration of innovative medical technologies and
therapies may affect the overall productivity and quality of
the health care delivery systems of the United States; and
(3) the relationship of such medical technologies and
therapies to patient safety, patient benefit, health care
quality, and cost of care.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall prepare and submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report containing the results of the
study conducted under subsection (a).
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Gregg, Senator
Jeffords, Senator Dodd, Senator Frist, Senator Sessions, and all of the
other Democratic and Republican members of our Health committee who
have devoted extraordinary energy and skill to finding bipartisan
consensus on the complex issue of medical errors and improving patient
safety.
For even one American to die from an avoidable medical error is a
tragedy. That thousands die every year is a national disgrace--and an
urgent call to action.
More than 4 years ago, the Institute of Medicine reported that
medical errors cause 98,000 deaths every year. The IOM recommended that
health care professionals should be encouraged to report medical
errors, without fearing that their reports will be used against them.
Our legislation implements this sensible recommendation by establishing
patient safety organizations to analyze medical errors and recommend
ways to avoid them in future. The legislation also creates a legal
privilege for material reported to these safety organizations, while
seeing that original records, such as a patient's chart, remain
accessible to patients.
Drawing the boundaries of this privilege requires a careful balance.
The legislation is designed to create a culture in which medical
professionals feel secure in reporting errors without fear of
punishment, and it is right to do so. But we must be careful that in
doing so, we do not actually shield those who have negligently or
intentionally caused harm to patients. We must also make sure not to
interfere with existing State laws on reporting.
The proposal that the Senate considers today has made substantial and
welcome progress on these and other important issues, and I look
forward to making further progress in conference with our colleagues in
the House. I will do all I can to see that we continue the bipartisan
cooperation that has allowed today's important action. I look forward
to working with our colleagues in the House to produce a conference
report that includes the best features of the Senate and House
proposals. I believe that several features of the bipartisan House
legislation are worth close consideration by the conference, including
the strong protections against conflict of interest.
I hope that this legislation is the beginning of our action on
patient safety--not the conclusion. Other steps are also necessary. The
Federal Government should play a leading role in the quest for
improving quality and safety for patients. Indeed, the very title of
one of IOM's most important reports, ``Leadership by Example,''
highlights the central role that the Federal Government must play in
transforming the quality of health care.
I thank all my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, who came
together and put their differences aside to bring this legislation to
the floor. This legislation sends a promising message that every
patient in America will receive effective, high quality health care.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that today the Senate
will pass a measure that many have worked on for many years. The
Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, and similar companion
legislation, have been the focus of considerable efforts by many of our
colleagues since 1999. I must thank Senator Gregg, Senator Kennedy and
our other colleagues for all their hard work in bringing S. 720 before
the Senate today.
In 1999, Americans were shocked by the findings of the landmark
Institute of Medicine study on medical errors. As we all know, that
study reported that the number of deaths associated with medical errors
could be as high 98,000 each year.
Most importantly, the report noted that more than half of these
deaths resulted from preventable errors--needless deaths that could
have been prevented if we only had a system in place that would help
providers learn from each other's mistakes.
The bill starts with a simple premise. Let's set up a system that
helps our health care providers learn from each other. Let's set up a
system that promotes the reporting and analysis of
[[Page 17019]]
medical errors. Let's set up a system that engenders the trust of
providers and the patients they serve.
Of course, we also live in a complex society, one in which medical
errors that may have harmed a patient might also be the basis for
litigation. It is a right under our laws to seek a remedy when harmed,
and we need to preserve access to certain information for this redress
of grievances.
However, an unfortunate consequence of living in a litigious society
is that hospitals and providers often feel that it's not in their best
interests to share information openly and honestly. We know, in fact,
that their attorneys and risk managers often advise them not to do so.
So, in order for our system to work, it needs to balance these
sometimes competing demands.
The bill we are considering strikes this balance. It calls for the
creation of new entities we call Patient Safety Organizations that
would collect voluntarily reported patient safety data. This bill
provides the protections of confidentiality and privilege to that
patient safety data, but the bill also sets definite limitations on
what can be considered confidential and privileged.
This legislation does nothing to reduce or affect other Federal,
State or local legal requirements pertaining to health related
information. Nor does this bill alter any existing rights or remedies
available to injured patients. The bottom line is that this legislation
neither strengthens nor weakens the existing system of tort and
liability law.
Instead, the legislation before us creates a new, parallel system of
information collection and analysis, designed to educate our doctors
and protect patients' safety everywhere. This bill reflects difficult
negotiations and many compromises over almost 5 years of consideration.
Through the contributions of Members on both sides of the aisle, this
legislation has been greatly strengthened since I first introduced it
back in the 106th Congress. I have appended these remarks with an
article I wrote that provides a more detailed description of the
efforts that have been made to reduce medical errors and I ask
unanimous consent that it will be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
First, Do No Harm
With the publication of the Institute of Medicine IOM
study, To Err is Human 1999, we were all reminded that
Hippocrates' maxim to ``first, do no harm'' is as relevant to
the practice of medicine today as it was in 400 B.C. The IOM
report was among the first to galvanize national attention on
the issue of patient safety when it reported that medical
errors contribute to approximately 100,000 patient deaths a
year. This startling and troubling statistic has been
verified in subsequent studies and cited in peer reviewed
articles in the leading journals of biomedical research,
including the Journal of the American Medical Association,
the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine.
When I was Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions in 1999, I undertook several
hearings--five in all--to examine this issue and discuss the
recommendations of the To Err is Human report. The testimony
overwhelmingly agreed with several of the original Institute
of Medicine recommendations.
Perhaps the most important of these recommendations stress
that improving patient safety requires a learning environment
rather than a punitive environment; voluntary data gathering
systems as opposed to mandatory systems; and appropriate
legal protections--including confidentiality and privilege
from discovery--that allow for the review and analysis of
medical error information.
In response to this focused attention, a myriad of public
and private patient safety initiatives have begun. The
Department of Health and Human Services has initiated several
patient safety projects, including project grants funded by
the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality AHRQ. The work
of the Veteran's Administration in developing and
implementing innovative patient safety systems--especially in
the area of medication management--has drawn attention from
throughout the country. In addition, the Quality Interagency
Coordination Taskforce has recommended steps to improve
patient safety that can be taken by each Federal agency
involved in health care, and agency activities to implement
these steps are ongoing.
In addition, several non-governmental organizations and
professional societies have ``stepped up to the plate'' of
patient safety. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Healthcare Organizations, the U.S. Pharmacopoeia, the
American Medical Association, and other health care providers
including the American Federation of Hospitals and American
Hospital Association have launched innovative efforts
dedicated to improving patient safety. However, many of the
organizations currently collecting patient safety data have
expressed the need for legal protections that will allow them
to review protected information so that they may collaborate
in the development and implementation of patient safety
improvement strategies.
The work of Lucien Leape, a member of the IOM panel and
adjunct professor of health policy at Harvard University, has
supported this view. Dr. Leape has argued persuasively that
we as a society will continue to have difficulty in reducing
medical errors and improving patient safety because our
institutions are ``still locked into a blame and punish
approach to errors and a focus on individual culpability,''
and that ``the fear of malpractice litigation thus becomes a
major barrier to openly discussing and reporting errors.''
I have introduced legislation with my colleagues, Senators
Bill Frist, John Breaux, and Judd Gregg, which seeks to
address these concerns. The legislation raises expectations
for higher standards for continuous patient safety
improvement and it encourages a new and needed culture of
patient safety among health care providers and American
hospitals. The bill accomplishes these goals by establishing
appropriate legal protections for patient safety information
voluntarily shared among patient safety organizations and
providers. Our legislation reflects the belief that a culture
of patient safety can flourish only in an environment where
information, data, process, and recommendations enjoy legal
protection and privilege.
Because it appropriately addresses an obvious need and
concern, the Jeffords Patient Safety and Quality Improvement
Act has enjoyed widespread endorsement by hospital, patient,
doctor, and consumer advocacy organizations. This degree of
support underscores the broad appeal and essential nature of
this proposed legislation.
In the time since the release of To Err is Human, the
Congress has been unable to enact sensible legislation to
reduce medical errors and increase patient safety. However I
believe we can accomplish that goal this year. The House of
Representatives has already passed its version of patient
safety legislation and we are working to pass the Patient
Safety and Quality Improvement Act in the Senate. I am
hopeful that we can reconcile disagreements that have
previously stopped this legislation from moving forward and I
am committed to seeing that happen.
It has been three years since the release of the IOM
report. That means, based on the IOM's statistics, that an
additional 300,000 deaths and an untold number of injuries
have occurred from medical errors. We need to apply
Hippocrates' admonition to ``first, do no harm'' beyond the
medical community to the legislative community. We need to
pass legislation now that will help the health care community
stop the needless injury caused by unintentional medical
errors.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I offer my appreciation to the many contributions from
Chairman Gregg, Ranking Member Kennedy, and Senators Frist, Breaux,
Enzi, Sessions, Dodd, and Bingaman.
We legislate many essential issues in the Congress, but rarely can we
say that what we do is a matter of life and death. This, however, is
one of those issues. The time to act is long overdue. This is an area
where delay will lead to deaths that can be prevented. I urge all of my
colleagues to vote in support of this bill.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be
agreed to, the committee amendment as amended be agreed to, the bill as
amended be read a third time, and the HELP Committee be discharged from
further consideration of H.R. 663, and the Senate proceed to its
consideration; provided that all after the enacting clause be stricken
and the text of S. 720, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof;
provided further that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and
passed, the Senate insist upon its amendment and request a conference
with the House of Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees with a ratio
of 4 to 3.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that S. 720 be returned to the
Calendar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I was on the
Senate floor a few weeks ago with the distinguished chairman of the
HELP Committee. At that time there was an attempt to move the bill.
[[Page 17020]]
I said at that time this bill could be done. There were ways we could
accomplish it. This is an extremely important piece of legislation.
Through the Chair to the distinguished majority leader, he knows better
than I. He is a physician. But from what I know of patient safety, this
is an extremely important piece of legislation, and we have been able
to do it. We are going to be able to go to conference. There has been
agreement between the Chair and the ranking member. I think this is an
important step forward.
I would say, through the Chair to my friend who is not here, the
distinguished chairman of the HELP Committee, I am glad he brought this
to the Senate's attention. I am glad we did not agree to what his
unanimous consent request was at that time. But we were able to get it
done, and I am very happy for that.
I have no objection. This is an important piece of legislation. I now
wish the conferees well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3568) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The bill (H.R. 663), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Enzi) appointed Mr. Gregg, Mr. Frist, Mr.
Enzi, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Jeffords conferees
on the part of the Senate.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I do want to congratulate Senator Gregg,
chairman of the HELP Committee, and ranking member, Senator Kennedy.
This is a piece of legislation that people can trace. Several years
ago, the Institute of Medicine did an outstanding report. We rely on
the Institute of Medicine again and again to objectively, in a
nonpartisan way, look at a whole range of issues, from the financing of
health care, health care delivery, preventive health care, acute
treatment, chronic treatment. They really respond very much to outside
bodies like the Senate and do studies.
One great study they did--people have argued their numbers aren't
exactly right, too high, too low--but it was that about 100,000 people
die every year from systems' lapses, medical errors. Those are, for the
most part, preventable deaths, if you improve the systems. This bill
goes right at the heart of improving the systems and does so in a way
that relies on individuals who may observe something that didn't work
out, sharing that data with their peers in a way that they do not have
to fear lawsuits.
Obviously, if there is wrongdoing, lawsuits would be appropriate.
But, if it is an error, minor error, or even a more serious error, it
can be addressed upfront in a way that you do not have to be afraid
somebody is going to come in and crush you from the outside.
I say that because it is a bipartisan bill. It went through the
Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee. I think the fundamental
structure of the bill went through the committee unanimously. It shows
tremendous leadership.
There were disagreements on a few items that have been worked out,
with Senator Gregg's leadership, working with Senator Kennedy. With
that, we have a very good bill, a strong bill that will change systems
of health care in a positive way, and clinics and hospitals and
physicians offices such that we can eliminate or greatly reduce the
number of unnecessary medical errors that occur in large part through
systems approaches.
Just an example would be if somebody is on 10 different medicines and
somebody prescribes a new medicine. You don't know the interaction of
those medicines. You need a system to identify that. That sort of
organized, commonsense approach to improve systems is made possible by
this bill.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the Senate this evening has taken a major
step toward better and safer health care for all Americans.
Tonight, we approved the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act.
The goal of this legislation is to allow health care providers some
freedom from legal fear so they can do what we all strive to do every
day--learn from our mistakes.
This bill would create a framework through which hospitals, doctors,
and other health care providers can work to improve health care quality
in a protected legal environment. It would accomplish this by granting
privilege and confidentiality protections to health care providers to
allow them to report health care errors and ``near misses'' to patient
safety organizations.
This bill would not permit anyone to hide information about a medical
mistake. Lawyers would still have access to medical records and other
information that would normally be discoverable in a legal proceeding.
However, the bill would ensure that the analysis of that information by
patient safety organizations would take place on a separate track in a
protected legal environment.
Under the bill, patient safety organizations would have the freedom
to collect and analyze data on health care errors in confidence, and
then report their findings to the health care community. These findings
would help health care providers understand how mistakes happen in our
health care system, and how to prevent them.
If we can reach an agreement in conference in the House and send this
bill to the President, health care providers will be much more likely
to share information about honest mistakes, because they will have some
assurance that the analysis of their information won't result in a tidy
package of information that a personal injury lawyer could use against
them in court.
I express my appreciation for the hard work that the members of the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions put into this bill,
particularly Chairman Gregg, Majority Leader Frist, the lead sponsor
Senator Jeffords, and Senators Sessions and Kennedy.
I also thank the staff who worked so diligently over the course of
this Congress to craft this legislation, particularly Vince
Ventimiglia, Peggy Carlson, David Fisher, Dean Rosen, Jim Hippe, Sean
Donohue, Megan Clarke, David Nexon, David Bowen, and of course Stephen
Northrup with my office.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
UNITED STATES-MOROCCO FREE-TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate having
received H.R. 4842, the companion measure to S. 2677, an act to
implement the United States-Morocco Free-Trade Agreement, the House
bill is read a third time and passed; the passage of S. 2677 is
vitiated, and the bill is returned to the Calendar.
The bill (H.R. 4842) was read the third time and passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, a few minutes ago we passed the Department
of Defense appropriations bill, with a vote of 96 to 0. I want to take
this opportunity to congratulate the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, who is also chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, Senator
Stevens, and his ranking member, Senator Inouye, on bringing this first
appropriations conference report for next year to completion.
This is a critically important bill. It provides nearly $418 billion
in resources to our dedicated men and women in the global war on
terrorism. The legislation will immediately make available
[[Page 17021]]
$26.8 billion to the Department of Defense as emergency appropriations
to cover the costs associated with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
upon signature by the President.
As GAO reported this week, these funds are needed, and they are
needed quickly, for the operation and maintenance and military
personnel through the end of the current fiscal year. Further, critical
funding is provided immediately to the Department of State for our
diplomatic programs, for our consular programs, and embassy security in
Iraq.
There are other programs funded in this important legislation that I
want to thank the conferees for addressing. Mr. President, $95 million
is provided immediately to USAID and the State Department to address
the tragic moral and humanitarian crisis that is occurring in the
Darfur region of the Sudan.
I am hopeful Secretary Powell's and U.N. Secretary General Kofi
Annan's discussions today in New York will result in the Sudanese
Government fulfilling its recent commitment to end the attacks in the
Darfur region by disarming the Janjaweed.
I am particularly concerned our new Ambassador--our former colleague
in this body, Senator John Danforth--is reported today as saying the
situation in Darfur is not getting better but is getting worse. Mr.
President, $95 million in humanitarian and refugee assistance provided
in this legislation is critical, but security and stability must be
secured in the region if this assistance which we are delivering is
ever to really reach the people who are in need. As we all know, in the
Darfur region, tens of thousands of people have died, and over a
million people are directly affected in this very large western region
in Sudan.
I wish it were not necessary, but it is good this legislation will
also provide $19 million to improve amputee care at the Walter Reed
Medical Center for prosthetic limb development and applied research.
Many of us in this body have had the opportunity to visit the men and
women--the soldiers--who have been so directly impacted at Walter Reed.
We thank them for their service, we thank them for their patriotism,
and we are gratified that this $19 million will at least address one
dimension, and that is the dimension of amputee care at that wonderful,
outstanding medical center.
There is over $18.2 billion for the Defense Health Program, an
increase of over $2.5 billion over last year's level. I am pleased this
legislation fully funds the 3.5-percent military pay raise and
increases our service men's and women's basic housing allowance for
housing, putting additional money into their pocket.
On the domestic front, it is appropriate this legislation also
provides a half billion dollars, $500 million, in emergency assistance
to the Departments of Labor and Agriculture to address the growing cost
of increasing forest fires this summer that we see in the West, as well
as in Alaska.
We should also point out the legislation provides $50 million to
Boston and to New York City to help defray some of the costs associated
with our upcoming national conventions.
Mr. President, this is critical legislation for our national
security. It is somewhat ironic that we voted on this legislation the
same day that the 9/11 Commission released its report because the first
recommendation of that report was that the U.S. Government must
identify and prioritize actual or potential terrorist sanctuaries. For
each, it should have a realistic strategy to keep possible terrorists
insecure and on the run, using all elements of national power.
This legislation funds our national power. It is appropriate it is
the first appropriations bill this year to pass and to be sent to
President Bush.
Again, I congratulate Chairman Stevens, as well as the ranking
member, and all of the committee members of the subcommittee and the
entire Appropriations Committee for this outstanding piece of
legislation.
____________________
SENATE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on a separate topic, I want to take a few
moments before going out on recess, looking back over the last several
weeks and sharing with my colleagues some of the very positive things
we have been able to accomplish, positive issues and bills that will
have a direct impact on people throughout America and also, indeed,
throughout the world.
We have had a productive year. Among our many legislative
accomplishments, the Senate passed the Laci and Conner's law, the Crime
Victims Act, the child nutrition reauthorization, and the Internet
access tax moratorium. Each of these initiatives expresses our values.
Each will help protect the American family.
In this past month, since the last recess, we have been able to build
on those successes. I commend my colleagues for their tremendous work,
their hard work, each and every day over July.
We had the opportunity today to receive the report from the 9/11
Commission, and we have heard about it on the floor of the Senate
today. We heard about it in our briefings today and yesterday. We have
heard us all commend the 9/11 Commission for their efforts to produce a
genuinely bipartisan document. That is the way it was received. In
talking to the Commission members, that is the way each step along the
way the 9/11 Commission acted: in a bipartisan manner.
I have not had the opportunity to read the whole report. It is a
large book people have had on the floor today. But I have read the
summary and been in on the briefings. The only way I can describe it
is, it provides a sobering account of the events leading up to
September 11. It offers valuable recommendations--one I just referred
to a few moments ago--for how America can better protect itself, how we
can act to make America safer.
I again thank the Commission members. They have worked hard over the
last several months to produce this outstanding document, a document
that will be invaluable in the months ahead as we deliberate. There
will be a lot of deliberation, and the Democratic leader and I will
comment on that a little bit later in a colloquy on how best to
strengthen America's defenses.
In the meantime, as we wrap up for the August recess and the
conventions, I would like to take a moment to highlight a few of the
recent legislative accomplishments. Yesterday I had the honor of
attending the Rose Garden signing ceremony for Project Bioshield. It is
an issue that was first proposed by the President in his 2003 State of
the Union Address to Congress. As with his broader efforts to defend
the homeland, President Bush has demonstrated once again his
determination to protect the American people, to make America safer,
and that is exactly what this bioshield legislation does.
Because of the President's leadership, the Nation's defenses against
biological threats, against chemical threats, against radiological
threats will be substantially strengthened. Project Bioshield is a
gratifying example of, once again, both sides of the aisle working
together in the best interest of the American people. I commend the
President for his leadership in the initial proposal, Chairman Gregg,
Senator Kennedy, and all of my colleagues who worked together to craft
this legislation, including Senator Hatch who was early to see the need
for this initiative.
Only 2 months ago our enemies detonated a sarin-laced roadside bomb
in Iraq. Fortunately, their plan did not succeed in effectively
dispersing the nerve agent. But it underscored the fact that these
weapons exist, that we must be vigilant. Right here at home we had the
anthrax assault, used as a weapon up and down the east coast not that
long ago, resulting in panic, paralysis, and death. We have had anthrax
here in the Nation's Capital. We have had ricin here in the Nation's
Capital. Project Bioshield allows us to become proactive in developing
a whole range of countermeasures.
Earlier today--now about 12 hours ago--in keeping with our commitment
to secure the homeland, the President signed another bill, a bill
called the
[[Page 17022]]
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2000. It is a product of a
number of our colleagues. Our distinguished colleague from Colorado,
Senator Campbell, has worked on this bill for years and years. It was
developed in a bipartisan way, once again. On the House side,
Congressman Duke Cunningham was a real leader on this particular bill.
This bill had been a No. 1 legislative priority of our Nation's law
enforcement officers, and I am proud of this bipartisan effort to
support law enforcement and public safety. The law allows current and
retired police officers to carry a concealed weapon in any of the 50
States.
What that means is that America will not allow the tens of thousands
of trained and certified law enforcement officers who are out there
serving us and out there protecting us every day across the country to
be denied the potential opportunity to be called upon, if need be, with
assistance. In a post-9/ 11 world, it is imperative that we all use
every resource possible to protect ourselves, and that includes
America's men and women in blue.
In addition to our efforts to improve security, this month we took
important steps globally in terms of our economic standing in the
world. Six days ago we passed the Australia free-trade agreement, and
earlier this week we passed the Morocco free-trade agreement. I had the
opportunity to talk to the King of Morocco today and reiterated to him
the plus this trade agreement will be for the United States and workers
in the United States, both the Australia and Morocco free-trade bills,
but also to reiterate what the President of the United States had told
the King of Morocco when he said: Trade is an important part of good
foreign policy. It is an important part of making sure Americans can
find jobs.
The Australia agreement has a huge impact right here in the United
States of America. It is expected to create as many as 40,000 new jobs.
We can expect an increase of about $2 billion annually in trade for the
United States and Australia by 2010. At $9 billion, our trade surplus
with Australia counts as the largest with any nation. More than 99
percent of our exports to Australia will enter duty-free once this
agreement goes into effect. In my home State of Tennessee, Australia is
a powerful market, a large market for our goods. In fact, Tennessee
exports more to Australia than to France.
With regard to Morocco, more than 95 percent of bilateral trade in
consumer and industrial products will become duty-free. The Morocco
agreement is the best yet of any United States free-trade agreement
with a developing country.
When it comes to a developing continent, earlier this month the
President signed another very powerful bill in terms of its impact in
Africa. The bill was the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I am
especially pleased by this legislation. I have taken advantage of the
opportunity of traveling to Africa on a regular basis where one could
see upfront, firsthand, the direct impact of this Africa Growth and
Opportunity Act when it was initially passed--now several years ago--
the impact it has had in the stimulation of jobs, creation of work. And
for me, most importantly, it creates hope for a continent that
otherwise becomes quite discouraged as it is plagued by so many other
huge challenges.
The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, which we have passed and which
is now the law of the land, is a win-win for the United States. It is a
win for the African continent, and I would say a win-win for the world.
The legislation has not only created new investment opportunities for
American businesses, but it has helped create over 150,000 African
jobs. When President Museveni from Uganda was here, he said: You use
the figure of 150,000, our best estimates are that the impact is not
creation of 150,000 African jobs, but 300,000 African jobs.
It has helped to pump more than $340 million into the African
economies and has forged a place for Africa in the global trade market.
I hope other countries will look at the success of this program and
reexamine their trade preferences toward Africa. I hope other countries
will take this opportunity, looking at the leadership of the United
States, to study their own trade relations with the region and do what
we have done in this country, and that is improve them.
Domestically, over the last several weeks we have passed a lot of
legislation. In one area we had a significant breakthrough in
confirming one of President Bush's judicial nominees. I mention this
one in particular because the confirmation of Judge Jay Leon Holmes,
who was confirmed to the U.S. District Court, ultimately had bipartisan
support. But it took about 18 months of hard work, where there was a
lot of attack and a lot of obstruction. Ultimately, Judge Holmes was
confirmed this month.
Unfortunately, today our Democratic colleagues voted against
permitting three circuit court judges from getting an up-or-down vote.
Judge Henry Saad, Judge David McKeague, and Judge Richard Griffin all
received support from a majority of Senators, but not this new
threshold of having to get a supermajority of 60 votes which is needed
to break these unprecedented filibusters we have had this session.
This brings to 10 the number of judges filibustered and, I would
argue, as was argued earlier on the floor today, that is 10 too many.
We would say that any is too many; that each of these judges deserves
an up-or-down vote. People can vote how they want, for the judge or
against the judge, but at least we should be given the opportunity to
vote.
We will also continue to fight for legislation that keeps America's
economic recovery rolling along. We tried recently with class action--
we are going to come back to class action. I am not sure exactly when
that timing will be, but I can tell you there is strong bipartisan
support, and I think this body needs to come back as soon as practical
and address class action reform.
I was disappointed by the other side's decision to stop this
important legislation because both sides--again, this is a bipartisan
bill, and I am confident it can pass with more than 60 votes. These
class action lawsuits, as we heard now 2 weeks ago on the floor, have
grown exponentially. One recent survey found State court class action
filings skyrocketed by 1,300 percent in 10 years.
The result of all of this is a glut of claims that ends up clogging
the courts, ultimately wasting taxpayers' dollars and inhibiting the
innovation and entrepreneurship we all know is so critical to job
creation.
Election year politics should not get in the way of strengthening our
economy. It is our duty to serve America's best interests and not to be
serving special interests.
When we return after the recess, we have a real challenge, and the
challenge is to address all of the appropriations bills. I have been in
conversation with the Democratic leader, the Democratic leadership, and
Chairman Stevens, who has been in discussion with Senator Byrd, and all
about the recognition that the month of September is going to focus, in
large part, on these appropriations bills.
We also need to turn our attention to finishing the FSC/ETI bill, the
JOBS bill that we need to get to conference. We have actually appointed
Senate conferees, and the House will be appointing their conferees. I
am not sure if they will appoint them later tonight or when we get
back. It is a very important bill.
We have had a lot of discussions over the course of the day on the
highway bill, and I think some progress, indeed, has been made on the
highway bill. It is going to be challenging to do because we are a long
way from any sort of consensus on that bill, but we all know how
important it is.
Although it has not been on the floor of the Senate every day, at
some point there are discussions on the importance of having a national
energy plan. I take this opportunity to mention it because a lot of
people have said: This was filibustered; that was blocked; you are not
going to be able to come back and address that legislation. Indeed, we
have only probably 20 legislative days left in this session, but as
long as people keep working in a bipartisan way,
[[Page 17023]]
we have the potential for more fully addressing our energy challenges.
All of these pieces of legislation fit into growing our economy,
continuing our economic recovery, accelerating it, as well as security.
The JOBS bill alone, the FSC/ETI or so-called JOBS bill, will protect
more than a million high-quality manufacturing jobs in the United
States. Our roads, ports, energy supply, and economic vitality are all
critical to our security and to our safety. We have to have a strong
infrastructure to be safe and secure, to be able to withstand threats
from without.
I see my colleague from Kansas who has a very important statement to
make that refers, in part, to some of my comments earlier about the
Darfur region, I expect, but let me comment on one issue before turning
the floor over to him. It is an issue that again centers on an
international issue, and that is Cambodia.
Last Sunday, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen delivered a nationally
televised speech accusing democratic opposition party leader Sam Rainsy
and his fellow parliamentarians of organizing an armed insurgency to
overthrow the government. Concerned for their safety, a number of these
leaders fled the country.
I was in touch with my son by e-mail because my son Jonathan happened
to be in Cambodia at the time and witnessed these events. These
allegations appear designed to intimidate the democratic opposition
there. We should all be disturbed by the rhetoric which appears to be
designed to subvert democracy by these threats and by this
intimidation.
The international community has a great interest in ensuring that
Cambodia's fragile progress toward democracy continues. Cambodia has
paid too high a price under authoritarian rule in the past. We cannot
and will not accept the use of fear as an instrument of the state.
Cambodia has made commitments to the international community to respect
human rights, preserve the rule of law, and uphold democracy. I call
upon the international community to watch these events very carefully.
There is a lot to do when we return in September. I know we are going
to have a very busy fall legislative session. I look forward to working
with my colleagues, and I look forward to doing the business of the
American people and moving America forward.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
____________________
DARFUR
Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I appreciate the
majority leader identifying the successes and what we need to be
working on. I also appreciate the first part of his speech when he
talked about the Sudan, which is something I wish to address for my
colleagues.
The House of Representatives has just passed 422 to 0--they rarely do
things quite in that fashion--a resolution calling what is taking place
in Sudan genocide--genocide, the killing of a group of people purposely
by a government, by a group.
I do not think we have ever done that before in the middle of a
genocide as it is taking place. We have always adopted a resolution
afterward, and once the genocide has occurred, we have said: That is
terrible; that should not have happened; and, oh, by the way, it was
genocide. They have taken a bold step, the right step, the proper step
for the first time to say, while we are in the middle of this crisis,
let's call it genocide now, put pressure on the international community
to act and address it.
I say to my colleagues tonight, we have virtually the identical
resolution in front of this body that we are seeking to move through by
unanimous consent. I hope they will consider it and let it through. At
this point in time in our sessions, people hold up everything: I am not
going to let anything get on through here. I plead with my colleagues,
people who are watching, who are monitoring the Chamber, if you are
considering that on this resolution, please pull it off and please let
this one pass on through so both the House and the Senate can speak
with clarity and call the situation in western Sudan, this Darfur
region, genocide, and stop the killing.
While the world debates, people die in Darfur, and that is what is
taking place today. I was there about 3 weeks ago and 30,000 had died
already. Over 300 villages had been burned out, and about a million
people were in refugee camps in western Sudan and Chad. The people were
in horrific condition and in a very fragile state. They were willing to
return to their villages if security could return to the region, but an
armed Arab militia was strong through the region, called the Janjaweed,
which are men on horses and camels in some cases, with guns. They go in
and burn out villages, shooting and killing the men, raping the women,
and driving people into refugee camps.
These are deplorable conditions which, if they are not eased, if the
situation does not improve, our own Agency for International
Development projects that at a minimum 300,000 will die. We are at
30,000 now. We project 300,000 will die if everything goes well from
this point forward, and it could go up from there. That is where we are
right now: 30,000 dead, projecting 300,000 in the next 6 to 9 months,
and it could go above that very easily.
We have a chance, we really have a moment, that we can actually get
it right before they die. It was just a couple of months 10 years ago
that in Rwanda we saw 800,000 people die. We said after that, ``never
again.'' Well, now we have 30,000 and we are headed to 300,000. Are we
going to look back on this one and say, ``never again,'' or are we
going to get in on this one now and say, ``no, let us stop it''?
It is a fairly simple solution, putting pressure on the international
community, putting pressure on the African Union, to bring in troops to
stabilize this area. It cannot be done by the Government of Khartoum.
They have dirty hands. They have armed the Arab militias that are going
into the region. It cannot be done by the Arab militias. They are
killing the African villagers in this region. They are doing ethnic
cleansing and raping the women.
We interviewed a number of different women who had been raped. All of
them said that their rapist said to them: We want to create lighter
skinned babies. In that region, the paternity determines the ethnicity
of the child.
We cannot let this one keep going when we know it is happening and we
have a way to stop it. I plead with my colleagues, just look at this.
Let this one move on through, then both the House and the Senate will
have spoken and called it genocide. We will put pressure on the
international community to act, put pressure on Kofi Annan at the U.N.,
put pressure on the African Union to address this situation before the
numbers keep mounting. We can do this.
I will show briefly to my colleagues new pictures Congressman Frank
Wolf and I took, as I say, about 3 weeks ago when we were in the
region. This is a typical burned-out village that we saw. We drove by a
number of these. These are some of the leaders of the group who are
trying to come back to the village. The raids all happened very
similarly. Bombers came in, supplied by the Sudanese Government.
Helicopters--I will show a picture of one of those in just a little
bit--supported by the Sudanese Government would come in in an air
attack. Then the Janjaweed, the Arab militias, would come back on
camels, horseback, guns blazing, burn the various houses, kill the men,
rape the women, pillage, plunder, and steal. As we can see from this
picture, this is a sparse and difficult climate in which to live. They
drive people out of their villages, away from their wells, and people
die.
This next picture is one of the helicopters used in these raids. It
has guns mounted on the front. This is old Soviet equipment, yet it
works very well in this region when the people they are going against
are unarmed altogether. They will go in on these runs. We saw this
particular helicopter within 100 yards of a Sudanese Government
outpost, within 50 yards of a Janjaweed encampment.
[[Page 17024]]
So when the Sudanese Government is saying, Well, it is the Janjaweed
that is doing it and we are going to try to disarm them, we are going
to control them, they are arming them, this is just them doing
something they have done in the south for years, where they arm a
militia so they can have some deniability that it is their hands, but
in fact it is clearly them who are conducting this.
The next picture I want to show is a woman who has been shot. She is
an amputee. We visited with her. We can see where her leg was shot and
amputated.
This final picture is chilling. We went into three different refugee
camps. Fortunately, children are children everywhere, and they will
lighten up. They will be lively. They have smiles on their faces. In
one of the camps they were doing an art project to encourage kids to
make different things out of clay or actually out of mud. They were
doing the soldiers on horses who had attacked them with guns. They made
these little mud figures showing what had taken place. We also have
drawings that were brought back, drawn by the children, of villages
being burned. There is nothing quite like seeing the world through the
eyes of a child. It is a very dangerous world and a deadly world these
children have seen.
I have a trip report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Trip Report--Senator Sam Brownback and Congressman Frank Wolf.
darfur, western sudan--june 27-29, 2004
It was just 10 years ago--in 1994--when the world stood by
and watched as more than 800,000 ethnic Tutsis were
systematically murdered in Rwanda by rival extremist Hutus.
When the killing finally ended after 100 days--and the
horrific images of what had taken place were broadcast around
the globe--world leaders acknowledged it was genocide,
apologized for failing to intervene, and vowed ``never
again.''
That pledge from the international community is being put
to the test today in western Sudan, where an estimated 30,000
black African Muslims have been murdered and more than 1
million have been driven from their tribal lands and forced
to live in one of 129 refugee camps scattered across the
western provinces of Darfur. More than 160,000 have fled
across the border to Chad.
The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide describes genocide as
acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part,
national, ethnic, racial or religious groups, such as:
Killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting
on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about
physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures
intended to prevent births within the group, or forcibly
transferring children of the group to another group.
Having recently spent 3 days and 2 nights (June 27-29) in
Darfur, we believe what is happening there may very well meet
this test.
During our trip we visited 5 refugee camps: Abu Shouk;
Tawilah; Krinding; Sisi, and Mornay--all sprawling tent
cities jam-packed with thousands of displaced families and
fast becoming breeding grounds for disease and sickness.
We drove past dozens of pillaged villages and walked
through what was left of four that were burned to the ground.
We heard countless stories about rape, murder and plunder.
We even watched the barbarous men who are carrying out
these attacks--Arab militiamen called Janjaweed--sitting
astride camels and horses just a short distance from where
young and old have sought what they had hoped would be a safe
harbor.
Janjaweed is roughly translated in Arabic as ``wild men on
horses with G-3 guns'' Ruthless, brutal killers, the
Janjaweed have instigated a reign of terror on Darfur--a
region about the size of Texas--for more than a year. They
kill men. They rape women. They abduct children. They torch
villages. They dump human corpses and animal carcasses in
wells to contaminate the water. Their mandate is essentially
doing whatever necessary to force the black African Muslims
from their land to never return.
It is clearly the intent of Janjaweed to purge the region
of darker-skinned Africans, in particular members of the Fur,
Zaghawa, and Massaleit tribes.
janjaweed mandate
From where does this mandate come? The Government of Sudan
disavows supporting the Janjaweed. Some officials in Khartoum
even deny the existence of a humanitarian crisis in the
region. Yet the facts prove otherwise. We witnessed the
destruction. We heard horrific accounts of violence and
intimidation. We talked to rape victims. We saw the scars on
men who had been shot. We watched mothers cradle their sick
and dying babies, hoping against all odds that their children
would survive. We saw armed Janjaweed waiting to prey on
innocent victims along the perimeter of refugee camps.
To hear the vivid, heartrending descriptions of the attacks
it is clear the Janjaweed have the support--and the
approval--of the Government of Sudan to operate with
impunity. The same stories were repeated at every camp we
visited. The raids would happen early in the morning. First
comes the low rumble of a Soviet-made Antonov plane--flown by
Sudanese pilots--to bomb the village. Next come helicopter
gunships--again, flown by Sudanese pilots--to strafe the
village with the huge machine guns mounted on each side.
Sometimes the helicopters would land and unload supplies for
the Janjaweed. They would then be reloaded with booty
confiscated from a village. One man told us he saw cows being
loaded onto one helicopter. Moments later, the Janjaweed,
some clad in military uniforms, would come galloping in on
horseback and camels to finish the job by killing, raping,
stealing and plundering.
Walking through the burned out villages we could tell the
people living there had little or no time to react. They left
everything they owned--lanterns, cookware, water jugs,
pottery, plows--and ran for their lives. There was not even
time to stop and bury their dead.
The Janjaweed made certain that there would be nothing left
for the villagers to come home to. Huts were torched.
Donkeys, goats and cows were stolen, slaughtered or dumped
into wells to poison the water. Grain containers were
destroyed. In one village we saw where the Janjaweed even
burned the mosque.
Only the lucky ones--mostly women and children--made it out
alive.
ethnic cleansing
What is happening in Darfur is rooted in ethnic cleansing.
Religion has nothing to do with what has unfolded over the
last year.
No black African is safe in Darfur. Security is non-
existent. The Janjaweed are everywhere. Outside the camps.
Inside the camps. They walk freely through the marketplace in
Geneina, a town in far western Darfur, with guns slung over
their shoulders. One shopkeeper, we were told, was shot in
the head by a Janjaweed because he wasn't willing to lower
the price of a watermelon.
Government of Sudan military and security forces also are
omnipresent. At each of the places we visited we were either
trailed or escorted by a mixture of military regulars, police
forces and government ``minders.'' There have been reports
that the government has been folding the Janjaweed into its
regular forces as a way to disguise and protect them. At two
of the camps we visited, we were told the government had
inserted spies to report on what was said or to threaten
those who talked. We were told the ``minders'' repeatedly
scolded refugees and told them in Arabic to shut up. Yet,
even with these threats, refugees in every camp we visited
were eager to tell their stories.
It should be understood that the Janjaweed are not
``taking'' the land from the black Muslim farmers they are
terrorizing. The Janjaweed, whose historical roots are part
of the region's roving nomads who have battled with the
African farmers for generations, are employing a government-
supported scorched earth policy to drive them out of the
region--and perhaps to extinction. It also was clear that
only villages inhabited by black Africans were being
targeted. Arab villages sitting just next to African ones
miles from the nearest towns have been left unscathed.
On our first day in the region, we met with local
Government of Sudan officials in the town of El Fasher, a
two-hour plane ride west of Khartoum. They blame the crisis
in the region on two black African rebel groups--the Sudan
Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement
(JEM)--who started an uprising in February 2003 over what
they regarded as unjust treatment by the government in their
struggle over land and resources with Arab countrymen. The
rebel forces actually held El Fasher for a short period last
year. A cease-fire was agreed to in April 2004 between the
rebel groups and the Government of Sudan, but the Janjaweed
have continued to carry out attacks with the support and
approval of Khartoum.
While local government officials in El Fasher were adamant
in saying there is no connection between the Government of
Sudan and the Janjaweed, whom they called ``armed bandits,''
the militiamen we saw did not look like skilled pilots who
could fly planes or helicopters.
We also were told the Janjaweed are well armed and well
supplied. If they are traditional nomads, how are they
getting modern automatic weapons, and, more importantly, from
whom? They also are said to have satellite phones, an
astonishing fact considering most of the people in the far
western provinces of Darfur have probably never even seen or
walked on a paved road.
The impunity under which the Janjaweed operate was most
telling as we approached
[[Page 17025]]
the airport in Geneina on our last day in the region for our
flight back to Khartoum. In plain sight was an encampment of
Janjaweed within shouting distance of a contingent of
Government of Sudan regulars. No more than 200 yards
separated the two groups. Sitting on the tarmac were two
helicopter gunships and a Soviet-made Antonov plane.
HUMANITARIAN CRISIS
The situation in Darfur is being described as the worst
humanitarian crisis in the world today. We agree. But sadly,
and with a great sense of urgency, things are only going to
worsen. Some say that even under the best of circumstances,
as many as 300,000 Darfuris forced from their homes are
expected to die from malnutrition and diarrhea or diseases
such as malaria and cholera in the coming months. Measles
have already spread through Abu Shouk, a large refugee camp
outside El Fasher.
According to some predictions, the death toll could reach
as high as 1 million by next year. The Darfuri farmers have
missed another planting season and will now be dependent on
grain and other food stuffs provided by the international
community for at least another year. The impending rainy
season presents its own set of problems, making roads
impassable for food deliveries and the likelihood of disease
dramatically increasing with the heavy rains.
The potential for a crisis of catastrophic proportions is
very real, especially since none of the villagers we talked
to at the refugee camps believed they will be able to go back
to their homes anytime soon. Having been brutally terrorized
by the Janjaweed and fearing for their lives, they do not
believe Government of Sudan officials who say it is safe to
return to their villages. We heard stories of some families
who went back to their villages only to return to the camps a
week later for fear of being attacked again.
The attacks have traumatized thousands of young children.
In an effort to cope with what they have endured, programs
have been established in the camps to help the young boys and
girls deal with their psychological scars. Part of the
program encourages them to draw pictures of what they have
seen. The crayon drawings are chilling. Huts on fire, red
flames shooting through the roof. Planes and helicopters
flying overhead shooting bullets. Dead bodies. Depictions,
perhaps, of their mother or father.
We also saw a group of children who had made clay figures
of men on camels and horseback attacking villages. There is
no way to measure the impact of these atrocities on the
thousands of children living in these camps. Their lives are
forever scarred.
DIFFICULT LIFE IN IDP CAMPS
Abu Shouk was the first of five IDP (Internally Displaced
People) camps we visited. More than 40,000 people live in
this sprawling tent city, created in April after El Fasher
was overrun with homeless families. Methodically laid out
with water stations, a health clinic, a supplemental feeding
station and crude latrines, it is being hailed as a ``model''
by humanitarian relief workers in the region.
However, aid workers at Abu Shouk are deeply distressed.
They observe that malnutrition and child mortality rates at
this ``model'' camp have reached alarming levels. They fear
what may be happening at the other camps, especially in the
more remote areas of Darfur that have not been reached by
humanitarian groups.
Life in the camps is difficult. Crude shelters made from
straw and sticks and covered with plastic sheeting stretch as
far as the eye can see. Families arriving at the camps--
almost all after walking for days in the hot sun from their
now abandon villages--are given only a tarp, a water jug,
cookware and a small amount of grain.
The sanitary conditions are wretched. The sandy conditions
make building latrines difficult. At Mornay, the largest of
the IDP camps in Darfur with more than 70,000 inhabitants, it
was hard not to step in either human or animal feces as we
walked. In a few weeks, when the heavy rains begin, excrement
will flow across the entire camp. Mortality from diarrhea,
which we were told represents one-third of the deaths in the
camps, will only increase.
To their credit, all the non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) that have been allowed to operate in Darfur have
done--and continue to do--a tremendous job under extremely
trying circumstances. The Government of Sudan has repeatedly
thrown up roadblocks to bringing in aid. It has denied or
slowed visa processing for relief workers. It has kept aid
vehicles locked up in customs for weeks at a time. It has
blocked relief groups from bringing in radios. It has limited
access to certain regions of the country. All this has made
getting medicine, food and other humanitarian supplies, like
plastic sheeting and water jugs, an uphill battle. While the
Government of Sudan plays its games, people are dying as
needed aid sits on tarmacs.
As we approached the Mornay camp on the last day of our 3-
day trip, we were stopped by Government of Sudan soldiers and
security officers. They followed us throughout the camp,
watching with whom we talked. Amazingly, their presence did
not inhibit the refugees from recanting the horrors from
which they escaped and, for some--mostly women--continue to
endure.
The men said while they feel somewhat secure inside the
confines of the camps, they dare not venture outside for fear
of being shot or killed by the Janjaweed. They showed us
scars on their arms and legs of the gunshot wounds they
received while escaping from their villages. They are
despondent over the fact that they are unable to provide food
for their families because they cannot farm their fields.
They expressed utter sadness and outrage about their wives
and daughters who venture outside the borders of the camp to
collect firewood and straw, knowing the fate that awaits them
at the hands of the Janjaweed. Life and death decisions are
made every day: send the men out and risk death or send the
women out and risk rape.
Rape is clearly another weapon being used by the Janjaweed.
Rapes, we were told, happen almost daily to the women who
venture outside the confines of the camps in search of
firewood and straw. They leave very early in the morning,
hoping to evade their tormentors before they awake. With the
camps swelling in size and nearby resources dwindling, they
often walk several miles. The farther the women go from the
camp, the greater the risk of being attacked by the
Janjaweed. As we approached Mornay, we saw a number of
Janjaweed resting with their camels and horses along the
perimeter of the camp, easily within walking distance.
We heard the horrific story of 4 young girls--two of whom
were sisters--who had been raped just days before we arrived.
They had left the camp to collect straw to feed the family's
donkey when they were attacked. They said their attackers
told them they were slaves and that their skin was too dark.
As they were being raped, they said the Janjaweed told them
they were hoping to make more lighter-skinned babies.
One of the 4 women assaulted, too shy to tell her story in
front of men, privately told a female journalist traveling
with us that if anyone were to find out she had been raped,
she would never be able to marry.
We were told that some of the rape victims were being
branded on their back and arms by the Janjaweed, permanently
labeling the women. We heard the chilling account of the rape
of a 9-year-old girl.
We also received a letter during our trip from a group of
women who were raped. To protect them from further attacks,
we purposely do not mention where they are from or list their
names. The translation is heartbreaking:
``Messrs. Members of the U.S. Congress
``Peace and the mercy and the blessings of God be upon you.
``We thank you for your help and for standing by the weak
of the world, wherever they are found. We welcome you to the
. . . region, which was devastated by the Janjaweed, or what
is referred to as the government `horse- and camel-men,' on
Friday . . . 2004, when they caused havoc by killing and
burning and committing plunder and rape. This was carried out
with the help of the government, which used the . . . region
as an airport and supplied the Janjaweed with munitions and
supplies. So we, the raped woman of the . . . region, would
like to explain to you what has happened and God is our best
witness.
``We are 44 raped women. As a result of that savagery, some
of us became pregnant, some have aborted, some took out their
wombs and some are still receiving medical treatment.
Hereunder, we list the names of the raped women and state
that we have high hopes in you and the international
community to stand by us and not to forsake us to this
tyrannical, brutal and racist regime, which wants to
eliminate us racially, bearing in mind that 90 percent of our
sisters at . . . are widows.
``[Above] are the names of some of the women raped in the .
. . region. Some of these individuals are now at . . ., some
are at Towilah and some are at Abu Shouk camps. Everything we
said is the absolute truth. These girls were raped in front
of our fathers and husbands.
``We hope that you and the international community will
continue to preserve the balance of the peoples and nations.
``Thank you.
``From: The raped women at . . .''
These rape victims have nowhere to turn. Even if they
report the attacks to the police, they know nothing will
happen. The police, the military and the Janjaweed all appear
to be acting in coordination.
DIRE SITUATION IS MAN-MADE
The situation in Darfur is dire, and from what we could
see, it is entirely man-made. These people who had managed to
survive even the severest droughts and famines during the
course of their long history are now in mortal danger of
being wiped out simply because of the darker shade of their
skin color.
The first step in resolving this crisis is disarming the
Janjaweed. It must be done swiftly and universally. If not,
the Janjaweed will just bury their weapons in the sand, wait
for the pressure from the international community to lift,
then reinitiate their reign of terror.
A system of justice overseen by outside monitors must also
be implemented. The
[[Page 17026]]
heinous, murderous acts carried out by the Janjaweed cannot
go unpunished. War crimes and crimes against humanity clearly
have been--and continue to be--committed. Those responsible
must be brought to justice.
Over the course of 3 days, we saw the worst of man's
inhumanity to man, but we also saw the best of what it means
to be human: mothers waiting patiently for hours in the hot
sun so that they could try to save their babies; NGO aid
workers and volunteer doctors feeding and caring for the sick
and the dying, and the courage and bravery of men, women and
children eager to talk to us so that we would know their
story.
The world made a promise in 1994 to never again allow the
systematic destruction of a people or race. ``Never again''--
words said, too, after the Holocaust. In Darfur, the
international community has a chance to stop history from
repeating itself. It also has a chance to end this nightmare
for those who have found a way to survive. If the
international community fails to act, the next cycle of this
crisis will begin. The destiny facing the people of Darfur
will be death from hunger or disease.
When will the death of innocent men, women and children--
who want nothing more in this world than to be left alone to
farm their land and provide for their families--be too much
for the conscience of the international community to bear?
We sat with the victims. We heard their mind-numbing
stories. We saw their tears. Now the world has seen the
pictures and heard the stories. We cannot say we did not know
when history judges the year 2004 in Darfur.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Government of Sudan
The Government of Sudan should immediately implement key
provisions of the April 8, cease-fire agreement, including:
the cessation of attacks against civilians; disarming the
Janjaweed, and removing all barriers to the admittance of
international aid into Darfur. There should be a strict
timetable holding the Government of Sudan accountable for
implementing these provisions.
The Government of Sudan should renew a dialogue with the
Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement
to discuss the political, economic and social roots of the
crisis.
The African Union
Additional cease-fire observers should be deployed and
violations of the cease-fire reported immediately. The
current number of 270 observers is inadequate to monitor the
activity of an area the size of Texas.
The United States
The United States should publicly identify those
responsible for the atrocities occurring in Darfur, including
officials and other individuals of the Government of Sudan,
as well as Janjaweed militia commanders, and impose targeted
sanctions that include travel bans and the freezing of
assets.
The president should instruct the U.S. representative to
the United Nations to seek an official investigation and hold
accountable officials of the Government of Sudan and
government-supported militia groups responsible for the
atrocities in Darfur.
The United Nations
The United Nations should pass a strong Security Council
resolution condemning the Government of Sudan. It should call
for: an immediate end to the attacks; the immediate disarming
of the Janjaweed; the immediate protection of civilians by
beginning a review of the security of refugees in Darfur; the
determination of the feasibility of sending in U.N.
protection forces; an immediate review of bringing legal
action against those responsible for the policies of ethnic
cleansing, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur,
and the imposition of targeted sanctions that include travel
bans and the freezing of assets.
The United Nations should immediately deploy human rights
monitors to Darfur.
The protection of civilians and access to humanitarian aid
should be a primary concern; the Security Council must be
prepared to establish a no fly zone if the cease-fire
continues to be violated.
The United Nations together with other organizations should
continue to coordinate a relief strategy for getting aid into
those regions of Darfur that have yet to receive humanitarian
assistance. Alternative routes and means of delivering aid
should be considered if the Government of Sudan continues to
impede deliveries.
The United Nations should take immediate steps to seek the
removal of Sudan from the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights.
The United Nations should set a deadline for the Government
of Sudan to comply with all obligations under the ceasefire
and prepare contingency plans in the event those deadlines
are not met.
We would like to thank everyone involved in organizing,
coordinating and implementing our trip. Representatives from
the State Department, USAID and the NGOs both in Washington
and Sudan deserve special thanks.
We would also like to thank Sean Woo, general counsel to
Sen. Brownback (R-KS), and Dan Scandling, chief of staff to
Rep. Wolf (R-VA), for accompanying us on the trip. They
played a critical role in writing this report and took all
the photographs. In addition, we would like to thank Janet
Shaffron, legislative director, and Samantha Stockman,
foreign affairs legislative assistant, to Rep. Wolf, and
Brian Hart, communications director, and Josh Carter,
legislative aide, of Sen. Brownback, for editing the report.
Colin Samples, an intern in Rep. Wolf's office, did the
design and layout.
We also want to extend our thanks to Secretary of State
Colin Powell and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan for
visiting the region. Their personal involvement in working to
resolve this crisis is critically important.
Mr. BROWNBACK. The hour is late, but I simply ask my colleagues that
we pass this by unanimous consent and then both Houses will have
spoken. This is a situation of Muslim-on-Muslim violence. If people are
worried about different religions, this is not the case. It is ethnic.
It is Arab-on-African violence.
Osama bin Laden had been in Sudan for 5 years, 1991 to 1996. This is
where he started organizing violent groups. He did it first in Sudan.
The government there has been very efficient in carrying forth what
Osama had taught them.
Finally, we can make a difference in Sudan and, by extension, all of
Africa, but we really need to act now. We are going to be out the whole
month of August. By that period of time, thousands more will die. I
realize this is a resolution, so it can be said, well, it does not do
that much, but it does put pressure on the international community. It
will be the first time we spoke ahead of the full genocide taking place
where we actually maybe can stop it and save some lives instead of
lamenting afterwards that we should have done something. The
administration has really done an overall very good job on this issue
in pushing and pressing it, but let's not stop there. Let's keep moving
and let's try to get something done.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to executive session for consideration of the following
nominations on the Executive Calendar.
Mr. President, I ask the Senate act favorably upon nomination No. 688
and No. 691, all military nominations reported by the Armed Services
Committee during today's session.
I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed,
the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, the President be
immediately notified, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. No objection. I wish the next time the distinguished
chairman of the committee had a consent request, we would have somebody
over here.
Mr. WARNER. I inquired of that and I was told I could proceed. I just
saw the Senator momentarily.
Mr. REID. We have no objection, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:
Department of Energy
Jerald S. Paul, of Florida, to be Principal Deputy
Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration.
Department of Defense
Tina Westby Jonas, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller).
In the Air Force
The following Air National Guard of the United States
officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Air Force to
the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be brigadier general
Col. Douglas M. Pierce
[[Page 17027]]
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be lieutenant general
Lt. Gen. Duncan J. McNabb
In the Army
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:
To be brigadier general
Colonel Yves J. Fontaine
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:
To be major general
Brigadier General Don T. Riley
The following Army National Guard of the United States
officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the
grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be brigadier general
Col. Jerry M. Rivera
The following named officers for appointment in the Reserve
of the Army to the grades indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 12203:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. Gregory J. Hunt
To be brigadier general
Col. Jose M. Vallejo
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be General
Lt. Gen. Bantz J. Craddock
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be Lieutenant General
Lt. Gen. James L. Campbell
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be Lieutenant General
Maj. Gen. John M. Brown III
The following Army National Guard of the United States
officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the
grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be brigadier general
Col. Glenn K. Rieth
Department of Defense
Valerie Lynn Baldwin, of Kansas, to be an Assistant Secretary
of the Army.
In the Marine Corps
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Marine Corps Reserve to the grade indicated under
title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. Cornell A. Wilson, Jr.
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Marine Corps Reserve to the grade indicated under
title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be brigadier general
Col. Robert D. Papak
Col. Eugene G. Payne, Jr.
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Marine Corps to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 624:
To be brigadier general
Col. Randolph D. Alles
Col. Joseph F. Dunford, Jr.
Col. Paul E. Lefebvre
Col. Richard P. Mills
Col. Martin Post
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Marine Corps to the grade indicated while assigned to
a position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be lieutenant general
Maj. Gen. James F. Amos
In the Navy
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:
To be rear admiral
Rear Adm. (lh) Richard J. Mauldin
Rear Adm. (lh) Anthony L. Winns
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:
To be rear admiral (lower half)
Capt. Timothy J. McGee
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:
To be rear admiral
Rear Adm. (lh) Steven L. Enewold
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:
To be rear admiral
Rear Adm. (lh) Stanley D. Bozin
Rear Adm. (lh) Charles T. Bush
Rear Adm. (lh) Jeffrey B. Cassias
Rear Adm. (lh) William D. Crowder
Rear Adm. (lh) Richard K. Gallagher
Rear Adm. (lh) David A. Gove
Rear Adm. (lh) Timothy L. Heely
Rear Adm. (lh) Gary R. Jones
Rear Adm. (lh) James D. Kelly
Rear Adm. (lh) Thomas J. Kilcline, Jr.
Rear Adm. (lh) Samuel J. Locklear III
Rear Adm. (lh) Joseph Maguire
Rear Adm. (lh) Robert T. Moeller
Rear Adm. (lh) Robert D. Reilly, Jr.
Rear Adm. (lh) Jacob L. Shuford
Rear Adm. (lh) Paul S. Stanley
Rear Adm. (lh) Miles B. Wachendorf
Rear Adm. (lh) Patrick M. Walsh
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be admiral
Vice Adm. Timothy J. Keating
The following named officer for appointment as Vice Chief
of Naval Operations, United States Navy, and appointment to
the grade indicated while assigned to a position of
importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C.,
sections 601 and 5035:
To be admiral
Vice Adm. John B. Nathman
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be vice admiral
Vice Adm. Robert F. Willard
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be vice admiral
Vice Adm. Albert T. Church III
Air Force nominations beginning Lorena A. * Bailey and
ending Jason P. * Zimmerer, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
March 12, 2004.
Air Force nominations beginning Randall M. Ashmore and
ending James O. Wooten, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on May
10, 2004.
Air Force nomination of Norman L. Williams.
Air Force nomination of Thomas R. Bird.
Air Force nominations beginning Rex A. Hinesley and ending
Jeri K. Somers, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8, 2004.
Air Force nominations beginning Peter W. Bickel and ending
William D. Taylor, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8,
2004.
Air Force nominations beginning Donald A. Ahern and ending
Michael A. Wobbema, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8,
2004.
Army nominations beginning Stephan A. * Alkins and ending
Clorinda K. Zawacki, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 16,
2004.
Army nominations beginning Douglas R. Dixon and ending
Thorpe C. Whitehead, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 16,
2004.
Army nominations beginning Nancy H. Fielding and ending
Tammy L. Miracle, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 17,
2004.
Army nominations beginning Brian R. Copes and ending Dennis
P. Simons, which nominations were received by the Senate and
appeared in the Congressional Record on June 17, 2004.
Navy nomination of Gerald R. Manley.
Navy nominations beginning Brian S. Adams and ending John M
Zuzich, which nominations were received by the Senate and
appeared in the Congressional Record on June 24, 2004.
Navy nominations beginning Myles E. Brooks, Jr. and ending
James E. Watts, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8, 2004.
Navy nominations beginning Billy M. Appleton and ending Mil
A. Yi, which nominations were received by the Senate and
appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8, 2004.
Navy nominations beginning Carla M Albritton and ending
Edward L. Zawislak, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8,
2004.
Navy nominations beginning Michael T Acromite and ending
Craig M. Zelig, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8, 2004.
Navy nominations beginning Timothy A Ackerman and ending
Terry D. Webb, which nominations were received by the Senate
and
[[Page 17028]]
appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8, 2004.
Navy nominations beginning Steven E Allen and ending Sharon
M. Wright, which nominations were received by the Senate and
appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8, 2004.
Navy nominations beginning Kristen N. Atterbury and ending
Mary A. Yonk, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8, 2004.
Navy nominations beginning David A. Berger and ending Erin
E. Stone, which nominations were received by the Senate and
appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8, 2004.
Navy nominations beginning John J. Adametz and ending
Barney S. Williams, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8,
2004.
Mr. REID. I thank my distinguished colleague.
In connection with these nominations, I would like to acknowledge the
assistance I have from my distinguished ranking member, Senator Levin,
who joined me in moving these and Senator McCain, who worked with me on
several of these nominations. I am very pleased the Committee on Armed
Services was able to effect these nominations.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in order to address the Senate on a
procedural matter, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a
period of morning business for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
SMALL BUSINESS ACT AMENDMENT
Mr. WARNER. I see the distinguished Senator from Nevada is on the
floor. On behalf of the majority leader, I wish to put this following
unanimous consent request before the Senate relative to S. 2724, small
business technical corrections. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2724 which was introduced
earlier today by Senators Snowe, Kerry, and Talent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2724) to amend section 33(a) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657 c(a)) to clarify that the
National Veterans Business Development Corporation is a
private entity.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, and that any statements regarding this matter be printed in
the Record.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I appreciate
very much the distinguished Senator from Virginia moving this matter.
As the Senator knows, the ranking member on this important committee,
Senator Kerry, wholeheartedly supports the action of the Senator from
Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 2724) was read the third time and passed, as follows:
S. 2724
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATIONAL VETERANS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION.
Section 33(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657c(a))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Corporation
is a private entity and is not an agency, instrumentality,
authority, entity, or establishment of the United States
Government.''.
____________________
9/11 COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, Senator Daschle and I received the 9/11
Commission report earlier today. It looks as if the Commission did a
thorough job and that their writeup is fair and balanced. It is
certainly well-documented.
Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton deserve our praise for their bipartisan
leadership.
The Commission did not play the blame game. Rather, they focused on
how the United States can learn from past mistakes to make all
Americans safer in the future.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join with the distinguished majority
leader in expressing my gratitude to Commissioner Chairman Thomas Kean
and Vice Chairman Hamilton and the rest of the Commissioners as well.
They were able to operate above partisan differences and produce a
unanimous report in an incredibly charged political environment. The
Commission has painstakingly outlined the numerous missed opportunities
to prevent the tragic events of September 11 and provided the Bush
administration and the Congress with a solid set of recommendations
that I believe, if enacted, can help make us more secure.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we do want to assure everyone that while
mistakes, failures, and missed opportunities occurred in the past, as
their report chronicles, the United States still has a very good system
to protect the country.
There are thousands of dedicated Americans in the military, the
intelligence community, law enforcement, and so on who endeavor every
day to keep us safe. They deserve our appreciation and support.
But we can and must do better. We have to get it right 100 percent of
the time.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Commission divided its
recommendations into two major categories. The first lays out a new
global strategy for dealing with the threats we face today. This
section contains 28 recommendations on what our Government should do to
enhance our national security.
The second section contains 13 suggestions for how our Government--
executive branch as well as Congress--should be reconfigured to
increase our prospects for achieving our national security objectives.
Senator Frist and I intend to work together with our colleagues in a
bipartisan manner to examine all of the Commission's proposals. We both
agree change is long overdue, and we cannot afford to let another
opportunity to make these changes slip by.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the threat of terrorism will be with us for
a long time. We need to fix the problems and correct the shortcomings
cited by the Commission so that we can make America safer.
That is why Senator Daschle and I intend to ask the Government
Affairs Committee, in close consultation with other committees with a
stake in these changes, to carefully evaluate the Commission's
proposals regarding reorganization of the executive branch and
determine how best to implement them. It is our hope that the
Government Affairs Committee shall begin conducting hearings on these
issues as soon as possible.
It is also our expectation that the other committees with an interest
in this legislation will conduct their own hearings. It is also our
hope that the Government Affairs Committee, working closely with the
other interested committees, will carefully evaluate each of the
Commission's proposals and factor in their views before coming forward
with a legislative package. No committee shall lose its rights to
review parts of the legislation under its jurisdiction. It is our hope
this package will be assembled and presented to the Senate no later
than October 1.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Frist and I have also agreed to
set up a working group that examines how best to implement the 9/11
Commission's recommendations that deal with reform of the Senate, such
as improving intelligence oversight.
[[Page 17029]]
Over the coming days we will meet to discuss how best to organize and
focus this group.
Our intent would be for this group to similarly present a plan of
action by October 1 on how to implement the recommendations made by the
Commission that deal with the Congress.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in closing, the Democratic leader and I
agree that the Commission has come forward with important
recommendations that deserve urgent consideration by this body. We are
hopeful that the process we outlined above will give them the
bipartisan attention they deserve and the American people expect.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
SUDAN
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are about to take up a number of
matters that are in a position to be passed by unanimous consent. One
of those includes a concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 133, on Sudan.
It is a clear statement from the Senate that what is occurring in Sudan
is genocide. Many of us have felt the need to express ourselves on this
important matter prior to the time we leave for recess.
I thank the distinguished majority leader and a number of colleagues
on both sides of the aisle.
It is an important statement to be made. The administration needs to
hear it, the international community needs to hear it, and certainly
the Sudanese Government, which tolerates if not assists in genocide,
needs to hear it.
I note, also, this concurrent resolution would not have been possible
without the tireless effort of the Congressional Black Caucus. I
especially want to note the efforts of Congressman Don Payne,
Congressman John Conyers, and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee. Their
tireless efforts for human rights ought to be recognized tonight. I
congratulate them and I thank them for their work. I am very proud to
be associated with that effort and with this resolution tonight.
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. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MY HERO 6TH GRADE ESSAY CONTEST
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I take a moment to honor Rebecca Sadler,
who is this year's winner of my annual 6th Grade Essay Contest. Rebecca
is from Brentwood, TN, and attends Woodland Middle School.
This year's topic was ``A Salute to Community Heroes.'' Rebecca chose
her dad, Jerry M. Sadler. Mr. Sadler died of cancer on November 11,
1999. While we have a few minutes before closing, I thought I would
read a few paragraphs from Rebecca Sadler's salute to her dad. It is
entitled ``My Hero.''
Heroes can be just about anyone. Some have earned Nobel
prizes. Some have led marches and protests. Some are world
leaders and some have been to the moon. Many have recorded
hit singles in the music industry. Others have made millions
from a simple story. But what really makes a hero? Are heroes
born or made? Do heroes look like movie stars or do they look
like the guy who waxes the floors at the end of the day? Are
they brave enough to take down an evil terrorist? Or are they
just brave enough for a roller coaster?
My hero hasn't been to the moon. And he hasn't led a
protest. He didn't win a Nobel prize and he wasn't a world
leader. My hero was a friend, a husband, a brother, a cousin,
a father, a pilot, and one of the bravest people I've ever
known. My hero is my dad. He was a commander in the Navy
Reserve. He flew packages for FedEx. He had a wife, three
kids, four brothers, three sisters, a mother-in-law, sisters-
in-law, brothers-in-law, numerous cousins, nieces and
nephews, and innumerable friends.
The thing that made my dad a hero was that he was never
afraid and if he was, he never showed it. He was incredibly
honest. My dad was a friend to everyone. My dad would have
given his life for his family and his country. There was
nothing that my dad couldn't do. He was so strong. Every
morning I would walk into his room and say good morning. He
would gather up all his strength and as soon as I walked in
he would sit up, smile, and act like nothing was wrong.
Heroes don't have to be superstars and they do not have to
beat any world records. They can be a parent, a teacher, a
counselor, or even a garbage man. But heroes have to be a
couple of things.
They should be loving, honest, brave, loyal, and kind. They
should be kind to people who might not be as fortunate,
loving to family, and brave no matter what. They should be
loyal to friends, family, God, and their country. They must
be honest to their friends so you can trust them.
My dad inspires me because he was all of the things that
make a hero. He inspires me because he never gave up, even in
the face of death.
My dad inspires me to do the very best I can and to be the
very best I can be. He inspires me to fly someday. To say,
``Yes, I can'' in the face of failure. He taught me to never
give up, no matter what, and he taught me to succeed. He
showed me how to be brave. He inspires me to be loyal to our
country, God, friends, and family. He taught me to be kind to
everyone, even complete strangers, and loving to family. He
inspires me to be me. My dad is my hero.
That essay is from Rebecca Sadler, 6th grade essay contest winner. It
is a contest I have all over the State on a different subject each
year. This year was ``A Salute to Community Heroes.''
Rebecca's dad Jerry M. Sadler, died of cancer on November 11th, 1999.
She concludes:
I was 7 years old and in the second grade. He left behind a
wife, three children, four brothers, three sisters, and many
others.
____________________
SENATE BUSINESS
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a few minutes we will begin some of the
wrap-up. We will be in for a little bit longer. We have a lot of
business to do and in a few minutes we will start at least the
beginning of that.
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. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President last week, Kurdish security forces captured
15 militants in Kirkuk. Among them is a man purported to be second in
command of Ansar al-Islam, an Iraq-based terrorist group linked with Al
Qaeda.
Meanwhile, Iraqi security forces swept through a downtown Baghdad
neighborhood and arrested over 500 suspected criminals. The operation,
which was conducted without the assistance of U.S. soldiers, was the
largest operation of the interior ministry since the fall of Saddam
Hussein.
The developments in Kirkuk and Baghdad are positive signs of Iraq's
progress. The interim government is taking on the tough responsibility
of defending its citizens and confronting terrorists. We know that it
will be a long and difficult process. The governor of the Nineveh
province was gunned down last week by terrorists. Jordanian militant
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi claims credit for the vicious murder. And on
Tuesday this week, the interim governor of Basra was assassinated as he
was heading to work.
The ongoing violence is frustrating and painful. Still, the Iraqi
people remain optimistic. As my colleagues, Senators Lieberman and Kyl,
pointed out in their excellent editorial in the Washington Post this
week, a BBC/Oxford Research International poll finds released this
month finds that a majority of Iraqis believe their lives today are
quite good or very good, and a majority believes that their lives will
be better next year.
Meanwhile, Saddam will soon face his crimes. And Iraq is working to
become a free and peaceful country in the
[[Page 17030]]
heart of the Middle East that doesn't threaten its neighbours or
terrorize its citizens.
Which brings me to pre-war Iraq, and the Senate Intelligence
Committee report on what we knew and what we did not know.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has issued a detailed report on the
intelligence community's estimate of Iraq's WMD. I commend my
colleagues for their hard work and commitment. They launched a thorough
investigation and produced a unanimous judgment. Indeed, their 12-month
inquiry is, and I quote Senator Pat Roberts, ``without precedent in the
history of the Senate Intelligence Committee.''
Acting together with clear purpose, the committee has produced a
report that genuinely addresses an issue of critical importance to our
Nation's security.
Their efforts are an example of the best of the Senate working in a
bipartisan manner to advance the interests of the American people.
The report is tough and detailed. It reveals disturbing lapses in our
intelligence gathering and processing methods, and it points to the
clear need for major reforms not media driven or politically expedient
measures, but deep and serious changes to how we gather intelligence--
the critical information we need to protect ourselves from stealthy,
vicious, and determined enemies.
One of the most troubling aspects of the Senate report is that
following 1998, our Government had no human intelligence sources inside
Iraq collecting against the WMD target. That is unacceptable.
Meanwhile, what information we did collect was not properly shared
among intelligence agencies. Again, unacceptable.
It must be acknowledged, however, that from the United Nations to
intelligence agencies all around the world, informed people believed
that Saddam had WMD and the means to produce and deliver them.
Following Saddam's defeat in Desert Storm in 1991, inspectors found
stockpiles of chemical weapons and biological agents. They also found a
nuclear program that was believed to be less than 2 years from
completion.
Then, for the next decade, Saddam refused to provide a clear
accounting of his weapons programs. He defied 16 Security Council
resolutions, ultimately defying Resolution 1441 passed in 2002.
So we know that Saddam used chemical weapons in the past, that he
obtained dual-use materials, that he had nuclear scientists on his
payroll, and that he had billions of dollars of oil money with which to
pursue his goals. In addition, we know that he invaded two neighboring
countries, lobbed missiles at a third, and declared America to be a
mortal enemy.
A new British report further amplifies these facts. Led by Lord
Butler, the British investigative team determined that the claim that
Saddam attempted to buy uranium from Africa was ``well founded.'' And I
quote:
We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence
assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the
Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi
attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's
dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons,
were well-founded.
By extension, we conclude also that the statement in
President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January
2003 that: `The British Government has learned that Saddam
Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium
from Africa' was well-founded.
The report also rebuts many of the widely circulated claims made by
Ambassador Joe Wilson about his role in the mission to Niger; the
report he made to Washington upon his return; and later his claims that
the administration manipulated intelligence. This report reveals that
Ambassador Wilson's repeated attacks on the President's credibility
were misleading, at best, and without merit.
Furthermore, both reports find that no political pressure was applied
to influence intelligence estimates. President Bush and Prime Minister
Blair were, in fact, scrupulous in their presentation of the evidence
as it was known.
Saddam Hussein intended to resume his illegal weapons programs, and
was taking steps to do so. The Butler report corroborates that, prior
to the war, Iraq was ``carrying out illicit research and development,
and procurement activities to seek to sustain its indigenous
capabilities.''
In other words, Saddam was a threat to our peace, security, and
interests. He never abandoned his ultimate goal to acquire WMD. Saddam
may have been biding his time, but as the President told the nation, in
this case, time was a ticking bomb.
I applaud the efforts of both our Intelligence Committee and our
British allies. Their examinations of the intelligence problems and
misjudgments prior to the war are crucial to making the reforms
necessary to winning the war on terrorism. This war, more than any
other, depends on information.
I look forward to the discussion of how we can strengthen our
intelligence gathering and analysis. Brave men and women are out in the
field, right now, risking their lives to defend America's freedom. They
need an intelligence system that backs them up. America needs an
intelligence system that works, and works well.
____________________
ASBESTOS UPDATE
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I would like to report briefly on where
things stand on the asbestos negotiations Senator Daschle and I have
been conducting for the last couple of months.
There is wide agreement that the current asbestos litigation system
is disastrous for victims, for jobs, and for the economy.
More than 700,000 individuals have filed claims; approximately
300,000 claims are still pending; more than $70 billion has already
been spent trying to resolve these claims; and more than 70 companies
have filed for bankruptcy as a result.
And yet we have very little to show for it. We have a system where
the sickest victims of asbestos exposure have to wait in line with
thousands of unimpaired claimants.
There are many things that we in Congress cannot agree upon. But
everyone can agree that this system is a mess and must be fixed.
Senators Hatch and Leahy ironed out a unique solution to the problem.
They created a no-fault trust fund for claimants funded by business and
insurance that would pay truly sick claimants fair claims values in a
prompt manner.
S. 1125 embodied this idea and was reported out of the Judiciary
Committee in July of 2003. That bill provided $108 billion in mandatory
funding for claimants.
On April 7, 2004, Senator Hatch and I, along with Senators Miller,
DeWine, Voinovich, Chambliss, Hagel, and Domenici, introduced a
substitute bill, S. 2290. S. 2290 increased the funding for claimants
to $114 billion.
Unfortunately, on April 22, that bill only received 50 votes on the
floor of the Senate. Why? The opponents' primary complaint was that the
funding was insufficient.
I did not want to give up on finding a solution to this crisis.
Fortunately, neither did the Democrat leader. So we met and decided to
ask Judge Becker, a respected Third Circuit Court of Appeals judge who
had been working on asbestos issues with Senator Specter, to try to
mediate the parties' differences. He did so over a 2-week period in May
and was able to get Organized Labor to move from $153 billion to $149
billion.
The business and insurance side of the equation moved from the $114
billion into the mid-$120 billion range. But no deal was reached.
In June, the minority leader and I met again and agreed to try to
negotiate this matter between us, along with the help of the interested
parties.
Soon after those negotiations began, the business side made yet
another move, this time offering to fund a $131 billion trust fund.
They were told that was still insufficient.
So, at my request, Senator Daschle put together a proposal. He
proposed a $141 billion trust fund. He also indicated how his side
believed the start up of the fund and pending claims should be handled,
among other issues.
[[Page 17031]]
In response, I encouraged the business and insurance communities to
make their best and final proposal on the size of the fund. I told them
that the end-game was near and that it was time for them to do the best
they could in terms of a proposal.
As a result, they made a huge move and agreed to fund a $140 billion
trust fund, with roughly $40 billion funded in the first 5 years.
Now here is the rub. Time is running out. It is now the end of July,
and we are set to begin a long recess. We only have 21 days left in
this session of Congress to get a bill completed.
So I sat down with Senator Daschle earlier this week to try to push
negotiations forward. To get a bill, we must begin to tackle the tough
issues.
Those tough issues concern funding and pending claims. Because we
have reached the bottom line for business and insurance when it comes
to funding, it is time to intensify negotiations on the so-called
``start-up'' and ``pendings'' issues.
Business and insurance will not agree to a $140 billion trust fund
and, simultaneously, continue to pay massive sums for ongoing
litigation. Either a trust fund is the solution to our problems or it
is not.
I have asked Senator Daschle to let me know whether he believes his
side can move in our direction and not permit leakage in the tort
system. If so, substantial progress can be made.
Today, I received a letter from Senator Daschle and 12 other
Democrats expressing their commitment to ``work over the August recess
to narrow our differences and secure a compromise that provides
necessary relief to victims and businesses.''
I deeply appreciate their steadfast commitment to this issue and look
forward to hearing from them about how we can solve the asbestos
litigation crisis.
____________________
AMERICA IS MOVING FORWARD
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, over the past few months, my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle have come to the Senate floor in a vain
effort to convince America that we are worse off than we were 4 years
ago.
They offer a pessimistic litany of distorted statistics to discredit
the measurable progress America has made in the last 4 years. Just last
Friday, the minority leader came to the Senate floor to cast a negative
light on America's astonishing rebound from the triple shock of
terrorist attacks, corporate scandals, and a recession inherited from
the Clinton administration.
It is critical that the American people know the truth.
Far from the other side's woeful depiction, America is moving forward
and gaining strength. We have been tested, and we have proven ourselves
to be a tough, resilient and resourceful nation.
America remains the economic engine of the world. While our European
friends struggle with double digit unemployment, America's unemployment
rate is at historic lows and dropping.
Are we better off? Four years ago, President Bush inherited an
economy that measured $9.8 trillion. Today, the economy has grown
almost $1 trillion more.
Are we better off? Four years ago, President Bush inherited an
economy that was the equivalent to roughly $25,000 for every person.
Today, that number has grown to nearly $30,000.
Are we better off? Four years ago, President Bush inherited an
economy that employed 136.9 million people. Today, the number of people
working has grown by nearly 2 million and is on track to create 1.2
million jobs this year.
Contrary to claims made by critics, the quality of jobs being created
is excellent. Three quarters of the new jobs created in May were in
industries that, on average, pay a higher hourly rate than the overall
average.
Are we better off? Manufacturing jobs have grown this year for the
first time since the mid-90's; 64,000 jobs have been added in the
manufacturing sector since January, alone, and there are more jobs to
come.
More manufacturers have been reporting increased activity and new
orders than at any time in the last 20 years. The ISM Manufacturing
employment index in April hit its highest level in 15 years.
Are we better off? Four years ago, President Bush inherited an
economy that was constructing only 1.5 million new houses per year.
Today, homeownership is at an all time high, including minority
homeownership. Americans are investing in themselves and their futures.
Are we better off? Productivity is its highest in 50 years.
Unemployment is lower now than it was in the 70s, 80s and 90s--lower,
in fact, than during the Clinton years.
Are we better off? The answer is, clearly, a resoundings yes.
Because of President Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, Americans now
have more money to invest, save, or spend as they choose. Business
owners have more opportunities to realize their entrepreneurial
potential.
America is moving forward because President Bush and the Republican-
led Congress believe in the ingenuity, creativity, and common sense of
the American people.
When it comes to fighting crime, American law enforcement has the bad
guys on the run. The statistics are remarkable.
Fire-arm related violent crime is down. Burglary, robbery and theft
are all down.
Simple and aggravated assault is down. Violent crimes, including
rape, sexual assaults and robberies, are now at their lowest levels
since the government began collecting crime data in 1973. Violent crime
is falling in all regions of the country, whether measured by race,
ethnicity, age or income.
Property crimes continued a more than 20-year decline.
Gun-related crimes have continued to fall.
The fall in the crime rates has coincided with more aggressive
prosecutions of criminals. Average sentences for violent criminals are
increasing, and violent felons comprise a growing share of the prison
population.
Real, positive change is taking place in America's neighborhoods.
American's are safer and more secure at home.
When it comes to improving major social programs, a Republican-led
Congress has delivered on major new reforms.
Seniors now have, for the first time, prescription drug coverage
under Medicare.
The other side of the aisle had eight years to enact Medicare reform.
They didn't. Instead, they played politics with seniors' health. And
now that we have made historic improvements, opponents to reform are
trying to scare seniors from enjoying their new benefits.
The truth is, under Republican leadership, America's seniors are
getting vastly improved Medicare services.
Under the bipartisan Medicare Modernization Act signed by President
Bush in December, for the first time, all seniors will have access to
$400 billion in expanded drug benefits. Low-income seniors and those
with high drug costs will get the most help. Millions of seniors will
get comprehensive prescription drug coverage with no gaps in coverage,
no premium, and no more than a $5 copay.
Even now, only 6 months after the Medicare legislation became law,
the Bush administration is providing immediate relief from the high
cost of drugs through its prescription drug discount program. Millions
of seniors are getting $1,200, just like cash, on top of 10-25 percent
off of the cost of their drugs.
Seniors will have expanded access to an array of preventive
benefits--including an annual physical examination--that simply were
not part of the program before.
Moreover, all Americans will pay less for prescription drugs because
we took steps to speed the delivery of lower cost generic drugs to
consumers.
We have also given all Americans more affordable coverage through
tax-free health savings accounts so they could take more control over
their health care needs and hard-earned dollars.
When it comes to education, again, Republican leadership is
delivering major reform.
[[Page 17032]]
Because of the No Child Left Behind Act, passed by a Republican-led
Congress and signed into law by President Bush, millions of
disadvantaged children are now getting the focus and attention they
need and deserve.
Reading and math scores in America's large urban schools have
improved.
Parents of children in struggling schools have powerful new options,
and they are using them. If their school is struggling to teach their
children the basics, such as math and reading, parent now can send
their kids to a better public school or get their children special
tutoring.
Under No Child Left Behind, States and local school districts are now
being held accountable for ensuring every child learns--regardless of
race, parents' income, disability, geography, or English proficiency.
As President Bush has said time and again, every child can learn, and
every child should be given a fair chance. The No Child Left Behind Act
is helping to make sure the promise is becoming a reality.
As a result of the No Child Left Behind Act, the Federal Government
today is spending more money on K-12 education than at any other time
in the history of the United States. Federal K-12 education funding to
states and local schools has increased by a historic $6.9 billion since
the hallmark education reform legislation was signed into law.
Title I aid for disadvantaged students, the cornerstone of the No
Child Left Behind Act, has increased by over 40 percent since 2001.
In fact, aid for disadvantaged students received a larger combined
increase during the first 2 years of President Bush's administration
than it received in the previous 7 years combined under President
Clinton.
Our economy is stronger, crime is down, education is improving.
Americans have good reason to be optimistic about the future.
And when it comes to environment, we are also seeing major progress.
Emissions are down and water quality is improving.
All signs are encouraging.
More, however, can be done, starting with strengthening America's
energy independence. President Bush has offered a long-range plan to
diversify our energy supply and encourage the use of renewable energy
sources.
Senate Democrats, however, are committed to a strategy of
obstruction. They come to the Senate floor to lament America's energy
problems. Meanwhile, they block the very reforms that would lessen
America's dependence on foreign oil supplies.
Likewise, the other side of the aisle bemoans rising health premiums
while continuing to block medical malpractice reforms that would lower
medical costs.
Which brings me to the larger point.
This year, the other side has been engaged in an unprecedented
campaign of obstructionism. Their obstructionism is costing billions of
dollars that could be growing the economy and hundreds of thousands of
jobs that could be employing America's workers.
The campaign to poor-mouth America's progress may be an election year
strategy to immobilize the process, but it is also unfairly discredits
the efforts of every American working hard, paying taxes, and leading
this country back to economic health. The distorted statistics and
misleading charts are meant to sow doubt and confusion. They are meant
to make Americans question their own success.
It will not work, and it must not work. We are a strong, robust, and
prosperous nation. Optimism is the essence of our success. It drives
our creativity and emboldens our entrepreneurial spirit. It is what
makes us invest in the future and accomplish our highest aims.
I am confident the American people will look at the gains we are
making everyday as a nation and as individuals, and that we will
recognize our success, take heart, and keep moving forward. It is the
American spirit, and it is the American way.
____________________
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES
Sergeant Kyle Brinlee
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I stand here today in memory of a
courageous young American who gave his life for freedom. He gave his
life for the people of Iraq, he gave it for his fellow Americans, and
he gave it especially for those he loved. SGT Kyle Brinlee at the age
of 21 gave up his life for the sake of others, and for his service and
his sacrifice, I am proud to honor him on the Senate floor today.
SGT Kyle A. Brinlee of Pryor, OK, was deployed from Fort Sill and
served as a masonry and carpentry specialist with the 120th Combat
Engineering Battalion in Iraq. When he went to Iraq in February, he
left the familiar comfort of Pryor, OK, for the unknown hostility of
the Middle East. He left his family, friends, and neighbors, expecting
to be home within 6 months or a year at the most. Only 3 months passed
before these same people lined the streets of Pryor as his funeral
procession passed.
On May 11, near Alasad, Iraq, an explosive device destroyed the
vehicle in which Kyle Brinlee was riding. He died while securing the
freedom of millions of Americans, while trying to secure a chance of
that freedom for the Iraqi people.
Sergeant Brinlee, the first Oklahoma guardsman to give his life in
Iraq, was eulogized in May in front of a crowd of 1,300 people at the
Pryor High School auditorium. Kyle was remembered as an outstanding
soldier, a morale builder who was always willing to be the first to
volunteer, and as someone who all will miss. After his death, the
National Guard awarded Kyle the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. He
has also earned my admiration and prayers and those of many other
Americans. His choice was that of a true hero: He endangered his own
life for the sake of something greater, and that courage to act for the
good of all will mark his legacy forever.
Sergeant Brinlee stands as a true example of bravery. He knew of the
dangers that awaited him. He knew he might never have another
opportunity to see his family, but he also knew his mission. He knew
that American freedom does not come from the complaints of the many but
from the sacrifices of the few. SGT Kyle Brinlee was man enough to be
counted amongst those noble few. Kyle Brinlee was a true American hero.
Mr. President, on each trip I take overseas as one of the members of
the Senate Armed Services Committee, the message I get back from the
troops in the field is always the same: Why is it that people in
America do not understand what we are doing? I think the media has done
a lousy job, distorting the true reality of the freedoms that are
taking place in Iraq, of all the good things that are happening over
there.
I hear from these brave young troops. They know what their mission
is. They know America is in its most threatened position today. They
know they are risking their lives, yet they are willing to do it.
Certainly SGT Kyle Brinlee is one of those, a very good, heroic
example.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________
S. 2844, CONTINUITY IN REPRESENTATION ACT OF 2004
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this evening the Senate is expected to
consider H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act of 2004. While
there are significant problems with this bill, I believe it is in the
best interest of ensuring the continuity of government that the Senate
pass the bill, as received from the House, without amendment, before we
begin this extended recess.
The most troubling problem with this bill is that it may have the
unintended consequence of disenfranchising overseas military voters who
are serving this Nation in combat. So in taking this action tonight,
let me suggest that our work will not be done. I strongly encourage my
colleagues in the House to review this legislation in light of these
concerns and to consider adopting technical corrections to this bill to
address its unintentional consequences.
The bill before the Senate today is, at best, a stopgap measure which
attempts to provide a way to reconstitute the House of Representatives
in
[[Page 17033]]
the event that in excess of 100 vacancies occur in its membership.
Unlike vacancies in the Senate, which under the Seventeenth Amendment
can be immediately filled, the House has no way to reconstitute itself
short of holding elections. In essence, H.R. 2488 requires the States
to hold expedited special elections to fill vacancies which occur under
extraordinary circumstances.
The House-passed bill provides that upon the announcement by the
Speaker of the House that more than 100 vacancies exist in the
membership of the House, the States affected must hold a special
election within 45 days of the announcement, unless there is a
regularly scheduled general election scheduled within 75 days of the
announcement. This overly optimistic time line all but ensures that
overseas military voters and overseas voters will not have their
ballots counted in such an election.
In an attempt to address the issue of overseas military voters and
other overseas voters, the House adopted language which calls on the
States, but does not require them, to issue absentee ballots or voting
material to overseas military voters within 15 days of the Speaker's
announcement. However, the bill then requires such States to accept and
process such ballots for up to 45 days from the date that the State
transmitted the ballot to the voter. On its face, those deadlines would
require that an election be held no sooner than 60 days after an
announcement by a Speaker of the House in order to ensure that such
absentee military ballots are counted.
However, the situation may be much worse. Because the House bill does
not require States to transmit ballots to overseas military voters by
any specific date, under certain State laws, such voters can receive
absentee ballots up to literally the day before the election. In such a
case, a State would be required to accept the overseas military ballot
up to 45 days after that date, or 90 days after the Speaker's
announcement.
The obvious result of these two provisions is to potentially extend
the date of the election beyond the required 45 days after the
Speaker's announcement--ranging from 46 days to 90 days. And therein
lies the problem: are overseas military ballots that are received by
the State from 1 to 90 days after the actual election date still
counted, or are they ignored unless the election is close?
The unintended consequence of this bill is to tell our brave men and
women in uniform, who are literally putting their lives on the line for
this Nation in combat overseas, that while they may be able to cast a
vote, there is no guarantee that their vote will be counted. That is
simply an unacceptable result.
On the other hand, if the result is to hold an election open until
all possible overseas ballots are received, then this bill does not
provide for expedited elections at all. In fact, the result may be the
inability of our Government to function for as long as 90 days after a
catastrophe. That would be contrary to the stated purpose of the bill.
And that is why our work is not done. This bill may be a necessary
interim measure, but to ensure that there is no lapse in the authority
of the House, and the ability of Congress, to exercise its
constitutional responsibilities, may require a constitutional amendment
providing for an appointment to fill a vacancy. In the meantime, until
an amendment to the Constitution can be adopted and ratified providing
for the immediate reconstitution of the House, this measure provides
some assurance that our representative form of government will
continue.
Numerous organizations have called on the House to adopt a
constitutional approach, not the least of which is the Continuity of
Government Commission, chaired by our distinguished former colleague,
Alan Simpson, and the respected Lloyd Cutler. While I respect the
concerns of my House colleagues that we preserve the House as an
elected body, the Framers did not intend that such a noble principle
become the undoing of the people's representative branch of government.
We must find a rational and workable way to ensure that our
Government continues to function despite the intent of terrorists and
others who would render the people's House silent. But we must do it in
a way that ensures that all voters, and particularly those military
voters who are serving overseas during a time of war, have an equal
opportunity to not only cast a vote, but to have that vote counted.
____________________
ELECTIONS IN MONGOLIA
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am concerned by reports from Mongolia
of alleged election irregularities following a July 17th revote at a
certain polling station in the capital city of Ulaan Baatar.
According to observers on the ground, the revote occurred less than
12 hours after it was announced at 8 p.m. on July 16th. While I do not
know the nocturnal habits of the Mongolian people, I doubt that voters
in Ulaan Baatar--or anywhere else in Mongolia, for that matter--can be
fully and adequately informed of the revote in such a short time.
Field reports seem to bear this out. According to the International
Republican Institute, turnout at that polling station in the June 27th
elections exceeded 70 percent; on the July 17th revote, it totaled some
46 percent. Nearly one-quarter of those who voted in June did not cast
a ballot in July.
Further troubling are allegations of a systematic pattern of denying
supporters of the Motherland Democracy Coalition, MDC, the right to
vote, refusal to permit MDC observers inside the polling station, the
use of Mongolian law enforcement officials to prohibit access to the
polling station, and vote buying in favor of the ruling Mongolian
People's Revolutionary Party, MPRP.
If proven true, these irregularities would mark a major departure
from Mongolia's previous election experiences, where voting was
generally orderly and according to applicable laws and regulations.
My colleagues might find it interesting that the seat in question was
won in the first round of balloting by MDC candidate and businessman
Otganbayer by a 222 vote margin. The revote found MPRP Defense Minister
Gurragchaa winning the seat by 1,239 votes.
There is no question that reports of irregularities and chicanery
must be fully and impartially investigated by the relevant election
authorities, and that any and all violators of election laws and
regulations be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of
Mongolian law. It is my hope that this process is more transparent than
the counting of ballots at that particular polling station. It is
outrageous that MPRP officials prohibited independent election
observers to witness the opening of ballot boxes and the counting of
ballots--in violation, I understand, of Mongolian law.
Mongolia's leadership would be wise to consider that the country's
reputation--and inclusion as an eligible recipient for increased
foreign assistance under the Millennium Challenge Corporation--is at
stake. Any government that is formed that does not reflect the real
will of the Mongolian people will lack credibility and the respect of
the international community.
Ulaan Baatar should take note that Washington--and the world--is
watching.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SERGEANT MAJOR BEN TAYLOR
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an
outstanding Kentuckian, Ben ``Buster'' Taylor, a retired Special Forces
sergeant major and former Letcher County Sheriff. Sergeant Major Taylor
is not one to brag about his accomplishments, but he should be honored
for his courageous and selfless acts during the two decades he spent
serving this Nation in the U.S. military.
In 1950, inspired by the heroism of World War II veterans, Taylor
joined the United States Army's 11th Airborne Division at Camp
Campbell, KY, which is now known as Fort Campbell. As he worked his way
through various
[[Page 17034]]
divisions, the Army began organizing its Special Forces Branch, the
Green Berets. Taylor enthusiastically joined the Green Berets and spent
the better part of two decades serving with his comrades in Japan,
Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, the Philippines, Burma, China, Laos, and
Vietnam.
Taylor's missions exemplified his bravery and altruism. During his
tours of duty, he was awarded 24 medals and 18 ribbons, among these
four bronze stars. With each honor, a story revealing his heroism is
told. He has notebooks full of citations and commendations that tell of
the many times he risked his own life to save others. But of all these
honors, the one most memorable to Taylor is the role he played in the
funeral of President John F. Kennedy. Taylor was selected to represent
the Green Berets at President Kennedy's funeral. He walked alongside
the casket of the fallen Commander in Chief.
Today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring and recognizing a
true American hero, Sergeant Major Ben Taylor.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. BOBBY RUSSELL HIMES
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow
Kentuckian and proud Republican, Dr. Bobby Russell Himes. Earlier this
year, Dr. Himes was named Central Kentucky News-Journal's 2004 Man of
the Year. The title is one that Dr. Himes has earned.
Dr. Himes has always strived to live life to its very fullest and
give 110 percent. After serving 4 years in the U.S. Air Force, he
completed his bachelor's degree at Kentucky Wesleyan College. He went
on to finish his formal education by earning a masters degree from
Appalachian State University and a doctorate from Vanderbilt
University. For 40 years, he was a professor of history and political
science at Kentucky's Campbellsville University. He was an inspiring
educator, mentor, and friend to students and colleagues. While he no
longer teaches classes, he continues to support and encourage younger
generations.
Beyond his role as an educator, Dr. Himes has been a businessman, a
stalwart volunteer for the Republican Party, and an instrumental figure
in creating the Central Kentucky Arts Series. Furthermore, he is a
devoted husband, father, grandfather, and now a great-grandfather.
Dr. Himes is truly an inspiration. He persevered through a childhood
during the Great Depression and a battle with cancer. If there is one
thing to learn from Dr. Bobby Russell Himes, it is his philosophy for
living. Dr. Himes believes that, ``By setting goals--even if you don't
achieve them--you're going to go further just because you set them.''
May we please take this time to honor the man whom so many look up
to, Dr. Bobby Russell Himes, Central Kentucky News-Journal's 2004 Man
of the Year.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO R.J. CORMAN
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I pay tribute to a fellow Kentuckian,
Mr. R.J. Corman. Mr. Corman is a remarkable man who has overcome life's
adversities and achieved great business success.
Mr. Corman got his start in the railroad business working a backhoe
for L&N Railroad. Little did he know, but this initial exposure would
lead to his lifetime work. He founded and continues to operate the R.J.
Corman Railroad Group in his hometown of Nicholasville, Kentucky. His
business has grown over the years and now operates in 19 States, has
about 630 employees, and will have at least $120 million in sales this
year. The goal of the R.J. Corman Railroad Group is to please customers
and perform their services better, faster, and more efficient than
anyone else.
While Mr. Corman's companies are incredibly successful and expansive,
it is his personal successes that I pay tribute to most. Three years
ago, Mr. Corman was diagnosed with cancer and given 3 years to live. A
man not used to sitting idly by, he successfully completed a stem-cell
bone marrow transplant in November 2001 and today his cancer is in
complete remission. In fact, Mr. Corman is doing so well that at the
age of 48 he ran in the 108th annual Boston Marathon.
Mr. Corman came from humble beginnings, the son of a state highway
worker and homemaker. But he hasn't forgotten where he came from or the
lessons his grandfather taught him about hard work and honesty. His
never give up attitude has led to business success and overcoming
serious illness. Today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring and
recognizing Kentucky's railroad entrepreneur, Mr. R.J. Corman.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO OWSLEY BROWN FRAZIER
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I pay tribute to an outstanding
Kentuckian, fellow Louisvillian and friend, Mr. Owsley Brown Frazier.
Owsley recently fulfilled one of his life-long dreams by opening a
museum to showcase his collection of historic weaponry--the Frazier
Historical Arms Museum. I was honored to join him at the grand opening
to get a sneak peak at his impressive collection.
The Frazier Historical Arms Museum is more than guns in cases and
maps on walls. Inside this $32 million, 100,000-square-foot museum
weapons are displayed based on the stories they tell. The museum is
home to Teddy Roosevelt's ``Big Stick,'' a rifle owned by George
Washington, a bow and arrow used by Geronimo, and General George
Armstrong Custer's Colt Navy revolvers. Not only does the museum house
Owsley's collection of American artifacts but also holds collections on
loan from the British Royal Armories in the Tower of London. These
artifacts are combined with guides dressed in period attire, short
films, and interactive computer stations. It is definitely a ``must
see'' while in Louisville.
Owsley wanted to give back to his hometown and the museum was his
gift. The museum is a testament to his work ethic and his values. It
reflects his philanthropic nature that he has contributed $500 million
to charities during his lifetime, including tens of millions for his
biggest passion--education. He has used his own money, but also
millions of dollars of contributions from his family's company to
preserve historic buildings, build housing for low-income families and
of course, support our local colleges and schools.
His friends describe him as a simple man who loves fishing at his
Shelby County farm, breakfast at the Waddy Truck Stop, and would rather
watch sports on television than attend cocktail parties. Owsley and I
also share a special passion: University of Louisville Athletics. In
fact, he once even skipped a family member's wedding because the
Cardinals had a game that day.
I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this incredible
man. Owsley has a genuine and sincere love for the city of Louisville,
the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and most importantly his fellow man. I
can only hope he will inspire us all to share that same benevolent
passion and commitment in our lives.
____________________
ISRAEL SECURITY FENCE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, they say good fences make good neighbors.
I do not know if that is always true, but I do know that the security
fence Israel is building along the West Bank has been good for the
security in the region.
Already, the fence has resulted in a 90 percent drop in terrorism
coming from the northern West Bank. In 2004, no Israeli nationals were
killed or wounded by suicide bombings in areas protected by the fence,
while 19 Israeli citizens were killed and 102 wounded by suicide
attacks in areas without the fence.
So, it is clear that this fence is saving innocent lives.
Like so many others who know the region and have traveled to Israel
and Palestine many times, I wish that a fence was not necessary. In an
ideal world, neighbors would not need fences, and Israel and Palestine
could have a
[[Page 17035]]
more open border where goods, services and people move freely.
But that is not the world we live in, and that is not the position in
which Israel finds itself. We know that terrorist organizations
operating in the West Bank and elsewhere have sworn themselves to one
main goal: the destruction of the State of Israel.
These murderers target innocent civilians, women and children in
Israeli busses, markets and cafes. Since the start of the Intifada some
4 years ago, almost 1,000 Israelis have been killed. Every man, woman
and child in Israel lives with the fear that a terrorist attack could
be carried out at any time, on any given day, and in any given
location.
When confronted with such threats, free nations look to their
military, their law enforcement personnel, and above all else, they
look to the rule of law.
A commitment to the rule of law separates free nations from
dictatorships. It separates democracies from corrupt and dangerous
regimes. It is what binds people together under common values, shared
principles and an agreed framework to live in peace.
Israel has a right to live in peace. It has a right, under law, to
protect itself and to defend its people from attack. This is not only
what the law allows, it is what the people are entitled to. Much of the
United Nations Charter, in fact, is based on the inherent right to
self-defense.
That is why the recent International Court of Justice, ICJ, advisory
opinion on the security fence is so wrong, and why it sets a very
dangerous precedent. It is yet another low point for this court and for
the UN.
The ICJ declared itself ``not convinced'' that the barrier Israel is
building is a security necessity. I suppose such judgments are easy to
make when sitting in the opulence of the Hague some 2,000 miles away.
Let the judges live along the Israeli border to the West Bank for some
time, and then let them call the fence unnecessary.
Beyond the wrongness of the opinion, the court should never have
taken the case to begin with.
The ICJ had no business interfering in the security of a sovereign
nation. Israel's democratic institutions and its commitment to the rule
of law make it more than able to handle issues arising from the
construction of the fence without interference from the ICJ.
Israel's supreme court, for example, ruled that a segment of the
security fence must be re-routed to reduce the impact on the
Palestinian population, even though the judges noted that ``in the
short term, this judgment will not make the state's struggle against
those rising up against it any easier.''
This is what democratic nations do; they act in accordance to the
law. They make outside interference by the ICJ not only unwelcome and
unnecessary, but even dangerous.
Although the ICJ opinion is non-binding, it could lead to the
introduction of anti-Israel measures at the UN and strengthen attempts
to isolate Israel.
This is why some 40 nations, including the United States, submitted
briefs to the ICJ objecting to the court's consideration of the case.
This is why I, along with 78 other Senators, wrote the UN Secretary
General, calling upon him to reject the ICJ's interference with
Israel's right to self defense.
Unfortunately, the UN's action and the ICJ's opinion is another in a
long line of anti-Israel positions they have taken. There have been
some 400 anti-Israel Resolutions passed at the UN since 1964, while the
terrorist atrocities committed against the Jewish people have never
been investigated by the UN.
This is wrong, and it is an assault against Israeli sovereignty and
its legal systems.
Israel's allies must continue to speak out against this wrong-headed
action by the ICJ. This is why Senate has introduced and I have co-
sponsored another bi-partisan resolution condemning the recent ICJ
decision on the legality of Israel's security fence and urging no
further action by the UN to delay or prevent the fence's construction.
We need to pass that resolution, keep the pressure on the UN, and
continue to protect Israel's right to self defense. The law authorizes
it, and the people of the region deserve it.
____________________
HONORING REV. MARION DANIEL BENNETT SR.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Reverend Marion
Daniel Bennett, Sr., on his recent retirement as pastor of the Zion
United Methodist Church. It pleases me to be able to speak today of
Rev. Bennett's tremendous contributions to Nevada's spiritual, civic,
and political life.
Reverend Bennett's dedicated service and inspired leadership of the
Zion United Methodist Church in Las Vegas has spanned over four
decades. During his tenure, he oversaw the relocation of the Church to
its current West Las Vegas site, and spearheaded the development of a
much-needed day care center in the community.
Reverend Bennett's commitment to public service, however, has
extended well beyond his West Las Vegas congregation. As president of
the Las Vegas Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People from 1963-1967 and 1971-1973, Rev. Bennett was among the
foremost leaders in the struggle for civil rights in Nevada. He has
continued to remain active in the Las Vegas NAACP as an executive board
member for the past 30 years.
Reverend Bennett also served as a member of the Nevada State Assembly
for 10 years. As chairman of the Health and Welfare Committee, he
worked hard to ensure that the State's health care and social welfare
services kept pace with Nevada's dramatic growth and development. In
doing so, Reverend Bennett helped expand the opportunities available to
Nevadans and improve the quality of life in the Silver State.
His lifetime of service to his church and community has been
recognized by many organizations including the University of Nevada,
which conferred upon him its Distinguished Nevadan Award.
I also want all within the sound of my voice to understand the
quality of friend Reverend Bennett has been to me. The quality has been
the best, for which I will always be grateful.
In short, Reverend Bennett has led a distinguished career and life.
Please join me in congratulating him on his recent retirement from the
Zion United Methodist Church, and wishing him health and happiness in
the future.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF JOE TRUJILLO
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I honor a long-time member of my staff,
Joe Trujillo. I usually call him Joseph, but my staff and most of those
from my home State of New Mexico refer to him as ``Joe T.'' I do not
want misunderstanding--he is not retiring, because his work is not
done. However, Joseph Trujillo has served as a member of my staff, in
one capacity or another, for 25 years.
His always positive outlook is remarkable, and his smile is
contagious. His jovial attitude and eagerness to deal with challenges
is admirable. His keen understanding of people is tied to his own rich
personality, and it is Joe's rich personality that I, and those from my
home State, have come to know and love the most.
Joe is a New Mexico native. He grew up in Los Alamos, and graduated
from Los Alamos High School in 1964. He was the first New Mexico
Hispanic to be awarded the Phi Beta Kappa key at the University of New
Mexico.
After graduating from UNM in 1968, he worked on a collaborative
project to help Albuquerque's inner city poor. We first met in 1969,
while I was chairman of the Albuquerque City Commission. Joe later
became a City of Albuquerque employee. In 1976, he began working for
Albuquerque mayor, Harry McKinney, as the city's federal grants
coordinator. Mayor McKinney dispatched him to work out of my office
here in Washington, and after awhile I convinced him to become a member
of my staff.
Right after coming to work for me in 1979, he became the member of my
staff
[[Page 17036]]
who dealt with Indian affairs. But he did much more. Over the past 25
years he has been given more responsibilities than I can count. From
appropriations and budget, to banking, Indian affairs and economic
development, and everything in between, Joseph has done it all. His
wealth of experience is beyond compare. For all who know Joe, it has
always been clear that his passion is working to help those who are
less fortunate.
Joe has done more for Indians than most Senators. Through the years,
Joe has been instrumental in bringing tribal leaders to the table to
discuss their dilemmas. He arranged several economic summits in the
State to help Indians develop their infrastructure and local economies.
His hard work and dedication wrought a successful economic development
strategy, along with an education and healthcare plan to help Indians
in New Mexico and across the Nation.
In 2001, after 22 years in my Washington office, he returned to New
Mexico to serve as a member of my State staff where he continues his
fine work at the local level on Indian issues and rural development
initiatives.
Joe Trujillo is loyal, and one on whom I trust and depend. He has
been a member of my staff since June 19, 1979. In that time, we have
accomplished much, and I am extremely proud of those accomplishments.
Most importantly, he is my good friend. Joseph, for all you have done
for me, and for all you have done for the people of New Mexico; you
have my utmost respect and deepest gratitude. Thank you, and keep up
the good work, amigo.
____________________
TIME FOR IRAN TO COME CLEAN
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, when historians look back on American
foreign policy in the early 21st century, they will ask a few basic
questions. One will be whether we used our immense military strength
wisely. Another will be whether we took effective action to avert
genocide in the world. But the biggest question will be whether we did
all we could to avert the use of weapons of mass destruction, and
especially a nuclear catastrophe.
The resolution before us addresses one of the most sensitive nuclear
non-proliferation issues of our day, that of Iran. Over the last 2
years, public allegations and International Atomic Energy Agency
inspections have uncovered nearly two decades of covert nuclear
programs that Iran has pursued in violation of its obligations under
safeguards agreements with the IAEA. While Iran insists publicly that
these programs are all peaceful, all the signs and much of the
political rhetoric in Iran point to a nuclear weapons program that has
been conducted under the cover of peaceful nuclear activities.
Nearly a year ago, Iran promised to come clean on its nuclear
programs and to suspend all its uranium enrichment and reprocessing
activities. But Iran has yet to comply fully with its commitment.
Instead, it has hidden some of its activities and forced IAEA
inspectors to pull teeth in order to get information about its
programs; it has delayed inspections and, at times, suspended all
cooperation; it has continued production of components for uranium
enrichment centrifuges; and it has announced an intent to test its
uranium conversion facility in a manner that will produce feed material
for uranium enrichment centrifuges. All those actions are violations of
Iran's legal and political commitments.
More importantly, those actions suggest that Iran still has something
to hide. They relate to nuclear activities that are difficult to
explain as peaceful programs. Some of those actions relate to programs
involving the same criminal network that aided Libya and provided it
with a nuclear weapon design. And they are accompanied by political
statements that suggest Iran may well want to develop nuclear weapons.
If Iran wants to gain the confidence of the international community,
that is certainly not the way to go about it.
I do not believe that Iran poses an imminent threat of testing or
deploying nuclear weapons. There is hence no need at this time to
threaten or undertake military action, and the resolution before us
does not threaten, encourage or authorize such action.
Some journalists interpreted a similar resolution in the House of
Representatives as authorizing military action, despite the denials of
those who supported that resolution, including its co-author,
Representative Lantos of California. That is because the House
resolution used the words ``all appropriate means,'' which sounded too
similar to previous resolutions on other issues that did authorize the
use of force. To make it absolutely clear that the resolution before us
does not do that, the authors of the substitute amendment have deleted
the word ``all'' from that phrase. We do not intend this resolution to
encourage the use of military force by any country.
Neither can any concurrent resolution authorize the use of force by
the United States. Under our Constitution and under the War Powers
Resolution, only legislation signed by the President can do that. A
concurrent resolution has no legal effect and cannot do so.
What we do intend by this resolution is to encourage all countries to
help convince Iran that its national security is best served by giving
up the urge to develop a nuclear weapons capability. An Iran with
nuclear weapons--or with the ability to produce such weapons--will not
be a more secure Iran. Rather, it will only prompt great concern among
its neighbors and risk their developing nuclear weapons as well; and it
will estrange itself from all countries that support the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty or that believe in keeping one's international
obligations.
If Iran wants to understand what nuclear weapons will bring about, it
can look to North Korea, which is reduced to begging and threatening
the international community in order to feed its people and to provide
even minimal energy resources. Those are the wages of proliferation:
not security, but insecurity; not acclaim, but ostracism.
If the nations of the world--and especially the industrialized
countries in Europe and elsewhere that have important trade relations
with Iran--will band together to deliver this message, I believe that
Iran will hear it and heed it. But the message may well have to be
delivered with more than words. Countries may have to take forceful
diplomatic and economic actions in order to demonstrate to Iran the
risks that it runs if it insists upon building a nuclear weapons
capability. The IAEA Board of Governors may well have to report Iran's
noncompliance to the United Nations Security Council, and the Security
Council may have to take action under Articles 39 through 41 of the
United Nations Charter to encourage or order Iran to cease its programs
that would contribute to building that nuclear weapons capability.
Countries can also remind Iran that concerns which may have prompted
its covert nuclear programs are now largely dissipated. The Soviet
Union is gone, and Russia does not threaten Iranian sovereignty. Saddam
Hussein is now a criminal in the dock, rather than a dictator with
imperial ambitions. And the case of Libya demonstrates that the United
States will readily adjust its policy toward a country that renounces
weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism. Iran's
security concerns can be met--indeed, can best be met--without its
developing or producing any weapons of mass destruction.
It is time that we have a serious discussion with Europe about
harmonizing our policies toward Iran. Europe has pursued a strategy of
offering positive incentives for Iran to change its behavior, but no
penalties if it does not--effectively the reverse of U.S. policy. By
coordinating more closely, the United States and Europe are more likely
to affect Iran's actions. We should clearly state that if Iran ends its
pursuit of a nuclear weapons program and gets out of the terrorism
business, then we would be willing to change our policy of isolating
and sanctioning Iran.
I hope that enactment of the resolution before us will help galvanize
world attention to the threat of nuclear proliferation in Iran and to
the need to
[[Page 17037]]
convince Iran to change its ways. I hope that it will also encourage
Iran to choose the path of non-proliferation and base its future on
engagement with the world, rather than increasing, self-imposed
isolation.
I want to thank the original sponsors of S. Con. Res. 81, Senators
Feinstein and Kyl, for their cooperation in developing a substitute
text that we can all support. I believe that Representatives Hyde and
Lantos, whose H. Con. Res. 398 provided much guidance to us, will also
find this text something that they can accept so as to achieve
enactment of this important resolution. And I appreciate the work of
their staffs over the past several weeks. My own staff and Chairman
Lugar's staff were also instrumental in bringing this work to what I
believe will be a successful conclusion.
We have all been guided not by politics, but by the importance of the
matter before us. When the issue is nuclear proliferation, uncountable
innocent lives hang in the balance. On such an issue, the world must
act as one.
____________________
ALASKA WILDFIRES
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the fires
that are burning in my State of Alaska. To date, there are 117 active
fires in Alaska that have burned over 3.8 million acres. That is larger
than the entire State of Connecticut, and 11 of these fires started
yesterday. This year is the 3rd most active fire season in Alaska since
records have been kept, 1955.
Alaskans have been living with these fires since early June. All told
there have been 479 of them since the start of fire season.
On Monday July 5, I visited the fire camp of the Boundary Fire, which
was threatening residences north of Fairbanks, AK.
It rained while I was visiting the camp. Rain and changes in the
winds can bring an abrupt end to fire season. I was hopeful that the
change in weather would allow firefighters to put down the Boundary
Fire in short order.
Unfortunately, it was not to be. Shortly after I left the fire camp,
residents of the Haystack subdivision were told it was safe to return
home. Just a few days ago, the Haystack subdivision was evacuated for
the second time this summer. This evacuation affects 150 residents and
80 homes.
A total of 34 structures have been lost to the fires now burning in
the State. Haze from the fires in the interior of Alaska is being
experienced as far south as Juneau--that is a distance of about 800
miles.
The heroes of this fire season are the 2,711 firefighters: many from
Alaska Native villages and others from the lower 48 who are working
night and day to protect homes, private property, and subsistence
resources. I am grateful to the coordinated efforts of the Alaska Fire
Service and the State Division of Forestry for their tireless work in
combating these fires. This week, the community of Fairbanks is
celebrating ``Golden Days''--their annual summer carnival. I don't know
if any of the firefighters will be able to break away from their duties
to attend the parade on Saturday, but I can promise you that they will
be warmly received by the residents of our Golden Heart City.
I want to commend the Federal fire managers for getting our Nation's
aerial firefighting resources back in the air. We may have some
differences of opinion about how long it took to accomplish this or how
many planes are certified to fly, but I am prepared to leave this
discussion for a future time.
The total aerial resources in Alaska include one federally certified
heavy air tanker, two heavy air tankers under contract to the State of
Alaska, three single-engine air tankers, and three CL 215's. These
resources are prepositioned around the State to be used, when needed.
Thus far, the brave men and women on our fire lines have been
successful in holding the fire away from primary residences--not only
in and around Fairbanks, but also in rural communities like Chicken,
Circle, Central, Eagle, Evansville, Tanacross, Galena, and Venetie.
The firefighters remind me that the proximity of the fires to
people's homes creates a ``teachable moment.'' The operative words are
``be firewise.'' We need to all remember building defensible space
around structures not only increases the likelihood that a building
will survive a fire. It also increases safety to residents and our
firefighters.
I want to reemphasize my strong support for the fuels reduction
provisions of the President's Healthy Forest Initiative. This
initiative is needed more than ever now. Our Nation's forestry policy
has to allow for responsible forest management that includes the
ability to remove, when appropriate, wildfire fuel from forests.
Deteriorating forest and rangeland health now affects more than 190
million acres nationwide, an area twice the size of California.
In Alaska, the damage caused by the spruce bark beetle, especially
along the Kenai Peninsula has been devastating. Over 5 million acres of
trees in south central and interior Alaska have been lost to insects
over the last 10 years. Expedited fuel reduction treatment on Federal
land on which the existence of disease or insect infestation is a
critical provision in this new law.
In addition to treating our Federal lands, treating State and private
lands is also important. Such lands benefit from the U.S. Forest
Service's State and Private Forestry Program. As we know, wildland
fires do not discriminate among land ownership patterns. On the Kenai
Peninsula alone, State, native corporation, and private lands have
beetle kill in addition to Federal lands on the Chugach and Kenai
National Wildlife Refuge. There are still over 200,000 acres of
untreated hazardous fuels within the Wildland-Urban Interface, leaving
many Alaskan communities at risk.
Another critical program is the Forest Land Enhancement Program
(FLEP), which is part of the Farm Bill. This program helps communities
and individuals to obtain grants for reforestation and thinning of
lands impacted by beetle kill.
In Alaska alone, a total of 478 private landowners, along with 19
native corporations are eligible for FLEP funds for wildfire fuels
reduction and timber stand improvements. Without this funding, eligible
Alaskan landowners have no opportunity to make needed forest health
improvements on their lands. The farm bill in 2002 authorized $100
million from the Commodity Credit Corporation over a 5-year period
ending in fiscal year 2007. Only a total of $20 million was used for
landowner cost-share and technical assistance in fiscal year 2003 with
$50 million transferred from FLEP to cover Forest Service wildfire
suppression costs. While supporting wildfire suppression, we must and
should utilize funding for those State and private forestry programs
that aid communities in fuel reduction work to reduce these
catastrophic wildfires we witness each year.
We must work across party lines to get the needed resources,
recognizing fiscal responsibility, to all landowners to reduce fuel
load. This is a responsibility for all of us in Congress.
____________________
SENATOR BOB DOLE AND THE WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on Memorial Day, my wife Marcelle and I
were honored to attend the dedication of the gleaming new World War II
Memorial. This memorial is not only a testament to the sacrifice of the
16 million courageous men and women who served in that grand struggle,
but, in some ways, it speaks to the tireless energy of our friend and
former Senate majority leader, Bob Dole.
Senator Dole received a Purple Heart in Italy, yet never let the
lingering effects of his very serious wounds stand in the way of his
overall effectiveness and ability to lead the Senate. After he left
office, he turned his special brand of energy and intelligence towards
ensuring the completion of the new memorial. He helped raise awareness
of the project across the country and was critical to helping gain
congressional approval of the measure.
During the dedication, Senator Dole gave a moving tribute to his
comrades-
[[Page 17038]]
in-arms. These remarks helped give further context and meaning to the
pillars, plaques, and fountains that make up this grand memorial.
I will ask to have these remarks included in the Record, and I
implore all of my colleagues to take a few minutes to read this speech.
Today is a particularly fitting day to read Senator Dole's remarks,
as today is his birthday. I want to wish my friend a very happy
birthday.
I ask unanimous consent the speech be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Remarks of Senator Bob Dole--National WWII Memorial Dedication, May 29,
2004
In the first week of January 1945, a hungry and lonesome
second lieutenant from small town Kansas dispatched a message
to his folks back home: ``You can send me something to eat
whenever you are ready,'' he wrote. ``Send candy, gum,
cookies, cheese, grape jelly, popcorn, nuts, peanut clusters,
Vicks Vapo Rub, wool socks, wool scarf, fudge, cookies, ice
cream, liver and onions, fried chicken, banana cake, milk,
fruit cocktail, Swiss steaks, crackers, more candy,
Lifesavers, peanuts, the piano, the radio, the living room
suite, the record player and Frank Sinatra. I guess you might
as well send the whole house if you can get it into a five-
pound box. P.S., keep your fingers crossed.''
In authoring that only slightly exaggerated wish list I
merely echoed the longings of 16 million Americans whose
greatest wish was for an end to the fighting. Sixty years on
our ranks have dwindled for the thousands assembled here on
the Mall and the millions more watching all across America in
living rooms and hospitals and wherever it may be--our men
and women overseas and our friends in Great Britain and our
allies all around the world. Our final reunion cannot long be
delayed.
Yet if we gather in the twilight it is brightened by the
knowledge that we have kept faith with our comrades.
Sustained by over 600,000 individual contributions, we have
raised this memorial to commemorate the service and sacrifice
of an entire generation. What we dedicate today is not a
memorial to war, rather it's a tribute to the physical and
moral courage that makes heroes out of farm and city boys and
that inspires Americans in every generation to lay down their
lives for people they will never meet, for ideals that make
life itself worth living.
This is also a memorial to the American people who in the
crucible of war forged a unity that became our ultimate
weapon. Just as we pulled together in the course of a common
threat 60 years ago, so today's Americans united to build
this memorial. Small children held their grandfather's hand
while dropping pennies in a collection box. Entire families
contributed in memory of loved ones who could win every
battle except the battle against time. I think of my brother,
Kenny, and my brothers-in-law Larry Nelson and Allen Steel,
just three among the millions of ghosts in navy blue and
olive drab we honor with this memorial.
Of course, not every warrior wore a uniform. As it happens,
today is the 101st birthday of Bob Hope, the GI's favorite
entertainer who did more to boost our morale than anyone next
to Betty Grable. And I can already hear Bob . . . ``but I was
next to Betty Grable.'' And it's hard to believe, but today
is also the 87th birthday of John F. Kennedy, a hero of the
south Pacific, who, a generation after the surrender
documents were signed aboard the USS Missouri, spoke of a new
generation of Americans tempered by war that was nevertheless
willing ``to pay any price, bear any burden, meet any
hardship, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success
of liberty.'' And we shall always honor the memory of our
great leader and our American hero, General Eisenhower, who
led us to victory all across the world.
As we meet here today, young Americans are risking their
lives in liberty's defense. They are the latest link in a
chain of sacrifice older than America itself. After all, if
we met the test of our times, it was because we drew
inspiration from those who had gone before, including the
giants of history who are enshrined on this Mall, from
Washington, who fathered America with his sword and ennobled
it with his character . . . from Jefferson, whose pen gave
eloquent voice to our noblest aspirations . . . from Lincoln,
who preserved the Union and struck the chains from our
countrymen . . . and from Franklin Roosevelt, who presided
over a global coalition to rescue humanity from those who had
put the soul itself in bondage. Each of these presidents was
a soldier of freedom. And in the defining event of the 20th
century, their cause became our cause. On distant fields and
fathomless oceans, the skies over half the planet and in
10,000 communities on the home front, we did far more than
avenge Pearl Harbor. The citizen soldiers who answered
liberty's call fought not for territory, but for justice, not
for plunder, but to liberate enslaved peoples around the
world.
In contending for democracy abroad, we learned painful
lessons about our own democracy. For us, the Second World War
was in effect a second American revolution. The war invited
women into the workforce. It exposed the injustice on African
Americans, Hispanics and Japanese Americans and others who
demonstrated yet again that war is an equal opportunity
employer. What we learned in foreign fields of battle we
applied in post-war America. As a result, our democracy,
though imperfect, is more nearly perfect than in the days of
Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. That's what
makes America forever a work in progress--a land that has
never become, but is always in the act of becoming. And
that's why the armies of democracy have earned a permanent
place on this sacred ground.
It is only fitting when this memorial was opened to the
public about a month ago the very first visitors were school
children. For them, our war is ancient history and those who
fought it are slightly ancient themselves. Yet, in the end,
they are the ones for whom we built this shrine and to whom
we now hand the baton in the unending relay of human
possibility.
Certainly the heroes represented by the 4,000 gold stars on
the freedom wall need no monument to commemorate their
sacrifice. They are known to God and to their fellow
soldiers, who will mourn their passing until the day of our
own. In their names, we dedicate this place of meditation,
and it is in their memory that I ask you to stand, if
possible, and join me in a moment of silent tribute to remind
us all that at sometime in our life, we have or may be called
upon to make a sacrifice for our country to preserve liberty
and freedom . . .
. . . God bless America.
____________________
U.S.-CENTRAL AMERICA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, just yesterday the Senate passed the
U.S.-Morocco Free-Trade Agreement Implementation Act by a vote of 85 to
13. This followed on the heels of Senate approval of the U.S.-Australia
agreement by a vote of 80 to 16. The Australia bill itself was preceded
by renewal and extension of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act,
which passed the Senate by unanimous consent on June 24 of this year.
Prior to that, the Senate was able to work out its differences and pass
the JOBS Act by a vote of 92 to 5. I will note that each of these bills
passed in an election year, a year in which many pundits argued that
nothing on trade would get done.
Well we proved them wrong. In fact, this has been one of the most
active years on trade in the Senate in recent memory. I say, why stop
now? We should continue our efforts to open foreign markets to U.S.
exports. That is why I am calling on President Bush to send up the
Central American Free Trade Agreement at the earliest opportunity.
The CAFTA is an important part of our continuing efforts to open
foreign markets to U.S. goods and services. This market access is
critical if we are going to continue to grow our exports to the world.
For my home State of Iowa, the CAFTA brings important new market access
opportunities for our soybean, corn, pork and beef as well as Iowa's
manufacturers and service providers.
Under the current framework, many products from the CAFTA nations get
access to our market but we do not get the same access to theirs. The
CAFTA will change that. It will level the playing field for U.S.
producers so they can compete in this growing market.
The CAFTA also sends a strong message to our Latin American
neighbors. It shows our strong desire to reach out and form deeper and
lasting bonds with the international community, particularly in Latin
America. The agreement will help to lock in economic reform and
increase transparency in the region. There is no doubt about it. The
CAFTA can serve as a cornerstone of economic growth and democracy for
the region which will enhance the standard of living for millions of
our southern neighbors.
A free trade agreement with these nations represents a unique
opportunity not only for U.S. farmers, ranchers, businesses and
workers, but also for promoting development, security and prosperity in
this region. It is a good agreement for the United States and for
Central America. I will work closely with President Bush and my Senate
colleagues to do all I can to lay the groundwork for a successful vote
on CAFTA later this year.
[[Page 17039]]
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the United States-
Morocco Free-Trade Agreement, which was passed in the Senate yesterday
by a vote of 85 to 31. Nearly a year and a half of negotiations were
devoted to crafting this agreement by U.S. and Moroccan officials. I
voted in support of the implementing legislation to this agreement, and
it is my hope that both of our countries will soon move to adopt the
agreement.
Every year, the United States exports roughly $475 million worth of
goods to Morocco. While this amount is not high when we compare it with
U.S. exports to Australia--approximately $13 billion in 2003--it is
significant if we view it in the dual contexts of leveling the playing
field for American exporters, and, second, development and economic
growth. The United States-Morocco FTA will ease the burden on
Americans, who, according to the United States Trade Representative,
currently face an average tariff of over 20 percent on products they
export to Morocco.
Hopefully, this agreement will also spur domestic economic growth in
Morocco and encourage that nation to raise its labor and environmental
standards. Like all nations, Morocco seeks to develop and modernize its
economy. If distributed equitably amongst a nation's citizens, economic
modernization and prosperity are important tools in the fight against
extremist ideologies that promote terrorism. I hope that will be the
case in Morocco.
Indeed, prospects of a United States-Morocco FTA have already in the
last year prompted that nation to reform its labor laws. Now it is
important that Morocco take all necessary steps to enforce these laws.
The U.S. should also encourage Morocco to pursue further labor and
environmental reform and strengthen its domestic enforcement of
international standards.
That is not to say that this agreement is perfect. No agreement will
be perfect--although I still believe that the Jordan FTA, which passed
the Senate just a few years ago by a vote of 100 to 0, should serve as
a benchmark and guide for the crafting of free trade agreements. Few
bills, especially free trade agreements, pass with such overwhelming
support. I believe that support was a testament to the inherent quality
of that agreement.
Despite my overall support for the pending agreement, I do have a
significant concern here. First, as my colleagues are aware, the United
States-Morocco FTA, like the United States-Australia FTA, includes
language that would allow prescription drug manufacturers to prevent
the reimportation of their products.
For a variety of reasons, we are unlikely to import drugs from
Morocco in the near future. So as a practical matter, like the United
States-Australia FTA, this provision will not affect drug prices in the
U.S. And as the United States-Morocco FTA was negotiated around the
same time as the United States-Australia FTA, it is not surprising that
this provision appears in both agreements. But, in my view, this
provision must not be viewed as a precedent by the Bush administration,
and I would discourage its inclusion in any future trade agreements
entered into by the U.S. Nor do I believe that it prevents us from
adopting laws related to drug importation in the future.
____________________
JUST SEVEN LEGISLATIVE DAYS LEFT
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this week is the last week that Congress is
in session before the August recess and there is only one additional
week to act before the Assault Weapons Ban expires on September 13th.
This past Monday, one of our former colleagues, Senator Howard
Metzenbaum, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post. In his article,
Senator Metzenbaum highlights the broad support this law has among
Americans, as well as the inconsistencies between the stated positions
and the actions of President Bush on the reauthorization of this
critical law.
As my colleagues know, in addition to banning 19 specific weapons,
the existing ban makes it illegal to ``manufacture, transfer, or
possess a semiautomatic'' firearm that can accept a detachable magazine
and has more than one of several specific military features, such as
folding/telescoping stocks, protruding pistol grips, bayonet mounts,
threaded muzzles or flash suppressors, barrel shrouds or grenade
launchers. These weapons are dangerous and they should not be on
America's streets.
In April of this year, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
joined hundreds of local elected officials and senior law enforcement
officials to urge President Bush to push for reauthorization of this
critical piece of gun safety legislation. Since then, the support for
this important law has grown exponentially. In addition to former
Presidents Ford, Carter, and Clinton, nearly every major law
enforcement organization in the country, gun safety organizations, a
bipartisan majority of the Senate, and countless local leaders have
added their names to the list of supporters. I commend them for their
efforts in support of this commonsense gun safety legislation.
In 1994, I voted for the assault weapons ban and in March of this
year I joined a bipartisan majority of the Senate in voting to extend
the assault weapons ban for 10 years. Unfortunately, despite Senate
passage of the amendment, it appears that this important gun safety law
will be allowed to expire. The House Republican leadership opposes
reauthorizing the law and President Bush, though he has said he
supports it, has done little to help keep the law alive.
I ask unanimous consent that the op-ed from Senator Metzenbaum be
printed in the Record at the end of my statement. I also ask that the
list of organizations in support of this critical piece of gun safety
legislation be printed in the Record following Senator Metzenbaum's op-
ed.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
America Wants the Assault Weapons Ban
(By Howard M. Metzenbaum)
A decade ago I was privileged to lead a fight with Senator
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on what for me has become a
deeply personal issue: the federal ban on assault weapons.
These killing machines had no place on our streets in 1994
and they have no place now. Yet as the days pass, it is
becoming clear that many members of Congress are content to
skip through the summer months doing nothing while awaiting
this fall's greatest prize--not the elections, but the sunset
of the assault weapons ban.
Ten years after that great victory we are facing the
extinction of an important public safety law that was an
unusual piece of bipartisan lawmaking. In 1994 I had the
support of two men whom I would rarely call my allies,
Republican icons Ronald Reagan and Rudy Giuliani. As a
result, Congress was able to put public safety ahead of
special-interest politics.
What's going on these days, by contrast, is typical
political doublespeak. The president speaks publicly in
support of the assault weapons ban but refuses to lobby
actively for it. The House majority leader, Tom DeLay of
Texas, says the president never told him personally that he
wants the assault weapons ban renewed, so DeLay isn't going
to pass it.
There you have it. The president says he supports the
assault weapons ban but refuses to lift a finger for it. And
the powerful House majority leader--who does not support the
ban--is pretending that all it would take to pass it is a
word from the president.
This is a tragic development for many reasons, not the
least of which is that the public wants this legislation. A
new study, ``Unconventional Wisdom,'' by the Consumer
Federation of America and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun
Violence, found that a substantial majority of likely voters
in 10 states support renewing and strengthening the federal
assault weapons ban, as do most gun owners and National Rifle
Association supporters. The survey found that:
Voters in Midwestern states supported renewing the assault
weapons ban slightly more than those in Southwestern states.
Midwestern states (Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Missouri)
averaged 72 percent support for renewal. Southwestern states
(Arizona and New Mexico) averaged 67 percent. In Florida, 81
percent of likely voters support renewing the ban.
Rural states, traditionally seen as very conservative on
gun issues, strongly favored renewing the ban. Sixty-eight
percent of voters in South Dakota and West Virginia support
renewal.
Majorities of gun owners in all but two states favored
renewing the ban. Even in those two states, Missouri and
Ohio, only slightly less than 50 percent of gun owners and
NRA supporters favored renewing the ban.
[[Page 17040]]
In nine of 10 states surveyed, union households supported
renewing the ban by at least 60 percent. In Pennsylvania, 80
percent of union households supported renewing the ban and 73
percent supported strengthening it.
At least 60 percent of current and former military members
and military families supported renewing the ban in all
states surveyed. In Wisconsin, more than three-fourths, 77
percent, of current and former military members and military
families support renewing the ban.
In March the Senate passed a renewed ban as an amendment to
a gun industry immunity bill, which was the NRA's top
legislative priority. President Bush issued a statement of
administration policy calling the assault weapons ban
amendment ``unacceptable.'' The amendment passed on a
bipartisan vote, 52 to 47, but the underlying bill was
defeated. It was a stunning loss for the gun lobby. The NRA
opposes even a straight renewal of the ban. It maintains that
most Americans don't want the ban renewed, let alone
strengthened, and that Congress should let the ban expire.
Not true.
The gun industry is licking its chops waiting for the ban
to expire. In an upcoming report from the Consumer Federation
of America, ``Back in Business,'' one assault weapon
manufacturer's sales and marketing director told us, ``When
the AWB sunsets, which I fully expect it to do, we will be
manufacturing pre-ban style weapons and shipping them to the
general public through distribution systems and dealers the
very next day without doubt. . . . We look forward to Sept.
14th with great enthusiasm.''
After 19 years in the Senate, I understand differences of
opinions, ideologies and constituencies. What I cannot
understand is why congressional leaders and the
administration think that the American public won't notice
that the ban expired. We'll notice, and they'll be sorry.
Reauthorizing the assault weapons ban is supported by:
Fraternal Order of Police
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Major City Chiefs
National Association of Police Organizations
National Organization of Black Police Officials
International Brotherhood of Police Officers
Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association
American Probation and Parole Association
National League of Cities
US Conference of Mayors
National Association of Counties
US Conference of Catholic Bishops
National Education Association
American Bar Association
NAACP
Americans for Gun Safety
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United with the
Million Mom March
Church Women United
Episcopal Church, USA
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Public Health Association
Family Violence Prevention Fund
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Network to End Domestic Violence
National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems
National Association of Social Workers
Physicians for a Violence Free Society
American Association of Suicidology
Mothers Against Violence in America
Child Welfare League of America
Alliance for Justice
____________________
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2003
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for
hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I
introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would
add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that
violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society.
On August 12, 2002, Stephanie (Wilbur) Thomas, age 19, was driving
her friend Ukea (Deon) Davis, age 18, home in southeast Washington, DC.
The two young transgendered women were members of Transgender Health
Empowerment, an African-American transgender support group. A car drove
up beside them, and a gunman fired shots from an automatic weapon. The
gunfire killed Ukea Davis and critically wounded Stephanie Thomas. The
gunman then got out of the car and fired additional shots into Thomas'
car. Though police have not determined if they will file this as a hate
crime, the additional shots fired at Thomas after the initial shooting
seem to indicate an overkill factor common in many murders of
transgendered people in the U.S.
I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens,
to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law
Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I
believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we
can change hearts and minds as well.
____________________
JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I regret that the President and the
Republican leadership in the Senate continue to choose division over
cooperation and confrontation over consensus on the Presidents' most
controversial judicial nominees. Senators can work together,
Republicans and Democrats. The conflict we are experiencing on the
Senate floor, which has the collateral consequence of disrupting
important and unfinished work of the Senate, is by Republican partisan
design. It is bad for the Senate and the country.
Earlier this morning I was at the White House for the signing of the
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. Senator Campbell and I were the
lead sponsors in the Senate on this successful effort, which we know as
the ``Steve Young Act'' to honor an outstanding law enforcement
officer.
Another example of our bipartisan cooperation is the resolution the
Senate passed unanimously last night regarding with the consequences of
the Supreme Court's decision in the Blakely case and the need to
clarify Federal criminal sentencing law, S. Con. Res. 130. The Senate
has now said, consistent with the record we developed at our recent
Judiciary Committee hearing, that the Supreme Court should
expeditiously clarify the status of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals urged expedited consideration. The
Department of Justice is bringing cases to the Supreme Court and should
seek expedited consideration to afford the opportunity needed to obtain
that necessary guidance.
There are scores of other measures on the Senate Calendar of Business
on which we should be acting and could have been acting this week. We
still need to enact the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, S. 2013;
the Ag Workers bill, S. 1645; the Dream Act, S. 1545; the judicial pay
raise, S. 1023, the Anti-Atrocity Act, S. 710; the authorization for
mental health courts, S. 2107; and other needed legislation on which
there is so much bipartisan agreement.
With all this to do, with the 13 appropriations bills as yet
unfinished, without a budget, without serious oversight of significant
problems, it is incredible to me that the Republican Senate leadership
is devoting this week to divisive cloture votes on controversial
nominations. Why they choose to sow division rather than make progress
on matters that could improve the lives of so many Americans across the
country is for others to explain.
Criticism of this ``do-nothing'' Congress is becoming universal.
Conservative writers who are more prone to promote the Republican
agenda than criticize its leadership have even joined in the chorus.
Maybe that explains this misguided exercise, maybe it is reaction to
all the criticism and an effort to shore up the extreme right-wing of
Republican support. I do not know.
I fear more and more that some want the Senate to become a wholly-
owned subsidiary of this Presidency and the Federal courts to become an
arm of the Republican Party. That is wrong, that is unwise, that is
unsound. The American people need to say no and preserve this great
democracy.
Rather than doing the people's business, the Senate is being forced
into contrived stunts for partisan political purposes. I urge the
Republican leadership to use the upcoming recess to learn about the
Senate and its role in our Federal Government. Maybe read Master of the
Senate, the extraordinary and award winning book by Robert Caro, or the
Constitution of the United States.
The American people deserve better. The Senate deserves better.
Senator Byrd has spoken to this situation. Senator Daschle, Senator
Reid and all
[[Page 17041]]
Democratic Senators have demonstrated over and over again our good
faith and commitment to moving forward. Let us all, Republicans and
Democrats, come back from the upcoming hiatus in our Senate proceedings
with a commitment to find the common ground that Senator Daschle spoke
about so well last month in the interests of the American people.
____________________
OUR MIDEAST POLICY
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I recently wrote a column on Mideast
Policy for the Post and Courier in Charleston, SC. I want to share it
with my colleagues and ask unanimous consent the July 9 article be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Now We Know: It's Our Mideast Policy That's Creating Enemies
(By Ernest F. Hollings)
Now we know: (A) That there are no weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. (B) There was no al-Qaida in Iraq on 9/
11. (C) From 1993 until we attacked in 2003--for 10 years--
there was no terrorism by Saddam against the United States.
(D) Saddam was not involved in the 9/11 attack on the United
States. (E) Mideast people are generally of the Islam
religion and tribal in culture. The Islam religion is
strong--those who don't adhere are considered infidels. (F)
Mideast countries don't yearn for democracy--Kuwait,
liberated from Saddam, didn't opt for democracy. (G) In ``A
World Transformed,'' President ``Papa'' Bush warned, ``We
should not march into Baghdad . . . turning the whole Arab
world against us . . . assigning young soldiers . . . to
fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war.''
(H) We went into Baghdad anyway. (I) As the CIA author of
``Imperial Hubris'' wrote, ``There is nothing that bin Laden
could have hoped for more than the invasion and occupation of
Iraq.'' (J) Now we are the infidel. Our invasion has turned
Iraq into a shooting gallery and a recruitment center for al-
Qaida. (K) The majority of the Iraqi people want us gone. (L)
Even with Saddam out, many feel it wasn't worth the lives of
900 killed, 5,000 maimed for life and $200 billion. (M) Now
most people of the United States think the invasion of Iraq
was a mistake.
1. We also know that: (A) Terrorism did not start on 9/11.
Terrorism has been going on in Northern Ireland for 35 years.
Terrorism now persists between India and Pakistan and between
the Kurds and the Turks. (B) Terrorism is not a war but a
weapon. We don't call World War II the Blitzkrieg War or the
Battle of the Light Brigade the Cavalry War. (C) Terrorism
against the United States is based on our policy in the
Mideast. Osama bin Laden hit us because of our presence in
Saudi Arabia and policy in Israel/Palestine. (D) Everyone
knows that Israel is a U.S. commitment. (E) We have
maintained this commitment for 37 years with an evenhanded
policy between the Israelis and the Palestinians. (F) But
President Bush changed the policy of negotiations, confirming
Israeli settlements, and invading Iraq to secure Israel by
democratizing the Mideast. (G) U.S. News & World Report and
others keep parroting that terrorists hit us ``because of our
values'' and hate us ``because of who we are.'' Not so! It is
our Mideast policy they oppose.
The way to win the ``war on terrorism'' is to (1) Seek out
al-Qaida and the Taliban and eliminate them. (2) Secure Iraq
so that democracy can work. (3) Publicly renounce pre-emptive
war. (4) Rather than invasion, use capitalism to spread
democracy, which is now working in China. (5) Return to the
evenhanded policy of negotiations with Israel and Palestine.
(6) Start rebuilding both Israel and Palestine.
Everyone laments our predicament after just one year's
occupation of Iraq. Imagine 37 years' occupation of
Palestine. Anyone with get up and go has gotten up and gone.
Palestine is left with the hopeless and embittered. There is
no leadership, hardly anything to lead. But embittered
refugees from without lead with terrorism. A Palestinian
state must first be built in order to be recognized. It can't
be built while homes are bulldozed, settlements extended and
walls are constructed. Our hypocrisy is obvious. We hail
President Reagan for saying, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this
wall,'' but now we say, ``Mr. Sharon, put up this wall.''
There are 1 million Arabs in Israel's population of 6
million. For years the people of Israel and Palestine were
learning to live together. The Arab soccer team just won the
national championship of Israel. But the young of Israel and
Palestine are now learning to kill together rather than to
live together. This is creating terrorists big time, long
term.
People the world around respect America for its stand for
freedom and individual rights. It's time to stop this wag of
people ``hating us'' and against us ``because of our
values.'' It's not our values or people, but our Mideast
policy they oppose. We need to return to evenhandedness and
active negotiations in the Mideast. Then we can begin to win
the ``war on terrorism'' and regain our moral authority in
the world.
____________________
ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN ADMINISTRATION MEMORANDUMS
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we go out of session for the long recess
at the end of this week, I am disappointed to report that Congress
seems content to let the issue of foreign prisoner abuse linger without
effective congressional oversight.
The House Armed Services Committee made it clear weeks ago that it
believed the ongoing military investigations into the abuses were
sufficient. Until today, the Senate Armed Services Committee had not
held a hearing on the prisoner abuse issue in more than a month.
Chairman Warner called a hearing this morning to hear a report on one
of the investigations: an assessment of Army detention operation
doctrine and training, completed by the Army Inspector General.
Waiting for the administration to investigate itself is not the
answer. There are at least four completed and seven ongoing military
reviews into the treatment of prisoners held in detention facilities in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. While these reviews are
necessary, they fail to address critical issues: What role did White
House officials, the Justice Department and other agencies play in
developing the policies that allowed these abuses to occur? The
military investigations may uncover what went wrong at the bottom of
the chain of command, but it will take aggressive congressional
oversight to discover what went wrong at the top of the chain.
We need to get to the bottom of this scandal, but we also need to get
to the top of it. Only by doing that can we responsibly put it behind
us and repair the damage it threatens to our security, to our
credibility and to the safety of our troops.
Numerous attempts in Congress to uncover the truth have failed
because Republicans have circled the wagons and refused to support
oversight efforts. In the past week, Democratic members of the House
introduced resolutions requiring the Secretary of State and the
Attorney General to turn over all documents related to the treatment of
prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. The resolutions
failed on straight party-line votes, first on July 15 in the House
International Relations Committee, and yesterday in the House Judiciary
Committee.
Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee tried to make
progress as long ago as June 17, 2004, but the Committee, on a party-
line vote, rejected a subpoena resolution for documents relating to the
interrogation and treatment of detainees. Since that date, no action
has been taken by the Senate Judiciary Committee, despite the clear
need to resolve these issues.
In the June 17 Committee meeting, and in subsequent days on the
Senate Floor, several Senators said that we should give the
administration more time to respond to inquiries, even though some of
us had been asking for information for more than a year. Questions were
submitted to the Attorney General on June 15, following his appearance
before the Committee a week earlier. In the June 8 hearing, the
Attorney General refused to provide information and essentially
demanded that the Committee issue a subpoena for the requested
materials.
On June 17, Democratic Judiciary Committee members were urged to
withhold a subpoena and to give the Attorney General until the end of
the month to respond. At that time, Chairman Hatch said he believed the
administration should comply; he said that it was ``the right thing to
do.'' He said that if the administration did not respond by the end of
June, then ``I may very well vote for a subpoena at that time.'' That
same day, Senator DeWine said, ``I think the administration has to
[clarify the policy] and has to release the information that will
clarify that.'' Senator Specter said, ``I believe that this committee
ought to know what the interrogation practices are
[[Page 17042]]
and I am prepared to pursue them.'' But all in all, the Republicans
asked us to give the Department more time, to wait for the Attorney
General to answer our questions.
And then, the Attorney General--through an aide--on July 1, again
thumbed his nose at his obligations to the Committee of jurisdiction
over the Department of Justice. He refused to provide a comprehensive
set of answers to questions submitted by the nine Democratic members of
this Committee, he refused to provide almost all of the documents that
were requested, and, again, he refused even to provide an index of the
documents being withheld. Because of the continued stonewalling by the
administration, Congress and its committees of jurisdiction over the
Department of Justice remain largely in the dark about these pertinent
matters.
Other Senate committees have faced similar obstacles, even when there
have been bipartisan requests for information. The Pentagon played
games with the Senate Armed Services Committee for seven weeks before
showing members the reports on treatment of prisoners in Iraq produced
by the International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC. While such
reports are generally not released, the ICRC agreed early on that
members of Congress should have access to them on a confidential basis.
Members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees were first
shown ICRC reports on Iraq last Wednesday, July 14, after having
requested them in early June.
Access to these reports was extremely limited, causing some Members
of the House Armed Services Committee to complain that the information
was stale and that Pentagon briefers were unable to shed light on the
abuses. It is puzzling that Members of Congress--and specifically
Members of the committees of jurisdiction--should be treated so
incidentally.
The ICRC reports did make an important contribution, however. They
apparently confirm that U.S. officials should have been alerted to the
prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison months before the Pentagon
announced an investigation on January 16, 2004, and before General
Taguba was assigned to lead this inquiry on January 31, 2004. According
to House members, the ICRC reports alleged serious abuses at Abu Ghraib
last fall, a time period that coincides with the point at which U.S.
military intelligence reportedly took control of certain cellblocks of
Abu Ghraib. In addition to the ICRC reports, the New York Times has
reported that in November 2003, a small group of interrogators at Abu
Ghraib began sharing allegations of prisoner abuse with senior
officers. It is hard to comprehend the administration's apparent
failure to respond to the ICRC and to internal military reports of
abuse for weeks or months in late fall and early winter.
Some individuals who committed abusive acts are being punished, as
they must be. But this issue runs much deeper. What of those who gave
the orders, set the tone, or looked the other way? What of the White
House and Pentagon lawyers who tried to justify the use of torture in
their legal arguments? The White House has now disavowed the analysis
contained in the August 1, 2002, Office of Legal Counsel memorandum.
That memo, which was sent to the White House Counsel, argued that for
acts to rise to the level of torture, they must go on for months or
even years, or be so severe as to generate the type of pain that would
result from organ failure or even death. The White House and the
Department of Justice now call that memo ``irrelevant'' and
``unnecessary'' and say that DOJ will spend weeks rewriting its
analysis.
A troubling editorial in the July 15 Washington Post charges that
several detainees in secret CIA custody have probably been tortured,
and that the August 1, 2002, memo was written after those acts occurred
in order to justify the acts as legal.
Meanwhile, we continue to hear of more documents. The Department of
Justice admitted in the July 1 letter to the Judiciary Committee that
it had ``given specific advice concerning specific interrogation
practices,'' but would not disclose such advice to members of the
Committee, who are duly elected representatives of the people of the
United States, as well as members of the committee of oversight for the
Department of Justice. USA Today reported on June 28 that the Justice
Department issued a memo in August 2002 that ``specifically authorized
the CIA to use `waterboarding,''' an interrogation technique that is
designed to make a prisoner believe he is suffocating. This memo is
reportedly classified and has not been released. According to USA
Today: ``Initially, the Office of Legal Counsel was assigned the task
of approving specific interrogation techniques, but high-ranking
Justice Department officials intercepted the CIA request, and the
matter was handled by top officials in the Deputy Attorney General's
office and Justice's Criminal Division.''
While former administration officials grant press interviews and
write opinion articles denying wrongdoing, and the White House and
Justice Department hold closed briefings for the media to disavow the
reasoning of this previously relied upon memoranda and to characterize
what happened, Senators of the United States are denied basic
information and access to the facts. I would hope that the significance
of such unilateralism and arrogance shown to the Congress and to its
oversight committees will register with each and every Member of this
body.
These memos, which may have governed official action for nearly two
years, are of particular concern because so much of what is happening
in detention centers remains hidden. In addition to Abu Ghraib in Iraq,
Bagram in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, several shadowy detention
centers are operated by the intelligence agencies or possibly the
military, some under total secrecy. A report on secret detentions was
released on June 17, 2004, by Human Rights First, a non-profit research
and advocacy organization formerly called the Lawyers Committee for
Human Rights. This report raises many important questions on the issue
of foreign prisons. I will ask unanimous consent that the introduction
be printed in the Record. The report, Ending Secret Detentions,
describes a number of officially undisclosed locations that sources--
typically unnamed government sources quoted in the press--have
described as detention centers for terrorism suspects. These sources
have discussed facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan, Diego
Garcia, and on U.S. war ships. The ICRC has not been allowed to visit
these facilities. It issued a public statement in March expressing its
growing concern over ``the fate of an unknown number of people captured
. . . and held in undisclosed locations.'' To date, its requests for
access to the prisons have been denied.
In Iraq, where the Bush administration claims to be following the
Geneva Conventions, Human Rights First states that it is unclear if the
ICRC has access to all detention facilities in the country. Even if it
did, the Secretary of State admitted in June that he had approved
requests to hide certain detainees from the International Red Cross.
And what of the secret detention centers? Have these facilities been
managed by officials operating under the legal analysis contained in
DOJ memos that argue for a very narrow reading of the prohibition on
torture? Have they been managed by officials acting in accordance with
the President's determination that al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects are
not protected by the Geneva Conventions? What is the legal status of
these individuals? Even in Iraq, where, as I just mentioned, the
administration claims to be applying the Geneva Conventions, there is a
great deal of ambiguity. The Human Rights First report describes new
categories of prisoners in Iraq, including ``security detainees,''
``high value detainees,'' and a group of prisoners whose status the
Coalition Provisional Authority declined to discuss. These are not
categories of prisoners defined in the Geneva Conventions, and without
full access given the ICRC, no one can verify the circumstances under
which they are being held and interrogated.
[[Page 17043]]
The administration can provide a significant amount of information
about its practices in handling foreign detainees without jeopardizing
national security and while still protecting sensitive information.
This should include relevant facts about detention centers, and an
accounting of the number of detainees, their nationality, and the legal
authority under which each is held. I also restate my longstanding
request for the documents produced by the White House, the Justice
Department, the Pentagon and other agencies that form the legal basis
for this Administration's treatment and interrogation of foreign
prisoners.
With his words, President Bush says he wants the whole truth, but
with his actions he and his administration instead have cynically
blocked the doors that lead to the answers. The American people and the
American troops who are put at risk by these policies and abuses need
and deserve to understand how this happened, and they need to know it
will not happen again. For the sake of our national security interests
and our credibility, we need to show the world the right way that a
democratic society corrects its mistakes. Thwarting adequate oversight
and avoiding accountability will not make this problem go away, it will
compound it.
I ask unanimous consent the report to which I referred be printed in
the Record.
(There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:)
[From Human Rights First, June 2004]
Ending Secret Detentions
(By Michael Posner and Deborah Pearlstein)
I. Introduction
More than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in
many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Put it
this way, they're no longer a problem to the United States
and our friends and allies. (President George W. Bush, State
of the Union Address, February 4, 2003)
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in
the cases of Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi--both U.S. citizens
who have been held in military detention facilities for more
than two years. One justice wondered aloud how the Court
could be sure that government interrogators were not abusing
these detainees. You just have to ``trust the executive to
make the kind of quintessential military judgments that are
involved in things like that,'' said Deputy Solicitor General
Paul Clement! Later that evening, CBS's 60 Minutes broadcast
the first shocking photographs of U.S. troops torturing Iraqi
prisoners at the Abu Ghraib detention center in Iraq.
The photos from Abu Ghraib have made a policy of ``trust
us'' obsolete. But they are only the most visible symptoms of
a much larger and more disturbing systemic illness. Since the
attacks of September 11, the United States has established a
network of detention facilities around the world used to
detain thousands of individuals captured in the ``war on
terrorism.'' Information about this system--particularly the
location of U.S. detention facilities, how many are held
within them, on what legal basis they are held, and who has
access to the prisoners--emerges in a piecemeal way, if at
all, and then largely as a result of the work of
investigative reporters and other non-governmental sources.
The official secrecy surrounding U.S. practices has made
conditions ripe for illegality and abuse.
Several of these facilities, including the U.S. military
bases at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at Bagram Air Force Base
in Afghanistan, are well known. The existence of these
facilities--and the fact of unlawful conduct within them--
have been widely publicized and well documented. Nonetheless,
there is still no or only conflicting information about how
many individuals are held there, troubling information about
inadequate provision of notice to families about the fact of
detainees' capture and condition, and unclear or conflicting
statements about detainees' legal status and rights. While
the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has
visited these facilities, their visits have been undermined
in ways contrary to the letter and spirit of binding law.
In addition, there are detention facilities that multiple
sources have reported are maintained by the United States in
various officially undisclosed locations, including
facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan, on the
British possession of Diego Garcia, and on U.S. war ships at
sea. U.S. Government officials have alluded to detention
facilities in undisclosed locations, declining to deny their
existence or refusing to comment on reports of their
existence.\3\ A Department of Defense official told Human
Rights First in June 2004 that while Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo's Camp Echo were open to discussion, ``as a matter
of policy, we don't comment on other facilities.\4\
Similarly, Captain Bruce Frame, a U.S. army spokesman from
CENTCOM, the unified military command that covers Africa, the
Middle East, and Central Asia, told Human Rights First only
that there ``may or may not'' be detention centers in
countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan in CENTCOM's area
of responsibility.\5\
The Known Unknowns
What is unknown about this detention system still outweighs
what is known about it. But facilities within it share in
common key features that--while having unclear benefits in
the nation's struggle against terrorism--make inappropriate
detention and abuse not only likely, but virtually
inevitable.
First, each of these facilities is maintained in either
partial or total secrecy. For the past half-century, the
United States has considered itself bound by international
treaties and U.S. military regulations that prohibit such
blanket operating secrecy. Yet in this conflict, the ICRC--
which the United States has long respected as a positive
force in upholding international humanitarian law--has
repeatedly sought and been denied access to these
facilities.\6\ As the ICRC recently noted in a public
statement:
Beyond Bagram and Guantanamo Bay, the ICRC is increasingly
concerned about the fate of an unknown number of people
captured as part of the so-called global war on terror and
held in undisclosed locations. For the ICRC, obtaining
information on these detainees and access to them is an
important humanitarian priority and a logical continuation of
its current detention work in Bagram and Guantanamo Bay.\7\
Indeed, Human Rights First has been unable to identify any
official list of U.S. detention facilities abroad employed in
the course of the ``war on terrorism.'' There is likewise no
public accounting of how many are detained or for what reason
they are held. And there has been a disturbing absence of
serious congressional oversight of both known and undisclosed
detention facilities.\8\
Second, these facilities have thrived in an environment in
which the highest levels of U.S. civilian leadership have
sought legal opinions aimed at circumventing the application
of domestic and international rules governing arrest and
detention. Where it would have once seemed crystal clear to
military commanders and on-the-ground military custodians
alike that the Geneva Conventions governed the arrest and
detention of individuals caught up in the conflicts in Iraq
and Afghanistan, this Administration has challenged the
applicability of those rules. In several recently leaked
legal opinions from White House Counsel, and the Departments
of Defense and Justice, it has become clear that some in the
Administration have given a green light to the wholesale
violation of these rules.\9\
As a result, it remains unclear what legal status has been
assigned to those being detained at these U.S.-controlled
facilities. Are they prisoners of war, civilians who took a
direct part in hostilities (who the Administration calls
``unlawful combatants''), or are they suspected of criminal
violations under civilian law? The Administration has applied
no clear system for defining their status. It also is unclear
under many circumstances which U.S. agency is ultimately
responsible for their arrest or the conditions of their
confinement. And it now seems that U.S. military and
intelligence agencies are involved in their interrogation, as
well as civilian or foreign government contractors to whom
aspects of detention and interrogation has been outsourced.
It is likewise unclear to whom a family member or legal
representative can appeal to challenge the basis for their
continued detention.
Finally, the U.S. government has failed to provide prompt
notice to families of those captured that their family member
is in custody, much less information about their health or
whereabouts. In such cases, the families of individuals
removed to such unknown locations have had no opportunity to
challenge detentions that may continue for extended
periods.\10\ For example, Saifullah Paracha, according to
information his family received from the ICRC, has been
detained at Bagram Air Force Base for more than 11 months.
His wife and children remain in the dark, not only of the
reason for his detention, but also when they can expect Mr.
Paracha to be released or tried.\11\ Other individuals
captured more than a year ago remain in detention at other
undisclosed locations.\12\ The lack of information to family
members about these detainees violates U.S. legal obligations
and sets a negative precedent for treatment that may be
directed at U.S. soldiers in the future. It also engenders
great anguish and suffering on the part of the families of
detainees--no less than did the practice of ``forcible
disappearance'' in past decades--while engendering enormous
hostility toward the United States.
in the interest of national security
The Administration has argued that, faced with the
unprecedented security threat posed by terrorist groups ``of
global reach,''\13\ it has had to resort to preventive
detention and interrogation of those suspected to have
information about possible terrorist attacks. According to
the Defense and Justice Departments, a key purpose of
[[Page 17044]]
these indefinite detentions is to promote national security
by developing detainees as sources of intelligence. And while
much of what goes on at these detention facilities is steeped
in secrecy, intelligence agents insist that ``[w]e're getting
great info almost every day.''\14\
Whatever the value of intelligence information obtained in
these facilities--and there is reason to doubt the
reliability of intelligence information gained only in the
course of prolonged incommunicado detention\15\--there is no
legal or practical justification for refusing to report
comprehensively on the number and location of these
detainees--or to fail to provide the identities of detainees
to the ICRC, detainees' families, their counsel, or to others
having a legitimate interest in the information (unless a
wish to the contrary has been manifested by the persons
concerned).
The United States is of course within its power to ask
questions and to cultivate local sources of information. And
the United States certainly has the power to detain--in
keeping with its authority under the Constitution and
applicable international law--those who are actively engaged
in hostilities against the United States, or those suspected
of committing or conspiring to commit acts against the law.
But it does not have the power to establish a secret system
of off-shore prisons beyond the reach of supervision,
accountability, or law.
Finally, even if some valuable information is being
obtained, there are standards on the treatment of prisoners
that cannot be set aside. The United States was founded on a
core set of beliefs that have served the nation very well
over two centuries. Among the most basic of these beliefs is
that torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
is wrong; arbitrary detention is an instrument of tyranny;
and no use of government power should go unchecked. The
refusal to disclose the identity of detainees, prolonged
incommunicado detention, the use of secret detention centers,
and the exclusion of judicial or ICRC oversight combine to
remove fundamental safeguards against torture and ill-
treatment and arbitrary detention. Current practices which
violate these principles must be stopped immediately.
The abuses at Abu Ghraib underscore the reason why, since
the United States' founding, Americans have rejected the idea
of a government left to its own devices and acting on good
faith in favor of a government based on checks and balances
and anchored to the rule of law. As James Madison noted,
``[a] popular Government without popular information, or the
means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or
Tragedy.''\16\ This nation's history has repeatedly taught
the value of public debate and discourse. To cite one
example, the United States learned this 30 years ago when a
series of congressional investigations uncovered widespread,
secret domestic spying by the CIA, NSA, FBI, and the Army--
revelations whose impact on the intelligence agencies was, in
former CIA Director Stansfield Turner's words,
``devastating.''\17\
We should be clear--the United States has important and
legitimate interests in gathering intelligence information
and in keeping some of this information secret. But we are
not demanding the public release of any information that
would compromise these interests. What we are calling for is
an official accounting--to Congress and to the ICRC--of the
number, nationality, legal status, and place of detention of
all those the United States currently holds. We ask that all
of these places of detention be acknowledged and open to
inspection by the ICRC, and that the names of all detainees
be made available promptly to the ICRC and to others with a
legitimate interest in this information. Neither logic nor
law supports the continued withholding of the most basic
information about the United States' global system of secret
detention. Trust is plainly no longer enough.
____________________
RETIREMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL GORDON S. HOLDER, UNITED STATES NAVY
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a
great patriot, sailor and fellow Floridian, VADM Gordon S. Holder. Vice
Admiral Holder is retiring after a distinguished 36-year career in the
United States Navy.
Gordon Holder entered naval service in 1968 after graduating from
Florida State, University in Tallahassee and completion of the Officer
Candidate School in Newport RI. Since then he as served with
distinction in peace and war in a variety of command and staff
positions on shore and at sea.
Vice Admiral Holder's illustrious career includes sea duty on the USS
William C. Lawe (DD 763) as First Lieutenant and Combat Information
Center Officer, USS Brumby (DE 1044) as Operations Officer, USS Boulder
(LST 1190) as Chief Engineer, and USS Hermitage (LSD 34) as Executive
Officer. His first command at sea was USS Inflict (MSO 456), with
subsequent commanding officer afloat tours in USS Whidbey Island (LSD
41) and USS Austin (LPD 4). He has also served staff tours with
Commander Seventh Fleet and Commander Naval Forces, U.S. Central
Command as Fleet Exercises and Amphibious Warfare Officer, and with
Amphibious Group Two as Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations and
Plans.
Shore tours include Aide to the Commandant Sixth Naval District and
Commander Naval Base Charleston, Company Officer and Special Assistant
to the Commandant, U.S. Naval Academy, and Assistant Surface Commander
Assignments Officer, Naval Military Personnel Command. In 1980, Vice
Admiral Holder graduated with distinction from the Air Command and
Staff College at Air University, Montgomery, AL.
Vice Admiral Holder was selected for promotion to flag rank in
December 1993 and has served as Commander Naval Surface Group Middle
Pacific and Commander Naval Base Pearl Harbor, Commander Naval Doctrine
Command, Commander Amphibious Group Two, and Commander, Military
Sealift Command.
Vice Admiral Holder assumed his current duties as Director for
Logistics on the Joint Staff on September 4, 2001 just one week prior
to the fateful attacks on U.S. soil. In this capacity he has worked
tirelessly and with great success to plan, organize and direct the
massive logistics effort of the nation in support of our Armed Forces
in the global war on terrorism, including successful combat operations
in Afghanistan and Iraq. At the same time, he has been instrumental in
guiding the transformation of military logistics to a true 21st century
structure that links industry, supply, transportation, maintenance and
management systems capable of supporting our forces around the globe.
Vice Admiral Holder has had direct and far-reaching influence on
numerous policies, programs and operations that support our soldiers,
sailors, airmen and marines, including, most notably the rotation of
forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the largest movement of American
forces since World War II.
I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Vice Admiral Holder for
the leadership he has provided, for the care and concern he has
demonstrated for our service members and their families and for his
dedicated and honorable service to our Nation and Navy. As he turns to
retired life, we wish him, his wife Pat and family Godspeed and all the
best in the future.
____________________
NATIONAL HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION ACT
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like to rise today to talk for a
few minutes about a bill I am cosponsoring, the National Health
Information Technology Adoption Act, S. 2710. This bill, introduced
yesterday by Senator Gregg, chairman of the Senate Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions Committee, takes an important step forward in
bringing our Nation's medical system into the 21st century.
In today's society, it seems that almost everything is computerized
and on-line. You can pay your bills on-line, order your groceries on-
line, and even file your taxes on-line. However, for the most part,
medical records are still on paper and in files. This means these
records are uneasily shared between doctors treating the same patient
or are not readily available during an emergency.
Earlier this year, the Bush administration made computerizing the
Nation's medical record and building a nationwide health network a
priority. Yesterday, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson
released a 10-year plan for doing just that.
S. 2710 is similar to the administration's plan and takes some
immediate steps to start fulfilling this goal, including establishing
an official office at the Department of Health and Human Services to
coordinate health information technology at the national level. The
bill also provides assistance to local communities linking their health
care systems, along with providing grants for purchasing health
information technology.
[[Page 17045]]
Creating a safe, secure and reliable system for medical records won't
be easy, but if done properly, it could help health care providers
reduce medical errors and provide better care to their patients. We
could also see a substantial savings in administrative costs which will
help lower health care costs for everyone.
S. 2710 is a good first step, and I am proud to be a co-sponsor. I am
hopeful that the members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions can work together to pass this bill soon, and that
we can get it to the President's desk by the end of the year.
____________________
LABOR-HHS APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senate will soon have the opportunity
to consider the 2005 Labor-Health and Human Services Appropriations
bill recently passed the House. Included in that bill is a provision
that would divert $500,000 in funding from the Office of the General
Counsel at the Food and Drug Administration--FDA. As chairman of the
committee with oversight over the FDA, I believe that such a provision
is not only misguided, but based upon a flawed understanding of both
the Agency and the facts.
According to the sponsors of this provision, such a punitive measure
is warranted because the current Chief Counsel, Dan Troy, is taking the
Agency ``in a radical new direction'' by filing amicus curiae briefs in
product liability cases. Sponsors of this provision also claim that Mr.
Troy's involvement in one such case is suspect because it involved
Pfizer, a client of Mr. Troy's when he was with the law firm of Wiley,
Rein & Fielding. Such charges are patently without merit, and I would
like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.
First, Mr. Troy has not broken any new ground by having the FDA
interject in product liability cases on the side of a defendants
without the court requesting the Agency's position. I have here a
letter addressed to me from five former FDA chief counsels--two of
which are Democrats--affirming that Mr. Troy's actions are neither
``radical'' nor ``novel.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that
letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
July 21, 2004.
Re Hinchey Amendment to cut $500,000 from the appropriations
for the FDA Office of Chief Counsel
Hon. Judd Gregg,
Chairman, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Gregg: The undersigned comprise all of the
former Chief Counsel to the Food and Drug Administration (in
both Republican and Democratic Administrations), except for
one who is currently an attorney in the Office of the General
Counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services. We
are writing to recommend reconsideration of the amendment to
the FDA appropriations bill by Representative Hinchey of New
York on the floor of the House of Representatives, which
would reduce the appropriation for the FDA Office of Chief
Counsel by $500,000 and would increase the appropriation for
the Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and
Communications in the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research by a corresponding amount. We support additional
funds for the Division of Drug Marketing, but we believe that
the reduction of the appropriation for the Office of Chief
Counsel and Representative Hinchey's reasons for penalizing
that Office cannot be supported.
FDA's Office of Chief Counsel performs critical functions
in the administration and enforcement of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other laws administered by FDA.
The substantial reduction in the funding of that Office,
therefore, would materially impair its ability to meet the
needs of its client, FDA. Such impairment would be contrary
to the public interest.
Representative Hinchey's reasons for penalizing the Office
of Chief Counsel and criticizing FDA Chief Counsel Daniel E.
Troy are set forth in the House Debate on the FDA
appropriations legislation as reported in 150 Cong. Rec.
H5598-H5599 (July 13, 2004). Representative Hinchey states
that Mr. Troy ``has taken the agency in a radical new
direction'' by submitting amicus curiae briefs in cases in
which courts have been asked to require labeling for
pharmaceutical products that conflicts with FDA decisions
about appropriate labeling for those products. Representative
Hinchey characterizes this activity as a ``pattern of
collusion between the FDA and the drug companies and medical
device companies'' in a way that has ``never happened
before.''
These characterizations are inaccurate.
In Weinberger v. Bentex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 412 U.S. 645
(1973), the Supreme Court agreed with the briefs filed by the
Department of Justice on behalf of FDA that the agency has
primary jurisdiction over new drug issues. In Jones v. Rath
Packing Co., 425 U.S. 933 (1977), the FDA took the position
in an amicus curiae brief submitted by the Department of
Justice that federal food labeling requirements preempt
inconsistent state requirements, and the Supreme Court
agreed. In subsequent private tort litigation, FDA has taken
the position, through amicus curiae briefs filed by the
Department of Justice, that FDA decisions regarding drug
product labeling and related issues preempt inconsistent
state court determinations, and the courts have agreed. E.g.,
Bernhardt v. Pfizer, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16963
(November 16, 2000); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 850 S.W. 2d
164 (Texas 1993). All of this was to protect a uniform
national system of food and drug law. All of it occurred
before Mr. Troy assumed his current position. In none of
these cases did any court request FDA's opinion. Thus, there
is ample precedent for the actions that Mr. Troy has recently
been undertaking. His action is not radical or even novel.
The amicus curiae briefs filed by the Department of Justice
at the request of Mr. Troy protect FDA's jurisdiction and the
integrity of the federal regulatory process. There is a
greater need for FDA intervention today because plaintiffs in
courts are intruding more heavily on FDA's primary
jurisdiction then ever before. In our judgment, Mr. Troy's
actions are in the best interests of the consuming public and
FDA. If every state judge and jury could fashion their own
labeling requirements for drugs and medical devices, there
would be regulatory chaos for these two industries that are
so vital to the public health, and FDA's ability to advance
the public health by allocating scarce space in product
labeling to the most important information would be seriously
eroded. By assuring FDA's primary jurisdiction over these
matters, Mr. Troy is establishing a sound policy of national
decisions that promote the public health and, thus, the
public interest.
We therefore recommend that the $500,000 cut from the
appropriations for the FDA Office of Chief Counsel be
restored.
Sincerely yours,
Peter Barton Hutt (1972-1975).
Richard A. Merrill (1975-1977).
Richard M. Cooper (1977-1979).
Nancy L. Buc (1980-1981).
Thomas Scarlett (1981-1989).
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, second, as stated in the letter from the
five former FDA chief counsels, the FDA has been filing amicus briefs
for such purposes since long before Mr. Troy's tenure. Mr. Troy is
responsible for safeguarding the FDA's ability to carry out the
responsibilities Congress has given the Agency, and his interest in
those cases has been to preserve the FDA's authority and to safeguard
the Agency's primary jurisdiction.
Finally, if Mr. Troy's previous work for a client--in this case
Pfizer--automatically precluded him from representing a federal agency
in any matter affecting that client, such a policy would not only
discourage, but make it extremely difficult for any private sector
attorney from taking a job in government. Additionally, I know from
personal experience that Mr. Troy has the character and the integrity
to recuse himself from a matter when appropriate. On at least one
occasion in which my office was required to interact with the FDA, Mr.
Troy recused himself from involvement in the matter, citing his
interest in complying strictly with FDA rules.
Mr. Troy's actions are neither inappropriate nor unprecedented.
Rather, these are examples of Mr. Troy doing his job and enforcing the
law. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider these facts before
supporting any provision, such as this one, that would undermine the
FDA's ability to protect the public health and patient access to safe
and effective life-saving therapies.
____________________
AVIATION SECURITY
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the 9/11 Commission released its report
today on the events leading up to 9/11, and the security failures that
precipitated this tragedy. The Senate Commerce Committee has spent a
great
[[Page 17046]]
deal of its time and attention on aviation security over the years. I
have served in the U.S. Senate for more than 38 years. This institution
can be slow to make decisions, but when needed, this body can move
quickly and effectively. After 9/11, we acted immediately to create the
Transportation Security Administration in an effort to force real
change in our aviation security regime. Fast action to bolster our
Nation's aviation security was critical to restore the trust of
travelers in an air transportation system that was on the verge of
collapse.
Congress has often acted decisively during the deliberation of
aviation security issues. For example, following the work of a prior
presidential commission, a bipartisan group, led on the Senate side by
Senator Lautenberg and former Senator D'Amato, investigated the 1998
destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and made
numerous recommendations. We took up and passed many of them as part of
the Aviation Security and Improvement Act, P.L. 101-604. I also was in
the Senate as a wave of hijacking to Cuba in the late 1960s and early
1970s led to the wide use of metal detectors at commercial airports.
Unfortunatley, the current threat to security is a more sophisticated
one, and one that has forced our government to change the way we deal
with security in general. Prior to 9/11, we had a poorly paid screener
workforce, with a high turnover rate. Post 9/11, we have a better
trained, better paid workforce with a relatively low turnover rate.
Some, however, want to turn back the clock. We cannot let that happen.
Even prior to 9/11, there are indicators that FAA was concerned with
a number of events around the world regarding hijackings. Following Pan
Am 103, we pushed to put bomb detection equipment in airports, but
until TWA 800 blew up over Long Island in July of 1996, there was no
real effort to fund aviation security.
Today TSA is spending $5.3 billion annually on all transportation
security, and it is not enough. We have underfunded capital
construction at airports, causing a delay in the installation of
Explosive Detection Systems. We have a cap on the number of security
screeners that can be hired, causing huge lines at many of our airports
because we will not provide the money needed to do the job right. But
aviation, comparatively, is in far better shape than maritime and
rail--areas that are woefully underfunded. I have made this point to
the new head of TSA, Admiral Stone, but it is OMB and the
administration that are stonewalling the security funding. Simple as
that.
With all we know about the threats, one would think that we would be
able to fully fund our security needs, but OMB continues to play the
types of games it plays with all agencies. Look at our Homeland
Security Appropriations bill--no direction on how funds need to be
allocated or which areas need greater attention. We have given the
administration a blank check to spend the money on programs it believes
will protect us, but it is not enough. If we keep refusing to take the
proper actions to improve our transportation security, I am afraid that
we will find ourselves once again responding to a national tragedy that
could have been stopped with the proper actions and preparation.
I ask unanimous consent to print a New York Times editorial on
aviation security in the Record, as well as a memorandum detailing
hijackings from 1983 to 1991.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, July 11, 2004]
A Dangerous Retreat on Security
Bashing federal bureaucracies is a favorite sport among
Republicans on Capitol Hill, but their fun should not come at
the expense of national security. That is what is likely to
happen if airport security checkpoints are once again turned
over to profit-driven private contractors. Under a little
noticed provision of the post-9/11 aviation security law that
would undoubtedly shock most travelers, airports may soon
have that option.
Air travelers find it reassuring that federal employees now
guard the front lines in the war on terror, which makes it
all the more surreal that a Sept. 10 mind-set could still
persist on Capitol Hill. The Bush administration and House
Republican leaders initially opposed the creation of the
federal Transportation Security Administration after the 2001
terrorist attacks, arguing that private contractors should
continue screening passengers. They gave in to the public
demand for a federal takeover, but they made sure to plant
the seeds of the effort's rollback. They set an arbitrary cap
on the number of federal screeners and set up a pilot program
of five airports that would continue being served by private
companies, though their screeners have to meet the agency's
standards and are paid the same.
Republican leaders are loath to see the federal government
grow on their watch, and security industry lobbyists are
eager to get a larger slice of the billions being spent to
protect air travelers. So both want to see the pilot program
expanded. Under the 2001 law, individual airports will be
able to apply to opt out of the federal system later this
year, and rely on private contractors overseen by the T.S.A.
None of this makes any sense. It has taken a herculean
effort to deploy the agency's tens of thousands of officers
at more than 400 airports in two years. The agency has vastly
improved airport security, without perfecting it, and is
still making progress.
It's true that the security provided by private firms at
San Francisco and four lesser airports is a far cry from the
lax pre-9/11 standard. Studies claim it is no better or worse
than the security provided by the T.S.A. But that has been in
a period when the federal agency was just getting up to
speed, and when companies knew they were essentially on
probation.
To privatize security at a time of growing complacency
would be a dangerous step back. Air travelers do not want to
see airports compromise security for the sake of convenience,
or federal standards for the sake of profit margins.
____
Special Analysis--Civil Aviation Incidents in the United States, 1983-
1992
This report is an ACI-200 analysis of 36 incidents
involving the hijacking or commandeering of aircraft, which
occurred in the United States and Puerto Rico between January
1, 1983 and October 1, 1992. The most recent of these
incidents took place in February 1991. Twenty-nine of the
incidents were hijackings, six were commandeerings, and one
was a potential hijacking that was prevented at a security
checkpoint. The purpose of this review is to determine what
elements, if any, were common to these events. Incidents
involving general aviation aircraft are not included in this
report.
Hijacker Weapons and Explosives
Persons who hijacked aircraft used a variety of methods,
including the use and/or claim of real or fake weapons,
explosive devices, or incendiary devices. In some instances,
more that one method was used in a single incident.
Real weapons were used during five hijackings. Small knives
(blade length of four inches or less), the most frequently
employed weapon to hijack aircraft, were used in three
incidents. One of these involved three persons using two
knives. A handgun, a small pistol of unknown caliber, was
used in only one hijacking. This incident involved an
escorted prisoner who disarmed his three guards after he
obtained a weapon apparently cached in the aircraft's
lavatory by persons and means unknown. A plastic flare gun
was used in another hijacking.
Flammable liquids (or liquids claimed to be flammable) were
used in seven hijacking incidents. Hijackers threatened to
ignite liquids in bottles or aerosol hair spray-type cans
with cigarette lighters, candles, or matches. Fake explosive
devices were displayed in ten incidents and explosive devices
were claimed in eight others. Fake weapons, including a
starter pistol and a realistic looking toy pistol, were used
in three hijackings and weapons were claimed in two others.
One hijacker neither used nor claimed a weapon or explosive
device. None of the hijacking incidents involved the use of
an actual explosive device.
Except for the escorted prisoner who had been searched, all
of the individuals who used real weapons to effect a
hijacking went through preboard screening procedures at
airport security checkpoints. Weapons were usually hidden in
carry-on luggage or on the hijacker. The hijacker who used a
starter pistol to effect his act passed it through screening
in carryon luggage. He also had a pair of scissors and two
knives in his carry-on, but these were well within acceptable
standards of the time and were not used in the hijacking.
Although it does not appear that there were any especially
intricate attempts at concealment, a cassette radio was
reportedly used to hide a knife in one incident.
A potential hijacking was prevented when two individuals
were arrested before the aircraft became airborne. Three
individuals who had aroused suspicion prior to boarding their
flight were searched at the security checkpoint. One person
passed through the checkpoint and went on into the aircraft;
however, one of his accomplices was found to have a plastic
flask of gasoline strapped to his leg. The first individual
was again searched and was found to have a toy pistol
[[Page 17047]]
as well as a flask of gasoline. Their accomplice was not
caught.
Commandeerings
Real weapons--two knives, two handguns, and a fire ax--were
used in five commandeering incidents, and a fake explosive
device was used in a sixth. Although access was gained to
aircraft in five incidents, a ticketed passenger was involved
in only one. None of the aircraft that were commandeered
became airborne, and the situations were resolved through
negotiations and/or arrests.
Two commandeering incidents involved persons who went
through preboard screening. In one incident, an individual
had a fishing knife in his carry-on luggage. Although he had
no ticket, he realized from observing the screening procedure
that he did not need one to enter the sterile area. Once
through the security checkpoint, he ran past a gate attendant
during boarding and on to a jetway where he used his knife to
force his way into the aircraft. The second incident involved
a ticketed passenger who, upon boarding his flight, displayed
a device consisting of wires and an electrical switch.
Persons who circumvented security checkpoints were involved
in three commandeering incidents. Security procedures were
observed by the suspects in two of these. One individual, who
after watching screening procedures realized she would not be
able to pass her handgun through the checkpoint, determined
that she could walk quickly past security personnel via the
passenger exit ramp; the other individual waited until
deplaning passengers caused an automatic door to open. Both
of these persons brandished handguns (.22 and .25 caliber)
when challenged, and each was able to access an aircraft. In
a third incident, an individual grabbed a knife at a food
concession area. He ran past a security checkpoint to the
door of the aircraft, which was closed, and was thus
prevented from gaining access to the plane.
One commandeering incident also involved a passenger who
had been deplaned and was already in the sterile area. He
broke through an alarmed door and gained access to the Air
Operations Area. He then entered an aircraft being serviced
and held several crew members hostage with a fire ax he found
on board.
Mental Disorders
Nine of the 36 incidents (25%) were committed by persons
who were diagnosed as either being mentally incompetent to
stand trial or suffering from various mental disorders. For
example, charges were dismissed against the ticketed
passenger who displayed a fake explosive device upon boarding
the aircraft because he was determined to be suffering from a
mental disorder. In another situation, the individual who
held hostages aboard an aircraft with a fire ax was suffering
from a mental disorder; he committed his act because he
believed ``Mafia hit men'' were about to kill him.
Real weapons were used in three incidents by persons
suffering a mental disorder; two had handguns, and one person
obtained a fire ax on board in aircraft. Security measures
were circumvented on two occasions. One hijacker suffering a
mental disorder used a fake weapon, a starter pistol, but
also bad a pair of scissors and two knives in his carry-on
luggage.
Five of the nine incidents that involved persons suffering
mental disorders were hijackings, and four were
commandeerings. Claims of explosives or weapons occurred in
three incidents. Fake explosive devices were displayed in two
incidents; in one of these, the hijacker displayed a fake
device but had a two liter soda bottle filled with gasoline,
which he apparently had intended to use, in baggage he was
made to check.
Specific destinations were given in five of the situations
involving persons with mental disorders. In one commandeering
incident, the individual wanted to take control of the
aircraft and immediately crash it in order to commit suicide.
Hijackings to Cuba
Cuba was the destination of choice in 22 of the 29
hijackings since January 1983. Fourteen of the first 16
flights hijacked to Cuba, between May 1, 1983, and December
31, 1984, actually landed in Havana. No flights have
successfully been hijacked to Cuba since.
Of the 14 hijackings that ended in Cuba, real weapons were
used in three. A flare gun was used in one incident, a
handgun was used by the escorted prisoner in another, and a
knife and aerosol spray can was used in the third incident.
Fake explosive devices were displayed in six incidents; two
of these were used in combination with a claim of a flammable
liquid and/or a fake weapon. Two hijackers also claimed to
possess an explosive device. Incendiary devices were claimed
in six incidents, sometimes in connection with the use of
other devices or claims. In one such incident, the hijacker
poured a liquid that smelled like gasoline or kerosene on
himself and his seat and then sat holding a lit candle.
Eight of the hijacked flights did not divert to Cuba. A
real weapon, a knife, were used in just one of these
incidents. Another incident involved the use of a fake weapon
(starter pistol) and a claim of explosives. Fake explosive
devices were exclusively claimed in one incident and used in
three others, once with a claim of a flammable liquid. A
weapon was alleged in one incident, and one incident occurred
in which neither a device nor a weapon was used or claimed.
Many of the hijackers who sought to go to Cuba had arrived
in the United States during the Mariel Boatlift in the early
1980s and wanted to return. Their motivations included
homesickness, financial problems, discouragement, and a
desire to see family or sick relatives. These individuals
usually spoke and understood only Spanish. Several hijackers,
however, were non-Cubans who committed their acts for
political reasons, that is, to escape the United States and/
or find support for the ``revolution.'' Some of the hijackers
who wanted to go to Cuba, furthermore, suffered from mental
disorders.
Most, if not all, of the hijackers who landed in Cuba were
arrested and subsequently tried, convicted, and sentenced to
prison. This fact was widely publicized in the United States
and may have been a factor in a sharp drop in the number of
subsequent hijackings to Cuba (17 between May 1983 and
January 1985, and one each year from 1987 through 1991).
Other Hijackings
Of the seven hijackings in which Cuba was not given as a
destination, two aircraft landed where the hijacker demanded
and the others continued on course. The hijackers used fake
explosive devices in two incidents, claimed explosives in
three, and claimed weapons in two. Real weapons were not used
in these incidents.
Multiple Hijackers
Only three of the 36 incidents involved more than one
person. Two of these were hijackings, neither of which was
especially sophisticated, and the third was a potential
hijacking that was prevented at the security checkpoint. None
of the commandeering incidents involved more than one person.
In one incident, a hijacker produced a bottle of liquid
that smelled like gasoline and locked himself in the rear
lavatory, while an accomplice went to the forward galley
holding a device that was later determined to be fake. The
two hijackers were seated one row apart. The second incident
occurred when a passenger in the aft galley grabbed a flight
attendant and held a knife to her throat. At the same time,
two accomplices arose from their seats; one held a knife and
the other a can of aerosol spray and a cigarette lighter. The
potential hijacking involved the two individuals detected
with flasks of gasoline tied to their legs. One person had
passed through the security checkpoint and was on board the
aircraft when his accomplice was stopped at the checkpoint.
The first individual was again searched and was found to have
a toy pistol in addition to the flask of gasoline. Both
individuals stated that a third person who was with them, and
who was not caught, paid them to transport the devices.
One other incident occurred in which a hijacker was
supposed to have accomplices. He and three others had planned
to commit the hijacking, but, unknown to him, the others did
not board the flight after one had been detected with a knife
at the security checkpoint. It was only after the hijacker
rose from his seat and announced his demand to go to Cuba
that he realized he was alone.
Other Facts
Only two of the individuals involved in the 36 incidents
were females. One woman successfully hijacked a flight to
Cuba using a plastic flare gun, and the other ran past a
security checkpoint with a handgun, gained access to an
aircraft, and held several hostages before being arrested.
This second individual was determined to be suffering from a
mental disorder.
Many of the individuals involved in the hijackings had
purchased flight tickets paid for in cash. More often than
not, these were same-day purchases of one-way, economy class
tickets. A few of the hijackers remained in their assigned
seats throughout the incident. More than half of the
hijackings were initiated by the hijacker either notifying a
flight attendant orally or in writing, or by physically
accosting a crew member. Several hijackers simply stood up
and announced their act, and a few locked themselves in a
lavatory. A few also created disturbances, such as pouring
liquid on themselves or their surroundings and threatening to
ignite it. There is evidence of preplanning in all but one of
the incidents. Finally, there are no indications that any
hijackers were familiar with the operation of an aircraft.
analysis
During the past nine years, several elements common, to the
36 hijackings and commandeering incidents in the U.S. are
evident: Generally only one person was involved in each
incident; one-fourth of all suspects were suffering from some
form of mental disorder; international terrorists were not
involved in any of the incidents; most incidents were
preplanned acts rather than spur of the moment decisions;
actual explosive devices were not used; hijackers frequently
claimed to possess explosive or incendiary devices; actual
weapons were used more frequently during commandeering
incidents than in hijacking situations; many of the
perpetrators simply wanted to go somewhere for a variety of
economic, social, or family reasons, and either could not
afford a ticket
[[Page 17048]]
or had no other means of transport; and there were no deaths
to passengers or aircraft crew members.
Many of the incidents occurred either within the sterile
area or on board aircraft. Although security procedures at
screening checkpoints do not appear to have been at fault in
the majority of these cases, some security failures did
occur. Actual weapons were taken through screening
checkpoints in six incidents. Small knives were used in three
hijackings, a plastic flare gun in one incident, and a
handgun in another. A small fishing knife was used in a
commandeering incident. Fake weapons, a realistic looking toy
pistol and a starter pistol, were used in three hijackings.
Several hijackings were committed with common, innocuous-
looking items. More than one-third of these incidents were
committed by persons carrying hoax explosive devices, for
example, a pump toothpaste container attached to a
flashlight, a large chalice-like cup, and a cellular
telephone. Threats were also made to ignite gasses in aerosol
cans or flammable liquids (as claimed) in bottles and flasks
in some incidents.
There were, however, some security successes. One hijacking
was prevented at a security checkpoint and another did not
take place as planned. The first incident involved the two
individuals each of whom had a flask of flammable liquid tied
to his leg. In the second incident, the discovery of a knife
at a checkpoint resulted in the boarding of only one of four
persons who planned to hijack the aircraft to Cuba.
At the same time that these types of incidents were taking
place in the United States, a different kind of aircraft
hijacking was occurring in other parts of the world. These
incidents, some of which involved U.S. registered carriers,
were noteworthy because of their complexity, duration, and
deadliness. They include the hijackings of Trans World
Airways Flight 847 and Kuwaiti Air Flight 422, which involved
multiple and often zealous, well-armed, well-trained, and
disciplined hijackers. Unlike their contemporary U.S.
counterparts, these individuals often demonstrated a
willingness to die rather than fail and to kill others if
their demands, which were frequently politically-motivated,
were not met. In many instances, passengers were killed as a
result of the actions of such hijackers.
Why such incidents did not occur in the United States
during the past nine years is a matter of conjecture. Many
theories have been advanced, including logistical and
operational problems for international terrorists, non-
interest by U.S. domestic terrorist groups, and difficulties
(or perceived difficulties) in accessing targets. It should
not be presupposed from this, however, that such hijackings
will never occur in the U.S. Politically motivated hijackings
by multiple hijackers have, in fact, taken place in the U.S.,
but not within the past 9 years.
During the past nine years, hijackers in the United States
have acted in striking contrast to some of their more
noteworthy international counterparts. They usually have not
been motivated by the same political forces, such as the
freeing of political prisoners or providing publicity for a
cause, and they have not exhibited the lame propensity to die
and kill others rather than fail.
The fact that handguns were seldom used and actual
explosive devices never used in domestic hijackings during
the past nine years is interesting, but it should not be
assumed that future hijackers will act similarly. It is not
known why this occurred; it may be a reflection of either
better screening procedures or a perception that it is too
difficult to pass a gun on board an aircraft. Since several
small knives and other items, such as a pair of scissors and
a starter pistol, were successfully passed through screening
checkpoints in a carry-on bag, however, the system is not
infallible.
Although most U.S. hijackings during the past nine years
were committed by persons acting alone, it should not be
assumed that future incidents will follow this format. If
there are accomplices, however, they will likely identify
themselves in the beginning of the incident rather than
remain hidden. Based on past experiences, the hijacker(s) may
possess ore or more weapons or a flammable liquid, a fact
which they likely will make known, or they may claim to
possess an explosive device.
Hijackings should be taken seriously unless it is obvious
that there is no threat or danger. It is often difficult to
determine if a claimed weapon, explosive device, or
incendiary device is real. The hijacker(s) should be given
the benefit of the doubt until circumstances prove otherwise.
____________________
NATIONAL PURPLE HEART RECOGNITION DAY
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am in support of S. Con. Res. 112 which
supports the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
This award was created by General George Washington, who established
the Honorary Badge of Distinction in the figure of a heart in purple
cloth or silk on August 7, 1782. Since that time, more than 1,535,000
Americans have received Purple Hearts, and their numbers are growing
daily as the war in Iraq continues to take its toll.
Over 5,000 Americans have been wounded in Iraq, many of them
suffering horrific injuries. One such American is SP Gabe Garriga, one
of my constituents. Specialist Garriga volunteered for the Illinois
National Guard right after September 11, when he was just 17 years old,
because he felt obligated to go and make a difference.
In the summer of 2003, his unit was deployed to Iraq. On July 14,
2003, Specialist Garriga was rushing to help defend a checkpoint in
Baghdad. The checkpoint had been breached by an Iraqi car that sped
through without stopping, and U.S. soldiers feared that this was yet
another suicide bomber. In the rush to defend the checkpoint, Garriga's
Humvee slammed into another Humvee and he was thrown from his gun
turret directly into burning fuel canisters.
The wounds this young man suffered were absolutely horrendous. He had
second and third degree burns over almost half his body and severe
abdominal injuries. Doctors gave him a 1 percent chance for survival,
but he beat those daunting odds.
Specialist Garriga deserves everything this Nation can give him in
return for his service and sacrifice and that includes a Purple Heart.
This award was reinstated in 1932, a century and a half after General
Washington created his Badge of Military Merit. At that time, Army
regulations defined the conditions for the award as ``a wound which
necessitates treatment by a medical officer and which is received in
action with an enemy.''
There is no doubt that Specialist Garriga's wound necessitated
medical treatment--27 operations are blunt testimony to that terrible
fact. And there is no doubt in my mind that Gabe was involved in action
with an enemy when he and his comrades were rushing to defend that
breached checkpoint in a time of war. Nonetheless, over a year later,
he has still not received a Purple Heart.
Current Army regulations reiterate the conditions spelled out in 1932
and add ``It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the
requirement for the wound or injury to be caused by direct result of
hostile action be taken that it would preclude the award being made to
deserving personnel.''
Seeking to prevent a suicide bombing against U.S. troops or officials
or against innocent Iraqi civilians is the act of a soldier engaged in
the fight against terrorism. President Reagan, in fact, explicitly
expanded the terms of the award to include those wounded or killed as
the result ``of an international terrorist attack.''
So, this year, as the anniversary of the creation of this
commendation approaches and as we vote to recognize this day, I also
urge the Army to award Specialist Garriga the Purple Heart as a symbol
of our recognition of his sacrifice in the war in Iraq. He has earned
it.
____________________
U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to call to the attention of my
colleagues the release on June 15 of the 2004 Report to Congress of the
United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
The Commission was created by Congress on October 30, 2000, as part
of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2001. Its principal
sponsor in the Senate was Senator Byrd. The charter of the Commission
provides that it be composed of 12 Commissioners, 3 of whom are
appointed by each of the Congressional leaders in both the House and
Senate. The Commission is thus bipartisan, and reflective of the
leadership of both the House and the Senate.
The purpose of the Commission, according to its charter, is to
``monitor, investigate and report to Congress on the national security
implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between
the United States and the People's Republic of China.'' The
[[Page 17049]]
Commission is required by its charter to submit an annual report to
Congress, which must include a full analysis, along with conclusions
and recommendations for legislative actions, if any, of the national
security implications for the United States of trade and current
account balances, financial transactions, and technology transfers with
the People's Republic of China.
In preparation for its 2004 annual report, the Commission held 11
public hearings, including field hearings in Columbia, SC, and San
Diego, CA. Through these hearings the Commission heard the perspectives
of members of Congress, current and former senior government officials,
representatives of industry, labor and finance, academics, journalists,
and citizens. The Commission took testimony from more than 130
witnesses.
The Commission's fact-finding and examination process also included
funding statistical analyses of China's role in world trade and
investment, and its compliance record with its WTO commitments.
Moreover the Commission contracted for the translation of articles from
influential publications within China discussing Beijing's economic and
security strategies and its perceptions of the United States.
During the course of its deliberations, the Commission developed a
broad bipartisan agreement on the issues it was charged by Congress to
examine, and adopted its 2004 report by a unanimous vote.
Among the key findings of the report are that in 2003 the United
States ran a global goods trade deficit of $545.5 billion, of which
$124 billion was attributable to U.S. trade with China. The U.S. trade
deficit with China constituted over 23 percent of the total U.S. goods
deficit. Further, with U.S. exports to China of $28 million and imports
from China of $152 billion, U.S. trade with China constitutes our most
lopsided trading relationship. The report notes that over the past 10
years, the U.S. trade deficit with China has grown at an average rate
of 18.5 percent, and if it continues growing at this rate, it will
double to $248 billion within 5 years. The report further notes that
since 1998, the United States has moved from a global trade surplus in
advanced technology products, ATP, of $29.9 billion to a deficit of $27
billion in 2003, of which $21 billion is attributed to our trade with
China.
The Commission report unanimously finds that, ``The magnitude of the
goods trade deficit threatens the nation's manufacturing sector, a
sector that is vital for our national and economic security.'' It
further notes that China has a ``coordinated sustainable vision for
science and technology development'' and urges our country to develop a
``comprehensive national policy to meet China's challenge to our
scientific and technological leadership.''
The report finds that China is systematically intervening in the
foreign exchange market to keep its currency undervalued, and that this
has contributed to the size of the U.S. trade deficit with China and
has hurt U.S. manufacturers. The report further notes that China has
policies in place to attract foreign direct investment ($57 billion in
2003) and to develop its national productive capacity in ``pillar
industries''. These policies include tariffs, limitations on access to
domestic marketing channels, requirements for technology transfer,
government selection of partners for joint ventures, preferential loans
from state banks, privileged access to land, and direct support for
research and development.
In order to begin to help correct our trading relationship with
China, the Commission urges that the U.S. immediately seek to have the
yuan revalued substantially upward against the dollar and then to be
pegged against a trade weighted basket of currencies. After such an
immediate revaluation, the Commission recommends that China, as it
addresses problems in its banking system, move to a market-based
currency. It further recommends that Congress should charge USTR and
the Commerce Department to undertake a comprehensive examination of
China's industrial policies, described in the report, to determine
which may be illegal under provisions of the WTO, and to lay out
specific steps the U.S. can take to address these practices through the
WTO or other means. It urges the U.S. to make more active use of WTO
dispute settlement if we cannot persuade China by negotiation to carry
out its WTO commitments.
The report discusses a number of other aspects of United States-China
trade and political relations. It makes a number of recommendations to
help manage the relationship to minimize security risks and to enhance
prospects of moving China toward a more open, democratic and law-based
society to the benefit of both countries.
In my view, this 2004 report of the Commission makes a very valuable
contribution to our policy deliberations on China. I salute Senator
Byrd for his wisdom in calling for the creation of the Commission, and
thank all the Commissioners for their contribution to our knowledge of
the United States-China economic and political relationship. The
Baltimore Sun ran an editorial which strongly praised the report and
found that ``the case for `urgent attention and course corrections' to
U.S. policies on China is well made.'' I ask that the Baltimore Sun
editorial be inserted in the Record after my statement.
I strongly commend the 2004 report of the United States-China
Economic and Security Review Commission to my colleagues.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Baltimore Sun, June 17, 2004]
The China Trade-Off
In the past year, some large foreign investors were for the
first time allowed to enter China's domestic stock market to
buy shares of Chinese firms. This includes shares of part of
Norinco, China North Industries Group--a transnational
conglomerate that was founded by the People's Liberation
Army, that retains strong military ties, that makes
everything from baby shoes to missiles, and that has drawn
U.S. sanctions for arming Iran.
Given the lack of disclosure in China, foreign investors
and technology traders with Norinco and other Chinese firms
cannot know if their resources will end up serving China's
long-term, well-coordinated strategic plan to compete with
American economic, military and political power. That
potential danger is the basis for the very strong alarms
sounded this week by the U.S-China Economic and Security
Review Commission, a bipartisan congressional group
monitoring U.S.-China relations.
In its wide-ranging annual report, the commission warns
that rapidly increasing trade, investment and technology
flows between the two nations are far too lopsided in China's
favor--eroding U.S. economic strength, abetting China's
military build-up and its development as a high-tech
manufacturing platform, and potentially threatening U.S.
security interests. Worse, the commission found that the U.S.
government often is far too blind to these hazards in
arguably its most important long-term relationship.
The report will be criticized by some for demonizing
Beijing just as the West is penetrating Chinese markets and
succeeding in dramatically drawing China into the community
of nations. But in general, the case for ``urgent attention
and course corrections'' to U.S. policies on China is well
made.
For starters, the commission is urging the United States to
use the World Trade Organization to more aggressively press
China on its undervalued currency and on state subsidies for
export manufacturers, both underlying factors in America's
$124 billion trade deficit with China last year. It also
recommends comprehensive monitoring of: advanced technology
transfers to China via U.S. investments, joint ventures and
research and development projects; China's U.S. investments;
and bilateral exchange and education programs.
The lengthy commission report paints a picture of China
leveraging the short-term financial ambitions of diverse U.S.
interests to capture money and technology vital to its highly
focused, long-term goal of trumping the United States--and of
the U.S. government at best adrift in monitoring and managing
its side of this imbalanced and critically important
relationship. It's a caution worth the highest attention.
____________________
CONTINUING FAILURE TO ADDRESS H-2B VISA CRISIS
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I came to this floor more than 2 months ago
to decry the Senate's failure to respond to a crisis, caused by Federal
policy, that has disrupted the operations of small and large businesses
throughout the United States. This crisis has continued unabated since
then, but the requests for help from these businesses have continued to
fall on deaf ears.
[[Page 17050]]
In March, the Department of Homeland Security announced that for the
first time ever, the annual cap for H-2B visas had been met. These
visas are used by a wide range of industries throughout the Nation to
fill temporary labor needs. In my home State of Vermont, they are used
primarily by the tourist industry.
The Department of Defense appropriations conference report, before us
today, includes a very narrow solution to this problem, benefiting a
single industry that uses H-2B visas. The conference report exempts
aliens seeking jobs in the ``fish roe'' industry from counting against
the H-2B cap. The provision does nothing to help the broad categories
of employers who use H-2B visas.
Across the country, businesses in a wide range of industries have
been scrambling this summer, having been forced to discard business
plans that relied on the foreign employees who had always before been
available to them. For years, these employers had applied in the spring
for the employees they needed for the summer, filling positions for
which they were unable to find American workers. The cap had never been
reached, and they had no reason to believe this year would be
different. I know that the March announcement came as a shock to many
employers in my State, and dozens of them contacted my office to see
what could be done. This setback fell equally hard on employers in
other States.
In response to these requests, I joined with a substantial bipartisan
coalition in introducing S. 2252, the Save Summer Act of 2004. Senator
Kennedy is the lead sponsor of the bill, which has 18 cosponsors,
including 8 Republicans. Our bill would add 40,000 visas for the
current fiscal year, providing relief to those summer-oriented
businesses that had never even had the opportunity to apply for visas.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has refused to move this
bipartisan bill. The leadership has refused even to move a bill that
Senator Hatch introduced, and which was supported only by Republicans.
Instead, a tiny minority of Senators has been given a veto over doing
anything to address this problem for the current fiscal year or years
to come.
The Senate must act in a comprehensive way to solve this problem. I
urge the majority leader to bring H-2B legislation to the floor as soon
as possible, so we can assure that the summer of 2005 will not be a
replay of the summer of 2004.
____________________
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS SECURITY ACT OF 2003
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the
Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2003.
In the wake of September 11, 2001, I believe that it is imperative
that the Nation takes every reasonable action we can to prevent
terrorism, create effective response and recovery mechanisms, and find
ways to minimize any impacts should an event occur.
The Congress has a key role in facilitating these actions by
establishing authorities for Government agencies, establishing the
legal framework in which homeland security improvements will occur, and
appropriating adequate funding for the homeland security mission.
Protecting our Nation's critical infrastructure is a major piece of our
homeland security strategy.
The water sector has been identified as an element in our Nation's
critical infrastructure since the issuance of Presidential Decision
Directive 63 (PDD-63), issued in by President Clinton in May 1998,
which was the first major governmental action focused on reducing the
vulnerability of our Nation's critical infrastructure.
At that time, and in each document outlining homeland security
responsibilities since that time, the Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA, was designated as the lead for water infrastructure protection.
The security needs are significant in the water and wastewater
sectors. There are over 16,000 publicly owned treatment works in the
United States, serving almost 190 million people. These industrial
facilities use large quantities of toxic chemicals in their treatment
and disinfection processes. They are located near population centers
and other critical infrastructure. A chemical accident would pose a
serious threat. In addition, collection systems run beneath every city
and town in America, creating potential corridors for travel or
opportunities for access.
There are also serious public health risks associated with a
disruption or service failure at a wastewater treatment plant.
Treatment works clean wastewater that comes from our toilets, showers,
and sewers and send it back into our rivers, streams, lakes, and
oceans. Those same bodies of water are our drinking water sources.
Without proper treatment, we would see the public health effects of the
same type of water-borne disease outbreaks such as cholera that we saw
in Iraq earlier this year due to the failure of wastewater treatment
plants.
I believe that the Congress should take the risk to wastewater
treatment plants seriously. Unfortunately, S. 1039, the Wastewater
Treatment Works Security and Safety Act, provides security for our
Nation's wastewater infrastructure in name, only.
First, this bill is a rollback of current law requiring vulnerability
assessments and emergency response plans at drinking water utilities.
In 2002, the Congress passed H.R. 3448, the Public Health and
Bioterrorism Preparedness Response Act of 2002, P.L. 107-188. This act
requires community water systems to conduct vulnerability assessments
and develop an emergency response plan that incorporates the results of
the vulnerability assessment. Vulnerability assessments are to be
submitted to EPA. The threats posed by drinking water and wastewater
facilities are similar. These plants are often colocated. It makes no
sense to adopt weaker standards for one sector of the industry than the
other. The Bioterrorism Act ensures that water systems take basic
action to first identify and then address security needs.
Second, S. 1039 increases wastewater security in name only. It does
not require the most basic security precautions--completion of a
vulnerability assessment and the incorporation of the results into a
treatment works' emergency response plan. Under the provisions of S.
1039, we do not know if individual publicly owned treatment works will
choose to complete a vulnerability assessment because there is no
requirement to do so. We do not know if they will incorporate their
findings into emergency response plans that are designed to protect
communities surrounding those plants because there is no requirement to
do so. These most basic actions are not too heavy a burden for the
wastewater treatment industry to bear.
S. 1039 also does not require, and may actually preclude, the
submission of vulnerability assessments that are completed to the
Federal Government--a serious obstacle in the Department of Homeland
Security's ability to perform its mission. Providing the results of a
facility's vulnerability assessment and its emergency response plan to
the Federal Government is a vital step both to ensure that
vulnerability assessments are completed in critical infrastructure
sectors and to ensure that the Federal Government has all of the
information it requires to secure the Nation against a potential
terrorist attack.
The President's National Strategy for Homeland Security, issued in
2002, states, ``A complete and thorough assessment of America's
vulnerabilities will not only enable decisive near-term action, but
guide the rational long-term investment of effort and resources.'' Not
only does DHS plan to use vulnerability assessments to evaluate threat
information and provide warnings, but also to allocate resources. I
agree that one of the most efficient ways to spend limited resources is
to dentify where we are vulnerable and where we are threatened, then
target resources to the cross-section of those two areas.
Under S. 1039 as reported, it is unclear where DHS will get the
information they require to complete a national vulnerability
assessment and make resource allocation decisions that will increase
the level of security
[[Page 17051]]
in our Nation. What is clear is that DHS is likely to receive only
partial information, if any, from a subset of wastewater plants that
voluntarily choose to complete a vulnerability assessment and that
voluntarily choose to share the information they collect. Without the
best, most up to date, accurate information available, DHS will be
unable to fully perform its mission.
In addition, elected officials in Congress have a constitutional
oversight role over Federal agencies and the laws they implement. Under
S. 1039, Congress will not be accountable to the public for the purpose
or implementation of this law--Congress will not be able to request or
access information from the Federal agencies because the agencies will
not have such information.
At the beginning of this Congress, I introduced the Wastewater
Treatment Works Security and Safety Act, S. 779. This legislation
mirrors existing law for drinking water systems. It requires all
wastewater utilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and to
develop or modify emergency response plans to incorporate the results
of the vulnerability assessments. It requires that these documents be
presented to the EPA for review, and it includes significant security
measures designed to protect this information from unauthorized
disclosure. It authorizes $185 million for assistance in completing
vulnerability assessments, for immediate security improvements, and for
assistance to small treatment works. It authorizes $15 million for
research to identify threats, detection methods, and response actions.
This bill will clearly enhance the security of our Nation by taking
real actions to improve the security of wastewater treatment works.
The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect the American
people. If S. 1039 becomes law, the Federal Government will not know if
publicly owned treatment works will voluntarily conduct a vulnerability
assessment, if they will voluntarily implement the security needs
identified, or if they will incorporate the results into their
emergency response plans, and there will be no way of finding out. The
Department of Homeland Security's mission to increase the security of
the country will be hindered. I believe that S. 1039 fails to take
responsible, basic steps to protect our wastewater infrastructure
security from terrorist attack, putting Americans at risk.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and support my
alternative bill, S. 779.
____________________
MODIFIED VERSION OF S. 849
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a modified version
of S. 849, the Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange Act,
which I cosponsored last year with Senator Kyl. Since introducing that
bill, I have met with hundreds of Arizonans and learned first-hand of
the significant water issues raised by this proposed exchange of about
50,000 acres of private and Federal land in Northern Arizona. I am
introducing this modified version of the legislation with the sincere
hope of achieving a compromise agreement that can be enacted prior to
adjournment.
Let me be clear. I am not offering amendments to this bill to slow
its progress, but rather I want to take this opportunity to address one
of the most crucial challenges facing Arizona: sound management of its
precious water resources. The persistent drought that is draining our
reservoirs makes all of us aware of the limits of our water supplies. I
strongly believe that the State of Arizona is at a crucial point where
decisions regarding growth and water use must be made with the
assurance of long-term availability of water supplies without draining
our ground and surface waters dry. I am afraid we are currently on a
collision course with the reality of our finite and dwindling water
supplies and the future economic and environmental welfare of the
State.
In the context of this proposed exchange, it would be irresponsible
of the Federal Government to transfer public lands into private hands
in an area where water problems currently exist without an
understanding of the potential water supply impacts. I have spent
considerable time and effort in trying to develop a reasoned,
compromise proposal that balances the various Arizona interests and
achieves a fair and equitable exchange in the public interest.
Therefore, it is my hope that the release of this amended bill with a
new title addressing the associated water issues will be carefully
considered by all interested parties.
My objective is to encourage the formation of a partnership between
Federal, State, and local stakeholders in order to facilitate sound,
science-based water resource planning and management in the Verde River
Basin. In my view, the development of such a collaborative decision-
making body, modeled on the Upper San Pedro Partnership, would be a
vital step in assuring the wise use of the finite water resources
within the Verde River Basin.
An earlier draft proposal of the partnership title to this bill was
widely circulated in Northern Arizona and generated productive
discussion and comment. This valuable input is reflected in the measure
I am offering today. It encourages the creation of a multi-stakeholder
partnership and clarifies the Federal role in providing scientific,
technical, and financial assistance to State and local water resource
planning and management efforts. With this important support, I expect
that State and local interests that share ground and surface water
resources will come together to advance protection and wise use of
finite water supplies.
I became fully aware of the crucial need for this Federal assistance
through public meetings I held last December in Flagstaff and Camp
Verde. More than 600 people gathered in Camp Verde to express their
strongly held views of the proposed land exchange. The primary concern
voiced was whether or not adequate water supplies are available in the
area to provide for future development given that residents are already
experiencing water supply problems. The U.S. Geological Survey
presented information about its ongoing studies and what is not known
about the hydrologic systems or water use impacts within the Verde
Basin. The fact is that we simply do not have sufficient information to
determine the quantity of water supply available over the long-term
without adverse effects.
I believe that it would be irresponsible of the Federal Government to
transfer lands into private hands in an area where water problems
already exist without an understanding of the potential impacts. That
is why I am interested in expediting essential water studies in the
Verde Basin to provide a scientific basis for sound decisionmaking by
the partnership. In the short-term, I envision that the first task of
the partnership would be to make a recommendation, based on a water
budget analysis for the Verde Valley, regarding available water supply
for future use on the Federal parcel in Camp Verde. Long-term water
resource planning and management efforts within the region could also
be developed through the partnership and informed by the ongoing water
studies and analyses.
I would like to briefly explain some of the provisions in this
modified bill.
First, under Title I of the bill, it would allow the cities of
Flagstaff, Williams, and Camp Verde, as well as several local camps,
the option to purchase lands directly from the Forest Service if they
are unable to reach an agreement to purchase such lands from the
Yavapai Ranch. These communities and camps are very interested in
exploring the economic opportunities that would be afforded through the
acquisition of certain lands currently held by the Federal Government.
The bill also would eliminate the 820-acre Federal parcel in Clarkdale
from exchange, at the request of that community.
Next, the bill establishes a new Title II, which is designed to
establish a framework to begin addressing the very serious water
resource and management issues in Northern Arizona. The purpose of this
title is to authorize assistance for a collaborative and
[[Page 17052]]
science-based water resource planning and management partnership for
the Verde River Basin, consisting of members that represent Federal,
State, and local agencies, along with economic, environmental, and
community water interests. The bill language makes it clear that this
is not a Federal intrusion into State and local jurisdiction and
responsibility for water management and control.
Under Title II, Federal assistance would be authorized upon the
formation of a Verde River Basin Partnership. The measure would
authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to assist the Arizona Department
of Water Resources and the Yavapai Water Advisory Council by
participating in the formation of the partnership. While the
partnership would not be a Federal entity, it would be eligible for
Federal assistance through the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior.
The amended bill directs the partnership to develop a plan for
conducting water resource studies within the Verde River Basin. The
plan would include; a list of specific studies and analyses that are
needed to support the planning and management objectives of the
partnership, identify any ongoing or completed water resource or
riparian studies that are relevant to water resource planning and
management for the Verde River Basin, provide study timeliness and cost
estimates, and designate as a study priority the compilation of a water
budget analysis for the Verde Valley.
To assist the partnership, the bill directs the U.S. Geological
Survey, in cooperation with ADWR, to prepare and submit a report to the
Partnership that provides a water budget analysis of the portion of the
Verde River Basin within the Verde Valley. The partnership would then
use the information, along with any other relevant information, and
submit a preliminary report with its findings and recommendations
regarding long-term available water supply within the Verde Valley to
the Secretary, the Governor of Arizona, and representatives of the
Verde Valley communities. Following this preliminary report, the
partnership is expected to continue its work and submit a comprehensive
report to the Secretary and the Governor of Arizona within 4 years. The
comprehensive report would include the results of any water resource
assessments conducted under this in the Verde River Basin. It also
would identify: any areas in the Verde River Basin that are determined
to have groundwater deficits or other current or potential water supply
problems; long-term water supply management options for communities and
water resources within the basin; and water resource analyses and
monitoring needed to support the implementation of management options.
Finally, the bill directs the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary
of Agriculture to enter into a memorandum of understanding authorizing
the U.S. Geological Survey to access Forest Service land, including
stream gauges, weather stations, wells, or other points of data
collection on the Forest Service land, to carry out necessary water
studies.
I want to do my part in moving the proposed land exchange forward,
and it must be done in a manner that is fair to the current residents
of Arizona and the Federal taxpayers. In order to do so, it simply must
address the affected area's water supply. I remain hopeful that all the
interested parties who strongly support the proposed exchange will
carefully consider the proposal that I am introducing today.
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with Senator
Hatch the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007. I thank Senator Hatch, the chairman of
the Judiciary Committee, for his hard work and support of this
legislation.
In the 107th Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives
properly authorized spending for the entire Department of Justice, (DOJ
or the Department,) for the first time since 1979. Congress extended
that authorization in 1980 and 1981. Until 2002 Congress had not passed
nor had the President signed an authorization bill for the Department.
In fact, there were a number of years where Congress failed to consider
any Department authorization bill. This 23-year failure to properly
reauthorize the Department forced the appropriations committees in both
houses to reauthorize and appropriate money.
We ceded the authorization power to the appropriators for too long,
but in the 107th Congress Senator Hatch and I joined forces with House
Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner and ranking member Conyers to create
and pass bipartisan legislation that reaffirmed the authorizing
authority and responsibility of the House and Senate Judiciary
Committees--the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act, Public Law 107-273. A new era of oversight began
with that new charter for the Justice Department, with the Senate and
House Judiciary Committees taking active new roles in setting the
priorities and monitoring the operations of the Department of Justice,
the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, and that bill helped our
oversight duties in many ways. And, as we have learned in the past 3
years, the fight against terrorism makes constructive oversight more
important than ever before.
Already this Congress, House Judiciary Committee Chairman
Sensenbrenner and ranking member Conyers have authored and shepherded
through the House of Representatives a new Department of Justice
Appropriations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2004 through 2006,
H.R. 3036. I commend both Chairman Sensenbrenner and ranking member
Conyers for working in a bipartisan manner to pass that legislation in
the House of Representatives.
The Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, fiscal
years 2005 through 2007 is a comprehensive authorization of the
Department based on H.R. 3036 as passed by the House of Representatives
on March 30, 2004. Our bipartisan legislation authorizes appropriations
for the Department for fiscal years 2005 through 2007, provide
permanent enabling authorities which will allow the Department to
efficiently carry out its mission, clarify and harmonize existing
statutory authority, and repeal obsolete statutory authorities. The
bill also establishes certain reporting requirements and other
mechanisms intended to better enable the Congress and the Department to
oversee the operations of the Department. Finally, our bill
incorporates numerous other pieces of legislation--on such issues as
preventing and recovering missing children, cigarette trafficking,
intellectual property, going after terrorists who commit violent acts
against American citizens overseas, among others--currently pending
before Congress that enjoy strong bipartisan support.
I will now highlight a number of the provisions that make up this
authorization bill.
Title I of our bill authorizes appropriations for the Department of
Justice for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2007. With minor
exceptions, these authorizations generally reflect the President's
budget request.
Title II makes numerous improvements and upgrades to the Department's
grant programs that assist law enforcement and criminal justice
agencies; build community capacity to prevent, reduce and control
crime; assist victims of crime; and prevent crime.
We decided to combine the current Byrne formula grant, Byrne
discretionary grant and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, LLEBG,
programs into one Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
Program with an authorization of $1.075 billion and a list of 35 uses--
a combination of the traditional Byrne and LLEBG grants regulations--
for which these grants may be used.
I am a longtime supporter of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and
Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program and the LLEBG, both of which
have been continuously targeted for elimination by the Bush
administration.
[[Page 17053]]
LLEBG, which received $225 million this year, provide local governments
with the means to underwrite projects that reduce crime and improve
public safety, and allow communities to craft their own responses to
local crime and drug problems. The Edward Byrne Memorial State and
Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, which Congress funded at
$659,117,000 in FY 2004, makes grants to States to improve the
functioning of the criminal justice system, with emphasis on violent
crimes and serious offenders, and to enforce State and local drug laws.
As a senator from a rural State that relies on LLEBG and Byrne grants
to combat crime, I have been concerned with the President's proposals
for funding and program eliminations of these well-established grant
programs. Our legislation makes it clear that the same authorized
funding levels and uses will be available under the new consolidated
grant program as under the previous two grant programs.
I am pleased that Title II also extends the authorization of
appropriations for the Regional Information Sharing System, RISS, at
$100 million for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2007. RISS serves as
an invaluable tool to Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies by providing much-needed criminal intelligence and
investigative support services. It has built a reputation as one of the
most effective and efficient means developed to combat multi-
jurisdictional criminal activity, such as narcotics trafficking and
gang activity. Without RISS, most law enforcement officers would not
have access to newly developed crime-fighting technologies and would be
hindered in their intelligence-gathering efforts.
By providing State and local law enforcement agencies with rapid
access to its secure, state-of-the-art, nationwide information sharing
system, RISS gives law enforcement officers the resources they need to
identify and apprehend potential terrorists before they strike. With
this in mind, I authored Title VII of the USA PATRIOT Act, Public Law
107-56, to increase information sharing for critical infrastructure
protection. The law expanded RISS to facilitate information sharing
among Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to investigate
and prosecute terrorist conspiracies and activities, and increased
authorized funding to $100 million.
Proper funding provides RISS with the means to maintain six
regionally-based information sharing centers that allow for information
and intelligence services to be disseminated nationwide addressing
major, multijurisdictional crimes. In addition, as the September 11
terrorist attacks and calls for increased vigilance against future
attacks demonstrated, RISS requires additional support to intensify
antiter-
rorism measures.
Each RISS center has up to 1,600 member agencies, the vast majority
of which are at the municipal and county levels. Over 400 State
agencies and over 850 Federal agencies, however, are also members. The
Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S.
Attorneys' Offices, Internal Revenue Service, Secret Service, Customs,
and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are among
the Federal agencies that participate in the RISS Program.
Unfortunately, the Consolidated Appropriations law for FY 2004 did
not provide full funding for RISS, instead including $30 million for
the program. For the coming fiscal year, the President has proposed $45
million. We must ensure that RISS can continue current services, meet
increased membership support needs for terrorism investigations and
prosecutions, increase intelligence analysis capabilities and add staff
to support the increasing numbers of RISS members.
This title also contains a reauthorization of the Crime Free Rural
States program that we created in the DOJ Authorization bill in the
last Congress. This program authorizes $10 million annually for rural
States to address specific crime problems plaguing their areas. In
Vermont, for example, this funding could be used to battle heroin abuse
and its consequences.
This authorization bill contains a number of provisions of great
interest to victim service organizations and those who administer
Federal grants for victim assistance and compensation. In particular, I
am pleased that we have responded to repeated requests from the field
to increase the amount that State assistance and compensation programs
may retain for administrative purposes. I have been proposing such an
increase for many years, without success.
Under current law, not more than 5 percent of victim assistance and
compensation grants may be used for the administration of the State
program receiving the grant. The House bill effectively decreases this
already-low apportionment by combining administrative costs with
training costs--currently 1 percent under guidelines promulgated by the
Office for Victims of Crime, OVC. By contrast, we propose raising the
amount that can be used for both worthwhile purposes to 7.5 percent of
the grants. While this is still less than 10 percent retention
permitted, for example, by the Violence Against Women Act, it will help
States to accommodate the addition of training purposes in their costs.
Our bill will also amend the Victims of Crime Act, VOCA, to clarify
the provisions establishing the Antiterrorism Emergency Reserve in
various ways. The original H.R. 3036 permits replenishments of the
emergency reserve based upon amounts obligated rather than amounts
actually expended in any given fiscal year. Our bill includes two
additional clarifications that I proposed. First, it makes explicit
that the emergency reserve may be replenished only once each fiscal
year, and may not be continually replenished as amounts are obligated
or expended. Allowing continual replenishments could result in the
obligations or expenditures exceeding the $50 million emergency reserve
maximum. Second, we have ensured that all emergency reserve funds--
whether carried over, used to replenish the reserve, obligated or
expended--fall above the cap on spending from the Crime Victim Fund as
set by appropriations legislation.
Section 242 of the House-passed bill authorized the Assistant
Attorney General for the Office for Justice Programs, OJP, to impose
special conditions and determine priorities for formula grants. It was
unclear to me why the authority to determine formula grant priorities
was necessary and what its real impact would be on local victim
services. Could it be read to authorize OJP to infringe on the
discretion of each State to meet its own needs, as for example by
mandating that State VOCA programs give priority to public agencies
over nonprofit community organizations, or fund faith-based programs
before secular programs? Priorities are already set out by Congress in
the authorizing statutes, as is the requirement that programs
coordinate public and private victim services in their communities, and
the Justice Department should not be allowed to override those
congressional directives. Moreover, VOCA already has extensive
reporting requirements that enable the Department to monitor how States
are distributing these funds. We have therefore deleted the authority
to determine formula grant priorities, while retaining the special
conditions provision.
Subtitle D of Title II deals with approaches to prevent crime. I am
especially pleased that we included provisions that will specifically
aid in preventing rural crime because rural States and communities face
a number of unique law enforcement challenges. We added these
provisions from Senator Daschle's Rural Safety Act, S. 1907, of which I
am proud to be an original cosponsor. I commend our Democratic leader
for his commitment to providing real and meaningful investments to
address the unique set of challenges facing rural law enforcement
agencies.
Rural law enforcement officers patrol larger areas, operate under
tighter budgets and with smaller staffs than their urban and suburban
counterparts. This legislation creates programs specifically designed
to meet the many complex needs of rural law enforcement agencies and
officers. Methamphetamine production and use, for
[[Page 17054]]
example, is a growing concern for Vermonters. Because the ingredients
and the equipment used to produce methamphetamines are so inexpensive
and readily available, the drug can be manufactured or ``cooked'' in
homemade labs. This has become one of the major problems facing law
enforcement agencies nationwide. Last month, the Vermont State Police
busted the first known methamphetamine lab in the state. We must help
our law enforcement agencies as they struggle to keep up with its
troubling growth.
To help law enforcement combat the spread of methamphetamine and
other challenges, we authorize in this bill $20 million in grants for
FY 2005 to provide for the cleanup of methamphetamine laboratories and
related hazardous waste in units of local government and tribal
governments located outside a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area;
and the improvement of contract-related response time for cleanup of
methamphetamine laboratories and related hazardous waste in units of
local established methamphetamine prevention and treatment pilot
programs in rural areas, and provide additional financial support to
local law enforcement.
We also establish a rural 9-1-1 service program to provide access to,
and improve a communications infrastructure that will ensure a reliable
and seamless communication between, law enforcement, fire, and
emergency medical service providers in units of local government and
tribal governments located outside a Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area and in States. Grants--authorized at $25 million for fiscal year
2005--under this program will be used to establish or improve 9-1-1
service in rural communities. Priority in making grants under this
program will be given to communities that do not have 9-1-1 service.
I am pleased that our bill includes the Campbell-Leahy-Hatch
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003, a bill to reauthorize
an existing matching grant program to help State, tribal, and local
jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers.
This bill was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent a year ago this
month and it awaits consideration by the House of Representatives.
This measure marks the third time that I have had the privilege of
teaming with my friend and colleague Senator Campbell to work on this
legislation. We authored the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act of
1998 in response to the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the
Vermont-New Hampshire border, in which two State troopers who did not
have bulletproof vests were killed. The Federal officers who responded
to the scenes of the shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body
armor, but the State and local law enforcement officers lacked
protective vests because of the cost.
Two years later, we successfully passed the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership Grant Act of 2000, and I hope we will go 3-for-3 this time
around. Senator Campbell brings to our effort invaluable experience in
this area and during his time in the Senate he has been a leader in the
area of law enforcement. As a former deputy sheriff, he knows the
dangers law enforcement officers face when out on patrol. I am pleased
that we have been joined in this effort by 12 other Senate cosponsors.
Our bipartisan legislation will save the lives of law enforcement
officers across the country by providing more help to State and local
law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. Since its inception in
1999, this highly successful Department of Justice program has provided
law enforcement officers in 16,000 jurisdictions nationwide with nearly
350,000 new bulletproof vests. In Vermont, 148 municipalities have been
fortunate to receive to receive funding for the purchase of almost 1200
vests. Without the Federal funding given by this program, I daresay
that there would be close to that number of police officers without
vests in Vermont today.
The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003 will further the
success of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program by
reauthorizing the program through fiscal year 2007. Our legislation
would continue the Federal-State partnership by authorizing up to $50
million per year for matching grants to State and local law enforcement
agencies and Indian tribes at the Department of Justice to buy body
armor.
We know that body armor saves lives, but the cost has put these vests
out of the reach of many of the officers who need them. This program
makes it more affordable for police departments of all sizes. Few
things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and
they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible
because of this program. This is the least we should do for the
officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every
day. I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a
bulletproof vest gets one.
We also included in this authorization bill the Prevent All Cigarette
Trafficking, PACT, Act, as passed by the Senate by unanimous consent on
December 9, 2003, but which has yet to be taken up and passed by the
House. I commend Senators Hatch and Kohl for their leadership on this
measure and thank them for working with me, among others, to craft the
compromise language that we include in this bill to crack down on the
growing problem of cigarette smuggling, both interstate and
international, as well as to address the connection between cigarette
smuggling activities and terrorist funding. I am proud to join Senator
Hatch, Senator Kohl and 10 others as a cosponsor of the standalone
bill.
I also thank the National Association of Attorneys General and the
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids for working with us and contributing to
this language. I want to say a special thanks to Vermont Attorney
General Bill Sorrell, who also serves as the current Chair of the NAAG
Tobacco Committee, for his valuable input on the problems with
cigarette smuggling that States are facing and his support for this
compromise measure. I also want to thank the Vermont Grocers
Association, the Vermont Retail Association, the Vermont Association of
Chiefs of Police, and the National Conference of State Legislatures for
their support for this measure.
The movement of cigarettes from low-tax areas to high-tax areas in
order to avoid the payment of taxes when the cigarettes are resold has
become a public health problem in recent years. As State after State
chooses to raise its tobacco excise taxes as a means of reducing
tobacco use and as a source of revenue, many smokers have sought
cheaper means by which to purchase cigarettes. Smokers can often
purchase cigarettes and tobacco from remote sellers, Internet or mail
order at substantial discounts due to avoidance of state taxes. These
sellers, however, are evading their tax obligations because they
neither collect nor pay the proper State and local excise taxes for
cigarette and other tobacco product sales.
We have the ability to dramatically reduce smuggling without imposing
undue burdens on manufacturers or law abiding citizens. By reducing
smuggling, we will also increase government revenues by minimizing tax
avoidance. My friend General Sorrell has told me that this has become a
rapidly growing problem in Vermont as more and more tobacco product
manufacturers fail to collect and pay cigarette taxes. Criminals are
getting away with smuggling and not paying tobacco taxes because of
weak punishments, products that are often poorly labeled, the lack of
tax stamps and the inability of the current distribution system to
track sales from State to State. These lapses point to a need for
uniform rules governing group sales to individuals.
The PACT Act will give States the authority to collect millions of
dollars in lost State tax revenue resulting from online and other
remote sales of cigarette and smokeless tobacco. It also ensures that
every tobacco retailer, whether a brick-and-mortar or remote retailer
of tobacco products, play by the same rules by equalizing the tax
burdens.
Moreover, the PACT Act gives States the authority necessary to
enforce the Jenkins Act, a law passed in 1949, which requires cigarette
vendors to report interstate sales of cigarettes. This
[[Page 17055]]
legislation enhances States' abilities to collect all excise taxes and
verify the deposit of all required escrow payments for cigarette and
smokeless tobacco sales in interstate commerce, including internet
sales. In addition, it provides Federal and State law enforcement with
additional resources to enforce state tobacco excise tax laws.
Finally, at the request of the National Association of Attorneys
General and many State Attorneys General, we have added a new section
to provide the States with authority to enforce the Imported Cigarette
Compliance Act to crack down on international tobacco smuggling. This
additional authority should further reduce tax evasion and eliminate a
lucrative funding source for terrorist organizations.
We must not turn a blind eye to the problem of illegal tobacco
smuggling. Those who smuggle cigarettes are criminals and we must close
the loopholes that allow cigarette smuggling to continue.
The United States has from its inception recognized the importance of
intellectual property laws in fostering innovation, and vested in
Congress the responsibility of crafting laws that ensure that those who
produce inventions are able to reap economic rewards for their efforts.
I am pleased that we can today include, as part of the Department of
Justice Authorization Act, the Cooperative Research and Technology
Enhancement Act of 2004, the CREATE Act, legislation that I cosponsored
along with Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl, Senator Feingold, Senator
Schumer, Senator Grassley, Senator Johnson, and Senator Cochran. This
bill will provide a needed remedy to one aspect of our Nation's patent
laws. On June 25, 2004, the CREATE Act passed the Senate by unanimous
consent.
When Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, the law encouraged
private entities and not-for-profits such as universities to form
collaborative partnerships in order to spur innovation. Prior to the
enactment of this law, universities were issued fewer than 250 patents
each year. That this number has in recent years surpassed two thousand
is owed in large measure to the Bayh-Dole Act. The innovation this law
encouraged has contributed billions of dollars annually to the United
States economy and has produced hundreds of thousands of jobs.
However, one component of the Bayh-Dole Act, when read literally,
runs contrary to the intent of that legislation. In 1999, the United
States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit ruled, in Oddzon
Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., that non-public information may in
certain cases be considered ``prior art''--a standard which generally
prevents an inventor from obtaining a patent. Thus some collaborative
teams that the Bayh-Dole Act was intended to encourage have been unable
to obtain patents for their efforts. The result is a disincentive to
form this type of partnership, which could have a negative impact on
the U.S. economy and hamper the development of new creations.
However, the Federal circuit in its ruling invited Congress to better
conform the language of the Bayh-Dole Act to the intent of the
legislation. The CREATE Act does exactly that by ensuring that
nonpublic information is not considered prior art when the information
is used in a collaborative partnership under the Bayh-Dole Act. The
bill also includes strict evidentiary burdens to ensure that the
legislation is tailored narrowly in order to solely fulfill the intent
of the Bayh-Dole Act.
I am pleased that the PIRATE Act, which I cosponsored with Senator
Hatch, will be included as part of this bipartisan bill. Like the
overall bill, the PIRATE Act is a consensus bill that will give the
Justice Department new and needed tools--in this case, these tools are
specific to the fight against piracy. This bill was unanimously passed
by the Senate on June 25, 2004. By including this measure in the
Department of Justice Authorization Bill, we hope to muster more forces
to combat the growing problem of digital piracy.
For too long, Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit
of pirates, by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal
charges with high burdens of proof. In the world of copyright, a
criminal charge is unusually difficult to prove because the defendant
must have known that his conduct was illegal and he must have willfully
engaged in the conduct anyway. For this reason prosecutors can rarely
justify bringing criminal charges, and copyright owners have been left
alone to fend for themselves, defending their rights only where they
can afford to do so. In a world in which a computer and an Internet
connection are all the tools you need to engage in massive piracy, this
is an intolerable predicament.
The PIRATE Act will give the Attorney General civil enforcement
authority for copyright infringement. It also calls on the Justice
Department to initiate training and pilot programs to ensure that
Federal prosecutors across the country are aware of the many difficult
technical and strategic problems posed by enforcing copyright law in
the digital age.
This new authority does not supplant either the criminal provisions
of the Copyright Act, or the remedies available to the copyright owner
in a private suit. Rather, it allows the Government to bring its
resources to bear on this immense problem and to ensure that more
creative works are made available online, that those works are more
affordable, and that the people who work to bring them to us are paid
for their efforts.
I am pleased that the Koby Mandell Act of 2003 was included in this
legislation. I am a proud cosponsor of the stand-alone bill. The act
would establish an office within the Department of Justice with a
mandate to ensure equal treatment of all victims of terrorist acts
committed overseas. Its primary role would be to guarantee that
vigorous efforts are made to pursue, prosecute, and punish each and
every terrorist who harms Americans overseas, no matter where attacks
occur. It would also take steps to inform victims of important
developments in international cases, such as status reports on efforts
to capture terrorists and monitoring the incarceration of those
terrorists who are imprisoned overseas. This is important legislation
that would send a strong message of resolve that we are committed to
finding and punishing every terrorist who harms Americans overseas.
I am pleased that we have included part of S. 1286, the Seniors
Safety Act, which I introduced last year. This bill would create an
enhanced sentencing penalty for those who commit crimes against the
elderly, create new civil and criminal penalties for pension fraud, and
create a centralized service to log complaints of telemarketing fraud.
We would also provide the Attorney General with a new and substantial
tool to prevent telemarketing fraud--the power to block or terminate
service to telephone facilities that are being used to defraud innocent
people. The Justice Department could use this authority to disrupt
telemarketing fraud schemes directed from foreign sources by cutting
off the swindlers' telephone service. Even if the criminals acquire a
new telephone number, temporary interruptions will prevent some seniors
from being victimized.
We have agreed to incorporate the Federal Prosecutors' Retirement
Benefit Equity Act of 2004, which was originally introduced as a stand-
alone bill with my good friends Senator Hatch, Senator Mikulski and
Senator Durbin. This bill would correct an inequity that exists under
current law, whereby Federal prosecutors receive substantially less
favorable retirement benefits than other nearly all other people
involved in the Federal criminal justice system. The bill would
increase the retirement benefits given to Assistant United States
Attorneys by including them as ``law enforcement officers,'' LEOs,
under the Federal Employees' Retirement System and the Civil Service
Retirement System. The bill would also allow the Attorney General to
designate other attorneys employed by the Department of Justice who act
primarily as criminal prosecutors as LEOs for purposes of receiving
these retirement benefits.
[[Page 17056]]
The primary reason for granting enhanced retirement benefits to LEOs
is the often dangerous work of law enforcement. Currently, Assistant
United States Attorneys, AUSAs, and other Federal prosecutors are not
eligible for these enhanced benefits, which are enjoyed by the vast
majority of other employees in the criminal justice system. This
exclusion is unjustified. The relevant provisions of the United States
Code dealing with retirement benefits define an LEO as an employee
whose duties are, ``primarily the investigation, apprehension, or
detention'' of individuals suspected or convicted of violating Federal
law. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 8331(20) & 8401(17). AUSAs and other
Federal prosecutors participate in planning investigations,
interviewing witnesses both inside and outside of the office setting,
debriefing defendants, obtaining warrants, negotiating plea agreements
and representing the government at trials and sentencings, all of which
fall within the definition of the duties performed by law enforcement
officers. Indeed, once a defendant is brought into the criminal justice
system, the person with whom they have the most face-to-face contact,
and often in an extremely confrontational environment, is the Federal
prosecutor.
Although prosecutors do not personally execute arrests, searches and
other physically dangerous activities, LEO status is accorded to many
criminal justice employees who do not perform such tasks, such as
pretrial services officers and probation officers and accountants,
cooks and secretaries of the Bureau of Prisons. Moreover, because they
are often the most conspicuous representatives of the government in the
criminal justice system, Federal prosecutors are natural targets for
threats of reprisals by vengeful criminals. Indeed, there are numerous
incidents in which assaults and serious death threats have been made
against Federal prosecutors, sometimes resulting in significant
disruption of their personal and family lives.
I am pleased that S. 710, the Leahy-Hatch Anti-Atrocity Alien
Deportation Act, was included in this legislation. This measure would
expand the grounds for removing alien human rights violators from the
United States, or for denying them entry in the first place. We have
heard many accounts of abusers who have taken advantage of America's
freedoms after committing horrifying violations of their fellow
citizens in their native lands. We need to stop that from happening
again.
This bill passed the Judiciary Committee last November but has been
subject to an anonymous hold on the floor. A similar version of it
passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 106th Congress. It is
long past time to make it law.
I would note that on May 12, a Rwandan man wanted on international
charges of genocide and crimes against humanity was arrested at his
suburban Chicago home by agents from the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, ICE. Before I and others began to raise the issue
of the war criminals among us, it was my impression that the former INS
paid little attention to rooting out these thugs. I am pleased that the
issue has taken on greater importance at ICE and urge the Senate to
pass this bill so that we can expand the grounds of inadmissibility and
removability for human rights violators.
I am pleased that the DREAM Act has been included in this bill. I am
a cosponsor of the bill, which Senators Hatch and Durbin introduced
last year and was passed last fall by the Judiciary Committee. It would
benefit undocumented alien children who were brought to the United
States by their parents as young children, by restoring States' ability
to offer them in-State tuition and offering them a path to legal
residency. It has been distressing that a bill with committee approval
and 48 sponsors has been unable to get a vote on the floor of the
Senate, and I hope that including the DREAM Act in this legislation
will give it added momentum.
I am proud that we include Schumer-Specter legislation to honor the
sacrifice of the September 11, 2001 terrorist victims by creating
congressional medals that would be awarded to their families and loved
ones by the President. I am proud to have joined my friends as a
cosponsor of this legislation, as have 18 other Senators.
The tragedy of September 11, 2001 demanded unprecedented sacrifices
of everyday American civilians and rescue workers 3,000 of whom lost
their lives in the attacks. In recognition of their heroic actions on
that day, the bipartisan Fallen Heroes of 9/11 Act would create a medal
to be awarded posthumously to the victims of the September 11 terrorist
attacks. The medal would be designed by the Department of Treasury and
awarded to representatives of the deceased by the President. The
production of the medals would be paid for by the sale of duplicate
medals to the public. Those of us who lost loved ones almost 3 years
ago can never have them back, but a medal of honor could recognizes the
sacrifices and heroic efforts of our fallen citizens.
I am pleased that our Department of Justice authorization bill
includes legislation that Senator Hatch and I introduced together to
reauthorize and expand the Department of Justice grant program for Boys
& Girls Clubs. The original version of this legislation, S. 2363,
currently enjoys 44 cosponsors and passed the Senate by unanimous
consent last month. It was considered and reported out of the House
Judiciary Committee by voice vote earlier this month but still awaits
floor consideration.
Children are the future of our country, and we have a responsibility
to make sure they are safe and secure. I know firsthand how well Boys &
Girls Clubs work and what topnotch organizations they are. When I was a
prosecutor in Vermont, I was convinced of the great need for Boys &
Girls Clubs because we rarely encountered children from these kinds of
programs. In fact, after I became a U.S. Senator, a police chief was
such a big fan that he asked me to help fund a Boys & Girls Club in his
district rather than helping him get a couple more police officers.
In Vermont, Boys & Girls Clubs have succeeded in preventing crime and
supporting our children. The first club was established in Burlington
62 years ago. Now we have 22 club sites operating throughout the State:
seven clubs in Brattleboro, one in Springfield, two clubs in
Burlington, one in Winooski, two clubs in Montpelier, five clubs in
Randolph, one club in Rutland, two clubs in Vergennes and one in
Bristol. There are 10 additional project sites that will be on board
and serving kids by the end of 2005: one in Bennington, two in
Burlington, one in Duxbury, one in St. Johnsbury, one in Hardwick,
three in Randolph and one in Ludlow. These clubs will serve well over
10,000 kids statewide.
As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have
pushed for more Federal funding for Boys & Girls Clubs. Since 1998,
Congress has increased Federal support for Boys & Girls Clubs from $20
million to $80 million in this year. Due in large part to this increase
in funding, there now exist 3,300 Boys & Girls Clubs in all 50 States
serving more than 3.6 million young people. Because of these successes,
I was both surprised and disappointed to see that the President
requested a reduction of $20 million for FY 2005. That request will
leave thousands of children and their Clubs behind and we cannot allow
such a thing to happen.
In the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act, which Senator Hatch and I worked together to pass in
the 107th Congress, we included a provision to reauthorize Justice
Department grants to establish new Boys & Girls Clubs nationwide. By
authorizing $80 million in DOJ grants for each of the fiscal years
through 2005, we sought to establish 1,200 additional Boys & Girls
Clubs nationwide. This was to bring the number of Boys & Girls Clubs to
4,000, serving no less than 5 million young people. The bill we
introduce today will build upon this: We authorize Justice Department
grants at $80 million for fiscal year 2006, $85 million for fiscal year
2007, $90 million for fiscal year 2008, $95 million for fiscal year
2009 and $100 million for fiscal year 2010 to Boys & Girls
[[Page 17057]]
Clubs to help establish 1,500 additional Boys & Girls Clubs across the
Nation with the goal of having 5,000 Boys & Girls Clubs in operation by
December 31, 2010.
If we had a Boys & Girls Club in every community, prosecutors in our
country would have a lot less work to do because of the values that are
being instilled in children from the Boys & Girls Clubs of America.
Each time I visit a club in Vermont, I am approached by parents,
educators, teachers, grandparents and law enforcement officers who tell
me ``Keep doing this! These clubs give our children the chance to grow
up free of drugs, gangs and crime.''
You cannot argue that these are just Democratic or Republican ideas,
or conservative or liberal ideas. They are simply good sense ideas. We
need safe havens where our youth--the future of our country can learn
and grow up free from the influences of drugs, gangs and crime. That is
why Boys & Girls Clubs are so important to our children.
We also incorporated language similar to the Leahy-Grassley-Lincoln
Missing Child Cold Case Review Act of 2004, S. 2435, which will allow
an inspector general to authorize his or her staff to provide
assistance on and conduct reviews of the inactive case files, or ``cold
cases,'' involving children stored at the National Center for Missing &
Exploited Children, NCMEC, and to develop recommendations for further
investigations. The only alteration we made to the original bill was to
include language to also allow the Inspector General of the Government
Printing Office to authorize his or her staff to work on cold cases.
Speed is everything in homicide investigations. As a former
prosecutor in Vermont, I know firsthand that speed is of the essence
when trying to solve a homicide. This focus on speed, however, has led
the law enforcement community to generally believe that any case not
solved within the first 72 hours or lacking significant leads and
witness participation has little likelihood of being solved, regardless
of the expertise and resources deployed. With time, such unsolved cases
become ``cold,'' and these are among the most difficult and frustrating
cases detectives face because they are, in effect, cases that other
investigators, for whatever reason, failed to solve.
Our Nation's law enforcement agencies, regardless of size, are not
immune to rising crime rates, staff shortages and budget restrictions.
Such obstacles have strained the investigative and administrative
resources of all agencies. More crime often means that fewer cases are
vigorously pursued, fewer opportunities arise for followup and
individual caseloads increase for already overworked detectives.
All the obstacles that hamper homicide investigations in their early
phases contribute to cold cases. The National Center for Missing &
Exploited Children our Nation's top resource center for child
protection presently retains a backlog of cold cases involving children
that law enforcement departments nationwide have stopped investigating
primarily due to all these obstacles. NCMEC serves as a clearinghouse
for all cold cases in which a child has not been found and/or the
suspect has not been identified.
This provision will allow an inspector general to provide staff
support to NCMEC for the purpose of conducting reviews of inactive case
files to develop recommendations for further investigation and similar
activities. The inspector general community has one of the most diverse
and talented criminal investigative cadres in the Federal Government. A
vast majority of these special agents have come from traditional law
enforcement agencies, and are highly-trained and extremely capable of
dealing with complex, criminal cases.
Under current law, an inspector general's duties are limited to
activities related to the programs and operations of an agency. This
measure would allow an inspector general to permit criminal
investigators under his or her supervision to review cold case files,
so long as doing so would not interfere with normal duties. An
inspector general would not conduct actual investigations, and any
inspector general would only commit staff when the office's mission-
related workloads permitted. At no time would these activities be
allowed to conflict with or delay the stated missions of an inspector
general.
From time to time a criminal investigator employed by an inspector
general may be between investigations or otherwise available for brief
periods of time. This act would also allow those resources to be
provided to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
Commitment of resources would be at a minimum and would not materially
affect the budget of any office.
We have before us the type of bipartisan legislation that should be
moved easily through the Senate and House. It is supported by the
Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. I applaud the
ongoing work of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
and hope that we can soon provide NCMEC with the resources it requires
to solve cold cases involving missing children.
This authorization bill includes a provision that would help colleges
and universities in Vermont and across the nation. It would allow
foreigners who are pursuing ``distance learning'' opportunities at
American schools to enter the country for up to 30 days to fulfill
academic requirements. Under current law, these students do not fall
under any visa category, and many are being denied entry and are thus
unable to complete their educations. This is a loophole that harms both
those students and the institutions that serve them.
In recent months, serious questions have been raised in the media and
in several congressional hearings about deficiencies within the
translation program at the FBI. Nearly, 2 years ago I began asking
questions in Judiciary Committee hearings about the FBI's translation
program. Most of these remain unanswered. As a result, members of our
committee are no closer to determining the scope of the issue,
including the pervasiveness and seriousness of FBI shortcomings in this
area, or what the FBI intends to do to rectify personnel shortages,
security issues, translation inaccuracies and other problems that have
plagued the translator program for years.
Section 205 of the USA PATRIOT Act included an important reporting
requirement by the Attorney General to the Senate and House Judiciary
Committees about (1) the number of translators employed by the FBI, (2)
legal and practical impediments to using translators employed by other
Federal, State, or local agencies, on a full, part-time, or shared
basis, and (3) the needs of the FBI for specific translation services
in certain languages, and recommendations for meeting those needs. To
date, the Attorney General has not made the report required by Section
205 most likely because there is no date certain written in the law by
which the report must be made. This provision fills that gap by
requiring the report ``not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment and annually thereafter .with respect to the preceding 12
month period.'' It also expands the reporting requirement to include
translators ``contracted'' by the government in addition to those
``employed.''
I have worked my entire professional life to protect children from
those who would prey on them. Preventing child exploitation through the
use of the Internet is one concrete and important way to help this
important cause. In this regard, under the Protection of Children from
Sexual Predators Act of 1998, Public Law No. 105-314, remote computing
and electronic communication service providers are mandated to report
all instances of child pornography to the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children. I respect and applaud the work of NCMEC and its
tireless efforts in this important national priority.
In March 1998, Congress mandated that NCMEC initiate the CyberTipline
for citizens to report online sexual crimes against children. In
December 1999, Congress passed Public Law No. 106-113 to modify 42
U.S.C. Sec. 13032(b)(1) to set forth a ``duty to report'' by ISPs.
[[Page 17058]]
According to NCMEC, many U.S. electronic communications service
providers are not complying with the requirement that they register and
use the CyberTipline to report child porn found on their services
because supporting regulations required to be promulgated by the
Department of Justice on matters such as the contents of the report
were never done so.
In this authorization bill we propose language that amends the ``duty
to report'' language by providing specific guidance on what information
is required to be included in the ISP reports. The information required
includes the content and images of the apparent violation, the Internet
Protocol Address, the date and time associated with the violation, and
specific contact information for the sender.
America's film heritage is an important part of the American
experience, an inheritance from previous generations that helps tell us
who we are and who we were as a society. They offer insight into our
history, our dreams, and our aspirations. Yet sadly, this part of
American heritage is literally disintegrating faster than can be saved.
Today, I am delighted that with the help of Senator Hatch, the National
Film Preservation Act can be included in our Department of Justice
reauthorization bill.
I introduced the National Film Preservation Act last November, a bill
that will reauthorize and extend the National Film Preservation Act of
1996. We first acted in 1988 in order to recognize the educational,
cultural, and historical importance of our film heritage, and its
inherently fragile nature. In doing so, Congress created the National
Film Preservation Board and the National Film Preservation Foundation
both of which operate under the auspices of the Library of Congress in
order to help save America's film heritage.
The National Film Preservation Act will allow the Library of Congress
to continue its important work in preserving America's fading
treasures, as well as providing grants that will help libraries,
museums, and archives preserve films and make those works available for
study and research. These continued efforts are more critical today
than ever before. While a wide range of works have been saved, with
every passing day we lose the opportunity to save more. Fewer than 20
percent of the features of the 1920s exist in complete form and less
than 10 percent of the features of the 1910s have survived into the new
millennium.
The films saved by the National Film Preservation Board are precisely
those types of works that would be unlikely to survive without public
support. At-risk documentaries, silent-era films, avant-garde works,
ethnic films, newsreels, and home movies frequently provide more
insight into the American experience than the Hollywood sound features
kept and preserved by major studios. What is more, in many cases only
one copy of these ``orphaned'' works exists. As the Librarian of
Congress, Dr. James H. Billington, has noted, ``Our film heritage is
America's living past.''
I would like to thank Senator Hatch again for working with me to
include the ``National Film Preservation Act'' in the bill we are
introducing today.
The House-passed bill included an important reporting requirement
authored by Rep. Adam Schiff and adopted by the House Judiciary
Committee. Specifically, this provision required the Department of
Justice to submit an annual report to Congress specifying the number of
U.S. persons or residents detained on suspicion of terrorism, and
describing Department standards for recommending or determining that a
person should be tried as a criminal defendant or designated as an
enemy combatant. A Washington Post editorial dated April 3, 2004,
praised this provision, while noting that ``If more members of the
House took their duty to legislate in this critical area seriously,
Congress would craft a bill that actually imposed standards rather than
simply inquired what they were.'' I agree, and regret that was unable
to persuade Chairman Hatch to retain this modest oversight tool.
I am disappointed that we will not be including the privacy officer
provision referred to us by the House. It is critical that the
Department have a designated leader who is consistently mindful of the
impact of the Department's activities on privacy rights. While there
has been some history of a privacy official at the Department, these
positions have been nonstatutory, and thus there has been no guarantee
of consistent vigor and accountability on these issues. Given that the
Department's mission increasingly involves gathering and assessing
personal information, we simply can't afford to have a lapse in
accountability on privacy. Moreover, this is not an untested idea.
Congress created a privacy officer for the Department of Homeland
Security, and it has been recognized as a successful example of how
this role can be helpful in assessing and addressing privacy concerns.
We need to follow this lead, and the privacy officer provision would
have been a good opportunity to do so.
I look forward to working with Senator Hatch, Congressman
Sensenbrenner and Congressman Conyers to continue the important
business of reauthorizing the Department of Justice. Clearly, regular
reauthorization of the Department should be part and parcel of the
committees' traditional role in overseeing the Department's activities.
Swift passage into law of the Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007 will be a significant
step toward enhancing our oversight role.
____________________
DREAM ACT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to speak
about the DREAM Act, an immigration reform bill that the Senate should
act on as soon as possible.
Immigration reform is an urgent priority for our nation. There are
some who want to ignore this issue, especially because it is an
election year. Immigration reform is too important to set aside for
political reasons.
Our immigration system is broken. It harms our national security and
our economy. It also treats hard-working immigrants, especially
immigrant children, unfairly.
In recent months, there has been a lot of discussion about President
Bush's immigration proposal. I have some serious concerns about the
substance of the proposal, but the President did a good thing by coming
forward with it. He reopened the national debate about immigration.
Since the President made his proposal in January, nothing has
happened. The proposal has not even been introduced as a bill. Clearly,
Congress will not act on it this year.
But we cannot wait to act on immigration reform. The problem is too
urgent. Congress should back up the President's words with action. We
should pass the DREAM Act this year.
The DREAM Act is the only immigration reform proposal reported to the
Senate floor in the 108th Congress. It is a narrowly-tailored,
bipartisan bill that would provide immigration relief to a select group
of students who are long term U.S. residents, have good moral character
and are pursuing a college education or have enlisted in the military.
I introduced the DREAM Act with the senior Senator from Utah, Orrin
Hatch, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. We are an
unlikely political couple, and it speaks volumes about the urgent need
for immigration reform that we have come together in support of the
DREAM Act.
The DREAM Act has broad public support. According to a recent poll of
likely voters, 59 percent support the bill, while only 25 percent
oppose it.
The DREAM Act has 48 cosponsors and was reported favorably by the
Judiciary Committee on an overwhelming 16-3 vote. If brought to a vote,
there is every reason to believe it would pass by a wide margin.
The DREAM Act was reported to the floor last October, over eight
months ago. The Senate's leadership should bring the DREAM Act to a
vote as soon as possible.
Why is the DREAM Act so important? Because of the extraordinary
[[Page 17059]]
young people it would help. Let me tell you about two of them, whom I
have had the pleasure of meeting.
Diana was born in Mexico, but raised in Chicago, in my State of
Illinois. Her parents brought her to this country at the age of 6. Her
father works construction for $25,000 per year; her mother is a manager
in a fast food restaurant who earns $15,000 per year.
Last year, Diana graduated from high school in the top 5 percent of
her class with a GPA of 4.4 on a 4.0 scale. She is studying to be an
architect and she has won first place in a number of architecture
contests. Diana is very active in her church and last year she won the
national New Leadership Award from the U.S. Catholic Conference of
Bishops.
Diana was accepted to Northwestern University, a prestigious
institution, but due to her immigration status, was unable to attend.
Last fall, Diana became the first member of her family to attend
college when she enrolled in the architecture school at an Illinois
state college.
Tereza was also raised in Illinois; her Korean parents brought her to
the U.S. when she was two. Her mother, the family's sole breadwinner,
earns $20,000 per year working 12-hour days at a dry-cleaner.
Tereza began playing piano when she was eight. She became a musical
prodigy, winning the Chicago Symphony Orchestra Youth Auditions, which
enabled her to perform with the Orchestra.
I first learned about Tereza when her family called to ask for my
help. Tereza first discovered that she was undocumented when she was
preparing to apply to colleges. The top music schools in the country
had recruited Tereza, but when they learned about her immigration
status, most would not permit her to apply. I called the INS to ask for
their help and they told me that Tereza should go back to Korea.
Tereza now attends one of the top music schools in the country.
One of her music teachers told me:
I worry that our country, the richest and most blessed in
the world, will not permit this very large talent to be
developed. We are not such a rich land that we can afford to
throw away the talents of our residents.
Due to support from their communities, Diana and Tereza are among the
lucky ones who have been able to attend college. However, their futures
are uncertain--they could be deported at any time.
Diana and Tereza are not alone--thousands of other young people are
prevented from pursuing their dreams by our immigration laws.
They are honor-roll students, star athletes, talented artists,
homecoming queens, and aspiring teachers and doctors. Their parents
brought them to the United States when they were young children. They
have lived in this country for most of their lives. It is the only home
they know. They have followed the rules and worked hard in school.
Unfortunately, they are undocumented, so their options are greatly
limited and they could be deported at any time.
The DREAM Act would help these students. It would permit them to
become permanent residents if they are long-term U.S. residents, have
good moral character, and attend college or enlist in the military for
at least 2 years.
The DREAM Act is not an amnesty. It is narrowly tailored to assist
only a select group of young people who earn legal status. It is unfair
to punish these students for the mistakes of their parents.
The DREAM Act would also repeal a provision of federal law that
prevents states from granting in-state tuition rates to undocumented
students. It would not create any new tuition breaks. It would not
force states to offer in-state tuition to anyone. It would simply
return to states the authority to determine their own tuition policies.
This is not just the right thing to do, it is good for America. The
DREAM Act would allow students with great potential and ambitions to
contribute more fully to our society.
Diana and Tereza are just like millions of immigrants who have come
to this country over the course of our history.
I am the proud son of an immigrant. Over 90 years ago my grandmother
carried my mother, then a 2-year-old infant, down a gangplank and off
the ship that brought them here from Lithuania.
As this poor family made its way through the streets, I am sure
someone commented, ``Not more of these people.'' This resistance to new
Americans has always been with us.
We need to view immigrants for whom they really are: men and women
with the courage to leave behind everything they knew to build a new
and better life for themselves and their children.
Immigrants have made us the greatest country in the world. The best
and brightest have come here from all over the world, creating a rich
diversity that continually renews and drives our society to new
heights.
As we mourn the passing of President Ronald Reagan, all Americans
should recall his vision of our Nation as a shining city upon a hill.
Here is what President Reagan said about the shining city and
immigration:
If there have to be city walls, the walls have doors and
the doors are open to anyone with the will and the heart to
get here. . . . The city is a beacon a magnet for all who
must have freedom, for all pilgrims from all the lost places
who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.
Like me, President Reagan was the son of an immigrant. We had very
different political philosophies, but President Reagan understood the
importance of immigrants to our great country.
I recently received a letter, in support of the DREAM Act, from a
group of Americans who lost loved ones in the September 11 terrorist
attacks. They wrote:
We will all be safer if we unite against the terrorists and
if our immigration system can be made more rational and
reflective of our values as a nation.
These brave Americans, who have suffered so much, understand that, as
we fight the war on terrorism, we must stand by the ideals that made
our country great. We shouldn't deport extraordinary young people like
Diana and Tereza. They make America a stronger country. We should
extend a welcoming hand to them by passing the DREAM Act this year.
These young people cannot wait any longer--many of them will have
been deported by the time the next session of Congress begins.
For example, four honor-roll students from Wilson High School in
Arizona are currently in deportation proceedings. They have lived in
the United States since they were toddlers. Under current law they have
no options, but the immigration judge who is considering their case
granted a continuance to give Congress time to pass the DREAM Act.
The Senate should vote on the DREAM Act. I ask the Senate's
leadership to schedule a vote on this important bill as soon as
possible.
____________________
RURAL COMMUNITY ARSENIC RELIEF ACT
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to address an issue that is just now
emerging in rural America, but one that is important and has the
potential to devastate, economically, small cities and towns across the
inter-mountain West--like in my State, of Idaho.
The new Environmental Protection Agency drinking water standard of 10
parts per billion for arsenic is something the current Administration
inherited from the prior Administration and is now trying to implement.
I would remind my colleagues, however, that the new lowered arsenic
standard was not universally supported in Congress when it was
proposed.
There were Senators--not many, but I was certainly one of them--that
knew that the cost of complying with the new arsenic standard was going
to cripple economically--was going to break the back financially--of
rural communities and small towns across the western United States.
I fought this new standard on the floor of the Senate. I knew the
costs were crippling and the health benefit
[[Page 17060]]
was bogus. I also knew that the science to support the lower standard
is being exposed as based on examples and sample populations that were
very, very flawed. The science is now revealing that extrapolating from
those sample communities to the whole of the United States was a very,
very flawed basis for the drinking water standard.
I fought this new standard, but I did not succeed.
There are communities now in Idaho that will not be able to come into
compliance with this new standard by the time it takes effect. Some of
these Idaho communities have estimated that it would take double or
triple their entire city budget, just to try to come into compliance--
and that would mean that no other city services could be paid for.
That kind of situation is clearly ridiculous, and I will fight as
long and as hard as I can to find solutions to this problem.
For example, this past March I discussed this issue with EPA
Administrator Mike Leavitt. Mike Leavitt is a Westerner--his folks in
Utah are having some of the same problems.
I discussed that with him and I think he will try to be reasonable. I
will keep discussing it with him. The problem is that EPA bureaucrats--
who are so good at being bureaucrats--think they know Idaho better than
Idahoans do. Some of our Idaho communities have requested of EPA Region
10 that EPA exercise some flexibility with this standard. This is
flexibility that EPA has already incorporated into its final agency
rule on the arsenic standard.
Unfortunately, EPA bureaucrats are doing what they are good at. They
are saying no to flexibility and hey, by the way, Castleford, Idaho or
New Plymouth, Idaho--this won't disadvantage you economically as much
as you say. That is what EPA says to the communities of Idaho. We know
better than you.
Seeing that EPA cannot be reasonable, I have worked with my
colleagues Senator Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Domenici of New
Mexico. Both of their States have similar problems. The product of our
collaboration is the bill we are introducing today.
With this bill, we are trying to force States--and in Idaho's case,
the EPA since Idaho is what they call a ``non-primacy state''--to
approve requests from communities to delay their compliance with the
new arsenic standard.
The bill is straightforward, it is vital, and it is needed. It will
save some of these communities from bankruptcy or from discontinuing
essential community services. Many other states--other than Idaho,
Nebraska, and New Mexico--face this same crisis. I implore my
colleagues to learn about what their small communities are facing, and
to join with us in enacting this essential regulatory relief.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
HONORING KATIE PENN AND HILLARY RAINEY
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I pay tribute and congratulate
Katie Penn and Hillary Rainey both of Winchester, KY, on being selected
to participate in the America's Promise Ambassadors Network. They will
be representing their community and Kentucky as young leaders and
problem-solvers.
America's Promise was founded in 1997 to make children and youth a
national priority. Their mission is to mobilize people from every
sector of American life to build the character and competence of youth
by fulfilling the following promises: providing caring adults, safe
places with structured activities after school, a healthy start,
marketable skills through education, and opportunities to serve.
As ambassadors for the America's Promise program, Katie and Hillary
will organize a project for National Youth Service Day in April 2005 in
their community. In addition, they will dedicate 2 to 3 hours every
month volunteering in their community, and will have the opportunity to
earn the President's Volunteer Service Award for their activities. They
will also be participating in monthly training sessions to build their
leadership skills.
Young people are part of the solution to problems we face in this
country, and we need to utilize their assets. I join my fellow
Kentuckians to congratulate Katie Penn and Hillary Rainey being named
ambassadors for this program and thank them for their dedication to
community service.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MINNESOTA RADIO STATION, KTCZ-FM
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an
outstanding Minnesota radio station, KTCZ-FM, which recently won a
National Association of Broadcasters Crystal Radio Award. The Award
honors KTCZ-FM for its continuous commitments and exceptional
dedication to community service throughout its listening region.
KTCZ-FM, which is known locally as ``Cities 97,'' deserves this honor
for its many charitable contributions. Last year, the station donated
over $2.7 million in airtime, which enabled nonprofit service
organizations to raise almost $5 million for their important work. The
station also aired over $1 million worth of public service
announcements and provided almost 80 hours of public affairs
broadcasts.
Their tremendous community support previously earned KTCZ-FM the Camp
Heartland Heart of Hope Award, the Make-A-Wish Recognition Award, the
University Pediatrics Foundation Corporate Friend Award, and a
Proclamation by the Governor of Minnesota.
KTCZ-FM's employees share the station's dedication to helping others.
Last year, they donated over 2,500 hours of their own time to help
worthy causes.
On behalf of the thousands of Minnesotans who have been helped by
Cities 97's generosity, I thank the station, its management, and its
employees for their extraordinary contributions. I congratulate them
for winning a 2004 Crystal Radio Award. I trust that their giving back
to their community will continue to lead the way for many more
years.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JUDITH LICHTMAN
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Judith L.
Lichtman, who stepped down recently after serving for 30 years as
president of the National Partnership for Women and Families.
I have been privileged to work with Judy Lichtman for the past
quarter century on numerous issues of importance to American women and
families. Judy took the lead in efforts to combat gender-based
discrimination in the workplace, to protect a woman's right to choose,
to provide each and every American with affordable health care, and to
in so many other ways help working families across our Nation.
Judy began her career at the National Partnership for Women and
Families in 1974, when it was known as the Women's Legal Defense Fund.
At the time, she was its executive director and only paid staff member.
Under her leadership, the National Partnership has become an
organization that has been at the forefront of many major legislative
initiatives concerning women and families for the past three decades.
Judy was particularly instrumental in the successful effort to pass
the Family and Medical Leave Act, legislation I was privileged to
author in the Senate. Judy recognized decades ago that each and every
day, men and especially women in America are forced to make difficult
choices between advancing their careers and caring for their families.
The FMLA hasn't eliminated these difficult choices entirely. But by
providing working men and women with up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave
to care for a sick loved one or a newborn child, it has been an
enormous help to women and men as they strive to balance the competing
demands of work and family.
In this legislative body, and around our country, we often hear
rhetoric about ``family values.'' Judy understands that if ``family
values'' as a term means anything, it must be accompanied by policies
that actually value families by providing them with access to
affordable health care, by helping parents care for their children, by
giving working mothers opportunities for equal jobs with equal pay, and
[[Page 17061]]
by fighting practices that discriminate against parents in the
workplace.
Judy understands that the American family's priorities are America's
priorities. The family is the fundamental building block of our
society. And when we make the American family stronger, we make America
stronger.
Judy has won praise from wide circles for her tireless efforts.
President Clinton called her ``a remarkable national treasure,'' and I
echo those words today. The occasion of Judy's retirement is indeed a
bittersweet one. But I have no doubt that she will continue to lend her
expertise and passion to the National Partnership as she continues on
in the role of senior advisor.
I don't know anyone who is a more passionate, tenacious, and
intelligent advocate for women and families than Judy Lichtman. She is
a model for generations to come, and I have truly enjoyed the time I
have spent working together with her over the years.
I thank Judy for her many, many years of dedicated work, and I wish
her luck as she moves on to this new stage in her life and her
career.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF FERN HOLLAND
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of the
memory of a special woman, Fern Holland, who left the comfort of her
work as a lawyer in private practice to serve the poor, the oppressed,
and the marginalized. She volunteered for the Peace Corps in Namibia,
Africa, and worked with the American Refugee Committee to set up legal
clinics in Guinea. Finally, she worked for the U.S. Agency for
International Development and the Coalition Provisional Authority as a
human rights lawyer organizing women's groups and human rights groups
in south central Iraq. Fern is someone who deserves to be remembered
both for what she did in life and what she gave in life in service to
our country.
On March 9, 2004, she was brutally gunned down south of Baghdad, near
the city of Hilla. Her friend and colleague, Salwa Oumashi, was also
killed. Fern worked tirelessly to set up women's centers in south
central Iraq. She was working for our Government to provide safe places
for Iraqi women to discuss and pursue active roles in their
communities. During her time in Iraq, she wanted to give women in
places like Hilla and Karbala a voice because she feared they might be
forgotten otherwise.
Iraqi women are struggling every day to participate in the rebuilding
of their country, but they confront many obstacles, not least of which
include the daily challenges to their own personal security. Today, the
centers Fern helped to establish are playing a crucial role in the
women's movement in Iraq. Fern knew the danger that she faced, but she
wanted to volunteer her services to further democracy and freedom and
to help Iraqi women come out from behind the walls of oppression in
order to take their rightful place in a new Iraq.
Fern was in constant e-mail contact with many of us on Capitol Hill.
She wrote about the dreams of the Iraqi women she met and what needed
to be done to make those dreams come true. Of Fern her Iraqi colleagues
wrote: ``Fern lost her life, but won our love and this is unique in
life. We must follow Fern in the same way and show to the murderers
that we will walk on in her spirit.''
Fern Holland held two core beliefs: that all people deserve basic
human rights, and that one person really can make a difference in the
lives of others--and she did.
____________________
RECOGNIZING GREGORY B. ANDREWS
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize Mr.
Gregory B. Andrews for his community service and leadership. Gregory
recently graduated cum laude from Longwood University with a business
administration degree, concentrating in marketing.
During his time at Longwood University, Gregory actively volunteered
to serve the student body. He was president of the Independent
Innovation Marketers Association and served on the student advisory
board.
Following graduation, Gregory was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in
the U.S. Army. He is currently serving on active duty at Fort Lee, VA
in the Quartermaster School, where he is enrolled in the officer basic
course. With the completion of this course, he will join the 3rd
Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, GA.
Gregory B. Andrews has proven himself a true leader. I thank him for
his dedicated service to our country and wish him well in his future
service.
____________________
REMEMBERING ZANE SHOWKER
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today I would like to reflect on the
wonderful life of a fine Virginian and American, Mr. Zane Durwood
Showker, who passed away on June 23, 2004 in Rockingham County.
Born on January 30, 1926, in Craigsville, VA, Zane Showker truly made
the most of his time here on Earth. Throughout his life, he was an
outstanding businessman, perhaps best exemplified by his founding the
successful Harrisonburg Fruit and Produce, which would later become
Sysco Food Services of Virginia. His entrepreneurial skills were only
outshone by his philanthropic skills as Mr. Showker kindly used his
great success in business to give back to his community through his
various charitable projects.
More than anything, Zane Showker was an exceptionally kind and
generous gentleman who cared greatly for the Shenandoah Valley. As
Governor, I was proud to appoint Zane to the JMU Board of Visitors,
where he served with distinction. His work at JMU and throughout the
Valley had a truly positive effect on the lives of countless
Virginians. Like so many others, I will always have fond memories of
his warm personality and hospitality at his wonderful home, Breezy
Hill.
Today, my thoughts and prayers go out to the Showker family during
this difficult time.
____________________
RECOGNIZING RAYMON THACKER
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize Mr.
Raymon Thacker for his community service and leadership. Mr. Thacker is
in his 70th consecutive year of service as a member of the Scottsville
Volunteer Fire Department. Mr. Thacker is a founding member of the
Department, and has selflessly given much of his time and hard work to
see to it that the Department continues to run smoothly and
effectively.
The Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department serves about 15,000
residents within southern Albemarle, Fluvanna, Buckingham, and Nelson
Counties. Mr. Thacker has worked tirelessly to make sure everyone in
the area remains safe and secure.
The Scottsville region surely appreciates the talents and efforts
that Mr. Raymon Thacker has displayed as a member of the Scottsville
Volunteer Fire Department. I congratulate him on his community service
and wish him well in the future.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MR. JOHN HICKS
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr.
John Hicks, a veteran administrator of the University of Alabama System
who, after a quarter-century of service, will retire on August 31,
2004. John has made tremendous contributions to the institution through
his dedication to educational excellence, and I am pleased to
congratulate him today.
John has served as a member of the University of Alabama management
team since 1979, most recently as executive assistant to the chancellor
and secretary of the board of trustees of the University of Alabama.
Recognized nationally for his accomplishments in higher education
administration, John has made countless contributions to the
university.
John has been an integral part of the university's efforts to recruit
senior leadership, resulting in the selection of 10 campus presidents
and four chancellors. Additionally, John's responsibilities at the
university include oversight of the activities and meetings of the
board of trustees as well as
[[Page 17062]]
leadership in strategic planning and crisis management issues.
As ambassador of the University of Alabama system in the U.S. and
abroad, John has represented the Board and its entities in activities
of the Association of Governing Boards of American Colleges and
Universities, the American Council on Education, the College and
University Personnel Association, the Japan-America Society of Alabama,
and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant
Colleges. In addition to his responsibilities with the university
system, John still finds time to actively participate in the community
by serving on the Alabama Shakespeare Festival Theatre Authority and
boards of the Alabama School of Math and Science, the Kentuck Festival,
and A Women's Place, a shelter for women and children in Tuscaloosa,
AL. He is a member of the 2004 class of Leadership Alabama and Christ
Episcopal Church.
John received a Bachelor of Science degree in industrial economics/
administration and finance from Purdue University and a Master of Arts
from the Eastern Michigan University. John and his wife Kirsten Boyd
Hicks are the parents of three grown children and have two
grandchildren.
John has served the University of Alabama community with dedication
and a sincere commitment to make the university a better place. The
university will, indeed, miss him, but I am certain he will maintain
his presence and leadership within the Tuscaloosa community. Today, I
want to congratulate John on the occasion of his retirement and wish
him and his family the very best.
____________________
JESSICA LONG
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in a few weeks we are going to be
cheering on our champion athletes at the Olympics in Athens, Greece. I
rise today to tell America the unique and inspiring story of a 12-year-
old Marylander and record-breaking swimmer named Jessica Long.
Jessica was born in Russia and adopted with her brother Joshua as an
infant. Though Jessica has faced health difficulties and worn
prosthetic legs since she was a little girl, she has always been on the
move. She began swimming seriously several years ago, pushing off the
wall of the pool with her knees, and using her upper body for the
majority of her swimming strength. She has since set 11 National and 2
Pan American records for disabled swimmers. Jessica is now going to
compete in the 50-, 100-, and 400-meter freestyle events at the
Paralympics Games in Athens.
Jessica also finds time to just have fun and be a kid. She has been a
cheerleader, plays with Barbies and music boxes, and has dreams of
being a model or designer. I am confident that Jessica will accomplish
her goals, whatever they may be.
Jessica Long is a testament to triumph over adversity. She is strong
in both body and spirit. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting her
spirit and wishing her the best of luck at the Athens
Paralympics.
____________________
COMMEMORATING VALMONT IRRIGATION'S 50TH ANNIVERSARY
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I am pleased and proud
to congratulate a leading Nebraska company that this year is
celebrating its 50th anniversary as the world's preeminent mechanized
irrigation manufacturer. Valmont Industries' development of the center
pivot technology has revolutionized agricultural production, not just
in the United States, but around the world. At the same time, this
technology uses far less water than other traditional means of
irrigation such as flood and drip, and preserves water quality by
reducing nonpoint source pollution because it lessens the use of
pesticides and fertilizers. Valmont's products allow us to grow
significantly more crops and produce greater crop revenue, all while
protecting our vital natural resources.
I am sure my colleagues are familiar with the center pivot. When you
fly across the country and see huge circles in the middle of farmland,
those are created by the center pivots manufactured in my home town of
McCook and Valley, where they were first developed. In fact, the brand
name is popularly known as Valley pivots.
You can also see Valley center pivots and linear and corner machines
at work in over 100 countries. All told, the company maintains
irrigation manufacturing and distribution facilities in five states and
six countries on six continents.
I worked with Valmont officials during my tenure as Governor, and I
continue to work with Mogens Bay, chairman and chief executive officer
for Valmont; Bob Meaney, senior vice president; and Tom Spears,
president of the Irrigation Division; as well as the company's
Washington representatives at Bob Lawrence & Associates. In addition, I
am also quite familiar with other Valmont products, since it is also
the world's foremost manufacturer of engineered poles for electrical
transmission, lighting, traffic signs and signals, and wireless
communications.
Today, a half century after Bob Daugherty improved and marketed the
first center pivot, Valmont has produced an estimated 145,000 center
pivots, linear, and corner machines, which successfully irrigate more
than 14 million crop acres, and can effectively promote the growth of
virtually any crop.
I congratulate Valmont and its dedicated workers for their half
century of innovation and initiative as well as for their success in
helping to feed the world while protecting our environment. These are
truly remarkable legacies.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THOMAS H. WARDLEIGH
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I pay tribute to Mr. Thomas H.
Wardleigh, Alaskan aviation legend, who left us for new horizons on
July 7, 2004, following a long battle with cancer.
A World War II Navy veteran, Tom moved to Alaska in 1951 and
continued his aviation career as a mechanic with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, keeping its fleet of Grumman aircraft in operation
for decades. He completed his federal service at the Federal Aviation
Administration. He then devoted the rest of his life to promoting
safety enhancements for Alaskan aviation. In 1984 he became chairman of
the Alaskan Aviation Safety Foundation and produced more than 1,000
weekly episodes of a TV show called ``Hangar Flying'' which was
broadcast all over Alaska. Because of the value of the instruction, the
national organization, Aircraft Owner and Pilots Association, recently
gave a grant to the University of Alaska Archives to transfer all of
the programs to DVD so that future aviators will be able to learn from
his timeless wisdom.
Tom Wardleigh logged over 33,000 flight hours in numerous types of
aircraft. He was in great demand as an advanced flight instructor, and
was one of the few multiengine sea plane instructors. Many, many
Alaskan pilots were Tom's students over the years.
Although he was a tenacious fighter, Wardleigh was soft spoken,
friendly, and always a gentleman, perhaps some reasons he was such a
successful advocate for aviation safety enhancement, whether in
education or technology. He was most recently instrumental in the
development of the FAA Capstone Project which has been credited as a
significant factor in lowering the accident rate in rural Alaska. While
his work was primarily in Alaska, Tom participated in forums and
projects all over the United States as well as in other countries whose
aviation leaders often came to Alaska to personally seek Tom's advice
on developing their safety programs.
The list of commendations Tom had received over the years is long,
and includes AOPA's Laurence P. Sharples' national award in 1994 for
his lifetime of service. Last year, FAA Administrator Marion Blakey
personally recognized Tom with one of the agency's most significant
honors in U.S. civil aviation, the Distinguished Service Award--this in
addition to having previously bestowed on him the Charles Taylor Master
Mechanic and the Wright Brothers' Master Pilot Awards.
[[Page 17063]]
While Tom Wardleigh may have taken his last flight, pilots and
passengers alike will fondly remember this special aviator as they turn
onto Wardleigh Drive at the Anchorage Ted Stevens International
Airport.
____________________
NEW JERSEY STATE SOCIETY BIDS FAREWELL TO JOHN AND HELEN PANNULLO
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to take this
opportunity to acknowledge the outstanding contributions of John and
Helen Pannullo in strengthening the New Jersey State Society. This
valuable organization has played a major role in the professional and
social lives of so many present and former New Jersey residents who
live and work in the National Capital area. Unfortunately, their
colleagues and many friends must bid them a fond farewell as they
finally retire and move from this area.
John is a former association executive who has represented a number
of associations in New Jersey and Washington, DC. Helen is retiring
after 31 years of Federal Government service during which she held a
variety of management positions in the information technology field and
served on the board of Executive Women in Government.
In 1997 John assumed the Presidency of the New Jersey State Society,
and Helen became its secretary. Under their expert leadership, the NJSS
had a period of unprecedented growth and activity. They created an
annual membership directory and quarterly newsletter. They also
initiated the participation of the NJSS in 10 to 12 high-profile events
each year, including New Jersey Day at the National Cathedral, the
Battle of the Beltway to raise funds for the Cystic Fibrosis
Foundation, and the National Book Fest on the Mall. One of the
highlights of this period was the 2001 New Jersey inaugural gala
attended by more than one thousand NJSS members and their guests.
During their tenure the income of the society has increased ten fold,
and the membership has gone from fewer than 100 to nearly 900.
I am sincerely grateful for John and Helen's dedication to the New
Jersey State Society and their noteworthy accomplishments on behalf of
the citizens, businesses, labor organizations and educational
institutions in our State. While we will miss them, I wish them every
success and much happiness in this new chapter of their very successful
and productive lives.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE TOWN OF CHATOM, ALABAMA
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to
recognize the town of Chatom in my home state of Alabama. On October 4,
2004, the Town of Chatom will celebrate its 100th birthday. Named the
county seat of Washington County in 1907, the town later became the
home of the county's first high school. Washington County Hospital and
Nursing Home, where an uncle of mine was ably cared for, was founded
there in 1952. In 1956, Chatom citizens founded the beautiful
Washington County Public Library. Chatom became a regional leader in
aviation when Roy Wilcox Airport was established there in 1963. In
1995, the town extended its appeal to additional tourists and golf
enthusiasts by opening an eighteen hole golf course. Reflecting the
hospitable environment of the town, residents established the Chatom
Community Center in 2000. Lake Ellis opened that same year, providing
increased avenues for fellowship and leisure to both residents and
visitors. Currently, the Town of Chatom encompasses a population of
1,205.
I firmly believe that it is out of the small towns and rural
communities of America that there arises the rich values that shape our
State and Nation. People know and care for one another. They go to
church. They encourage the children of the community. They stand up for
truth, justice and common sense. That is the way they were raised and
that raising forms the basis for a fierce sense of independence, a
respect for the ownership of property, and a love of democracy, where
people from the heart of America rule. They love and respect America,
they understand the exceptional character of our country, obey her
laws, and send their sons and daughters to defend her just national
interests. Without the people of Chatom and millions like them, we
would cease to bear the stamp, ``American''.
Chatom has been a commercial and educational center for southwest
Alabama for many years. In fact, I recently found a diploma of another
uncle, Harry A. Powe, Jr., who came down from Black Creek outside Silas
to graduate from Chatom High School in the 1920s.
The rich history and character of Chatom are proof of the leadership
potential of Americans intent upon the pursuit of the American dream
and the promotion of American ideals. Since its founding on October 4,
1904, the Town of Chatom has been a leader of Washington County, due
not only to its expanding educational and economical opportunities but
also to the hard work and good hearts of its people. As Chatom prepares
to celebrate its centennial, we should pause to look forward to the
future achievements of its citizens. I congratulate and commend Chatom
for its accomplishments and continued growth. I thank the residents of
Chatom for their examples of American ideals and southern
hospitality.
____________________
HONORING THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF JEREMY TODD BOWLING
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I pay tribute and congratulate
Jeremy Todd Bowling of Manchester, KY on being awarded the Kentucky
Farm Bureau Insurance Agents Association Scholarship from the Kentucky
Farm Bureau Education Foundation. This academic scholarship will
provide Jeremy with $2,000 toward his education.
Jeremy has proven to be a very able and competent student by winning
this prestigious award. He will represent the graduates of Clay County
High School very well when he enrolls at the University of Kentucky in
the autumn. There he plans to study biology.
The citizens of Clay County should be proud to have a young man like
Jeremy Todd Bowling in their community. His example of dedication and
hard work should be an inspiration to the entire Commonwealth.
He has my most sincere admiration for this work and I look forward to
his continued service to Kentucky.
____________________
COLONEL ROBERT MORGAN
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I would like to reflect for a moment
and explain why we should take a moment to honor Colonel Robert Morgan,
a man of distinguished valor. Not only was he part of our Greatest
Generation, he was a true hero, aptly defined as one who inspires
through manners and actions, who leads through personal example and
accomplishments requiring bravery, skill, and determination. As
commander of the famed ``Memphis Belle'' during World War II, and at a
time when German anti-aircraft fire brought down 8 in 10 bombers,
Colonel Morgan repeatedly risked everything for his country. In this
extremely dangerous environment he piloted the first heavy bomber to
complete 25 combat missions in the European Theater, an unprecedented
achievement and the magic number to be sent home.
Colonel Morgan's exceptional courage did not end in the European
Theater. He continued his valiant service to his country in the Pacific
Theater and again made history when his B-29 named ``Dauntless Dotty''
was chosen to lead the first B-29 raid on Tokyo. A native of Asheville,
NC, Colonel Morgan represented the American Spirit--courage in the face
of seemingly insurmountable odds.
____________________
HONORING THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF JESSE DUKE WELTE
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I pay tribute and congratulate
Jesse Duke Welte of Maysville, KY on being awarded the Kentucky Farm
Bureau Mutual Insurance Company Scholarship from the Kentucky Farm
Bureau Education
[[Page 17064]]
Foundation. This academic scholarship will provide Jesse with $2,000
toward his education.
Jesse has proven to be a very able and competent student by winning
this prestigious award. He will represent the graduates of Maysville
St. Patrick High School very well when he enrolls at the University of
Louisville in the autumn. There he plans to study political science.
The citizens of Maysville should be proud to have a young man like
Jesse Duke Welte in their community. His example of dedication and hard
work should be an inspiration to the entire Commonwealth.
He has my most sincere admiration for this work and I look forward to
his continued service to Kentucky.
____________________
HONORING THE RETIREMENT OF PAUL STABILE
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I publicly congratulate Paul
Stabile on a very successful career helping individuals with
disabilities obtain jobs. He is retiring from the Black Hills Workshop
on September 13, 2004.
Over the years, Paul has been extraordinarily committed to exploring
new roles for people with disabilities in the workforce throughout the
United States. Paul began his career with the Black Hills Workshop in
1973 when philosophies about the people with disabilities were making
dramatic changes. The de-institutionalization of people with
disabilities in South Dakota was reflective of what was happening all
over the United States. Paul's friends recall that Paul welcomed dozens
of men and women to Black Hills Workshop and the Rapid City community
who had spent their entire lives living in an institution in Redfield.
Paul offered them support in living, working and assuming a quality of
life that people with disabilities had never before known.
In 1996, a separate corporation, Black Hills Services, was formed to
provide services to the Department of Defense and employment
opportunities at Ellsworth Air Force Base. Paul was selected to lead
the new corporation.
Paul's association with the U.S. Air Force has provided thousands of
job opportunities to people with disabilities and provided the Air
Force with much-needed support. Paul's partnership with the Air Force
has been a shining example to Human Service Agencies around the country
for people with disabilities.
During Paul's tenure, Black Hills Services, and the people with
disabilities that it serves, has been recognized with some of the
highest honors that can be bestowed by the Air Force. These awards
include Best Large Commissary in the United States, Best Large
Merchandise Department-Commissary, R.T. Riney Award, Best Food Services
and the prestigious Hennessy Award for Best Air Force Dining Facility
Worldwide.
Paul also served on the Rapid City Mayor's Committee on Employment of
People with Disabilities. Paul's leadership has gone beyond South
Dakota. From 1996 to 2003, Paul was a member of the NISH Board of
Directors where he served as treasurer and secretary. NISH is the
nonprofit organization that assists work centers in obtaining and
maintaining contracts with the Federal Government. In March 2004, in
recognition of Paul's years of service on behalf of NISH, the Javits-
Wagner-O'Day, JWOD, Program and people with disabilities, the NISH
Board of Directors granted him the status of emeritus Board member.
Paul was recently honored with the prestigious Milton ``Milt'' Cohen
Leadership Award, which recognizes an individual from a Community
Rehabilitation Program, CRP, working within the JWOD Program. The
honoree must have demonstrated national leadership qualities leading to
enhanced employment opportunities for people with severe disabilities.
Milton Cohen was a respected national leader in the field of vocational
rehabilitation.
I've appreciated Paul's insight, advice and counsel on issues of
importance to people with disabilities in South Dakota. His undying
commitment and dedication have helped open countless doors of
opportunities to people with disabilities. Paul's efforts have helped
tear down barriers--barriers set for those set in attitudes. I wish
nothing but the best for him and his family. It is with great honor
that I share his impressive accomplishments with my colleagues.
____________________
RECOGNIZING HAWAII PARTICIPANTS IN 2004 ECONOMICS CHALLENGE
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I congratulate the team of
students from Iolani School of Honolulu, HI, for logging a national
accomplishment in the National Economics Challenge recently held in New
York City. The team traveled over 5,000 miles to represent not only
Hawaii, but the western region in the competition, at which they
achieved a second-place finish in their category, the David Ricardo
division, which is for students enrolled in single-semester economics
courses.
The National Economics Challenge is sponsored by the National Council
on Economic Education, NCEE, and the Goldman Sachs Foundation, which
created the Challenge in 2000 to promote student interest in economics,
reinforce classroom instruction, advance academics, and reward
scholarship. Preliminary rounds began in April with more than 3,600
students on over 700 teams participating in 33 State and 4 regional
competitions. I commend the Hawaii Council on Economic Education for
sponsoring the State-level competition in my State and, on a constant
basis, training teachers and working to improve economic and financial
literacy in Hawaii's schools. Student teams in the final round at the
national level faced difficult questions on complex economic concepts
and theories involving microeconomics, macroeconomics, international
economics, and current events. The final round of the competition was
held before a crowd of hundreds at the New York High School of
Economics and Finance in Manhattan. The Iolani team competed and placed
second in their division, for which I congratulate them wholeheartedly.
As a former teacher and principal, I am aware of the many hours of
work that these students dedicated to develop the necessary knowledge
to participate in this national competition. They have surmounted many
challenges at the State, regional and national levels, and have emerged
with not only a placing finish to show for it, but also the experiences
and memories of all they have learned along the way. Economic and
financial education are crucial components needed to build our future
leaders, and I applaud all students who participate in this competition
for their hard work.
I am pleased to enter the names of the Iolani team members for the
Record: Stephani Le, Kimberlee Collins, Kyle Sombrero, and Brando
Inouye. I also take this opportunity to recognize their coach Richie
Kibota for his contributions in helping the Iolani team prepare for the
national competition. Of particular interest are their classmates and
peers who rose to the same challenges, whose names I would also like to
enter into the Record. This includes another Iolani School team who
competed and placed at both State and regional levels in the Adam Smith
division for advanced placement, international baccalaureate, and
honors students, with team members Jeffrey Lawi, Brad Kawitaki, Ronald
Kwok, Keone Nakoa, and Krystal Ching, and coach Dick Rankin. Also
included are other Hawaii State participants: a third team from Iolani
School and other teams from Kamehameha Schools, Maryknoll School,
Kaimuki High School, and Nanakuli High and Intermediate School.
Again, I congratulate the students and the faculty of Iolani School,
and I join the people of Hawaii in expressing my pride in their
impressive achievements. It is these types of efforts that are
supported by the Excellence in Economic Education Act, and these kinds
of efforts that will ensure that our students and future leaders have
the tools they need to make wise economic and financial
decisions.
[[Page 17065]]
____________________
SALUTE TO HARRY AND DAVID
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, 70 years ago--in the fall of 1934--
Harry Holmes from Medford, OR traveled to New York City armed with
nothing more than a dream and 15 boxes of Royal Rivera pears, which had
been grown on the orchard in the beautiful Rogue Valley owned by Harry
and his brother David. Their goal--in the midst of an economic
depression--was to convince New York business executives that a box of
their pears was a perfect Christmas gift.
A week of meetings, however, yielded no success, and the pears were
beginning to ripen. In an attempt to prolong the pears, Harry kept the
window of his hotel room wide open, transforming his room into a make-
shift refrigerator.
With just 2 days left in his trip, Harry was introduced to G. Lynn
Sumner, an advertising man. Sumner met with Harry that afternoon, and
before business was discussed, Harry had Sumner tuck a towel into his
shirt collar and taste one of the pears.
``I took a bite out of my pear and found that Harry had taken a wise
precaution,'' said Sumner. ``The juice burst . . . and poured down over
me. . . . At the same time, I sensed the full flavor of the most
luscious pear I had ever tasted.''
Sumner was so impressed he immediately agreed to help Harry promote
his product. That night he drafted a letter to be sent with each box of
pears, asking the recipient just to taste a pear and imagining what a
wonderful Christmas gift a box of them would make.
The next morning, each of the 15 boxes of pears, along with a copy of
the letter, were sent to America's most prominent business leaders.
Before Harry left New York to return to Oregon, he had 500 orders in
hand.
Seven decades later, Harry and David is the Nation's largest and most
well-known direct marketer of gourmet food and fruit gifts. It ships
more than 7.5 million gifts per year, including 4 million during the
Christmas holiday season. Harry and David's parent company, Bear Creek
Corporation, is also a leading employer in Southern Oregon, providing
3,000 full-time and part-time jobs year around, and 11,000 jobs during
the holiday season.
I am proud to congratulate the good folks at Harry and David for 70
years of providing millions and millions of families around the world
with delicious food and countless Christmas memories.
I am also reminded of the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said,
``Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the
most vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous, and they are
tied to their country and wedded to its liberty and interests by the
most lasting bands.''
In saluting Harry and David, I do more than salute a business. I also
salute the ``cultivators of the earth''--the farmers and orchardists
who do the work necessary to make the land blossom with an abundance of
treasures. I am confident that their hard work and the hard work of all
those at Harry and David will help to ensure that the best days of this
company are yet to come.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE HATCH CHILE FESTIVAL AND NEW MEXICO CHILE GROWERS
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I recognize the Hatch Chile
Festival and to recognize my home State of New Mexico as the largest
chile growing State in the Nation. Soon it will be September. For those
from the Land of Enchantment, that means the recently harvested green
chile is ready for roasting.
The chile pepper is thought to have originated in South America.
During the 1500s, Spanish explorers and colonists introduced new crops,
including chile, to the Southwest.
Although producers have been plagued by continuing drought
conditions, agriculture continues to be a major contributor to our
State's economy. Chile is one of New Mexico's most valuable commodities
in terms of revenue, and is the State's most important agricultural
crop both culturally and historically. New Mexico produced over 85,000
tons of chile in 2003, and planted acreage was estimated at 15,800
acres. Additionally, the value of the crop was estimated at around $41
million in 2003.
The Hatch Chile Festival is an annual event which dates back 33
years. The festival celebrates the chile and its cultural influence on
New Mexico and its people. The festival is held on Labor Day weekend
and draws hundreds of participants to the small town of Hatch, located
just west of the banks of the Rio Grande.
Chile harvest usually begins in late July or early August and
continues through the red chile harvest or up through the first frost.
After harvest, the chile arrives from the farms in almost every
container imaginable from bushel baskets and burlap bags, to wooden
crates and cardboard boxes--all filled with freshly picked green chile
waiting to be roasted.
The roasting process brings out its robust flavor and is most
commonly done using a cylindrical tumbler. During harvest season, these
gas-powered chile roasters can be seen going almost nonstop--outside
grocery stores, in backyards, and of course, at the Chile Festival in
Hatch.
The festival spreads across the entire town, making room for visitors
to take in the sights and smells of the Chile festival and all its
activities. The smell of roasting green chile is subtle, but
unmistakable. The flavor of roasted green chile, like that of any food,
is hard to describe to someone who has never experienced it.
Chile, and its history, is as much a part of our New Mexico culture
and heritage as hot dogs, hamburgers, and apple pie is to our national
heritage. So much so, that we even have an official State question,
``Red or Green?''
In the past, the Hatch Chile Festival was a small town event which
attracted mostly native New Mexicans or people familiar with the town
of Hatch. However, in 2003 the Festival was featured on cable
television's Food Network, resulting in a significant jump in
attendance.
Regardless of its new found fame, the festival has not lost its small
town charm, and I expect it never will. The festival brings great
recognition to Hatch valley locals, and much pride to native New
Mexicans and visitors alike. For that, and for all the accomplishments
of chile producers and festival organizers, I am proud, and I salute
them all here in this Record. Keep up the good work, and may you
continue to represent Hatch and the State of New Mexico with
distinction.
____________________
RECOGNIZING GENE N. JOHNSON
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize Mr. Gene
N. Johnson for his community service and leadership. Mr. Johnson is in
his 40th consecutive year of service as a member of the Scottsville
Volunteer Fire Department. During his time at the department, Mr.
Johnson actively took on the role of department president from 1986-
1997, and also served as a HAZMAT responder.
The Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department serves about 15,000
residents within southern Albemarle, Fluvanna, Buckingham and Nelson
Counties. Mr. Johnson has worked selflessly to make sure everyone in
the area remains safe and secure.
The Scottsville region surely appreciates the talents and efforts
that Mr. Gene Johnson has displayed as a member of the Scottsville
Volunteer Fire Department. I congratulate him on his community service
and wish him well in the future.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Ms. Evans, one of his secretaries.
______
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As in executive session, the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
[[Page 17066]]
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
______
ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED
At 9:32 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker
has signed the following enrolled bills and joint resolution:
S. 741. An act to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act with regard to new animal drugs, and for other
purposes.
S. 2264. An act to require a report on the conflict in
Uganda, and for other purposes.
S.J. Res. 38. Joint resolution providing for the
appointment of Eli Broad as a citizen regent of the Board of
Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.
H.R. 1303. An act to amend the E-Government Act of 2002
with respect to rulemaking authority of the Judicial
Conference.
H.R. 4363. An act to facilitate self-help housing ownership
opportunities.
H.R. 4759. An act to implement the United States-Australia
Free Trade Agreement.
The enrolled bills were signed subsequently by the President pro
tempore (Mr. Stevens).
____
At 2:51 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, 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. 3884. An act to designate the Federal building and
United States courthouse located at 615 East Houston Street
in San Antonio, Texas, as the ``Hipolito F. Garcia Federal
Building and United States Courthouse''.
H.R. 4011. An act to promote human rights and freedom in
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 4294. An act to designate the annex to the E. Barrett
Prettyman Federal Building and United States Courthouse
located at 333 Constitution Avenue Northwest in the District
of Columbia as the ``William B. Bryant Annex''.
H.R. 4608. An act to name the Department of Veterans
Affairs outpatient clinic located in Peoria, Illinois, as the
``Bob Michel Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient
Clinic''.
H.R. 4660. An act to amend the Millennium Challenge Act of
2003 to extend the authority to provide assistance to
countries seeking to become eligible countries for purposes
of that Act.
H.R. 4766. An act making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and
for other purposes.
H.R. 4840. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to simplify the taxation of businesses.
H.R. 4841. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to simplify certain tax rules for individuals.
H.R. 4879. An act to increase the military housing private
investment cap.
____
At 8:25 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 4842. An act to implement the United States-Morocco
Free Trade Agreement.
____
At 9:09 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Hays, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House agree
to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
4613) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.
____________________
ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED
At 9:45 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker
has signed the following enrolled bills:
H.R. 1572. An act to designate the United States Courthouse
located at 100 North Palafox Street in Pensacola, Florida, as
the ``Winston E. Arnow United States Courthouse''.
H.R. 1914. An act to provide for the issuance of a coin to
commemorate the 400th anniversary of the Jamestown
settlement.
H.R. 2768. An act to require the Secretary of the Treasury
to mint coins in commemoration of Chief Justice John
Marshall.
H.R. 3277. An act to require the Secretary of the Treasury
to mint coins in commemoration of the 230th Anniversary of
the United States Marine Corps, and to support construction
of the Marine Corps Heritage Center.
H.R. 4380. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 4737 Mile Stretch Drive in
Holiday, Florida, as the ``Sergeant First Class Paul Ray
Smith Post Office Building''.
____
At 10:02 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
agreed to the following concurrent resolution, in which it requests the
concurrence of the Senate:
H. Con. Res. 479. Concurrent resolution providing for a
conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives and a
conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.
____
At 11:06 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Chiappardi, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House
has passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of
the Senate:
H.R. 4916. An act to provide an extension of highway,
highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other
programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending
enactment of a law reauthorizing the Transportation Equity
Act of the 21st Century.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bills were read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 1587. To promote freedom and democracy in Vietnam; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
H.R. 4600. An act to amend section 227 of the
Communications Act of 1934 to clarify the prohibition on junk
fax transmissions; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
H.R. 4766. An act making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Appropriations.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR
The following bills were read the second time, and placed on the
calendar:
S. 2704. A bill to amend title XIX and XXI of the Social
Security Act to provide States with the option to cover
certain legal immigrants under the medicaid and State
children's health insurance programs.
S. 2714. A bill to amend part D of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act, as added by the Medicare Prescription
Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, to provide
for negotiation of fair prices for Medicare prescription
drugs.
____________________
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-8673. A communication from the Administrator,
Agricultural Marketing Service, Food and Vegetable Programs,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Onions Grown in Certain Designated Counties in Idaho, and
Malheur County, Oregon; Increased Assessment Rate'' (FV04-
958-2 FR) received on July 21, 2004; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-8674. A communication from the Director, Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Equal Opportunity for Religions Organizations'' (RIN0503-
AA27) received on July 21, 2004; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-8675. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Bitertanol,
Chlorpropham, Cloprop, Combustion Product Gas, Cyanazine, et
al.; Tolerance Actions'' (FRL#7358-6) received on July 21,
2004; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-8676. A communication from the Chairman, Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the Board's semiannual Monetary Policy
Report to the Congress; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs .
EC-8677. A communication from the Assistant to the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Risk-Based
Capital Guidelines; Capital Adequacy Guidelines; Capital
Maintenance; Consolidation of Assets-Backed Commercial Paper
Programs and Other Related Issues (Regulations H and Y)''
(Doc. No. R-1162) received on July 21, 2004; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-8678. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental
[[Page 17067]]
Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the
Hazelwood SO2 Nonattainment and the Monongahela River Valley
Unclassifiable Areas to Attainment and Approval of the
Maintenance Plan'' (FRL#7781-3) received on July 21, 2004; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-8679. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of
Columbia, Maryland, Virginia; Technical Amendment''
(FRL#7790-5) received on July 21, 2004; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-8680. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Maintenance Plan Revisions; Ohio'' (FRL#7789-
2) received on July 21, 2004; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
EC-8681. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Maryland:
Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions'' (FRL#7791-3) received on July 21, 2004;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-8682. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Asbestos'' (FRL#7789-5) received on July 21, 2004; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-8683. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revisions to
the California State Implementation Plan, Monterey Bay
Unified and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control
Districts'' (FRL#7783-9) received on July 21, 2004; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-8684. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revisions to
the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air
Quality Management District'' (FRL#7781-9) received on July
21, 2004; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-8685. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revisions to
the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air
Quality Management District'' (FRL#7784-3) received on July
21, 2004; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-8686. A communication from the Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New 8-
Hour Ozone and PN2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas;
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Changes Correction to the
Preamble'' (FRL#7789-6) received on July 21, 2004; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-8687. A communication from the Chairman, United States
International Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report entitled ``The Year in Trade 2003''; to the
Committee on Finance.
EC-8688. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment to
the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: United States
Munitions List and Part 123'' (RIN1400-ZA) received on June
24, 2004; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-8689. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``National Instant Criminal Background Check System
Regulation'' (RIN1110-AA07) received on July 22, 2004; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and
were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:
POM-492. A joint resolution adopted by the General Assembly
of the Commonwealth of Virginia relative to the State Waste
Empowerment and Enforcement Provision Act of 2003; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
House Joint Resolution No. 247
WHEREAS, recent reports issued by he Department of
Environmental Quality reveal that Virginia is currently the
second largest importer of municipal solid waste from other
states, second only to Pennsylvania, and is currently
importing approximately 5.5 million tons annually of
municipal solid waste from other states; and
WHEREAS, the amount of municipal solid waste being imported
into Virginia is expected to increase in the coming years due
to the closure of the Fresh Kills Landfill in New York and
increased volumes from other states; and
WHEREAS, the importation of significant amounts of
municipal solid waste from other states is prematurely
exhausting Virginia's limited landfill capacity; and
WHEREAS, the negative impact of truck, rail, and barge
traffic and litter, odors, and noise associated with waste
imports occurs at the location of final disposal and along
waste transportation routes, and current landfill technology
has the potential to fail, leading to long-term cleanup and
other associated costs; and
WHEREAS, under current federal law, Virginia cannot
regulate the amount of solid waste brought into the
Commonwealth each year; and
WHEREAS, the importation of significant amounts of
municipal solid waste from other states is inconsistent with
Virginia's efforts to promote the Commonwealth as a national
and international destination for tourism and high-tech
economic development; and
WHEREAS, the Commerce Clause of the United States
Constitution and its interpretation and application by the
United States Supreme Court and other federal courts
regarding interstate solid waste transportation has left
Virginia and other states with limited alternatives to
regulate, limit, or prohibit the importation of municipal
solid waste; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly of Virginia believes that
state and local governments should be given more authority to
control the importation of municipal solid waste into their
jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, although state laws governing the importation of
municipal solid waste have been ruled to violate the Commerce
Clause of the United States Constitution, the enactment of
the State Waste Empowerment and Enforcement Provision Act of
2003 would protect states from constitutional challenges to
common sense regulation of trash haulers, and empower states
to require inspectors at landfills, incinerators, and
transfer stations that accept out-of-state municipal solid
waste; and
WHEREAS, it is the consensus of the General Assembly of
Virginia that state and local governments should be given
more authority to limit, reduce, and control the importation
of solid waste into their jurisdictions through several
provisions, including percentage caps, calendar year freezes,
the regulation and restriction of certain modes of
transportation, the requirement of state inspectors at
facilities handling out-of-state waste, and the assessment of
fees for the receipt or disposal of out-of-state municipal
solid waste that are different than fees assessed for the
receipt or disposal of municipal solid waste generated within
the Commonwealth: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring,
That the Congress of the United States be urged to enact the
State Waste Empowerment and Enforcement Provision Act of 2003
(HR 1123). The Congress is urged to authorize local and state
governments to regulate the importation of municipal solid
waste into their respective jurisdictions; and, be it
Resolved further, That the Clerk of the House of Delegates
transmit copies of this resolution to the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives, the President of the
United States Senate, and the members of the Virginia
Congressional Delegation so that they may be apprised of the
sense of the General Assembly of Virginia in this matter.
____
POM-493. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of California relative to gasoline; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Senate Joint Resolution No. 28
Whereas, the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (P.L.
101-549) mandate the use of reformulated gasoline containing
2 percent, by weight, oxygen in areas designated as
nonattainment areas due to high ambient ozone levels in
summer months and high ambient carbon monoxide levels in
winter months; and
Whereas, the federal oxygenate mandate requires the use of
oxygenate in gasoline in approximately 70 percent of the
California retail gasoline market; and
Whereas, California has historically led the nation in
enacting air quality improvement measures that provide
substantial health, economic, and social benefits for the
state's citizens; and
Whereas, the State Air Resources Board's Cleaner Burning
Gasoline Program has resulted in reducing emissions
equivalent to removing 3.5 million cars from California's
roads; and
Whereas, the California Cleaner Burning Gasoline Program
provides greater flexibility than the federal program to
produce gasoline that meets stringent emission reduction
mandates; and
[[Page 17068]]
Whereas, methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) has been used
in California as the primary oxygenate additive to gasoline
because its relatively low vapor pressure (RVP) simplifies
the production of low-RVP summer gasolines, and because of
its compatibility with the blending and distribution system
for gasoline, its ability to be transported by pipeline, and
its high octane rating; and
Whereas, the Environmental Protection Agency's Blue Ribbon
Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline recommended that the 2-
percent oxygenate requirement be removed and that MTBE be
reduced substantially; and
Whereas, pursuant to Chapter 816 of the Statutes of 1997,
the University of California prepared a report that assessed
the health and environmental effects of MTBE and submitted
that report to the Legislature and the Governor in November
1998; and
Whereas, the University of California report found that
there are significant risks and costs associated with water
contamination due to the use of MTBE because it is highly
soluble in water and will transfer readily to groundwater
from leaking underground storage tank systems and other
components of the gasoline distribution system; and
Whereas, the County of Santa Clara, the City of Santa
Monica, the Lake Tahoe region, and the Sacramento area, as
well as other municipalities in other areas of the state,
have all been forced to shut down public drinking water wells
due to MTBE contamination; and
Whereas, the University of California report found that
over 60 percent of the reservoirs tested in California have
detectable levels of MTBE; and
Whereas, the University of California report found that
there is no significant additional air quality benefit to the
use of oxygenates such as MTBE in reformulated gasoline,
relative to the alternative nonoxygenated formulations
identified by the California Cleaner Burning Gasoline
Program; and
Whereas, United States Senators Diane Feinstein and James
Inhofe previously introduced legislation, S. 947, to grant
the governor of a state the power to waive the 2-percent
oxygenate content requirement for reformulated or clean
burning gasoline as long as the fuel meets all other
requirements for reformulated gasoline other than those
regarding oxygen content; and
Whereas, California has previously sought a waiver from the
United States Environmental Protection Agency of the oxygen
content requirement; and
Whereas, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
denied California's request for a waiver on the grounds that
there was not sufficient evidence that the waiver would help
California to reduce harmful levels of air pollutants; and
Whereas, California has sought and received waivers from
other provisions of the federal Clean Air Act, including
Section 209(b)(1) of that act, and has demonstrated no loss
of air quality benefits after those waivers have been issued:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of
California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of
California respectfully memorializes the United States
Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider granting an
administrative waiver of the federal Clean Air Act's
oxygenated gasoline requirement to the State of California,
to the extent permitted by the federal Clean Air Act, given
the state's independent requirements for clean gasoline that
meet both state and national ambient air quality standards;
and be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature of the State of California
respectfully memorializes the Congress of the United States
to enact legislation, if an administrative waiver of the
federal Clean Air Act is not granted by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, similar to, or including,
the Feinste-Inhofe legislation, that would authorize
California to waive the oxygen content requirement for
reformulated gasoline only if the fuel meets other
requirements in the federal Clean Air Act for reformulated
gasoline; and be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature of the State of California
respectfully memorializes the President of the United States
to sign that legislation if it is enacted by the Congress of
the United States; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies
of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the
United States, the Secretary of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and to
each Senator and Representative from California in the
Congress of the United States.
____
POM-494. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the Legislature of the State of Michigan
relative to rip currents in the Great Lakes; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
House Resolution No. 271
Whereas, the Great Lakes are known for their beauty, power,
and importance to life in this region. Less well known and
understood are the dangers of rip currents, which threaten
public safety and can cause deaths of swimmers at beaches
along the Great Lakes. While rip currents seem to be better
known at the ocean, they are no less serious to bathers along
Michigan's shores; and
Whereas, rip currents, which are sometimes mistakenly,
referred to as rip tides or undertows, are caused by sandbars
offshore that break apart. The current that results can be
very strong, taking even an Olympic-caliber swimmer swiftly
away from the shore. The ``rip'' in the sandbar can be the
result of high winds or large waves, and it can occur with
absolutely no warning. Rip currents can last a few minutes,
several hours, or even days. While there often is
discoloration to the water that is swept away from the shore
by the rip current, this is not always easy to see. Although
there is an effective strategy a swimmer can use to return to
shore safely, this knowledge must be in place before such an
incident occurs to prevent a tragedy; and
Whereas, there is clearly a need for greater public
awareness among beach visitors to the Great Lakes and more
comprehensive research into rip currents. Research could help
determine better responses and quicker notification for
swimmers as a rip current situation develops. With the number
of people swimming in the Great Lakes each summer, this
research could save many lives: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we
memorialize the Congress of the United States to provide
increased funding to support research and education on rip
currents in the Great Lakes; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to
the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives, and the members of
the Michigan congressional delegation.
____
POM-495. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Senate of
the Legislature of the State of Hawaii relative to
prescription drugs to the Committee on Finance.
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 56
Whereas, the Medicare Drug Benefit law recently enacted by
Congress and signed into law by the President prohibits the
government from negotiating prescription drug prices with the
manufacturers; and
Whereas, the pharmaceutical companies have been negotiating
with other governments such as Canada and Mexico, offering
citizens of those countries substantial discounts on
prescription drugs, while still generating profits from the
discounted prices; and
Whereas, news articles have documented that many Americans
travel to Canada to purchase their prescription drugs; and
Whereas, there is a growing momentum to allow individuals,
as well as state and local governments, to lower health care
costs by purchasing prescription drugs from Canada; and
Whereas, allowing the American government to negotiate
prescription drug prices would reduce their costs, as since
our purchasing power covers approximately 270 million
Americans, which is the largest economy in the world, our
government can negotiate lower prices than Canada and other
countries and pass on the savings to our citizens; and
Whereas, all Americans will be the beneficiaries of
discounted prescription drugs, especially those who need
prescription drugs for serious health conditions, all group
prescription drug programs provided by employers and union
agreements, and the state and federal programs that provide
prescription drugs to veterans, Medicaid recipients, and
others who qualify for government supported programs; and
Whereas, substantial savings can be used for other
healthcare needs or expenses and reducing co-payments; and
Whereas, every other developed country has the power to
negotiate the costs of prescription drugs: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved by the Senate of the Twenty-Second Legislature of
the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2004, the House of
Representatives concurring, That the President and Congress
are urged to repeal the restriction on government to
negotiate reductions in prescription drug prices with
manufacturers; and be it further
Resolved, That certified copies of this Concurrent
Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United
States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the
United States, the President of the Senate of the United
States, and the members of Hawaii's Congressional delegation.
____
POM-496. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the
Legislature of the State of Louisiana relative to the Central
American Free Trade Agreement; to the Committee on Finance.
Senate Resolution no. 115
Whereas, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick signed a
Free Trade Agreement on May 28, 2004, with the Central
American countries of El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala,
Honduras and Costa Rica; and
Whereas, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)
must now be approved by the national assemblies in each of
the
[[Page 17069]]
participating countries, with the approved legislation
expected to come before the U.S. Congress in late June or
early July for a vote; and
Whereas, approval of such an agreement will be an economic
disaster for farmers and workers in Louisiana in particular
and throughout the rest of the nation in general; and
Whereas, the Louisiana sugar industry will suffer immediate
and irreversible damage as jobs are lost and Louisiana sugar
farmers go out of business; and
Whereas, it is now estimated that twenty-seven thousand
jobs will be lost across Southern Louisiana, throwing the
state's economy into chaos, if the CAFTA legislation is
approved by the U.S. Congress; and
Whereas, Louisiana's economy will lose approximately nine
hundred eighty-seven million dollars annually and over four
billion, five hundred thousand dollars over the next five
years if CAFTA becomes law; and
Whereas, CAFTA is modeled after NAFTA, the North American
Free Trade Agreement, which has caused many U.S. textile
manufacturers such as Fruit of the Loom to desert American
workers and relocate in foreign countries where labor and
life is extremely cheap; and
Whereas, Louisiana communities are reeling from the effects
of NAFTA with Crowley losing more than one hundred jobs at
Garment Manufacturing, and St. Martinville, Abbeville, Port
Barre, and Vidalia, losing nearly eight thousand Fruit of the
Loom jobs; and
Whereas, negotiations between Southwest Louisiana rice
farmers and Cuba to buy Louisiana rice will be impeded or
made impossible if the U.S. Congress passes the CAFTA
legislation: Therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate of the Legislature of Louisiana
does hereby memorialize the U.S. Congress to reject the
legislation before it to create the Central American Free
Trade Agreement which would have devastating consequences on
the economy and the workers of Louisiana; be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to
the president of the United States, the secretary of the
United States Senate, the clerk of the United States House of
Representatives, each member of the Louisiana delegation to
the United States Congress, and the presiding officer of each
house of each state legislature in the United States.
____
POM-497. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the General
Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia relative to oral
anti-cancer drugs; to the Committee on Finance.
Senate Resolution No. 21
Whereas, cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and
mortality in the Commonwealth and throughout the nation; and
Whereas, cancer is disproportionately a disease of the
elderly, with more than half of all cancer diagnoses
occurring in persons age 65 or older, persons who are often
dependent on the federal Medicare program for provision of
cancer care; and
Whereas, treatment with anti-cancer drugs is the
cornerstone of modem cancer care, and elderly cancer patients
must have access to potentially life-extending drug therapy;
and
Whereas, the Medicare program's coverage of anti-cancer
drugs is limited to injectable drugs or oral drugs that have
an injectable version; and
Whereas, the nation's investment in biomedical research has
begun to bear fruit with a compelling array of new oral anti-
cancer drugs that are less toxic, more effective, and more
cost-effective than existing therapies, but, because these
drugs do not have an injectable equivalent, they are not
covered by Medicare; and
Whereas, the lack of coverage for these important new
products leaves many Medicare beneficiaries confronting the
choice of either substantial out-of-pocket personal cost or
selection of more toxic and less effective treatments that
are covered by Medicare; and
Whereas, Medicare's failure to cover oral anti-cancer drugs
leaves at risk many beneficiaries suffering from blood-
related cancers such as leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma, as
well as cancers of the breast, lung, and prostate; and
Whereas, certain members of the Congress of the United
States have recognized the necessity of Medicare coverage for
all oral anti-cancer drugs and have introduced legislation in
the 107th Congress to achieve that result (H.R. 1624 and S.
913); Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate, That the Congress of the United
States be hereby urged to adopt, legislation that requires
the Medicare program to cover all oral anti-cancer drugs;
and, be it
Resolved Further, That the, Clerk of the Senate transmit
copies of this resolution to the President of the United
States, the Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives, the President of the United States Senate,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Administrator
of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the
members of the Congressional delegation of Virginia so that
they may be apprised of the sense of the Senate of Virginia.
____
POM-498. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the
Legislature of the State of Illinois relative to Lithuania;
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Senate Resolution No. 447
Whereas, the Members of the Senate of the State of Illinois
recognize and honor the 751st year of Lithuania's statehood,
and the 86th year of Lithuania's independence as a democracy
which was established on February 16, 1918, in Lithuania's
historic capital, Vilnius; and
Whereas, Lithuania has made significant progress in
developing a stable democracy and free market economy during
the 14 years since i t overthrew, through a peaceful
democratic movement, an illegal foreign occupation by the
former Soviet Union; and
Whereas, the United States never recognized the forced
incorporation and illegal annexation of Lithuania by the
former Soviet Union in June, 1940, and continued to maintain
diplomatic relations with the legal representatives of
independent Lithuania; and
Whereas, Lithuania has received invitations and is expected
to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a
defensive alliance of Western democracies, in May of 2004, as
well as the European Union, a common market of Western
democracies; and
Whereas, Lithuanian military units are serving together
with American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq as allies in the
war on global terrorism; and in Bosnia and Kosovo in
peacekeeping missions; and
Whereas, the government and parliament of the Russian
Federation have consistently opposed Lithuania's re-
integration with Western democracies and encumbered
Lithuanian-Russian relations by refusing to ratify border
treaties, demanding visa-free travel through Lithuania's
territory for both civilian and military traffic, undermining
Lithuania's full participation in NATO by opposing the basing
of NATO troops and equipment on Lithuania's territory, for a
very considerable time denying Lithuania's Mazeikiu Nafta oil
refinery a reliable supply of crude oil, and imposing double
tariffs on Lithuanian imports; and
Whereas, The partially-privatized Russian oil company,
LUKoil, and the Russian government refuse to open their oil
drilling site in the Baltic Sea 22 km off the coast of
Lithuania, known as ``D-6'', to international inspection, and
refuse to cooperate with the Lithuanian government in
developing an effective plan to minimize the effects of the
United States military personnel as part of a broader NATO
commitment; we urge Russia to adopt a more cooperative policy
towards Lithuania and its ally, the United States: Therefore,
be it
Resolved, by the Senate of the Ninety-Third General
Assembly of the State of Illinois, That we urge the
government of the Russian Federation and the Russian oil
company LUKoil to open up its drilling site in the Baltic
Sea, known as D-6, off the coast of Lithuania for inspection
by international organizations and Lithuanian authorities,
and to develop a comprehensive plan with Lithuania and other
concerned states to deal with any environmental pollution
caused by the oil drilling and production at the site; and be
it further
Resolved, That we urge government officials, the judiciary,
and the media in Lithuania to address the current political
crisis surrounding the office of the President in Lithuania
in a forthright and transparent manner that will serve to
strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law in
Lithuania; and be it further
Resolved, That suitable copies of this resolution be
presented to President George W. Bush, each member of the
Illinois congressional delegation, the embassies of Lithuania
and the Russian Federation, and to the national office of the
Lithuanian-American Community, Inc.
____
POM-499. A concurrent resolution adopted by the General
Assembly of the State of Ohio relative to Taiwan's
participation in the World Health Organization; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
Substitute Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 24
Whereas, Taiwan and the United States enjoy one of the most
important economic and strategic international relationships
where together, Taiwan and the United States promote a shared
faith in and respect for freedom, democracy, and market
principles; and
Whereas, for the past half-century, Taiwan and the United
States have worked hand-in-hand to preserve peace and
stability within the Pacific Rim and to help improve the
lives of their citizens and people around the world; and .
Whereas, trade between Taiwan and the United States has
increased steadily in the past 40 years, with the United
States being Taiwan's second-largest source of imports and
Taiwan being the eighth-largest exporter to the United
States; and
Whereas, Taiwan is the tenth-largest United States export
market, buying more United States merchandise than Brazil,
Belgium, Australia, or Italy and ranks as one of the top
three destinations for United States peaches, plums, celery,
apples, cherries, broccoli, corn, feed grains, and bovine
hides; and
[[Page 17070]]
Whereas, the economic and trade partnership between Taiwan
and the United States is reflected not only in a large volume
of two-way trade, but also in the high level of United States
investment in Taiwan and increasingly in Taiwan's investment
in the United States; and
Whereas, the United States Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and its Taiwan counterpart have enjoyed close
collaboration on a wide range of public health issues; and
Whereas, in recent years, the Republic of China has
expressed a willingness to assist, financially and
technically, international aid and health activities
supported by the World Health Organization; and
Whereas, Taiwan's participation in the World Health
Organization could bring many benefits to the state of health
in Taiwan and also regionally and globally; and
Whereas, the World Health Organization Constitution states
that the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of
health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being
without distinction of race, religion, political belief, and
economic or social condition; and
Whereas, Falun Gong is an ancient Chinese mind and body
practice followed by as many as 100 million people in the
People's Republic of China and is a peaceful, spiritual
discipline that people use to improve their health and to
bring about positive changes in their lives; and
Whereas, in July, 1999, then-President of the People's
Republic of China Jiang Zemin, who was fearful of anything
other than the Communist Party of China touching the hearts
and minds of the Chinese people, banned the practice of Falun
Gong. Since then, the Chinese government has conducted a
propaganda campaign against Falun Gong and has persecuted,
imprisoned, and tortured its practitioners; and
Whereas, Dr. Charles Lee, a Falun Gong practitioner and
United States citizen, was arrested on his arrival in the
People's Republic of China on January 22, 2003, while
attempting to visit his family and has been imprisoned ever
since; and
Whereas, Christians and members of other religious groups
have also been persecuted in the People's Republic of China:
Now therefore be it
Resolved, That the General Assembly of the State of Ohio
supports Taiwan's participation in the World Health
Organization; and be it further
Resolved, That we, the members of the 125th General
Assembly of the State of Ohio, strongly deplore the
persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, Christians, and
members of other religious groups in the People's Republic of
China and the imprisonment of Dr. Charles Lee, implore the
government of the People's Republic of China to immediately
release Dr. Lee and restore to Falun Gong practitioners,
Christians, and members of other religious groups full
freedom of religious and spiritual expression, and
memorialize the President of the United States and the
Secretary of the United States Department of State to take
all necessary diplomatic actions to secure the release of Dr.
Lee and encourage the restoration of religious freedom for
Falun Gong practitioners, Christians, and members of other
religious groups in the People's Republic of China; and be it
further
Resolved, That the Clerk of the Senate transmit duly
authenticated copies of this resolution to the President of
the United States, to the members of the Ohio Congressional
delegation, to the Speaker and the Clerk of the United States
House of Representatives for distribution to the members of
the United States House of Representatives, to the President
Pro Tempore and the Secretary of the United States Senate for
distribution to the members of the United States Senate, to
the United States Secretary of State, to the Ambassador of
the United States to the People's Republic of China, to the
Ambassador of the People's Republic of China to the United
States, to the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in
Chicago, Illinois, to the World Health Organization, and to
the news media of Ohio.
____
POM-500. A joint resolution adopted by the Sixth Olbiil Era
Kelulau (Palau National Congress) of the Republic of Palau
relative to Ambassador Fred Monroe Zeder II; to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
____
POM-501. A concurrent resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the General Assembly of the State of
Delaware relative to trade relations with Taiwan; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 46
Whereas, the United States and the Republic of China on
Taiwan, commonly known as Taiwan, maintain an important trade
relationship; and
Whereas, despite the fact that Taiwan only recently became
a member of the World Trade Organization and that it has no
formal trade agreement with the United States, Taiwan is the
fourteenth largest trading nation in the world, the United
States' eighth largest trading partner, and as a center for
international trade it is vital to the economic prosperity of
this State and of the United States; and
Whereas, American businesses and workers have benefited
greatly from this dynamic trade relationship, most recently
in the computer and electronics sector; and
Whereas, as a center for international trade Taiwan is a
gateway to other Pacific Rim markets for United States
exports, helping to preserve peace and stability within the
entire region; and
Whereas, United States agricultural producers have been
particularly under represented in the list of United States
exports to the region, despite the importance of the market
for growers of corn, wheat, and soybeans; and
Whereas, Taiwan has clearly emerged as one of the United
States' most important allies in Asia and throughout the
world; and
Whereas, the State of Delaware and Taiwan have established
a sister-state relationship symbolizing the close friendship
between the people of Delaware and the people of Taiwan; and
Whereas, this State seeks to encourage and expand mutually
beneficial commercial relationships with Taiwan; and
Whereas, Taiwan's 23,000,000 people are not represented in
the United Nations; and
Whereas, Taiwan has in recent years repeatedly expressed
its strong desire to participate in the United Nations and
has much to contribute to the work and funding of the United
Nations; and
Whereas, Taiwan's participation in the United Nations will
help maintain peace and stability in Asia and the Pacific;
and
Whereas, the United States should promote the values of
freedom, democracy, and a commitment to open markets and the
free exchange of both goods and ideas at home and abroad; and
Whereas, Taiwan shares these values with the United States
and has struggled throughout the past 50 years to create what
is today an open, thriving, and modern democracy that
routinely holds free and fair elections and has dramatically
improved its record on human rights; and
Whereas, Taiwan has forged an open, market-based economy
and a thriving democracy based on free elections and the
freedom of dissent; and
Whereas, it is in the interest of the United States to
encourage the development of both these institutions; and
Whereas, the United States must continue to support the
growth of democracy and ongoing market opening in Taiwan if
this relationship is to evolve and reflect the changing
nature of the global system in the 21st Century; and
Whereas, the United States needs to support partner
countries that are lowering trade barriers; and
Whereas, a free trade agreement would not only help
Taiwan's economy dramatically expand its already growing
entrepreneurial class, but it would also serve an important
political function; and
Whereas, in the interest of supporting, preserving, and
protecting the democratic fabric of the government of Taiwan,
it has been made clear that the United States supports the
withdrawal of missiles deployed as a threat against Taiwan by
the People's Republic of China; and
Whereas, the United States has an obligation to its allies
and to its own citizens to encourage economic growth, market
opening, and the destruction of trade barriers as a means of
raising living standards across the board; and
Whereas, a free trade agreement with Taiwan would be a
positive step toward accomplishing all of these goals;
Whereas, direct and unobstructed participation in
international health cooperation forums and programs is
crucial for all parts of the world, especially with today's
greater potential for cross-border spread of various
infectious diseases; and
Whereas, Taiwan's achievements in the field of health are
substantial, including one of the highest life expectancy
levels in Asia, maternal and infant mortality rates
comparable to those of western countries, the eradication of
the infectious diseases of cholera, smallpox, and the plague,
and being the first Asian nation to eradicate polio and the
first country in the world to provide children with free
hepatitis B vaccinations; and
Whereas, the United States Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and its Taiwanese counterpart have enjoyed close
collaboration on a wide range of public health issues; and
Whereas, in recent years Taiwan has expressed a willingness
to financially and technically assist the international aid
and health activities supported by the World Health
Organization; and
Whereas, Taiwan's population of 23 million people is larger
than that of 75% of the World Health Organization member
states; and
Whereas, the United States, in the 1994 Taiwan Policy
Review, declared its intention to support Taiwan's
participation in appropriate international organizations; and
Whereas, Taiwan's participation in the activities of the
World Health Organization could bring many benefits to the
state of health not only in Taiwan but also regionally and
globally: Now therefore be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives of the 142nd
General Assembly of the State of Delaware, the Senate thereof
concurring therein, That the Congress and the President of
[[Page 17071]]
the United States are respectfully requested and urged to
strengthen trade relations with the Republic of China on
Taiwan (Taiwan) and to support the participation of Taiwan in
the United Nations; and be it further
Resolved, That the General Assembly strongly urges the
pursuit of a policy that includes an initiative directed at
the World Trade Organization to give Taiwan appropriate and
meaningful participation in the activities of the World Trade
Organization in a manner that is consistent with the
organization's requirements; and be it further
Resolved, That the Congress and the President of the United
States are respectfully requested and urged to support a free
trade agreement between the United States and Taiwan; and be
it further
Resolved, That suitably prepared and authenticated copies
of this Resolution be sent to: The President of the United
States, The United States Secretary of State, The Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare, The Speaker of the United
States House of Representatives, The President of the United
States Senate, The Government of Taiwan, The Representative
of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Washington, D.
C., The World Trade Organization, The United States Trade
Representative, The Secretary-General of the United Nations,
and The members of Delaware's Congressional delegation.
____
POM-502. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania relative to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Awareness Month in Pennsylvania; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
House Resolution No. 718
Whereas, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is better
known as Lou Gehrig's disease; and
Whereas, ALS is a fatal neurodegenerative disease
characterized by degeneration of cell bodies of the lower
motor neurons in the gray matter of the anterior horns of the
spinal cord; and
Whereas, the initial symptom of ALS is weakness of the
skeletal muscles, especially those of the extremities; and
Whereas, as ALS progresses, the patient experiences
difficulty in swallowing, talking and breathing; and
Whereas, ALS eventually causes muscles to atrophy, and the
patient becomes a functional quadriplegic; and
Whereas, ALS does not affect a patient's mental capacity,
so a patient remains alert and aware of the loss of motor
functions and the inevitable outcome of continued
deterioration and death; and
Whereas, ALS occurs in adulthood, most commonly between the
ages of 40 and 70, with the peak age about 55, and affects
men two to three times more often than women; and
Whereas, more than 5,000 new ALS patients are diagnosed
annually; and
Whereas, on average, patients diagnosed with ALS survive
two to five years from the time of diagnosis; and
Whereas, ALS has no known cause, prevention or cure; and
Whereas, ``Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Awareness
Month'' will increase public awareness of ALS patients'
circumstances, acknowledge the terrible impact this disease
has on patients and families and recognize the research for
treatment and cure. of ALS; Therefore be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania recognize the month of may 2004
as ``Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Awareness Month'' in
Pennsylvania; and be it further
Resolved, That the House of Representatives urge the
President and Congress of the United States to enact
legislation to provide additional funding for ALS research;
and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to
the President of the United States, to the Vice President of
the United States, to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, to the members of Congress from Pennsylvania
and to the United States Secretary of Health and Human
Services.
____
POM-503. A concurrent resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the Legislature of the State of Louisiana
relative to the approval process necessary for foreign
teachers to teach in the state's French immersion program; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 23
Whereas, the French immersion program is the state's best
hope for preserving the historic linguistic and cultural
origins represented by the French language in Louisiana; and
Whereas, the French immersion program can improve critical
and creative thinking skills, encourage independent and self-
disciplined learning, enhance skills in listening and
concentration, boost self-esteem, create a lifelong ability
to communicate with French speakers around the globe, and
increase opportunity for future employment, and beyond the
acquisition of a second language, French immersion achieves
the goals of cultural appreciation, respect, and mutual
understanding; and
Whereas, the recruitment of teachers in the French
immersion program is becoming increasingly challenging, and
the number of existing teachers is dwindling at an alarming
rate as well; and
Whereas, the looming teacher shortage is a constant concern
for the French immersion program, and the recruitment and
retainment of an adequate number of qualified French teachers
is the key to the continuation of the French immersion
program in Louisiana; and
Whereas, the number of foreign teachers available to teach
in the French immersion program in Louisiana is being
diminished by immigration regulations and complications; and
Whereas, it is urgent that congress devote immediate
attention to expediting the approval process required for
foreign teachers to gain whatever eligibility is necessary so
that the French immersion program will be suitably staffed to
meet the needs of the student population and ultimately
because the program must have such teachers if it is to
survive; and
Whereas, French immersion reflects Louisiana's heritage and
benefits every student who takes part in the program, and no
child who desires participation should be denied the
satisfaction and pride derived from becoming bilingual in the
French language due to the emerging shortage of foreign
French teachers: Therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby
memorialize the United States Congress to take appropriate
action to expedite the approval process necessary for foreign
teachers to teach in the state's French immersion program; be
it further
Resolved, That a suitable copy of this Resolution be
transmitted to the speaker of the United States House of
Representatives, the president of the United States Senate,
and to each member of Louisiana's congressional delegation.
____
POM-504. A concurrent resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the Legislature of the State of Louisiana
relative to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 20
Whereas, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)
requires all schools in the nation to meet high academic
standards; and
Whereas, the state of Louisiana has worked diligently to
meet the requirements of NCLB, creating a school
accountability program that has been ranked the best in the
nation; and
Whereas, the state's school accountability program is being
implemented by city, parish, and other local school systems
at considerable cost; and
Whereas, the burden of meeting new standards is falling on
teachers and school employees; and
Whereas, city, parish, and other local school systems and
their faculty and staff need and deserve adequate resources
to accomplish the goals of NCLB; and
Whereas, the proposed federal budget for Fiscal Year 2005
shortchanges the promised funding for NCLB's Title I program
by approximately six billion seven hundred million four
hundred thousand dollars less than initially promised by
NCLB; and
Whereas, it is unreasonable to expect the state of
Louisiana and city, parish, and other local school systems to
meet federally imposed standards without federal
appropriation of adequate funds to meet such standards:
Therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby
memorialize the United States Congress to support an
amendment to the proposed federal budget for Fiscal Year 2005
to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; be it
further
Resolved, That suitable copies of this Resolution be
transmitted to the speaker of the United States House of
Representatives, the president of the United States Senate,
and each member of Louisiana's congressional delegation.
____
POM-505. A resolution adopted by the City of Parma Heights
of the State of Ohio relative to the Breast Cancer Patient
Protection Act of 2003; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
____
POM--506. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania relative to funding for the Division of
Diabetes Translation (DDT); to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
House Resolution No. 764
Whereas, there are 18.2 million people or 6.30 of the
population living with diabetes; and
Whereas, each year 13 million people are diagnosed with
diabetes, while 5.2 million cases go undiagnosed; and
Whereas, each year there are 1.3 million newly diagnosed
cases of diabetes among people 20 years of age and older; and
Whereas, diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death in
the United States, contributing to 213,062 deaths; and
Whereas, approximately one in every 400 to 500 children and
adolescents has type 1 diabetes; and
[[Page 17072]]
Whereas, twelve percent of adults with diabetes take both
insulin and oral medications, 19% take insulin only, 53% take
oral medications only, and 156 do not take insulin or oral
medications; and
Whereas, in the United States diabetes costs an estimated
$132 billion or one out of every ten health care dollars; and
Whereas, DDT, a component of the National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the United
States Department of Health and Human Services, implements
transitional programs which have shown to be effective; and
Whereas, DDT takes information from clinical trials and
incorporates the findings into clinical and public health
practices; and
Whereas, according to the DDT mission, more needs to be
done to eliminate the preventable burden of diabetes through
leadership, research, programs and policies that translate
science into practice; and
Whereas, for fiscal year 2004, the funding for the DDT is
$66.9 million: Therefore be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania memorialize the Congress to
increase funding for the DDT to help in the fight against a
deadly disease which affects 6.30 of the population; and be
it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to
the presiding officers of each house of Congress and to each
member of Congress from Pennsylvania.
____
POM-507. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the Legislature of the State of Michigan
relative to the federal drug approval process for the
consideration of medical uses for marijuana; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
House Resolution No. 226
Whereas, the Michigan Legislature supports the goal of safe
and drug-free communities; and
Whereas, substantial scientific evidence shows that smoked
marijuana is harmful and offers no medical benefit to
suffering patients; and
Whereas, the Michigan Legislature strongly denounces any
attempt to exploit the suffering of sick people by deceptive
media campaigns; and
Whereas, medical policy should be set for the state of
Michigan by Michigan lawmakers working in conjunction with
federal and state officials and not by judges, celebrity
spokespeople, or public relations efforts; and
Whereas, the National Cancer Institute has found that
inhaling marijuana smoke for any purpose is a health hazard,
because it contains over 400 potential carcinogens and
delivers up to five times the amount of tar and carbon
monoxide to the body as cigarette tobacco; and
Whereas, studies by the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases reveal that HIV-positive marijuana
smokers progress to full-blown AIDS twice as quickly as
nonsmokers and have an increased incidence of bacterial
pneumonia; and
Whereas, there are safe and effective medicines, including
chemical derivatives of the beneficial components of
marijuana, that can help control and lessen symptoms of
persistent nausea; vomiting, wasting syndrome, or loss of
appetite from AIDS, chemotherapy, or radiation treatment, as
well as medications available, for multiple sclerosis,
glaucoma, and other medical conditions; and
Whereas, statistics on drug use document that when teen
perception of risk decreases, due to mixed messages sent by
adults, teen use of marijuana increases; and
Whereas, marijuana is a gateway drug, as illustrated by the
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia
University, which found that teenagers who smoke marijuana
are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than those who do
not; and
Whereas, the following medical organizations are opposed to
making smoked marijuana available for medical use: American
Medical Association; National Multiple Sclerosis Association;
National Caner Institute; National Institute for Allergy and
Infections Diseases; American Cancer Society; National Eye
Institute; National Institute on Dental Research; National
Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we express
our opposition to any efforts to circumvent the federal drug
approval process for the consideration of medical uses for
marijuana; and be it further
Resolved, That we encourage the scientific community to
continue its efforts to discover and test safe and effective
medicines for people who are seriously ill, including
potential medicines containing synthesized components
marijuana, including Marinol and Sativex; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to
the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives, and the members of
the Michigan congressional delegation.
____
POM-508. A resolution adopted by the House of Delegates of
the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia relative
to a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit federal courts from
ordering or instructing any state or local unit of government
to levy or increase taxes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
House Resolution No. 4
Whereas, on April, 18, 1990, by a narrow vote of 5 to 4,
the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of
Missouri v. Jenkins (495 U.S. 33), chose to ignore Article I,
Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States, which
reserves exclusively to the legislative branch of government
the authority to tax the citizenry; and
Whereas, this ruling has set a disastrous example of
allowing federal judges to order or instruct a state, or a
political subdivision thereof, or an official of a state or
political subdivision, to levy or increase taxes--overturning
more than 200 years of judicial non-intrusion into the
political thicket of prescribing the level of taxation to be
foisted upon Americans; and
Whereas, in blistering dissenting remarks, Associate
Justice Anthony Kennedy joined by Chief Justice William
Rehnquist and Associate Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and
Antonin Scalia pointed out that the Missouri v. Jenkins
decision transgresses the basic principles which define the
role of judges by endorsing ``. . . an expansion of power in
the Federal Judiciary beyond all precedent. Today's casual
embrace of taxation imposed by the unelected, life-tenured
Federal Judiciary disregards fundamental precepts for the
democratic control of public institutions''; and
Whereas, Thomas Jefferson, that great native son of
Virginia, forewarned of the threat that out-of-control
federal courts would pose when he proclaimed, in an 1820
letter to Thomas Ritchie, that ``A judiciary independent . .
. of the will of the nation is a solecism . . .,'' and in
colorful language he went on to describe the judicial branch
as ``. . . a subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly
working underground to undermine the foundations of our
confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution
from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a
general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at
their feet . . .,'' and in an 1821 letter to Judge Spencer
Roane, Jefferson pointedly asserted that ``The great object
of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity,
ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance,
gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is
engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws
of that which feeds them''; and
Whereas, in The Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton
cautioned that ``The courts must declare the sense of the
law; and if they should be disposed to exercise will instead
of judgment, the consequence would equally be the
substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative
body''; and
Whereas, the prevailing line of reasoning among those of us
in the ``Old Dominion'' on the subject of taxation--without
representation--finds situs as early as December 18, 1764,
when what was then called Virginia's House of Burgesses
remonstrated to the British House of Commons that ``. . . it
is essential to . . . liberty that . . . imposing taxes on
the people ought not to be made without the consent of
representatives chosen by themselves; who, at the same time
that they are acquainted with the circumstances of their
constituents, sustain a proportion of the burden laid on
them''; and
Whereas, in his 1748 epic work, The Spirit of the Laws, the
renowned political analyst Charles de Secondat Baron de
Montesquieu prophesied that ``. . . there is no liberty, if
the power of judging be not separated from the legislative
and executive powers. Were it joined with the legislative,
the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to
arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the
legislator''; and
Whereas, James Madison, that noble Virginian--and later
fourth President of the United States--opined in The
Federalist No. 47 that ``. . . the preservation of liberty
requires that the three great departments of powers
[executive, judicial and legislative] should be separate and
distinct''; and
Whereas, lawmakers in the 24 states of Alabama, Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and
Wyoming, as well as in the two United States territories. of
Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
have petitioned the Congress of the United States to propose
for ratification an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States to reverse the calamitous and ill-conceived
1990 holding in Missouri v. Jenkins; and
Whereas, Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist No. 85,
predicted that there indeed would be times when Americans
would come to ``. . . rely on the disposition of the state
legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of
the national authority'': Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Delegates, That the Congress of
the United States be urged to propose for ratification an
amendment to,
[[Page 17073]]
the Constitution of the United States to prohibit federal
courts from ordering or instructing any state or local unit
of government to levy or increase taxes, the amendment to
read as follows:
``Amendment XXVIII
``Section 1. Neither the Supreme Court nor any inferior
court of the United States--nor the court of any state, or
political subdivision thereof, in its application of this
Constitution or in its application of any law enacted by the
Congress--shall have the power to instruct or order a state
or political subdivision, or an official of such state or
political subdivision, to levy or increase taxes.
``Section 2. For purposes of this Amendment, the word
`state' shall be understood to additionally include the
District constituting the Seat of government of the United
States, as well as any commonwealth, territory, or possession
of the United States.''; and, be it
Resolved further, That the Clerk of the House of Delegates
transmit copies of this resolution to the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives, the President of the
United States Senate, and the members of the Virginia
Congressional Delegation so that they may be apprised of the
sense of the House of Delegates of Virginia in this matter.
____
POM-509. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Senate of
the Legislature of the State of Louisiana relative to public
expressions of religious faith within the state of Louisiana;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 29
Whereas, the Declaration of Independence declared that
governments are instituted to secure certain unalienable
rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, with which all human beings are endowed by their
Creator and to which they are entitled by the laws of nature
and of nature's God; and
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution clearly recognizes that a state retains all
rights not specifically delegated by the constitution to the
federal government of the United States of America; and
Whereas, Article III, Section 2, of the United States
Constitution grants the Congress the authority to except
certain matters from the jurisdiction of the federal courts
inferior to the United States Supreme Court; and
Whereas, over the last several decades, the federal courts
have claimed legal jurisdiction in matters pertaining to
religion within an individual state; and
Whereas, disputes and doubts have arisen with respect to
public displays of the Ten Commandments and to other public
expressions of religious faith; and
Whereas, legislation has been introduced in Congress to
except subject matter jurisdiction from the federal courts in
certain matters pertaining to the power to make a public
expression of religious faith. Therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana memorializes
the Congress of the United States to continue to preserve
Louisiana's sovereignty related to public expressions of
religious faith within the state of Louisiana; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana memorialize the
Congress of the United States to pass legislation declaring
that the power: (i) to display the Ten Commandments, (ii) to
recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and (iii) to recite the
national motto on or within property owned or administered by
the several states or political subdivisions thereof be among
the powers reserved to the states respectively; that the
words to the Pledge of Allegiance are ``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.''; that the
words to the national motto are ``In God We Trust''; and that
the subject matter of these declarations be exceptions to the
subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts inferior to the
United States Supreme Court; be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution shall be
transmitted to the secretary of the United States Senate, the
clerk of the United States House of Representatives, and to
each member of the Louisiana delegation of the United States
Congress.
____
POM-510. A joint resolution adopted by the General Assembly
of the Commonwealth of Virginia relative to a constitutional
amendment regarding marriage; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Whereas, marriage is a unique cornerstone of the family,
which is the foundation of human society; and
Whereas, only marriage between one man and one woman has
been permitted or recognized historically throughout the
United States; and
Whereas, history has shown marriage between a man and a
woman to be the best context for the reproduction of the
human race and for raising children to be responsible adults;
and
Whereas, marriage provides lower risk of infant mortality,
better physical health for the children and has numerous
health benefits for the father and mother; and
Whereas, religious and civil laws have granted marriage
special recognition, benefits, responsibilities and legal
protections since at least the beginning of recorded history;
and
Whereas, the Commonwealth accords marriage more
responsibilities and legal protections than other
partnerships of unrelated individuals; and
Whereas, the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the United
States Constitution provides that states must recognize the
laws and judicial acts of every other state in the Union; and
Whereas, in 1996 Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage
Act to exempt states from being required to afford full faith
and credit to laws recognizing marriages between persons of
the same sex; and
Whereas, in light of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of
the United States Constitution, there is significant risk
that the federal courts may hold the 1996 federal Defense of
Marriage Act unconstitutional; and
Whereas, 37 states, including the Commonwealth, have
enacted laws, commonly known as Defense of Marriage Acts,
that ban same-sex marriages; and
Whereas, the unique legal status of marriage in the
Commonwealth is in danger from constitutional challenges to
these state marriage laws and the federal Defense of Marriage
Act, which may succeed in light of the recent decisions on
equal protection from the United States Supreme Court; and
Whereas, challenges to state laws have been successfully
brought in Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, and most recently in
Massachusetts on the grounds.that the legislature does not
have the right to deny the benefits of marriage to same-sex
couples and the state must guarantee the same protections and
benefits to same-sex couples as it does to opposite-sex
couples absent a constitutional amendment; and
Whereas, the Vermont legislature chose to preserve marriage
as the ``legally recognized union of one man and one woman,''
but at the same time enacted a dual system of ``civil
unions'' for same-sex couples that goes beyond existing
``domestic partnership'' and ``reciprocal beneficiaries''
laws that exist in California and Hawaii and in many
localities in the United States today; and
Whereas, the Massachusetts ruling, by declaring that civil
marriage means ``the voluntary union of two persons as
spouses to the exclusions of all others,'' represents the
most far-reaching decision in its erosion of the states'
right to define marriage; and
Whereas, the Massachusetts court has given the
Massachusetts legislature 180 days to comply with the court's
ruling, which is not sufficient time for the state to adopt a
constitutional amendment to overturn the decision; and
Whereas, in light of the Massachusetts decision, many
states are scrambling to determine what actions are needed to
protect their state's Defense of Marriage Act from future
court challenges; and
Whereas, H. J. Res. 56, 108th Cong. and S.J. Res. 26, 108th
Cong. proposed an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States to declare that ``marriage in the United States shall
consist only of the union of a man and a woman''; and
Whereas, a federal constitutional amendment is the only way
to protect the institution of marriage and resolve the
controversy created by these recent decisions by returning
the issue to its proper forum in the state legislatures: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring,
That the Congress of the United States be urged to propose a
constitutional amendment to protect the fundamental
institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman;
and, be it
Resolved further, That the Congress of the United States be
urged to initiate an amendment . . .
____
POM-511. A concurrent memorial adopted by the Senate of the
Legislature of the State of Arizona relative to a
constitutional amendment regarding rights to victims of
crime; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Senate Concurrent Memorial No. 1003
Whereas, criminal defendants are afforded numerous federal
rights and procedural protections; and
Whereas, victims of crime are not afforded any, federal
rights or protections; and
Whereas, the people of this state believe in the individual
rights and liberties of all persons and have amended the
Constitution of Arizona to provide crime victims with rights
and yet it is clear that without federal constitutional
rights, crime victims' rights are less meaningful and
enforceable.
Wherefore your memorialist, the Senate of the State of
Arizona, the House of Representatives concurring, prays:
1. That the Congress of the United States propose to the
people an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
that provides rights to crime victims and that embodies the
following principles:
(a) The right to be informed of and not excluded from any
public proceedings relating to the crime.
(b) The right to be heard regarding any release from
custody.
(c) The right to consideration for the safety of the
victim, the victim's interest in
[[Page 17074]]
avoiding unreasonable delay and the victim's interest in
restitution.
(d) The right to be heard regarding any negotiated plea or
sentence.
(e) The right to receive notice of release or escape.
2. That any amendment to the Constitution of the United
States to establish rights for crime victims grant standing
to victims of crime to assert all rights established by the
Constitution.
3. That any amendment to the Constitution of the United
States to establish rights for crime victims should clearly
state that the powers of the states to provide victims'
rights in criminal proceedings, including the right to define
and enforce such rights, shall not be restricted or
diminished by the Congress or the federal courts of the
United States.
4. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona
transmit copies of this Memorial to the President of the
United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House
of Representatives and each Member of Congress from the State
of Arizona.
____
POM-512. A concurrent resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the Legislature of the State of Hawaii
relative to veterans' benefits for Filipino veterans; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 250
Whereas, on February 11, 2003, Representative Neil
Abercrombie, along with other members, introduced H.R. 677 in
the United States House of Representatives, which bill was
referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs; and
Whereas, the short title of this bill is ``Filipino
Veterans Equity Act of 2003''; and
Whereas, H.R. 677 would deem certain service in the
organized military forces of the Government of the
Commonwealth of the Philippines and the Philippine Scouts to
have been active service for purposes of benefits under
programs administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
for qualified Filipino veterans; and
Whereas, H.R. 677, in recognition of the courage and
loyalty of the Filipino troops who fought along side our
armed forces in the Philippines during World War II, would
make health benefits available to more of these. qualified
Filipino veterans: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-
second Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of
2004, the Senate concurring, That the President of the United
States and the United States Congress are urged to support
the passage of H.R. 677; and be it
Further Resolved, That certified copies of this Concurrent
Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United
States, the President of the United States Senate, the
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the
members of Hawaii's congressional delegation, and the
President of the Filipino-American Veterans, Hawaii Chapter.
____
POM-513. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Hawaii relative to improving benefits for
Filipino veterans of World War II; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 203
Whereas, on December 8, 1941, thousands of Filipino men and
women responded to President Roosevelt's call for help to
preserve peace and democracy in the Philippines; and
Whereas, during the dark days of World War II, nearly
100,000 soldiers of the Philippine Commonwealth Army provided
a ray of hope in the Pacific as they fought alongside United
States and Allied forces for four long years to defend and
reclaim the Philippine Islands from Japanese aggression; and
Whereas, thousands more Filipinos joined U.S. Armed Forces
immediately after the war and served in occupational duty
throughout the Pacific Theater; and
Whereas, valiant Filipino soldiers fought, died, and
suffered in some of the bloodiest battles of World War II,
defending beleaguered Bataan and Corregidor, and thousands of
Filipino prisoners of war endured the infamous Bataan Death
March and years of captivity; and
Whereas, their many guerrilla actions slowed the Japanese
takeover of the Western Pacific region and allowed U.S.
forces the time to build and prepare for the allied
counterattack on Japan; and
Whereas, Filipino troops fought side-by-side with U.S.
forces to secure their island nation as the strategic base
from which the final effort to defeat Japan was launched; and
Whereas, President William J. Clinton proclaimed October
20, 1996, as a day honoring the Filipino Veterans of World
War II, recalling the courage, sacrifice, and loyalty of
Filipino veterans of World War II in defense of democracy and
liberty; and
Whereas, for decades after their heroic service under the
command of their leaders and General Douglas MacArthur, these
men and women of Filipino-American national heritage were
denied the benefits and privileges provided to their American
compatriots who fought side-by-side with them; and
Whereas, the Rescission Act of 1946 withdrew the U.S.
veteran's status of Filipino World War II soldiers, thereby
denying them the benefits and compensation received by their
American counterparts and soldiers of more than sixty-six
other U.S. allied countries, who were similarly inducted into
the U.S. military; and
Whereas, the Rescission Act discriminated against
Filipinos, making them the only national group singled out
for denial of full U.S. veterans status and benefits; and
Whereas, the passage of S. 68, now pending in the United
States Senate, would extend full and equitable benefits,
particularly health benefits, to Filipino veterans,
considering their advanced age and poor health; and
Whereas, S. 68 proposes to amend Title 38 of the United
States Code, to improve benefits for Filipino veterans of
World War II and for the surviving spouses of those veterans;
and
Whereas, S. 68 would increase the rate of payment of
compensation benefits to certain Filipino veterans,
designated in Title 38 United States Code section 107(b) and
referred to as New Philippine Scouts, who reside in the
United States and are United States citizens or lawful
permanent resident aliens; and
Whereas, S. 68 would further increase the rate of payment
of dependency and indemnity compensation of surviving spouses
of certain Filipino veterans; and
Whereas, S. 68 would further make eligible for full
disability pensions certain Filipino veterans who reside in
the United States and are United States citizens or lawful
permanent resident aliens; and
Whereas, S. 68 would further mandate the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to provide hospital and nursing home care
and medical services for service-connected disabilities for
any Filipino World War II veteran who resides in the United
States and is a United States citizen or lawful permanent
resident alien; and
Whereas, S. 68 would further require the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to furnish care and services to all Filipino
World War II veterans for service-connected disabilities and
nonservice-connected disabilities residing in the Republic of
the Philippines on an outpatient basis at the Manila VA
Outpatient Clinic: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate of the Twenty-Second Legislature of
the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2004, the House of
Representatives concurring, That the United States Congress
is respectfully urged to support the passage of S. 68 to
improve benefits for certain Filipino veterans of World War
II; and be it further
Resolved, That certified copies of this Concurrent
Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United
States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives, the members of the Hawaii Congressional
delegation, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
____
POM-514. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Hawaii relative to President George W. Bush's
plans to reduce veterans' benefits; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 126
Whereas, members of the armed forces faithfully and
diligently serve the people of the United States and have
fought and died in numerous wars and conflicts around the
globe to protect the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness for all Americans; and
Whereas, numerous individuals devoted the prime of their
lives to defend the United States, often putting careers on
hold, delaying their college education, and leaving families
behind, without hesitation, asking for nothing but respect in
return; and
Whereas, these heroic individuals faced adversity which
most citizens will never be able to comprehend, often giving
their lives for their fellow citizens; and
Whereas, a large number of veterans have been severely
injured and disabled in the performance of their duties,
often resulting in financial hardship; and
Whereas, citing a tight budget and overwhelming demand for
services after opening their medical facilities to all
veterans in 1998, the Veterans Affairs Department (VA) began
efforts to halt enrolling new veterans into its health care
system; and
Whereas, a memo from the VA in July 2002, stated that
marketing veterans health care services at health fairs, open
houses, and veterans meetings was inappropriate and banned
newspaper ads and mailings encouraging veterans to enroll in
the veterans health plan; and
Whereas, this memo was sent out at a time when
approximately 300,000 veterans had been waiting for more than
six months for an appointment at a VA medical facility, some
waiting as long as two years for services; and
Whereas, Rep. Ted Strickland (D-OH) filed a lawsuit against
the VA stating that the VA has a congressional mandate that
requires the VA to perform outreach services and that the
VA's failure to publicize information about health care
benefits and veterans' services for veterans and their
families is a violation of this mandate; and
Whereas, although Congress is currently considering a bill
to allocate funding to the
[[Page 17075]]
VA in the sum of $28.6 billion for the current fiscal year,
this funding level is still not enough to help alleviate many
of the medical plights facing our brave American service men
and women; and
Whereas, a number of veterans groups have criticized the
President's budget submission for fiscal year 2005 as
containing, ``few legislative recommendations to improve,
expand, or add new benefits for veterans,'' and that ``along
with gross funding deficiencies in practically every VA
account, VA construction is to be dramatically and most
detrimentally shortchanged as well''; and
Whereas, these groups have also criticized the Bush
administration's shortcomings in proposals with respect to
the provision of benefits to veterans such as:
(1) Developing a mechanism that greatly reduces government
obligations to compensate disabled veterans for service-
incurred disabilities such as alcoholism and drug abuse;
(2) Asking Congress to enact legislation to deny
compensation to a group of disabled veterans who suffer
greatly from their service-connected disabilities because
these disabilities were obtained during periods of non-combat
such as during meal periods;
(3) Proposing legislation to limit veterans to a one-time
home loan guaranty;
(4) Recommending a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for
compensation based on a projected 1.3 percent increase in
COLA and continuing the practice of rounding down COLA to the
nearest whole dollar which, when done for many years in
succession, will have a compounding effect in substantially
eroding the value of the already modest rates of
compensation; and
(5) Continuing to place restrictions on receiving both
military retirement and veterans affairs disability benefits
for certain veterans; and
Whereas, this lack of support for those individuals who
sacrificed so much for the freedoms the citizens of the
United States all enjoy today is shameful and should be
looked at as a disgrace by all citizens: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved by the Senate of the Twenty-second Legislature of
the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2004, the House of
Representatives concurring, That this body expresses its
utmost disappointment in the lack of support the current
administration has shown toward veterans of our armed forces;
and be it further
Resolved, That Congress is urged to increase funding for
the continuation and expansion of veterans benefits and
services; and be it further
Resolved, That certified copies of this Concurrent
Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United
States, the Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives, the President of the United States Senate,
and Hawaii's Congressional Delegation.
____
POM-515. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania relative to the realignment of veterans'
services; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
House Resolution No. 682
Whereas, there are ten VA medical centers and 29 community-
based outpatient clinics located in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania; and
Whereas, nationwide the VA patient load has risen
approximately 21% since 2001 to more than 6 million; and
Whereas, The Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced
Services (CARES) Commission is considering the closure or
partial reduction of services at VA medical centers in
Altoona, Butler, Erie and Pittsburgh; and
Whereas, many veterans service organizations oppose these
proposed closures or reductions in service and consequent
adverse effects on the quality and efficiency of health care
for veterans throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
Therefore be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania strongly urge the Department of
Veterans Affairs to further evaluate the negative effects of
the proposed realignment of veterans services and to consider
alternative measures for the provision and enhancement of
quality health care for veterans in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania; and be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
President of the United States, to the Department of Veterans
Affairs, to the presiding officers of each house of Congress
and to each member of Congress from Pennsylvania.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Ms. COLLINS, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
without amendment:
H.R. 3340. A bill to redesignate the facilities of the
United States Postal Service located at 7715 and 7748 S.
Cottage Grove Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``James E.
Worsham Post Office'' and the ``James E. Worsham Carrier
Annex Building'', respectively, and for other purposes.
H.R. 4012. To amend the District of Columbia College Access
Act of 1999 to reauthorize for five additional years the
public school and private school tuition assistance programs
established under the Act.
H.R. 4222. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 550 Nebraska Avenue in
Kansas City, Kansas, as the ``Newell George Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 4327. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 7450 Natural Bridge Road in
St. Louis, Missouri, as the ``Vitilas `Veto' Reid Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 4427. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 73 South Euclid Avenue in
Montauk, New York, as the ``Perry B. Duryea, Jr. Post
Office''.
S. 2501. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 73 South Euclid Avenue in
Montauk, New York, as the ``Perry B. Duryea, Jr. Post
Office''.
S. 2640. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1050 North Hills Boulevard
in Reno, Nevada, as the ``Guardians of Freedom Memorial Post
Office Building'' and to authorize the installation of a
plaque at such site, and for other purposes.
S. 2673. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1001 Williams Street,
Ignacio, Colorado, as the ``Leonard C. Burch Post Office
Building''.
S. 2682. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 222 West 8th Street,
Durango, Colorado, as the ``Ben Nighthorse Campbell Post
Office Building''.
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following executive reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. WARNER for the Committee on Armed Services.
Marine Corps nomination of Brig. Gen. Cornell A. Wilson,
Jr.
Army nomination of Colonel Yves J. Fontaine.
Army nomination of Brigadier General Don T. Riley.
Army nomination of Col. Jerry M. Rivera.
Navy nominations beginning Rear Adm. (lh) Richard J.
Mauldin and ending Rear Adm. (lh) Anthony L. Winns, which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record on October 16, 2003.
Navy nomination of Capt. Timothy J. McGee.
Army nominations beginning Brig. Gen. Gregory J. Hunt and
ending Col. Jose M. Vallejo, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
November 20, 2003.
Navy nomination of Gerald R. Manley.
Air Force nomination of Col. Douglas M. Pierce.
Air Force nominations beginning Lorena A. *Bailey and
ending Jason P. *Zimmerer, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on March
12, 2004.
Marine Corps nominations beginning Col. Robert D. Papak and
ending Col. Eugene G. Payne, Jr., which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on April 29, 2004.
Marine Corps nominations beginning Col. Randolph D. Alles
and ending Col. Martin Post, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on May
6, 2004.
Air Force nominations beginning Randall M. Ashmore and
ending James O. Wooten, which were received by the Senate and
appeared in the Congressional Record on May 10, 2004.
Navy nomination of Rear Adm. (lh) Steven L. Enewold.
Navy nominations beginning Rear Adm. (lh) Stanely D. Bozin
and ending Rear Adm. (lh) Patrick M. Walsh, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on May 13, 2004.
Marine Corps nomination of Maj. Gen. James F. Amos.
Navy nomination of Vice Adm. Timothy J. Keating.
Navy nomination of Vice Adm. John B. Nathman.
Army nominations beginning Stephan A. *Alkins and ending
Clorinda K. Zawacki, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 16,
2004.
Army nominations beginning Douglas R. Dixon and ending
Thorpe C. Whitehead, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 16,
2004.
Air Force nomination of Lt. Gen. Duncan J. McNabb.
Army nomination of Lt. Gen. Bantz J. Craddock.
Army nominations beginning Nancy H. Fielding and ending
Tammy L. Miracle, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 17,
2004.
Army nominations beginning Brian R. Copes and ending Dennis
P. Simons, which
[[Page 17076]]
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record on June 17, 2004.
Navy nominations beginning Brian S. Adams and ending John
M. Zuzich, which nominations were received by the Senate and
appeared in the Congressional Record on June 24, 2004.
Valerie Lynn Baldwin, of Kansas, to be an Assistant
Secretary of the Army.
Army nomination of Lt. Gen. James L. Campbell.
Army nomination of Maj. Gen. John M. Brown III.
Navy nomination of Vice Adm. Robert F. Willard.
Navy nomination of Vice Adm. Albert T. Church III.
Air Force nomination of Norman L. Williams.
Air Force nomination of Thomas R. Bird.
Air Force nominations beginning Rex A. Hinesley and ending
Jeri K. Somers, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8, 2004.
Air Force nominations beginning Peter W. Bickel and ending
William D. Taylor, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8,
2004.
Air Force nominations beginning Donald A. Ahern and ending
Michael A. Wobbema, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8,
2004.
Navy nominations beginning Myles E. Brooks, Jr. and ending
James E. Watts, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8, 2004.
Navy nominations beginning Billy M. Appleton and ending Mil
A. Yi, which nominations were received by the Senate and
appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8, 2004.
Navy nominations beginning Carla M. Albritton and ending
Edward L. Zawislak, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8,
2004.
Navy nominations beginning Michael T. Acromite and ending
Craig M. Zelig, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8, 2004.
Navy nominations beginning Timothy A. Ackerman and ending
Terry D. Webb, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8, 2004.
Navy nominations beginning Steven E. Allen and ending
Sharon M. Wright, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8,
2004.
Navy nominations beginning Kristen N. Atterbury and ending
Mary A. Yonk, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8, 2004.
Navy nominations beginning David A. Berger and ending Erin
E. Stone, which nominations were received by the Senate and
appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8, 2004.
Navy nominations beginning John J. Adametz and ending
Barney S. Williams, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 8,
2004.
Army nomination of Col. Glenn K. Rieth.
By Mr. McCAIN for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
*David M. Stone, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary
of Homeland Security.
*Benjamin H. Wu, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Technology Policy.
*Brett T. Palmer, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary
of Commerce.
*Albert A. Frink, Jr., of California, to be an Assistant
Secretary of Commerce.
*Scott Kevin Walker, of Wisconsin, to be a Member of the
Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation.
*Enrique J. Sosa, of Florida, to be a Member of the Reform
Board (Amtrak) for a term of five years.
Coast Guard nominations beginning Rear Adm. (lh) Dale G.
Gabel and ending Rear Adm. (lh) Stephen W. Rochon, which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record on June 16, 2004.
*Captain Samuel P. DeBow, Jr., NOAA for appointment to the
grade of Rear Admiral (O-8), while serving in a position of
importance and responsibility as Director, NOAA Corps and
Director, Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under the provisions
of Title 33, United States Code, Section 3028(d)(1).
*Captain Richard R. Behn, NOAA for appointment to the grade
of Rear Admiral (O-7), while serving in a position of
importance and responsibility as Director, Marine and
Aviation Operations Centers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, under the provisions of Title 33, United
States Code, Section 3028(d)(1).
Mr. McCain. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation 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.
Coast Guard nomination of Craig S. Toomey.
Coast Guard nomination of Laurie J. Mosier.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration nominations
beginning John C. Clary III and ending Andrew P. Seaman,
which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in
the Congressional Record on May 18, 2004.
*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.)
____________________
DISCHARGED NOMINATION
The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations was discharged from further
consideration of the following nomination and the nomination was
confirmed:
John Ripin Miller, of Washington, to be Director of the
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking, with the rank of
Ambassador at Large.
____________________
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. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 2716. A bill to provide for the acquisition of land for
administrative and visitor facilities for Death Valley
National Park, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. NELSON of Nebraska (for himself, Mr. Craig, and
Mr. Domenici):
S. 2717. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to
exempt nonprofit small public water systems from certain
drinking water standards relating to naturally occurring
contaminants; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
S. 2718. A bill to provide for programs and activities with
respect to the prevention of underage drinking; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. ENZI:
S. 2719. A bill to amend the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 to further improve the safety and health of
working environments, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Leahy):
S. 2720. A bill to provide assistance for the crisis in
Sudan, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 2721. A bill to amend the National Assessment of
Educational Progress Authorization Act to require State
academic assessments of student achievement in United States
history, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 2722. A bill to maintain and expand the steel import
licensing and monitoring program; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 2723. A bill to designate certain land in the State of
Oregon as wilderness, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Talent):
S. 2724. A bill to amend section 33(a) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657c(a)) to clarify that the National
Veterans Business Development Corporation is a private
entity; considered and passed.
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Lautenberg, and Mr. Corzine):
S. 2725. A bill to amend the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 to eliminate the
coverage gap, to eliminate HMO subsidies, to repeal health
savings accounts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 2726. A bill to amend title 49 of the United States Code
to provide flight attendant security training, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Durbin, and
Mr. Feingold):
[[Page 17077]]
S. 2727. A bill to amend part A of title VI of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 regarding international and foreign
language studies; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. SCHUMER:
S. 2728. A bill to create a penalty for automobile
insurance fraud, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, and Ms.
Stabenow):
S. 2729. A bill to encourage students to pursue graduate
education and to assist students in affording graduate
education; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 2730. A bill to amend title V, XVIII, and XIX of the
Social Security Act to promote cessation of tobacco use under
the medicare program, the medicaid program, and the maternal
and child health services block grant program; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Levin, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Feingold,
Mr. Kohl, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 2731. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
prohibit certain interstate conduct relating to exotic
animals; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. REID:
S. 2732. A bill to provide grants for use by rural local
educational agencies in purchasing new school buses; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. BROWNBACK:
S. 2733. A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic
opportunity by establishing a National Enterprise Zone system
to promote prosperity in economically depressed areas; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 2734. A bill to implement the recommendations of the
Inspector General of the Department of the Interior regarding
Indian Tribal detention facilities; to the Committee on
Indian Affairs.
By Mr. MILLER (for himself and Mr. Chambliss):
S. 2735. A bill to require a study and report regarding the
designation of a new interstate route from Augusta, Georgia
to Natchez, Mississippi; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
By Mr. MILLER (for himself and Mr. Chambliss):
S. 2736. A bill to require a study and report regarding the
designations and construction of a new interstate route from
Savannah, Georgia to Knoxville, Tennessee; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 2737. A bill to facilitate the development of science
parks, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 2738. A bill to establish a Commission to commemorate
the 400th anniversary of the arrival of Samuel de Champlain
in the Champlain Valley, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 2739. A bill to improve the training and retention of
health professionals under titles VII and VIII of the Public
Health Service Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. 2740. A bill to improve dental services in underserved
areas by amending the Public Health Service Act, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
By Mr. DASCHLE:
S. 2741. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
reauthorize and extend the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome prevention
and services program, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
S. 2742. A bill to extend certain authority of the Supreme
Court Police, modify the venue of prosecutions relating to
the Supreme Court building and grounds, and authorize the
acceptance of gifts to the United States Supreme Court; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. FITZGERALD (for himself, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Hollings, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Sessions):
S. 2743. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide that only licensed medical doctors, licensed doctors
of osteopathy, and certain licensed dentists may perform eye
surgery at Department of Veterans Affairs facilities or under
contract with the Department; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
By Mr. SUNUNU (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Dole, and
Mr. Harkin):
S. 2744. A bill to authorize the minting and issuance of a
Presidential $1 coin series; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 2745. A bill to amend the Colorado Canyons National
Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of
2000 to rename the Colorado Canyons National Conservation
Area as the McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 2746. A bill to provide for the termination of the
current contract for the operation of Los Alamos National
Laboratory, New Mexico, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Armed Services .
By Mr. LIEBERMAN:
S. 2747. A bill to establish a Commission on the Future of
the United States Economy to make recommendations on public
policy and the reorganization of the Federal Government to
promote efficiency and economy of operation, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
By Mrs. CLINTON:
S. 2748. A bill to prohibit the giving or acceptance of
payment for the placement of a child, or obtaining consent to
adoption; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. SARBANES:
S. 2749. A bill to establish a grant program to provide
comprehensive eye examinations to children, and for other
purposes ; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 2750. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to assist in the planning, design, and construction of the
Tumalo Irrigation District Water Conservation Project in
Deschutes County, Oregon; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Corzine):
S. 2751. A bill to encourage savings, promote financial
literacy, and expand opportunities for young adults by
establishing KIDS Accounts; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 2752. A bill to reform Federal budget procedures, to
impose spending safeguards, to combat waste, fraud, and
abuse, to account for accurate Government agency costs, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Budget and the
Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the
order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one
Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to
report or be discharged.
By Mr. SMITH:
S. 2753. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development to insure zero-downpayment mortgages; to
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Johnson, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Stabenow,
and Mr. Leahy):
S. 2754. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to protect
social security cost-of-living adjustments (COLA); to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. DODD:
S. 2755. A bill to amend the Consumer Credit Protection Act
to ban abusive credit practices, enhance consumer
disclosures, protect underage consumers, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
S. 2756. A bill to extend a certain high priority corridor
in the States of Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, and
Wyoming; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. FITZGERALD:
S. 2757. A bill to provide for certain financial reporting
requirements to apply to the judicial branch of the Federal
Government, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. FITZGERALD:
S. 2758. A bill to provide for certain financial reporting
requirements to apply to the legislative branch of the
Federal Government, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Rules and Administration.
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr.
Kennedy, and Ms. Snowe):
S. 2759. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security
Act to modify the rules relating to the availability and
method of redistribution of unexpended SCHIP allotments, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Craig, Mr.
Cornyn, and Mr. Sessions):
S. 2760. A bill to limit and expedite Federal collateral
review of convictions for killing a public safety officer; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Daschle):
S. 2761. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide tax relief for farmers, ranchers, and fishermen,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Coleman):
S. 2762. A bill to encourage the use of indigenous
feedstock from the Caribbean Basin region with respect to
ethyl alcohol for fuel use; to the Committee on Finance.
[[Page 17078]]
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Reid):
S. 2763. A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to
clarify the treatment of accelerator-produced and other
radioactive material as byproduct material; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Hagel, Mr. Reed, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Carper, Mr. Crapo,
Mr. Reid, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Chafee):
S. 2764. A bill to extend the applicability of the
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Voinovich, and Mrs.
Dole):
S. 2765. A bill to amend the Exchange Rates and
International Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 to
clarify the conditions under which the Secretary should enter
into negotiations to correct currency manipulations by other
countries; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 2766. A bill to amend part D of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act to authorize the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to negotiate for lower prices for medicare
prescription drugs and to eliminate the gap in coverage of
medicare prescription drug benefits, to reduce medical errors
and increase the use of medical technology, to increase
services in primary and preventive care by non-physician
providers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 2767. A bill to provide an economic stimulus; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 2768. A bill to provide competitive status to certain
Federal employees in the State of Alaska; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Hagel, and
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska):
S. 2769. A bill to provide that imported ethanol shall not
count toward satisfaction of any renewable fuel standard that
may be enacted; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
By Mr. DASCHLE:
S. 2770. A bill to establish a National Commission on
American Indian Trust Holdings; to the Committee on Indian
Affairs.
By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 2771. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
improve the quality of care for cancer, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 2772. A bill to promote the development of the emerging
commercial human space flight industry, to extend the
liability indemnification regime for the commercial space
transportation industry, to authorize appropriations for the
Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space
Transportation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Daschle):
S. Res. 415. A resolution to authorize the production of
records by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of
the Committee on Governmental Affairs; considered and agreed
to.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. Res. 416. A resolution congratulating the California
State University, Fullerton baseball team on winning the 2004
College World Series; considered and agreed to.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. Res. 417. A resolution congratulating the University of
California at Los Angeles women's softball team on winning
the 2004 National Collegiate Athletic Association
Championship; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Allen, Mr.
Bayh, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Burns, Mr.
Campbell, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Dayton, Mr.
Dodd, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Miller, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr.
Shelby, and Mr. Wyden):
S. Res. 418. A resolution designating September 2004 as
``National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month''; considered and
agreed to.
By Mr. CORNYN:
S. Res. 419. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate with respect to the continuity of Government and the
smooth transition of executive power; to the Committee on
Rules and Administration.
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. Con. Res. 131. A concurrent resolution calling on the
Government of Saudi Arabia to cease supporting religious
ideologies that promote hatred, intolerance, violence, and
other abuses of internationally recognized human rights and
urging the Government of the United States to promote
religious freedom in Saudi Arabia; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mr.
Schumer, and Mrs. Clinton):
S. Con. Res. 132. A concurrent resolution affirming the
support of Congress for preserving the image of Alexander
Hamilton on the face of $10 Federal reserve notes because of
his standing as one of the United States' most influential
founding fathers; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Kohl,
Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Levin, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Dole,
Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Byrd, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Smith):
S. Con. Res. 133. A concurrent resolution declaring
genocide in Darfur, Sudan; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. FITZGERALD (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr.
Sarbanes):
S. Con. Res. 134. A concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress that the Parthenon Marbles should be
returned to Greece; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Daschle):
S. Con. Res. 135. A concurrent resolution authorizing the
printing of a commemorative document in memory of the late
President of the United States, Ronald Wilson Reagan;
considered and agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 540
At the request of Mr. Inhofe, the names of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) and the
Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) were added as cosponsors of S.
540, a bill to authorize the presentation of gold medals on behalf of
Congress to Native Americans who served as Code Talkers during foreign
conflicts in which the United States was involved during the 20th
Century in recognition of the service of those Native Americans to the
United States.
S. 560
At the request of Mr. Craig, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Daschle) was added as a cosponsor of S. 560, a bill to
impose tariff-rate quotas on certain casein and milk protein
concentrates.
S. 977
At the request of Mr. Fitzgerald, the name of the Senator from
Washington (Mrs. Murray) was added as a cosponsor of S. 977, a bill to
amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require
that group and individual health insurance coverage and group health
plans provide coverage from treatment of a minor child's congenital or
developmental deformity or disorder due to trauma, infection, tumor, or
disease.
S. 1142
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Inouye) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1142, a bill to provide
disadvantaged children with access to dental services.
S. 1414
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Brownback) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1414, a bill to restore
second amendment rights in the District of Columbia.
S. 1428
At the request of Mr. McConnell, the name of the Senator from
Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1428, a bill to
prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued
against food manufacturers, marketers, distributors, advertisers,
sellers, and trade associations for damages or injunctive relief for
claims of injury resulting from a person's weight gain, obesity, or any
health condition related to weight gain or obesity.
S. 1735
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer) was added as a cosponsor
[[Page 17079]]
of S. 1735, a bill to increase and enhance law enforcement resources
committed to investigation and prosecution of violent gangs, to deter
and punish violent gang crime, to protect law abiding citizens and
communities from violent criminals, to revise and enhance criminal
penalties for violent crimes, to reform and facilitate prosecution of
juvenile gang members who commit violent crimes, to expand and improve
gang prevention programs, and for other purposes.
S. 1890
At the request of Mr. Enzi, the names of the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Hatch) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1890, a bill to require the mandatory expensing of
stock options granted to executive officers, and for other purposes.
S. 2138
At the request of Mr. Graham of South Carolina, the name of the
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) was added as a cosponsor of S.
2138, a bill to protect the rights of American consumers to diagnose,
service, and repair motor vehicles purchased in the United States, and
for other purposes.
S. 2174
At the request of Mr. Bunning, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2174, a bill to amend title
XIX of the Social Security Act to include podiatrists as physicians for
purposes of covering physicians services under the medicaid program.
S. 2268
At the request of Mr. Bunning, the name of the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Ensign) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2268, a bill to provide for
recruiting, training, and deputizing persons for the Federal flight
deck officer program.
S. 2271
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Harkin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2271, a bill to establish
national standards for discharges from cruise vessels into the waters
of the United States, and for other purposes.
S. 2275
At the request of Mr. Baucus, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
2275, a bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101
et seq.) to provide for homeland security assistance for high-risk
nonprofit organizations, and for other purposes.
S. 2299
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Conrad) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2299, a bill to
strengthen the national security by encouraging and assisting in the
expansion and improvement of educational programs to meet critical
needs at the elementary, secondary, and higher education levels.
S. 2327
At the request of Mrs. Clinton, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 2327, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify that
per diem payments by the Department of Veterans Affairs for the care of
veterans in State homes shall not be used to offset or reduce other
payments made to assist veterans.
S. 2353
At the request of Mr. Craig, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2353, a bill to reauthorize and
amend the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992.
S. 2422
At the request of Mr. Smith, the names of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Chafee) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum)
were added as cosponsors of S. 2422, a bill to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain modifications to be made to
qualified mortgages held by a REMIC or a grantor trust.
S. 2425
At the request of Mr. Byrd, the name of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Feinstein) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2425, a bill to amend
the Tariff Act of 1930 to allow for improved administration of new
shipper administrative reviews.
S. 2436
At the request of Mr. Inouye, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Daschle) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2436, a bill to
reauthorize the Native American Programs Act of 1974.
S. 2468
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Bingaman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2468, a bill to
reform the postal laws of the United States.
S. 2500
At the request of Mr. Lugar, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Coleman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2500, a bill to amend the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide assistance for orphans and
other vulnerable children in developing countries, and for other
purposes.
S. 2526
At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Clinton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2526, a bill to
reauthorize the Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education
Program.
S. 2566
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2566, a bill to amend
title II of the social Security Act to phase out the 24-month waiting
period for disabled individuals to become eligible for medicare
benefits, to eliminate the waiting period for individuals with life-
threatening conditions, and for other purposes.
S. 2657
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Voinovich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2657, a bill to amend part
III of title 5, United States Code, to provide for the establishment of
programs under which supplemental dental and vision benefits are made
available to Federal employees, retirees, and their dependents, to
expand the contracting authority of the Office of Personnel Management,
and for other purposes.
S. 2659
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Leahy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2659, a bill to extend the
temporary increase in payments under the medicare program for home
health services furnished in a rural area.
S. 2671
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer)
were added as cosponsors of S. 2671, a bill to extend temporary State
fiscal relief, and for other purposes.
S. 2679
At the request of Mr. Kyl, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
DeWine) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2679, a bill to strengthen anti-
terrorism investigative tools, promote information sharing, punish
terrorist offenses, and for other purposes.
S. 2687
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2687, a bill
to provide coverage under the Railway Labor Act to employees of certain
air and surface transportation entities.
S. 2692
At the request of Mr. Jeffords, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Chafee) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2692, a bill to
authorize the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to make grants to States for affordable housing for low-
income persons, and for other purposes.
S. 2701
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, the name of the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Reid) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2701, a bill to provide
incentives for the sharing of homeland security information, promote
the development of an information sharing network, provide grants and
other support to achieve communications interoperability, and establish
an Office of Information Sharing, and for other purposes.
S. 2702
At the request of Mr. Chambliss, the name of the Senator from Texas
(Mr.
[[Page 17080]]
Cornyn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2702, a bill to amend the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to repeal the requirement that
persons making disbursements for electioneering communications file
reports on such disbursements with the Federal Election Commission and
the prohibition against the making of disbursements for electioneering
communications by corporations and labor organizations, and for other
purposes.
S. 2705
At the request of Mr. DeWine, the names of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin)
were added as cosponsors of S. 2705, a bill to provide assistance to
Sudan, and for other purposes.
At the request of Mr. Biden, the names of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold)
were added as cosponsors of S. 2705, supra.
S. 2710
At the request of Mr. Gregg, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2710, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to improve the quality and efficiency of
health care delivery through improvements in health care information
technology, and for other purposes.
S. CON. RES. 8
At the request of Ms. Collins, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy)
were added as cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 8, a concurrent resolution
designating the second week in May each year as ``National Visiting
Nurse Association Week''.
S. CON. RES. 106
At the request of Mr. Campbell, the names of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Lott) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) were
added as cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 106, a concurrent resolution urging
the Government of Ukraine to ensure a democratic, transparent, and fair
election process for the presidential election on October 31, 2004.
S. CON. RES. 113
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Nevada (Mr.
Reid) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 113, a concurrent
resolution recognizing the importance of early diagnosis, proper
treatment, and enhanced public awareness of Tourette Syndrome and
supporting the goals and ideals of National Tourette Syndrome Awareness
Month.
S. CON. RES. 119
At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 119, a
concurrent resolution recognizing that prevention of suicide is a
compelling national priority.
S. CON. RES. 124
At the request of Mr. Brownback, the names of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Collins) and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar) were added as
cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 124, a concurrent resolution declaring
genocide in Darfur, Sudan.
At the request of Mr. Baucus, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
Con. Res. 124, supra.
At the request of Mrs. Clinton, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. Con. Res. 124, supra.
At the request of Mr. Corzine, the names of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Jeffords), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham) and the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Nelson) were added as cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 124,
supra.
S. CON. RES. 126
At the request of Mr. Coleman, the names of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Smith) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) were added as
cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 126, a concurrent resolution condemning the
attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina,
in July 1994, and expressing the concern of the United States regarding
the continuing, decade-long delay in the resolution of this case.
S. CON. RES. 127
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the names of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Snowe), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from
Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg)
were added as cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 127, a concurrent resolution
expressing the sense of Congress that the President should designate
September 11 as a national day of voluntary service, charity, and
compassion.
S. CON. RES. 128
At the request of Mr. Chambliss, the name of the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Allen) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 128, a
concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the
importance of life insurance, and recognizing and supporting National
Life Insurance Awareness Month.
S. CON. RES. 130
At the request of Mr. Frist, his name and the names of the Senator
from Iowa (Mr. Grassley), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) and
the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) were added as cosponsors of S. Con.
Res. 130, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that
the Supreme Court of the United States should act expeditiously to
resolve the confusion and inconsistency in the Federal criminal justice
system caused by its decision in Blakely v. Washington, and for other
purposes.
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the names of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) were
added as cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 130, supra.
S. RES. 271
At the request of Mr. Corzine, the names of the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. Bayh) and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) were added as
cosponsors of S. Res. 271, a resolution urging the President of the
United States diplomatic corps to dissuade member states of the United
Nations from supporting resolutions that unfairly castigate Israel and
to promote within the United Nations General Assembly more balanced and
constructive approaches to resolving conflict in the Middle East.
At the request of Mr. Coleman, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Smith) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 271, supra.
S. RES. 398
At the request of Mr. Lugar, the names of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. DeWine) were added as
cosponsors of S. Res. 398, a resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate on promoting initiatives to develop an HIV vaccine.
S. RES. 408
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 408, a
resolution supporting the construction by Israel of a security fence to
prevent Palestinian terrorist attacks, condemning the decision of the
International Court of Justice on the legality of the security fence,
and urging no further action by the United Nations to delay or prevent
the construction of the security fence.
At the request of Mr. Smith, the names of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Lott), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the
Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Voinovich), the Senator from Maine (Ms. Snowe) and the Senator from
Arizona (Mr. Kyl) were added as cosponsors of S. Res. 408, supra.
At the request of Mr. Reid, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
Res. 408, supra.
S. RES. 409
At the request of Mr. Bayh, the names of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Craig) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) were added as
cosponsors of S. Res. 409, a resolution encouraging increased
involvement in service activities to assist senior citizens.
AMENDMENT NO. 3568
At the request of Mr. Gregg, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No.
3568 proposed to H.R. 4226, a bill to amend title 49, United States
Code, to make certain conforming changes to provisions governing the
registration of aircraft and the recordation of instruments in order
[[Page 17081]]
to implement the Convention on International Interests in Mobile
Equipment and the Protocol to the Convention on International Interests
in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment, known as
the ``Cape Town Treaty''.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 2716. A bill to provide for the acquisition of land for
administrative and visitor facilities for Death Valley National Park,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Death Valley
National Park Administrative and Visitor Facilities Act of 2004.
This is a simple common sense bill. It allows the Death Valley
National Park to accept a donation of about 15 acres of land and
buildings near Beatty, NV.
This small parcel of land and the buildings on it will be used by the
park as a maintenance and administrative station. These facilities are
needed to consolidate and improve maintenance operations and other
administrative functions of the park.
The station would be donated by the Barrick Gold Corporation to the
Park Service at no cost and is superior to the Park Service's current
facilities in the area. This is an easy way for us to improve
maintenance and administrative functions at Death Valley National park
at absolutely no cost to the government. This legislation has long been
advocated by Nye County and would benefit the nearby community of
Beatty, NV.
The current owners have already completed a Phase One Environmental
Assessment that concluded there were no ``hazardous substances'' or
``pollutant or contaminants'' associated with the land parcels or the
structures. We should take advantage of this opportunity to improve
park operations while we can.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation as an easy,
efficient way to improve one of America's great national parks.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2716
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 ``Death Valley National Park
Administrative and Visitor Facilities Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Death Valley
National Park.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 3. DEATH VALLEY NATIONAL PARK ADMINISTRATIVE AND VISITOR
FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary
may acquire by donation all right, title, and interest in and
to the parcel of land (including improvements to the land)
described in subsection (b) for inclusion in the Park.
(b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in
subsection (a) is the parcel of land in Nye County, Nevada--
(1) consisting of not more than 15 acres;
(2) comprising a portion of Tract 37 located north of the
center line of Nevada State Highway 374; and
(3) located in the E\1/2\NW\1/4\, NW\1/4\NE\1/4\ sec. 22,
T. 12 S., R. 46 E., Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.
(c) Conditions.--Before accepting a donation of land under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall obtain a phase I
environmental assessment prepared by an independent party
that--
(1) evaluates the condition of the land (including any
structures on the land); and
(2) determines that the land or structure, or a portion of
the land or structure, is not contaminated with--
(A) hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, as
defined in section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9601); or
(B) any petroleum substance, fraction, or derivative.
(d) Boundary Revision.--On acquisition of the land under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall revise the boundary of
the Park to reflect the acquisition.
(e) Administration.--Any land acquired under subsection (a)
shall be administered by the Secretary as part of the Park.
(f) Use of Land.--The parcel of land acquired under
subsection (a) shall be used by the Secretary for the
development, operation, and maintenance of administrative and
visitor facilities for the Park.
______
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
S. 2718. A bill to provide for programs and activities with respect
to the prevention of underage drinking; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend
and colleague Senator Dodd, to introduce the Sober Truth on Preventing
Underage Drinking Act--also known as the STOP Underage Drinking Act. I
thank Senator Dodd for his commitment to this issue, as well as our
colleagues on the House side--Representatives Roybal-Allard, Wolf,
Osborne, DeLauro, and Wamp for working so diligently with us over the
past few months on this bill. It is a good bill--a carefully crafted,
bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation.
As we discussed at the HELP Subcommittee hearing I chaired in
September on underage drinking, it is well known that underage drinking
is a significant problem for youth in this country. We've known that
for a very long time.
We know that underage drinking often contributes to the four leading
causes of deaths among 15 to 20 year olds--that 69 percent of youths
who died in alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the year 2000
involved young drinking drivers--that in 1999, nearly 40 percent of
people under the age of 21 who were victims of drownings, burns, and
falls tested positive for alcohol.
We've known that alcohol has been reported to be involved in 36
percent of homicides, 12 percent of male suicides, and 8 percent of
female suicides involving people under 21.
How did we get here, how did our Nation reach this point--a point
where today, 12 percent of eighth graders--13 and 14 year olds--binge
drink? Add to that, the 22 percent of tenth graders--15 and 16 year
olds--who binge drink. The National Institute of Drug Abuse also
reported that 95 percent of 12th graders perceive alcohol as readily
available to them. Tragically, most children and young adults that
drink underage obtain the alcohol from their parents or another adult.
These statistics are frightening. Too many American kids are drinking
regularly, and they are drinking in quantities that can be of great,
long-term harm to themselves. Again I ask--how did we get here? As a
Nation, we clearly haven't done enough to address this problem. We
haven't done enough to acknowledge how prevalent and widespread teenage
drinking is in this country. We haven't done enough to let parents know
that they, too, are a part of this problem and can be a part of the
solution.
We talk about drugs and the dangers of drug use, as we should, but
the reality is that we, as a society, have become complacent about the
problem of underage drinking. This has to change. The culture has to
change.
The Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act, or STOP
Underage Drinking Act, has four major areas of Policy development:
First, there is a Federal coordination and reporting provision. This
title would create an Interagency Coordinating Committee to coordinate
the efforts and expertise of various Federal agencies to combat
underage drinking. It would be chaired by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services and would include other agencies and departments, such
as the Department of Education, the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, and the Federal Trade Commission. This title
also would mandate an annual report to Congress from the Interagency
Committee on their efforts to combat underage drinking, as well as an
annual report card on State efforts to combat the problem. Two million
dollars, annually, would be appropriated under this section.
Second, the bill contains an authorization for the a national media
campaign against underage drinking. This
[[Page 17082]]
title would provide $1 million annually to authorize a national media
campaign for which the Ad Council received $800,000 last year to begin
implementation. It would continue funding for fiscal years 2005 and
2006.
Third, the bill would support new intervention programs to prevent
underage drinking. This section of the bill would provide $5 million
for enhancement grants to the Drug Free Communities program to be
directed at the problem of underage drinking. This title also would
create a new program which would provide competitive grants to States,
non-profit entities, and institutions of higher education to create
State-wide coalitions to prevent underage drinking. This program would
be funded at $5 million.
Finally, our bill contains a section devoted to research. This title
would provide $6 million for increased Federal research and data
collection on underage drinking, including reporting on the types and
brands of alcohol that kids use and the short-term and long-term
impacts of underage drinking upon adolescent brain development.
Again, I thank Senator Dodd for working with me on this issue here in
the Senate, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues
in the House and Senate to pass this very important bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2718
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Sober
Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act'', or the ``STOP
Underage Drinking Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents
Sec. 2. Findings
Sec. 3. Definitions
TITLE I--SENSE OF CONGRESS
Sec. 101. Sense of Congress
TITLE II--INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEE; ANNUAL REPORT CARD
Sec. 201. Establishment of interagency coordinating committee to
prevent underage drinking
Sec. 202. Annual report card
Sec. 203. Authorization of appropriations
TITLE III--NATIONAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN
Sec. 301. National media campaign to prevent underage drinking
TITLE IV--INTERVENTIONS
Sec. 401. Community-based coalition enhancement grants to prevent
underage drinking
Sec. 402. Grants directed at reducing higher-education alcohol abuse
TITLE V--ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
Sec. 501. Additional research on underage drinking
Sec. 502. Authorization of appropriations
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Drinking alcohol under the age of 21 is illegal in each
of the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Enforcement of
current laws and regulations in States and communities, such
as minimum age drinking laws, zero tolerance laws, and laws
and regulations which restrict availability of alcohol, must
supplement other efforts to reduce underage drinking.
(2) Data collected annually by the Department of Health and
Human Services shows that alcohol is the most heavily used
drug by children in the United States, and that--
(A) more youths consume alcoholic beverages than use
tobacco products or illegal drugs;
(B) by the end of the eighth grade, 45.6 percent of
children have engaged in alcohol use, and by the end of high
school, 76.6 percent have done so; and
(C) the annual societal cost of underage drinking is
estimated at $53 to $58 billion.
(3) Data collected by the Department of Health and Human
Services and the Department of Transportation indicate that
alcohol use by youth has many negative consequences, such as
immediate risk from acute impairment; traffic fatalities;
violence; suicide; and unprotected sex.
(4) Research confirms that the harm caused by underage
drinking lasts beyond the underage years. Compared to persons
who wait until age 21 or older to start drinking, those who
start to drink before age 14 are, as adults, four times more
likely to become alcohol dependent; seven times more likely
to be in a motor vehicle crash because of drinking; and more
likely to suffer mental and physical damage from alcohol
abuse.
(5) Alcohol abuse creates long-term risk developmentally
and is associated with negative physical impacts on the
brain.
(6) Research indicates that adults greatly underestimate
the extent of alcohol use by youths, its negative
consequences, and its use by their own children. The IOM
report concluded that underage drinking cannot be
successfully addressed by focusing on youth alone.
Ultimately, adults are responsible for young people obtaining
alcohol by selling, providing, or otherwise making it
available to them. Parents are the most important channel of
influence on their children's underage drinking, according to
the IOM report, which also recommends a national adult-
oriented media campaign.
(7) Research shows that public service health messages, in
combination with community-based efforts, can reduce health-
damaging behavior. The Department of Health and Human
Services and the Ad Council have undertaken a public health
campaign targeted at parents to combat underage alcohol
consumption. The Ad Council estimates that, for a typical
public health campaign, it receives an average of $28 million
per year in free media through its 28,000 media outlets
nationwide.
(8) A significant percentage of the total alcohol
consumption in the United States each year is by underage
youth. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration reports that the percentage is over 11
percent.
(9) Youth are exposed to a significant amount of alcohol
advertising through a variety of media. Some studies indicate
that youth awareness of alcohol advertising correlates to
their drinking behavior and beliefs.
(10) According to the Center on Alcohol Marketing and
Youth, in 2002, the alcoholic beverage industry spent $990.2
million on product advertising on television, and $10 million
on television advertising designed to promote the responsible
use of alcohol. For every one television ad discouraging
underage alcohol use, there were 609 product ads.
(11) Alcohol use occurs in 76 percent of movies rated G or
PG and 97 percent of movies rated PG-13. The Federal Trade
Commission has recommended restricting paid alcohol beverage
promotional placements to films rated R or NC-17.
(12) Youth spend 9 to 11 hours per week listening to music,
and 17 percent of all lyrics contain alcohol references; 30
percent of those songs include brand-name mentions.
(13) Studies show that adolescents watch 20 to 27 hours of
television each week, and 71 percent of prime-time television
episodes depict alcohol use and 77 percent contain some
reference to alcohol.
(14) College and university presidents have cited alcohol
abuse as the number one health problem on college and
university campuses.
(15) According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse
and Alcoholism, two of five college students are binge
drinkers; 1,400 college students die each year from alcohol-
related injuries, a majority of which involve motor vehicle
crashes; more than 70,000 students are victims of alcohol-
related sexual assault; and 500,000 students are injured
under the influence of alcohol each year.
(16) According to the Center on Alcohol Marketing and
Youth, in 2002, alcohol producers spent a total of $58
million to place 6,251 commercials in college sports
programs, and spent $27.7 million advertising during the NCAA
men's basketball tournament, which had as many alcohol ads
(939) as the Super Bowl, World Series, College Bowl Games and
the National Football League's Monday Night Football
broadcasts combined (925).
(17) The IOM report recommended that colleges and
universities ban alcohol advertising and promotion on campus
in order to demonstrate their commitment to discouraging
alcohol use among underage students.
(18) According to the Government Accountability Office
(``GAO''), the Federal Government spends $1.8 billion
annually to combat youth drug use and $71 million to prevent
underage alcohol use.
(19) The GAO concluded that there is a lack of reporting
about how these funds are specifically expended, inadequate
collaboration among the agencies, and no central coordinating
group or office to oversee how the funds are expended or to
determine the effectiveness of these efforts.
(20) There are at least three major, annual, government
funded national surveys in the United States that include
underage drinking data: the National Household Survey on Drug
Use and Health, Monitoring the Future, and the Youth Risk
Behavior Survey. These surveys do not use common indicators
to allow for direct comparison of youth alcohol consumption
patterns. Analyses of recent years' data do, however, show
similar results.
(21) Research shows that school-based and community-based
interventions can reduce underage drinking and associated
problems, and that positive outcomes can be achieved by
combining environmental and institutional change with theory-
based health education--a comprehensive, community-based
approach.
[[Page 17083]]
(22) Studies show that a minority of youth who need
treatment for their alcohol problems receive such services.
Further, insufficient information exists to properly assist
clinicians and other providers in their youth treatment
efforts.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) The term ``binge drinking'' means a pattern of drinking
alcohol that brings blood alcohol concentration (BAC) to 0.08
gm percent or above. For the typical adult, this pattern
corresponds to consuming 5 or more drinks (male), or 4 or
more drinks (female), in about 2 hours.
(2) The term ``heavy drinking'' means five or more drinks
on the same occasion in the past 30 days.
(3) The term ``frequent heavy drinking'' means five or more
drinks on at least five occasions in the last 30 days.
(4) The term ``alcoholic beverage industry'' means the
brewers, vintners, distillers, importers, distributors, and
retail outlets that sell and serve beer, wine, and distilled
spirits.
(5) The term ``school-based prevention'' means programs,
which are institutionalized, and run by staff members or
school-designated persons or organizations in every grade of
school, kindergarten through 12th grade.
(6) The term ``youth'' means persons under the age of 21.
(7) The term ``IOM report'' means the report released in
September 2003 by the National Research Council, Institute of
Medicine, and entitled ``Reducing Underage Drinking: A
Collective Responsibility''.
TITLE I--SENSE OF CONGRESS
SEC. 101. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of the Congress that:
(1) A multi-faceted effort is needed to more successfully
address the problem of underage drinking in the United
States. A coordinated approach to prevention, intervention,
treatment, and research is key to making progress. This Act
recognizes the need for a focused national effort, and
addresses particulars of the Federal portion of that effort.
(2) States and communities, including colleges and
universities, are encouraged to adopt comprehensive
prevention approaches, including--
(A) evidence-based screening, programs and curricula;
(B) brief intervention strategies;
(C) consistent policy enforcement; and
(D) environmental changes that limit underage access to
alcohol.
(3) Public health and consumer groups have played an
important role in drawing the Nation's attention to the
health crisis of underage drinking. Working at the Federal,
State, and community levels, and motivated by grass-roots
support, they have initiated effective prevention programs
that have made significant progress in the battle against
underage drinking.
(4) The alcohol beverage industry has developed and paid
for national education and awareness messages on illegal
underage drinking directed to parents as well as consumers
generally. According to the industry, it has also supported
the training of more than 1.6 million retail employees,
community-based prevention programs, point of sale education,
and enforcement programs. All of these efforts are aimed at
further reducing illegal underage drinking and preventing
sales of alcohol to persons under the age of 21. All sectors
of the alcohol beverage industry have also voluntarily
committed to placing advertisements in broadcast and
magazines where at least 70 percent of the audiences are
expected to be 21 years of age or older. The industry should
continue to monitor and tailor its advertising practices to
further limit underage exposure, including the use of
independent third party review. The industry should continue
and expand evidence-based efforts to prevent underage
drinking.
(5) Public health and consumer groups, in collaboration
with the alcohol beverage industry, should explore
opportunities to reduce underage drinking.
(6) The entertainment industries have a powerful impact on
youth, and they should use rating systems and marketing codes
to reduce the likelihood that underage audiences will be
exposed to movies, recordings, or television programs with
unsuitable alcohol content, even if adults are expected to
predominate in the viewing or listening audiences.
(7) Objective scientific evidence and data should be
generated and made available to the general public and policy
makers at the local, state, and national levels to help them
make informed decisions, implement judicious policies, and
monitor progress in preventing childhood/adolescent alcohol
use.
(8) The National Collegiate Athletic Association, its
member colleges and universities, and athletic conferences
should affirm a commitment to a policy of discouraging
alcohol use among underage students and other young fans by
ending all alcohol advertising during radio and television
broadcasts of collegiate sporting events.
TITLE II--INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEE; ANNUAL REPORT CARD
SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEE
TO PREVENT UNDERAGE DRINKING.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in collaboration with the Federal officials
specified in subsection (b), shall establish an interagency
coordinating committee focusing on underage drinking
(referred to in this section as the ``Committee'').
(b) Other Agencies.--The officials referred to in
subsection (a) are the Secretary of Education, the Attorney
General, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of
the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Surgeon General,
the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the Director of the National Institute on Alcohol
Abuse and Alcoholism, the Administrator of the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Director
of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Assistant
Secretary for Children and Families, the Director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Administrator of
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the
Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, the Chairman of the Federal Trade
Commission, and such other Federal officials as the Secretary
of Health and Human Services determines to be appropriate.
(c) Chair.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall serve as the chair of the Committee.
(d) Duties.--The Committee shall guide policy and program
development across the Federal Government with respect to
underage drinking.
(e) Consultations.--The Committee shall actively seek the
input of and shall consult with all appropriate and
interested parties, including public health research and
interest groups, foundations, and alcohol beverage industry
trade associations and companies.
(f) Annual Report.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, on behalf of the Committee, shall annually submit
to the Congress a report that summarizes--
(A) all programs and policies of Federal agencies designed
to prevent underage drinking;
(B) the extent of progress in reducing underage drinking
nationally;
(C) data that the Secretary shall collect with respect to
the information specified in paragraph (2); and
(D) such other information regarding underage drinking as
the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
(2) Certain information.--The report under paragraph (1)
shall include information on the following:
(A) Patterns and consequences of underage drinking.
(B) Measures of the availability of alcohol to underage
populations and the exposure of this population to messages
regarding alcohol in advertising and the entertainment media.
(C) Surveillance data, including information on the onset
and prevalence of underage drinking.
(D) Any additional findings resulting from research
conducted or supported under section 501.
(E) Evidence-based best practices to both prevent underage
drinking and provide treatment services to those youth who
need them.
SEC. 202. ANNUAL REPORT CARD.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall,
with input and collaboration from other appropriate Federal
agencies, States, Indian tribes, territories, and public
health, consumer, and alcohol beverage industry groups,
annually issue a ``report card'' to accurately rate the
performance of each state in enacting, enforcing, and
creating laws, regulations, and programs to prevent or reduce
underage drinking. The report card shall include ratings on
outcome measures for categories related to the prevalence of
underage drinking in each State.
(b) Outcome Measures.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop, in
consultation with the Committee established in section 201, a
set of outcome measures to be used in preparing the report
card.
(2) Categories.--In developing the outcome measures, the
Secretary shall develop measures for categories related to
the following:
(A) The degree of strictness of the minimum drinking age
laws and dram shop liability statutes in each State.
(B) The number of compliance checks within alcohol retail
outlets conducted measured against the number of total
alcohol retail outlets in each State, and the results of such
checks.
(C) Whether or not the State mandates or otherwise provides
training on the proper selling and serving of alcohol for all
sellers and servers of alcohol as a condition of employment.
(D) Whether or not the State has policies and regulations
with regard to Internet sales and home delivery of alcoholic
beverages.
(E) The number of adults in the State targeted by State
programs to deter adults from purchasing alcohol for minors.
(F) The number of youths, parents, and caregivers who are
targeted by State programs designed to deter underage
drinking.
[[Page 17084]]
(G) Whether or not the State has enacted graduated drivers
licenses and the extent of those provisions.
(H) The amount that the State invests, per youth capita, on
the prevention of underage drinking, further broken down by
the amount spent on--
(i) compliance check programs in retail outlets, including
providing technology to prevent and detect the use of false
identification by minors to make alcohol purchases;
(ii) checkpoints;
(iii) community-based, school-based, and higher-education-
based programs to prevent underage drinking;
(iv) underage drinking prevention programs that target
youth within the juvenile justice and child welfare systems;
and
(v) other State efforts or programs as deemed appropriate.
SEC. 203. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and such sums as may
be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
TITLE III--NATIONAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN
SEC. 301. NATIONAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT UNDERAGE
DRINKING.
(a) Scope of the Campaign.--The Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall continue to fund and oversee the
production, broadcasting, and evaluation of the Ad Council's
national adult-oriented media public service campaign.
(b) Report.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall provide a report to the Congress annually detailing the
production, broadcasting, and evaluation of the campaign
referred to in subsection (a), and to detail in the report
the effectiveness of the campaign in reducing underage
drinking, the need for and likely effectiveness of an
expanded adult-oriented media campaign, and the feasibility
and the likely effectiveness of a national youth-focused
media campaign to combat underage drinking.
(c) Consultation Requirement.--In carrying out the media
campaign, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
direct the Ad Council to consult with interested parties
including both the alcohol beverage industry and public
health and consumer groups. The progress of this consultative
process is to be covered in the report under subsection (b).
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $1,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2005 and 2006, and such sums as may
be necessary for each subsequent fiscal year.
TITLE IV--INTERVENTIONS
SEC. 401. COMMUNITY-BASED COALITION ENHANCEMENT GRANTS TO
PREVENT UNDERAGE DRINKING.
(a) Authorization of Program.--The Director of the Office
of National Drug Control Policy shall award ``enhancement
grants'' to eligible entities to design, test, evaluate and
disseminate strategies to maximize the effectiveness of
community-wide approaches to preventing and reducing underage
drinking.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are, in
conjunction with the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997 (21
U.S.C. 1521 et seq.), to--
(1) reduce alcohol use among youth in communities
throughout the United States;
(2) strengthen collaboration among communities, the Federal
Government, and State, local, and tribal governments;
(3) enhance intergovernmental cooperation and coordination
on the issue of alcohol use among youth;
(4) serve as a catalyst for increased citizen participation
and greater collaboration among all sectors and organizations
of a community that first demonstrates a long-term commitment
to reducing alcohol use among youth;
(5) disseminate to communities timely information regarding
state-of-the-art practices and initiatives that have proven
to be effective in reducing alcohol use among youth; and
(6) enhance, not supplant, local community initiatives for
reducing alcohol use among youth.
(c) Application.--An eligible entity desiring an
enhancement grant under this section shall submit an
application to the Director at such time, and in such manner,
and accompanied by such information as the Director may
require. Each application shall include--
(1) a complete description of the entity's current underage
alcohol use prevention initiatives and how the grant will
appropriately enhance the focus on underage drinking issues;
or
(2) a complete description of the entity's current
initiatives, and how it will use this grant to enhance those
initiatives by adding a focus on underage drinking
prevention.
(d) Uses of Funds.--Each eligible entity that receives a
grant under this section shall use the grant funds to carry
out the activities described in such entity's application
submitted pursuant to subsection (c). Grants under this
section shall not exceed $50,000 per year, and may be awarded
for each year the entity is funded as per subsection (f).
(e) Supplement Not Supplant.--Grant funds provided under
this section shall be used to supplement, not supplant,
Federal and non-Federal funds available for carrying out the
activities described in this section.
(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term
``eligible entity'' means an organization that is currently
eligible to receive grant funds under the Drug-Free
Communities Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C. 1521 et seq.).
(g) Administrative Expenses.--Not more than 6 percent of a
grant under this section may be expended for administrative
expenses.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2005, and such sums as may be necessary for each
of the fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
SEC. 402. GRANTS DIRECTED AT REDUCING HIGHER-EDUCATION
ALCOHOL ABUSE.
(a) Authorization of Program.--The Secretary shall award
grants to eligible entities to enable the entities to reduce
the rate of underage alcohol use and binge drinking among
students at institutions of higher education.
(b) Applications.--An eligible entity that desires to
receive a grant under this Act shall submit an application to
the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied
by such information as the Secretary may require. Each
application shall include--
(1) a description of how the eligible entity will work to
enhance an existing, or where none exists to build a,
statewide coalition;
(2) a description of how the eligible entity will target
underage students in the State;
(3) a description of how the eligible entity intends to
ensure that the statewide coalition is actually implementing
the purpose of this Act and moving toward indicators
described in section (d);
(4) a list of the members of the statewide coalition or
interested parties involved in the work of the eligible
entity;
(5) a description of how the eligible entity intends to
work with State agencies on substance abuse prevention and
education;
(6) the anticipated impact of funds provided under this Act
in reducing the rates of underage alcohol use;
(7) outreach strategies, including ways in which the
eligible entity proposes to--
(A) reach out to students;
(B) promote the purpose of this Act;
(C) address the range of needs of the students and the
surrounding communities; and
(D) address community norms for underage students regarding
alcohol use; and
(8) such additional information as required by the
Secretary.
(c) Uses of Funds.--Each eligible entity that receives a
grant under this section shall use the grant funds to carry
out the activities described in such entity's application
submitted pursuant to subsection (b).
(d) Accountability.--On the date on which the Secretary
first publishes a notice in the Federal Register soliciting
applications for grants under this section, the Secretary
shall include in the notice achievement indicators for the
program authorized under this section. The achievement
indicators shall be designed--
(1) to measure the impact that the statewide coalitions
assisted under this Act are having on the institutions of
higher education and the surrounding communities, including
changes in the number of alcohol incidents of any kind
(including violations, physical assaults, sexual assaults,
reports of intimidation, disruptions of school functions,
disruptions of student studies, mental health referrals,
illnesses, or deaths);
(2) to measure the quality and accessibility of the
programs or information offered by the statewide coalitions;
and
(3) to provide such other measures of program impact as the
Secretary determines appropriate.
(e) Supplement Not Supplant.--Grant funds provided under
this Act shall be used to supplement, and not supplant,
Federal and non-Federal funds available for carrying out the
activities described in this section.
(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a
State, institution of higher education, or nonprofit entity.
(2) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the
term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.
(5) Statewide coalition.--The term ``statewide coalition''
means a coalition that--
(A) includes--
(i) institutions of higher education within a State; and
(ii) a nonprofit group, a community underage drinking
prevention coalition, or another substance abuse prevention
group within a State; and
(B) works toward lowering the alcohol abuse rate by
targeting underage students at institutions of higher
education throughout the State and in the surrounding
communities.
(6) Surrounding community.--The term ``surrounding
community'' means the community--
[[Page 17085]]
(A) that surrounds an institution of higher education
participating in a statewide coalition;
(B) where the students from the institution of higher
education take part in the community; and
(C) where students from the institution of higher education
live in off-campus housing.
(g) Administrative Expenses.--Not more than 5 percent of a
grant under this section may be expended for administrative
expenses.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2005, and such sums as may be necessary for each
of the fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
TITLE V--ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
SEC. 501. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH ON UNDERAGE DRINKING.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall collect data on, and conduct or support research on,
underage drinking with respect to the following:
(1) The short and long-range impact of alcohol use and
abuse upon adolescent brain development and other organ
systems.
(2) Comprehensive community-based programs or strategies
and statewide systems to prevent underage drinking, across
the underage years from early childhood to young adulthood,
including programs funded and implemented by government
entities, public health interest groups and foundations, and
alcohol beverage companies and trade associations.
(3) Improved knowledge of the scope of the underage
drinking problem and progress in preventing and treating
underage drinking.
(4) Annually obtain more precise information than is
currently collected on the type and quantity of alcoholic
beverages consumed by underage drinkers, as well as
information on brand preferences of these drinkers and their
exposure to alcohol advertising.
(b) Certain Matters.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall carry out activities toward the following
objectives with respect to underage drinking:
(1) Testing every unnatural death of persons ages 12 to 20
in the United States for alcohol involvement, including
suicides, homicides, and unintentional injuries such as
falls, drownings, burns, poisonings, and motor vehicle crash
deaths.
(2) Obtaining new epidemiological data within the National
Epidemiological Study on Alcoholism and Related Conditions
and other national or targeted surveys that identify alcohol
use and attitudes about alcohol use during pre- and early
adolescence, including second-hand effects of adolescent
alcohol use such as date rapes, violence, risky sexual
behavior, and prenatal alcohol exposure.
(3) Developing or identifying successful clinical
treatments for youth with alcohol problems.
SEC. 502. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
section 501 $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and such sums as
may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2006 through
2009.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Mike
DeWine, to introduce legislation designed to prevent our nation's
children and youth from succumbing to the dangers associated with
underage alcohol use. The legislation that we introduce today, the STOP
(Sober Truth On Preventing) Underage Drinking Act, will greatly
strengthen our Nation's ability to combat the too often deadly
consequences associated with underage drinking.
An initial examination of the problems presented by underage drinking
is truly alarming. Alcohol is the most commonly used drug among
America's youth. More young people drink alcohol than smoke tobacco or
use marijuana combined. In 2002, 20 percent of eighth graders had drunk
alcohol in the previous 30 days. Forty-nine percent of high school
seniors are drinkers, and 29 percent report having had five or more
drinks in a row, or binged in the past 2 weeks.
Tragically, we know that this year underage drinking will directly
lead to more than 3,500 deaths, more than two million injuries, 1,200
babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome and more than 50,000 youths
treated for alcohol dependence. We also know that the social costs
associated with underage drinking total close to $53 billion annually,
including $19 billion from automobile accidents and $29 billion from
associated violent crime.
And while no one can argue with the tragic loss of life and
significant financial costs associated with underage drinking, too few
of us think of the equally devastating loss of potential that occurs
when our children begin to drink. Research indicates that children who
begin drinking do so at only 12 years of age. We also know that
children that begin drinking at such an early age develop a
predisposition for alcohol dependence later in life. Such early
experimentation can have devastating consequences and derail a child's
potential just as she or he is starting out on the path to adulthood.
The consumption of alcohol by our children can literally rob them of
their future.
The truly alarming and devastating effects of underage alcohol use
are what initially led Senator DeWine and I to begin work to address
this important issue. Over the last few months we have worked
extensively with Representatives Roybal-Allard, Wolf, DeLauro, Osbourne
and Wamp to craft the broad legislative initiative that we introduce
today.
The STOP Underage Drinking Act creates the framework for a
multifaceted, comprehensive national campaign to prevent underage
drinking. Specifically, the legislation includes four major areas of
policy development. First, the STOP Underage Drinking Act authorizes $2
million to establish an Interagency Coordinating Committee to
coordinate all Federal agency efforts and expertise designed to prevent
underage drinking. Chaired by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, this committee will be required to report to the Congress on
an annual basis the extent to which Federal efforts are addressing the
urgent need to curb underage drinking.
I am particularly pleased that one of the many items in this annual
report to Congress will provide for the public health monitoring of the
amount of alcohol advertising reaching our children. I have become
increasingly concerned about the degree to which alcohol advertisements
appear to target our Nation's children. It is my hope that the
monitoring called for by this legislation will expose any unethical
advertising practices that reach children. We must do all that we can
to ensure that our children are not exposed to harmful and deceptive
alcohol promotions.
In addition to the Federal coordination of Federal underage drinking
prevention efforts, the STOP Underage Drinking Act additionally
authorizes $1 million to fund an adult-oriented National Media Campaign
against Underage Drinking. Research indicates that most children who
drink obtain the alcohol from their parents or from other adults. The
National Media Campaign against underage drinking will specifically
seek to educate those who provide our children with alcohol about the
dangers inherent in underage alcohol use. This media campaign will
build upon the valuable underage drinking prevention efforts begun last
year by the Ad Council, whose campaigns average an estimated $28
million in donated media from media outlets nationwide.
The legislation additionally authorizes $10 million to provide
States, not-for-profit groups and institutions of higher education the
ability to create statewide coalitions to prevent underage drinking and
alcohol abuse by college and university students. This section will
also provide alcohol-specific enhancement grants through the Drug Free
Communities Program.
Lastly, the STOP Underage Drinking Act authorizes $6 million to
expand research to assess the health effects of underage drinking on
adolescent development, including its effect on the brain. This effort
will additionally increase Federal data collection on underage
drinking, including reporting on the types and brands of alcohol that
kids consume.
I want to convey my belief that this legislation truly offers a
historical, first step toward addressing the national tragedy
represented by underage drinking. I pledge to work strenuously toward
passing the STOP Underage Drinking Act and building on its strong
foundation and I ask for the support of my colleagues for this
critically important initiative.
______
By Mr. ENZI:
S. 2719. A bill to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 to further improve the safety and health of working environments,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
[[Page 17086]]
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Safety Advancement
for Employees (SAFE) Act of 2004. Every worker in America deserves to
return home safely at the end of the day. However, more than 5,500
workers die while at work annually. This means that, on any given day,
15 workers will not return home to their families. The fact that these
accidents are occurring is not because employers don't care about
workplace safety. On the contrary, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, or OSHA, estimated that 95 percent of employers are
striving to create a safer workplace. The vast majority of employers
want to comply with safety laws. Therefore, any effort to significantly
improve workplace safety by focusing solely on the small percentage of
bad actors who willfully break the law is doomed to failure.
We don't need political rhetoric, we need workable solutions. As
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training, I felt
responsible for finding a solution that will succeed in protecting more
workers from harm. I feel a responsibility to every worker and every
worker's family to do all I can to prevent workplace accidents and
deaths. The SAFE Act will provide the systematic safety improvements
that American workers and their families deserve. This legislation
helps the vast majority of good faith employers who want to achieve
compliance with safety laws. They just need help doing so--more help
than OSHA can currently give them. The SAFE Act also allows OSHA to
effectively target the few bad actors who willfully place their
employees at risk. It also includes provisions to improve hazard
communication and reduce injuries and illnesses caused by the presence
of hazardous chemicals in the workplace.
The SAFE Act of 2004 will increase the maximum jail sentence for a
willful safety violation that results in a worker's death from 6
months, which is a misdemeanor, to 18 months, which is a felony. It
would be naive to believe that increasing the criminal penalty by
itself will significantly improve workplace safety. Increasing the
maximum jail sentence for bad actors will do nothing to help improve
the workplace safety records of the 95 percent of employers who want to
do the right thing.
I want to prevent the accident in the first place, not just penalize
the employer for an injury or death that could have been avoided. By
then, it's too late for the victim and their family. We need a system
that encourages the good faith employers to find out how to achieve
safety voluntarily and without fear of retribution. We need a system
that harnesses the resources of safety experts so employers can achieve
compliance with safety laws. And, we need a system that can target and
punish the few bad employers. This is the system promoted by the Safety
Advancement for Employees, or SAFE, Act. The SAFE Act will save
workers' lives.
The SAFE Act is a workable solution that will effectively add
thousands of highly-trained safety and health professionals to the job
of inspecting workplaces around the country. Why is enlisting third
party safety experts so critical to the effort of getting employers to
comply with safety laws? Because OSHA, the government agency
responsible for regulating safety laws, can't do it alone. OSHA should
be providing helpful assistance to the overwhelming number of employers
who are pursuing safer workplaces. Simultaneously, OSHA should be
targeting those employers who are willfully disregarding safety laws,
inspecting them, penalizing them, and following up to make sure that
bad practices are stopped before accidents occur.
It has been estimated that it would take OSHA over 167 years to
inspect every work site in the country. Therefore, OSHA cannot
effectively help those good faith employers or deter bad employers from
breaking the law. This is why the SAFE Act is so important. It will
allow highly-trained safety and health professionals to reach work
sites all over the country, where OSHA hasn't even been able to make a
dent, encouraging employers to get into compliance voluntarily.
These highly-trained consultants will work with employers to get them
into compliance with safety laws. If the employer gets into compliance,
the employer can receive a certificate of compliance which will exempt
him from civil penalties only for one year. However, at all times and
under all circumstances, OSHA remains free to inspect these work sites.
The third-party consultation program is particularly important for
small businesses. Employers have to read through and implement over a
thousand pages of highly technical safety regulations. Too often,
employers are left on their own to try to understand and comply with
all these regulations. It is hard enough for large employers who have
an in-house staff of safety experts. For the small employer--whose
safety ``expert'' is also the human resources manager, accountant, and
systems administrator--the task is nearly impossible. We're talking
about employers who want to do the right thing, who want to comply with
the law and protect their workers. They just need help doing so--help
that OSHA is not currently equipped to provide.
In a report published in March, 2004, the General Accounting Office
cited the use of third party consultants among a list of
recommendations by researchers, safety and health practitioners, and
specialists, to achieve voluntary OSHA compliance. According to the GAO
report: ``Using Consultants could leverage existing OSHA resources by
helping workplaces that might never otherwise see an OSHA inspector,
especially small employers, and possibly also by enabling employers to
address additional safety and health issues that might not be covered
under an OSHA inspection for compliance standards.''
We need to leverage the resources of OSHA and the private sector to
improve occupational safety around the country--in large and small
workplaces alike.
Nowhere is the safety and health challenge more daunting for small
businesses than it is in the area of hazard communication. Hazardous
chemicals pervade the 21st Century workplace. An estimated 650,000
hazardous chemical products are used in over 3 million workplaces
across the country. Everyday, more than 30 million American workers
will be exposed to hazardous chemicals on the job. Whether or not they
return home safely at the end of the day depends on their awareness of
these hazards and appropriate precautionary measures. Communication is
the key to protecting the safety and health of these 30 million
workers. However, the protection is only as effective as the
communication.
Twenty years ago, OSHA adopted the Hazard Communication Standard.
Material Safety Data Sheets are the cornerstone of hazard
communication. The chemical manufacturer or importer evaluates the
chemical and provides employers with information about its hazards and
protective measures on the Material Safety Data Sheet, which employers
must then provide to workers.
OSHA's rule provides a generic framework for hazard communication.
With over 650,000 chemicals in use, and tens of thousands of chemical
manufacturers, the clarity, format, and accuracy of Material Safety
Data Sheets varies widely. If the Material Safety Data Sheet is stuffed
in some thick binder gathering dust, the worker doesn't have time to
shuffle through the pages of complex, technical jargon it includes.
Workers shouldn't need a Ph.D. in biochemistry to know how to protect
themselves against hazardous chemicals.
Twenty years after the Hazard Communication standard was published,
it's time for review. It's time to heed the call of workers and
employers alike for more clarity, consistency, accuracy, and guidance.
Over the years, I've had the great fortune to work with Ron Hayes on
improving the safety and health of American workers. Ron wrote me a
letter. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the
Record. He writes that: ``Other standards cover many issues for the
workers, but the Material Safety Data Sheet, paperwork is used millions
of times each workday, and the accuracy of these sheets [is] of
paramount importance for the complete protection of
[[Page 17087]]
our most important resource, our great American workers.''
To improve the protection of our great American workers from
hazardous chemicals, the new SAFE Act requires OSHA to develop and post
on its website model material safety data sheets for those highly
hazardous chemicals listed on the Process Safety Management Standard.
These models will be particularly helpful to small businesses that
don't have the expertise to develop or decipher their own.
In the twenty years since the Hazard Communication Standard was
adopted, the American workplace has changed dramatically. Electronic or
internet-based systems not envisioned twenty years ago can
significantly improve hazard communication. The new SAFE Act recognizes
the promise of technology to improve hazard communication. The
legislation creates grants to develop, implement, or evaluate
strategies to improve hazard communication through the use of better
technology.
In the past twenty years, our workforce has become increasingly
diverse. Effective hazard communication should reflect the fact that
numerous languages may be spoken at a single worksite. Our economy has
also become increasingly global. The chemical industry is one of the
United States' largest exporting sectors. The manner in which other
countries regulate hazardous chemicals impacts an American
manufacturer's ability to compete in the global marketplace.
In 2002, the United Nations adopted the Globally Harmonized System
for Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. The Globally Harmonized
System is designed to improve the quality of hazard communication by
establishing standardized requirements for hazard evaluation, safety
data sheets, and labels. The Globally Harmonized System has the
potential to address significant concerns with current hazard
communication. Whether the United States adopts it cannot be decided by
OSHA alone. Other agencies involved in regulating hazardous chemicals
must be involved. Key stakeholders in hazard communication--chemical
manufacturers, employers, workers, and safety and health experts--must
also be involved. For this reason, the new SAFE Act establishes a
commission of relevant Federal agencies and stakeholders to study and
make recommendations to Congress about the adoption of the Globally
Harmonized System.
The SAFE Act sets us firmly on the path towards achieving the goal of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act to ``assure so far as possible
every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working
conditions.'' Enforcement alone cannot ensure the safety and health of
America's workforce. Government and the private sector can--and must--
work together to create a culture where safety and health is the number
one priority.
I first introduced the SAFE Act in 1997. Today, the call for
meaningful OSHA reform through cooperative and proactive efforts is
even louder. The more time that passes without taking such action, the
more injuries and deaths will occur that could otherwise be avoided. As
I introduce the new SAFE Act today, I hope that we can again begin
meaningful discussions about what is involved in achieving safer
workplaces. I also hope that we can actually pass the SAFE Act and
achieve greater safety and health for our most important resource--our
great American worker.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill and letter were ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2719
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Safety
Advancement for Employees Act of 2004'' or the ``SAFE Act''.
(b) Reference.--Whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal
is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et
seq.).
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
Section 2(b) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 651(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (13), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(14) by increasing the joint cooperation of employers,
employees, and the Secretary of Labor in the effort to ensure
safe and healthful working conditions for employees.''.
SEC. 3. THIRD PARTY CONSULTATION SERVICES PROGRAM.
(a) Program.--The Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is amended by
inserting after section 8 the following:
``SEC. 8A. THIRD PARTY CONSULTATION SERVICES PROGRAM.
``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to
encourage employers to conduct voluntary safety and health
audits using the expertise of qualified safety and health
consultants and to proactively seek individualized solutions
to workplace safety and health concerns.
``(b) Establishment of Program.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation
with the advisory committee established under section 7(d),
shall establish and implement, by regulation, a program that
qualifies individuals to provide consultation services to
employers to assist employers in the identification and
correction of safety and health hazards in the workplaces of
employers.
``(2) Eligibility.--The following individuals shall be
eligible to be qualified under the program under paragraph
(1) as certified safety and health consultants:
``(A) An individual who is licensed by a State authority as
a physician, industrial hygienist, professional engineer,
safety engineer, safety professional, or registered nurse.
``(B) An individual who has been employed as an inspector
for a State plan State or as a Federal occupational safety
and health inspector for not less than a 5-year period.
``(C) An individual who is qualified in an occupational
health or safety field by an organization whose program has
been accredited by a nationally recognized private
accreditation organization or by the Secretary.
``(D) An individual who has not less than 10 years
expertise in workplace safety and health.
``(E) Other individuals determined to be qualified by the
Secretary.
``(3) Geographical scope of consultation services.--A
consultant qualified under the program under paragraph (1)
may provide consultation services in any State.
``(4) Limitation based on expertise.--A consultant
qualified under the program under paragraph (1) may only
provide consultation services to an employer with respect to
a worksite if the work performed at that worksite coincides
with the particular expertise of the individual.
``(c) Safety and Health Registry.--The Secretary shall
develop and maintain a registry that includes all consultants
that are qualified under the program under subsection (b)(1)
to provide the consultation services described in subsection
(b) and shall publish and make such registry readily
available to the general public.
``(d) Disciplinary Actions.--The Secretary may revoke the
status of a consultant qualified under subsection (b), or the
participation of an employer under subsection (b) in the
third party consultation program, if the Secretary determines
that the consultant or employer--
``(1) has failed to meet the requirements of the program;
or
``(2) has committed malfeasance, gross negligence,
collusion or fraud in connection with any consultation
services provided by the qualified consultant.
``(e) Program Requirements.--
``(1) Full service consultation.--The consultation services
described in subsection (b), and provided by a consultant
qualified under the program under subsection (b)(1), shall
include an evaluation of the workplace of an employer to
determine if the employer is in compliance with the
requirements of this Act, including any regulations
promulgated pursuant to this Act. Employers electing to
participate in such program shall contract with a consultant
qualified under subsection (b)(2) to perform a full service
visit and consultation covering the employer's establishment,
including a complete safety and health program review.
Following the guidance as specified in this section, the
consultant shall discuss with the employer the elements of an
effective program.
``(2) Consultation report.--
``(A) In general.--After a consultant conducts a
comprehensive survey of an employer under a program under
this section, the consultant shall prepare and submit to the
employer a written report that includes an action plan
identifying any violations of this Act, and any appropriate
corrective measures to address the violations that are
identified using an effective safety and health program.
``(B) Elements.--A consultation report shall contain each
of the following elements.
``(i) Action plan.--
``(I) In general.--An action plan under subparagraph (A)
shall be developed in consultation with the employer as part
of the initial comprehensive survey. The consultant and the
employer shall jointly use the
[[Page 17088]]
onsite time in the initial visit to the employer's place of
business to agree on the terms of the action plan and the
time frames for achieving specific items.
``(II) Requirements.--The action plan shall outline the
specific steps that must be accomplished by the employer
prior to receiving a certificate of compliance. The action
plan shall address in detail--
``(aa) the employer's correction of all identified safety
and health hazards, with applicable time frames;
``(bb) the steps necessary for the employer to implement an
effective safety and health program, with applicable time
frames; and
``(cc) a statement of the employer's commitment to work
with the consultation project to achieve a certificate of
compliance.
``(ii) Safety and health program.--An employer electing to
participate in a program under this section shall establish a
safety and health program to manage workplace safety and
health to reduce injuries, illnesses and fatalities that
complies with paragraph (3). Such safety and health program
shall be appropriate to the conditions of the workplace
involved.
``(3) Requirements for safety and health program.--
``(A) Written program.--An employer electing to participate
shall maintain a written safety and health program that
contains policies, procedures, and practices to recognize and
protect their employees from occupational safety and health
hazards. Such procedures shall include provisions for the
identification, evaluation and prevention or control of
workplace hazards.
``(B) Major elements.--A safety and health program shall
include the following elements, and may include other
elements as necessary to the specific worksite involved and
as determined appropriate by the qualified consultant and
employer:
``(i) Employer commitment and employee involvement.--
``(I) In general.--The existence of both management
leadership and employee participation must be demonstrated in
accordance with subclauses (II) and (III).
``(II) Management leadership.--To make a demonstration of
management leadership under this subclause, the employer
shall--
``(aa) set a clear worksite safety and health policy that
employees can fully understand;
``(bb) set and communicate clear goals and objectives with
the involvement of employees;
``(cc) provide essential safety and health leadership in
tangible and recognizable ways;
``(dd) set positive safety and health examples; and
``(ee) perform comprehensive reviews of safety and health
programs for quality assurance using a process which promotes
continuous correction.
``(III) Employee participation.--With respect to employee
participation, the employer shall demonstrate a commitment to
working to develop a comprehensive, written and operational
safety and health program that involves employees in
significant ways that affect safety and health. In making
such a demonstration, the employer shall--
``(aa) provide for employee participation in actively
identifying and resolving safety and health issues in
tangible ways that employees can clearly understand;
``(bb) assign safety and health responsibilities in such a
way that employees can understand clearly what is expected of
them;
``(cc) provide employees with the necessary authority and
resources to meet their safety and health responsibilities;
and
``(dd) provide that safety and health performance for
managers, supervisors and employees be measured in tangible
ways.
``(ii) Workplace analysis.--The employer, in consultation
with the consultant, shall systematically identify and assess
hazards in the following ways:
``(I) Conduct corrective action and regular expert surveys
to update hazard inventories.
``(II) Have competent personnel review every planned or new
facility, process material, or equipment.
``(III) Train all employees and supervisors, conduct
routine joint inspections, and correct items identified.
``(IV) Establish a way for employees to report hazards and
provide prompt responses to such reports.
``(V) Investigate worksite accidents and near accidents.
``(VI) Provide employees with the necessary information
regarding incident trends, causes and means of prevention.
``(iii) Hazard prevention.--The employer, in consultation
with the consultant, shall--
``(I) engage in timely hazard control, working to ensure
that hazard controls are fully in place and communicated to
employees, with emphasis on engineering controls and
enforcing safe work procedures;
``(II) maintain equipment using operators who are trained
to recognize maintenance needs and perform or direct timely
maintenance;
``(III) provide training on emergency planning and
preparation, working to ensure that all personnel know
immediately how to respond as a result of effective planning,
training, and drills;
``(IV) equip facilities for emergencies with all systems
and equipment in place and regularly tested so that all
employees know how to communicate during emergencies and how
to use equipment; and
``(V) provide for emergency medical situations using
employees who are fully trained in emergency medicine.
``(iv) Safety and health training.--The employer, in
consultation with the consultant, shall--
``(I) involve employees in hazard assessment, development
and delivery of training;
``(II) actively involve supervisors in worksite analysis by
empowering them to ensure physical protections, reinforce
training, enforce discipline, and explain work procedures;
and
``(III) provide training in safety and health management to
managers.
``(4) Reinspection.--At a time agreed to by the employer
and the consultant, the consultant may reinspect the
workplace of the employer to verify that the required
elements in the consultation report have been satisfied. If
such requirements have been satisfied, the employer shall be
provided with a certificate of compliance for that workplace
by the qualified consultant.
``(f) Exemption From Civil Penalties for Compliance.--
``(1) In general.--If an employer enters into a contract
with an individual qualified under the program under this
section, to provide consultation services described in
subsection (b), and receives a certificate of compliance
under subsection (e)(4), the employer shall be exempt from
the assessment of any civil penalty under section 17 for a
period of 1 year after the date on which the employer
receives such certificate.
``(2) Exceptions.--An employer shall not be exempt under
paragraph (1)--
``(A) if the employer has not made a good faith effort to
remain in compliance as required under the certificate of
compliance; or
``(B) to the extent that there has been a fundamental
change in the hazards of the workplace.
``(g) Right To Inspect.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect the rights of the Secretary to inspect
and investigate worksites covered by a certificate of
compliance.
``(h) Renewal Requirements.--An employer that is granted a
certificate of compliance under this section may receive a 1
year renewal of the certificate if the following elements are
satisfied:
``(1) A qualified consultant shall conduct a complete
onsite safety and health survey to ensure that the safety and
health program has been effectively maintained or improved,
workplace hazards are under control, and elements of the
safety and health program are operating effectively.
``(2) The consultant, in an onsite visit by the consultant,
has determined that the program requirements have been
complied with and the health and safety program has been
operating effectively.
``(i) Non-Fixed Worksites.--With respect to employer
worksites that do not have a fixed location, a certificate of
compliance shall only apply to that worksite which satisfies
the criteria under this section and such certificate shall
not be portable to any other worksite. This section shall not
apply to service establishments that utilize essentially the
same work equipment at each non-fixed worksite.''.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Section 7 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 656) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(d)(1) Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall establish
an advisory committee (pursuant to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)) to carry out the duties
described in paragraph (3).
``(2) The advisory committee shall be composed of--
``(A) 3 members who are employees;
``(B) 3 members who are employers;
``(C) 2 members who are members of the general public; and
``(D) 1 member who is a State official from a State plan
State.
Each member of the advisory committee shall have expertise in
workplace safety and health as demonstrated by the
educational background of the member.
``(3) The advisory committee shall advise and make
recommendations to the Secretary with respect to the
establishment and implementation of a consultation services
program under section 8A.''.
SEC. 5. CONTINUING EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
FOR CERTAIN OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL.
Section 8 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 657) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(i) Any Federal employee responsible for enforcing this
Act shall, not later than 2 years after the date of enactment
of this subsection or 2 years after the initial employment of
the employee involved, meet the eligibility requirements
prescribed under subsection (b)(2) of section 8A.
``(j) The Secretary shall ensure that any Federal employee
responsible for enforcing this Act who carries out
inspections or investigations under this section, receive
professional education and training at least every 5 years as
prescribed by the Secretary.''.
[[Page 17089]]
SEC. 6. EXPANDED INSPECTION METHODS.
(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to empower
the Secretary of Labor to achieve increased employer
compliance by using, at the Secretary's discretion, more
efficient and effective means for conducting inspections.
(b) General.--Section 8(f) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 657(f) is
amended--
(1) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) The Secretary or an authorized representative of the
Secretary may, as a method of investigating an alleged
violation or danger under this subsection, attempt, if
feasible, to contact an employer by telephone, facsimile, or
other appropriate methods to determine whether--
``(A) the employer has taken corrective actions with
respect to the alleged violation or danger; or
``(B) there are reasonable grounds to believe that a hazard
exists.
``(4) The Secretary is not required to conduct an
inspection under this subsection if the Secretary determines
that a request for an inspection was made for reasons other
than the safety and health of the employees of an employer or
that the employees of an employer are not at risk.''.
SEC. 7. WORKSITE-SPECIFIC COMPLIANCE METHODS.
Section 9 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 658) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(d) A citation issued under subsection (a) to an employer
who violates section 5, any standard, rule, or order
promulgated pursuant to section 6, or any other regulation
promulgated under this Act shall be vacated if such employer
demonstrates that the employees of such employer were
protected by alternative methods that are equally or more
protective of the safety and health of the employees than the
methods required by such standard, rule, order, or regulation
in the factual circumstances underlying the citation.
``(e) Subsection (d) shall not be construed to eliminate or
modify other defenses that may exist to any citation.''.
SEC. 8. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 21(c) of the Act (29 U.S.C.
670(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(c) The'' and inserting ``(c)(1) The'';
(2) by striking ``(1) provide'' and inserting ``(A)
provide'';
(3) by striking ``(2) consult'' and inserting ``(B)
consult''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(2)(A) The Secretary shall, through the authority granted
under section 7(c) and paragraph (1), enter into cooperative
agreements with States for the provision of consultation
services by such States to employers concerning the provision
of safe and healthful working conditions.
``(B)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), the Secretary
shall reimburse a State that enters into a cooperative
agreement under subparagraph (A) in an amount that equals 90
percent of the costs incurred by the State for the provision
of consultation services under such agreement.
``(ii) A State shall be reimbursed by the Secretary for 90
percent of the costs incurred by the State for the provision
of--
``(I) training approved by the Secretary for State
personnel operating under a cooperative agreement; and
``(II) specified out-of-State travel expenses incurred by
such personnel.
``(iii) A reimbursement paid to a State under this
subparagraph shall be limited to costs incurred by such State
for the provision of consultation services under this
paragraph and the costs described in clause (ii).''.
(b) Pilot Program.--Section 21 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 670)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e)(1) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment
of this subsection, the Secretary shall establish and carry
out a pilot program in 3 States to provide expedited
consultation services, with respect to the provision of safe
and healthful working conditions, to employers that are small
businesses (as the term is defined by the Administrator of
the Small Business Administration). The Secretary shall carry
out the program for a period of not to exceed 2 years.
``(2) The Secretary shall provide consultation services
under paragraph (1) not later than 4 weeks after the date on
which the Secretary receives a request from an employer.
``(3) The Secretary may impose a nominal fee to an employer
requesting consultation services under paragraph (1). The fee
shall be in an amount determined by the Secretary. Employers
paying a fee shall receive priority consultation services by
the Secretary.
``(4) In lieu of issuing a citation under section 9 to an
employer for a violation found by the Secretary during a
consultation under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall permit
the employer to carry out corrective measures to correct the
conditions causing the violation. The Secretary shall conduct
not more than 2 visits to the workplace of the employer to
determine if the employer has carried out the corrective
measures. The Secretary shall issue a citation as prescribed
under section 5 if, after such visits, the employer has
failed to carry out the corrective measures.
``(5) Not later than 90 days after the termination of the
program under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall prepare and
submit a report to the appropriate committees of Congress
that contains an evaluation of the implementation of the
pilot program.''.
SEC. 9. VOLUNTARY PROTECTION PROGRAMS.
(a) Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary of Labor shall
establish cooperative agreements with employers to encourage
the establishment of comprehensive safety and health
management systems that include--
(1) requirements for systematic assessment of hazards;
(2) comprehensive hazard prevention, mitigation, and
control programs;
(3) active and meaningful management and employee
participation in the voluntary program described in
subsection (b); and
(4) employee safety and health training.
(b) Voluntary Protection Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor shall establish and
carry out a voluntary protection program (consistent with
subsection (a)) to encourage excellence and recognize the
achievement of excellence in both the technical and
managerial protection of employees from occupational hazards.
(2) Program requirement.--The voluntary protection program
shall include the following:
(A) Application.--Employers who volunteer under the program
shall be required to submit an application to the Secretary
of Labor demonstrating that the worksite with respect to
which the application is made meets such requirements as the
Secretary of Labor may require for participation in the
program.
(B) Onsite evaluations.--There shall be onsite evaluations
by representatives of the Secretary of Labor to ensure a high
level of protection of employees. The onsite visits shall not
result in enforcement of citations under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.).
(C) Information.--Employers who are approved by the
Secretary of Labor for participation in the program shall
assure the Secretary of Labor that information about the
safety and health program of the employers shall be made
readily available to the Secretary of Labor to share with
employees.
(D) Reevaluations.--Periodic reevaluations by the Secretary
of Labor of the employers shall be required for continued
participation in the program.
(3) Exemptions.--A site with respect to which a program has
been approved shall, during participation in the program be
exempt from inspections or investigations and certain
paperwork requirements to be determined by the Secretary of
Labor, except that this paragraph shall not apply to
inspections or investigations arising from employee
complaints, fatalities, catastrophes, or significant toxic
releases.
(4) Increased small business participation.--The Secretary
of Labor shall establish and implement, by regulation, a
program to increase participation by small businesses (as the
term is defined by the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration) in the voluntary protection program through
outreach and assistance initiatives and developing program
requirements that address the needs of small businesses.
SEC. 10. PREVENTION OF ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE.
The Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``SEC. 34. ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TESTING.
``(a) Program Purpose.--In order to secure a safe
workplace, employers may establish and carry out an alcohol
and substance abuse testing program in accordance with
subsection (b).
``(b) Federal Guidelines.--
``(1) Requirements.--An alcohol and substance abuse testing
program described in subsection (a) shall meet the following
requirements:
``(A) Substance abuse.--A substance abuse testing program
shall permit the use of an onsite or offsite testing.
``(B) Alcohol.--The alcohol testing component of the
program shall take the form of alcohol breath analysis and
shall conform to any guidelines developed by the Secretary of
Transportation for alcohol testing of mass transit employees
under the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1992.
``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this section the term
`alcohol and substance abuse testing program' means any
program under which test procedures are used to take an
analyze blood, breath, hair, urine, saliva, or other body
fluids or materials for the purpose of detecting the presence
or absence of alcohol or a drug or its metabolites. In the
case of urine testing, the confirmation tests must be
performed in accordance with the mandatory guidelines for
Federal workplace testing programs published by the Secretary
of Health and Human Services on April 11, 1988, at section
11979 of title 53, Code of Federal Regulations (including any
amendments to such guidelines). Proper laboratory protocols
and procedures shall be used to assure accuracy and fairness
and laboratories must be subject to the requirements of
subpart B of the mandatory guidelines, State certification,
the Clinical Laboratory Improvements Act of the College of
American Pathologists.
[[Page 17090]]
``(c) Test Requirements.--This section shall not be
construed to prohibit an employer from requiring--
``(1) an applicant for employment to submit to and pass an
alcohol or substance abuse test before employment by the
employer; or
``(2) an employee, including managerial personnel, to
submit to and pass an alcohol or substance abuse test--
``(A) on a for-cause basis or where the employer has
reasonable suspicion to believe that such employee is using
or is under the influence of alcohol or a controlled
substance;
``(B) where such test is administered as part of a
scheduled medical examination;
``(C) in the case of an accident or incident, involving the
actual or potential loss of human life, bodily injury, or
property damage;
``(D) during the participation of an employee in an alcohol
or substance abuse treatment program, and for a reasonable
period of time (not to exceed 5 years) after the conclusion
of such program; or
``(E) on a random selection basis in work units, locations,
or facilities.
``(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to require an employer to establish an alcohol and
substance abuse testing program for applicants or employees
or make employment decisions based on such test results.
``(e) Preemption.--The provisions of this section shall not
preempt any provision of State law to the extent that such
State law is inconsistent with this section.
``(f) Investigations.--The Secretary is authorized to
conduct testing of employees (including managerial personnel)
of an employer for use of alcohol or controlled substances
during any investigations of a work-related fatality or
serious injury.''.
SEC. 11. DISCRETIONARY COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE.
Subsection (a) of section 9 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 658(a))
is amended to read as follows:
``(a)(1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as
prohibiting the Secretary or the authorized representative of
the Secretary from providing technical or compliance
assistance to an employer in correcting a violation
discovered during an inspection or investigation under this
Act without issuing a citation.
``(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), if, upon an
inspection or investigation, the Secretary or an authorized
representative of the Secretary believes that an employer has
violated a requirement of section 5, of any regulation, rule,
or order promulgated pursuant to section 6, or of any
regulations prescribed pursuant to this Act, the Secretary
may with reasonable promptness issue a citation to the
employer. Each citation shall be in writing and shall
describe with particularity the nature of a violation,
including a reference to the provision of the Act,
regulation, rule, or order alleged to have been violated. The
citation shall fix a reasonable time for the abatement of the
violation.
``(3) The Secretary or the authorized representative of the
Secretary--
``(A) may issue a warning in lieu of a citation with
respect to a violation that has no significant relationship
to employee safety or health; and
``(B) may issue a warning in lieu of a citation in cases in
which an employer in good faith acts promptly to abate a
violation if the violation is not a willful or repeated
violation.''.
SEC. 12. HAZARD COMMUNICATION.
(a) Model Material Safety Data Sheets.--
(1) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to assist
chemical manufactures and importers in preparing material
safety data sheets pursuant to the requirements of the Hazard
Communication standard published at section 1910.1200 of
title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, and to improve the
accuracy, consistency, and comprehensibility of such material
safety data sheets.
(2) Model material safety data sheets for highly hazardous
chemicals.--The Secretary of Labor shall develop model
material safety data sheets for the list of highly hazardous
chemicals contained in Appendix A to the Process Safety
Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals standard published
at section 1910.119 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations.
Such model material safety data sheets shall--
(A) comply with the requirements of the Hazard
Communication standard published at section 1910.100 of such
title 29;
(B) be presented in a consistent format that enhances the
reliability and comprehensibility of information about
chemical hazards in the workplace and protective measures;
and
(C) be made available to the public, including through
posting on the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's website, within 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(3) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to--
(A) modify or amend the Hazard Communication standard
published at section 1910.1200 of title 29, Code of Federal
Regulations, the Process Safety Management of Highly
Hazardous Chemicals standard published at section 1910.119 of
such title 29, or any other provision of law; and
(B) authorize the Secretary of Labor to include in the
model material safety data sheet developed under this
subsection any suggestion or recommendation as to permissible
or appropriate workplace exposure levels for these chemicals.
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Labor such sums as
may be necessary to carry out this subsection.
(b) Globally Harmonized System Commission.--
(1) Establishment.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, there shall be established a
commission, to be known as the Global Harmonization
Commission (referred to in this subsection as the
``Commission''), to consider the implementation of the United
Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and
Labeling of Chemicals to improve chemical hazard
communication and to make recommendations to Congress.
(2) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of 13
members of whom--
(A) 1 shall be the Secretary of Labor;
(B) 1 shall be the Secretary of Transportation;
(C) 1 shall be the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(D) 1 shall be the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency;
(E) 1 shall be the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission; and
(F) 8 shall be appointed by the Secretary of Labor, of
whom--
(i) 2 shall be representatives of manufacturers of
hazardous chemicals, including a representative of small
businesses;
(ii) 2 shall be representatives of employers who are
extensive users of hazardous chemicals supplied by others,
including a representative of small businesses;
(iii) 2 shall be representatives of labor organizations;
and
(iv) 2 shall be occupational safety and health
professionals with expertise in chemical hazard
communications.
(3) Chair and vice-chair.--The members of the Commission
shall select a chair and vice-chair from among its members.
(4) Duties.--
(A) Study and recommendations.--The Commission shall
conduct a thorough study of, and shall develop
recommendations on, the following issues relating to the
global harmonization of hazardous chemical communication:
(i) Whether the United States should adopt any or all of
the elements of the United Nation's Globally Harmonized
System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (referred
to in this subsection and the ``Globally Harmonized
System'').
(ii) How the Globally Harmonized System should be
implemented by the Federal agencies with relevant
jurisdiction, taking into consideration the role of the
States acting under delegated authority.
(iii) How the Globally Harmonized System compares to
existing chemical hazard communication laws and regulations,
including the Hazard Communication standard published at
section 1910.1200 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations.
(iv) A consideration of the impact of adopting the Globally
Harmonized System on the consistency, effectiveness,
comprehensiveness, timing, accuracy, and comprehensibility of
chemical hazard communication in the United States.
(v) A consideration of the impact of adopting the Globally
Harmonized System on occupational safety and health in the
United States.
(vi) A consideration of the impact of adopting the Globally
Harmonized System on tort, insurance, and workers
compensation laws in the United States.
(vii) A consideration of the impact of adopting the
Globally Harmonized System on the ability to bring new
products to the market in the United States.
(viii) A consideration of the cost and benefits of adopting
the Globally Harmonized System to businesses, including small
businesses, in the United States.
(ix) Effective compliance assistance, training, and
outreach to help chemical manufacturers, importers, and
users, particularly small businesses, understand and comply
with the Globally Harmonized System.
(B) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report containing a
detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the
Commission, together with its recommendations for such
legislation as the Commission considers appropriate.
(5) Powers.--
(A) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit
and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and
receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable
to carry out this section. The Commission shall, to the
maximum extent possible, use existing data and research to
carry out this section.
(B) Information from federal agencies.--The Commission may
secure directly from any Federal department or agency such
information as the Commission considers necessary to carry
out this section. Upon request by the Commission, the head of
such department or agency shall promptly furnish such
information to the Commission.
[[Page 17091]]
(C) Postal services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
(6) Personnel matters.--
(A) Compensation; travel expenses.--Each member of the
Commission shall serve without compensation but shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Commission.
(B) Staff and equipment.--The Department of the Labor shall
provide all financial, administrative, and staffing
requirements for the Commission including--
(i) office space;
(ii) furnishings; and
(iii) equipment.
(7) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate on the
date that is 90 days after the date on which the Commission
submits the report required under paragraph (3)(B).
(8) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Labor, such sums as
may be necessary to carry out this subsection.
(c) Hazard Communication Demonstration Projects.--
(1) In general.--Section 20(a) of the Act (29 U.S.C.
670(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(8) Subject to the availability of appropriations, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, after consultation
with the Secretary, shall award grants to one or more
qualified applicants in order to carry out a demonstration
project to development, implement, or evaluate strategies or
programs to improve chemical hazard communication in the
workplace through the use of technology, which may include
electronic or Internet-based hazard communication systems.''.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
the amendment made by paragraph (1).
SEC. 13. CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
Subsection (e) of section 17 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 666(e))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``fine of not more than $10,000'' and
inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of title 18,
United States Code'';
(2) by striking ``six months'' and inserting ``18 months'';
(3) by striking ``fine of not more than $20,000'' and
inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of title 18,
United States Code''; and
(4) by striking ``1 year'' and inserting ``3 years''.
____
March 15, 2004.
Re hearing on Hazard Communication (MSDS) loose March 25,
2004.
Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Enzi: Honorable Senators, staff and witnesses,
it is an honor for me to have a small part in this most
important hearing. I am very proud to have worked with you
great statesmen over the years to better safety and health
for our great American workers. Your work today in this
hearing could be the most important advancement of OSHA's
mission ever undertaken and more importantly provide
guidance, leadership and much needed closer oversight to a
slow moving, backward agency.
No other standard or regulation in OSHA's responsibility
covers or protects workers as much as the Hazard
Communication standard does and especially the MSDS section
of this standard. MSDS effects every worker everyday on every
job. Other standards cover many issues for the workers but
the MSDS paperwork is used millions of times each workday,
and the accuracy of these sheets or of paramount importance
for the complete protection of our most important resource
our great American workers.
These men and women work and toil everyday to bring a
better way of life for us all, they deserve to go home safe
and sound everyday, to have the opportunity to live a long
and happy life, free of injury and sickness. No one should
die, be hurt or made sick at work.
I can only pray that you will be so moved by God today, to
make the much needed changes to this problem and find new
ways to make sure all MSDS sheets are readable,
understandable and correct. Education and information is the
key, please help make the changes that will protect all of
our workers all the time.
Please forgive me for being absent today but I look forward
to working with you and this great committee in the future. I
know in my heart you will do the right thing today and am
confident new changes and new protection will come from this
hearing. God Bless and thank you for your courageous stand
for all American workers.
Yours,
Ron Hayes.
______
By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Brownback, Mr.
Hagel, and Mr. Leahy):
S. 2720. A bill to provide assistance for the crisis in Sudan, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Comprehensive
Peace in Sudan Act. This bill is intended to address both the immediate
crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan and to support a comprehensive
peace in all of that country. It would authorize $300 million to
respond to the unfolding catastrophe in Darfur for the next fiscal year
and to provide additional funds to begin reconstruction in Sudan upon
the conclusion of a viable, comprehensive peace.
Events in Darfur constitute a moral and humanitarian tragedy of
incredible proportions. The people of the Darfur region of Sudan are
experiencing the full force of an ethnic cleansing campaign by the
Government of Sudan. Numerous credible reports by U.S. and U.N.
officials indicate that the Sudanese Government has armed and employed
a militia of Arab Sudanese, called Janjaweed, to join it in a
coordinated effort to kill and rape Darfur inhabitants and
systematically destroy homes, villages, and all means of subsistence.
This campaign has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced 1.2
million African Sudanese of which 200,000 are now refugees in Chad. A
second phase of this campaign may prove to have the most devastating
effect through the onset of famine and disease--unless, the
international community responds quickly.
The United Nations is meeting significant obstacles to providing
life-saving food, medicine, and shelter to the displaced Sudanese. The
Sudanese Government has established bureaucratic and administrative
obstacles to the provision of assistance. In addition, the
international community has not provided adequate resources given the
magnitude of the human suffering in Darfur. The United States has been
pressing for a more vigorous response to this humanitarian crisis. This
bill would support diplomatic efforts already underway and ensure a
significant flow of funding.
I am hopeful that Senators will join me in passing this bill quickly.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2720
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 ``Comprehensive Peace in Sudan
Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives.
(2) JEM.--The term ``JEM'' means the Justice and Equality
Movement.
(3) SPLM.--The term ``SPLM'' means the Sudan People's
Liberation Movement.
(4) SLA.--The term ``SLA'' means the Sudanese Liberation
Army.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) A comprehensive peace agreement for Sudan, as
envisioned in the Sudan Peace Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 note), and
in the Machakos Protocol of 2002, is in grave jeopardy.
(2) Since 1989, the Government of Sudan has repeatedly
engaged in and sponsored orchestrated campaigns of attacking
and dislocating targeted civilian populations, disrupting
their ability to sustain themselves, and subsequently
restricting assistance to those displaced in a coordinated
policy of ethnic cleansing and Arabization that is most
recently evident in the Darfur region of Sudan.
(3) In response to 2 decades of civil conflict in Sudan,
the United States has helped to establish an internationally
supported peace process to promote a negotiated settlement to
the war that has resulted in a framework peace agreement, the
Nairobi Declaration on the Final Phase of Peace in the Sudan
signed June 5, 2004.
(4) At the same time that the Government of Sudan was
negotiating for a final countrywide peace, enumerated in the
Nairobi Declaration on the Final Phase of Peace in the Sudan,
it refused to engage in any discussion with regard to its
ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing in the region of Darfur.
(5) According to United States and United Nations
officials, the Government of Sudan
[[Page 17092]]
has engaged in an orchestrated campaign, with the assistance
of its Arab Sudanese proxy militia, the Janjaweed, to cleanse
a significant part of the ethnically African population from
North Darfur, West Darfur, and South Darfur, Sudan.
(6) The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
identified ``massive human rights violations in Darfur
perpetrated by the Government of Sudan and the Janjaweed,
which may constitute war crimes and/or crimes against
humanity''.
(7) Evidence collected by international observers in the
Darfur region between January 2003 and July 2004 indicate a
coordinated effort to target African Sudanese civilians in a
scorched earth policy, from both air and ground, that has
destroyed African Sudanese villages, killing and driving away
its people, while Arab Sudanese villages have been left
unscathed.
(8) As a result of this coordinated campaign that may well
constitute genocide, reports indicate tens of thousands of
African Sudanese civilians killed, the systematic rape of
hundreds of women and girls, the destruction of hundreds of
Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa villages and other ethnically
African populations, including the poisoning of their wells
and the plunder of crops and cattle upon which they sustain
themselves.
(9) According to the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, 1,200,000 people have been displaced in the Darfur
region of Sudan of whom nearly 200,000 have been forced to
flee to Chad as refugees.
(10) Even as refugees were fleeing Sudan, the Government of
Sudan conducted aerial attack missions and deadly raids
across the international border between Sudan and Chad in an
illegal effort to pursue Sudanese civilians seeking refuge in
Chad.
(11) In addition to the thousands of violent deaths
directly caused by ongoing Sudanese military and government
sponsored Janjaweed attacks in the Darfur region, the
Government of Sudan has restricted humanitarian and human
rights workers' access to the Darfur area, primarily through
bureaucratic and administrative obstruction and delays in an
attempt to inflict the most devastating harm on those
displaced from their villages and homes without any means of
sustenance or shelter.
(12) The Government of Sudan's continued support for the
Janjaweed and their obstruction of the delivery of food,
shelter, and medical care to the Darfur region--
(A) is estimated to be causing 500 deaths each day; and
(B) is projected to escalate to 1,200 deaths each day by
August 2004, and 2,400 deaths each day by December 2004, so
that even a best-case scenario will likely result in the
death of more than 320,000 people between April 1, 2004 and
December 31, 2004.
(13) The Government of Chad in N'Djamena served an
important role in facilitating the Darfur Humanitarian Cease-
fire dated April 8, 2004 for the Darfur region between the
Government of Sudan and the 2 opposition rebel groups in
Darfur (the JEM and the SLA) although both sides have
violated it repeatedly.
(14) The Government and people of Chad have allowed the
entry of 200,000 refugees from the Darfur region of Sudan and
have generally facilitated the delivery of international
humanitarian assistance, although logistical obstacles remain
a challenge in a crisis that is taxing the people of eastern
Chad and the refugees.
(15) The cooperation and mediation of the SPLM is critical
to bringing about a political settlement between the
Government of Sudan, the SLA, and the JEM.
SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE CONFLICT IN DARFUR,
SUDAN.
(a) Sudan Peace Act.--It is the sense of Congress that the
Sudan Peace Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) remains relevant and
should be extended to include the Darfur region of Sudan.
(b) Actions To Address the Conflict.--It is the sense of
Congress that--
(1) a legitimate countrywide peace in Sudan will only be
possible if the principles and purpose of the Machakos
Protocol of 2002 and the Nairobi Declaration on the Final
Phase of Peace in the Sudan signed June 5, 2004, negotiated
with the SPLM, should apply to all of Sudan and to all of the
people of Sudan, including the Darfur region;
(2) the parties to the Darfur Humanitarian Cease-fire dated
April 8, 2004 (the Government of Sudan, the SLA, and the JEM)
must meet their obligations under that agreement to allow
safe and immediate access of all humanitarian assistance
throughout the Darfur region and must expedite the conclusion
of a political agreement to end the conflict in Darfur;
(3) the United States should continue to provide
humanitarian assistance to the areas of Sudan to which the
United States has access and, at the same time, develop a
plan similar to that described in section 10 of the Sudan
Peace Act to provide assistance to the areas of Sudan to
which United States access has been obstructed or denied;
(4) the international community, including African, Arab,
and Muslim nations, should immediately provide logistical,
financial, in-kind, and personnel resources necessary to save
the lives of hundreds of thousands of individuals in the
Darfur crisis;
(5) the United States Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes
should travel to Chad and the Darfur region immediately to
investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity, to
develop a more accurate portrayal of the situation on the
ground and best inform the report required in section 11(b)
of the Sudan Peace Act;
(6) the United States and the international community
should use all necessary means to assist in the immediate
deployment of the full mandated African Union contingent of
100 monitors and a security force of 300, and work to
increase the authorized level to that which properly
addresses the gravity and scope of the problem in a region
the size of France;
(7) the President should immediately name a new Special
Envoy to Sudan to further efforts begun by John Danforth and
to allow the United States to continue to lead the peace
effort toward a comprehensive and sustainable peace in Sudan;
(8) the President should use all means to facilitate a
comprehensive solution to the conflict in Sudan, including by
directing the United States Permanent Representative to the
United Nations to pursue a resolution of the United Nations
Security Council that--
(A) condemns the actions of the Government of Sudan in
engaging in an orchestrated campaign of ethnic cleansing in
Darfur;
(B) calls on the Government of Sudan to cease support of
ethnic cleansing and the killing of innocent civilians,
disarm the Janjaweed militias, prevent such militias from
harassing and killing civilians, and ensure immediate access
for all humanitarian assistance to all areas of Darfur;
(C) calls on all parties to the conflict in the Darfur
region to permit unimpeded delivery of humanitarian
assistance directly to Darfur and to allow such assistance to
cross directly from countries that border Sudan, and abide by
the Darfur Humanitarian Cease-fire dated April 8, 2004;
(D) calls on the Government of Sudan to provide all
assistance possible, including release of its strategic food
reserves to respond to the Darfur crisis;
(E) calls on the international community, particularly
those countries with strong economic ties to Sudan, to
expedite the provision of humanitarian assistance to Darfur;
(F) endorses the African Union Observer and Protection
Force now deploying to the Darfur region of Sudan;
(G) establishes an international commission of inquiry to
examine the actions and accountability of those responsible
for war crimes and crimes against humanity that have
precipitated and perpetuated the humanitarian crisis in the
Darfur region; and
(H) confirms the right of all displaced Sudanese to return
to their land under safe and secure conditions;
(9) the United Nations should immediately deploy a United
Nations force to Sudan to ensure an appropriate international
humanitarian response to the catastrophe in the Darfur
region;
(10) sanctions should be imposed on the assets and
activities of those Sudanese government officials and other
individuals that are involved in carrying out the policy of
ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region; and
(11) the Government of the United States should not
normalize relations with Sudan, including through the lifting
of any sanctions, until the Government of Sudan agrees to and
implements a comprehensive peace agreement for all areas of
Sudan, including Darfur.
SEC. 5. AMENDMENTS TO THE SUDAN PEACE ACT.
(a) Assistance for the Crisis in Darfur and for
Comprehensive Peace in Sudan.--
(1) In general.--The Sudan Peace Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 note)
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 12. ASSISTANCE FOR THE CRISIS IN DARFUR AND FOR
COMPREHENSIVE PEACE IN SUDAN.
``(a) Assistance To Support a Comprehensive Final Peace
Agreement and To Respond to the Humanitarian Crisis in
Darfur.--
``(1) Authority.--Subject to the requirements of this
section, the President is authorized to provide assistance
for Sudan to support the implementation of a comprehensive
peace agreement that applies to all regions of Sudan,
including the Darfur region, and to address the humanitarian
and human rights crisis in the Darfur region and its impact
on eastern Chad.
``(2) Requirement for certification.--Notwithstanding
section 501(a) of the Assistance for International Malaria
Control Act (Public Law 106-570; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note),
assistance authorized under this section may be provided to
the Government of Sudan only if the President submits the
certification described in paragraph (3).
``(3) Certification for the government of sudan.--The
certification referred to in paragraph (2) is a certification
submitted by the President to the appropriate congressional
committees that the Government of Sudan has taken
demonstrable steps to--
``(A) ensure that the armed forces of Sudan and any
associated militias are not committing atrocities or
obstructing human rights monitors or the provision of
humanitarian assistance or human rights monitors;
[[Page 17093]]
``(B) demobilize and disarm militias supported or created
by the Government of Sudan;
``(C) allow full and unfettered humanitarian assistance to
all regions of Sudan, including Darfur;
``(D) allow an international commission of inquiry to
conduct its investigation of atrocities in the Darfur region
and Khartoum, preserve evidence of atrocities and prosecute
those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity;
and
``(E) cooperate fully with the African Union and all other
observer and monitoring missions mandated to operate in
Sudan.
``(4) Suspension of assistance.--If, on a date after the
President submits the certification described in paragraph
(3), the President determines that the Government of Sudan
has ceased taking the actions described in such paragraph,
the President shall immediately suspend the provision of any
assistance to such Government until the date on which the
President certifies that the Government of Sudan has resumed
taking such actions.
``(5) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the President to provide the assistance described in
paragraph (1), $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, in addition
to any other funds otherwise available for such purpose. Of
such amount, $200,000,000 may be made available for
humanitarian assistance in the Darfur region of Sudan and
eastern Chad in response to the ongoing crisis,
notwithstanding any provision of law other than the
provisions of this section.
``(B) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under subparagraph (A) are
authorized to remain available until expended.
``(b) Government of Sudan Defined.--In this section, the
term `Government of Sudan' shall have the same meaning as
such term had immediately prior to the conclusion of Darfur
Humanitarian Cease-fire dated April 8, 2004.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 3(2) of such Act is
amended by striking ``The'' and inserting ``Except as
provided in section 12, the''.
(b) Reporting Requirement.--Section 8 of the Sudan Peace
Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended in the first sentence by
striking ``Sudan.'' and inserting ``Sudan, including the
conflict in the Darfur region.''.
SEC. 6. REQUIREMENT FOR REPORT.
(a) Requirement.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on the planned
United States response to a comprehensive peace agreement for
Sudan.
(b) Content.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include--
(1) a description of the planned United States response to
a modified peace process between the Government of Sudan and
the SPLM that would account for the implementation of a peace
in all regions of Sudan, in particular Darfur;
(2) a contingency plan for extraordinary humanitarian
assistance should the Government of Sudan continue to
obstruct or delay the international humanitarian response to
the crisis in Darfur, Sudan.
(c) Form of Report.--The report required by subsection (a)
may be submitted in classified form.
______
By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 2721. A bill to amend the National Assessment of Educational
Progress Authorization Act to require State academic assessments of
student achievement in United States history, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American
History Achievement Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by
the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. This is part of my effort
to put the teaching of American history and civics back in its rightful
place in our school curriculum so our children can grow up learning
what it means to be an American.
This is especially appropriate on a day when the September 11 report
is being released. We tend to think of ourselves as Americans and
wonder who we are and what we value and what we have to defend at times
when we are threatened or even frightened. This should be a day when we
should feel threatened. We are reminded of the challenges we face.
I am especially glad that Senator Kennedy has joined me in this.
Senator Kennedy is especially appropriate to be a leading sponsor of
this legislation. He and his family are, in fact, part of American
history in a unique way. He, as well as Senator Reid, Senator Byrd, and
a number of Senators on this side of the aisle have been working hard
in a variety of ways to support efforts that are appropriate in the
Federal Government to celebrate our own history.
This modest bill provides for improved testing of American history so
we can determine where history is being taught well and where it is
being taught poorly so that improvements can be made. We also know when
testing is focused on a specific subject, States and school districts
are more likely to step up to the challenge and improve performance.
For example, a number of professors and teachers of history have
worried that because of the emphasis in No Child Left Behind on reading
and mathematics, that history would be left behind. There are two
answers to that. One is, if our citizens cannot read, they are not
going to know much history, except from watching the History Channel,
which is a pretty good way, and another answer is there is a specific
provision in the No Child Left Behind Act, which we call the Byrd
grants, after Senator Byrd, providing $100 million a year to school
districts across the country for the teaching of traditional American
history. Those programs are in full flourish in Tennessee, North
Carolina, and many parts of this country. They are excellent programs.
When you combine those with the We the People Project of the National
Endowment of the Humanities--I attended one of their workshops in
Nashville on Friday. Forty teachers across the country met at Andrew
Jackson's home, the Hermitage.
We are doing more to put this in the rightful place. The bill Senator
Kennedy and I offer today is one more effort of putting the teaching of
American history and civics back where it belongs.
We could certainly use improvement in the teaching of American
history. According to the National Assessment of Education Progress,
commonly referred to as the Nation's report card, fewer students have a
basic understanding of American history than have a basic understanding
of any other subject which we test, including math, science, and
reading.
When we look at our national report card, American history is our
children's worst subject. Yet, according to recent poll results, the
exact opposite outcome is desired by the American people.
Hart-Teeter recently polled 1,300 adults for the educational testing
service and asked what the principal goal of education should be. The
top response: Producing literate, educated students who can participate
in our democracy. Twenty-six percent of respondents believed that
should be our principal goal. ``Teach basics: math, reading'' was
selected by only 15 percent as the principal goal of education.
The late Albert Shanker of the American Federation of Teachers used
to say our common schools were created for the purpose of teaching
immigrant children reading, writing, and arithmetic, the three R's, and
what it means to be an American, so they could go home and teach their
parents.
They have forgotten that latter role, more and more. Our children
don't know American history because they are not being taught. For
example, the State of Florida just passed a bill permitting high school
students to graduate without taking a course in U.S. history. When our
children are not being taught our history, they are not learning what
is most important.
According to Harvard scholar Samuel Huntington, a 1987 study of high
school students found more who knew who Harriet Tubman was than knew
Washington commanded the American Army in the Revolution, or that
Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I am all for
teaching about Harriet Tubman and teaching about the history of the
Underground Railroad. My ancestor, the Rev. John Rankin, like Harriet
Tubman, was a conductor on the Underground Railroad. I would like for
more children to know about them both. But surely children ought to
learn first about the most critical leaders and events in the
Revolution and in the Civil War.
Let me give a couple of examples of how bad things have gotten. The
fourth grade NAEP test asked students to identify the following
passage:
[[Page 17094]]
We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are
created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights; among these are life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness . . .
Students were given four choices for the source of that passage: the
Constitution, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence,
the Articles of Confederation. Only 46 percent of students answered
correctly, that it came from the Declaration of Independence.
The eighth grade test asked, Imagine you could use a time machine to
visit the past. You have landed in Philadelphia in the summer of 1776.
Describe an important event that is happening.
Nearly half the students, 46 percent, were not able to answer the
question correctly, that the Declaration of Independence was being
signed.
This legislation aims to help in the effort to do something about
that. The American History Achievement Act gives the national
assessment governing board the authority to administer a 10-State pilot
study for the NAEP test in U.S. history in 2006. The board already has
the authority for reading, math, science, and writing. The pilot
program should collect enough data to attain a State-by-State
comparison of 8th and 12th grade student knowledge and understanding of
history. That will allow us to know which States are doing a better job
of teaching American history and allow other States to model their
programs on those that are working well. This legislation is part of a
broader effort in the Senate.
Earlier this year, Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Kennedy, and I and
others joined with Senators to pass the American History and Civics
Education Act, by unanimous vote, to create summer academies for
teachers and students of American history. Senator Schumer and I have
introduced a bill to codify the oath of allegiance which immigrants
take when sworn in as new citizens of the United States. The oath
should be protected in law just as the national anthem and Pledge of
Allegiance are.
Today we are putting a new focus on the teaching of American history.
Our children are growing up ignorant of our Nation's history. Yet a
recent poll tells us that Americans believe the principal goal of
education is ``producing literate, educated citizens who can
participate in our democracy.'' It is time to put the teaching of
American history and civics back in its rightful place in our schools
so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American.
Our diversity is a prized value in the United States. But more prized
is that we have been able to turn all that diversity into one nation.
Our motto is: ``e pluribus unum,'' not the other way around. It is:
``one from many.''
One thing we have in common is our history, and we should teach it.
This bill takes us one step closer to achieving that noble goal. I urge
my colleagues to support the legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2721
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 ``American History Achievement
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the 2001 National Assessment of Educational Progress
assessment in United States history had the largest
percentage of students scoring below basic of any subject
that was tested, including mathematics, science, and reading;
and
(2) in the 2001 National Assessment of Educational Progress
assessment in United States history--
(A) 33 percent of students in grade 4 scored below basic,
36 percent of students in grade 8 scored below basic, and 57
percent of students in grade 12 scored below basic;
(B) 92 percent of students in grade 12 could not explain
the most important cause of the Great Depression after
reading a paragraph delineating 4 significant reasons;
(C) 91 percent of students in grade 8 could not ``list two
issues that were important in causing the Civil War'' and
``list the Northern and Southern positions on each of these
issues'';
(D) 95 percent of students in grade 4 could not list ``two
reasons why the people we call `pioneers' moved west across
the United States'';
(E) 73 percent of students in grade 4 could not identify
the Constitution from among 4 choices as ``the document that
contains the basic rules used to run the United States
government'';
(F) 75 percent of students in grade 4 could not identify
``the three parts of the federal (national) government of the
United States'' out of 4 possible choices;
(G) 94 percent of students in grade 8 could not ``give two
reasons why it can be useful for a country to have a
constitution''; and
(H) 91 percent of students in grade 12 were unable to
``explain two ways that democratic society benefits from
citizens actively participating in the political process''.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL
PROGRESS AUTHORIZATION ACT.
Section 303(b) of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9622(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(D), by inserting ``(with a priority in
conducting assessments in history not less frequently than
once every 4 years)'' after ``subject matter''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)(A)--
(A) in clause (iii)--
(i) by inserting ``except as provided in clause (v),''
before ``may conduct''; and
(ii) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
(B) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) shall conduct trial State academic assessments of
student achievement in United States history in grades 8 and
12 in not less than 10 States representing geographically
diverse regions of the United States.''.
SEC. 4. NATIONAL ASSESSMENT GOVERNING BOARD.
Section 302(e)(1) of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9621(e)(1)) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (I), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (J) as subparagraph (K);
(3) in the flush matter at the end, by striking
``subparagraph (J)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (K)''; and
(4) by inserting after subparagraph (I) the following:
``(J) in consultation with the Commissioner for Education
Statistics, identify and select the States that will
participate in the trial State academic assessments described
in section 303(b)(3)(A)(v); and''.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 303(b)(3) of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9622(b)(3)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out subparagraph
(A)(v) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006 and
such sums as may be necessary for each succeeding fiscal
year.''.
SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Section 113(a)(1) of the Education Sciences Reform Act of
2002 (20 U.S.C. 9513(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``section
302(e)(1)(J)'' and inserting ``section 302(e)(1)(K)''.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator
Alexander in introducing the American History Achievement Act. This
bill is part of a continuing effort to renew the national commitment to
teaching in the Nation's public schools. It lays the foundation for
more effective ways of teaching children about the Nation's past. The
bill contains no new requirements for schools, but it does offer a more
frequent and effective analysis of how America's schoolchildren are
learning American history.
Our economy and our future security rely on good schools that help
students develop specific skills, such as reading and math. But the
strength of our democracy and our standing in the world also depend on
ensuring that children have a basic understanding of the Nation's past.
Helping to instill appreciation of America's past should be an
important mission of public schools. Thanks to the hard work of large
numbers of history teachers in classrooms throughout America, we're
making progress. Results from the most recent assessment under the NAEP
show that fourth and eighth graders are improving their knowledge of
U.S. history. Research conducted in history classrooms shows that
children are using primary sources and documents more often to explore
history, and are being assigned historical and biographical readings by
their teachers more frequently.
[[Page 17095]]
But much more remains to be done to advance the understanding of
American history, and to see that the teaching of history is not left
behind in classrooms.
A recent study by Dr. Sheldon Stern--the Chief Historian Emeritus at
my brother's Presidential Library--suggests that state standards for
teaching American history need improvement. His research reveals that
22 States have American history standards that are either weak or lack
clear chronology, appropriate political and historical context, or
sufficient information about real events and people. As many as 9
States still have no standards at all for American history.
Good standards matter. They're the foundation for teaching and
learning in every school. With the right resources, time, and
attention, it's possible to develop creative and effective history
standards in every State. Massachusetts began to work on this effort in
2000, through a joint review of history standards that involved
teachers, administrators, curriculum coordinators, and university
professors. After monthly meetings and 3 years of development and
revision, the State released a new framework for teaching history in
2003. Today, our standards in American history and World history
receive the highest marks.
School budget problems at the local level are obviously a serious
threat to these goals. Last week, 7,500 school districts received
notice of an impending $237 million overall cut to their budgets, to
take effect this fall. These cuts further exacerbate the current
funding crisis under the No Child Left Behind Act. Unfortunately,
courses in history or the humanities are often the first to go.
Other accounts report that schools are narrowing their curriculums
away from the social sciences, arts, and humanities, in favor of a more
concentrated approach to the teaching of reading and math in order to
meet the strict standards of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Meeting high standards in reading and math is important, but it
should not come at the expense of scaling back teaching in other core
subjects such as history. Integrating reading and math with other
subjects often gives children a better way to master literacy and
number skills, even while learning in a history or geography lesson.
That type of innovation deserves special attention in our schools.
Making it happen requires added investments in teacher preparation and
teacher mentoring, so that teachers are well prepared to use
interdisciplinary methods in their lesson plans.
Our bill today takes several important steps to strengthen the
teaching of American history, and raise the standing of history in
school curriculums. Through changes to the National Assessment for
Educational Progress, schools will be better able to achieve success on
this important issue.
First, we propose a more frequent national assessment of children in
American history under the NAEP. For years, NAEP has served as the gold
standard for measuring the progress of students and reporting on that
progress. Students last participated in the U.S. history NAEP in 2001,
and that assessment generated encouraging results. But the preceding
assessment--with which we can compare data--was administered in 1994--
too long before to be of real assistance.
It makes sense to measure the knowledge and skills of children more
frequently. This bill would place priority on administering the
national U.S. history NAEP assessment, to generate a more timely
picture of student progress. We should have an idea of children's
knowledge and skills in American history more often than every 6 or 7
years, in order to address gaps in learning.
The bill also proposes a leap forward to strengthen state standards
in American history, through a new State-level assessment of U.S.
history under NAEP. The assessment would be conducted on an
experimental and pilot basis in 10 States, in grades 8 and 12. The
National Assessment Governing Board would ensure that States with model
history standards, as well as those that are still under development,
participate in this assessment.
Moving NAEP to the state level does not carry any high stakes for
schools. But it will provide an additional benchmark for States to
develop and improve American history standards. It's our hope that
States will also be encouraged to undertake improvements in their
history curricula and ensure that American history is a beneficiary and
not a victim of school reform.
America's past encompasses great leaders and great ideas that
contributed to our heritage and to the principles of freedom, equality,
justice, and opportunity for all. Today's students will be better
citizens in the future if they learn more about that history. The
American History Achievement Act is an important effort toward that
goal, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
______
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 2723. A bill to designate certain land in the State of Oregon as
wilderness, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 2004 is a momentous year for wilderness in
Oregon. It marks the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Wilderness Act and
the 20th anniversary of the Oregon Wilderness bill from 1984.
But perhaps most importantly, 2004 marks the bicentennial of the
single most important exploratory committee ever to be launched by this
Federal government: the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
I can see no better way to mark this auspicious year than by enacting
a new Oregon Wilderness bill, the ``Lewis and Clark Mount Hood
Wilderness Act of 2004,'' which includes, in tribute to the great
river-dependent journey of Lewis and Clark, the addition of five free-
flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River
System.
In the last few years, some of Oregon's most important treasures have
been Congressionally protected: Steens Mountain is now home to 170,000
acres of Wilderness; the Little Sandy watershed is now part of the Bull
Run Management Unit and will help provide drinking water for over
700,000 Oregonians; Soda Mountain has been designated a National
Monument; and the Ft. Clatsop National Memorial has been expanded and
is the subject of legislation under consideration by this august body,
as I speak, to make it Oregon's second National Park.
The wilderness bill I introduce today continues to encapsulate, as
did the draft wilderness proposal that I floated on this subject in
March of this year, the wish of the people in my State to protect but
also actively relate to her treasures. Thousands of Oregonians
responded to my draft proposal--far more than I ever could have
expected. As a result, this is their bill more than it is my bill.
Mount Hood and the Columbia Gorge must be protected because the
people of Oregon love these areas, they are proud of these areas, and
they are demanding that we come together to protect Oregon's treasures
for this and future generations. The people of Oregon helped write this
bill, and I believe the people of Oregon on a bipartisan basis will be
the ones who help get it passed and signed by the President.
This bill I introduce today protects the lower elevation forests
surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge as Lewis and Clark
saw them. These forests symbolize the natural beauty of Oregon. They
provide the clean water necessary for the survival of threatened
steelhead, Coho and Chinook salmon. These forests provide critical
habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, lynx and the majestic
bald eagle. And these are the forests that provide unparalleled
recreational opportunities for Oregonians and our visitors.
But the bill I introduce today differs in many ways from the draft
proposal because it responds to the many comments I heard in the
ensuing 4 months. I received thousands of comments on the proposed
legislation. Some comments came as a result of the general public
meetings I held in Oregon, on April 11 and 14 of this year in Southwest
Portland and in Hood River. Each
[[Page 17096]]
meeting lasted over 3 hours, and everyone who wanted to speak was given
an opportunity to do so. Other comments came from the second Mount Hood
Summit held at Timberline Lodge in June hosted by Representatives
Walden and Blumenauer. I and my staff met with over 100 community
groups and local governments, the members of the Oregon congressional
delegation, the Governor, and the Bush administration. And still more
comments came from letters and phone calls from Oregonians.
What I overwhelmingly heard was the need to protect and build on
Oregon's Wilderness system is as important today as it was in 1804,
1964 or 1984--and is arguably more so--but it must be accompanied by
tools that help us create a planned future on Mount Hood. Mount Hood is
clearly going to be at risk otherwise.
The Mount Hood National Forest is the eighth most visited National
Forest in the United States. It is one of fourteen Forest Service-
designated ``urban'' national forests in the entire Nation. In the 20
years that has elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated in
the Mount Hood area--wild and scenic rivers were last set aside 16
years ago, the population in local counties has increased
significantly--20 percent in Multnomah County, 24 percent in Hood River
County, and 41 percent in Clackamas County.
The predominant public use of this urban forest is non-mechanized
activity like hiking, camping, and fishing. With increasing emphasis on
wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free flowing rivers,
wilderness and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor
recreation sometimes it seems--I heard this repeatedly--we are in
jeopardy of ``loving our wild places to death.''
A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the
number of people that could hike the south side of Mount Hood and the
public outcry was enormous. Seems to me, rather than tell people that
they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, part of
the solution for the future of the Mountain lies in providing more
opportunities for them to enjoy the Mountain's great places.
As the Forest Service is well-aware, Mt. Hood's non-mechanized use
will increase dramatically over time, but the Forest Service's own
documents acknowledge that we are not today even close to ready for
that eventuality.
The Forest Service's current Land and Resource Management Plan for
Mount Hood, page III-36, which notes the following:
the present capability to supply recreational opportunities
such as hiking on trails in primitive and semi-primitive non-
motorized areas is predicted to fall short of satisfying
demand.
According to that Forest Service management plan, the Mount Hood
National Forest already provides resources for nearly twice the current
demand for developed recreation like skiing, power boating and
sightseeing by car, but meets less than two-thirds of the demand for
backcountry recreation. The future is even grimmer. The Management Plan
goes on to project that by 2040, the Mount Hood National Forest will
only meet 16 percent of the demand for wilderness recreation, while
still meeting over 100 percent of the demand for mechanized recreation.
This Forest Service-projected shortfall means an ever-increasing
number of Oregonians will be forced onto inadequate, existing
wilderness, drastically impacting the mountain, its visitors, and its
well-deserved reputation as one of this country's greatest natural
wonders.
Of the more than 600 people who attended the two meetings I held in
April in Oregon, 128 spoke--110 in favor of more wilderness and 18
spoke in opposition.
Additionally, I received more than 1,100 written comments about the
proposal and over 1,000 of those expressed support for additional
wilderness.
I know my colleague wishes to speak. I want to wrap up by
highlighting the key areas I had Oregonians focus on in these meetings
and how we responded.
First, we heard that Oregonians felt there was not enough wilderness.
Second, we heard concern from some who enjoy mountain biking that their
recreational opportunity would be unfairly curtailed. Third, we heard
from people in the towns, mountains, and gorges about fire protection
for their communities. Fourth, we heard about forest health and
timber--again, a very important set of concerns for our region.
Finally, we were told about developed recreation with many being
worried about maintaining a role for skiing and other recreational
pleasures on Mount Hood.
In each of these five areas we took steps to address these concerns.
First, the legislation I introduce today to respond to the call of
the people of my State for more wilderness would increase the amount we
had originally proposed by designating approximately 177,000 new acres
of wilderness.
These include very important areas surrounding the oldest Mount Hood
wilderness areas--spectacular ridges that frame the Columbia River
Gorge that all will marvel at and essential other areas of beautiful
fall colors and the best deer and elk hunting existing in the entire
forest.
Second, and especially important, I thought the mountain bikers
raised valid concerns. So we took two steps. I proposed and I am very
interested in talking to my friend from Tennessee who has such an
interest in the environment and recreation, generally, about an idea we
proposed in this legislation to create a Mount Hood Pedaler's
Demonstration Experiment. We call it Hood-PDX, which would in effect be
the Nation's first mountain bike area that would join such a treasure
as Mount Hood. In this demonstration project, Hood-PDX would be managed
as wilderness though it wouldn't be wilderness. It would be a pilot
project encompassing over 13,000 acres and over 50 miles of trail. The
mountain bikers would have 10 years to establish that bikers can
coexist peacefully with wild natural areas.
We also made boundary adjustments to keep them on over 120 miles of
trail which they were concerned about losing.
Third, we took steps to protect our communities--particularly Cascade
Locks, Government Camp, and Rowena--and so this bill creates fire
safety zones for communities in this area.
This legislation also reiterates the Forest Service's mandate for
thinning for forest health on the Mount Hood National Resources, and
especially the resources to get the job done in the area.
Finally, we add a proposal for developed recreation that would
reestablish a southside winter recreation area that encompasses those
areas on the southside of Mount Hood that have exceptional potential
for commercial recreation.
The protection of these important areas will depend on the hard work
and dedication of all Oregonians. I want to particularly thank my
friend and colleague Senator Smith who meets with me every Thursday
over lunch. We talk repeatedly about this issue and he has been very
gracious. We are going to work together to address the various issues
raised by our constituents and raised by our colleagues in the other
body, particularly Congressmen Walden, Blumenauer, and Hooley.
This is a special day for Oregon. This is the formal beginning of an
important debate about how to protect special Oregon treasure.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I would like to salute the Senator
from Oregon. I am glad I was here to hear his discussion, especially
about mountain bikers' great conservation majority in this country. We
ought to do a better job of creating a bigger conservation majority in
the Senate. We sometimes split up on the issues, it would appear. But I
don't think that is necessary.
For example, I was in Idaho a couple of weeks ago and took a mountain
bike ride on the Hiawatha Trail which is between Idaho and Montana
where the Milwaukee Railroad used to run from Chicago to Takoma. At one
point, they were going to dig up the tracks. But this is a place where
they have long tunnels and the speculator high trestles where people
used to go in the 1950s and 1960s. But now, because of the
[[Page 17097]]
work by Members of this body, some on this side of the aisle, some on
that side, that is a rails-to-trails project. On that Sunday morning,
there were maybe 500 or 600 mountain bikers who had that experience.
It made me think of something I failed to do when I was Governor of
our home State. I still deeply regret it. I thought toward the end of
my term about but couldn't quite get done the notion of whenever we
build a new highway we should provide for a pedestrian or bike trail
along the side of it--it is too expensive to do a lot of times on
existing roads--that every time you build a new road or widen a road,
acquire a little bit more right of way. If we had done that 20 years
ago in Tennessee, we would all be grateful for that today.
Senator Landrieu, Democratic Senator from Louisiana, and I are
working on legislation called the American Outdoors legislation, to try
to assure a steady stream of revenue for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund for urban parks, for the Game and Fish Commission,
and other conservation purposes.
Senator Wyden, Senator Landrieu, and I are all in the same committee.
I look forward to working with them on this legislation.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr.
Corzine):
S. 2725. A bill to amend the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement,
and Modernization Act of 2003 to eliminate the coverage gap, to
eliminate HMO subsidies, to repeal health savings accounts, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in 2003 the Medicare Modernization Act
became law. A part of that legislation continued a very modest--and
fatally flawed--prescription drug benefit for seniors.
One of those flaws--and it was something I pointed out during the
Senate debate and offered an amendment to fix--is known as the coverage
gap.
Here's how it works: Seniors will have a monthly premium and a $250
deductible and then they pay 25 percent of their prescription drug
costs. So far so good. But then once they have drug costs of over
$2,250, the benefit stops; it shuts down. And seniors have to pay the
next $2,850 of drug costs on their own--100 percent of their costs--
before their coverage starts again.
Does this sound like prescription drug coverage to you? I know that
my insurance has no such thing, and I know of no other insurance that
has such a policy.
So today, Senator Mikulski and I are introducing a bill that closes
this coverage gap and will better fulfill our promise to seniors to
provide a real Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Under our bill--the Closing the Coverage Gap Act of 2004--seniors
will pay the premium and the $250 deductible and then pay for 25
percent of their coverage until they reach their catastrophic limit of
$5,100. After that, Medicare will pay 95 percent.
Let me give you an example of how this works. A constituent from San
Marcos, California wrote me about her prescription drug costs. They
exceed $10,000 a year. In 2006, she will be helped by the new law, but
will still end up paying nearly $4,000 for her prescriptions. Under my,
this woman will be responsible for only $1,500 of her costs. It will
ease her burden and give her greater peace of mind.
This bill is simple; it is fair, and it will help millions of
seniors across the country.
I thank Senator Mikulski for joining me in this effort, and I urge
my colleague to cosponsor this bill.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague,
Senator Boxer, to introduce the Closing the Coverage Gap of 2004 Act.
This bill would fix one of the major flaws of the recently passed
Medicare Modernization Act--the $2,850 gap in prescription drug
coverage.
The Medicare bill is a hollow promise for a prescription drug benefit
for seniors which talks big but delivers small. It promises
prescription drugs for seniors, yet it will cause over 2 million
seniors to lose their drug coverage, coerce seniors into HMOs, and do
nothing to stop the soaring cost of prescription drugs.
During the debate on the bill, Senator Boxer and I worked on an
amendment to fix one of the worst flaws in the drug benefit--the
coverage gap. When I reviewed the bill, I was appalled to discover that
the promised benefit actually provides no drug benefit to seniors for
drug costs between $2,250 and $5,100 per year.
The new Medicare benefit affects seniors' drug costs in two ways.
First of all it, it prohibits Medicare from negotiating better prices
for seniors. I am fighting for legislation that would allow Medicare to
negotiate drug prices--lowering drug costs to both seniors and
taxpayers.
Next, the benefits are skimpy and spartan. The new Medicare benefit
leaves too many seniors in a coverage gap. Some people are calling this
a ``donut,'' as if it's a ``Krispy Kreme,'' but there is nothing sweet
about it. Seniors will have to pay out of pocket all of their drugs
between $2,250 and $5,100 while still paying monthly premiums. This
isn't a donut; it's a hidden deductible. The real deductible in this
plan isn't $250. Once a senior's drug costs put them into the coverage
gap, their deductible could be as high as $3,100. Seniors would have to
pay all of the drug costs between $2,250 and $5,100, a total of $2,850,
out of their own pockets on top of the $250 deductible.
I think this is outrageous. No other insurance plan simply stops
coverage for a while.
Our bill would fix this fatal flaw in the Medicare prescription drug
benefit by providing real prescription drug coverage. Under our bill,
there is no coverage gap. Seniors would pay their premium and the $250
deductible. Once they have paid their deductible, they would pay 25
percent their drug costs until they reach the catastrophic limit of
$5,100. And just like the current benefit, once a senior reaches
$5,100, Medicare would pay 95 percent of all drug costs.
I thank Senator Boxer for all her work on this important bill and
look forward to working together to close the coverage gap.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 2726. A bill to amend title 49 of the United States Code to
provide flight attendant security training, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that
is important to the security of our air travel: ensuring that our
Nation's flight attendants receive anti-terrorist security training.
On September 11th, as we all know, the terrorists hijacked four
commercial jets--all of which were heading to California. And while I
can say that air travel today is more secure than it was before the
terrorist attacks, I still believe that we have more to do--which was
proven with the information recently that a flight between LAX and
Dulles is a ``flight of interest.'' There are still threats out there.
It is unacceptable to have loopholes in our aviation security--nearly
3 years since the attack.
In addition to air marshals and armed pilots, flight attendants are
part of the last line of defense. The most obvious case is Richard
Reid--the shoe bomber who was stopped with the help of a flight
attendant. That was a courageous--and life saving--act. All flight
attendants should be trained and ready to respond to these types of
incidents.
As part of the Department of Homeland Security legislation in 2002,
we passed strong flight attendant security training, which I helped
write with former Senator Bob Smith. Unfortunately, last year, much of
that was repealed--at the insistence of a single member of the House--
in the FAA Reauthorization bill.
Therefore, I am introducing legislation today that would reinstate
the flight attendant security training included in the Homeland
Security bill. The bill would restore the law requiring uniform anti-
terrorist training for all flight attendants.
[[Page 17098]]
We took a great step forward in 2002. We should not have gone
backwards to create a loophole in our aviation security.
We cannot stop fighting terrorism. Well-trained flight attendants are
key. We do not have enough air marshals on planes, and the
Administration is slow-walking the guns in the cockpit program. We need
to rely on our flight attendants now more than ever. We must ensure
they get the training they need.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Durbin, and Mr.
Feingold):
S. 2727. A bill to amend part A of title VI of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 regarding international and foreign language studies; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Cochran, Durbin
and Feingold to introduce The International and Foreign Language
Studies Act of 2004.
In recent years, foreign language needs have significantly increased
throughout the Federal Government due to the presence of a wider range
of security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the
globalization of the U.S. economy. Likewise, American business
increasingly needs internationally experienced employees to compete in
the global economy and to manage a culturally diverse workforce.
Currently, the U.S. government requires 34,000 employees with foreign
language skills across 70 federal agencies. These agencies have stated
over the last few years, that translator and interpreter shortfalls
have adversely affected agency operations and hindered U.S. military,
law enforcement, intelligence, counter-terrorism and diplomatic
efforts.
Despite our growing needs, in the 2000-01 school year, the number of
undergraduate foreign language degrees conferred was only one percent
of all degrees. In 2003, only 41 percent of undergraduates reported
taking foreign language courses while only 18 percent reported having
studied abroad. And yet, 79 percent of Americans believe that students
should study abroad sometime during college.
At a time when our security needs are more important than ever, at a
time when our economy demands that we enter new markets, and at a time
when the world requires us to engage in diplomacy in more thoughtful
and considered ways, it is extremely important that we have at our
disposal a multilingual, multi cultural, internationally experienced
workforce. The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies
Act attempts to provide us with this.
The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies Act will
increase undergraduate study abroad opportunities as they relate to
programs designed to enhance foreign language proficiency and deepen
cultural knowledge. The Dodd-Cochran bill will reinstate undergraduate
eligibility for Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships. The
Dodd-Cochran bill will encourage the Department of Education to engage
in the collection, analysis and dissemination of data on international
education and foreign language needs so that we know and understand
exactly what our needs in this area are. And, most importantly, the
Dodd-Cochran bill will demonstrate our nation's commitment to
increasing the foreign language proficiency and international
experience of our electorate by increasing the amount appropriated to
international education within the Higher Education Act to $120 million
each year.
The Higher Education Act authorizes the Federal Government's major
activities as they relate to financial assistance for students
attending colleges and universities. It provides aid to institutions of
higher education, services to help students complete high school and
enter and succeed in postsecondary education, and mechanisms to improve
the training of our emerging workforce. This bill will help fulfill
that mission.
Foreign language skills and international study are vital to secure
the future economic welfare of the United States in an increasingly
international economy. Foreign language skills and international study
are also vital for the nation to meet 21st century security challenges
properly and effectively, especially in light of the terrorist attacks
on September 11, 2001.
I hope our colleagues who are not cosponsoring this bill will give it
serious consideration. By working together, I believe that the Senate
as a body can act to ensure that we strengthen our Nation's security
and economy by capitalizing on the talents and dreams of those who wish
to enter the international arena.
______
By Mr. SCHUMER:
S. 2728. A bill to create a penalty for automobile insurance fraud;
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Stabenow and
Lautenberg to introduce the Getting Results for Advanced Degrees (GRAD)
Act.
The percentage of individuals pursuing graduate education has
increased dramatically in recent decades as individuals seek the
education and skills needed to participate in a technologically complex
and global economy. In the last 25 years alone, graduate enrollment in
the United States has increased by 39 percent. In the fall of 2000,
there were 1.85 million graduate students enrolled in American schools.
The economic benefits of graduate education are significant. The
median earnings of workers who possess a graduate or professional
degree are more than 3\1/2\ times those of high school dropouts.
Despite the impact of graduate education on individuals' economic
well being, and on the economic strength of our national economy as a
whole, graduate education is, for many, financially out of reach. In
2001-02 the average graduate school tuition at public institutions was
$4,491 and $15,233 at private institutions. In a 2002 borrower's
survey, the average debt reported by graduate students was $45,900.
This is an astounding figure.
To respond to the need for a highly educated workforce, I have put
together a series of proposals that will make graduate education more
accessible and affordable to qualified applicants regardless of income
level, the Getting Results for Advanced Degrees Act (GRAD). The purpose
of the GRAD Act is to encourage students to pursue graduate education
and to assist them in affording it.
Specifically, the GRAD Act increases the authorization level of the
Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) program to $50
million and the Jacob Javits Fellowship Program to $35 million. The
GAANN fellowship program helps to support graduate study in areas of
national need such as chemistry, computer and information science,
engineering, mathematics and physics. The Jacob Javits Fellowship
Program helps support graduate study in the arts, humanities and social
sciences.
To encourage greater participation by minority students in graduate
studies, the Act creates the Patsy T. Mink Fellowship Program to offer
assistance to underrepresented minority students pursuing a doctoral
degree. The Patsy T. Mink Fellowship Program will help address the
important problem of underrepresentation of students from certain
minority groups in graduate education.
To help students afford the costs of graduation education, the GRAD
Act expands the tax-exempt status of scholarships to treat reasonable
room and board allowances as part of permitted higher education
expenses. The Act revises the cost of attendance calculations for
financial aid for students with dependents to reflect the true cost of
living expenses for themselves and their children. The Act increases
the amount of earnings students can set aside without having to apply
those earnings to the cost of attendance. The GRAD Act also increases
the unsubsidized Stafford loan limit for graduate and professional
students from $10,000 to $12,500 so they are less likely to have to
turn to more expensive private loans.
The Getting Results for Advanced Degrees Act will help students meet
[[Page 17099]]
the financial challenges faced in pursuing graduate studies. The Act
strengthens programs that support graduate students in areas of vital
importance to our Nation and makes assistance available to
underrepresented minority students pursuing a doctoral degree. By
helping students to pursue and afford graduate education, the GRAD Act
will help individuals, families and the nation as a whole, realize the
important benefits of graduate education.
I hope more of my colleagues will join me in support of graduate
education by signing on this bill. By working together, I believe that
the Senate as a body can act to ensure that more individuals are able
to pursue graduate education and assist our Nation in meeting the
challenges faced in a global economy.
______
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 2730. A bill to amend title V, XVIII, and XIX of the Social
Security Act to promote cessation of tobacco use under the medicare
program, the medicaid program, and the maternal and child health
services block grant program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
expands treatment to millions of Americans suffering from a deadly
addiction: tobacco. The Medicare, Medicaid and MCH Smoking Cessation
Promotion Act of 2004 will help make smoking cessation therapy
accessible to recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Maternal and
Child Health (MCH) Program.
We have long known that cigarette smoking is the largest preventable
cause of death, accounting for 20 percent of all deaths in this
country. It is well documented that smoking causes virtually all cases
of lung cancer and contributes to coronary heart disease, peripheral
vascular disease, chronic obstructive lung disease, and other deadly
health ailments.
The harmful effects of smoking do not end with the smoker. A recent
report issued by the American Legacy Foundation cites the effects of
second-hand smoke on children of smokers. In addition to the cost of
health complications of asthma and chronic ear infections in children,
the report indicates that 43,000 children are orphaned every year
because of tobacco-related deaths.
Still, despite enormous health risks, 45 million adults in the United
States smoke cigarettes. Of those, low income and racial minorities
make up a disproportionate share. While 22.5 percent of the general
adult population in the U.S. are current smokers, the percentage is
about 50 percent higher among Medicaid recipients. Thirty-six percent
of adults covered by Medicaid smoke.
We are not only paying a heavy health toll, but an economic price as
well. According to the Center for Tobacco Cessation, about 14 percent
of all Medicaid expenditures on average are related to smoking. That's
not surprising, given that smokers incur an average of $1,041 more in
annual medical costs than non-smokers.
Today, however, we have identified clinically proven, effective
strategies to help smokers quit. Advancements in treating tobacco use
and nicotine addiction using pharmacotherapy and counseling have helped
millions kick the habit. The Surgeon General's 2000 Report, Reducing
Tobacco Use, concluded that ``pharmacologic treatment of nicotine
addiction, combined with behavioral support, will enable 10 to 25
percent of users to remain abstinent at one year of post-treatment.
Studies have shown that reducing adult smoking through tobacco use
treatment pays immediate dividends, both in terms of health
improvements and cost savings. Creating a new nonsmoker reduces
anticipated medical costs associated with acute myocardial infarction
and stroke by $47 in the first year and by $853 during the next seven
years in 1995 dollars. Within four to five years after tobacco
cessation, quitters use fewer health care services than continued
smokers.
New Jersey and Oregon have provided Medicaid coverage for counseling
and drugs as recommended by the Public Health Service, and both states
now have among the lowest smoking-related Medicaid costs.
The health benefits tobacco quitters enjoy are also undisputed. They
live longer, and after 15 years, the risk of premature death for ex-
smokers returns to nearly the level of persons who have never smoked.
Male smokers who quit between just the ages of 35 and 39 add an average
of five years to their lives; women can add three years. Even older
Americans over age 65 can extend their life expectancy by giving up
cigarettes.
Former smokers are also healthier. They are less likely to die of
chronic lung diseases, and after ten smoke-free years, their risk of
lung cancer drops to as much as one-half that of those who continue to
smoke. After five to fifteen years the risk of stroke and heart disease
for ex-smokers returns to the level of those who have never smoked.
They have fewer days of illness, reduced rates of bronchitis and
pneumonia, and fewer health complaints.
Public Health Service Guidelines released a few years ago conclude
that tobacco dependence treatments are both clinically effective and
cost-effective relative to other medical and disease prevention
interventions. The guidelines urge health care insurers and purchasers
to include counseling and FDA-approved pharmacologic treatments as a
covered benefit.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government, a major purchaser of health
care through Medicare and Medicaid, does not currently adhere to its
own published guidelines. It is high time that government-sponsored
health programs catch up with science. That is why I am introducing
legislation to improve smoking cessation benefits in government-
sponsored health programs.
The Medicare, Medicaid, and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion Act of
2004 improves access to and coverage of smoking cessation treatment
therapies in three meaningful ways.
First, this bill adds a smoking cessation counseling benefit and
coverage of FDA-approved tobacco cessation drugs to Medicare. The bill
requires all prescription drug sponsors to provide coverage for tobacco
cessation drugs under Medicare's prescription drug coverage. It also
defines over-the-counter agents as covered drugs, as long as those
drugs are prescribed by a doctor or other authorized medical
professional. By 2020, 17 percent of the U.S. population will be 65
years of age or older. It is estimated that Medicare will pay $800
billion to treat tobacco-related diseases over the next twenty years.
In a study of adults 65 years of age or older who received advice to
quit, behavioral counseling and pharmacologic therapy, 24.8 percent
reported having stopped smoking six months following the intervention.
The total economic benefits of quitting after age 65 are notable. Due
to a reduction in the risk of lung cancer, coronary heart disease and
emphysema, studies have found that heavy smokers over age 65 who quit
can avoid up to $4,592 in lifelong illness-related costs.
Second, this bill provides coverage for counseling, prescription and
non-prescription smoking cessation drugs in the Medicaid program. The
bill eliminates the provision in current federal law that allows states
to exclude FDA-approved smoking cessation therapies from coverage under
Medicaid. Despite the fact that the states have received payments from
their successful federal lawsuit against the tobacco industry, less
than half the states provide coverage for smoking cessation in their
Medicaid program.
Even if Medicaid covered cessation products and services exclusively
to pregnant women, we would see significant cost savings and health
improvements. Children whose mothers smoke during pregnancy are almost
twice as likely to develop asthma as those whose mothers did not. Over
seven years, reducing smoking prevalence by just one percentage point
among pregnant women would prevent 57,200 low birth weight births and
save $572 million in direct medical costs.
Third, this bill ensures that the Maternal and Child Health Program
recognizes that medications used to promote smoking cessation and the
inclusion of anti-tobacco messages in health promotion are considered
part of quality maternal and child health services
[[Page 17100]]
I hope my colleagues will join me not only in cosponsoring this
legislation but also in working with me to see that its provisions are
adopted. As the Surgeon General has said, ``Although our knowledge
about tobacco control remains imperfect, we know more than enough to
act now.''
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kohl, Mr.
Durbin, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 2731. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit
certain interstate conduct relating to exotic animals; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Captive Exotic
Animal Protection Act of 2004. This Act would prohibit the barbaric and
unsporting practice of ``canned hunts.'' I am pleased to be joined by
my cosponsors, Senators Biden, Kennedy, Levin, Corzine, Feinstein,
Feingold, Kohl, Durbin and Schumer.
Canned hunts take place on private land under circumstances that
virtually assure hunters of a kill. Although they advertise under a
variety of names, such as hunting preserves or game ranches, canned
hunts have two things in common: they charge a fee for killing an
animal; and they violate the generally accepted practices of the
hunting community, which are based on the concept of ``fair chase.''
Some canned hunts specialize in native species, such as white-tailed
deer or elk, while others deal in exotic, non-native, animals that are
either bred on-site or bought from dealers or breeders. Exotic animals
may include surplus animals bought from wild animal parks, circuses,
and petting zoos. Many canned hunts offer both native and exotic
species to their customers. The Humane Society of the United States
estimates that there are more than 1000 canned hunt operations in at
least 25 different States.
Canned hunts cater to persons who lack the time, and sometimes the
skill, for normal sports hunting, but who have the money to pay the
hefty fees charged for trophy kills. They do not require skill in
tracking or shooting. For a price, many canned hunts guarantee a
``hunter'' a kill of the animal of their choice. A wild boar ``kill''
may sell for up to $1000, a water buffalo for $3500, and a red deer for
up to $6000.
The ``hunt'' of these tame animals occurs within a fenced enclosure,
leaving the animal virtually no chance for escape. Fed and cared for by
humans, these animals have often lost their instinctive impulse to flee
from hunters who ``stalk'' them. In addition to fencing, canned hunts
use other practices to assure their customers a kill. They employ
guides who are intimately familiar with their preserve or ranch,
including locations where animals like to eat, bed down, and hide, and
may use food plots and feeding stations to attract animals and make
them easy targets from nearby shooting blinds or stands--all practices
which are prohibited by many State game commissions.
Canned hunts are strongly condemned by animal protection groups. The
Fund for Animals has launched a national campaign against what it calls
a ``cruel, unsporting, and egregious type of hunting.'' The Humane
Society says that ``There is no more repugnant hunting practice than
shooting tame, exotic mammals in fenced enclosures for a fee in order
to obtain a trophy.'' The group believes that federal legislation is
needed ``to halt the cruel and unsportsmanlike business of canned
hunts.''
Canned hunts violate the principles of the sport of hunting. The
Boone and Crockett Club, a hunting organization founded by Teddy
Roosevelt, defines ``fair chase'' as the ``ethical, sportsmanlike, and
lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North
American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an
improper advantage over such animals.'' Surely exotic animals held in
canned hunt facilities can in no way be considered ``free-ranging,''
and the hunters at such facilities clearly have an enormous ``improper
advantage'' over the animals.
In addition to being unethical, canned hunts may pose a serious
health and safety threat to domestic livestock and native wildlife.
Accidental escapes of exotic animals from game ranches are not
uncommon, posing a danger to nearby livestock and indigenous wildlife.
A dire threat to native deer and elk populations in this country is
chronic wasting disease, the deer equivalent of mad cow disease. In
some States, experts believe that canned hunts, with their fences and
high concentrations of animals, are encouraging transmission of this
disease.
In recognition of these threats, several states have banned canned
hunting of mammals. Unfortunately, most states lack laws to outlaw this
practice. Because interstate commerce in exotic animals is common,
Federal legislation is essential to control these cruel practices.
My bill is essentially the same as legislation S. 1655, that was
reported by the Judiciary Committee late in the 107th Congress and
sponsored by Senator Biden. It is similar to legislation that I
introduced in the 106th, S. 1345, 105th, S. 995, and 104th, S. 1493,
Congresses. The legislation that I am introducing today will target
only canned hunt facilities that allow the hunting of exotic, non-
native, mammals. It is important to note what the bill does and does
not do: (1) The bill does not regulate the hunting of native mammals,
such as white-tail deer; (2) the bill does not regulate the hunting of
birds, native or exotic, such as doves, pheasants, and mallard ducks;
(3) the bill protects only exotic, non-native, mammals that have been
confined for the greater part of the animal's life or a year, whichever
is shorter; (4) the bill does not cover exotic mammals living as they
would in the wild on large preserves where they have an opportunity to
avoid hunters, 1000 acres or larger; and (5) the bill regulates the
conduct of persons who operate canned hunts or traffic in exotic
mammals used in such hunts, not the hunters who patronize canned hunt
facilities. In summary, my bill would merely ban the transport and
trade of non-native, exotic mammals for the purpose of staged trophy
hunts.
The idea of a defenseless animal meeting a violent end as the target
of a canned hunt is, at the very least, distasteful to many Americans.
In an era when we are seeking to curb violence in our culture, canned
hunts are certainly one form of gratuitous brutality that does not
belong in our society. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
this legislation, which will help end this needless practice.
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. 2731
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 ``Captive Exotic Animal
Protection Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The ethic of hunting involves the consideration of fair
chase, which allows the animal the opportunity to avoid the
hunter.
(2) At more than 1,000 commercial canned hunt operations
across the country, trophy hunters pay a fee to shoot captive
exotic animals, from African lions to giraffes and blackbuck
antelope, in fenced-in enclosures.
(3) Clustered in a captive setting at unusually high
densities, confined exotic animals attract disease more
readily than more widely dispersed native species who roam
freely.
(4) The transportation of captive exotic animals to
commercial canned hunt operations can facilitate the spread
of disease across great distances.
(5) The regulation of the transport and treatment of exotic
animals on shooting preserves falls outside the traditional
domains of State agriculture departments and State fish and
game agencies.
(6) This Act is limited in its purpose and will not limit
the licensed hunting of any native mammals or any native or
exotic birds.
(7) This Act does not aim to criticize those hunters who
pursue animals that are not enclosed within a fence.
(8) This Act does not attempt to prohibit slaughterhouse
activities, nor does it aim to prohibit the routine
euthanasia of domesticated farm animals.
[[Page 17101]]
SEC. 3. TRANSPORT OR POSSESSION OF EXOTIC ANIMALS FOR
PURPOSES OF KILLING OR INJURING THEM.
(a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 49. Exotic animals
``(a) Prohibition.--Whoever, in or substantially affecting
interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers,
transports, or possesses a confined exotic animal, for the
purposes of allowing the killing or injuring of that animal
for entertainment or for the collection of a trophy, shall be
fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or
both.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `confined exotic animal' means a mammal of a
species not historically indigenous to the United States,
that has been held in captivity, whether or not the defendant
knows the length of the captivity, for the shorter of--
``(A) the majority of the animal's life; or
``(B) a period of 1 year; and
``(2) the term `captivity' does not include any period
during which an animal lives as it would in the wild--
``(A) surviving primarily by foraging for naturally
occurring food;
``(B) roaming at will over an open area of not less than
1,000 acres; and
``(C) having the opportunity to avoid hunters.
``(c) Enforcement.--
``(1) In general.--Any person authorized by the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, may--
``(A) without a warrant, arrest any person that violates
this section (including regulations promulgated under this
section) in the presence or view of the arresting person;
``(B) execute any warrant or other process issued by an
officer or court of competent jurisdiction to enforce this
section; and
``(C) with a search warrant, search for and seize any
animal taken or possessed in violation of this section.
``(2) Forfeiture.--Any animal seized with or without a
search warrant shall be held by the Secretary or by a United
States marshal, and upon conviction, shall be forfeited to
the United States and disposed of by the Secretary of the
Interior in accordance with law.
``(3) Assistance.--The Director of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service may use by agreement, with or without
reimbursement, the personnel and services of any other
Federal or State agency for the purpose of enforcing this
section.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 3 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``Sec. 49. Exotic animals''.
______
By Mr. REID:
S. 2732. A bill to provide grants for use by rural local educational
agencies in purchasing new school buses; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are still small towns in America where
the citizens wait for a doctor to make rounds, a mail truck to drop off
the mail. These families have elected to stay in their communities
despite all the obstacles, and they deserve an opportunity to enjoy a
good quality of life.
But sometimes, the challenges of living in rural America can be
overwhelming--especially as they relate to identifying and securing
Federal education funding.
There are hundreds of Federal education grants that currently provide
an array of support for local education agencies: literacy programs,
English learner's programs, after school programs--just to name a few.
Most of the time these Federal dollars and grants end up going to
larger urban school districts, not to the little rural ones. One reason
is because rural school districts simply don't have the resources
needed to write the grant applications or oversee the program.
Or perhaps rural educators don't even realize they are qualified to
apply for a particular grant, or they don't have the infrastructure
needed to support the initiative.
Many years ago when I attended school in Searchlight, we had one
teacher who taught grades 1 through 8. There are still schools in
Nevada where this is the case.
I walked to school, and when it was time for high school I hitched a
ride into a town 40 miles away and had to stay with a family during the
week. That was the transportation system in rural America back then:
walk or hitchhike.
Now we have school buses. But many rural areas are operating
outdated, unsafe school buses that are driven until they finally can't
pass inspection any longer. The skyrocketing gas prices of the past
seven months have only made the problem worse.
These local education agencies are strapped. They can't afford to buy
newer, safer buses. I was astonished to learn that the school buses in
some rural Nevada counties travel a combined 1 million miles in a
school year.
The superintendents in my State asked me for help. They identified
their need for school buses, and I want to help.
I am introducing legislation today that will help rural school
districts transport children to school in a way that is safe,
affordable and environmentally sound.
The ``Bus Utility and Safety in School Transportation Opportunity and
Purchasing Act of 2004''--or BUS STOP--authorizes the Federal
Government to provide $50,000,000 in grants on a competitive basis to
rural local educational agencies seeking Federal share assistance to
purchase school buses. The Federal share will be 75 percent.
Each applicant must provide documentation that at least 50 percent of
their school buses are in need of repair or replacement; the total
mileage each bus traveled in the most recent school year; documentation
that the applicant is operating with a depleted fleet; and assurance
that the school system will pay the local share for the purchase of new
school buses.
In an effort to promote clean air, the Environmental Protection
Agency has already established a cost-share grant program that will
help local school systems replace old school buses, install pollution
control devices, and eliminate unnecessary idling.
The EPA is seeking to improve air quality by encouraging large school
districts to voluntarily cut emissions. The EPA awarded $5 million in
grants to 20 school districts last month and $5 million to 17 school
districts last year.
Unfortunately this is an example of a program that my rural counties
didn't apply for because they don't have the infrastructure in place to
support clean buses. However, working in the spirit of clean air and
healthy children, rural school districts can buy newer buses that are
better for our air, and safer for our children.
My office has already received phone calls from the education
departments from other states. They want to know if the rumor is true:
is there finally going to be legislation to help us purchase school
buses?
The answer is yes.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
S. 2732
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 ``Bus Utility and Safety in
School Transportation Opportunity and Purchasing Act of
2004''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) school transportation issues have concerned parents,
local educational agencies, lawmakers, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation
Safety Board, and the Environmental Protection Agency for
years;
(2) millions of children face potential future health
problems because of exposure to noxious fumes emitted from
older school buses;
(3) the Environmental Protection Agency established the
Clean School Bus USA program to replace 129,000 of the oldest
diesel buses that cannot be retrofitted in an effort to help
children and the environment by improving air quality;
(4) unfortunately, many rural local educational agencies
are unable to participate in that program because of the
specialized fuels needed to sustain a clean bus fleet;
(5) many rural local educational agencies are operating
outdated, unsafe school buses that are failing inspection
because of automotive flaws, resulting in a depletion of
school bus fleets of the local educational agencies; and
(6) many rural local educational agencies are unable to
afford to buy newer, safer buses.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to establish
within the Environmental Protection Agency a Federal cost-
sharing program to assist rural local educational agencies
with older, unsafe school bus fleets in purchasing newer,
safer school buses.
[[Page 17102]]
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Rural local educational agency.--The term ``rural local
educational agency'' means a local educational agency, as
defined in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801), with respect to
which--
(A) each county in which a school served by the local
educational agency is located has a total population density
of fewer than 10 persons per square mile;
(B) all schools served by the local educational agency are
designated with a school locale code of 7 or 8, as determined
by the Secretary of Education; or
(C) all schools served by the local educational agency have
been designated, by official action taken by the legislature
of the State in which the local educational agency is
located, as rural schools for purposes relating to the
provision of educational services to students in the State.
(3) School bus.--The term ``school bus'' means a vehicle
the primary purpose of which is to transport students to and
from school or school activities.
SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--From amounts made available under
subsection (e) for a fiscal year, the Administrator shall
provide grants, on a competitive basis, to rural local
educational agencies to pay the Federal share of the cost of
purchasing new school buses.
(b) Application.--
(1) In general.--Each rural local educational agency that
seeks to receive a grant under this Act shall submit to the
Administrator for approval an application at such time, in
such manner, and accompanied by such information (in addition
to information required under paragraph (2)) as the
Administrator may require.
(2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph
(1) shall include--
(A) documentation that, of the total number of school buses
operated by the rural local educational agency, not less than
50 percent of the school buses are in need of repair or
replacement;
(B) documentation of the number of miles that each school
bus operated by the rural local educational agency traveled
in the most recent 9-month academic year;
(C) documentation that the rural local educational agency
is operating with a reduced fleet of school buses;
(D) a resolution from the rural local educational agency
that--
(i) authorizes the application of the rural local
educational agency for a grant under this Act; and
(ii) describes the dedication of the rural local
educational agency to school bus replacement programs and
school transportation needs (including the number of new
school buses needed by the rural local educational agency);
and
(E) an assurance that the rural local educational agency
will pay the non-Federal share of the cost of the purchase of
new school buses under this Act from non-Federal sources.
(c) Priority.--
(1) In general.--In providing grants under this Act, the
Administrator shall give priority to rural local educational
agencies that, as determined by the Administrator--
(A) are transporting students in a bus manufactured before
1977;
(B) have a grossly depleted fleet of school buses; or
(C) serve a school that is required, under section
1116(b)(1)(E) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1)(E)), to provide transportation
to students to enable the students to transfer to another
public school served by the rural local educational agency.
(d) Payments; Federal Share.--
(1) Payments.--The Administrator shall pay to each rural
local educational agency having an application approved under
this section the Federal share described in paragraph (2) of
the cost of purchasing such number of new school buses as is
specified in the approved application.
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
purchasing a new school bus under this Act shall be 75
percent.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this Act--
(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
2006 through 2010.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 2734. A bill to implement the recommendations of the Inspector
General of the Department of the Interior regarding Indian Tribal
detention facilities; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce The Indian
Tribal Detention Facility Reform Act of 2004 which proposes sweeping
reforms to operation of tribal detention systems in American Indian
communities.
The bill will launch significant efforts to address the third world
conditions plaguing this system, problems which were the subject of a
series of articles in the USA Today and other national newspapers.
On June 23, 2004, the Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on
the operation and condition of these detention facilities and the
testimony we received was very disturbing.
At the hearing, the Inspector General of the Department of Interior
reported that after reports from a variety of sources, including the
U.S. Department of Justice, his office began an assessment of the
physical condition of these facilities and how they are operated.
The Inspector General also testified about numerous examples of
inmate suicides, escapes, neglect, overcrowding and other inhumane
conditions, staffing shortages, inmate access to weapons and poor
prisoner supervision, all occurring in facilities operated by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs or by Indian tribes, pursuant to contract.
The Inspector General reported that the lack of prison monitoring
sadly resulted in the death of a 16 year old Indian girl who was placed
in a cell for underage drinking. She later died of alcohol poisoning
and her family is now considering legal action charging negligence by
the jail's managers.
The tragic part of the story is that the death might have been
prevented. But what is even more frightening is that deaths and
attempted suicides are not isolated events at these facilities.
This is but one example brought to the Committee's attention and in
my mind these events and conditions are deplorable, inexcusable and
have to end.
The bill I am introducing today establishes clear lines of authority
for detention services by directing the Secretary of Interior to create
a separate branch of detention services. This separate branch will give
the proper attention to issues surrounding detention facilities.
In addition, the bill will require the creation of reporting
protocols on serious incidents, particularly escapes, to proper law
enforcement authorities. Because in some cases reporting may not be
sufficient, the bill will also establish criteria for conducting
preliminary inquiries into serious incidents to determine if there is a
need for a full investigation.
Finally, the bill requires that the Department of Interior conduct a
full report on the conditions and needs of the detention facilities in
Indian communities, including staffing shortages and training, and a
plan for addressing the needs.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
legislation.
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. 2734
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 ``Indian Tribal Detention
Facility Reform Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
Section 2 of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25
U.S.C. 2801) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
``In this Act:
``(1) Branch of criminal investigations.--The term `Branch
of Criminal Investigations' means the entity the Secretary is
required to establish within the Division of Law Enforcement
Services under section 3(d)(1).
``(2) Branch of detention services.--The term `Branch of
Detention Services' means the entity that the Secretary is
required to establish within the Division of Law Enforcement
Services under section 3(f)(1).
``(3) Bureau.--The term `Bureau' means the Bureau of Indian
Affairs of the Department of the Interior.
``(4) Complementary facility.--
``(A) In general.--The term `complementary facility' means
a facility for the provision of additional or necessary
services to detainees as a result of their being in custody.
``(B) Inclusion.--The term `complementary facility'
includes a detoxification center, protective custody cell,
shelter care facility, community treatment center, halfway
house, or any similar facility.
``(5) Detainee.--The term `detainee' means an individual
who is held in a detention facility for any period of time.
[[Page 17103]]
``(6) Detention facility.--The term `detention facility'
means a facility for holding of individuals for correctional,
intergovernmental, or other custodial purposes that is--
``(A) operated by the Bureau; or
``(B) operated by an Indian tribe under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et
seq.).
``(7) Division of law enforcement services.--The term
`Division of Law Enforcement Services' means the entity
established within the Bureau under section 3(b).
``(8) Employee of the bureau.--The term `employee of the
Bureau' includes an officer of the Bureau.
``(9) Enforcement of a law.--The term `enforcement of a
law' includes the prevention, detection, and investigation of
an offense and the detention or confinement of an offender.
``(10) Indian country.--The term `Indian country' has the
meaning given the term in section 1151 of title 18, United
States Code.
``(11) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' has the
meaning given the term in section 201 of Public Law 90-284
(commonly known as the `Civil Rights Act of 1968') (25 U.S.C.
1301).
``(12) Offense.--The term `offense' means an offense
against the United States, including a violation of a Federal
regulation relating to part or all of Indian country.
``(13) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
``(14) Serious incident.--
``(A) In general.--The term `serious incident' means an
occurrence, event, activity, or other incident that results
in--
``(i) a risk of harm or actual harm to an individual or the
community; or
``(ii) serious damage to property.
``(B) Inclusion.--The term `serious incident' includes all
incidents relating to detainee deaths or injuries, suicides,
attempted suicides, escapes, and officer safety issues.''.
SEC. 3. BRANCH OF DETENTION SERVICES.
Section 3 of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25
U.S.C. 2802) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)(4), by striking ``Area'' each place
it appears and inserting ``Regional''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Branch of Detention Services.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish within
the Division of Law Enforcement Services a separate Branch of
Detention Services.
``(2) Duties.--The Branch of Detention Services--
``(A) except as prohibited by other Federal law, shall be
responsible for the detention, confinement, and corrections
of offenders within Indian country;
``(B) shall not be primarily responsible for routine law
enforcement, criminal investigations, or police operations in
Indian country; and
``(C) under an interagency agreement between the Secretary
and Attorney General and subject to such guidelines as the
appropriate agencies or officials of the Department of
Justice may adopt, may be responsible for temporarily
detaining individuals for the purpose of Federal prosecution,
immigration, or transportation, or any other detention
purpose.
``(3) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate
regulations establishing a procedure for active cooperation
and consultation of the detention services employees of the
Branch of Detention Services assigned to an Indian
reservation with the governmental, law enforcement, and
detention officials of the Indian tribes located on the
Indian reservation.
``(4) Personnel.--
``(A) Supervision and direction.--Personnel of the Branch
of Detention Services--
``(i) shall be subject only to the supervision and
direction of the law enforcement personnel or personnel of
the Branch of Detention Services or of the Division, as the
Secretary considers appropriate; and
``(ii) shall not be subject to the supervision of the
Bureau Agency Superintendent or Bureau Regional Director.
``(B) Effect of paragraph.--Nothing in this paragraph--
``(i) precludes cooperation, coordination, or consultation,
as appropriate, with non-law enforcement Bureau personnel at
the agency or regional level; or
``(ii) restricts the right of an Indian tribe to contract a
detention program under the authority of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et
seq.) or to maintain its own detention operations.
``(C) Reestablishment of authority.--
``(i) Request.--After the date that is 1 year after the
date of establishment of the Branch of Detention Services,
any Indian tribe may, by resolution of the governing body of
the Indian tribe, request the Secretary to reestablish
authority over detention of members of the Indian tribe
directly through the Agency Superintendent or Bureau Regional
Office Director rather than through the Branch of Detention
Services.
``(ii) Approval.--In the absence of good cause to the
contrary, the Secretary, on receipt of a resolution under
clause (i), shall reestablish the authority as requested by
the Indian tribe.''.
SEC. 4. FUNDING.
Section 9 of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25
U.S.C. 2808) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``Any expenses'' and inserting the following:
``SEC. 9. FUNDING.
``(a) In General.--Any expenses''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Availability.--Funds made available to carry out this
Act shall remain available until expended.''.
SEC. 5. DETENTION REFORM AND REVIEW.
The Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act is amended by
inserting after section 10 (25 U.S.C. 2809) the following:
``SEC. 10A. DETENTION REFORM.
``(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
``(1) there are 74 detention facilities in Indian country;
``(2) serious deficiencies in Indian country detention have
arisen, including--
``(A) poor facility conditions;
``(B) lack of staff training;
``(C) understaffing; and
``(D) lack of detention facility administration and other
operational standards, or failure to comply with any such
standards;
``(3) those deficiencies create a dangerous and potentially
life-threatening situation for detainees and detention
personnel;
``(4) the April 2004 interim report of the Inspector
General of the Department of the Interior found that deaths,
escapes, and assaults on correctional officers have occurred
at several detention facilities in Indian country as a result
of those deficiencies;
``(5) the Division of Law Enforcement Services has
responsibility for both law enforcement and detention
services, but no clear lines of authority for detention
services;
``(6) existing Federal law does not provide clear lines of
authority or standards for detention services in Indian
country; and
``(7) clear authority and standards are needed to assist
detention and law enforcement officials in--
``(A) meeting the principal goals of Indian country law
enforcement and detention;
``(B) protecting life and property; and
``(C) reducing crime and recidivism rates.
``(b) Reporting Protocols for Serious Incidents.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 270 days after the date
of enactment of the Indian Tribal Detention Facility Reform
Act of 2004, the Bureau shall develop and implement protocols
to ensure that all serious incidents occurring at a detention
facility are reported promptly through an established chain
of command.
``(2) Reporting of escapes to law enforcement
authorities.--The protocols shall ensure that each incident
involving an escape of a detainee from a detention facility
is reported immediately to the appropriate Federal, State,
tribal, and local law enforcement authorities.
``(3) Preliminary inquiries into serious incidents.--
``(A) In general.--The Division of Law Enforcement Services
shall conduct a preliminary inquiry of any serious incident
to determine whether a full investigation is warranted.
``(B) Findings.--All findings made in conducting
preliminary inquiries under subparagraph (A) shall be
reported to the Division of Law Enforcement Services and the
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs.
``(4) Detention facilities staffing review.--The Bureau
shall--
``(A) not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
the Indian Tribal Detention Facility Reform Act of 2004,
conduct a review of the staffing needs at all detention
facilities; and
``(B) update that review annually.
``(c) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the Indian Tribal Detention Facility Reform Act
of 2004, the Secretary, after consultation with the Attorney
General, shall promulgate regulations to carry out
subsections (a) and (b).
``(d) Detention Facilities Review.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Consultation.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of the Indian Tribal Detention Facility Reform
Act of 2004, in consultation with Indian tribes to the extent
practicable, the Bureau shall complete an assessment of the
physical conditions and needs of all detention facilities.
``(B) Report.--Not later than 15 months after the date of
enactment of the Indian Tribal Detention Facility Reform Act
of 2004, the Bureau shall--
``(i) submit to the Committee on Indian Affairs and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee
on Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives a report that describes the results of the
assessment under subparagraph (A); and
``(ii) make the report available to Indian tribal
governments.
``(2) Data and methodologies.--In preparing the report
under paragraph (1), the Bureau shall use--
``(A) the existing Department of Justice Federal Bureau of
Prisons formula for determining the condition and adequacy of
Department of Justice detention facilities, including
operational standards;
``(B) data relating to conditions at detention facilities
that have previously been compiled, collected, or secured
from any
[[Page 17104]]
source derived, so long as the data are accurate, relevant,
timely, and necessary to preparation of the report; and
``(C) the methodologies of the American Institute of
Architects or other accredited and reputable architecture or
engineering associations responsible for detention facility
construction.
``(3) Contents.--The report shall include--
``(A) a catalog of the condition of detention facilities
that--
``(i) identifies the existing detention and complementary
facilities and any detention and complementary facilities
that do not exist but are needed, taking into consideration--
``(I) the size of a detention facility or complementary
facility;
``(II) the number of detainees in a facility;
``(III) the age and condition of a facility;
``(IV) interjurisdictional detention needs;
``(V) staff needs; and
``(VI) prisoner isolation and transportation needs;
``(ii) establishes a routine maintenance schedule for each
facility;
``(iii) identifies staffing and operational needs of
existing and needed facilities; and
``(iv) provides specific cost estimates needed to repair,
renovate, lease or construct any new, existing or additional
detention facilities or complementary facilities;
``(B) a detailed plan to bring all detention facilities and
complementary facilities into compliance with applicable
standards that includes--
``(i) detailed information on the status of each facility's
compliance with the standards;
``(ii) specific cost estimates for meeting the standards at
each facility; and
``(iii) specific timelines for bringing each facility into
compliance with the standards;
``(C) an assessment of the feasibility of developing
regional detention facilities, taking into consideration the
factors identified in subparagraph (A)(i) and a comparison of
costs and benefits of regional facilities versus individual
tribal facilities; and
``(D) an assessment of the feasibility of tribal operation
of the facilities identified under subparagraphs (A)(i) and
(C) under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), including--
``(i) any cost savings that would result from tribal rather
than Federal operation of the facilities; and
``(ii) a comparison of costs and benefits arising from
individual tribal operation versus contracting detention
services with State or local facilities.
``(4) Effect of subsection.--Nothing in this subsection
requires termination of the operations of any facility that
fails to comply with standards described in subparagraph (B).
``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $500,000, to
remain available until expended.''.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 2738. A bill to establish a Commission to commemorate the 400th
anniversary of the arrival of Samuel de Champlain in the Champlain
Valley, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I submit today a bill that will assist the
States of Vermont and New York in commemorating the extraordinary
cultural; historical, and recreational heritage of one of Vermont's
greatest natural treasures, Lake Champlain.
Nearly 400 years ago, in 1609, Samuel de Champlain entered a green
valley where he arrived at the lake that today carries his name. Lake
Champlain stretches nearly 120 miles from Whitehall, NY, to the
Richelieu River in Quebec and is nestled between the dramatic peaks of
the New York's Adirondacks and Vermont's picturesque Green Mountains.
The Samuel de Champlain 400th Commemoration Commission Act of 2004
will authorize the National Park Service to fund a Commemoration
Committee established with the Governors of Vermont and New York in
order to plan national events for 2009 that celebrate the arrival of
Samuel de Champlain and the rich heritage of the lake--which includes
all people present when Champlain arrived in the valley and the
communities that exist today.
We Vermonters sometimes affectionately refer to Lake Champlain as the
``Sixth Great Lake,'' and I have many fond memories of this wonderful
lake. As a boy I spent time fishing and boating in its waters and over
the years have taken my family on many enjoyable ferry rides across the
lake. More recently I have become an avid scuba diver, and my own
explorations of shipwreck sites in the lake have inspired me to educate
others about its history and work to help preserve its unique heritage.
Just as in my own family's history, Lake Champlain's history links
together Vermont and our Nation's storied histories.
Shortly after Champlain entered the region, what is now known as Lake
Champlain was quickly recognized as the vital transportation route for
the Northeast which had been used by Native peoples for centuries.
Early settlers used the lake to explore unknown lands and create new
settlements in the wilderness of Colonial North America.
Lake Champlain is awash in a rich maritime history. The chain of
lakes that includes Lake Champlain has been called the ``The Great
Warpath'' because of its use by early Colonial armies and flotillas. It
played a critical role in the birth of the United States Navy through
early military and naval struggles played out along its shores and in
its bays.
The most famous naval battle on Lake Champlain occurred in 1776,
during the American Revolutionary War, when Benedict Arnold managed to
successfully delay a British invasion of the rebelling colonies at the
Battle of Valcour Island.
Lake Champlain holds one of the largest and best preserved
collections of historic naval and other shipwrecks. As an avid scuba
diver, I have viewed many of the shipwrecks first hand and am always
awed by how well they have been preserved.
The Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Lake Champlain Basin Program, and
many other Vermonters and New Yorkers have worked hard to preserve our
fabulous maritime archaeological heritage so that other intrepid
adventurers can dive in and explore a part of Vermont's past that
helped shape the direction of our developing Nation.
Over the years as my family and I explored the lake's maritime
history we also learned about its role in the growing economy of our
young Nation. As the United States became more settled and stable, Lake
Champlain became a center of flourishing commerce in the Northeast and
a critical conduit for getting goods up and down the eastern seaboard.
In fact, historians call the 19th nineteenth century Lake Champlain's
``Golden Era'' of waterborne commerce. During that time the lake's
peaceful waters were churning with the wakes of hundreds of steamboats,
canal boats, ferries, merchant sloops and schooners--all plying their
trade to markets in the Northeast and abroad.
Today, the storied waters of Lake Champlain are treasured by
Vermonters and New Yorkers and millions more as an outstanding natural,
cultural, and recreational resource. Activities such as boating,
fishing, and tourism help Lake Champlain support a regional economy of
more than $9 billion dollars. No other inland body of water has played
such a decisive role in the history of the United States as has Lake
Champlain.
The arrival of Samuel de Champlain had profound influence on our
Nation's history that goes far beyond the simple naming of a lake--this
event lead to a multitude of great historic, cultural, and economic
achievements that to this day continue to influence life throughout the
United States.
This legislation will help our country and the many small towns and
groups around Lake Champlain properly celebrate our common heritage.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 2739. A bill to improve the training and retention of health
professionals under titles VII and VIII of the Public Health Service
Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Health care continues to be among the fastest growing
sectors of the U.S. economy. From 1970 to 2002, the health care
consumption doubled from 7 to 14 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic
Product (GDP). Employment in health occupations is projected to
increase from 11 million in 2000 to 14 million by 2010. In that same
period, the growth rate for new job creation in health care occupations
is expected to be 29 percent more than double the growth projected for
non-health
[[Page 17105]]
occupations. Over 5.3 million people will be needed to fill these
health-related positions. However, as a nation, we are not educating
and training sufficient numbers of healthcare workers and providers,
and therefore failing the American people.
There are two ways in which we are failing our citizens. The first is
an over-reliance on foreign healthcare workers. Instead of committing
ourselves to training and educating Americans, we are importing large
numbers of foreigners to meet our public health needs. For example, 25
percent of all physicians in the U.S. are immigrants, as are 16 percent
of all laboratory technicians. Although these foreign workers are
filling an important void, and are both qualified and competent,
thousands of qualified Americans wishing to pursue an education in
healthcare fields are turned down every year. It's time we stop
importing our skilled workers and start investing in the expansion of a
skilled workforce in our own country. In fact, given the recent
economic downturn, and the high level of unemployment in our country,
preparing Americans to work in an expanding job market such as
healthcare is the right thing to do.
The second way in which we are failing the American people is by not
educating and training sufficient numbers of racial and ethnic
minorities to work in the healthcare system. The racial/ethnic
composition of the U.S. healthcare workforce does not reflect that of
the general population. For example, while Blacks, Hispanics, and
Native Americans represented 26 percent of the general population in
2002, they only represented 6 percent of physicians.
A recent study of New Mexico healthcare professionals concluded that
88 percent of physicians are non-Hispanic Whites, while only 6.5
percent are Hispanic. Overall, ethnic/racial minorities are
inadequately represented in all healthcare professions in New Mexico.
Additionally, in my State, 21 percent of Internal Medicine Specialists
are international medical school graduates, and so are 15 percent of
primary care physicians.
A recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) study described compelling
evidence for the need to increase diversity within the health
workforce. Diversity ensures access to healthcare for underserved
populations and greater patient satisfaction. Many segments of the U.S.
population, particularly minority groups, reside in medically
underserved areas. Black and Hispanic health workers are more likely to
provide healthcare to Black and Hispanic patients, to serve poor,
uninsured, or Medicaid-insured patients, and to locate their practices
in underserved areas. Furthermore, racial/ethnic minority patients are
more satisfied with their providers when they are of the same racial/
ethnic group.
It is time we invest in our healthcare workforce; in our people; in
our future. That is why I am introducing the ``Investing in America's
Future Act of 2004'' today. This bill has several components aimed at
improving and expanding education and training for healthcare workers.
This bill will provide incentives for Americans to seek and complete
high-quality allied health education and training. It will also expand
the Health Career Opportunities Program, which is aimed at enhancing
the academic skills of students from disadvantaged backgrounds and
supporting them in successfully entering and graduating from health
professions training programs. It creates programs of excellence in
health professions education for underrepresented minorities, and a
health professions student loan fund for low-income and racial/ethnic
minority students. Finally, this bill also establishes a Health Work
Advisory Commission, charged with creating a national vision to serve
as a map for investing in the health workforce.
We must ensure that qualified Americans who wish to enter the health
workforce are able to do so, and we must support the training and
education of the generations of Americans to come. In doing so, not
only will we help more Americans hold good jobs, but we will also
provide better healthcare to underserved and disadvantaged groups.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
in the Record.
There being two objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2739
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Investing
in America's Future Act of 2004''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--ALLIED HEALTH
Sec. 101. Findings.
Sec. 102. Purposes.
Sec. 103. Amendments to Public Health Service Act.
TITLE II--HEALTH WORKFORCE ADVISORY COMMISSION
Sec. 201. Health Workforce Advisory Commission.
TITLE III--PHYSICIAN DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS IN RURAL STATES
Sec. 301. Definitions.
Sec. 302. Rural States physician recruitment and retention
demonstration program.
Sec. 303. Establishment of the health professions database.
Sec. 304. Evaluation and reports.
Sec. 305. Contracting flexibility.
TITLE IV--HEALTH CAREERS OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM
Sec. 401. Purpose.
Sec. 402. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE V--PROGRAM OF EXCELLENCE IN HEALTH PROFESSIONS EDUCATION FOR
UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES
Sec. 501. Purpose.
Sec. 502. Authorization of appropriation.
TITLE VI--HEALTH PROFESSIONS STUDENT LOAN FUND; AUTHORIZATIONS OF
APPROPRIATIONS REGARDING STUDENTS FROM DISADVANTAGED BACKGROUNDS
Sec. 601. Student loans.
Sec. 602. National Health Service Corps; recruitment and fellowships
for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds.
TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 703. Study by the Institute of Medicine.
TITLE I--ALLIED HEALTH
SEC. 101. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Bureau of the Census [and other reports] highlight
the increased demand for acute and chronic health care
services among both the general population and a rapidly
[growing aging portion of the population].
(2) The calls for reduction in medical errors, increased
patient safety, and increased quality of care have resulted
in an amplified call for allied health professionals to
provide health care services.
(3) Several allied health professions are characterized by
workforce shortages, declining enrollments in allied health
education programs, or a combination of both factors, and
hospital officials have reported vacancy rates in positions
occupied by allied health professionals.
(4) Many allied health education programs are facing
significant economic pressure that could force their closure
due to an insufficient number of students.
SEC. 102. PURPOSES.
The purpose of this title is to ensure that the United
States health care industry will have a supply of allied
health professionals needed to support the Nation's health
care system in this decade and beyond by--
(1) providing incentives for members of the United States
population to seek and complete high-quality allied health
education and training; and
(2) providing additional funding to ensure that such
education and training can be provided to allied health
students.
SEC. 103. AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.
(a) In General.--Part E of title VII of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 294n et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``Subpart 3--Allied Health Professionals
``SEC. 775. DEFINITIONS.
``In this subpart:
``(1) Allied health education program.--The term `allied
health education program' means any education program at an
accredited institution of higher education leading to a
certificate, an associate's degree, a bachelor's degree, or a
post baccalaureate degree in an allied health profession.
``(2) Allied health profession.--The term `allied health
profession' means any profession practiced by an individual
in his or her capacity as an allied health professional.
``(3) Elementary school; secondary school.--The terms
`elementary school' and `secondary school' have the meanings
give to those terms in section 9101 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
[[Page 17106]]
``(4) Institution of higher education.--The term
`institution of higher education' has the meaning given to
that term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001).
``SEC. 775A. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS.
``The Secretary shall develop and issue public service
announcements that advertise and promote the allied health
professions, highlight the advantages and rewards of the
allied health professions, and encourage individuals from
disadvantaged communities and backgrounds to enter the allied
health professions.
``SEC. 775B. STATE AND LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants to
eligible entities to support State and local advertising
campaigns through appropriate media outlets to promote the
allied health professions, highlight the advantages and
rewards of the allied health professions, and encourage
individuals from disadvantaged communities and backgrounds to
enter the allied health professions.
``(b) Eligible Entity.--In this section, the term `eligible
entity' means an entity that is--
``(1) a professional, national, or State allied health
association;
``(2) a State health care provider; or
``(3) an association of entities that are each a health
care facility, an allied health education program, [or an
entity that provides similar services or serves a like
function].
``SEC. 775C. ALLIED HEALTH RECRUITMENT GRANT PROGRAM.
``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary shall award grants
to eligible entities to increase allied health professions
education opportunities.
``(b) Eligible Entity.--In this section, the term `eligible
entity' means an entity that is--
``(1) a professional, national, or State allied health
association;
``(2) a State health care provider; or
``(3) an association of entities that are each a health
care facility, an allied health education program, [or an
entity that provides similar services or serves a like
function].
``(c) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity that receives a
grant under this section shall use funds received under such
grant to--
``(1) support outreach programs at elementary schools and
secondary schools that inform guidance counselors and
students of education opportunities regarding the allied
health professions;
``(2) carry out special projects to increase allied health
professions education opportunities for individuals who are
from disadvantaged backgrounds (including racial and ethnic
minorities underrepresented in the allied health professions)
by providing student scholarships or stipends, pre-entry
preparation, and retention activities;
``(3) provide assistance to public and nonprofit private
educational institutions to support remedial education
programs for allied health professions students who require
assistance with math, science, English, and medical
terminology;
``(4) meet the costs of child care and transportation for
individuals who are taking part in an allied health education
program; or
``(5) support community-based partnerships seeking to
recruit allied health professionals in rural communities,
urban medically underserved communities, and other
communities experiencing an allied health professions
shortage.
``SEC. 775D. GRANTS FOR HEALTH CAREER ACADEMIES.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants to
eligible entities for the purpose of assisting such entities
in collaborating to carry out programs that form education
pipelines to facilitate the entry of students of secondary
schools, especially underrepresented racial and ethnic
minorities, into careers in the allied health professions.
``(b) Eligible Entity.--In this section, the term `eligible
entity' means an institution that offers an allied health
education program, a health care facility, or a secondary
school.
``SEC. 775E. ALLIED HEALTH PROFESSION, PRACTICE, AND
RETENTION GRANTS.
``(a) Education Priority Areas.--The Secretary may award
grants to or enter into contracts with eligible entities
for--
``(1) expanding the enrollment in allied health profession
education programs, especially by underrepresented racial and
ethnic minority students; and
``(2) providing allied health education through new
technologies and methods, including distance learning
methodologies.
``(b) Practice Priority Areas.--The Secretary may award
grants to or enter into contracts with eligible entities
for--
``(1) establishing or expanding allied health professions
practice arrangements in noninstitutional settings to
demonstrate methods to improve access to primary health care
in rural areas and other medically underserved communities;
``(2) providing care for underserved populations and other
high-risk groups such as the elderly, individuals with HIV/
AIDS, substance abusers, the homeless, and victims of
domestic violence;
``(3) providing managed care, information management,
quality improvement, and other skills needed to practice in
existing and emerging organized health care systems; or
``(4) developing generational and cultural competencies
among allied health professionals.
``(c) Retention Priority Areas.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may award grants to and
enter into contracts with eligible entities to enhance the
allied health professions workforce by initiating and
maintaining allied health retention programs pursuant to
paragraph (2) or (3).
``(2) Grants for career ladder programs.--The Secretary may
award grants to and enter into contracts with eligible
entities for programs--
``(A) to promote career advancement for allied health
professionals in a variety of training settings, cross
training or specialty training among diverse population
groups, and the advancement of individuals; and
``(B) to assist individuals in obtaining education and
training required to enter the allied health professions and
advance within such professions, such as by providing career
counseling and mentoring.
``(3) Enhancing patient care delivery systems.--
``(A) Grants.--The Secretary may award grants to eligible
entities to improve the retention of allied health
professionals and enhance patient care that is directly
related to allied health activities by enhancing
collaboration and communication among allied health
professionals and other health care professionals, and by
promoting the involvement of allied health professionals in
the organizational and clinical decisionmaking processes of a
health care facility.
``(B) Preference.--In making awards of grants under this
paragraph, the Secretary shall give preference to applicants
that have not previously received an award under this
paragraph and to applicants from rural, underserved areas.
``(C) Continuation of an award.--The Secretary shall make
continuation of any award under this paragraph beyond the
second year of such award contingent on the recipient of such
award having demonstrated to the Secretary measurable and
substantive improvement in allied health professional
retention or patient care.
``(d) Eligible Entity.--In this section, the term `eligible
entity' means a health care facility, or any partnership or
coalition including a health care facility or an allied
health education program.
``SEC. 775F. DEVELOPING MODELS AND BEST PRACTICES PROGRAM.
``(a) Models and Best Practices.--
``(1) Grants.--The Secretary shall award grants to eligible
entities to enable such entities to carry out demonstrations
of models and best practices in allied health for the purpose
of developing innovative strategies or approaches for the
retention of allied health professionals.
``(2) Distribution of grants.--The Secretary shall ensure
the distribution of grants under this subsection to a range
of types and sizes of facilities, including facilities
located in rural, urban, and suburban areas and a variety of
geographic regions.
``(3) Use of fund.--The Secretary may not make a grant to
an eligible entity under this subsection unless the entity
agrees to use funds received under the grant to carry out
demonstrations of models and best practices in allied health
for the purpose of--
``(A) promoting retention and satisfaction of allied health
professionals;
``(B) promoting opportunities for allied health
professionals to pursue education, career advancement, and
organizational recognition; and
``(C) developing continuing education programs that
instruct allied health professionals on how to use emerging
medical technologies and how to address current and future
health care needs.
``(b) Models of Excellence.--The Secretary shall award
grants to [area health education centers] to enable such
centers to enter into contracts with allied health education
programs--
``(1) to expand the operation of area health education
centers to work in communities to develop models of
excellence for allied health professionals; or
``(2) to expand any junior or senior secondary school
mentoring programs to include an allied health professions
mentoring program.
``(c) Definition.--In this section the term `eligible
entity' means a health care facility, or any partnership or
coalition containing a health care facility and an allied
health education program.
``SEC. 775G. ALLIED HEALTH FACULTY LOAN PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the
Administrator of the Health Resources and Services
Administration, may enter into an agreement with any
institution of higher education offering an allied health
education program for the establishment and operation of a
faculty loan fund in accordance with this section, to
increase the number of qualified allied health faculty.
``(b) Agreements.--Each agreement entered into under this
section shall--
``(1) provide for the establishment of a loan fund by the
institution involved;
[[Page 17107]]
``(2) provide for deposit in the fund of--
``(A) the Federal capital contributions to the fund;
``(B) an amount equal to not less than one-ninth of such
Federal capital contributions, contributed by such
institution;
``(C) collections of principal and interest on loans made
from the fund; and
``(D) any other earnings of the fund;
``(3) provide that the fund will be used only for loans to
faculty of allied health education programs in accordance
with subsection (c) and for the costs of collection of such
loans and interest thereon;
``(4) provide that loans may be made from such fund only to
faculty pursuing a full-time course of study or, at the
discretion of the Secretary, a part-time course of study in
an advanced degree program; and
``(5) contain such other provisions as are necessary to
protect the financial interests of the United States.
``(c) Loan Provisions.--Loans from any faculty loan fund
established by an institution pursuant to an agreement under
this section shall be made to an individual on such terms and
conditions as the institution may determine, except that--
``(1) such terms and conditions are subject to any
conditions, limitations, and requirements prescribed by the
Secretary;
``(2) in the case of any individual, the total of the loans
for any academic year made by an institution from loan funds
established pursuant to agreements under this section may not
exceed $30,000, plus any amount determined by the Secretary
on an annual basis to reflect inflation;
``(3) an amount up to 85 percent of any such loan (plus
interest thereon) shall be canceled by the institution as
follows--
``(A) upon completion by the individual of each of the
first, second, and third year of full-time employment
required by the loan agreement entered into under this
section, as a faculty member in an allied health education
program, the institution shall cancel __ percent of the
principal of, and the interest on, the amount of such loan
unpaid on the first day of such employment; and
``(B) upon completion by the individual of the fourth year
of full-time employment, required by the loan agreement
entered into under this section, as a faculty member in an
allied health education program, the school shall cancel 25
percent of the principal of, and the interest on, the amount
of such loan unpaid on the first day of such employment;
``(4) such a loan may be used to pay the cost of tuition,
fees, books, laboratory expenses, and other reasonable
education expenses;
``(5) such a loan shall be repayable in equal or graduated
periodic installments (with the right of the borrower to
accelerate repayment) over the 10-year period that begins 9
months after the individual ceases to pursue a course of
study in an allied health education program; and
``(6) such a loan shall--
``(A) beginning on the date that is 3 months after the
individual ceases to pursue a course of study in an allied
health education program, bear interest on the unpaid balance
of the loan at the rate of 3 percent per annum; or
``(B) subject to subsection (e), if the institution
determines that the individual will not complete such course
of study or serve as a faculty member as required under the
loan agreement under this subsection, bear interest on the
unpaid balance of the loan at the prevailing market rate.
``(d) Payment of Proportionate Share.--Where all or any
part of a loan, or interest, is canceled under this section,
the Secretary shall pay to the institution and amount equal
to the school's proportionate share of the canceled portion,
as determined by the Secretary.
``(e) Review by Secretary.--At the request of the
individual involved, the Secretary may review any
determination by an institution under this section.
``SEC. 775H. SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM FOR SERVICE IN RURAL AND
OTHER MEDICALLY UNDER-SERVED AREAS.
``(a) Scholarship Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a program
of entering into contracts with eligible individuals under
which such individuals agree to serve as allied health
professionals for a period of not less than 2 years at a
health care facility with a critical shortage of allied
health professionals in consideration of the Federal
Government agreeing to provide to the individuals
scholarships for attendance in an allied health education
program.
``(2) Eligible individuals.--In this subsection, the term
`eligible individual' means an individual who is enrolled or
accepted for enrollment as a full-time or part-time student
in an allied health education program.
``(3) Service requirement.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may not enter into a
contract with an eligible individual under this section
unless the individual agrees to serve as an allied health
professional at a health care facility with a critical
shortage of allied health professionals for a period of full-
time service of not less than 2 years, or for a period of
part-time service in accordance with subparagraph (B).
``(B) Part-time service.--An individual may complete the
period of service described in subparagraph (A) on a part-
time basis if the individual has a written agreement that--
``(i) is entered into by the health care facility involved
and the individual and is approved by the Secretary; and
``(ii) provides that the period of obligated service will
be extended so that the aggregate amount of service performed
will equal the amount of service that would be performed
through a period of full-time service of not less than 2
years.
``(4) Preference.--In awarding scholarships under this
section, the Secretary shall give a preference to applicants
with the greatest financial need, applicants currently
working in a health care facility who agree to serve the
period of obligated service at such facility, minority allied
health applicants, and applicants with an interest in a
practice area of allied health that has unmet needs.
``(b) Reports.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this subpart and annually thereafter, the
Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress a report
describing the programs carried out under this section,
including statements regarding--
``(1) the number of enrollees by specialty or discipline,
scholarships, and grant recipients;
``(2) the number of graduates;
``(3) the amount of scholarship payments made;
``(4) which educational institutions the recipients
attended;
``(5) the number and placement location of the scholarship
recipients at health care facilities with a critical shortage
of allied health professionals;
``(6) the default rate and actions required;
``(7) the amount of outstanding default funds of the
scholarship program;
``(8) to the extent that it can be determined, the reason
for the default;
``(9) the demographics of the individuals participating in
the scholarship program; and
``(10) an evaluation of the overall costs and benefits of
the program.
``SEC. 775I. GRANTS FOR CLINICAL EDUCATION, INTERNSHIP,
RESIDENCY PROGRAMS, AND CONTINUING EDUCATION.
``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary shall award grants
to eligible entities to develop allied health clinical
education, internship, residency, and continuing education
programs described in subsection (b).
``(b) Use of Funds.--The Secretary may not award a grant to
an eligible entity under this section unless the entity
agrees to use the grant to develop clinical education,
internship, residency, and continuing education programs for
graduates of allied health education programs. Each such
clinical education, internship, residency, or continuing
education program shall--
``(1) provide support for allied health education program
faculty and mentors;
``(2) provide support for allied health professionals
participating on a full-time or a part-time basis; and
``(3) encourage the development of specialties.
``(c) Eligible Entity.--In this section, the term `eligible
entity' means a partnership of an allied health education
program and a health care facility.
``SEC. 775J. GRANTS FOR PARTNERSHIPS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants to
eligible entities to enable such entities to form
partnerships to carry out the activities described in this
section.
``(b) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity that receives a
grant under this section shall use amounts received under the
grant to--
``(1) provide employees of the health care facility
involved advanced training and education in an allied health
education program;
``(2) establish or expand allied health practice
arrangements in noninstitutional settings to demonstrate
methods to improve access to health care in rural and other
medically underserved communities;
``(3) purchase distance learning technology to extend
general education and training programs to rural areas, and
to extend specialty education and training programs to all
areas; and
``(4) establish or expand mentoring, clinical education,
and internship programs for training in specialty care areas.
``(c) Eligible Entity.--In this section, the term `eligible
entity' means a partnership of an allied health education
program and a health care facility formed to carry out the
activities described in this section.
``SEC. 775K. ALLIED HEALTH WORKFORCE DATA COLLECTION AND
ANALYSIS.
``The Secretary, in conjunction with allied health
professional associations, shall develop a system for
collecting and analyzing allied health workforce data
gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Health
Resources and Services Administration, the Department of
Health and Human Services, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the
Department of Defense, allied health professional
associations, and regional centers for health workforce
studies for the purpose of--
``(1) determining educational pipeline and practitioner
shortages; and
``(2) projecting future needs for such a workforce.
[[Page 17108]]
``SEC. 775L. REPORTS BY GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE.
``The Comptroller General of the United States shall
conduct an evaluation of whether the activities carried out
under this subpart have demonstrably increased the number of
applicants to allied health education programs. Not later
than 4 years after the date of the enactment of this subpart,
the Comptroller General shall submit a report to the Congress
on the results of such evaluation.
``SEC. 775M. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subpart, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2005
through 2009.''.
(b) Centers of Excellence.--Subparagraph (A) of section
736(g)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
293(g)(1)) is amended by inserting ``a school of allied
health,'' after ``a school of pharmacy,''.
TITLE II--HEALTH WORKFORCE ADVISORY COMMISSION
SEC. 201. HEALTH WORKFORCE ADVISORY COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--The Comptroller General of the United
States (referred to in this title as the ``Comptroller
General'') shall establish a commission to be known as the
Health Workforce Advisory Commission (referred to in this
title as the ``Commission'').
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of 18
members to be appointed by the Comptroller General not later
than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and an
ex-officio member who shall serve as the Director of the
Commission.
(2) Qualifications.--In appointing members to the
Commission under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall
ensure that--
(A) the Commission includes individuals with national
recognition for their expertise in health care workforce
issues, including workforce forecasting, undergraduate and
graduate training, economics, health care and health care
systems financing, public health policy, and other fields;
(B) the members are geographically representative of the
United States and maintain a balance between urban and rural
representatives;
(C) the members include a representative from the
commissioned corps of the Public Health Service;
(D) the members represent the spectrum of professions in
the current and future healthcare workforce, including
physicians, nurses, and other health professionals and
personnel, and are skilled in the conduct and interpretation
of health workforce measurement, monitoring and analysis,
health services, economics, and other workforce related
research and technology assessment;
(E) at least 25 percent of the members who are health care
providers are from rural areas; and
(F) a majority of the members are individuals who are not
currently primarily involved in the provision or management
of health professions education and training programs.
(3) Terms and vacancies.--
(A) Terms.--The term of service of the members of the
Commission shall be for 3 years, except that the Comptroller
General shall designate staggered terms for members initially
appointed under paragraph (1).
(B) Vacancies.--Any member of the Commission who is
appointed to fill a vacancy on the Commission that occurs
before the expiration of the term for which the member's
predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the
remainder of that term.
(4) Chairperson.--
(A) Designation.--The Comptroller General shall designate a
member of the Commission, at the time of the appointment of
such member--
(i) to serve as the Chairperson of the Commission; and
(ii) to serve as the Vice Chairperson of the Commission.
(B) Term.--A member of the Commission shall serve as the
Chairperson or Vice Chairperson of the Commission under
subparagraph (A) for the term of such member.
(C) Vacancy.--In the case of a vacancy in the
Chairpersonship or Vice Chairpersonship, the Comptroller
General shall designate another member to serve for the
remainder of the vacant member's term.
(c) Duties.--The Commission shall--
(1) review the health workforce policies implemented--
(A) under titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395, 1396 et seq.);
(B) under titles VII and VIII of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 292, 296 et seq.);
(C) by the National Institutes of Health;
(D) by the Department of Health and Human Services;
(E) by the Department of Veterans Affairs; and
(F) by other departments and agencies as appropriate;
(2) analyze and make recommendations to improve the methods
used to measure and monitor the health workforce and the
relationship between the number and make up of such personnel
and the access of individuals to appropriate health care;
(3) review the impact of health workforce policies and
other factors on the ability of the health care system to
provide optimal medical and health care services;
(4) analyze and make recommendations pertaining to Federal
incentives (financial, regulatory, and otherwise) and Federal
programs that are in place to promote the education of an
appropriate number and mix of health professionals to provide
access to appropriate health care in the United States;
(5) analyze and make recommendations about the appropriate
supply and distribution of physicians, nurses, and other
health professionals and personnel to achieve a health care
system that is safe, effective, patient centered, timely,
equitable, and efficient;
(6) analyze the role and global implications of
internationally trained physicians, nurses, and other health
professionals and personnel in the United States health
workforce;
(7) analyze and make recommendations about achieving
appropriate diversity in the United States health workforce;
(8) conduct public meetings to discuss health workforce
policy issues and help formulate recommendations for Congress
and the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(9) in the course of meetings conducted under paragraph
(8), consider the results of staff research, presentations by
policy experts, and comments from interested parties;
(10) make recommendations to Congress concerning health
workforce policy issues;
(11) not later than April 15, 2005, and each April 15
thereafter, submit a report to Congress containing the
results of the reviews conducted under this subsection and
the recommendations developed under this subsection;
(12) periodically, as determined appropriate by the
Commission, submit reports to Congress concerning specific
issues that the Commission determines are of high importance;
and
(13) carry out any other activities determined appropriate
by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(d) Ongoing Duties Concerning Reports and Reviews.--
(1) Commenting on reports.--
(A) Submission to commission.--The Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall transmit to the Commission a copy of
each report that is submitted by the Secretary to Congress if
such report is required by law and relates to health
workforce policy.
(B) Review.--The Commission shall review a report
transmitted under subparagraph (A) and, not later than 6
months after the date on which the report is transmitted,
submit to the appropriate committees of Congress written
comments concerning such report. Such comments may include
such recommendations as the Commission determines
appropriate.
(2) Agenda and additional reviews.--
(A) In general.--The Commission shall consult periodically
with the chairman and ranking members of the appropriate
committees of Congress concerning the agenda and progress of
the Commission.
(B) Additional reviews.--The Commission may from time to
time conduct additional reviews and submit additional reports
to the appropriate committees of Congress on topics relating
to Federal health workforce-related programs and as may be
requested by the chairman and ranking members of such
committees.
(3) Availability of reports.--The Commission shall transmit
to the Secretary of Health and Human Services a copy of each
report submitted by the Commission under this section and
shall make such reports available to the public.
(e) Powers of the Commission.--
(1) General powers.--Subject to such review as the
Comptroller General determines to be necessary to ensure the
efficient administration of the Commission, the Commission
may--
(A) employ and fix the compensation of the Executive
Director and such other personnel as may be necessary to
carry out its duties;
(B) seek such assistance and support as may be required in
the performance of its duties from appropriate Federal
departments and agencies;
(C) enter into contracts or make other arrangements as may
be necessary for the conduct of the work of the Commission;
(D) make advance, progress, and other payments that relate
to the work of the Commission;
(E) provide transportation and subsistence for personnel
who are serving without compensation; and
(F) prescribe such rules and regulations at the Commission
determines necessary with respect to the internal
organization and operation of the Commission.
(2) Information.--To carry out its duties under this
section, the Commission--
(A) shall have unrestricted access to all deliberations,
records, and nonproprietary data maintained by the Government
Accountability Office;
(B) may secure directly from any department or agency of
the United States information necessary to enable the
Commission to carry out its duties under this section, on a
schedule that is agreed upon between the Chairperson and the
head of the department or agency involved;
[[Page 17109]]
(C) shall utilize existing information (published and
unpublished) collected and assessed either by the staff of
the Commission or under other arrangements;
(D) may conduct, or award grants or contracts for the
conduct of, original research and experimentation where
information available under subparagraphs (A) and (B) is
inadequate;
(E) may adopt procedures to permit any interested party to
submit information to be used by the Commission in making
reports and recommendations under this section; and
(F) may carry out other activities determined appropriate
by the Commission.
(f) Administrative Provisions.--
(1) Compensation.--While serving on the business of the
Commission a member of the Commission shall be entitled to
compensation at the per diem equivalent of the rate provided
for under level IV of the Executive Schedule under title 5,
United States Code.
(2) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairperson.
(3) Executive director and staff.--The Comptroller General
shall appoint an individual to serve as the interim Executive
Director of the Commission until the members of the
Commission are able to select a permanent Executive Director
under subsection (e)(1)(A).
(4) Ethical disclosure.--The Comptroller General shall
establish a system for public disclosure by members of the
Commission of financial and other potential conflicts of
interest relating to such members.
(5) Audits.--The Commission shall be subject to periodic
audit by the Comptroller General.
(g) Funding.--
(1) Requests.--The Commission shall submit requests for
appropriations in the same manner as the Comptroller General
submits such requests. Amounts appropriated for the
Commission shall be separate from amounts appropriated for
the Comptroller General.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $6,000,000 for
fiscal year 2005, and such sums as may be necessary for each
subsequent fiscal year, of which--
(A) 80 percent of such appropriated amount shall be made
available from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
under section 1817 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395i); and
(B) 20 percent of such appropriated amount shall be made
available from amounts appropriated to carry out title XIX of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).
(h) Definition.--In this title, the term ``appropriate
committees of Congress'' means the Committee on Finance of
the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House
of Representatives.
TITLE III--PHYSICIAN DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS IN RURAL STATES
SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) COGME.--The term ``COGME'' means the Council on
Graduate Medical Education established under section 762 of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 294o).
(2) Demonstration program.--The term ``demonstration
program'' means the Rural States Physician Recruitment and
Retention Demonstration Program established by the Secretary
under section 302(a).
(3) Demonstration states.--The term ``demonstration
States'' means each State identified by the Secretary, based
upon data from the most recent year for which data are
available--
(A) that has an uninsured population above 16 percent (as
determined by the Bureau of the Census);
(B) for which the sum of the number of individuals who are
entitled to benefits under the medicare program under title
XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) and
the number of individuals who are eligible for medical
assistance under the medicaid program under title XIX of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) equals or exceeds 20 percent of
the total population of the State (as determined by the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services); and
(C) that has an estimated number of individuals in the
State without access to a primary care provider of at least
17 percent (as published in ``HRSA's Bureau of Primary Health
Care: BPHC State Profiles'').
(4) Eligible residency or fellowship graduate.--The term
``eligible residency or fellowship graduate'' means a
graduate of an approved medical residency training program
(as defined in section 1886(h)(5)(A) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(5)(A))) in a shortage physician
specialty.
(5) Health professions database.--The term ``Health
Professions Database'' means the database established under
section 303(a).
(6) Medicare program.--The term ``medicare program'' means
the health benefits program under title XVIII of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
(7) MedPAC.--The term ``MedPAC'' means the Medicare Payment
Advisory Commission established under section 1805 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395b-6).
(8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(9) Shortage physician specialty.--The term ``shortage
physician specialty'' means a medical or surgical specialty
identified in a demonstration State by the Secretary based
on--
(A) an analysis and comparison of national data and
demonstration State data; and
(B) recommendations from appropriate Federal, State, and
private commissions, centers, councils, medical and surgical
physician specialty boards, and medical societies or
associations involved in physician workforce, education and
training, and payment issues.
SEC. 302. RURAL STATES PHYSICIAN RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a Rural
States Physician Recruitment and Retention Demonstration
Program for the purpose of ameliorating physician shortage,
recruitment, and retention problems in rural States in
accordance with the requirements of this section.
(2) Consultation.--For purposes of establishing the
demonstration program, the Secretary shall consult with--
(A) COGME;
(B) MedPAC;
(C) a representative of each demonstration State medical
society or association;
(D) the health workforce planning and physician training
authority of each demonstration State; and
(E) any other entity described in section 301(9)(B).
(b) Duration.--The Secretary shall conduct the
demonstration program for a period of 10 years.
(c) Conduct of Program.--
(1) Funding of additional residency and fellowship
positions.--
(A) In general.--As part of the demonstration program, the
Secretary (acting through the Administrator of the Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services) shall--
(i) notwithstanding section 1886(h)(4)(F) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(4)(F)) increase, by up to
50 percent of the total number of residency and fellowship
positions approved at each medical residency training program
in each demonstration State, the number of residency and
fellowship positions in each shortage physician specialty;
and
(ii) subject to subparagraph (C), provide funding under
subsections (d)(5)(B) and (h) of section 1886 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) for each position added under
clause (i).
(B) Establishment of additional positions.--
(i) Identification.--The Secretary shall identify each
additional residency and fellowship position created as a
result of the application of subparagraph (A).
(ii) Negotiation and consultation.--The Secretary shall
negotiate and consult with representatives of each approved
medical residency training program in a demonstration State
at which a position identified under clause (i) is created
for purposes of supporting such position.
(C) Contracts with sponsoring institutions.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary shall condition the
availability of funding for each residency and fellowship
position identified under subparagraph (B)(i) on the
execution of a contract containing such provisions as the
Secretary determines are appropriate, including the provision
described in clause (ii) by each sponsoring institution.
(ii) Provision described.--
(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II), the
provision described in this clause is a provision that
provides that, during the residency or fellowship, the
resident or fellow shall spend not less than 10 percent of
the training time providing specialty services to underserved
and rural community populations other than an underserved
population of the sponsoring institution.
(II) Exceptions.--The Secretary, in consultation with
COGME, shall identify shortage physician specialties and
subspecialties for which the application of the provision
described in subclause (I) would be inappropriate and the
Secretary may waive the requirement under clause (i) that
such provision be included in the contract of a resident or
fellow with such a specialty or subspecialty.
(D) Limitations.--
(i) Period of payment.--The Secretary may not fund any
residency or fellowship position identified under
subparagraph (B)(i) for a period of more than 5 years.
(ii) Reassessment of need.--The Secretary shall reassess
the status of the shortage physician specialty in the
demonstration State prior to entering into any contract under
subparagraph (C) after the date that is 5 years after the
date on which the Secretary establishes the demonstration
program.
(2) Loan repayment and forgiveness program.--
(A) In general.--As part of the demonstration program, the
Secretary (acting through the Administrator of the Health
Resources and Services Administration) shall establish a loan
repayment and forgiveness program, through the holder of the
loan, under which the Secretary assumes the obligation to
repay a qualified loan amount for an educational loan of an
eligible residency or fellowship graduate--
[[Page 17110]]
(i) for whom the Secretary has approved an application
submitted under subparagraph (D); and
(ii) with whom the Secretary has entered into a contract
under subparagraph (C).
(B) Qualified loan amount.--
(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the Secretary
shall repay the lesser of--
(I) 25 percent of the loan obligation of a graduate on a
loan that is outstanding during the period that the eligible
residency or fellowship graduate practices in the area
designated by the contract entered into under subparagraph
(C); or
(II) $25,000 per graduate per year of such obligation
during such period.
(ii) Limitation.--The aggregate amount under this
subparagraph may not exceed $125,000 for any graduate and the
Secretary may not repay or forgive more than 30 loans per
year in each demonstration State under this paragraph.
(C) Contracts with residents and fellows.--
(i) In general.--Each eligible residency or fellowship
graduate desiring repayment of a loan under this paragraph
shall execute a contract containing the provisions described
in clause (ii).
(ii) Provisions.--The provisions described in this clause
are provisions that require the eligible residency or
fellowship graduate--
(I) to practice in a health professional shortage area of a
demonstration State during the period in which a loan is
being repaid or forgiven under this section; and
(II) to provide health services relating to the shortage
physician specialty of the graduate that was funded with the
loan being repaid or forgiven under this section during such
period.
(D) Application.--
(i) In general.--Each eligible residency or fellowship
graduate desiring repayment of a loan under this paragraph
shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in
such manner, and accompanied by such information as the
Secretary may reasonably require.
(ii) Reassessment of need.--The Secretary shall reassess
the shortage physician specialty in the demonstration State
prior to accepting an application for repayment of any loan
under this paragraph after the date that is 5 years after the
date on which the demonstration program is established.
(E) Construction.--Nothing in the section shall be
construed to authorize any refunding of any repayment of a
loan.
(F) Prevention of double benefits.--No borrower may, for
the same service, receive a benefit under both this paragraph
and any loan repayment or forgiveness program under title VII
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292 et seq.).
(d) Waiver of Medicare Requirements.--The Secretary is
authorized to waive any requirement of the medicare program,
or approve equivalent or alternative ways of meeting such a
requirement, if such waiver is necessary to carry out the
demonstration program, including the waiver of any limitation
on the amount of payment or number of residents under section
1886 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww).
(e) Appropriations.--
(1) Funding of additional residency and fellowship
positions.--Any expenditures resulting from the establishment
of the funding of additional residency and fellowship
positions under subsection (c)(1) shall be made from the
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund under section 1817 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i).
(2) Loan repayment and forgiveness program.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
to carry out the loan repayment and forgiveness program
established under subsection (c)(2).
SEC. 303. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS DATABASE.
(a) Establishment of the Health Professions Database.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 7 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary (acting through the
Administrator of the Health Resources and Services
Administration) shall establish a State-specific health
professions database to track health professionals in each
demonstration State with respect to specialty certifications,
practice characteristics, professional licensure, practice
types, locations, education, and training, as well as
obligations under the demonstration program as a result of
the execution of a contract under paragraph (1)(C) or (2)(C)
of section 302(c).
(2) Data sources.--In establishing the Health Professions
Database, the Secretary shall use the latest available data
from existing health workforce files, including the American
Medical Association Master File, State databases, specialty
medical society data sources and information, and such other
data points as may be recommended by COGME, MedPAC, the
National Center for Workforce Information and Analysis, or
the medical society of the respective demonstration State.
(b) Availability.--
(1) During the program.--During the demonstration program,
data from the Health Professions Database shall be made
available to the Secretary, each demonstration State, and the
public for the purposes of--
(A) developing a baseline with respect to a State's health
professions workforce and to track changes in a demonstration
State's health professions workforce;
(B) tracking direct and indirect graduate medical education
payments to hospitals;
(C) tracking the forgiveness and repayment of loans for
educating physicians; and
(D) tracking commitments by physicians under the
demonstration program.
(2) Following the program.--Following the termination of
the demonstration program, a demonstration State may elect to
maintain the Health Professions Database for such State at
its expense.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the
purpose of carrying out this section.
SEC. 304. EVALUATION AND REPORTS.
(a) Evaluation.--
(1) In general.--COGME and MedPAC shall jointly conduct a
comprehensive evaluation of the demonstration program.
(2) Matters evaluated.--The evaluation conducted under
paragraph (1) shall include an analysis of the effectiveness
of the funding of additional residency and fellowship
positions and the loan repayment and forgiveness program on
physician recruitment, retention, and specialty mix in each
demonstration State.
(b) Progress Reports.--
(1) COGME.--Not later than 1 year after the date on which
the Secretary establishes the demonstration program, 5 years
after such date, and 10 years after such date, COGME shall
submit a report on the progress of the demonstration program
to the Secretary and Congress.
(2) MedPAC.--MedPAC shall submit biennial reports on the
progress of the demonstration program to the Secretary and
Congress.
(c) Final Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which the demonstration program terminates, COGME and MedPAC
shall submit a final report to the President, Congress, and
the Secretary which shall contain a detailed statement of the
findings and conclusions of COGME and MedPAC, together with
such recommendations for legislation and administrative
actions as COGME and MedPAC consider appropriate.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to COGME such sums as may be necessary for
the purpose of carrying out this section.
SEC. 305. CONTRACTING FLEXIBILITY.
For purposes of conducting the demonstration program and
establishing and administering the Health Professions
Database, the Secretary may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code.
TITLE IV--HEALTH CAREERS OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM
SEC. 401. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this title to diversify the healthcare
workforce by increasing the number of individuals from
disadvantaged backgrounds in the health and allied health
professions by enhancing the academic skills of students from
disadvantaged backgrounds and supporting them in successfully
completing, entering, and graduating from health professions
training programs.
SEC. 402. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 740(c) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
293d(c)) is amended by striking ``$29,400,000'' and all that
follows through ``2002'' and inserting ``$50,000,000 for
fiscal year 2005, and such sums as may be necessary for each
of fiscal years 2006 through 2010''.
TITLE V--PROGRAM OF EXCELLENCE IN HEALTH PROFESSIONS EDUCATION FOR
UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES
SEC. 501. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this title to diversify the healthcare
workforce by supporting programs of excellence in designated
health professions schools that demonstrate a commitment to
underrepresented minority populations with a focus on
minority health issues, cultural and linguistic competence,
and eliminating health disparities.
SEC. 502. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.
Section 736(h)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 293(h)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of
making grants under subsection (a), there are authorized to
be appropriated $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and such
sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2006
through 2010.''.
TITLE VI--HEALTH PROFESSIONS STUDENT LOAN FUND; AUTHORIZATIONS OF
APPROPRIATIONS REGARDING STUDENTS FROM DISADVANTAGED BACKGROUNDS
SEC. 601. STUDENT LOANS.
Section 724(f) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
292t(f)) is amended by inserting before paragraph (2), the
following:
``(1) In general.--With respect to making Federal capital
contributions to student loan funds for purposes of
subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated
$35,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and such sums as may be
necessary for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010.''.
[[Page 17111]]
SEC. 602. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS; RECRUITMENT AND
FELLOWSHIPS FOR INDIVIDUALS FROM DISADVANTAGED
BACKGROUNDS.
(a) In General.--Section 331(b) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254d(b)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(3) The Secretary shall ensure that the individuals with
respect to whom activities under paragraphs (1) and (2) are
carried out include individuals from disadvantaged
backgrounds, including activities carried out to provide
health professions students with information on the
Scholarship and Repayment Programs.''.
(b) Assignment of Corps Personnel.--Section 333(a) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254f(a)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(4) In assigning Corps personnel under this section, the
Secretary shall give preference to applicants who request
assignment to a federally qualified health center (as defined
in section 1905(1)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act) or to a
provider organization that has a majority of patients who are
minorities or individuals from low-income families (families
with a family income that is less than 200 percent of the
Official Poverty Line).''.
TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 703. STUDY BY THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE.
(a) Contract.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall enter into a contract with the Institute of
Medicine for the conduct of a study and the preparation of a
report on the role of United States medical schools in
meeting the physician needs of the United States.
(b) Requirements.--In conducting the study under the
contract under subsection (a), the Institute of Medicine
shall--
(1) examine the supply structure of United States
undergraduate medical education and make recommendations
concerning the advisability of expanding, enhancing, or
modifying such structure to achieve a higher degree of self-
sufficiency and equity in such medical education and to
position medical schools for the future demands generated by
the growing population of the United States; and
(2) examine the role of United States medical schools in
reducing racial and ethnic disparities in medical education
opportunities and in population health outcomes as well as in
reducing the drain on the medical education systems of other
countries.
(c) Report.--The contract under subsection (a) shall
require the Institute of Medicine to submit a report to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services on the results of the
study not later than 12 months after the date on which the
contract is entered into. The Secretary shall submit such
report to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Commerce of the
House of Representatives.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. 2740. A bill to improve dental services in underserved areas by
amending the Public Health Service Act, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, every year, I spend time driving across
the State of South Dakota, and every year, I hear unbelievable stories
from my constituents about the growing health care crisis in South
Dakota and across America. One issue that comes up repeatedly in my
travels is South Dakota's dental shortage.
The statistics speak for themselves. Almost one-third of my State's
66 counties have been designated Dental Health Professional Shortage
Areas. In total, over 97,000 South Dakotans live in a county that does
not have enough dentists to meet the needs of the population.
Nationally, 25 million Americans reside in such shortage areas.
South Dakota has only one dentist for every 250 square miles, which
means that many South Dakotans must travel more than 100 miles to visit
a dentist. To see a pediatric dentist, parents often have to travel up
to 400 miles. I've heard stories of families driving clear across the
State so that their children can receive urgent dental care.
Comparatively, Minnesota's rate is 28 square miles per dentist.
Massachusetts's rate is less than 2 square miles per dentist, and here
in Washington, DC, the rate is 0.1 square miles per dentist.
In addition, the dentists my State does have are getting older. A
study conducted in South Dakota found that roughly half of the dentists
currently practicing there are over 50 years old, and that 30 percent
plan to retire within 10 years. Nationally, more than 20 percent of
dentists will retire in the next 10 years, and the number of dental
graduates by 2015 may not be enough to replace them.
The problem in Indian country is even worse. Indian pre-school
children have 5 times the rate of dental decay experienced by other
children in their age group. Despite this great need, the Indian Health
Services estimates that one-third of its dental positions are vacant.
A report by the Government Accounting Office in 2000 found that,
while several factors contribute to the low use of dental services
among low-income individuals, the most important factor was the
inability to find a dentist to treat them. That is simply unacceptable.
Another report by Oral Health America in 2003 found that the United
States does poorly in several areas that measure access to dental care.
In fact, in the report's assessment of dentist availability, the
majority of States received a grade of C or lower. The report card also
found that those with the greatest need have the hardest time finding
care; 18 states received a failing grade for the availability of
dentists who provide significant services under Medicaid, contributing
to an alarming D grade for the entire nation.
In an effort to address this urgent problem, I have been working with
representatives from the South Dakota Oral Health Coalition to develop
a legislative remedy at the Federal level. The culmination of that
effort is the bill I am introducing today, the Dental Health Provider
Shortage Act. Together with Senator Collins--herself a longtime
supporter of expanding access to dental care--I am proud to introduce
this bill, which would help to expand the number of dentists and dental
hygienists, both nationwide and in rural and underserved areas.
Specifically, the Dental Heath Provider Shortage Act would work to
increase the overall number of dentists and dental hygienists by
providing faculty loan repayment programs for dentists who agree to
teach, especially in general and pediatric training programs. It would
also provide incentives for dentists and dental hygienists to work in
rural and underserved areas by expanding both the National Health
Service Corps and the Indian Health Service; providing support to
Community Health Centers, which play a critical role in the delivery of
dental care; and helping these centers and other providers that work in
underserved areas to expand their practices. Finally, to encourage
participation in State Medicaid programs, the bill would provide
funding for states to simplify the Medicaid enrollment and payment
process.
In this day and age, people should not be forced to travel great
distances--let alone more than 100 miles--just to see a dentist. We can
and must do better. The Surgeon General's report, ``Oral Health in
America,'' reinforced that oral health is essential to the general
health and well-being of all Americans. In its ``Call to Action,'' the
report challenged the Nation to build a health infrastructure that can
effectively meet the oral health needs of all Americans. By passing the
bipartisan Dental Health Provider Shortage Act, we can begin to do just
that.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2740
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Dental
Health Provider Shortage Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--EXPANDED DELIVERY OF DENTAL SERVICES
Sec. 101. Expansion of dental services offered in underserved areas.
Sec. 102. Grants for capital expenditures for dental care practices in
dental health professional shortage areas.
Sec. 103. Grants for administrative simplification for medicaid
providers.
[[Page 17112]]
TITLE II--EXPANSION OF DENTAL TRAINING PROGRAMS
Sec. 201. Flexible use of training funds for general and pediatric
dentistry.
Sec. 202. Loan repayment for faculty of dental educational programs.
TITLE III--IMPROVING DELIVERY OF DENTAL SERVICES THROUGH THE INDIAN
HEALTH SERVICE AND THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS
Sec. 301. Indian Health Service dental officer multiyear retention
bonus.
Sec. 302. Increase in National Health Service Corps dental training
positions.
Sec. 303. Availability of scholarship and loan repayment programs for
National Health Service Corps dental hygienists.
TITLE I--EXPANDED DELIVERY OF DENTAL SERVICES
SEC. 101. EXPANSION OF DENTAL SERVICES OFFERED IN UNDERSERVED
AREAS.
Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
254b) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(s) Health Center Dental Access Grants.--
``(1) Grant program authorized.--The Secretary, acting
through the Administrator of the Health Resources and
Services Administration, is authorized to award grants and
enter into cooperative agreements, for a period not to exceed
3 years, to health centers for the purpose of increasing the
number of dental providers associated with the health
centers.
``(2) Authorized activities.--A health center shall use
amounts received under a grant under this subsection in any
fiscal year--
``(A) for recruitment or retention efforts targeting the
dental health care staff of a health center;
``(B) to contract for technical assistance for the purpose
of recruiting or retaining dental health care staff; or
``(C) to contract for technical assistance in preparing
contracts with local providers of dental health care to
provide dental services for medically underserved
populations.
``(3) Application.--Each health center desiring a grant
under this subsection shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
``(t) Grants for Dental Care Facility Capital
Expenditures.--
``(1) Grant program authorized.--The Secretary, acting
through the Administrator of the Health Resources and
Services Administration, is authorized to award 1-year grants
to health centers for the purpose of increasing dental health
care capabilities by constructing or renovating building
space to provide for dental health care.
``(2) Authorized activities.--A health center shall use
amounts received under a grant under this subsection in any
fiscal year for the construction or expansion of dental care
facilities, including--
``(A) the costs of acquiring or leasing facilities;
``(B) the costs of constructing new facilities;
``(C) the costs of repairing or modernizing existing
facilities; or
``(D) the purchase or lease of equipment.
``(3) Application.--Each health center desiring a grant
under this subsection shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
``(u) Grants for Dental Residency Programs.--
``(1) Grants authorized.--The Secretary is authorized to
award grants to health centers for the purpose of
establishing, at the health centers, new or alternative-
campus accredited dental residency training programs
affiliated with accredited dental programs.
``(2) Authorized activities.--A health center shall use
amounts received under a grant under this subsection for the
costs of establishing a new or alternative-campus accredited
dental residency training program affiliated with an
accredited dental program at the health center, including the
costs of curriculum development, equipment, and recruitment,
training, and retention of residents and faculty for such
training program.
``(3) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in
awarding grants under this subsection to health centers in
rural areas.
``(4) Application.--Each health center desiring a grant
under this subsection shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
``(5) Definition of accredited.--
``(A) In general.--In this subsection, the term
`accredited', when applied to a dental training program or a
new or alternative-campus dental residency training program,
means a program that is accredited by a recognized body or
bodies approved for such purpose by the Secretary of
Education.
``(B) Special rule.--A new dental residency training
program that, by reason of an insufficient period of
operation, is not, at the time of application for a grant
under this subsection, eligible for accreditation by such a
recognized body or bodies, shall be deemed accredited for
purposes of this subsection, if the Secretary of Education
finds, after consultation with the appropriate accreditation
body or bodies, that there is reasonable assurance that the
new dental residency training program will meet the
accreditation standards of such body or bodies prior to the
graduation date of the first entering class in such program.
``(C) Rule of construction.--The special rule for
accreditation described in subparagraph (B) shall not apply
to an alternative-campus dental residency training
program.''.
SEC. 102. GRANTS FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR DENTAL CARE
PRACTICES IN DENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL
SHORTAGE AREAS.
Subpart V of part D of title III of the Public Health
Service Act (20 U.S.C. 256 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 340A. GRANTS FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR DENTAL CARE
PRACTICES IN DENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL
SHORTAGE AREAS.
``(a) Grant Program Authorized.--The Secretary, acting
through the Administrator of the Health Resources and
Services Administration, is authorized to award 1-year grants
to eligible individuals for the purpose of increasing dental
health care capabilities in dental health professional
shortage areas by constructing or renovating building space
to provide for dental health care.
``(b) Authorized Activities.--An eligible individual shall
use amounts received under a grant under this section in any
fiscal year for the construction or expansion of dental care
facilities in dental health professional shortage areas,
including--
``(1) the costs of acquiring or leasing facilities;
``(2) the costs of constructing new facilities;
``(3) the costs of repairing or modernizing existing
facilities; or
``(4) the purchase or lease of equipment.
``(c) Application.--Each eligible individual desiring a
grant under this section shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
``(d) Eligible Individual.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this section, an individual shall be a dental
health professional who is licensed or certified in
accordance with the laws of the State in which such
individual provides dental services.
``(e) Eligible Individual Grant Agreement.--Each eligible
individual who receives a grant under this section shall
enter into an agreement with the Secretary under which the
eligible individual agrees--
``(1) to practice for 5 years in a dental health
professional shortage area, as determined by the Secretary;
``(2) that during the period under paragraph (1), not less
than 25 percent of the patients of such individual receive
assistance--
``(A) under a State plan under title XIX of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.); or
``(B) under a State plan under title XXI of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.);
``(3) to provide services to patients regardless of such
patients' ability to pay;
``(4) to use a sliding payment scale for patients who are
unable to pay the total cost of services; and
``(5) to repay a pro rata portion of the grant funds
received if the eligible individual fails to practice in
accordance with paragraphs (1) through (4).
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may
be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.''.
SEC. 103. GRANTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION FOR
MEDICAID PROVIDERS.
(a) Authority To Award Provider Administrative
Simplification Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall award grants to State agencies responsible for the
administration of the State medicaid program under title XIX
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) for the
purpose of simplifying and automating the procedures
applicable to providers of medical assistance under the State
medicaid program in order to encourage providers to
participate in the dental component of such program.
(2) Use of funds.--A grant awarded under this subsection
may be used to simplify--
(A) provider enrollment contracts and processes through
such means as providing for online provider enrollment forms;
(B) preauthorization procedures;
(C) claims remittance and processing; and
(D) any other procedures or requirements that would reduce
the time and expenses necessary for providers to participate
in the medicaid program.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to award grants under this subsection such sums as
are necessary for fiscal year 2005.
(b) Model Contract for the Enrollment of Dentists as
Medicaid Participating Providers.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall award grants to eligible entities to develop,
disseminate, and
[[Page 17113]]
assist with the implementation of a model contract for States
to use to enroll dentists as participating providers under
the State medicaid program under title XIX of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).
(2) Eligible entities defined.--In this subsection, the
term ``eligible entities'' means entities with expertise in
the administration of State medicaid programs, which may
include the National Association of State Medicaid Directors.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to award grants under this subsection such sums as
are necessary for fiscal year 2005.
TITLE II--EXPANSION OF DENTAL TRAINING PROGRAMS
SEC. 201. FLEXIBLE USE OF TRAINING FUNDS FOR GENERAL AND
PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY.
Section 747(a)(6) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 293k(a)(6)) is amended to read as follows:
``(6) to plan, develop, or operate a program of general
dentistry or pediatric dentistry, including the costs of
faculty development, curriculum development, program
administration, financial assistance to residents in such
program, and other functions critical to building a competent
dental workforce.''.
SEC. 202. LOAN REPAYMENT FOR FACULTY OF DENTAL EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAMS.
Part C of title VII of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 293k et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
748 the following:
``SEC. 749. LOAN REPAYMENT FOR FACULTY OF DENTAL EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAMS.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the
Administrator of the Health Resources and Services
Administration, shall carry out a program to repay (by direct
payment on behalf of the individual) any outstanding student
loan of an individual who is employed as a full-time faculty
member of a school of dentistry or an accredited dental
education program.
``(b) Loan Repayment.--The payments described in subsection
(a) shall be made by the Secretary as follows:
``(1) Upon completion by the individual for whom the
payments are to be made of the first year of employment
described under subsection (a), the Secretary shall pay 25
percent of the principal of, and the interest on, each
outstanding student loan.
``(2) Upon completion by such individual of the second
consecutive year of such employment, the Secretary shall pay
an additional 25 percent of the principal of, and the
interest on, each such loan.
``(3) Upon completion by such individual of the third
consecutive year of such employment, the Secretary shall pay
an additional 35 percent of the principal of, and the
interest on, each such loan.
``(c) Priority.--In entering into agreements to repay
outstanding student loans under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall give priority to qualified applicants--
``(1) with the greatest financial need; or
``(2) who are full-time faculty for an accredited program
of general or pediatric dentistry.
``(d) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the program
under this section.
``(e) Reports.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this section, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress a report
describing the program carried out under this section,
including--
``(1) the number and amount of loan repayments made;
``(2) the number of individuals who receive loan repayment
under subsection (a) at each school of dentistry or
accredited dental education program that employs individuals
who receive such loan repayment;
``(3) the demographics of the individuals participating in
the loan repayment program; and
``(4) an evaluation of the overall costs and benefits of
the loan repayment program.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such
sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005
through 2009.''.
TITLE III--IMPROVING DELIVERY OF DENTAL SERVICES THROUGH THE INDIAN
HEALTH SERVICE AND THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS
SEC. 301. INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE DENTAL OFFICER MULTIYEAR
RETENTION BONUS.
(a) Terms and Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Creditable service.--The term ``creditable service''
includes all periods that a dental officer spent in graduate
dental educational training programs while not on active duty
in the Indian Health Service and all periods of active duty
in the Indian Health Service as a dental officer.
(2) Dental officer.--The term ``dental officer'' means an
individual in the dental health profession who is an officer
of the Indian Health Service.
(3) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Indian Health Service.
(4) Residency.--The term ``residency'' means a graduate
dental educational training program of at least 12 months
leading to a specialty, including general practice residency
or an advanced education general dentistry.
(5) Specialty.--The term ``specialty'' means a dental
specialty for which there is an Indian Health Service
specialty code number.
(b) General Authority.--The Director may authorize a
multiyear retention bonus under this section for a dental
officer of the Indian Health Service who meets the
eligibility requirements of subsection (c) and who executes a
written agreement to remain on active duty for 2, 3, or 4
years after the completion of any other active duty service
commitment to the Indian Health Service.
(c) Eligibility Requirements.--In addition to the
requirements described under subsection (b), an eligible
dental officer shall--
(1) if trained as a dentist--
(A) be at or below such grade as the Director shall
determine;
(B) hold the degree of doctor of dentistry or an equivalent
degree;
(C) have completed any active duty service commitment of
the Indian Health Service incurred for dental education and
training or have 8 years of creditable service; and
(D) have completed initial residency training, or be
scheduled to complete initial residency training before
September 30 of the fiscal year in which the dental officer
enters into a multiyear retention bonus service agreement
under this section; or
(2) if trained as a dental hygienist--
(A) have graduated from a dental hygiene educational or
training program accredited by the American Dental
Association Commission on Dental Accreditation (ADA CDA);
(B) hold a certification of successful completion of the
National Board Dental Hygiene Examination; and
(C) hold an active and current dental hygiene license.
(d) Maximum Bonus Amounts.--
(1) Maximum bonus amounts for dentists.--A multiyear
retention bonus authorized for a dental officer who meets the
requirements of subsection (c)(1) shall not exceed--
(A) $14,000 for a 4-year written agreement;
(B) $8,000 for a 3-year written agreement; or
(C) $4,000 for a 2-year written agreement.
(2) Maximum bonus amounts for dental hygienists.--A
multiyear retention bonus authorized for a dental officer who
meets the requirements of subsection (c)(2) shall not
exceed--
(A) $4,000 for a 4-year written agreement;
(B) $2,000 for a 3-year written agreement; or
(C) $1,000 for a 2-year written agreement.
(e) Discretion in Selection Process.--The Director may,
based on the requirements of the Indian Health Service,
decline to offer a multi-year retention bonus to any
specialty that is otherwise eligible, or to restrict the
length of such a retention bonus contract for a specialty to
less than 4 years.
(f) Termination of Entitlement to Multiyear Retention
Bonus.--
(1) In general.--The Director may terminate, with cause, a
dental officer multiyear retention bonus agreement with a
dental officer under this section at any time.
(2) Pro rata recoupment.--If a dental officer multiyear
retention bonus agreement is terminated under paragraph (1),
the unserved portion of the retention bonus agreement shall
be recouped on a pro rata basis.
(3) Regulations.--The Director shall establish regulations
that--
(A) specify the conditions and procedures under which
termination may take place; and
(B) shall be included in the dental officer multiyear
retention bonus agreement under subsection (b).
(g) Refunds.--
(1) In general.--Prorated refunds shall be required for
sums paid under a retention bonus contract under this section
if a dental officer who has received the retention bonus
fails to complete the total period of service specified in
the dental officer multiyear retention bonus agreement, as
conditions and circumstances warrant.
(2) Debt to united states.--An obligation to reimburse the
United States imposed under paragraph (1) is a debt owed to
the United States.
(3) No discharge in bankruptcy.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a discharge in bankruptcy under title 11,
United States Code, that is entered less than 5 years after
the termination of a dental officer multiyear retention bonus
agreement under this section does not discharge the dental
officer who signed such a contract from a debt arising under
the contract or under paragraph (1).
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may
be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
SEC. 302. INCREASE IN NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS DENTAL
TRAINING POSITIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall
increase the number of dentists in the National Health
Service Corps (referred to in this section as the ``Corps''),
as designated in subpart II of
[[Page 17114]]
part D of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 254d et seq.), by not less than 100 in each of fiscal
years 2005, 2006, and 2007.
(b) Availability of Loan Repayment and Scholarship Programs
for Dentists.--The Secretary shall increase the number of
Corps dentists selected for the loan repayment and
scholarship programs under subpart III of part D of title III
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l et seq.) in
a sufficient number to address the demand for such programs
by qualified individuals.
(c) Report on Corps.--The Secretary shall annually report
to Congress concerning how the Corps is meeting the oral
health needs in underserved areas, including rural, frontier,
and border areas.
SEC. 303. AVAILABILITY OF SCHOLARSHIP AND LOAN REPAYMENT
PROGRAMS FOR NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS
DENTAL HYGIENISTS.
Section 338A of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
254l) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
``(h) Of the total number of contracts under this section
and section 338B for each school year that are dedicated to
dental hygienists, not less than 20 percent of such contracts
for each such school year shall be entered into under this
section.''.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE:
S. 2741. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize
and extend the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome prevention and services program,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the
Advancing FASD Research, Prevention, and Services Act. For many years
now, I have met and worked with people whose lives have been profoundly
affected by the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy. Prenatal
exposure to alcohol can cause a wide range of serious, life-long
problems known as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorders. Individuals with
FASD can have a low IQ, behavioral impairments, growth retardation,
facial abnormalities, and birth defects. About 40,000 children are born
with FASD each year.
A great deal of progress has been made in raising awareness of the
dangers of alcohol consumption during pregnancy, but much more needs to
be done. The bill I am introducing today addresses the need for more
research, better screening systems to identify children with FASD,
effective prevention programs, and enhanced access to treatment and
support services. It is my sincere hope that this bill--when combined
with the tireless efforts of parents, health professionals, teachers,
and countless others--will help prevent FASD and support the children
and families who are living with its consequences. I ask unanimous
consent that a fact sheet containing a description of the bill be
printed in the Record.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
S. 2741
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 ``Advancing FASD Research,
Prevention, and Services Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders are the spectrum of
serious, life-long disorders caused by prenatal exposure to
alcohol, which include Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Alcohol-
Related Neurodevelopmental Disorder, and Alcohol-Related
Birth Defects.
(2) In the decades that have passed since Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome was first recognized in the United States, this
fully preventable condition has continued to affect American
children and families.
(3) Prenatal alcohol exposure can cause brain damage that
produces cognitive and behavioral impairments. Prenatal
alcohol exposure can cause mental retardation or low IQ and
difficulties with learning, memory, attention, and problem-
solving. It can also create problems with mental health and
social interactions.
(4) Prenatal alcohol exposure also can cause growth
retardation, birth defects involving the heart, kidney,
vision and hearing, and a characteristic pattern of facial
abnormalities.
(5) About 13 percent of women report using alcohol during
pregnancy even though there is no known safe level of alcohol
consumption during pregnancy.
(6) Estimates of individuals with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
vary but are estimated to be between 0.5 and 2.0 per 1,000
births. The prevalence rate is considerably higher for all
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders: about 10 out of 1,000
births (1 percent of births).
(7) Prevalence of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders can be
even higher in certain populations, such as Native Americans,
and in certain areas, such as those characterized by low
socioeconomic status.
(8) Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders pose extraordinary
financial costs to the Nation, including the cost of
specialized health care, education, foster care,
incarceration, job training, and general support services for
individuals affected by Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
(9) Lifetime health costs for an individual with Fetal
Alcohol Syndrome average $860,000, and can run as high as
$4,200,000. The direct and indirect economic costs of Fetal
Alcohol Syndrome in the United States were $5,400,000,000 in
2003. Total economic costs would be even higher for all Fetal
Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
(10) There is a great need for research, surveillance,
prevention, treatment, and support services for individuals
with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders and their families.
SEC. 3. PROGRAMS FOR FETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM DISORDERS.
Section 399H of the Public Health Service Act (48 U.S.C.
280f) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 399H. PROGRAMS FOR FETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM
DISORDERS.'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (d) as
subsections (h) through (k), respectively;
(3) by inserting after the section heading, the following:
``(a) Research on FAS and Related Disorders.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director of the National Institutes of Health and in
coordination with the Interagency Coordinating Committee on
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, shall--
``(A) establish a research agenda for Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorders; and
``(B) award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to
public or private nonprofit entities to pay all or part of
carrying out research under such agenda.
``(2) Types of research.--In carrying out paragraph (1),
the Secretary, acting through the Director of the National
Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, shall conduct
national and international research in coordination with
other Federal agencies that includes--
``(A) the identification of the mechanisms that produce the
cognitive and behavioral problems associated with fetal
alcohol exposure;
``(B) the development of a neurocognitive phenotype for
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Alcohol-Related Neurodevelopmental
Disorder;
``(C) the identification of biological markers that can be
used to indicate fetal alcohol exposure;
``(D) the identification of fetal and maternal risk factors
that increase susceptibility to Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorders;
``(E) the investigation of behavioral and pharmacotherapies
for alcohol-dependent women to determine new approaches for
sustaining recovery;
``(F) the development of scientific-based therapeutic
interventions for individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorders;
``(G) the development of screening instruments to identify
women who consume alcohol during pregnancy and the
development of standards for measuring, reporting, and
analyzing alcohol consumption patterns in pregnant women; and
``(H) other research that the Director determines to be
appropriate.
``(3) Study.--The Secretary, acting through the Director of
the National Institute of Mental Health, shall--
``(A) conduct a study on the behavioral disorders that may
be associated with prenatal alcohol exposure;
``(B) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
the Advancing FASD Research, Prevention, and Services Act,
submit to Congress a report on the appropriateness of
characterizing Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders and their
secondary behavioral disorders as mental health disorders;
and
``(C) conduct additional research on the epidemiology of
behavior disorders associated with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorders in collaboration with the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection,
such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005
through 2009.
``(b) Surveillance, Identification, and Prevention
Activities.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and
Developmental Disabilities, shall facilitate surveillance,
identification, and prevention of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorders as provided for in this subsection.
``(2) Surveillance, identification, and prevention.--In
carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall--
[[Page 17115]]
``(A) develop and implement a uniform surveillance case
definition for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and a uniform
surveillance case definition for Alcohol Related
Neurodevelopmental Disorder;
``(B) develop a comprehensive screening process for Fetal
Alcohol Spectrum Disorders that covers different age, race,
and ethnic groups and is based on the uniform surveillance
case definitions developed under subparagraph (A);
``(C) disseminate and provide the necessary training and
support for the screening process developed under
subparagraph (B) to--
``(i) hospitals, community health centers, outpatient
programs, and other appropriate health care providers;
``(ii) incarceration and detainment facilities;
``(iii) primary and secondary schools;
``(iv) social work and child welfare offices;
``(v) foster care providers and adoption agencies;
``(vi) State offices and others providing services to
individuals with disabilities; and
``(vii) other entities that the Secretary determines to be
appropriate;
``(D) conduct activities related to risk factor
surveillance including the annual monitoring and reporting of
alcohol consumption among pregnant women and women of child
bearing age; and
``(E) conduct applied public health prevention research and
implement strategies for reducing alcohol-exposed pregnancies
in women at high risk for alcohol-exposed pregnancies.
``(3) Authorization of appropriation.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, such sums as
may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
``(c) Building State FASD Systems.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, shall award grants, contracts, or
cooperative agreements to States for the purpose of
establishing or expanding statewide programs of surveillance,
prevention, and treatment of individuals with Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorders.
``(2) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement under paragraph (1) a
State shall--
``(A) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary may reasonably require;
``(B) develop and implement a statewide strategic plan for
preventing and treating Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders;
``(C) consult with public and private non-profit entities
with relevant expertise on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
within the State, including--
``(i) parent-led groups and other organizations that
support and advocate for individuals with Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorders; and
``(ii) Indian tribes and tribal organizations; and
``(D) designate an individual to serve as the coordinator
of the State's Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders program.
``(3) Strategic plan.--The statewide strategic plan
prepared under paragraph (2)(B) shall include--
``(A) the identification of existing State programs and
systems that could be used to identify and treat individuals
with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders and prevent alcohol
consumption during pregnancy, such as--
``(i) programs for the developmentally disabled, the
mentally ill, and individuals with alcohol dependency;
``(ii) primary and secondary educational systems;
``(iii) judicial systems for juveniles and adults;
``(iv) child welfare programs and social service programs;
and
``(v) other programs or systems the State determines to be
appropriate;
``(B) the identification of any barriers for individuals
with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders or women at risk for
alcohol consumption during pregnancy to access the programs
identified under subparagraph (A); and
``(C) proposals to eliminate barriers to prevention and
treatment programs and coordinate the activities of such
programs.
``(4) Use of funds.--Amounts received under a grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement under paragraph (1) shall
be used for one or more of the following activities:
``(A) Establishing a statewide surveillance system.
``(B) Collecting, analyzing and interpreting data.
``(C) Establishing a diagnostic center.
``(D) Developing, implementing, and evaluating population-
based and targeted prevention programs for Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorders, including public awareness campaigns.
``(E) Referring individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorders to appropriate support services.
``(F) Developing and sharing best practices for the
prevention, identification, and treatment of Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorders.
``(G) Providing training to health care providers on the
prevention, identification, and treatment of Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorders.
``(H) Disseminating information about Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorders and the availability of support services
to families of individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorders.
``(I) Other activities determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
``(5) Multi-state programs.--The Secretary shall permit the
formation of multi-State Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
programs under this subsection.
``(6) Other contracts and agreements.--A State may carry
out activities under paragraph (4) through contacts or
cooperative agreements with public and private non-profit
entities with a demonstrated expertise in Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorders.
``(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection,
such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2005 through
2009.
``(d) Promoting Community Partnerships.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award grants,
contracts, or cooperative agreements to eligible entities to
enable such entities to establish, enhance, or improve
community partnerships for the purpose of collaborating on
common objectives and integrating the services available to
individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, such as
surveillance, prevention, treatment, and provision of support
services.
``(2) Eligible entities.--To be eligible to receive a
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under paragraph
(1), an entity shall--
``(A) be a public or private nonprofit entity, including--
``(i) a health care provider or health professional;
``(ii) a primary or secondary school;
``(iii) a social work or child welfare office;
``(iv) an incarceration or detainment facility;
``(v) a parent-led group or other organization that
supports and advocates for individuals with Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorders;
``(vi) an Indian tribe or tribal organization;
``(vii) any other entity the Secretary determines to be
appropriate; or
``(viii) a consortium of any of the entities described in
clauses (i) through (vii); and
``(B) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary may reasonably require, including assurances
that the entity submitting the application does, at the time
of application, or will, within a reasonable amount of time
from the date of application, include substantive
participation of a broad range of entities that work with or
provide services for individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorders.
``(3) Activities.--An eligible entity shall use amounts
received under a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement
under this subsection shall carry out 1 or more of the
following activities:
``(A) Identifying and integrating existing programs and
services available in the community for individuals with
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
``(B) Conducting a needs assessment to identify services
that are not available in a community.
``(C) Developing and implementing community-based
initiatives to prevent, diagnose, treat, and provide support
services to individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorders.
``(D) Disseminating information about Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorders and the availability of support services.
``(E) Developing and implementing a community-wide public
awareness and outreach campaign focusing on the dangers of
drinking alcohol while pregnant.
``(F) Providing mentoring or other support to families of
individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
``(G) Other activities determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
``(4) Authorization of appropriation.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, such sums as
may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
``(e) Development of Best Practices.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in coordination with the
National Task Force on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders,
shall award grants to States, Indian tribes and tribal
organizations, and nongovernmental organizations for the
establishment of pilot projects to identify and implement
best practices for--
``(A) educating children with fetal alcohol spectrum
disorders, including--
``(i) activities and programs designed specifically for the
identification, treatment, and education of such children;
and
``(ii) curricula development and credentialing of teachers,
administrators, and social workers who implement such
programs;
``(B) educating judges, attorneys, child advocates, law
enforcement officers, prison wardens, alternative
incarceration administrators, and incarceration officials on
how to treat and support individuals suffering from Fetal
Alcohol Spectrum Disorders within the criminal justice
system, including--
[[Page 17116]]
``(i) programs designed specifically for the
identification, treatment, and education of those with Fetal
Alcohol Spectrum Disorders; and
``(ii) curricula development and credentialing within the
justice system for individuals who implement such programs;
and
``(C) educating adoption or foster care agency officials
about available and necessary services for children with
fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, including--
``(i) programs designed specifically for the
identification, treatment, and education of those with Fetal
Alcohol Spectrum Disorders; and
``(ii) education and training for potential parents of an
adopted child with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
``(2) Application.--To be eligible for a grant under
paragraph (1), an entity shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may reasonably
require.
``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection,
such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005
through 2009.
``(f) Transitional Services.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award demonstration
grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements to States,
Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and nongovernmental
organizations for the purpose of establishing integrated
systems for providing transitional services for those
affected by prenatal alcohol exposure and evaluating their
effectiveness.
``(2) Application.--To be eligible for a grant, contract,
or cooperative agreement under paragraph (1), an entity shall
prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at such
time, in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may reasonably require.
``(3) Allowable uses.--An entity shall use amounts received
under a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under
paragraph (1) to--
``(A) provide housing assistance to adults with Fetal
Alcohol Spectrum Disorders;
``(B) provide vocational training and placement services
for adults with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders;
``(C) provide medication monitoring services for adults
with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders; and
``(D) provide training and support to organizations
providing family services or mental health programs and other
organizations that work with adults with Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorders.
``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection,
such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005
through 2009.
``(g) Community Health Center Initiative.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Administrator of the Health Resources and Services
Administration, shall award grants to community health
centers acting in collaboration with States, Indian tribes,
tribal organizations, and nongovernmental organizations, for
the establishment of a 5-year demonstration program under the
direction of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Fetal
Alcohol Syndrome to implement and evaluate a program to
increase awareness and identification of Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorders in community health centers and to refer
affected individuals to appropriate support services.
``(2) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
paragraph (1), a community health center shall prepare and
submit to the Administrator an application at such time, in
such manner, and containing such information as the
Administrator may reasonably require.
``(3) Activities.--A community health center shall use
amounts received under a grant under paragraph (1) to--
``(A) provide training for health care providers on
identifying and educating women who are at risk for alcohol
consumption during pregnancy;
``(B) provide training for health care providers on
screening children for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders;
``(C) educate health care providers and other relevant
community health center workers on the support services
available for those with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders and
treatment services available for women at risk for alcohol
consumption during pregnancy; and
``(D) implement a tracking system that can identify the
rates of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders by racial, ethnic,
and economic backgrounds.
``(4) Selection of participants.--The Administrator shall
determine the number of community health centers that will
participate in the demonstration program under this
subsection and shall select participants, to the extent
practicable, that are located in different regions of the
United States and that serve a racially and ethnically
diverse population.
``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection,
such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005
through 2009.
``(6) Report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after
completion of the demonstration program under this
subsection, the Administrator shall prepare and submit to
Congress a report on the results of the demonstration
program, including--
``(A) changes in the number of women screened for and
identified as at risk for alcohol consumption during
pregnancy;
``(B) changes in the number of individuals identified as
having a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder; and
``(C) changes in the number of alcohol-consuming pregnant
women and individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
who were referred to appropriate services.'';
(4) in subsection (h)(1) (as so redesignated).
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in subparagraph (D), by adding ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) national public service announcements to raise public
awareness of the risks associated with alcohol consumption
during pregnancy with the purpose of reducing the prevalence
of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, that shall--
``(i) be conducted by relevant Federal agencies under the
coordination of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome;
``(ii) be developed by the appropriate Federal agencies, as
determined by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Fetal
Alcohol Syndrome taking into consideration the expertise and
experience of other relevant Federal agencies, and shall test
and evaluate the public service announcement's effectiveness
prior to broadcasting the announcements nationally;
``(iii) be broadcast through appropriate media outlets,
including television or radio, in a manner intended to reach
women at risk of alcohol consumption during pregnancy; and
``(iv) be measured prior to broadcast of the national
public service announcements to provide baseline data that
will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the
announcements.''; and
(5) in subsection (k) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``National Task Force on
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effect'' and
inserting ``National Task Force on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorders'';
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(ii) in subparagraph (C), by adding ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) develop, in collaboration with the Interagency
Coordinating Committee on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, a report
that identifies and describes the 10 most important actions
that must be taken to reduce prenatal alcohol exposure and
all its adverse outcomes, and that shall--
``(i) describe the state of the current epidemiology of
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, risk factors, and
successful approaches in policy and services that have
reduced alcohol-exposed pregnancies and outcomes;
``(ii) identify innovative approaches that have worked in
related areas such as tobacco control or HIV prevention that
may provide models for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
prevention;
``(iii) recommend short-term and long-term action plans for
achieving the Healthy 2010 Objectives for the United States,
such as increasing abstinence from alcohol among pregnant
women and reducing the occurrence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome;
and
``(iv) recommend in coordination with the National
Institute on Mental Health whether Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and
other prenatal alcohol disorders, or a subset of these
disorders, should be included in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.''; and
(C) by striking ``Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol
Effect'' each place that such appears and inserting ``Fetal
Alcohol Spectrum Disorders''.
SEC. 4. COORDINATION AMONG FEDERAL ENTITIES.
Part O of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 280f et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 399K-1. COORDINATION AMONG FEDERAL ENTITIES.
``(a) Interagency Coordinating Committee on Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome.--The Secretary, acting through the Director of the
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, shall
provide for the continuation of the Interagency Coordinating
Committee on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome so that such Committee
may--
``(1) coordinate activities conducted by the Federal
Government on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, including
convening meetings, establishing work groups, sharing
information, and facilitating and promoting collaborative
projects among Federal agencies; and
``(2) develop, in consultation with the National Task Force
on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, priority areas for years
2006 through 2010 to guide Federal programs and activities
related to Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
[[Page 17117]]
``(b) Coordination Among Federal Entities.--
``(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall evaluate and make recommendations regarding the
appropriate roles and responsibilities of Federal entities
with respect to programs and activities related to Fetal
Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
``(2) Covered entities.--The Federal entities under
paragraph (1) shall include entities within the National
Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, the Health Resources and Services
Administration, the Indian Health Service, the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality, the Interagency Coordinating
Committee on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, the National Task Force
on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, as well as the Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in the
Department of Education and the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention in the Department of Justice.
``(3) Evaluation.--The evaluation conducted by the
Comptroller General under paragraph (1) shall include--
``(A) an assessment of the current roles and
responsibilities of Federal entities with programs and
activities related to Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders; and
``(B) an assessment of whether there is duplication in
programs and activities, conflicting roles and
responsibilities, or lack of coordination among Federal
entities.
``(4) Recommendation.--The Comptroller General shall
provide recommendations on the appropriate roles and
responsibilities of the Federal entities described in
paragraph (2) in order to maximize the effectiveness of
Federal programs and activities related to Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorders.
``(5) Completion.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the Advancing FASD Research, Prevention, and
Services Act, the Comptroller General shall complete the
evaluation and submit to Congress a report on the findings
and recommendations made as a result of the evaluation.''.
SEC. 5. SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME.
Section 519C(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
290bb-25c(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (11), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (12) as paragraph (15); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (11), the following:
``(12) provide respite care for caretakers of individuals
with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and other prenatal alcohol-
related disorders;
``(13) recruit and train mentors for adolescents with Fetal
Alcohol Syndrome and other prenatal alcohol-related
disorders;
``(14) provide educational and supportive services to
families of individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorders; and''.
SEC. 6. PREVENTION, INTERVENTION, AND SERVICES IN THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM.
The Secretary of Education shall direct the Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services to--
(1) implement screening procedures and conduct training on
a nationwide Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders surveillance
campaign for the educational system in collaboration with the
efforts of the National Center on Birth Defects and
Developmental Disabilities under section 399H(b) of the
Public Health Service Act (as added by this Act);
(2) introduce curricula previously developed by the
National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental
Disabilities and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration on how to most effectively educate
and support children with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders in
both special education and traditional education settings,
and investigate incorporating information about the
identification, prevention, and treatment of the Disorders
into teachers' credentialing requirements;
(3) integrate any special techniques on how to deal with
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders children into parent-teacher
or parent-administrator interactions, including after-school
programs, special school services, and family aid programs;
(4) collaborate with other Federal agencies to introduce a
standardized educational unit within schools' existing sexual
and health education curricula, or create one if needed, on
the deleterious effects of prenatal alcohol exposure; and
(5) organize a peer advisory network of adolescents in
schools to discourage the use of alcohol while pregnant or
considering getting pregnant.
SEC. 7. PREVENTION, INTERVENTION, AND SERVICES IN THE JUSTICE
SYSTEM.
The Attorney General shall direct the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention to--
(1) implement screening procedures and conduct training on
a nationwide Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders surveillance
campaign for the justice system in collaboration with the
efforts of the National Center on Birth Defects and
Developmental Disabilities under section 399H(b) of the
Public Health Service Act (as added by this Act);
(2) introduce training curricula, in collaboration with the
National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental
Disabilities and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, on how to most effectively identify
and interact with individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorders in both the juvenile and adult justice systems, and
investigate incorporating information about the
identification, prevention, and treatment of the disorders
into justice professionals' credentialing requirements;
(3) promote the tracking of individuals entering the
juvenile justice system with at-risk backgrounds that
indicates them as high probability for having a Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorder, especially those whose individuals mothers
have a high record of drinking during pregnancy as reported
by the appropriated child protection agency;
(4) educate judges, attorneys, child advocates, law
enforcement officers, prison wardens, alternative
incarceration administrators, and incarceration officials on
how to treat and support individuals suffering from Fetal
Alcohol Spectrum Disorders within the criminal justice
system, including--
(A) programs designed specifically for the identification,
treatment, and education of such children; and
(B) curricula development and credential-
ing of teachers, administrators, and social workers who
implement such programs;
(5) conduct a study on the inadequacies of how the current
system processes children with certain developmental delays
and subsequently develop alternative methods of incarceration
and treatment that are more effective for youth offenders
identified to have a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder; and
(6) develop transition programs for individuals with Fetal
Alcohol Spectrum Disorders who are released from
incarceration.
SEC. 8. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 399J of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280f-2) is amended by
striking ``the part'' and all that follows through the period
and inserting ``subsections (h) thorough (k) of section 399H,
$27,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009''.
(b) Repeal of Sunset.--Section 399K of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280f-3) is repealed.
____
The Advancing FASD Research, Prevention, and Services Act
research
The adverse affects of alcohol consumption during pregnancy
are better understood today than they were when Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome (FAS) was first described in the medical literature
in 1968. But more research is needed. The bill would require
the National Institutes of Health to develop a research
agenda for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) that would
include research related to:
Identifying the mechanisms that produce the cognitive and
behavioral problems associated with fetal alcohol exposure;
development of a neurocognitive phenotype for FAS and
Alcohol-Related Neurodevelopmental Disorder (ARND);
identifying biological markers that indicate fetal alcohol
exposure; identifying risk factors that increase
susceptibility to FASD; investigating new approaches for
sustaining recovery from alcohol dependence; developing
therapeutic interventions for individuals with FASD;
developing screening instruments to identify women who
consume alcohol during pregnancy; and understanding the
behavioral disorders associated with FASD.
surveillance, identification, and prevention
FASD is often difficult to identify, which complicates
efforts to accurately estimate its prevalence. Improved
surveillance of FASD is needed to better understand the scope
of the problem and to effectively deploy public health
resources. The bill would improve surveillance and prevention
by:
Developing a comprehensive screening process for FASD;
monitoring risk factors for FASD such as alcohol consumption
among pregnant women and women of child-bearing age; and
conducting research on prevention and implementing strategies
for reducing alcohol-exposed pregnancies.
state fasd systems
To improve surveillance, prevention, and treatment of
individuals with FASD, the bill would facilitate the
development of statewide FASD systems. To be eligible for
federal grants, a state would have to develop a strategic
plan for preventing and treating FASD, consult with public
and non-profit private organizations with relevant expertise,
including family organizations, and designate an individual
as the state's FASD program coordinator.
States would be required to identify existing state
programs that could be used for identification, prevention,
and treatment of FASD and to identify barriers that
individuals with FASD may now experience when trying to
access those programs. States could use the federal funds for
a number of activities, including:
Establishing statewide surveillance systems and diagnostic
centers; developing and implementing prevention programs,
including public awareness campaigns; referring individuals
with FASD to appropriate support services; developing and
sharing best practices; training health care providers; and
disseminating information about FASD and the availability of
support services.
[[Page 17118]]
community partnerships
Responding to FASD at the community level is also
important. The bill would provide federal grants to
partnerships of health professionals, school systems, child
welfare offices, incarceration facilities, parent
organizations, Indian tribes and others within a community.
These community partnerships would collaborate on common
objectives and integrate services. Federal funds could be
used to:
Identify and integrate existing services; identify services
not available in a community; develop community-based
initiatives to prevent, diagnose, treat and provide support
services to individuals with FASD; disseminate information;
develop community-wide public awareness and outreach
campaigns; and provide mentoring or other support for
families of individuals with FASD.
best practices
Individuals with FASD can find themselves in a number of
settings and under the supervision of individuals not trained
to work with them. The bill would provide federal grants for
pilot projects to identify and implement best practices for:
Educating children with FASD within the school system;
educating judges, attorneys, child advocates, law enforcement
officers, prison wardens, and others on how to treat and
support individuals with FASD within the criminal justice
system; and educating adoption or foster care agency
officials about available and necessary services for children
with FASD.
support services
Individuals with FASD often need special support services
as they transition from adolescence to adulthood. The bill
would provide federal grants that could be used to:
Provide housing assistance to adults with FASD; provide
vocational training and placement services to adults with
FASD; provide medication monitoring services to adults with
FASD; and provide training and support to organizations
providing family services or mental health programs and other
organizations that work with adults with FASD.
The bill would also allow federal funds to be used to
provide respite care to caregivers of individuals with FASD,
recruit and train mentors for adolescents with FASD, and
provide education and support services to families of
individuals with FASD.
community health center initiative
Community health centers provide primary and preventive
health care services in rural and urban communities that are
medically underserved. The bill would provide federal grants
to implement and evaluate a program to increase awareness and
identification of FASD in community health centers.
Participating health centers would:
Provide training to health care providers on identifying
and educating women who are at risk for alcohol consumption
during pregnancy; provide training to health care providers
on screening children for FASD; and educate health care
providers and other health center workers on the availability
of support services for individuals with FASD and treatment
services for women at risk for alcohol consumption during
pregnancy.
public awareness and education
Even though FASD is completely preventable, many continue
to consume alcohol during pregnancy. The bill would authorize
the development and broadcast of national public service
announcements to raise public awareness of the risks
associated with alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
national task force on fasd
The bill would require the National Task Force on FASD to
identify and report on the ten most important actions that
should be taken to reduce prenatal alcohol exposure and its
adverse outcomes, current epidemiological information,
innovative prevention models, short-term and long-term
recommendations for achieving the Healthy 2010 Objectives for
the Nation related to FASD, and a recommendation on whether
FAS and other prenatal alcohol disorders should be included
in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
coordination among federal entities
The bill provides statutory authority for the Interagency
Coordinating Committee on FAS and instructs the Comptroller
General of the United States to evaluate and make
recommendations regarding the appropriate roles and
responsibilities of federal entities with programs and
activities related to FASD.
prevention, intervention, and services in the education system
The education system must be involved in efforts to address
FASD. The bill would have the Department of Education
implement screening procedures, introduce curricula on how to
effectively educate and support children with FASD, include
information on the danger of alcohol consumption during
pregnancy in existing sexual and health education curricula,
and adopt other strategies to assist students with FASD.
prevention, intervention, and services in the justice system
Many FASD adolescents and adults are incarcerated or
otherwise involved in the justice system. The bill would have
the Attorney General implement screening procedures,
introduce training curricula on how to effectively identify
and interact with individuals with FASD, track individuals
entering the juvenile justice system whose background
indicates they have a high probability of having FASD, and
develop transition programs for individuals with FASD who are
released from incarceration.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
S. 2742. A bill to extend certain authority of the Supreme Court
Police, modify the venue of prosecutions relating to the Supreme Court
building and grounds, and authorize the acceptance of gifts to the
United States Supreme Court; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Federal courts propose legislation to
improve their operational efficiency. Today, joined by Senator Leahy, I
am introducing legislation requested by the Supreme Court of the United
States. This bill is non-controversial and I hope the Senate can
complete action on it in a timely manner after we return from our
August recess.
There are three sections to this bill which I will describe for the
benefit of my colleagues.
Section 1. Supreme Court Police Authority to Protect Court Officials
Off of Court Grounds. This section would extend, for an additional four
years, a ``sunset'' provision on authority of the Supreme Court Police
to protect the Justices and other Court officials and official guests
away from the Court building and grounds.
This authority was established by Public Law 97-390 (12/29/82) and
was for a three-year period. Since 1985, the authority has been renewed
regularly, generally with three or four year extensions and now expires
at the end of 2004. The extension of the sunset provision would permit
the Court Police to carry out this function until 2008. The Court
Police regularly provide protection for the Justices away from the
Court, and in light of the heightened security threats to symbols of
our government, it is vital that the Police's authority to carry out
this function continue without interruption.
Section 2. Venue for violations of Chapter 61 of Title 40. This
section would add the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia to the existing statute establishing venue for the prosecution
of violations of statutes or regulations governing the Supreme Court
building and grounds under 40 USCS Sec. Sec. 6131 et seq.
Section 6137(b) currently permits prosecutions only in Superior
Court. The amendment would provide an additional alternative, in light
of the fact that there are prosecutions under these statutes where
distinctly Federal interests are at stake.
Prosecutions under this chapter include the following: Sale of
articles, signs, and solicitation in Supreme Court Building and
grounds; destruction of property in the Supreme Court Building and
grounds; possession of firearms, fireworks, unauthorized speeches, and
objectionable language in the Supreme Court Building and grounds; and
unauthorized parades, assemblages, and display of flags in the Supreme
Court Building and grounds.
Section 3. Gifts to the Supreme Court. This section would authorize
the Chief Justice or his designee to accept, hold, administer and use
gifts of personal property for official Court purposes. Monetary
bequests would be turned over to the treasury.
In 1978, Congress authorized the Director of the Administrative
Office for United States Courts to receive gifts on behalf of the
judiciary, recognizing at the time that the judiciary had already
received gifts under its implied powers. [See 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 604(a)(17)(B).] Generally, the Director does not have authority
with respect to the Supreme Court, and this provision is intended to
recognize that the Supreme Court has the authority to receive non-
monetary gifts on its own behalf. The language of the provision closely
tracks the 1978 legislation authorizing the Director to receive gifts
for the judiciary.
Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperative effort that Senator Leahy
and I have been able to undertake to bring this legislation to the
Senate and am confident we can work together to ensure timely passage
of this measure.
[[Page 17119]]
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. 2742
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT POLICE TO PROTECT COURT OFFICIALS
OFF THE SUPREME COURT GROUNDS.
Section 6121(b)(2) of title 40, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2008''.
SEC. 2. VENUE FOR PROSECUTIONS RELATING TO THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT BUILDING AND GROUNDS.
Section 6137 of title 40, United States Code, is amended by
striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Venue and Procedure.--Prosecution for a violation
described in subsection (a) shall be in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia or in the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia, on information by
the United States Attorney or an Assistant United States
Attorney.''.
SEC. 3. GIFTS TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
The Chief Justice or his designee is authorized to accept,
hold, administer, and utilize gifts and bequests of personal
property for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work
of the United States Supreme Court, but gifts or bequests of
money shall be covered into the Treasury.
______
By Mr. FITZGERALD (for himself, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Hollings, Mrs.
Feinstein, and Mr. Sessions):
S. 2743. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide
that only licensed medical doctors, licensed doctors of osteopathy, and
certain licensed dentists may perform eye surgery at Department of
Veterans Affairs facilities or under contract with the Department; to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans
Eye Treatment Safety Act of 2004, or VETS Act, which will protect the
eye care of our veterans by providing that only licensed physicians may
perform eye surgery at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities
or under contract with the VA.
Presently, 49 out of 50 States prohibit optometrists from performing
surgery. Oklahoma is the only State that allows optometrists to perform
laser surgical procedures. Recently, Oklahoma enacted a law expanding
existing law to allow optometrists to perform nonlaser surgical
procedures such as cataract surgery.
Under the VA credentialing practice, optometrists have been granted
laser surgery clinical privileges within the VA Medical Center. The
VA's credentialing practice allows medical practitioners to be granted
privileges to perform procedures within the VA system that they are
authorized to perform in the State in which they are licensed. Thus, an
optometrist licensed in Oklahoma can be granted clinical privileges to
perform laser surgery at the VA. In 2003, the VA allowed at least three
optometrists to perform laser eye surgery at multiple VA hospitals
throughout the Nation.
This practice is inconsistent with the policies of the Army, Navy,
and Air Force, which do not allow optometrists to perform eye surgery.
The VA, which also treats TRICARE beneficiaries, is the outlier. If a
military retiree, a TRICARE beneficiary, needs laser eye surgery, only
a licensed medical doctor or doctor of osteopathy could perform it, as
required by the Army, Navy, and Air Force. However, if that same
TRICARE beneficiary seeks treatment at a VA facility--as is his or her
right--it is possible that an optometrist could perform the surgery. In
this case, such person would receive a lower standard of care than the
Department of Defense would allow in a military treatment facility.
This VA credentialing practice regarding eye surgery creates two
standards of care: a high standard of care for active duty personnel,
dependents, and TRICARE beneficiaries when seen in a military treatment
facility, and a lower standard of care for TRICARE beneficiaries and
veterans if treated in the VA system.
The VA's practice is questionable. Optometrists typically do not have
the requisite training and experience to perform eye surgery. Only one
school of optometry in the United States offers courses in laser eye
surgery. To become certified, optometrists must complete two courses at
this school, with less than 40 hours of training, and perform only four
supervised surgeries. In contrast, ophthalmologists during medical
school, internship, and residency complete between 9,000 to 12,000
hours of training and education before practicing without supervision.
The Veterans Eye Treatment Safety Act of 2004 provides that only
licensed medical doctors, licensed doctors of osteopathy, or licensed
dentists whose practice is limited to oral or maxillofacial surgery may
perform eye surgery at Department of Veterans Affairs facilities or
under contract with the department. This legislation is narrowly
targeted and does not prevent optometrists from performing noninvasive,
nonsurgical procedures--the procedures that optometrists are trained
and qualified to perform. The bill simply ensures that only licensed
physicians can perform invasive, surgical procedures on our veterans.
The VETS Act has been endorsed by the Vietnam Veterans of America,
the National Gulf War Resource Center, the American Medical
Association, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American
Osteopathic Association, and the American College of Surgeons.
Additionally, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Blinded Veterans
Association have written letters to the Department of Veterans Affairs
opposing allowing optometrists to perform surgery.
This bill is a patient safety measure that protects our veterans. It
protects the law of 49 States, preventing the will of one from becoming
the law of the land. We must send a clear message to the VA that
veterans should receive the same quality eye care that ordinary
citizens receive.
I would like to thank Senator Cantwell, Senator Hollings, Senator
Feinstein, and Senator Sessions for cosponsoring this important
legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this
bill that will protect the ocular safety of our veterans--ensuring that
they receive the same high level of care that almost all Americans and
members of the armed forces receive.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2743
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Eye Treatment
Safety (VETS) Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION AS TO PERSONS WHO MAY PERFORM EYE SURGERY
FOR DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.
Section 1707 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c)(1) Eye surgery at a Department facility or under
contract with the Department may be performed only by an
individual who is a licensed medical doctor, a licensed
doctor of osteopathy, or a licensed dentist whose practice is
limited to the specialty of oral or maxillofacial surgery.
``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term `eye
surgery' means any procedure involving the eye or the adnexa
in which human tissue is cut, burned, frozen, vaporized,
ablated, probed, or otherwise altered or penetrated by
incision, injection, laser, ultrasound, ionizing radiation,
or by other means, in order to treat eye disease, alter or
correct refractive error, or alter or enhance cosmetic
appearance. Such term does not include the following
noninvasive, nonsurgical procedures: removal of superficial
ocular foreign bodies from the conjunctival surface, from the
eyelid epidermis, or from the corneal epithelium; corneal
debridement and scraping; forceps epilation of misaligned
eyelashes; the prescription and fitting of contact lenses;
insertion of punctal plugs, diagnostic dilation or irrigation
of the lacrimal system; the use of diagnostic ultrasound;
orthokeratology; or the treatment of emergency cases of
anaphylactic shock (with subcutaneous epinephrine, such as
that included in a bee sting kit).''.
______
By Mr. SUNUNU (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Dole, and Mr. Harkin):
S. 2744. A bill to authorize the minting and issuance of a
Presidential $1
[[Page 17120]]
coin series; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today with the Senator from Nevada,
Senator Reid, to introduce the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2004. This
legislation, which is modeled after the successful 50-State quarter
program, would add the image of U.S. Presidents to the circulating
dollar coin. I believe this bill, when enacted, will prompt more
widespread usage of the dollar coin, earn significant funds for the
U.S. government and spark new interest in the history of the leaders of
our Nation.
The United States Government currently issues a dollar coin.
Unfortunately, many Americans don't know about the coin and most don't
use them. In fact, the dollar coin has never lived up to its promise to
become a primary component of the American economy. I believe as policy
makers, it is our job to ask what this costs our economy and our
government, why the dollar coin is not widely used, and what can be
done to remedy it.
With a one-dollar coin in general circulation, our economy will be
more efficient, and our government will reap the significant benefits
that a fully circulating coin will generate. To illustrate, millions of
low-dollar transactions occur in our country every day. Bringing even
the smallest efficiency to each would result in significant savings to
the economy. For example, the vending machine industry estimates that
the effect of a widely circulated dollar coin in its sector alone could
be as much as $1 billion in savings: $300 million in increased sales
and $700 million in reduced maintenance costs. Add to that the savings
that businesses would realize by experiencing lower handling costs--
it's simply much more expensive to sort and count bills than coins--and
one begins to get a sense of the economies that could be achieved if
our dollar coin program were more of a success.
In the public sector, the savings are hardly less dramatic. Informed
estimates put the effect of a fully circulating dollar coin at as much
as a $500 million annual infusion to the Treasury general fund. These
funds are created by the difference between what it costs to make a
coin or bill and what it's worth. For a dollar coin, the difference,
which is called seigniorage, is about 80 cents. While there is no
direct comparison for a dollar bill, as the accounting methods are
different, the gain to the general fund is much less. Another savings
comes from the fact that a coin can do its work for 30 years, while a
dollar bill has a lifespan of only about 18 months before it wears out
and needs to be replaced.
With such clear advantages on the side of the dollar coin why doesn't
the American public use the coin? The answers are fairly well known and
were documented by the GAO in a 2002 report to Congress. Let me address
some of the problems outlined by the GAO.
First, there is the so-called ``network effect.'' This
interdependency of demand is described by the GAO this way--
``Increasing the use of the coin is especially difficult because
retailers will not stock the dollar coin until they see the public
using it, the public is unlikely to use the coin until they see
retailers stocking it, and banks and armored carriers are reluctant to
invest in new equipment to handle the coin until there is wide demand
for it.'' Second, there is a lack of public information about the
savings to the government from using the dollar coin. Third, business
users found difficulty in getting the newer ``golden'' dollar coins in
a useable form--they are not rolled like other coins and because they
are generally commingled with the older Susan B. Anthony dollars.
Fourth, design mistakes made with the Susan B. Anthony dollar led many
to confuse the coin with the quarter and spend it at a 75-cent loss.
Finally, the most difficult problem of all, Americans prefer the dollar
bill to the dollar coin because they can get an adequate supply of
them, and they are readily accepted everywhere.
The GAO summed it up with this conclusion in its 2002 report, ``. . .
until individuals can see that the coin is widely used by others and
that the government intends to replace the dollar bill with the dollar
coin, they will be unlikely to use the coin in everyday transactions.''
The bill I am introducing today will address many of these problems.
It will do so by getting the dollar coin in people's hands and pockets.
It will provide the information that Americans need to make rational
decisions and it takes steps to eliminate other barriers to circulation
of the coin. Although this legislation does not take the dollar bill
out of circulation, it is well known that continued circulation of the
dollar bill is expensive to businesses and consumers alike. Therefore,
I am today writing the GAO asking that it carefully examine this issue
and update its findings from its last comprehensive review made in
1990.
Now, I turn to the specifics of my legislative proposal. Beginning in
2006, the bill would cause the images of four U.S. Presidents to appear
on the dollar coin a year, each in the order of their service, until
all are so honored. The reverse of the coin would feature the Statue of
Liberty. The edge of the coin would hold important information, such as
the date and the so-called mintmark. It is important to note that coins
bearing the image of Sacagawea, who currently appears on the face of
the dollar coin, will continue to be issued during the period of the
Presidential Coin Program established by this bill. I draw my
colleague's attention to the fact that her image will be joined by the
images of U.S. Presidents, not displaced by them. This is only
appropriate, especially as we celebrate the bicentennial of the Lewis
and Clark Expedition of which she was such an important part.
To complement the Presidential Coin Program, my bill would also
create a new puregold bullion coin to honor presidential spouses. At
the same time each president's image appears on the circulating dollar
coin, the spouse's image would appear on a one-half ounce pure gold
coin. It is my hope that together the Presidential coin and the Spouse
coin will spark excitement and interest in the dollar coin and get it
into circulation. These coins will appeal both to collectors and to
investors.
As I mentioned earlier, the Presidential Coin Program is modeled
after the wildly successful 50-state quarter program. As all my
colleagues know, that program has aroused new interest in coins, coin
collecting and the history of our nation's states. Before it began, the
U.S. Mint was producing about $400 million in quarters a year. Demand
in the first year of the quarter program shot up to $1.2 billion in
quarters that year. Seigniorage from the quarter halfway through the
50-state program has surpassed all expectations, amounting to more than
$4 billion, close to the $5 billion that was predicted for the whole
10-year program. I believe that the Presidential Coin Program will have
a similar effect on the dollar coin, creating interest and familiarity
with the dollar coin and revenues for the U.S. government.
The bill I am introducing with Senator Reid would also take other
important steps toward getting Americans used to the dollar coin and
removing barriers to its circulation. For example, it would cause the
Federal Government to use the dollar coin in all its retail operations.
Incredibly, this is not the case now. Except for the U.S. Postal
Service, few other Federal agencies make use of the coin. Also, the
bill would take the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin out of circulation,
ending the problem--identified by many business owners--of commingling
of the new and old dollar coins. There would be, however, no problem
for the Sacagawea and Presidential dollars to circulate at the same
time, as they both would be of the attractive ``golden'' color. The
bill also would cause the dollar coins to be available in convenient
forms, including rolls and small bags, so that businesses can use them
easily. Now, it's hard to get dollar coins except in pillow-sized bags,
from which they must be counted before they can go into cash registers.
Finally, this legislation will create a new, pure-gold bullion, one-
ounce coin with the image of the so-called ``Indian Head'' or
``Buffalo'' nickel. Here, I
[[Page 17121]]
must note that the design is so popular that when our colleague Senator
Campbell, authored legislation to re-create that design as a limited-
edition silver dollar to benefit the National Museum of the American
Indian now under construction on the Mall, all half-million copies
allowed sold out within two weeks. This will be an opportunity for
collectors to get a pure-gold copy of the coin, but it will also be an
opportunity for investors to buy an investment-grade coin. Other
countries, including the People's Republic of China, make this kind of
pure-gold investment vehicle available to their citizens, but to date
the U.S. Mint gold investment-grade coins have only been about 90
percent pure. I'm certain that with the quality work of the Mint and
the imprimatur of the United States Government, this coin will be well-
accepted into the market.
Let me conclude, by saying that I believe the bill I am introducing
today will put the dollar coin on the map and in the pockets of
Americans. That's good for commerce and it's good government.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend Senator
Sununu to cosponsor the Presidential One Dollar Coin Act of 2004. When
enacted, this measure will provide a valuable educational tool to help
children and adults alike learn about our presidents, will lead to
substantial savings for consumers, and earn billions of dollars for the
government.
Let me begin by describing in detail how the program established by
this legislation will work. Beginning in 2006, four presidents would be
honored each year on dollar coins in the order of service, with their
name, dates of service, and a number indicating the order in which they
served on the front of the coin.
The Statute of Liberty will appear on the reverse side of the coin,
while the date and mintmark will appear on the edge of the coin,
leaving room for dramatic images on the faces.
The bill also continues the tradition that no image of a living
president appear on coins and also seeks to address the several
barriers to circulation that have in the past hindered more widespread
use of the dollar coin.
The educational benefits of this program are clear. We all know that
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776, but how
many know the dates of his presidential service to our country? Those
were momentous years for our young nation, and this program will put
that kind of information in the pockets of every consumer and in the
hands of every school child in the nation.
This bill also will provide financial benefits to consumers and the
government. The cost of counting and handling change is much lower than
that of counting and handling currency. The widespread availability and
use of a dollar coin will help lower costs for consumers in sectors of
the economy that rely on regular low-dollar-value transactions, such as
vending machines and transit systems.
The Department of Treasury also estimates that the dollar coin, if in
full circulation, would create as much as $500 million each year for
the government. This money, which goes directly to the general fund,
arises from the difference between the costs of making the coin and the
amount of worth it carries in commerce. While this amount varies
depending on a number of factors, for the Golden Dollar, it averages
about $0.80 for each coin.
It should be noted that the Department of Treasury estimated that the
50 State Quarter Program would produce $2.6 billion to $5 billion in
revenues for the government; halfway through, the program already has
earned more than $4 billion.
The second part of this bill would establish a program to honor
presidential First Spouses with a nearly pure gold coin. Each coin
would bear the likeness of a presidential spouse on one side and an
image symbolic of the spouse's works or interests on the other. In the
five cases in which presidents had no spouse during their term of
office, the measure provides for an image of ``Liberty'' as was used on
a coin during the president's term, with the reverse having an image
related to the period of the president's term. I believe the
presidential spouse program will build on the benefits--both
educational and financial--of the presidential series.
Finally, my bill directs the U.S. Mint to produce a new, one-ounce,
pure gold bullion coin with the famous image of the ``Indian Head'' or
``Buffalo'' nickel. This fine looking coin is so well known and popular
that when it was struck as a silver dollar to help finance the National
Museum of the American Indian, all 500,000 were snapped up by consumers
and collectors in just two weeks.
While other countries have made coins like these, the Mint has never
made a pure gold coin for investors and collectors, and I believe it is
time to do so. Not only will these coins increase investment
opportunities, they will produce earnings for the government. As my
home state of Nevada is a principle gold producing state in the nation,
it will also create jobs for my constituents.
I conclude my statement by addressing an important issue that relates
to this proposal. I understand that there are those in this body and
elsewhere who do not wish to see the image of Sacagawea, which is now
on the dollar coin, removed for any reason. It is their view that to do
so shows disrespect to her and to all Native Americans. I share their
commitment to honoring the memory of Sacagawea, which is why my bill
provides for the continued release of Sacagawea dollar coins throughout
the Presidential coin program and beyond. Furthermore, I believe this
program will actually honor Sacagawea by ensuring that the dollar coin
with her image and the images of U.S. Presidents is widely circulated
and used by all Americans.
Mr. President, I look forward to working with the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the rest of my colleagues to
ensure this measure's review and passage.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 2745. A bill to amend the Colorado Canyons National Conservation
Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000 to rename the
Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area as the McInnis Canyons
National Conservation Area; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am honored to rise and introduce
legislation that would rename the Colorado Canyons National
Conservation Area as the McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area.
I do this in recognition of my colleague in the House, Scott McInnis,
who will join me this year in returning home to private life after
years of dedicated public service to the people of Colorado. For the
past two decades, Congressman McInnis has been a true champion in the
fight to protect Colorado's public lands. In fact, no sitting Member of
Congress has passed more legislation for the designation and protection
of Wilderness areas.
As Congressman McInnis nears the end of his tenure in office, I
thought it appropriate to create a lasting symbol of Colorado's
appreciation for his many achievements on behalf of our great State.
The Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area is located near
Congressman McInnis' home in Grand Junction. The site is one of
America's most beautiful natural treasures. These canyons are preserved
today because of the work of Congressman McInnis, who began his quest
to protect the Colorado Canyons by seeking the input of local citizens
and landowners. He then took this input and sought the advice of land
managers and non-profit conservation organizations. Upon completing the
plan, Congressman McInnis drafted the legislation to create the area
and shepherded it through Congress.
Simply put, the creation of the Colorado Canyons National
Conservation Area would not have been possible absent the tireless
efforts of Scott McInnis. Recognizing the sizable McInnis legacy on
behalf of all Coloradans, I think it only fitting and appropriate to
introduce this lasting tribute to recognize Scott's hard work and
abiding love of Colorado's public lands.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN:
[[Page 17122]]
S. 2747. A bill to establish a Commission on the Future of the United
States Economy to make recommendations on public policy and the
reorganization of the Federal Government to promote efficiency and
economy of operation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in the mid-1980's President Reagan
joined with Democrats and Republicans to fashion an effective strategy
to confront the challenges we then faced from the Japanese. It's time
to reconsider our competitiveness strategy, this time in response to
the Chinese and many other emerging free enterprise economies. The
Reagan approach--appointing a bipartisan commission on industrial
competitiveness, chaired by John A. Young, president of Hewlett Packard
Co., and supported by the Democratic Congress--remains the most
effective way to proceed, and today I am introducing legislation to do
just that.
Still known as the Young Commission, this distinguished group of
leaders from large and small businesses, labor, and academia led the
nation in a dialog on ways to strengthen the competitiveness of the
U.S. industry in both domestic and foreign markets. Its recommendations
and remedies were widely adopted in the late 1980's and 1990's and
account for the unprecedented growth we experienced--much coming from
America's high tech sector. But our competitive circumstances have
changed and the Young Commission vision needs to be reconsidered and
refreshed.
The 2.7 million jobs we've lost since 2000 is a bitter reminder of
the economic crisis we faced in the early 1980's. Back then Japan had
emerged as a major competitor invading our markets with advanced
products at lower prices. Sony, Hitachi, Nikon, Toyota, Honda and other
rising Japanese industrial giants had cast a shadow of anxiety over the
American public. Plant closings and layoffs became widespread as our
trade deficit with Japan ballooned and production shrank with rising
imports. And the Paul Volcker interest rates imposed to break the back
of inflation had crushed the weaker American firms. We had two choices:
succumb or fight.
Fortunately, led by the kind of practical vision espoused by the
Young Commission, the United States learned how to fight and rose to
the challenge with objective analysis of our strengths and weaknesses,
hard decisions about government's role, and investments in
entrepreneurs and high technology fostering the longest expansionary
period in our 200 year history. Wise decisions were made in the 1980s
and we cashed in on them in the 1990's. The strategy that worked then
is not sufficient now. World markets are now undergoing a momentous
change that requires a re-assessment of our competitiveness strategy
for this new century.
As the Japanese challenge developed in the early 1980s, the response
of our two political parties became a polarized debate about
``industrial policy.'' Republicans favored deeper and deeper tax cuts
to stimulate job growth which--together with massive defense spending--
sent the deficits through the roof. Some Democrats pushed for an
Industrial Development Bank to rescue failing firms and protectionist
policies. Neither side thought it could compromise without risking the
support of its political base, and we faced a political deadlock on
economic policy. Twenty years later, does all of this sound quite
familiar?
The Young Commission brought all sides to the table and enabled each
to acknowledge the hard facts that shaped the debate. It proposed the
first generation of reforms that became a bipartisan competitiveness
agenda. Public-private collaborations instead of industrial supports,
and research and development investments in information technology
became a foundation for the economic boom of the 1990's. Their
recommendations provided the roadmap that led to the longest period of
economic growth in our history.
Today, the challenges we face are exponentially larger and more
complex. We've entered an information age where intangible assets such
as innovation and knowledge are the new keys to competitive advantage.
These intangibles--including worker skills and knowledge, informal
relationships that feed creativity, new business methods, and
intellectual property--are driving worldwide economic prosperity.
According to a 1998 study by the Brookings Institution 85 percent of
company assets are now considered intangible, a significant jump from
38 percent in 1982.
In an age where these knowledge-based assets are difficult to patent
or copyright, intellectual property rights are difficult to enforce,
and information crosses borders freely and instantaneously, the first
Young Commission doesn't give us all the answers. We need a strategy
where change is both inevitable and necessary, as companies leapfrog
their own technology and continuously reap the rewards that go to
innovators. This 21st century rat race--constant insecurity, constant
competition, and constant change--presents an opportunity for all, yet
it will be a nightmare for the unprepared.
This is our fate for a good reason--the United States won the cold
war's battle of ideas. The outcome is what we wished for--free
enterprise is on the march, socialist state planning is discredited,
and new competitors (principally China and India, but also Canada,
Mexico, Ireland, Malaysia, and Taiwan) can deploy world class talent
not fearful of international competition. American economic supremacy--
our seeming birthright since the Second World War--has come to an end.
Now we have to fight for every morsel on our economic table.
The competitors we now face have world class engineering and science
talent as well as low wages. The challenge now extends beyond a concern
over foreign competition on manufacturing to ominous trends in favor of
global outsourcing of the services sector, including high end
technology jobs. The drive for increased customization, speed, and
responsiveness to customer needs has multiplied the pressures for
productivity and quality. Our entire innovation ecosystem is under
stress, including the ties between basic research and
commercialization, competition for capital and technology, and adaptive
business models. As we have done in building fighter aircraft that puts
unheard of G force stress on pilots, we now need workers who can thrive
on knowledge overload. Because our workforce no longer has the security
of certainty and stability, we need to give it the confidence and tools
to adapt continuously to innovation and change--in a global melee of
shifting upstart competitors.
The American economy is the most adaptable in the world--with a well
educated workforce, efficient capital markets, and the zeal of
generations of entrepreneurial immigrants. But we seem not to have
noticed that the rate of global change is accelerating. The warning
signs are everywhere. We are not just losing some high wage jobs--we
may be losing critical parts of our innovation infrastructure, and with
them, our long-term competitive edge in the global marketplace. As long
as emerging nations such as China and India continue to produce more
and more science and engineering graduates, invest in their
infrastructure, and implement targeted industrial and trade policies to
strengthen their research and development and attract foreign
investment, doing nothing will slowly and silently erode our economic
and national security. As our own giants like GE, TI, Intel, HP, and
Microsoft cast a shadow of anxiety over American workers by going
offshore, we must proceed with a coordinated and sustainable vision to
strengthen our innovation infrastructure. America's dependence on
foreign capital to finance excessive government and consumer debt is an
ominous trend which threatens our future innovation. The much higher
savings rate of many of our competitors gives them ready access to
capital necessary for investing in productivity-enhancing research and
technologies.
To meet these challenges, we first need an injection of bipartisan
political will and that's not easy to find in
[[Page 17123]]
Washington these days. It is time to unleash a new, bipartisan and
updated Young Commission, charged with analyzing the impact of global
economic changes on the American economy, including the offshore
outsourcing problem, and offering nonpartisan proposals to preserve our
innovation infrastructure and create more high-wage American jobs.
The legislation I am introducing today creates a 22-member bipartisan
Commission on the Future of the U.S. Economy to make specific
recommendations on a broad range of issues related to the development
of our Nations' skill-base, innovation capacity and the other factors
needed for the knowledge and information economy. The Commission is to
report back to Congress within 18 months.
Numerous groups concerned about the future of the United States
economy have begun to address the rising challenge of sustaining our
competitive advantage in this new global economy. I first would like to
thank Dr. Kenan Patrick Jarboe from Athena Alliance for helping to
develop key ideas and providing invaluable advice as my office
considered this legislation. I would also like to acknowledge the
significant and thoughtful work the Electronic Industries Alliance has
provided in formulating ideas for a new competitiveness agenda. I also
trust that the major effort in progress under the National Innovation
Initiative of the Council on Competitiveness will provide a creative
groundwork for this important Commission.
I request unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the
bill and the text of the bill itself appear in the Record following my
remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Commission on the Future of the U.S. Economy Act
Section-by-section
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This section cites the title of the Act as the ``Commission
on the Future of the U.S. Economy Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
This section lays out a number of findings which include:
(1) The U.S. economy has entered an information age where
innovation and knowledge are the new keys to competitive
advantage and are creating new challenges for American
workers and companies.
(2) In 1984, at the height of concerns over the condition
of the manufacturing sector in the U.S., President Reagan
appointed the bipartisan President's Commission on Industrial
Competitiveness (the Young Commission) that addressed the
issue of U.S. competitiveness in a new way and developed a
framework that has guided policymaking for the past two
decades.
(3) There is a need for an independent, bipartisan
undertaking comparable to the Young Commission to review the
new competitive challenges facing the United States and to
recommend a framework to guide the making of responsive
public policy.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE.
This section establishes the Commission on the Future of
the U.S. Economy with the purpose of undertaking an analysis
of the competitive challenges to American companies and
workers and making recommendations for public policy,
including reorganization of the Federal government, to
promote efficiency and economy of operation, to foster the
skills and knowledge Americans need to prosper in the 21st
century, strengthen the entire innovation system, and
stimulate the creation of knowledge, inventions, partnerships
and other intangibles so as to maintain economic growth,
income generation and job creation.
SEC. 4. COMPOSITION AND MEETINGS.
This section sets the membership at 17 voting members; nine
appointed by the President and two each appointed by the
Senate Majority Leader, the Senate Minority Leader, the
Speaker of the House and the House Minority Leader. In
addition, the President shall appoint five non-voting ex
officio members from among the following officials: the
Secretaries of the Treasury, Commerce, Labor and Defense, the
United States Trade Representative, the Chairman of the
Council of Economic Advisers, and the Director of the Office
of Science and Technology Policy. The President shall
designate one regular appointee as Chairperson. The voting
members shall elect a Vice Chairperson who is not affiliated
with the same political party as the Chairman. Members shall
be appointed not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of an Act making the appropriations, and any
vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as the original
appointment.
Regular members shall be persons who are leaders or
recognized experts from industry, labor unions, research
institutions, academia and other important social and
economic institutions, and have expertise in economics,
international trade, services, manufacturing, labor, science
and technology, education, business, or have other pertinent
qualifications or experience. Regular members may not be
officers or employees of the United States. Every effort
shall be made to ensure that the regular members are those
who can provide new insights to analyzing the nature and
consequences of a knowledge-based economy.
The Commission shall hold its first meeting no later than
30 days after all voting members have been appointed.
SEC. 5. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.
This section describes the duties of the Commission which
shall--
(A) review the findings and recommendations of previous
studies and commissions (including the Young Commission and
the National Innovation Initiative of the Council on
Competitiveness);
(B) analyze the current economic environment and
competitive challenges facing the U.S. workers and companies;
(C) review the strategies of other nations for responding
to the competitive challenges of the new economic
environment, and analyze the impact of those strategies on
the future of the U.S. economy;
(D) formulate specific recommendations on a broad range of
issues related to the development of the nations' skill-base
and innovative capacity within the private and public sectors
of the U.S. economy. By March 1, 2006 or 18 months after
appointment of members, whichever is later, the Commission
shall submit to Congress and the President a report regarding
the competitive challenges facing the United States, along
with conclusions and specific recommendations for legislative
and administrative actions for maintaining economic growth,
income generation and job creation. The Commission may also
submit an interim or any special reports it feels may be
necessary.
SEC. 6. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.
This section describes the powers of the Commission, which
include holding hearings, taking testimony, and receiving
evidence. The Commission may request information from any
Federal department or agency; may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or property; may procure
analysis, reports and studies from organizations or
individuals other than Commission staff analysis; and may use
the United States mails in the same manner and under the same
conditions as other departments and agencies of the Federal
Government. The Commission may also receive administrative
support from the Administrator of General Services on a
reimbursable basis.
SEC. 7. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.
This section describes personnel matters for the
Commission. Regular members of the Commission shall be
allowed travel expenses and shall be compensated at a rate
equal to the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
prescribed for level IV of the Executive Schedule for each
day of service. The Commission may hire an Executive Director
and staff, without regard to the civil service laws and
regulations, not to exceed the rate payable for level V of
the Executive Schedule. Federal Government employees may be
detailed to the Commission without reimbursement and the
Commission may procure temporary and intermittent services to
support and supplement Commission staff at a rate not to
exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule. Regular
members of the Commission do not lose any Federal retirement
benefits by virtue of service on the Commission.
SEC. 8. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.
The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on
which it submits the final report.
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
This section authorized $10,0000,000 to be appropriated to
the Commission, to remain available until expended.
____
S. 2747
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 ``Commission on the Future of
the United States Economy Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States economy has entered an information
age in which innovation and knowledge, including worker
skills and creativity, are the keys to competitive advantage.
(2) The need for bold innovation and ever-increasing
knowledge imposes increasingly demanding competitive
challenges for United States workers and companies.
(3) In 1984, in response to concerns over the condition of
the manufacturing sector in the United States, President
Ronald Reagan appointed the bipartisan President's Commission
on Industrial Competitiveness (hereafter in this Act referred
to as the ``Young Commission'') that addressed the issue of
United States competitiveness in a new way and developed a
framework that has guided policymaking for the past 2
decades.
[[Page 17124]]
(4) The Young Commission proposed a reorganization of the
performance of the economic and trade functions of the
Federal Government, which was never implemented.
(5) The striking changes in world economic circumstances
over the 20 years since reorganization was proposed by the
Young Commission necessitate reevaluation of the proposal in
light of those changes.
(6) Because the challenges facing the United States economy
are different in many ways from those of 20 years ago, there
is a need to renew the Young Commission's mandate to
reexamine America's competitiveness.
(7) Many studies and reports by governmental and
nongovernmental organizations, such as the National
Innovation Initiative of the Council on Competitiveness, have
laid the groundwork for this reexamination.
(8) The changed competitive challenges facing the United
States today--
(A) extend beyond a concern over global competition in
goods and the loss of domestic manufacturing to the
challenges presented by the fusion of manufacturing and
services into complex networks and the opening of more
service sectors earlier to international competition;
(B) extend beyond concerns over productivity and quality to
the challenges presented by the need for increased
customization, speed, and responsiveness to customer needs;
(C) extend beyond issues of competitiveness of individual
manufacturing firms and industries and to the challenges of
ensuring robustness in the networks of manufacturing and
service firms and development of new forms of business
models;
(D) extend beyond a concern over high-technology research
and development and to the challenges of nurturing the entire
innovation system, including basic research, technological
development, venture capital, new product development, design
and aesthetics, new business models, and the development of
new markets;
(E) shift attention from concern over raising awareness of
trade to a refocusing on the problems of managing the
increasing complexity of globalization;
(F) extend beyond the challenges of sustaining a flexible
and educated workforce to the challenges of exploring new or
better ways to foster the types of skills needed in a
knowledge and information economy;
(G) extend beyond concern over cost of capital to the
challenges of achieving the dual objectives of unlocking the
value of underutilized knowledge assets and insuring the
efficiency and stability of the global financial system;
(H) extend beyond a concern over competition from Japan and
the Southeast Asian Newly Industrializing Countries (NICs) to
the challenges of integrating many countries, such as India,
China, and Eastern European nations, into the global economy;
and
(I) include the challenges of new demographic dynamics,
including the aging of the so-called ``baby boom''
generation, increased life expectancy, below replacement
fertility rates in most of the developed world, and
increasing populations in the developing world.
(9) In this information age, new ideas, business models,
and technologies, including computer and telecommunications,
the Internet, and the digital revolution, have combined to
alter the economy structurally.
(10) Information, knowledge, and other intangible assets
now power our innovation process, which is based both on
science-based research and informal creativity and produces
the productivity and improvement gains needed to maintain
prosperity.
(11) The range of knowledge, information, and intellectual
capital-based intangible assets driving economic prosperity
include worker skills and know-how, informal relationships
that feed creativity and new ideas, high-performance work
organizations, new business methods, intellectual property
such as patents and copyrights, brand names, and innovation
and creativity skills.
(12) Economic statistics and accounting principles have not
caught up with this new economic environment.
(13) All sectors of the economy are affected by this new
economic environment.
(14) Small and medium-size firms are especially in need of
ways to better develop and utilize their information,
knowledge, and other intangible assets.
(15) It is vital to the future strength of the United
States economy that, as new ideas, scientific discoveries,
and knowledge pervade the domestic and international
economies, United States firms be able to assess, absorb, and
deploy these opportunities quickly for competitive advantage.
(16) While United States firms and workers lead the world
in creating and using information, knowledge, and other
intangible assets, increasing global competition means that
the United States Government and the private sector must
continue to develop the information economy in the United
States in order to ensure that the people of the United
States prosper in this new economic environment.
(17) There is a need for an independent, bipartisan
undertaking comparable to the Young Commission to review the
new competitive challenges facing the United States and to
recommend a framework to guide the making of responsive
public policy, including the reorganization of the Federal
Government to promote efficiency and economy of operation, to
promote private initiatives, and to guide individual
decisionmaking about the future of the United States economy
as governments, business, labor unions, and the people of the
United States struggle with ways to utilize information,
foster the development of intangible assets, and promote
innovation and competitiveness in the new global information
economy.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE.
(a) Establishment.--There is established the Commission on
the Future of the United States Economy (hereafter referred
to as the ``Commission'').
(b) Purposes.--The purpose of the Commission are as
follows:
(1) To analyze the worldwide competitive challenges to
United States companies and workers.
(2) To make recommendations in accordance with this Act,
for the making of responsive public policy, including the
reorganization of the Federal Government--
(A) to promote efficiency and economy of operation;
(B) to foster the skills and knowledge the people of the
United States need to prosper in the 21st century;
(C) to strengthen the entire innovation system undergirding
the United States economy; and
(D) to stimulate the creation of knowledge, inventions,
partnerships, and other intangible assets in order to
maintain economic growth, income generation, and job
creation.
SEC. 4. COMPOSITION AND MEETINGS.
(a) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 22
members as follows:
(1) 17 voting members of whom--
(A) 9 members shall be appointed by the President;
(B) 2 members shall be appointed by the majority leader of
the Senate;
(C) 2 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of
the Senate;
(D) 2 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives; and
(E) 2 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of
the House of Representatives.
(2) 5 non-voting ex officio members appointed by the
President from among the following officials:
(A) The Secretary of the Treasury.
(B) The Secretary of Commerce.
(C) The Secretary of Labor.
(D) The Secretary of Defense.
(E) The United States Trade Representative.
(F) The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.
(G) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy.
(b) Qualifications for Voting Members.--
(1) Requirements.--Persons appointed as voting members
under subsection (a)(1) shall be selected from among persons
who--
(A) are leaders or recognized experts in industry, labor
unions, research institutions, academia, and other important
social and economic institutions;
(B) have expertise in economics, international trade,
services, manufacturing, labor, science and technology,
education, business, or have other qualifications or
experience pertinent to the duties of the Commission; and
(C) are not officers or employees of the United States
Government.
(2) Additional consideration.--To the maximum extent
practicable, persons who are appointed as voting members
shall be persons who can provide new insights into analysis
of the nature and consequences of a knowledge-based economy.
(c) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The President shall
designate one voting member of the Commission as Chairperson.
The voting members of the Commission shall elect a Vice
Chairperson from among the voting members of the Commission
appointed by the majority leader of the Senate, the minority
leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and the minority leader of the House of
Representatives. The Vice Chairman shall not be affiliated
with the same political party as the Chairman.
(d) Initial Appointments; Vacancies.--
(1) Initial appointments.--Members shall be appointed not
later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of an Act
making appropriations authorized under section 9.
(2) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall not
affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as
the original appointment.
(e) Meetings.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall meet at the call of
the Chairperson.
(2) Initial meeting.--The Commission shall hold its first
meeting not later than 30 days after all voting members of
the Commission have been appointed under subsection (a).
(f) Quorum.--A majority of the voting members of the
Commission shall constitute a quorum.
(g) Voting.--Each voting member of the Commission shall be
entitled to 1 equal vote.
SEC. 5. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Study.--
[[Page 17125]]
(1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a study of
the United States economy and the competitiveness of United
States companies and workers.
(2) Scope.--In conducting the study under this subsection,
the Commission shall--
(A) review the findings and recommendations of previous
commissions, including the Young Commission, and the studies
(including resulting findings and recommendations) of others
that are relevant to the work of the Commission, including
the National Innovation Initiative of the Council on
Competitiveness;
(B) analyze the current economic environment and
competitive challenges facing United States workers and
companies;
(C) review the strategies of other nations for responding
to the competitive challenges of the new economic
environment, and analyze the impact of those strategies on
the future of the United States economy;
(D) formulate specific recommendations on a broad range of
issues related to the development of the skill-base and
innovative capacity within the private and public sectors of
the United States economy and other priorities related to the
knowledge and information economy, including recommendations
regarding--
(i) the reorganization of the Federal Government to promote
efficiency and economy of operation;
(ii) education and training policy;
(iii) labor policy;
(iv) economic development;
(v) science and technology policy and organization;
(vi) intellectual property rights;
(vii) telecommunications policy;
(viii) international economic policy, including trade and
finance and the management of globalization;
(ix) macroeconomic policy;
(x) financial regulation and accounting policy;
(xi) antitrust policy;
(xii) public and private infrastructure development and
entrepreneurship; and
(xiii) small business development;
(E) formulate recommended policies and actions for--
(i) transforming the education and training process in the
United States as necessary to ensure effectiveness for
facilitating life-long learning;
(ii) upgrading the skills of the United States workforce to
compete effectively in the new economic environment,
including mathematics and science skills, critical thinking
skills, communication skills, language and intercultural
awareness, creativity, and interpersonal relations essential
for success in the information age;
(iii) promoting a broad system of innovation and knowledge
diffusion, including nontechnological ingenuity and
creativity as well as science-based research and development;
(iv) fostering the development of knowledge and information
assets in all sectors of the United States economy,
particularly those sectors of the economy in which rates of
productivity and innovation have lagged, and in United States
companies of all sizes, particularly small and medium-size
companies;
(v) developing jobs that are rooted in local skills and
local knowledge assets in order to lessen displacement
resulting from ongoing global competition;
(vi) improving access to, and lowering the cost of, capital
by unlocking the value to financial markets of underutilized
knowledge assets;
(vii) strengthening the efficiency and stability of the
international financial system (taking into account the roles
of foreign capital and domestic savings in economic growth);
(viii) developing policies and mechanisms for managing the
increasing complexity of globalization;
(ix) adjusting to the impacts of global demographic changes
in the United States, other developed countries, and
developing countries;
(x) improving economic statistics and accounting principles
to adequately measure all sectors of the new economic
environment, including the value of information, innovation,
knowledge, and other intangible assets; and
(xi) improving understanding of how the Federal Government
supports and invests in knowledge and other intangible
assets;
(b) Reports.--
(1) Required report.--
(A) In general.--The Commission shall submit to Congress
and the President a report regarding the competitive
challenges facing the United States. The report shall include
conclusions and specific recommendations for legislative and
executive actions.
(B) Time for report.--The report under this paragraph shall
be submitted not later than the later of--
(i) March 1, 2006; or
(ii) the date that is 18 months after the date of the
initial meeting of the Commission.
(2) Optional reports.--The Commission may submit to
Congress and the President interim or special reports as the
Commission determines appropriate.
SEC. 6. POWERS OF COMMISSION.
(a) Hearings.--The Commission or, at its direction, any
panel or regular member of the Commission, may hold hearings,
sit and act at times and places, take testimony, and receive
evidence as the Commission considers advisable to carry out
this Act.
(b) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may
secure directly from any Federal department or agency such
information as the Commission considers necessary to carry
out this Act. Upon request of the Chairperson of the
Commission, the head of such department or agency shall
furnish such information to the Commission.
(c) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or property.
(d) Analysis, Reports, and Studies.--The Commission may
procure analyses, reports, and studies from organizations or
individuals other than Commission staff, notwithstanding the
restrictions under section 7(e) of this Act.
(e) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
(f) Support Services.--Upon request of the Chairperson of
the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall
provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis the
administrative support necessary for the Commission to carry
out its duties under this Act.
SEC. 7. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.
(a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission
who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government
shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent
of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of
the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties
of the Commission. All members of the Commission who are
officers or employees of the United States shall serve
without compensation in addition to that received for their
services as officers or employees of the United States.
(b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Commission.
(c) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may,
without regard to the civil service laws and regulations,
appoint and terminate an executive director and such other
additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the
Commission to perform its duties. The employment of an
executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the
Commission.
(2) Compensation.--The Chairperson of the Commission may
fix the compensation of the executive director and other
personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to classification of positions and General Schedule
pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive
director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable
for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of
such title.
(d) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government
employee may be detailed to the Commission without
reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status or privilege.
(e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and
intermittent services to support and supplement Commission
staff under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code,
at rates for individuals which do not exceed the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for
level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such
title.
(f) Applicability of Certain Pay Authorities.--An
individual who is a member of the Commission and is an
annuitant or otherwise covered by section 8344 or 8468 of
title 5, United States Code, by reason of membership on the
Commission shall not be subject to the provisions of section
8344 or 8468, as the case may be, with respect to such
membership.
SEC. 8. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.
The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on
which the Commission submits the report required under
section 5(b)(1).
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Commission
$10,000,000 to carry out activities under this Act, to remain
available until expended.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON:
S. 2748. A bill to prohibit the giving or acceptance of payment for
the placement of a child, or obtaining consent to adoption; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that will
[[Page 17126]]
create a national penalty for baby selling and help ensure that all
families experience safe and legal adoptions.
Although the majority of adoptions are handled by reputable and
ethical agencies, each year around the world, hundreds of thousands of
children are sold illegally. In these tragic instances, birth mothers
and prospective adoptive families alike are victimized by individuals
who treat children as commodities. Baby brokers exploit couples who are
eager, if not desperate, to adopt a child, and vulnerable women who are
unable or unwilling to raise their children. In too many States baby
brokering constitutes only a misdemeanor offense. The Baby Selling
Prohibition Act of 2004 will make this horrific crime a felony.
I am pleased to partner with Lifetime Television to help raise
awareness about this issue and to change public policy. Lifetime's
original movie, ``Baby for Sale,'' which is based on the troubling true
story of a couple who tried to adopt a child and got caught up in a
baby selling ring, will go a long way toward raising the Nation's
consciousness of this issue, and, I hope, generate support for my
legislation.
The movie ``Baby for Sale'' highlights the story of a prospective
adoptive couple, William and Lauren Schneider, who registered with an
online agency called ``Adoption Online.'' Through this agency, they met
a lawyer who introduced them to a baby, Nikolett, who they were told
was available for adoption. The Schneiders fell in love with Nikolett
at once and wanted to begin the adoption procedures so that they could
begin their life as a family together. However, when the lawyer asked
them for $60,000 under-the-table to process the adoption the couple
alerted the authorities, and ultimately uncovered a bidding war between
multiple couples for this little girl. The public outrage surrounding
this case led to a change in New York law last year. Under New York's
new law, baby selling is considered a felony instead of a misdemeanor.
The Baby Selling Prohibition Act of 2004 is modeled after New York's
law. It makes profiting from the sale of a child, defined as charging
fees beyond those that are reasonable and allowable, a felony,
punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
This critical legislation will prevent families from enduring the
same agony that the Schneider's went through and will ensure that every
adoptive child's safety and best interest is strictly maintained in all
adoption cases.
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. 2748
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 ``Baby Selling Prohibition Act
of 2004''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.
(a) In General.--Chapter 77 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1596. Accepting or charging excess amounts in
connection with the placement of a child or obtaining
consent to adoption
``(a) Definition of minor.--In this section, the term
`minor' has the same meaning as in section 25(a)(2).
``(b) In General.--Whoever, in connection with the adoption
of a minor, knowingly accepts or charges any fee in excess of
the allowable costs for adoption, as those costs are defined
under the law of the State in which the adoption is
finalized, shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years.
``(c) Allowable Costs.--If, under the law of any State in
which an adoption is finalized, the allowable costs
associated with the adoption of a minor are not defined, the
allowable costs for purposes of this section shall be--
``(1) maternity-related medical and costs;
``(2) travel, meal, and lodging costs accrued when
necessary for court appearances;
``(3) counseling fees;
``(4) fees to cover pre- and post-adoption counseling
provided by a licensed health practitioner;
``(5) attorney and legal fees associated with the adoption;
``(6) foster care for the child to be adopted; and
``(7) foster care for the child to be adopted, and costs
associated with medical care, routine care, travel, and
living expenses of the child to be adopted.
``(d) Limitation.--All costs described under subsection (b)
or (c) shall be reasonable and customary within the State in
which the adoption is finalized.
``(e) Applicability.--This section shall apply to all
individuals, intermediaries, or entities involved in the
adoption of a minor.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 77 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``1596. Accepting or charging excess amounts in connection with the
placement of a child or obtaining consent to adoption.''.
______
By Mr. SARBANES:
S. 2749. A bill to establish a grant program to provide comprehensive
eye examinations to children, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
provide financial support to ensure that uninsured children who have
failed vision screenings are able to obtain the glasses or eye
treatments they need.
Almost every State in the Union has a system in place to detect
vision problems at an early age. Indeed, 30 states and the District of
Columbia require vision screening for children beginning with their
entry into the school system and eleven additional states recommend
such screenings for preschool children. But this system is incomplete.
When children fail the screen, there is no requirement that they
receive treatment of any kind. And if they are uninsured, their
families often cannot afford a visit to the ophthalmologist and obtain
the treatment they need to address the problem identified by the
screening.
Mr. President, taking steps to identify a problem, but to then fail
to address it doesn't make sense; in particular when delay in treatment
can have lifelong consequences. For example, one of the most common eye
diseases of early childhood, amblyopia or ``lazy eye,'' responds to
treatment 95 percent of the time when it is addressed by the age of
three. If treatment is delayed until the age of five, however, the
likelihood that the problem can be corrected is reduced to 10 percent.
Children who cannot correct these refractive vision problems start
school at an enormous disadvantage in terms of their ability to learn.
The legislation I am introducing today would help to obviate this
deficit. Simply put, it would authorize the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, acting through the Center for Disease Control Director,
to provide $75 million worth of grants to states for exams and
necessary treatment for uninsured children who have failed a vision
screening and cannot afford follow-on treatment.
Ample evidence underscores the need for this type of legislation. A
study conducted by Dr. Mark Preslan and Audrey Novak of the Maryland
Center for Sight, entitled The Baltimore Vision Screening Project found
that strabismus--also known as cross-eyes--amblyopia and refractive
errors, occurred in higher frequencies and remained untreated for a
population sample of youth in schools in lower income areas. The
study's main conclusion stated, ``Children with limited access to
specialized eye care must be provided with a mechanism for obtaining
these services.''
This disparity exists at the national level as well, and our minority
populations are especially underserved. A team of researchers from the
University of Michigan documented a national example of differential
access to vision treatment. Their research showed that minority
children and uninsured children are far less likely to get complete eye
exams or glasses. A study in January's Optometry and Vision Sciences
demonstrated that uninsured African American and Hispanic children were
far less likely to receive vision correction, and that this disparity
results from lack of services as opposed to less frequent occurrences
of eye problems in these populations.
A study by the Kaiser Commission on the Uninsured reveals that
uninsured
[[Page 17127]]
children are over five times more likely to have an unmet need for
medical care. According to a report by the Caring Foundation for
Children, 20 percent of uninsured children have untreated vision
problems. According to Prevent Blindness America data, 12.1 million
school-aged children have vision impairment. Among preschool-aged
children, more than 5 percent have a problem that can cause permanent
sight loss if left untreated, and almost 80 percent of that 5 percent
never get an exam. Another study by the Vision Council of America
reported that 40 percent of children who fail a vision screen do not
receive the recommended follow-up care. The same study found the
average delay between a failed screening and follow-up evaluation by an
eye-care professional was 4.1 years.
Most of our States are taking the important first step of identifying
young children with vision problems through mandatory vision screening.
This legislation simply takes the next step to help provide a remedy
for those children who cannot afford treatment.
______
By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Corzine):
S. 2751. A bill to encourage savings, promote financial literacy, and
expand opportunities for young adults by establishing KIDS Accounts; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am introducing ``The America
Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement, and Education (ASPIRE) Act
of 2004'' along with Senator Corzine. A bipartisan group of members is
introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The
bill creates a Kids Investment and Development Savings (KIDS) Account
for every child at birth and creates a new opportunity for the children
of low-income Americans to build assets and wealth.
This country has seen a growing number of Americans investing in the
stock market and has witnessed an historic boom in homeownership, which
has increased to a record high 68 percent. However, this growth in
assets has not reached every American. While many middle- and upper-
income families have increased their assets in the past decade, many
low-income families have not had the same financial success. A recent
study conducted by the Federal Reserve found that the median net worth
of families in the bottom 20 percent of the nation's income level was a
mere $7,900 an amount that is far too low to ensure a comfortable
economic future for their family. This challenge needs to be addressed
to ensure that lower income families have a significant opportunity to
accrue wealth and expand opportunities for their families.
Under this legislation, KIDS Accounts would be created after a child
is born and a Social Security number issued. A one-time $500 deposit
would automatically be placed into a KIDS account. Children from
households below the national median income would receive an additional
deposit of $500 at birth and would be eligible to receive dollar-for-
dollar matching funds up to $500 per year for voluntary contributions
to the account, which cannot exceed $1,000 per year. All funds grow
tax-free. Access to the account prior to age 18 would not be permitted,
but kids--in conjunction with their parents--would participate in
investment decisions and watch their money grow. When the young person
turns 18, he or she can use the accrued money for asset building
purposes such as education, homeownership, and retirement planning.
Accrued funds could also be rolled over into Roth IRA accounts to
expand investment options.
I would like to highlight what I view as the two major benefits of
this legislation. The first, and most apparent, is that this bill will
help give younger individuals, especially low-income Americans, a sound
financial start to begin their adult life. For example, a typical low-
income family making modest but steady contributions can create a KIDS
Account worth over $20,000 in 18 years. Second, and perhaps more
important, is that KIDS Accounts creates opportunities for all
Americans to become more financially literate. The account holders and
their guardians will choose from a list of possible investment funds
and will be able to watch their investment grow over time. All
Americans will have the opportunity to see first hand that a smart
investment now can grow over time into considerable wealth.
I believe that this bill could be a significant step forward in the
effort to expand asset opportunities to all Americans and encourage my
colleagues to support this bipartisan effort.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator
Santorum in introducing the ASPIRE Act of 2004, which would expand
opportunities for young adults, encourage savings, and promote
financial literacy, by establishing investment accounts, known as KIDS
Accounts, for every child in America.
ASPIRE is based largely on a similar initiative in the United Kingdom
developed by Prime Minister Tony Blair. Yet despite its British roots,
the proposal is based on the most basic of American values. By giving
every young person resources with which to get a start in life, ASPIRE
will help realize the American ideal of equal opportunity. And by
making every young person an investor, the proposal would encourage
self reliance, promote savings, and give every family a personal stake
in America's economy.
Under ASPIRE, an investment account would be established for every
American child upon receiving a Social Security number. Each account
would be funded initially with $500. Those with incomes less than the
national median would receive an additional contribution of up to $500,
and would receive a one-for-one government match for their first $500
of private contributions each year. Up to $1000 of after-tax private
contributions would be allowed annually from any source.
Funds would accumulate tax-free and could not be withdrawn for
purposes other than higher education until the child reaches the age of
18. At that point, funds could be withdrawn either for higher education
or for the purchase of a home. Funds left unspent would be saved for
retirement under rules similar to those that apply to Roth IRAs. Once
the account holder reaches the age of 30, the initial $500 government
contribution would have to be repaid, though exceptions could be made
to avoid undue hardship.
Accounts initially would be held by a government entity that would be
based on the successful Thrift Savings Plan, or TSP, which now manages
retirement accounts for Federal employees with relatively low
administrative costs. As with the TSP, investors would have a range of
investment options, such as a government securities fund, a fixed
income investment fund, and a common stock fund. However, once an
account holder reaches the age of 18, funds could be rolled over to a
KIDS Account held at a private institution.
It is difficult to understate the potential impact of giving every
American child a funded investment account of their own. For the first
time, every child will have a meaningful incentive to learn the basics
of investing, because they will have real resources to invest. For the
first time, even families with modest incomes will have a significant
incentive to save, to earn the government match. And, perhaps most
fundamentally, for the first time, every American child will grow up
knowing that when they reach adulthood, they will have the ability to
invest in themselves and in their own education. In short, every child
will have hope for a real future.
Considering its potentially significant social and individual
benefits, the ASPIRE Act requires an investment that is relatively
modest. It has been estimated that, when it becomes effective, the
bill's cost would represent only about one tenth of one percent of the
Federal budget. Yet the proposal differs from other proposals for new
spending or tax cuts because, for the first 18 years, it would not
reduce overall national savings at all. In that period, virtually every
dollar of outlays would be saved, and would be available to expand
long-term economic growth. In fact, the proposal would lead to an
increase in national savings because of its incentives for families to
save more. This would help create the economic growth we need to handle
the
[[Page 17128]]
added burdens associated with the impending retirement of the baby
boomers.
Senator Santorum and I have been working on this legislation for many
months, along with sponsors of identical legislation in the House,
Congressmen Harold Ford, Patrick Kennedy, Thomas Petri and Phil
English. In that process, we have been assisted by a broad range of
experts and other interested parties, for which I am very grateful.
However, I want to especially thank Ray Boshara and Reid Cramer of the
New America Foundation, who have been extraordinarily helpful in the
development of the legislation, and who have taken the lead in efforts
to promote this and other asset building initiatives.
I recognize that given the lateness of the session, it is unlikely
that this legislation will see action in the 108th Congress. However,
Senator Santorum and I are hopeful that those with an interest in the
proposal will review the language of the bill and give us feedback in
the coming months. We are open to suggestions for improvements and
expect to introduce a revised version of the legislation in the next
Congress.
The ASPIRE Act is a big new idea based on simple, old time American
values. It already enjoys strong bipartisan support from conservatives
and progressives, alike, in both houses of Congress. I look forward to
working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to secure its prompt
enactment.
______
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 2752. A bill to reform Federal budget procedures, to impose
spending safeguards, to combat waste, fraud, and abuse, to account for
accurate Government agency costs, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions
that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to
report or be discharged.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family Budget
Protection Act of 2004, legislation to help bring our Federal spending
under control. The companion to this bill, H.R. 3800, was introduced in
the House of Representatives earlier this year by Congressman Jeb
Hensarling of Texas, who has been joined by 103 cosponsors.
As all of our colleagues know, our Federal budget situation has been
under tremendous strain during the past several years. After enjoying
several years of actual and projected surpluses in the later part of
the last decade, we have unfortunately suffered a near perfect storm of
events that has drastically turned the budget situation from one of
sunny optimism to one of great concern. These events, of course,
include the recession that followed the bursting of the high tech
bubble and stock market adjustment, the corporate scandals, the tragic
events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent expenditures for the
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the need for increased spending for
homeland security.
The result of these events, combined with the tax cuts that were
necessary to get the economy back on a solid path of growth, have had a
devastating effect on the Federal budget and its outlook. While I fully
support President Bush's initiatives for pursuing the war on terror and
protecting our homeland, along with his plan for helping the economy
recover, which has obviously worked, I am very concerned about our
Federal budget and in finding a way to get it back to balance.
Much of what has happened to our budget has been unavoidable, given
the events of the past few years. In my view, we have simply had no
choice but to spend the money necessary to fight the war on terror and
improve our homeland security. Moreover, we will have to keep spending
significant sums for these purposes. After all, providing for our
national security has to be our first and highest priority.
I also believe that the tax cuts of 2001, 2002, and 2003 were all
necessary to our future prosperity. In order to get our economy growing
again and get our people back to work, we needed the economic stimulus
that these tax cuts provided.
Not surprisingly, some of my colleagues point the finger solely at
these tax cuts as the culprit for our Federal deficits. In fact,
according to reports recently released by the Congressional Budget
Office, the tax cuts accounted for only 24 percent of CBO's $2.9
billion deficit projection between 2002 and 2011. CBO also estimated
that increased spending on entitlement programs and legislated spending
increases, particularly homeland security measures, accounted for 76
percent of the deficit projection over this same period. The tax cuts
did contribute to the deficit; however, they were crucial to the recent
economic recovery we are experiencing.
However, there are other factors that have been and are continuing to
contribute to growing deficits that are not vital to our national
security or future prosperity. What I am talking about here is the
growing tendency for Congress to spend money unnecessarily on various
other projects that have far less merit. And, I am talking about the
fraud and waste that continues to plague our government.
It seems that just about every time I return home to the State of
Utah, I talk with Utah taxpayers who want to know why, given our
deteriorating budget circumstances, Congress is not doing more to rein
in excess spending. I find that Utahns, like other Americans, are
generally willing to pay the high price of fighting the war on terror
and of protecting our homeland. But no one wants to pay for wasteful
spending or projects that are not necessary. Utahns are increasingly
wondering why more cannot be done to ensure that their hard-earned
dollars are not going to be wasted or misspent. I believe this bill
goes a long ways toward addressing these concerns.
I recognize that it is always tempting to buy now and pay later,
extend budget deficits, and increase the size and scope of our
government. And, I realize that a government the size of ours is always
going to have some fraud and waste associated with it. However, this
irresponsible spending and this fraud and waste in government are
mortgaging our children's future and shrinking our Nation's dynamic
private sector. High deficits and the mountain of Federal debt
represent real obligations that hurt our economic security and our
ability to prosper, both now and in the future.
I believe that a large part of the problem with this unwarranted
spending, and with this fraud and waste, is rooted in the Federal
budget process itself. The current budget process is overly
complicated, and in many respects, largely incomprehensible. More
importantly, it encourages overspending. There is no doubt that its
systemic problems contribute largely to our budget deficits.
The Family Budget Protection Act is an opportunity to overhaul a
Federal budget process that desperately needs revision. It is an
opportunity to tilt the process away from more spending and fraud and
waste toward a more responsible way of determining where the taxpayers
hard-earned tax dollars are to be spent.
I think Congressman Hensarling may have said it best when he noted
that Washington clearly has a spending problem, not a taxing problem.
It is irresponsible for us to continue to demand more money from
taxpayers when we continue to flush much of that money straight down
the drain by funding wasteful, useless, antiquated, or unnecessary
government projects.
I recognize that it is very late in the second session of the 108th
Congress and that in this very partisan election year, not much more
legislation is likely to be approved. I also recognize that some of the
provisions of this bill are controversial and that the House of
Representatives recently defeated a bill that included some of these
provisions. However, I believe it is important to lay before the Senate
this year a comprehensive set of budget reform provisions, and to
introduce in this body a budget reform concept bill that can be
debated, discussed, examined over the next few months, and built upon
in the 109th Congress.
[[Page 17129]]
Some of the major features of this legislation would accomplish the
following:
Provide a Joint Budget Resolution. The Family Budget Protection Act
would change the concurrent budget resolution into a joint budget
resolution that is signed by the President and has the force of law.
This provision would enable both the President and Congress to commit
to the same budget before spending any money that year. Our current
budget procedure does not bring Congress and the President to settle on
even a basic budget framework until the very end of the process when
the government is on the verge of shutting down.
Simplify the Budget. This bill would simplify the current budget into
a one-page budget by replacing the current 20 budget functions with
established spending levels for only four broad categories--mandatory
spending, non-defense and defense discretionary spending, and a rainy
day fund for emergencies.
Establish a Rainy Day Fund. This bill would abolish the practice of
designating spending as ``emergency spending,'' which is a practice
often used to avoid spending safeguards. Spending for true emergencies
would be paid for through a ``rainy day'' fund. All spending that is
incurred through the ``rainy day'' fund must be defined as sudden,
urgent, unforeseen, and temporary. Emergencies that exhaust the rainy
day fund would be permissible if they were able to overcome a
supermajority point of order lying against them.
Set Up Government Shut-Down Protections. The Family Budget Protection
Act would provide government shutdown protection through an automatic
continuing resolution in the event that an agreement between Congress
and the President on spending levels was not reached by the legal
deadline. In order to avoid simple inaction by Congress, Federal
agencies would receive one percent less funding each quarter the
government operated under a continuing resolution.
Provide a Two-Thirds Supermajority Vote. New pay-go rules would be
established setting up points of order against spending not included in
the budget. This bill would raise the bar for points of order to
require a two-thirds supermajority vote (rather than the current three-
fifths), in both the House and the Senate, to sanction over-budget
spending and spending in violation of the caps.
Set Up Spending Caps. The bill would limit growth in entitlement
spending to the current inflationary adjustment for each program and
growth in population. The bill would also set discretionary spending
caps that would allow spending to grow for inflation, with a firewall
separating defense, nondefense, and emergency spending. These spending
caps would be protected by points of order and enforced with an across-
the board sequester if breached.
Establish Family Budget Protection Accounts. Perhaps one of the most
common-sense provisions of the Family Budget Protection Act would be
the establishment of Family Budget Protection Accounts. These accounts
would allow Congress to target spending during the appropriations
process and redirect that spending for family tax relief or deficit
reduction at the end of the fiscal year.
Combat Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. Under the Family Budget Protection
Act, every voluntary entitlement program and all discretionary programs
would be sunset in fiscal year 2008 and 2009 to allow for a thorough
cost-benefit analysis to see whether they still merit Federal funding.
Entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare Part A, and
Federal retiree benefits would be exempt from this sunset. The bill
would also set up a commission to submit recommendations on how to
eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. The commission's recommendation
would either be approved or rejected by Congress as a package,
eliminating votes on changes to individual programs. Unlike past
proposals, this provision would include defense and entitlement
spending in its assessment. The bill would also initiate enhanced
rescission authority for the President to propose the elimination of
wasteful spending identified in any appropriations bill. The
President's proposal would be transmitted to Congress and provided
expedited consideration through the legislative process.
The runaway freight train mentality of our Federal government
spending simply cannot continue. It is imperative that we move to make
these common-sense budget reforms while we are still in a position to
do so--rather than continuing to let it control us.
I believe that strong economic growth, combined with tightly
controlled spending, are the keys to reducing the deficit and getting
the Federal budget in balance again. Although much more needs to be
done, we have made great strides in restoring strong economic growth.
Along with our continued focus on providing for our national security
and fighting the war on terror, I suggest to my colleagues that now is
the time to turn our attention to controlling spending. I have no doubt
that the reforms included in the Family Budget Protection Act can make
a significant contribution to this goal, and I recommend it to my
fellow senators for their study and consideration.
______
By Mr. SMITH:
S. 2753. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development to insure zero-downpayment mortgages; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to further the cause of
affordable homeownership in America. I am proud of all that we have
done to increase opportunities for homeownership, however I hope that
no member of this body makes the mistake of believing that the fight is
over. I am very proud of the 68.6 percent rate of homeownership we
enjoy in America today but millions of American families are unable to
take advantage of the many benefits of homeownership. One of the
greatest obstacles for these Americans is the minimum down payment. The
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) provides loans to many 1st time
homebuyers who otherwise would struggle to qualify, yet many working
class families are still overwhelmed at the prospect of saving
thousands of dollars for the 3 percent minimum down payment. This
legislation will help make homeownership become a reality for those
Americans.
The Zero Downpayment Act of 2004 will allow families who seek FHA-
insured loans to include the downpayment in their loan amount. These
borrowers will still have to meet FHA credit qualifications and will
pay a slightly higher annual interest rate to cover the cost of the
program. Borrowers will also be required to receive counseling to
ensure they are ready for the financial responsibilities associated
with homeownership. This legislation provides a wonderful opportunity
for those Americans who are on the edge of homeownership to begin
building better lives and neighborhoods all over the country.
As members of the United States Senate we each spend a good amount of
time meeting with people of all walks of life. I am introducing this
legislation today, because it can change lives, and give people a
chance to experience a better life. I hope my colleagues will join me
in the fight to give every American the opportunity to become a
homeowner. The Zero Downpayment Act of 2004 is an important step in
that process and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed immediately
following my remarks.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2753
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Zero Downpayment Act of
2004''.
SEC. 2. INSURANCE FOR ZERO-DOWNPAYMENT MORTGAGES.
(a) Mortgage Insurance Authority.--Section 203 of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709) is amended by inserting
after subsection (k) the following:
[[Page 17130]]
``(l) Zero-Downpayment Mortgages.--
``(1) Insurance authority.--The Secretary may insure, and
commit to insure, under this subsection any mortgage that
meets the requirements of--
``(A) this subsection; and
``(B) except as otherwise specifically provided in this
subsection, subsection (b).
``(2) Eligible single family property.--To be eligible for
insurance under this subsection, a mortgage shall involve a
property upon which there is located a dwelling that is
designed principally for a 1- to 4-family residence, and
that, notwithstanding subsection (g), is to be occupied by
the mortgagor as his or her principal residence, which shall
include--
``(A) a 1-family dwelling unit in a multifamily project and
an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities
which serve the project;
``(B) a 1-family dwelling unit of a cooperative housing
corporation, the permanent occupancy of the dwelling units of
which is restricted to members of such corporation and in
which the purchase of stock or membership entitles the
purchaser to the permanent occupancy of such dwelling unit;
and
``(C) a manufactured home, or a manufactured home together
with a suitably developed lot on which to place the
manufactured home.
``(3) Maximum principal obligation.--
``(A) Limitation.--To be eligible for insurance under this
subsection, a mortgage shall involve a principal obligation
in an amount not in excess of 100 percent of the appraised
value of the property, plus any initial service charges,
appraisal, inspection, and other fees in connection with the
mortgage as approved by the Secretary.
``(B) Inapplicability of other loan-to-value
requirements.--A mortgage insured under this subsection shall
not be subject to subsection (b)(2)(B), or to the
undesignated matter that follows such subsection.
``(4) Eligible mortgagors.--The mortgagor under a mortgage
insured under this subsection shall meet the following
requirements:
``(A) First-time homebuyer.--The mortgagor shall be a
first-time homebuyer. The program for mortgage insurance
under this subsection shall be considered a Federal program
to assist first-time homebuyers for purposes of section 956
of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42
U.S.C. 12713).
``(B) Counseling.--
``(i) Requirement.--The mortgagor shall have received
counseling, by a third party (other than the mortgagee or any
party related directly or indirectly to the mortgagee) who is
approved by the Secretary, with respect to the
responsibilities and financial management involved in
homeownership.
``(ii) Topics.--Counseling required under clause (i) shall
include providing to, and discussing with, the mortgagor--
``(I) information regarding homeownership options other
than a mortgage insured under this subsection, other zero- or
low-downpayment mortgage options that are or may become
available to the mortgagor, the financial implications of
entering into a mortgage (including a mortgage insured under
this subsection), and any other information that the
Secretary may require; and
``(II) a document that sets forth the amount and the
percentage by which the property subject to the mortgage must
appreciate for the mortgagor to recover the principal amount
of the mortgage, the costs financed under the mortgage, and
the estimated costs involved in selling the property, if the
mortgagor were to sell the property on each of the second,
fifth, and tenth anniversaries of the mortgage.
``(iii) 2- to 4-family residences.--In the case of a
mortgage involving a 2- to 4-family residence, counseling
required under clause (i) shall include (in addition to the
information required under clause (ii)) information regarding
the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants.
``(5) Option for notice of foreclosure prevention
counseling availability.--
``(A) Option.--To be eligible for insurance under this
section, the mortgagee shall provide the mortgagor, at the
time of the execution of the mortgage, an optional written
agreement which, if signed by the mortgagor, allows, but does
not require, the mortgagee to provide notice in accordance
with subparagraph (B) to a housing counseling entity,
approved by the Secertary, that has agreed to provide the
notice and counseling required under subparagraph (C).
``(B) Notice to counseling agency.--Notice provided under
subparagraph (A) shall--
``(i) be provided at the earliest time practicable after
the mortgagor becomes 60 days delinquent with respect to any
payment due under the mortgage;
``(ii) state that the mortgagor is delinquent and set forth
how to contact the mortgagor; and
``(iii) be provided once with respect to each delinquency
period for a mortgage.
``(C) Notice to mortgagor.--Upon notice from a mortgagee
that a mortgagor is 60 days delinquent with respect to
payments due under the mortgage, the housing counseling
entity shall immediately notify the mortgagor of such
delinquency, that the entity makes available foreclosure
prevention counseling that may assist the mortgagor in
resolving the delinquency, and of how to contact the entity
to arrange for such counseling.
``(D) Ability to cure.--Failure to provide the optional
written agreement required under subparagraph (A) may be
corrected by sending such agreement to the mortgagor at the
earliest time practicable after the mortgagor first becomes
60 days delinquent with respect to payments due under the
mortgage. Insurance provided under this subsection may not be
terminated and penalties for such failure may not be
prospectively or retroactively imposed if such failure is
corrected in accordance with this subparagraph.
``(E) Penalties for failure to provide agreement.--The
Secretary may establish appropriate penalties for failure of
a mortgagee to provide the optional written agreement
required under subparagraph (A).
``(F) Limitation on liability of mortgagee.--A mortgagee
shall not incur any liability or penalties for any failure of
a housing counseling entity to provide notice under
subparagraph (C).
``(G) No private right of action.--This section shall not
create any private right of action on behalf of the
mortgagor.
``(H) Delinquency period.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `delinquency period' means, with respect to a
mortgage, a period that begins upon the mortgagor becoming
delinquent with respect to payments due under the mortgage,
and ends upon the first subsequent occurrence of such
payments under the mortgage becoming current or the property
subject to the mortgage being foreclosed or otherwise
disposed of.
``(6) Inapplicability of downpayment requirement.--A
mortgage insured under this subsection shall not be subject
to subsection (b)(9) or any other requirement to pay on
account of the property, in cash or its equivalent, any
amount of the cost of acquisition.
``(7) Premiums.--In conjunction with the credit subsidy
estimation calculated each year pursuant to the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the
Secretary shall review the program performance for mortgages
insured under this subsection and make any necessary
adjustments to ensure that the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund
shall continue to generate a negative credit subsidy which
may include--
``(A) altering mortgage insurance premiums subject to
subsection (c)(2);
``(B) reviewing underwriting policies; and
``(C) limiting the availability of mortgage insurance under
this subsection.
``(8) Underwriting.--For a mortgage to be eligible for
insurance under this subsection, the mortgagor's credit and
ability to pay the monthly mortgage payments shall have been
evaluated using the Federal Housing Administration's
Technology Open To Approved Lenders (TOTAL) Mortgage
Scorecard, or a similar standardized credit scoring system
approved by the Secretary, and in accordance with procedures
established by the Secretary.
``(9) Approval of mortgagees.--To be eligible for insurance
under this subsection, a mortgage shall have been made to a
mortgagee that meets such criteria as the Secretary shall
establish to ensure that mortgagees meet appropriate
standards for participation in the program authorized under
this subsection.
``(10) Disclosure of incremental costs.--For a mortgage to
be eligible for insurance under this subsection, the
mortgagee shall provide to the mortgagor, at the time of the
application for the loan involved in the mortgage, a written
disclosure, as the Secretary shall require, that specifies
the effective cost to a mortgagor of borrowing the amount by
which the maximum amount that could be borrowed under a
mortgage insured under this subsection exceeds the maximum
amount that could be borrowed under a mortgage insured under
subsection (b), based on average closing costs with respect
to such amount, as determined by the Secretary. Such cost
shall be expressed as an annual interest rate over the first
5 years of a mortgage.
``(11) Loss mitigation.--
``(A) In general.--Upon the default of any mortgage insured
under this subsection, the mortgagee shall engage in loss
mitigation actions for the purpose of providing an
alternative to foreclosure to the same extent as is required
of other mortgages insured under this title pursuant to the
regulations issued under section 230(a).
``(B) Annual reporting.--Not later than 90 days after the
end of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit a report
to Congress that compares the rates of default and
foreclosure during such fiscal year for mortgages insured
under this subsection, for single-family mortgages insured
under this title (other than under this subsection), and for
mortgages for housing purchased with assistance provided
under the downpayment assistance initiative under section 271
of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42
U.S.C. 12821).
``(12) Additional requirements.--The Secretary may
establish any additional requirements for mortgage insurance
under this subsection as may be necessary or appropriate.
``(13) Limitation.--The aggregate number of mortgages
insured under this section in
[[Page 17131]]
any fiscal year may not exceed 30 percent of the aggregate
number of mortgages and loans insured by the Secretary under
this title during the preceding fiscal year.
``(14) Program suspension.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (C), the
authority under paragraph (1) to insure mortgages shall be
suspended if at any time the claim rate described in
subparagraph (B) exceeds 3.5 percent. A suspension under this
subparagraph shall remain in effect until such time as such
claim rate is 3.5 percent or less.
``(B) FHA total single-family annual claim rate.--The claim
rate under subparagraph (A), for any particular time, shall
be the ratio of the number of claims during the 12 months
preceding such time on mortgages on 1- to 4-family residences
insured pursuant to this title, to the number of mortgages on
such residences having such insurance in-force at that time.
``(C) Applicability.--A suspension under subparagraph (A)
shall not preclude the Secretary from endorsing or insuring
any mortgage that was duly executed before the date of such
suspension.
``(15) Sunset.--No mortgage may be insured under this
section after September 30, 2011, except that the Secretary
may endorse or insure any mortgage that was duly executed
before such date.
``(16) GAO reports.--Not later than 2 years after the date
of enactment of the Zero Downpayment Act of 2004, and
annually thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit a report to Congress regarding the
performance of mortgages insured under this subsection.
``(17) Implementation.--The Secretary may implement this
subsection on an interim basis by issuing interim rules,
except that the Secretary shall solicit public comments upon
publication of such interim rules and shall issue final rules
implementing this subsection after consideration of the
comments submitted.''.
(b) Mortgage Insurance Premiums.--The second sentence of
subparagraph (A) of section 203(c)(2)(A) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(c)(2)(A)) is amended by striking
``In'' and inserting ``Except with respect to a mortgage
insured under subsection (l), in''.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Johnson,
Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Leahy):
S. 2754. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to protect social
security cost-of-living adjustments (COLA); to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 8 months ago, the Republican leadership
pushed through Congress a lemon of a Medicare prescription drug bill
that has been breaking down part by part since the day it was passed.
First, we learned drug companies were raising the prices of many
drugs, erasing what little discounts the administration's drug card
program might have offered.
Next, we learned the administration concealed its cost estimates,
misled Congress, and threatened the Medicare actuary with termination
for trying to respond to Congressional requests for information.
Then, we heard that some seniors who enrolled in the program were
going to see reductions in other benefits, such as food stamps.
Later, days after the Drug Card program began, seniors from across
the country began to report that it was too confusing and studies
revealed there were lower prices available from major online
pharmacies.
Finally, we learned that the HHS website established to help seniors
navigate their way through the labyrinth of the myriad cards was
riddled with false information.
The most recent discovery, however, is the most troubling of all,
because what we're talking about is not policy breakdown, but policy
sabotage.
Let me explain: Every senior has his or her Medicare Part B premium
withdrawn from their Social Security check. But when the increase in
health care inflation began to outpace seniors' Social Security cost of
living adjustments, Congress protected seniors by making it impossible
for a senior's Medicare premiums to go up more than the value of his or
her Social Security COLA. It's called the ``hold harmless'' protection,
and it makes a simple promise to seniors: The cost of health care will
not come at the expense of the cost of living.
We have now learned that behind closed doors and in the dark of
night, Republican leaders undermined this promise. Like Part B
premiums, the new prescription drug premiums will come out of a
senior's Social Security check. But unlike in traditional Medicare, the
new drug bill does not protect seniors with a ``hold harmless''
provision.
It was never mentioned in the debate and no one has stepped forward
to take responsibility in the months since. But if we don't fix the
problem, it will eventually result in the decimation of seniors' Social
Security annual cost of living adjustment.
Never have these protections been more important. In the past several
years, the consumer price index, on which Social Security COLAs are
pegged, has remained very low. At the same time, the cost of health
care has been skyrocketing by double-digit percentages. In the 4 years
of this administration, the cumulative increase in the Medicare monthly
premiums will be at least $26, nearly twice as much as in the prior
eight years under the Clinton administration. In addition, the Medicare
Part B premium increase for 2005 is projected to be $114, the largest
ever.
For seniors on a fixed income, every dollar counts. The hold harmless
protection is the only thing standing in the way of lower and lower
Social Security checks.
But the Republican leadership chose not to protect seniors in this
drug bill, despite the fact that the cost of pharmaceuticals is
increasing even faster than the cost of health care overall. Medicare
Part D premiums are expected to rise 7.5 percent per year. The result
will be a steady erosion of Social Security checks, and real damage to
seniors' ability to pay their bills and keep up with inflation.
According to a new report by the Joint Economic Committee, one in
four seniors will lose a quarter of their COLA just on Medicare premium
increases by 2007. In 2014, nearly two in three seniors will see the
same level of loss. And those most vulnerable will be the ones most
severely harmed. For an elderly woman with a monthly benefit of $500,
the increase in Medicare premiums will take an average of 60 percent of
her COLA from 2007 to 2010, and an average of 66 percent from 2011 to
2014.
Let's not mince words. This is the worst kind of bait and switch. We
cannot stand by and allow seniors to be cheated out of their cost of
living increases in exchange for a confusing drug benefit that fails to
bring down the cost of drugs.
Today, I am introducing the Social Security COLA Protection Act of
2004 to make sure that senior citizens continue to receive a COLA that
helps them keep pace with inflation. This bill would restore seniors'
protections and ensure that no more than 25 percent of their annual
COLAs could be taken away by increases in Medicare premiums. The
remaining 75 percent would be secure. For a senior citizen receiving a
$600 monthly benefit, this bill would protect more than $2,200 over the
next 10 years. That's money seniors will need to cover increases in
clothing, food, housing and energy prices.
We're not talking about adding an extra benefit to Social Security.
We're talking about protecting seniors' existing benefit from a drug
plan that appears now to be little more than a wolf in sheep's
clothing.
This wasn't the prescription drug bill seniors were promised. Upon
the passage of this bill, President Bush said, ``Some older Americans
spend much of their Social Security checks just on their medications.
. . . Elderly Americans should not have to live with those kinds of
fears and hard choices. This new law will ease the burden on seniors
and will give them the extra help they need.''
As we have seen so often, there has been a gap between what this
administration promised, and what it delivered. In the guise of easing
one burden on seniors, the administration has added yet another.
I wish the White House and the Republican leadership in Congress had
listened more closely to some of the voices of seniors during the
debate last Fall. One man from Nashville, Tennessee looked at the
details of this bill
[[Page 17132]]
and asked, ``Do you think anybody in Washington has any idea what
people on a limited income have to do to live?''
If the authors of the prescription drug bill truly understood what
seniors on fixed incomes must go through, they never would have passed
it.
Democrats are fighting to make things right again. We do understand
the struggles of America's seniors and the burden drug costs put on
their finances. Seniors were promised a real prescription drug benefit
for Medicare. The Republicans' prescription drug bill has proven to be
tragically inadequate. The COLA protection bill we are introducing
today represents an important step in repairing the damage, and
Democrats will keep fighting until seniors get the help they were
promised and the benefit they deserve.
I want to thank the Joint Economic Committee Democrats for their
efforts to identify and highlight this problem. Senator Jack Reed is
the senior Democratic Senator on the Committee, and the lead cosponsor
of the COLA protection bill. Senator Patty Murray joined us in
highlighting the problem yesterday. She is also a cosponsor, along with
five other Senate Democrats.
This is truly a bicameral effort. My South Dakota colleague,
Stephanie Herseth, is sponsoring the House bill. This is the first bill
she is introducing in Congress, and I am proud that she is helping lead
this fight for seniors in South Dakota and across the country. Many
other House Democrats are joining her in this effort.
Senator Reed will be inserting the JEC report into the Record. I
encourage my colleagues to read it. I ask unanimous consent to print in
the Record a fact sheet on the bill that was prepared by Representative
Pelosi's office, as well as a document prepared by the House Ways and
Means Committee staff that provides several illustrative examples of
how the bill would work, how much retirees would save if it becomes
law, and what percentage of Medicare enrollees will benefit. I also ask
unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
We will continue our effort to protect America's seniors and address
the problems created by last year's prescription drug bill when
Congress returns in the fall.
There being no objection, the material was ordered printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2754
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 ``Social Security COLA
Protection Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY COLA INCREASES AGAINST
EXCESSIVE MEDICARE PREMIUM INCREASES.
(a) Application to Part B Premiums.--Section 1839(f) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395r(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(f) For any calendar year after 1988''
and inserting ``(f)(1) For any calendar year after 1988 and
before 2005''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) For any calendar year (beginning with 2005), if an
individual is entitled to monthly benefits under section 202
or 223 or to a monthly annuity under section 3(a), 4(a), or
4(f) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 for November and
December of the preceding year, if the monthly premium of the
individual under this section for December of the preceding
year and for January of the year involved is deducted from
those benefits under section 1840(a)(1) or section
1840(b)(1), and if the amount of the individual's premium is
not adjusted for January of the year involved under
subsection (i), the monthly premium otherwise determined
under this section for the individual for that year shall not
be increased pursuant to subsection (a)(3) to an amount that
exceeds 25 percent of the amount of the increase in such
monthly benefits for that individual attributable to section
215(i).''.
(b) Application to Part D Premiums.--
(1) In general.--Section 1860D-13(a)(1) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1395ww-113(a)(1)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``(D) and (E),'' and
inserting ``(D), (E), and (F),'';
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new
subparagraph:
``(F) Protection of social security cola increase.--For any
calendar year, if an individual is entitled to monthly
benefits under section 202 or 223 or to a monthly annuity
under section 3(a), 4(a), or 4(f) of the Railroad Retirement
Act of 1974 for November and December of the preceding year
and was enrolled under a PDP plan or MA-PD plan for such
months, the base beneficiary premium otherwise applied under
this paragraph for the individual for months in that year
shall be decreased by the amount (if any) by which the sum of
the amounts described in the following clauses (i) and (ii)
exceeds 25 percent of the amount of the increase in such
monthly benefits for that individual attributable to section
215(i):
``(i) Part d premium increase factor.--
``(I) In general.--Except as provided in this clause, the
amount of the increase (if any) in the adjusted national
average monthly bid amount (as determined under subparagraph
(B)(iii)) for a month in the year over such amount for a
month in the preceding year.
``(II) No application to full premium subsidy
individuals.--In the case of an individual enrolled for a
premium subsidy under section 1860D-14(a)(1), zero.
``(III) Special rule for partial premium subsidy
individuals.--In the case of an individual enrolled for a
premium subsidy under section 1860D-14(a)(2), a percent of
the increase described in subclause (I) equal to 100 percent
minus the percent applied based on the linear scale under
such section.
``(ii) Part b premium increase factor.--If the individual
is enrolled for such months under part B--
``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II),
the amount of the annual increase in premium effective for
such year resulting from the application of section
1839(a)(3), as reduced (if any) under section 1839(f)(2).
``(II) No application to individuals participating in
medicare savings program.--In the case of an individual who
is enrolled for medical assistance under title XIX for
medicare cost-sharing described in section 1905(p)(3)(A)(ii),
zero.''.
(2) Application under medicare advantage program.--Section
1854(b)(2)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-24(b)(2)(B)), as
in effect as of January 1, 2006, relating to MA monthly
prescription drug beneficiary premium, is amended by
inserting after ``as adjusted under section 1860D-
13(a)(1)(B)'' the following: ``and section 1860D-
13(a)(1)(F)''.
(3) Payment from medicare prescription drug account.--
Section 1860D-16(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-116(b)) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(ii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) payment under paragraph (5) of premium reductions
effected under section 1860D-13(a)(1)(F).''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Payment for cola protection premium reductions.--
``(A) In general.--In addition to payments provided under
section 1860D-15 to a PDP sponsor or an MA organization, in
the case of each part D eligible individual who is enrolled
in a prescription drug plan offered by such sponsor or an MA-
PD plan offered by such organization and who has a premium
reduced under section 1860D-13(a)(1)(F), the Secretary shall
provide for payment to such sponsor or organization of an
amount equivalent to the amount of such premium reduction.
``(B) Application of provisions.--The provisions of
subsections (d) and (f) of section 1860D-15 (relating to
payment methods and disclosure of information) shall apply to
payment under subparagraph (A) in the same manner as they
apply to payments under such section.''.
(c) Disregard of Premium Reductions in Determining
Dedicated Revenues Under MMA Cost Containment.--Section
801(c)(3)(D) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement,
and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173) is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``Such premiums shall
also be determined without regard to any reductions effected
under section 1839(f)(2) or 1860D-13(a)(1)(F) of such
title.''.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) Part b premium.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
apply to premiums for months beginning with January 2005.
(2) Part d premium.--The amendments made by subsection (b)
apply to premiums for months beginning with January 2007.
(3) MMA provision.--The amendment made by subsection (c)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Democrats Fight to Protect Social Security COLA: Report Shows GOP Rx
Drug Law Would Lead to Social Security Cuts
Approximately 30 million middle income seniors are enrolled
in Social Security and Medicare, and rely on the annual
Social Security cost of living increases (COLAs) that help
them keep up with the rising cost of groceries, food and
housing. Yet medical inflation is rising rapidly, and
Medicare premium increases will soon consume the entire
Social Security COLA. If nothing is done, escalating drug
prices will lead to real cuts in
[[Page 17133]]
the Social Security benefit as a result of new Part D premium
increases in 2007 and beyond. Today, Democrats are unveiling
a bill to limit how much rising Medicare premiums can impact
seniors' COLAs.
Social Security COLAs are vital to seniors and the
disabled. Millions of Americans rely on their Social Security
check each month to make ends meet. Each fall, millions of
retirees wait anxiously to learn what the Social Security
COLA will be for the coming year--because each dollar is
needed to balance their budget.
Republican Medicare bill will dramatically reduce Social
Security COLAs. Under the GOP Rx drug law, some seniors will
have an additional Medicare premium (``Part D'') deducted
from their Social Security check. With both the new Medicare
Part D premium (for prescription drugs) and the existing Part
B premiums (for physician and other outpatient care) deducted
from a retiree's Social Security check, Social Security COLAs
will be significantly eroded. According to a new report by
the Democratic staff of the Joint Economic Committee, when
the new drug benefit is in place in 2007 almost one-quarter
of Social Security beneficiaries will spend over 25 percent
of their COLA just on increases in Medicare premiums--and the
number will increase to 64 percent (22 million seniors and
people with disabilities) in 2014. For an elderly woman with
a monthly benefit of $500, the increase in Medicare premiums
will absorb almost 60 percent of the COLA from 2007-2010, and
69 percent from 2011-2014.
Making a bad problem worse. The goal of the Social Security
COLA is to maintain the purchasing power of the benefit check
in the face of rising prices. But that objective is
undermined if Medicare premiums, which are typically deducted
from Social Security checks, increase rapidly. Medical
inflation and increased utilization of outpatient services is
already increasing Part B premiums, but current law ensures
at least that total Social Security benefits do not go down.
By refusing to extend this same protection to the new Part D
premiums, and refusing to control drug prices, Republicans
have made a difficult situation even worse. While the Social
Security COLA only increases at the rate of inflation, the
premiums beneficiaries face under Part D will increase by the
rate of increase in drug prices. According to CBO
projections, Part D premiums will increase by an average of
7.5 percent a year from 2006 to 2014--a far greater rate of
increase than that expected for Part B or the Social Security
COLA.
Current protection needs improvement. The 2004 Medicare
Trustees Report projects that monthly Part B premiums will
rise by a record $11.50 for 2005--a one-year increase of more
than 17 percent. Given the increased pressures to increase
physician payments and the trend of shifting more services to
outpatient settings, which increase Part B premiums--and the
new costs of Part D--it is important to act now to protect a
portion of the COLA for seniors' basic needs.
Democrats' bill will protect Social Security. Democrats'
``Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2004'' would ensure
that no more than 25 percent of a beneficiary's annual COLA
could be taken away by increases in Medicare premiums. Doing
so would guarantee that seniors and the disabled retain at
least 75 percent of the COLA to cover price increases in
other goods and services, such as food, clothing, housing and
energy costs. In 2007, the legislation would help over 14
million Social Security recipients. By 2014, it will help
more than two-thirds of seniors and people with disabilities,
approximately 23 million Americans.
____
How the COLA Protection Bill Works
Example 1. Widow with $500 in monthly Social Security
benefits in 2004
Her annual Social Security benefit is $6,000, and the COLA
will increase her income by $162 in 2005 (a 2.7 percent
increase).
However, Medicare Part B premiums are projected to rise by
at least $114 that year. Without the bill's protection, a
premium increase of $114 will eat up 70 percent of her COLA.
With the bill's protection, only 25 percent of her COLA
will be absorbed by Medicare premium increases, leaving 75
percent ($122 per year) to cover other increases in her cost
of living. The bill preserves an additional $74 of COLA to be
used for other expenses.
By 2009, the bill will save $197 of her COLA. In 2014, $545
of her COLA will be protected. Over 10 years, the projected
total savings for this beneficiary will reach $2,615.
Example 2. Retired couple with $1,100 in combined monthly
Social Security benefits in 2004.
Their annual benefits are $13,200: $8,400 for the husband
and $4,800 for the wife. A 2.7 percent COLA would increase
their income by $356 in 2005.
However, the Medicare Part B premiums paid by this couple
are projected to rise by at least $228 in 2005. Without the
bill's protection, a premium increase of $228 will eat up 64
percent of their combined COLA.
With the bill's protection, only 25 percent of their COLAs
will be absorbed by Medicare premium increases, leaving 75
percent ($267 per year) to cover other increases in their
cost of living. The bill preserves an additional $139 of COLA
to be used for other expenses.
By 2009, the bill will protect $358 of their COLA. In 2014,
$1,016 of their COLA will be protected. Over 10 years, the
projected total savings for this couple will reach $4,829.
How much would others save?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Savings Average
Annual benefit amount over 10 annual
years savings\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$7,200 ($600 per month)....................... $2,213 $221
$9,000 ($750 per month)....................... 1,611 161
$9,600 ($800 per month)....................... 1,410 140
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The particular amount in each year could differ from this average
because each year, the amount of protection provided by the bill would
depend on the interaction between the Medicare premium increase and
that individual's COLA increase. If the premium increase is large
while the COLA is small, savings would be larger. If the premium
increase is modest while the COLA is large, then savings would be
smaller.
What fraction of those who pay Medicare premiums would
benefit from the bill?
2005: 90 percent (This is a year when many beneficiaries
will need protection to prevent their COLA from being
swallowed by Medicare premium increases, because the premium
increase is projected to be the largest ever); 2007: 47
percent; 2009: 64 percent; 2011: 68 percent; 2014: 67
percent.
Ways and Means Democratic Staff
July 20, 2004, 10 a.m.
Joint Economic Committee Democrats
Representative Pete Stark (D-CA)--Senior Democrat
Rising Medicare Premiums Undermine the Social Security COLA
new medicare law could cut benefits for some
(Economic Policy Brief--July 2004)
Unlike most private pensions and other forms of retirement
annuity income, Social Security, benefits include an annual
cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) that is designed to prevent
an erosion of benefits due to inflation. Unfortunately,
rising health care costs and last year's Medicare law
threaten this valuable cost-of-living protection.
background
In 1975 Congress replaced ad hoc increases in Social
Security benefits with an automatic COLA based on the
previous year's change in the consumer price index (CPI). The
CPI is an index of prices paid by the typical consumer for a
representative bundle of goods and services. The goal of the
COLA is to ensure that Social Security benefits keep pace
with increases in the price of food, clothing, and other
necessities--including medical care--so that seniors and
other beneficiaries can maintain a stable quality-of-life.
Participants in Medicare Part B, which covers doctors'
services, pay a monthly premium that is deducted from their
Social Security check. So too will most participants in
Medicare Part D, the new prescription drug program. The size
of the premiums is based on projected costs for those
respective programs. During periods of rapidly rising health
care costs, increases in Medicare premiums can represent a
significant fraction of the overall Social Security COLA for
many Social Security beneficiaries. With the latest Medicare
changes, some may even see their benefits cut as their
premium increases outpace their COLAs.
Current law puts a limit on the extent to which growth in
Medicare Part B premiums can erode the purchasing power of an
individual's Social Security benefit. The ``hold harmless''
provision guarantees that the increase in a person's Part B
premium will not be larger than that person's COLA. This
ensures that the dollar amount of the benefit received after
deducting the Part B premium will never be reduced, but it
does not guarantee that the purchasing power of that benefit
will not fall. In fact, the entire COLA could be consumed.
The latest Medicare legislation does not apply even this
``hold harmless'' protection to the Part D prescription drug
premium. Thus, seniors are exposed to the possibility that
large increases in medical costs, especially unchecked
prescription drug costs, could eat up a large piece of their
Social Security COLA and even cut their Social Security
benefit.
recent experience with colas and medicare part b premium increases
During the past three years, rapidly rising health
expenditures have been accompanied by large increases in
Medicare premiums. Based on current projections, the
cumulative increase in the monthly Part B Medicare premium
during the four years of the Bush Administration will be at
least $26, nearly twice as much as the total increase of
$13.40 over the entire eight years of the Clinton
Administration. At the same time that Medicare premiums have
been rising rapidly, inflation has been very low. As a
result, Social Security COLAs have been relatively modest,
and many beneficiaries have seen a substantial portion of
their COLA consumed by the increases in Medicare premiums.
In 2004, for example, Social Security beneficiaries
received a COLA of 2.1 percent ($2.10 for each $100 of
monthly benefit). At the same time, the monthly premium for
Medicare Part B increased from $58.70 to $66.60, an increase
of $7.90 or 13.5 percent. Table 1 shows what part of the COLA
was consumed by the increase in the Part B premium for
individuals receiving different levels of monthly benefit.
[[Page 17134]]
TABLE 1.--IMPACT OF MEDICARE PREMIUM INCREASES ON SOCIAL SECURITY COLAS,
2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraction of
COLA after COLA
2004 Social deducting absorbed by
Monthly Social Security Security increase in Medicare
benefit in 2004 (dollars) COLA medicare premium
(dollars) premiums increases
(dollars) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
384........................... 7.90 0.00 100
500........................... 10.28 2.38 77
750........................... 15.43 7.53 51
1,000......................... 20.57 12.67 38
1,250......................... 25.71 17.81 31
1,500......................... 30.85 22.95 26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: JEC Democratic staff, based on Congresssional Budget Office
projections.
Individuals with 2004 monthly Social Security benefits of
less than $384 received a COLA in 2004 that was less than the
increase in Medicare premiums. Because of the ``hold
harmless'' provision, their premium increase was limited to
the amount of their COLA. Still, for these individuals (an
estimated 1.4 million people), their entire Social Security
COLA was wiped out, leaving them nothing to pay for increases
in all other goods and services they consume.
Individuals with a monthly benefit of $1,000 (roughly the
average benefit of retired men) had to devote nearly 40
percent of their COLA to the increase in their Medicare
premium. Those with a monthly benefit of $750 (roughly the
average benefit of retired women) needed half their COLA to
cover the increase in Medicare premiums. And those with a
monthly benefit of $500 (roughly the average benefit of wives
of retired workers) needed more than three-quarters of their
COLA to pay for the increase in their Medicare premium.
The Impact of Part D Prescription Drug Premiums
Current forecasts indicate that the Medicare Part B premium
increase in 2005 will be the largest dollar amount ever.\1\
As a result, seniors can expect another year like 2004, when
increases in Medicare premiums will absorb a large percentage
of their COLA. CBO's current projections call for the rate of
increase in Medicare premiums to abate after 2005, but those
projections do not reflect possible legislative changes that
would increase physician payments, resulting in higher
premiums. Furthermore, beginning in 2006, seniors
participating in the Part D prescription drug program will
have an additional Medicare premium for that program deducted
from their Social Security check.
Using CBO's projections of the Social Security COLA and
Medicare premium costs, the Joint Economic Committee
Democratic staff has estimated the portion of the COLA that
will be absorbed by increases in Medicare premiums incoming
years. For a person with a monthly benefit of $500 (in 2004
dollars), the annual increase in combined Part B and Part D
premiums will absorb almost three-fifths of the annual COLA,
on average, during the 2007-2010 period. Medicare premiums
will absorb over two-thirds of the COLA in the 2011-2014
period. Increases in Medicare premiums will absorb a lesser
but still significant fraction of the COLA for individuals
with larger monthly benefits (Table 2). Because there is no
``hold harmless'' protection, up to 2 percent of
beneficiaries could experience benefit cuts.
TABLE 2.--AVERAGE IMPACT OF MEDICARE PREMIUM INCREASES ON SOCIAL
SECURITY COLAS, 2007-2010 AND 2011-2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average fraction of COLA
absorbed by Medicare Part B
Monthly Social Security benefit (2004 and Part D premium increases
dollars) (percent)
-------------------------------
2007-2010 2011-2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
500..................................... 59 69
1,000................................... 24 34
1,500................................... 16 23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: JEC Democratic staff, based on Congressional Budget Office
projections.
Although the rising cost of Medicare Part B and Part D
premiums can absorb a very large fraction of the annual
Social Security COLA for those with modest benefit checks,
the problem is not confined to them. CBO estimates that in
2007, the first year that increases in Part D premiums will
have an impact, 6.9 million people, or nearly 25 percent of
those who have Medicare premiums withheld from their Social
Security benefit will see at least one-quarter of their COLA
absorbed by increases in combined Part B and Part D premiums.
By 2014, 64 percent of beneficiaries, or 22.2 million people,
will lose at least 25 percent of their COLA to increases in
their Medicare premium.
Conclusion
For Social Security beneficiaries, the annual COLA is an
important protection against rising prices eroding the real
purchasing power of their benefit. In the past three years,
however, rapidly rising health care costs have undermined
this protection by driving up Medicare Part B premiums, which
are automatically deducted from participants' monthly Social
Security check.For many participants, the increase in
Medicare premiums has absorbed a large fraction of their
annual COLA, leaving little to deal with the rising costs of
all the other goods and services the COLA is meant to cover.
That problem will be aggravated when the new premiums for
Part D prescription drug coverage take effect, unless
policymakers take action to address this gutting of Social
Security COLA protection.
Endnote
1. If past practice is followed, the Social Security COLA
percentage increase and the increase for Medicare premiums
will be announced in mid-October. Me calculations used in
this paper assume an increase in the 2005 monthly Part B
premium of $9.50. That is higher than the current CBO
baseline estimate of $8.70, but the JEC Democratic staff
believes that CBO's estimate will increase when it updates
its baseline in August. The Medicare actuaries are currently
predicting an even higher increase of $11.50 in the monthly
premium.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to join with the distinguished
Democratic Leader and Senator Murray in introducing the ``Social
Security COLA Protection Act of 2004.'' I would also ask unanimous
consent to submit for the Record the report by the Joint Economic
Committee Democratic staff entitled, ``Rising Medicare Premiums
Undermine the Social Security COLA.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Thank you. Mr. President, Social Security is the bedrock of
this country's social safety net and our most effective antipoverty
program for seniors and the disabled. A valuable feature of Social
Security is the annual cost of living adjustment, or COLA, which was
enacted to ensure that the real purchasing power of beneficiaries'
checks would be preserved, and not eaten away by inflation. I would
also point out that such COLA protection is missing from most private
pensions.
Sadly, what the JEC Democrats' report has revealed is that large
increases in health care costs and the poor design of the new Medicare
prescription drug plan have created a situation in which rising
Medicare premiums are undermining the Social Security COLA. The problem
is already serious, and we have not even begun to experience the impact
of the prescription drug premium of the new Medicare Part D program
that will take effect in 2006.
The study shows, for example, that in the years 2011-2014, a person
with a monthly Social Security benefit of $500 (in today's dollars)
would see 69 percent of her COLA consumed by increases in Medicare Part
B and Part D premiums. That leaves far too little of the COLA to cover
increases in prices of other necessities such as food, energy, and
other medical expenses. Even people with larger monthly benefits would
see their COLAs substantially eroded by the increases in Medicare
premiums.
Finally, the study shows that by 2014, if there is no legislation to
address this problem, 64 percent of beneficiaries who have their
Medicare premiums deducted from their Social Security checks will lose
at least 25 percent of their Social Security COLA to increases in those
premiums.
The JEC Democratic staff study makes a compelling case that we have a
serious problem on our hands. That is why I am happy to cosponsor ``The
Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2004.'' This legislation will
preserve the essential safety net Social Security provides seniors, by
making sure that at least 75 percent of their Social Security COLA is
protected from increases in Medicare premiums and available to offset
increasing cost of other goods and services seniors need in order to
maintain an adequate quality-of-life.
______
By Mr. DODD:
S. 2755. A bill to amend the Consumer Credit Protection Act to ban
abusive credit practices, enhance consumer disclosures, protect
underage consumers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is often said that small things can make
a very large difference in our society. That saying certainly fits the
subject I have come to speak briefly about this afternoon. That little
thing in question that I am talking about is 3\1/8\ inches wide, 2\1/8\
inches long, and no thicker than one's fingernail. But it has a
monumental impact on how millions of
[[Page 17135]]
Americans live their lives each and every day. The object to which I am
referring, of course, is the credit card.
We have come a long way from the day in 1950 when the Diner's Club
issued the first universal credit card that allowed its holders to use
credit at certain very select restaurants in New York City. Today, the
credit card has become an indispensable part of how we do business in
the United States, and across the globe, for that matter.
For many Americans, the main appeal of the credit card is convenience
and flexibility. They allow us to go out and eat, go to a shopping
mall, to the movies, and stop off at the grocery store on the way home,
without folding a single bill or fumbling for loose change in their
pockets. Credit cards allow people to shop for products on the Internet
in a matter of seconds.
But for more and more Americans, credit cards serve a very different
purpose. As the name implies, these cards provide access to credit. We
are living in a time when real wages are failing to keep up with price
increases, when health care costs and college tuition are on the rise.
Millions of Americans are having difficulty making ends meet. For
Americans who are strapped for cash, credit cards are much more than a
convenience. They have become the only way they can afford basic
necessities, such as food, gas, clothing, and medical care.
These Americans are not paying by credit card because they want to;
they are doing so because they have no other choice. It is this
function of credit cards that make them so appealing to American
consumers, but I must also say it is this function that presents the
greatest danger to them as well.
Today, the level of credit card debt in the United States is at
record heights. Total consumer debt in America is over $2 trillion. Out
of that, $735 billion is credit card debt. The average American
household has over $9,000 worth of credit card debt. Let me repeat
that. The average family living in the United States has over $9,000 of
credit card debt. In comparison, the average family household income is
just above $40,000.
Due in large part to credit card debt, more Americans are filing for
bankruptcy. Last year, over 1.6 million families declared they were
bankrupt. For every one family that actually does file for bankruptcy,
there are seven more whose debt suggests that they, in fact, should do
the same.
Credit card debt does not affect all Americans equally. It is a
growing burden that is disproportionately being borne by middle-income,
low-income, and working-poor families. According to a recent report,
during the 1990s, on average, the American family saw its credit card
debt go up by 53 percent. The debt of middle-class families, those
earning between $50,000 and $100,000 a year, went up 75 percent. For
the older Americans, senior citizens, their average credit card debt
went up 149 percent. Finally, for very low-income families, those
making less than $10,000 a year, credit card debt grew by a shocking
184 percent.
Why is this happening? Why are millions of Americans drowning in
credit card debt? There are some who would describe the numbers I just
quoted as a matter of personal responsibility, that some Americans are
spending way beyond their means and ultimately are paying the price.
I do believe personal responsibility is extremely important, but many
of the victims of credit card debt today are not in that state because
they bought a home entertainment system, an expensive vacation, or a
plasma TV set.
Take Roberto Towler. Roberto was a professional accountant who was
very careful to always pay his bills on time. In early 2000 he was
forced to take 2 months off from work because of a back injury. The
lost salary meant he had much less cash on hand than before. He had no
alternative but to use his credit card for toiletries, clothes for his
children, and groceries. He eventually was able to return to work and
scale back the use of his credit card, but he found himself barely able
to pay back his debt. Eventually Roberto was forced to file bankruptcy
with $22,000 of credit card debt.
Many Americans have stories just like Mr. Towler. They work hard,
they play by the rules, but after a few twists of fate suddenly find
themselves in a tremendous debt. For those caught in the quicksand of
debt, a credit card appears to be a lifeline. But, in reality, it only
pulls them in deeper and deeper.
We often speak of the ill and infirm as living on borrowed time.
These people are living on borrowed money.
In the middle of all this are credit card companies. If we demand
responsibility from individuals, and we should, and we do demand it,
then we also ought to demand it from corporations as well.
Responsibility is not limited to those who are consumers alone.
The reason I am here today is because a good deal of the blame for
the crisis in credit card debt we are seeing in America lies in the
practices of credit card companies.
I am not someone who takes regulatory reform lightly. I am not a
believer in regulation that stifles innovation or efficiency. But at
the same time, when we see practices that are truly hurting working
families around the country, I believe we have an obligation to act.
Just what kind of practices are we talking about? Let me spell it out.
Let's start with interest rates. I am not naive about this. I
certainly do not expect credit card companies to be terribly benevolent
when it comes to interest rates. But what I expect, and what all
Americans deserve, is honesty and fairness.
We have all seen print ads and commercials that advertise
fantastically low interest rates, sometimes as low as zero percent. But
what these commercials don't tell you is that these teaser rates, as
they are called, often expire and rise considerably only after a few
months.
If you slip up even once by failing to make a minimum monthly
payment, your interest rate may go up even faster. Just one mistake can
be enough to drive an interest rate up by nearly 30 percentage points.
Of course that information is usually hidden in the fine print of a
lengthy disclosure statement.
Most Americans would assume that their interest rates will stay low
as long as they make their minimum monthly payments. Not so. Today,
credit card companies don't just look at the bill that you pay them,
they look at your entire financial picture in deciding how high your
interest rate ought to be, how high a rate they ought to charge you.
I learned of a doctor in Illinois who had always paid his credit card
bills on time and stayed within his credit card limits. Then one day he
took a look at his bill and discovered that the interest rate on his
credit card had jumped from 6 percent to nearly 17 percent. He asked
the credit card issuer, why? The company said that he was now a higher
risk.
What was the reason?
He had taken out a mortgage on his new home.
This is incredible to me. There are few things more rewarding to a
family than buying their first home. We celebrate home ownership here
in America. Apparently for credit card companies it's a reason to
celebrate as well, because it's an excuse to charge higher interest
rates.
Interest rates, of course, are not the only way credit card companies
make money. In recent years, more and more companies have found another
way to increase their bottom lines, by assessing exorbitant fees for
the most minor of offenses. Miss a payment by a single day and you may
be charged $30 or even $40 for that mistake. Gone are the grace periods
that gave consumers some reasonable leeway.
Over the past 2 years, the amount of money generated by credit card
fees has simply skyrocketed. In fact, the term ``skyrocketed'' may be
something of an understatement. In 1996, the fees raised $1.7 billion
for credit card companies. That's 1996. Last year the credit card
companies raised $11 billion in fees alone, only 8 years later.
You might think that if credit card companies know that someone is a
risk they would take some action to limit that person's spending, such
as lowering their credit line. Or perhaps they
[[Page 17136]]
might not issue a card to that person in the first place.
But there is a little secret the credit card companies don't want
Americans to know. They are actively soliciting and signing up
customers who are tremendous credit risks. They are soliciting these
people not in spite of the risk, but because of it.
Contrary to what one might think, customers who cannot afford to pay
their bills on time are the credit card companies' best customers--not
their worst. Unbelievably, these customers who do pay on time are known
within the credit card industry as ``deadbeats.''
Let me repeat that. Those who pay their credit card bills on time are
known within the industry as ``deadbeats.'' Why is this? Because when
people fail to pay their bills on time, that means more profits for the
credit card industry, in the form of more interest charges and penalty
fees.
How much more of a profit? Let's say you are the average American,
with $9,000 in credit card debt, which is the case today. Let's say you
stopped accumulating any more debt and decided you would pay it off by
making the minimum monthly payment of 2 percent. Let's say further that
your interest rate is 15 percent--which is just about the average
today, I might add.
How long would it take you to pay off that debt? Five years? Ten
years? Twenty years? It would take 39 years to pay off your debt. Over
the course of those 39 years, you would pay $14,000 in interest
payments alone, in addition to the $9,000 you owe. This is all
assuming, of course, that your interest rate wouldn't rise over those
years and that you wouldn't be hit with unexpected fees.
Credit card companies know this. They know their greatest chance of
financial profit lies in those customers who have the least chance of
paying their bills on time. That is why they continue to solicit these
customers and that is why those who do pay on time are known within the
industry as the deadbeats.
Last year, credit card companies mailed out 5 billion solicitations
to about 200 million individuals in the United States. The average
person received about one offer every other week. The average household
received more than one per week. I guarantee that a great many of these
people do not have sparkling credit ratings, yet these companies
continue to send out offer after offer, hoping that yet another
customer will take the bait.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
an article from the July 6, 2004 edition of the Wall Street Journal
entitled ``Growing Profit Source for Banks: Fees from Riskiest Card
Holders.''
This goes into the topic in greater detail.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal Online, July 6, 2004]
Growing Profit Source for Banks: Fees From Riskiest Card Holders
(By Mitchell Pacelle)
When Jennifer Reid opened her credit-card statement in
April, she discovered how expensive it was to make full use
of her credit.
The 42-year-old X-ray technologist had run through $10,000
of her $12,000 credit line on an MBNA Corp. card. In April,
her annual interest rate abruptly jumped to 24.98%, up from
19.98% the prior month and far above the initial single-digit
rate.
``I don't understand,'' she recalls telling an MBNA
customer-service representative on the phone, complaining
that she hadn't been late with a single payment. The
representative agreed but pointed out that she had run up
more than $5,000 of debt on two other cards. Also, she was
making only slightly more than the minimum suggested monthly
payments on her MBNA card. He said the company now saw her as
a credit risk and feared it would take her forever to pay off
her debts. ``Isn't that what you want consumers to do?'' she
snapped back.
That's a question more financially strapped bank customers
are asking these days. For consumers who pay off their
credit-card balances each month, shop aggressively for
interest rates as low as 0%, and take advantage of generous
credit-card rewards programs, consumer credit has never been
cheaper. But for others like Ms. Reid, who went into debt so
she could move to a better job in Florida from South
Carolina, the trend is in the other direction.
Card users, consumer advocates and some industry experts
complain that banks are attempting to squeeze more and more
revenue from consumers struggling to make ends meet. Instead
of cutting these people off as bad credit risks, banks are
letting them spend--and then hitting them with larger and
larger penalties for running up their credit, going over
their credit limits, paying late and getting cash advances
from their credit cards. The fees are also piling up for
bounced checks and overdrawn accounts.
``People think they are being swindled,'' says industry
consultant Duncan MacDonald, formerly a lawyer for the
credit-card division of Citigroup Inc. Penalty fees aren't
new, but they are becoming more important to the industry's
bottom line and are being borne by the people who can least
afford to pay them, he contends.
Cardweb.com, a consulting group that tracks the card
industry, says credit-card fees, including those from
retailers, rose to 33.4% of total credit-card revenue in
2003. That was up from 27.9% in 2000 and just 16.1% in 1996.
The average monthly late fee hit $32.01 in May, up from
$30.29 a year earlier and $13.30 in May 1996, the company
said. In 2003, the credit-card industry reaped $11.7 billion
from penalty fees, up 9% from $10.7 billion a year earlier,
according to Robert Hammer, an industry consultant.
``As competitive pressure builds on the front-end pricing,
it has pushed a lot of the profit streams to the back end of
the card--to these fees,'' says Robert McKinley, chief
executive of CardWeb.com. Over the past two years, he said,
``it's become much more aggressive.'' At industry
conferences, he notes, talk often turns to ``what the market
will bear.''
Banks say that penalties and fees are a necessary component
of new models for pricing financial services. Gone are the
days when banks collected hefty annual fees on all credit
cards and charged fat interest rates to all customers. Now,
the banks say, they must rely on risk-based pricing models
under which customers with the shakiest finances pay higher
rates and more fees.
``We look at teaser rates as an area that we have to be
competitive in,'' said Richard Srednicki, a top credit-card
executive at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., during a conference
call with investors last fall. He said the bank tries to
``mix and match how we compete'' on interest rates and fees
``in order to make the kinds of returns that we're looking
for.''
An MBNA spokesman declined to comment on Ms. Reid's
experience but noted that one of the most important
considerations in setting a credit card's interest rate is
``how a customer manages his account.'' If a customer's
financial circumstances change for the worse, he said, the
bank has to raise the rate ``as a way of balancing that
greater risk.''
Such variable pricing has been embraced in recent years by
airlines, mortgage lenders and others. What raises the
hackles of bank customers, however, is that many don't
discover the rate changes and penalty fees until they have
already been hit with them. Those who complain are directed
to disclosure statements that most consumers never read.
These disclosures, says Mr. MacDonald, have ballooned from
little more than a page 20 years ago to 30 pages or more of
small print today.
Federal Comptroller of the Currency John D. Hawke Jr., one
of the nation's top bank regulators, warned bankers at a
conference last fall that ``no retail banking activity
generates more consumer complaints'' than credit-card
practices, ``and where there are persistent and serious
complaints, there is a fertile seedbed for legislation.''
Mr. Hawke raised the case in which a customer presents a
credit card at the cash register and the bank approves the
transaction even though it knows that the purchase will push
the customer over his credit limit. ``If, as a practical
matter, the line has been increased, is it unfair or
deceptive for the creditor to continue to impose an overline
`penalty'?'' he asked.
Until the early 1990s, most banks offered one main credit-
card product. It typically carried an annual interest rate of
about 18% and an annual fee of $25. Cardholders who paid late
or strayed over their credit limit were charged modest fees.
Profits from good customers covered losses from those who
defaulted.
Then card issuers, in an effort to grab market share, began
scrapping annual fees and vying to offer the lowest annual
interest rates. They junked simple pricing models in favor of
complex ones they say were tailored to cardholders' risk and
behavior. Eager to sustain growth in a market approaching
saturation, they began offering more cards to consumers with
spotty credit.
By the late 1990s, banks were attracting consumers with low
introductory rates, then subjecting some of them to a myriad
of ``risk-related fees,'' such as late fees and over-limit
fees. A 2001 survey by the Federal Reserve showed that 30% of
general-purpose credit-card holders had paid a late fee in
the prior year.
Like Ms. Reid, more customers are seeing red when they
discover the penalties on bank statements. Credit-card late-
payment charges have risen to as high as $39 for some
customers of Bank of America Corp., MBNA, and Providian
Financial Corp., and fewer
[[Page 17137]]
banks grant grace periods. Cardholders who exceed their
credit limits face ``over limit'' fees as high as $39 a
month.
In a survey of 140 credit cards this year, the advocacy
group Consumer Action said 85% of the banks make it a
practice to raise interest rates for customers who pay late--
often after a single late payment. Nearly half raise rates if
they find out that a customer is in arrears with another
creditor.
Since the banks disclose the fees in the fine print of
their mailings, they have had little to fear from regulators
and the courts. Consumer lawyers have lost a string of
lawsuits challenging such practices. A little-noticed April
ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court said credit-card companies
don't have to include various penalty fees when they
calculate the ``finance charge'' listed on a customer's
monthly statement.
And bank regulators have been reluctant to promulgate new
regulations. The Federal Reserve Board and four other
regulatory groups recently disappointed consumer groups by
failing to take a strong stand against ``bounce protection''
plans. These programs allow customers to overdraw their
checking accounts in exchange for a fee each time they do it
that can exceed $30. Critics call bounce protection little
more than an expensive short-term loan since the overdrawn
amount must be covered quickly.
Banks are charging as much as $32 per transaction when
customers write a check or make a debit-card purchase without
enough money in their accounts to cover the payment. Five
years ago, $20 was more typical.
Alicia Flynn, who works in the billing department of a San
Francisco hospital, used her Bank of America debit card on
Jan. 28 of last year to make four small purchases, including
a $2.27 cup of cafeteria soup. But several checks she and her
husband had written also hit their account that day. When the
bank tallied up the account later that day, it posted some of
the checks before the debit- card charges, which had already
been cleared at the register. That left the account overdrawn
by $40.17. The Flynns were hit with separate $28
``insufficient fund'' fees for two checks and all four debit-
card transactions, hitting the maximum daily penalty of $140.
``It is somewhat like having a meter maid put five parking
citations on your car for one parking violation,'' complains
Mrs. Flynn's husband, Richard Flynn.
Mr. Flynn later learned that subtracting the biggest check
first is standard procedure for Bank of America. In response
to his complaint letter, a Bank of America representative
enclosed a copy of a booklet she said every customer received
when opening an account, and directed Mr. Flynn to page 54.
It describes the policy and warns customers that ``this
method may result in additional overdraft fees.''
A bank spokesman maintains that most customers want large
checks to clear first because they tend to be for important
items such as a rent payment. The $28 penalty fee, he said,
is intended to ``make sure that customers don't run their
balances so close to zero,'' and is priced ``to assign a cost
of the risk it exposes the bank to.''
Banking fees have long been a subject of legislation and
litigation. One decision that has helped banks boost their
penalty fees came in 1996, when the Supreme Court said states
can't regulate such charges if they're levied by out-of-state
banks.
The 1968 federal Truth in Lending Act was enacted to
promote ``awareness of credit costs on the part of
consumers.'' It required ``meaningful disclosure of credit
terms'' but didn't say anything specifically about credit-
card fees. In the act, Congress directed the Federal Reserve
Board to enact regulations. The Fed responded with Regulation
Z, which requires credit-card issuers to disclose the cost of
credit as a dollar amount, known as the ``finance charge,''
and as an annual percentage rate. Fees for late payments and
the like were not to be included in either calculation.
As a college student in the mid-1990s, Sharon R. Pfennig
signed up for a card with a $2,000 credit limit. In 1997,
buying clothing at a mall, she blew past her credit limit by
$192. Household International Inc. began tacking on a $20
over-limit fee each month. Ms. Pfennig stopped using the card
and continued to make her $45 minimum monthly payments. But
the monthly penalty fee, coupled with the $35 to $40 she paid
each month as interest on her debt, caused her balance to
continue climbing. Her monthly over-limit fee then jumped to
$29, and her fee total eventually ballooned to about $700.
In 1999, Ms. Pfennig filed a lawsuit in Ohio federal court
against Household and MBNA, which had purchased the Household
credit-card portfolio that contained her account. The lawsuit
accused Household of misrepresenting the true cost of credit
by not including over-limit fees in its disclosed ``finance
charges'' on her monthly statement. The suit said this
practice, which adhered to Regulation Z, nonetheless violated
the Truth in Lending Act.
An appeals court agreed with Ms. Pfennig but the Supreme
Court, ruling April 21 of this year, sided with the credit-
card company. It said Regulation Z is reasonable and
companies that follow it are in compliance with the law.
``I'm getting completely disheartened,'' said Sandusky,
Ohio, consumer lawyer Sylvia Goldsmith, who represented Ms.
Pfennig before the high court.
In the Pfennig case, MBNA and Household defended the
treatment of fees under current disclosure regulations as
simpler for both consumers and banks. ``This bright-line rule
ensures that creditors disclose over-limit fees in an
understandable and consistent manner, permitting consumers to
compare such fees across time and across credit-card issuers
in a meaningful way,'' the two banks noted in a Supreme Court
brief.
For now, the only way for consumers to know what they're
getting into is to plow through the disclosure materials they
receive when they open bank accounts or get new credit cards.
Most never do--as Mr. Flynn, the disgruntled Bank of America
customer, admits. ``We just opened a simple bank account, and
they gave us a 78-page booklet, small print, and they expect
us to read and understand it,'' he complains.
Ms. Reid, the Florida cardholder, says she is far more
careful now about studying her credit-card mail. ``I read eve
single solitary word now. I hope one of these days I won't
have to have a credit card at all.''
Mr. DODD. What I find most troubling about this trend is that credit
card companies have set their sights on the most vulnerable members of
our society when it comes to debt--low-income individuals, the elderly,
mentally retarded, and most recently, our children.
Go to any college campus in America and you are bound to come across
a table where an enthusiastic sales person is offering free T-shirts,
or sports bags, or Frisbees--almost anything in exchange for signing up
as a credit card customer. According to a report on CBS News, the
average college student is offered 8 cards in his or her first semester
in college--8 credit cards. By the end of college, the average
graduating senior has 6 credit cards in his or her name.
Why are credit card companies targeting college students so
frequently? Because of their limited experience with financial matters,
students tend to accumulate debt very quickly, and as a result, more
and more of our young people are falling deeper and deeper into the
financial hole from which they cannot escape.
In 1998, 67 percent of college students had a credit card. Today, 83
percent have credit cards. In 1998, the average college student
graduated with $1,800 in credit card debt. Today the average college
senior graduates with $3,000 in credit card debt.
I was shocked to learn that the fastest growing segment of our
population that is forced to declare bankruptcy is people under the age
of 25. Think of that. The fastest growing group of people declaring
bankruptcy are people under the age of 25.
When we think about bankruptcy, we generally envision middle-aged
Americans with failed businesses, investments gone bad, perhaps medical
bills that have spiraled out of control. The answer is not so. It's
college kids, recent graduates.
Some time ago, a piece on ``60 Minutes II'' told a story of one
student's circumstance, Sean Moyer. I have told the story on the floor
before but I think it deserves being repeated.
Sean's life began to spin out of control as a result of huge debts
racked up in 3 years of college. He could not get loans to go to law
school, as he dreamed. His parents couldn't afford to pay his way.
Sean Moyer had 12 credit cards and more than $10,000 in debts. He had
two jobs, one at the library, another as a security guard in a Holiday
Inn, but he still could not pay the collectors who continually harassed
him with letters and phone calls. In 1998, Sean Moyer took his own
life.
Three years after his son's death, his mother still gets pre-approved
credit card offers in Sean's name. According to his mother, one company
preapproved Sean for a $100,000 credit card line.
How is the credit card industry doing as a result of these practices?
These companies are thriving. Credit Card Management, an industry
publication, reported that 2003 was the most profitable year for credit
cards since the magazine began tracking the industry in 1992.
What makes matters even more astonishing is that this is happening
when interest rates are at an all-time low. Yet, for millions of
Americans, the
[[Page 17138]]
interest rates they read about in the newspapers, those set by the
Federal Reserve, bear absolutely no relationship whatsoever to interest
rates that appear on their credit card bills.
Still, the industry wants more. In recent years, while they have been
encouraging consumers to accumulate debt, credit card companies have
simultaneously been lobbying Congress to change bankruptcy laws to make
it harder and harder for people to have their debts forgiven. This
amounts to a two pronged attack on working families in America--get
people into as much debt as possible, and then change the rules of the
game so they can't get rid of that debt.
It is time we stood up for consumers. It is time we restored a sense
of responsibility to this industry.
I am here today to introduce the Credit Card Accountability,
Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2004, also known as the Credit
CARD Act. This bill takes aim at what I consider to be some of the more
egregious abuses of consumers by credit card companies.
This bill takes some simple, common-sense steps to stop abusive
practices, educate cardholders, and stiffen the penalties on
corporations that violate the law.
First of all, I think we can all agree that it is reasonable for a
consumer to be clearly notified if his or her interest rates are going
up. That is not a radical idea, that is just common sense. My bill
would require clear disclosure of any rate changes so there aren't any
surprises for the average consumer.
I also don't believe a company should be able to retroactively change
the interest rate on debt that already exists. If you want to raise
interest rates, fine, but raise them on future debt, not existing debt.
Our bill would prohibit any retroactive interest rate changes.
Second, I believe that companies should be rewarding people for
responsible card use--not penalizing them. If you pay your bills on
time, your interest rate shouldn't go up. If you pay off your balances
in full, your company shouldn't be able to charge you any new fees. If
you decide to cancel your card, your interest rate shouldn't go up. I
am pointing out these facts because that is exactly what happens. My
bill would codify all of these common-sense principles into law.
Third, my bill would protect some of the most vulnerable in our
society--our Nation's youth--by implementing new requirements for
issuing credit cards to people under the age of 21. We are not going to
prohibit college students from getting cards, but we are going to make
sure that companies can't simply give away cards to millions and
millions of students who they know will rack up years and years worth
of debt and potentially face bankruptcy and financial ruin before their
working lives have barely begun.
If you apply for a credit card and you are under 21, under this bill
you will need one of three things: A signature of a parent or guardian
who is willing to take responsibility for your debt; information
indicating that you have some other means of repaying any debt; or a
certification that you have completed a credit counseling course. And
if you are a credit card company that offers cards to students under
21, you will be required to comply with these requirements--or face
serious penalties.
Finally, this bill requires companies to be honest with consumers by
introducing some new disclosure requirements. The most important one is
a box--prominently located on every single bill--containing four simple
pieces of information: The total balance on your account; your minimum
monthly payment; how long it will take to pay your bill if all you pay
is the minimum monthly payment; and finally, how much you will have to
pay over time--in both interest and principal--if you only make the
minimum payments.
The reason for these disclosures is simple, and to many, probably
obvious: To allow consumers to know exactly what it means to carry a
debt, so they can decide whether or not to do so.
The Credit CARD Act also contains a number of additional disclosure
requirements to bring more transparency to an industry that has clearly
reaped benefits from the use of fine print and lengthy and confusing
policy statements.
We are not asking for much here--only that companies be fair and
straightforward with consumers. Let us see some real disclosures so
Americans can understand what their bill means, how much they are being
charged, and why.
No one wants credit cards to disappear. I certainly believe credit
cards are tremendously valuable and worthwhile as long as they are
handled responsibly. And no one wants people who need and deserve
credit to have no way to get it. But we can't simply stand by as more
and more Americans fall deeper and deeper into debt with no way out. We
need to take some responsible action so that the credit card can still
be a useful financial tool without being a ticket to financial ruin.
If we are going to pass bankruptcy bills in the Senate that demand
more responsibility from consumers, shouldn't we demand more
responsibility from creditors, as well? This bill, the Credit CARD Act,
does just that, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to adopt it.
I ask unanimous consent for the text of the bill to be printed in the
Record.
______
By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
S. 2756. A bill to extend a certain high priority corridor in the
States of Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, transportation is a key element of
economic growth for rural Colorado. Providing access to the national
highway system through a well developed transportation corridor will
boost economic opportunity and bring new dollars to the area as the
flow of commerce increases through traffic, tourism and, hopefully, new
industry.
Previously, I introduced legislation to create the Heartland
Expressway, a connecting highway of high priority roads on the national
highway system. However, a few had concerns about this legislation, so
the supporters went back to the drawing board. So, tonight I rise to
introduce a bill that reflects the compromise that each of the impacted
states have come to.
Through Ports-to-Plains and Heartland Expressway, we can bring
greater prosperity through trade and industry to the State of Colorado,
while improving the safety and condition of our highways.
Based on the recommendation of the Eastern Colorado Mobility Study,
authored by the Colorado Department of Transportation, the corridor
will serve a wide variety of trucks and autos, bringing new dollars and
boosting the economy.
The Heartland Expressway will result in user cost savings to
businesses, have fewer environmental impacts than other corridor
alternatives, and will enhance or improve existing--and may even
promote the construction of new corridors and intermodal facilities--
that will enhance the mobility of freight services within and through
eastern Colorado.
The Heartland Expressway will penetrate and promote economic
development in Denver, throughout north and southeast Colorado, into
Wyoming, and through Scotsbluff, NE to Rapid City, SD.
______
By Mr. FITZGERALD:
S. 2757. A bill to provide for certain financial reporting
requirements to apply to the judicial branch of the Federal Government,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
______
By Mr. FITZGERALD.
S. 2758. A bill to provide for certain financial reporting
requirements to apply to the legislative branch of the Federal
Government, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and
Administration.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills
that would ensure fiscal accountability throughout the Judicial and
Legislative Branches of the Federal Government: the Judicial Branch
Financial Accountability Act of 2004 and the Legislative Branch
Financial Accountability Expansion Act of 2004. These
[[Page 17139]]
bills would strengthen the financial management of both branches by
requiring them to prepare annual financial statements and have them
independently audited.
These bills also build on S. 2680, the Financial Accountability
Expansion Act of 2004, that Senator Akaka and I introduced on July 16,
2004, to expand independent audit requirements to the remainder of the
executive branch that currently is not covered under the Chief
Financial Officers Act or the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act. Taken
together, this legislative package would ensure--for the first time--
that all agencies and entities in the entire United States Government
are subject to stringent financial audit requirements.
Congressional efforts to improve financial management and to reduce
the waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars began almost 25 years
ago with the enactment of the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act
of 1982, which intended to strengthen internal controls and accounting
systems. Another important financial management reform initiative was
the Chief Financial Officers Act (CFO) of 1990. Among other things, the
CFO Act created 24 CFO and deputy CFO positions in cabinet departments
and major executive branch agencies, and required the annual
preparation and audit of financial statements.
I would briefly like to mention that the Department of Homeland
Security, which has 180,000 employees and a budget of over $30 billion,
is the only cabinet level department not now subject to the CFO Act. In
order to address this problem, on August 1, 2003, I was joined by
Senator Akaka in introducing S. 1567, the Department of Homeland
Security Financial Accountability Act, which would subject the
department to the same financial management practices currently
required of all other major Federal agencies. The Senate passed S. 1567
in November 2003, and the House of Representatives passed its version,
H.R. 4259, on July 20, 2004. It is my hope and expectation that final
congressional action on this legislation will occur in the near future.
The CFO Act improved the financial management of cabinet departments
and major Federal agencies; however, it did not address the fiscal
policies and practices of the rest of the executive branch. Therefore,
in 2002, I was the Senate sponsor of the Accountability of Tax Dollars
Act (ATDA). This legislation, which became law on November 7, 2002,
amended the CFO Act to require agencies with budget authority of over
$25 million to prepare annual financial statements and have them
independently audited. Due to the enactment of the ATDA, an additional
76 agencies are now subject to requirements for annual audited
financial statements.
The ATDA also provided authority to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to waive or exempt certain agencies from
the act's requirements. The OMB director may waive these requirements
during the first 2 years of implementation if an agency lacks the
budgeted resources or requires additional time to develop financial
management practices and systems. The OMB director may exempt agencies
with budget authority under $25 million if it is determined that there
is an absence of risk associated with the agency's operations.
To improve upon the legislative changes Congress enacted in 2002, the
Financial Accountability Expansion Act of 2004, which I introduced last
week, would further expand the requirements of the CFO Act to every
remaining entity in the executive branch. Each executive branch agency
or entity, regardless of its size or budget authority, would be subject
to the financial oversight and accountability that annual,
independently audited financial statements provide. In order to assist
small agencies that may not have adequate financial resources or
personnel to comply with these requirements, this bill would authorize
the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into one or more contracts on
behalf of the agency, or multiple agencies through ``bundling,'' for
the preparation and independent audit of the financial statement.
To begin the process of expanding audit requirements through the
Executive Branch, on July 19, 2004, I was joined by Senator Akaka in
introducing S. 2688, the Executive Branch Financial Accountability
Reporting Act of 2004, which would require the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to submit a report to the relevant
congressional committees that lists all Federal entities not currently
required to prepare annual, independently audited financial statements.
We were pleased that the Governmental Affairs Committee favorably
reported this bill on July 21, 2004, and we intend to work with our
colleagues to expedite Senate passage of this important legislation.
Although significant progress has been made in strengthening
financial accountability of the executive branch, similar audit
requirements in the judicial and legislative branches are woefully
inadequate or completely lacking. At a hearing held on July 8, 2004, by
the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Management, the
Budget, and International Security, which I chair, we heard surprising
testimony that the judicial branch does not conduct annual audits of
its financial statements. Similarly, many entities in the legislative
branch do not prepare annual financial statements, and many that do
prepare financial statements do not have them independently audited.
As part of the Contract with America in the 104th Congress, the
financial statements of the House of Representatives have been annually
audited by an independent accounting firm. While several other
legislative branch entities voluntarily comply with the requirements of
the CFO Act--the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional
Budget Office--these agencies of Congress are not statutorily required
to do so. I find it disturbing that the United States Senate does not
hold itself to the same standards of financial accountability that it
imposes on the executive branch of government. The financial activities
of all entities established by and within the legislative branch--such
as the Senate Disbursing Office, the Capitol Police, the Library of
Congress, the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Botanic
Garden, and the Architect of the Capitol--should be subject statutorily
to the oversight provided by an independent financial statement audit.
In fiscal year 2004, the Congress appropriated over $3.5 billion for
the legislative branch and approximately $5.2 billion for the judicial
branch. To ensure that these two co-equal branches of government are
subject to independent audit requirements similar to the executive
branch, the legislative package I introduce today includes two bills to
strengthen the financial management practices of the Federal courts and
legislative entities.
The Judicial Branch Financial Accountability Act of 2004 that I
introduce today would require the Federal judiciary to have independent
audits of annual financial statements covering all accounts and
activities. In deference to a co-equal branch of government, the bill
would require the Judicial Conference of the United States, the
principal policy-making body for the administration of the U.S. Courts,
to determine whether the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Court of International Trade, and
other judicial branch entities, should submit separate financial
statements, or whether there should be a single consolidated statement
that is independently audited.
To ensure that judicial branch entities have the procedures and
resources in place to comply with the requirements of this act, this
bill would require the submission of a report regarding the act's
implementation to the appropriate committees in the Senate and House of
Representatives. This report is to be submitted not later than 90 days
after the date of the bill's enactment, and is to include any
legislative recommendations that may be necessary to carry out the
provisions of the act. Similar to the requirements imposed by OMB on
executive branch entities, this bill would require the completion and
public release of the
[[Page 17140]]
audited financial statement not later than 45 days after the end of the
fiscal year.
The second bill I introduce today--the Legislative Branch Financial
Accountability Expansion Act of 2004--would require that each House of
Congress and each legislative agency or other entity prepare financial
statements that must be independently audited. In order to ensure that
entities in the legislative branch have the procedures and resources in
place that are necessary to fulfill this requirement, the bill requires
each House of Congress and each legislative agency or other entity to
submit a report to the appropriate committees in the Senate and House
of Representatives regarding the implementation of the act. The report
is to be submitted within 90 days of the date of enactment, and is to
include whether the establishment of a special office is necessary to
carry out the act's requirements, as well as any legislative
recommendations that may be necessary.
Within 60 days after the submission of this report, each House of
Congress is to establish an office to prepare the financial statement.
Each legislative agency or other entity is also required to establish
an office, or designate an individual if that is more appropriate, to
prepare the financial statement. An independent audit of the financial
statement is to be completed and made public within 45 days after the
close of the applicable fiscal year.
I am sensitive to how other co-equal branches of the Federal
Government conduct their fiscal affairs. Therefore, these bills defer
to the leadership of these branches to determine the most appropriate
means of implementing annual independent audits of financial
statements. In light of these sensitivities, I recognize that these
bills represent the first step toward improving the financial
accountability of the entire Federal Government. I look forward to
working with my colleagues to provide the best legislative solution to
ensure full and equal accountability for the use of taxpayer dollars.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the texts of the bills were ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2757
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 ``Judicial Branch Financial
Accountability Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. FEDERAL JUDICIARY.
(a) In General.--The Federal Judiciary shall annually have
independently audited financial statements prepared for
fiscal year 2005, and each fiscal year thereafter, covering
all the accounts and associated activities of the judicial
branch.
(b) Separate Statements.--The Judicial Conference of the
United States shall determine whether to have separate
financial statements for the--
(1) Supreme Court of the United States;
(2) United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit;
(3) United States Court of International Trade;
(4) Administrative Office of the United States Courts;
(5) Federal Judicial Center;
(6) Judicial retirement funds;
(7) United States Sentencing Commission; or
(8) other courts or services paid from the appropriations
for ``Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial
Services''.
SEC. 3. PREPARATION AND AUDIT OF STATEMENTS.
(a) Preparation.--The Administrative Office of the United
States Courts shall prepare the financial statements required
by this Act in accordance with United States generally
accepted accounting principles.
(b) Audit.--
(1) In general.--The Judicial Conference of the United
States shall provide, by contract, for an independent auditor
to audit the financial statements required by this Act in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
(2) Report.--Not later than 45 days after the end of the
defined fiscal year, whether calendar or fiscal, and each
year thereafter, the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts shall complete and submit an independently
audited financial statement that shall be--
(A) available to the public; and
(B) submitted to--
(i) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the
Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
(ii) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Government Reform of the
House of Representatives.
SEC. 4. REPORT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, a report described under subsection
(b) shall be submitted by the Judicial Conference to--
(1) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the
Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Government Reform of the
House of Representatives.
(b) Content.--The report under subsection (a) shall
include--
(1) a plan for implementation of this Act; and
(2) recommendations, including legislative actions and
amendments to this Act, if necessary, to effectively carry
out this Act.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this Act in fiscal year 2005, and each
fiscal year thereafter.
S. 2758
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 ``Legislative Branch Financial
Accountability Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--The Senate and the House of
Representatives each shall annually have a financial
statement prepared in accordance with United States generally
accepted accounting principles, and have the statement
independently audited, for the preceding calendar year
covering all the accounts and associated activities of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively.
(b) Financial Statement.--Each financial statement shall
reflect the organizational structure of the Senate and House
of Representatives, respectively, and shall cover accounts
and financial information for all entities of the Senate and
House of Representatives, respectively. Joint activities
shall be reflected in the financial statement of a House of
Congress to the extent that the House funds the activities.
SEC. 3. AGENCIES.
(a) In General.--Each agency under subsection (b) shall
annually have a financial statement prepared in accordance
with United States generally accepted accounting principles,
and have the statement independently audited, for the
preceding fiscal year covering all the accounts and
associated activities of the agency.
(b) The agencies referred to under subsection (a) are the--
(1) Library of Congress;
(2) Congressional Budget Office;
(3) General Accountability Office;
(4) Government Printing Office;
(5) United States Botanic Garden;
(6) Architect of the Capitol;
(7) United States Capitol Police; and
(8) any other entity of the legislative branch established
by Congress and not required by statute to have annual
financial statements independently audited.
SEC. 4. REPORT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, a report described under subsection
(b)--
(1) shall be submitted by the Committee on Rules and
Administration of the Senate, with respect to the entities of
the Senate, to the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the
Senate;
(2) shall be submitted by the Committee on Administration
of the House of Representatives, with respect to entities of
the House of Representatives, to the Committee on Government
Reform of the House of Representatives; and
(3) shall be submitted by each legislative agency or entity
under section 3 to the--
(A) Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate and
the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
(B) Committee on Administration of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Government Reform of the
House of Representatives.
(b) Content.--Each report under subsection (a) shall
include--
(1) a plan for implementation of this Act, including
whether the establishment of an office is necessary to carry
out this Act; and
(2) recommendations, including legislative actions and
amendments to this Act, if necessary, to effectively carry
out this Act.
SEC. 5. PREPARATION AND AUDIT OF STATEMENTS.
(a) Preparation.--
(1) Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the submission
of the report under section 4, the Majority Leader of the
Senate in consultation with the Minority Leader of the
Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives in
consultation with the Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives, shall establish offices in the Senate and
the House of Representatives, respectively, that shall
prepare the financial statements for
[[Page 17141]]
each House required by this Act in accordance with United
States generally accepted accounting principles.
(2) Legislative agencies and entities.--Not later than 60
days after the submission of the report under section 5, the
head of each legislative agency or entity shall designate an
individual or establish an office that shall prepare the
financial statements required by this Act in accordance with
United States generally accepted accounting principles.
(b) Audit.--With respect to the financial statements of
each House of Congress and each legislative agency or other
entity, the Majority Leader of the Senate in consultation
with the Minority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives in consultation with the Minority
Leader of the House of Representatives, and the head of each
legislative agency or other entity, respectively, shall
provide, by contract, for an independent audit of the
financial statements required by this Act in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Not later
than 45 days after the end of the applicable fiscal year,
whether calendar or fiscal, and each year thereafter, each
House of Congress and head of legislative agency or entity
shall complete and make available to the public the
independently audited financial statement.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this Act in fiscal year 2005, and each
fiscal year thereafter.
SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATES.
(a) In General.--Sections 2 and 3 shall take effect in the
applicable fiscal year, whether calendar or fiscal, during
which the office referred to in section 5 is established.
(b) Administrative Provisions.--Sections 1, 4, 5, and 6
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Children's
Health Improvement and Protection (CHIP) Act today, along with my
fellow Senators Rockefeller, Chafee, and Snowe. This bill will ensure
that children continue to receive health care coverage through the
Children's Health Insurance Program, which is especially important as
the Nation's economy struggles to recover and State budgets are
stretched perilously thin.
The Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, has shown great
success in reducing the number of children without health insurance.
Last year, 5.8 million children were enrolled in CHIP, children who
otherwise would have limited access to critical screening and
diagnostic services and needed medical care. In 2003, 125,000 children
in Massachusetts participated in CHIP and other Stats had similar
success.
The need for CHIP has always been clear. We know that children
without health insurance are more than three times less likely to have
a regular source of health care than insured children. They are more
than four times as likely to delay needed medical care because of cost.
And they are more than twice as likely as insured children to forego
needed prescription drugs and eyeglasses.
Despite the clear evidence that health insurance provides children
with a healthier start, continued success of the CHIP program is in
jeopardy. A number of States have budget shortfalls that will short-
change CHIP programs over the next several years. Last year, the
Congress acted to prevent $2.7 billion in Federal funding for CHIP from
reverting to the Treasury. However, this funding was a short-term
solution for long-term financing problems that will persist until CHIP
is reauthorized in 2007. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has
projected that over 200,000 children are still at risk for losing their
health coverage if additional steps are not taken.
This bill will provide the needed steps to support and expand the
CHIP program. The Children's Health Improvement and Protection Act of
2004 prevents $1.07 billion in Federal CHIP funds that are scheduled to
expire from reverting to the Treasury. In addition, this bill
reallocates some of these funds to States that most need them. Seventy
percent of the expiring fiscal year 1998, 1999, and 2000 funds would be
redistributed to needy States and the remaining 30 percent of the funds
would be retained by the States that currently have them.
States that were unable to spend all of their fiscal year 2002, 2003,
and 2004 CHIP allotments after 3 years would be able to keep half of
the unspent funds. The other 50 percent would be redistributed to
States that have fully spent their allotments during the 3-year period
they were available. Any retained or redistributed funds would be
available for 2 years. After that, our bill establishes a second
redistribution for unspent funds, using the same 70-30 redistribution
scheme I described previously.
Passage of CHIP was a great step forward in ensuring every child a
healthy start in life. It would be a grave mistake and a misplaced set
of priorities to weaken this program that so many of us worked to enact
and that is helping so many children. It makes no sense to have funds
expire and revert to the Treasury when we know that many States are
still facing severe deficits that have led to waiting lists or
``freezes'' in their CHIP programs. This bill will allow States to
maintain their CHIP programs and allow them to grow. The health of the
Nation reflects the health of our children and I look forward to
working with my colleagues in the Senate to get this very important
legislation passed.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Kennedy, and Ms.
Snowe):
S. 2759. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to
modify the rules relating to the availability and method of
redistribution of unexpended SCHIP allotments, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and
colleague from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, to introduce legislation that
will protect the health and well-being of America's children by
restoring funds to the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). In
1997, Senator Chafee and I worked together to create the Children's
Health Insurance Program as part of the Balanced Budget Act. I am proud
of the work we have done over the years to make improvements to this
critical program, which helps so many of our nation's children.
Since its inception, the CHIP program has been an unqualified
success. It has directly contributed to the decline in the number of
children without health insurance in recent years. Last year, 5.8
million children were enrolled in CHIP, including over 35,000 children
in my home state of West Virginia.
However, the continued success of the CHIP program is in serious
jeopardy. A number of States are projected to have insufficient Federal
funding to sustain their existing CHIP programs over the next several
years. On September 30, 2004, $1.07 billion in Federal CHIP funds are
scheduled to expire and revert to the national treasury, despite
growing unmet need in a number of States. If Congress does not act to
preserve these funds, States will have no choice but to cut coverage
for low-income children.
Last year, we acted to protect children's health care by passing
legislation to prevent $2.7 billion in Federal funding for CHIP from
reverting to the treasury. While this legislation went a long way to
address immediate CHIP funding shortfalls, it did not address the long-
term financing problems that will persist until CHIP is reauthorized in
fiscal year 2007. The legislation we are introducing today would solve
the current CHIP financing problems and preserve health care coverage
for children through reauthorization, when Congress will have to
consider a better Federal financing mechanism for the program.
I am pleased to be joined by Senators Chafee, Kennedy, and Snowe in
introducing legislation that represents a comprehensive approach to
shoring up CHIP financing through reauthorization, thereby preventing a
devastating enrollment decline and facilitating continued CHIP growth.
Our bill would extend the availability of the $1.07 billion in expiring
CHIP funds and target some of the funds to the States that need them
the most. It would also establish redistribution rules that will keep
CHIP money in the CHIP program through fiscal year 2007.
The Children's Health Protection and Improvement Act will allow
States to continue offering health care to our Nation's children--the
most vulnerable population among us. It will ensure that healthy
children have access to
[[Page 17142]]
preventative check-ups and exams and that sick children can get the
medication and treatment they need. This legislation enjoys bipartisan
support and is endorsed by the National Governor's Association (NGA).
I urge my colleagues to make enactment of this critical legislation a
priority. Congress must act on this legislation this year. We must do
this when we return. I recognize that we have very few legislative days
left, but this must be at the top of our list because our children
cannot afford to wait. We must guarantee the continued success of the
CHIP program and sustain the significant progress CHIP has made over
the years in reducing the ranks of uninsured children.
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. 2759
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 ``Children's Health Protection
and Improvement Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. CHANGES TO RULES FOR REDISTRIBUTION AND EXTENDED
AVAILABILITY OF 1998 THROUGH 2004 SCHIP
ALLOTMENTS.
Section 2104(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397dd(g)), as amended by Public Law 108-74 (117 Stat. 892),
is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``, 1999, 2000,
and 2001'' and inserting ``Through 2004''; and
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in the matter preceding clause (i)--
(I) by inserting ``or for fiscal year 2002 by the end of
fiscal year 2004, or for fiscal year 2003 by the end of
fiscal year 2005, or for fiscal year 2004 by the end of
fiscal year 2006,'' after ``fiscal year 2003,''; and
(II) by striking ``or 2001'' and inserting ``2001, 2002,
2003, or 2004'';
(ii) in clause (i)--
(I) in subclause (III), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(II) in subclause (IV), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(III) by adding at the end the following:
``(V) the fiscal year 2002 allotment, the amount specified
in subparagraph (E)(i) (less the total of the amounts under
clause (ii) for such fiscal year), multiplied by the ratio of
the amount specified in subparagraph (E)(ii) for the State to
the amount specified in subparagraph (E)(iii);
``(VI) the fiscal year 2003 allotment, the amount specified
in subparagraph (F)(i) (less the total of the amounts under
clause (ii) for such fiscal year), multiplied by the ratio of
the amount specified in subparagraph (F)(ii) for the State to
the amount specified in subparagraph (F)(iii); or
``(VII) the fiscal year 2004 allotment, the amount
specified in subparagraph (G)(i) (less the total of the
amounts under clause (ii) for such fiscal year), multiplied
by the ratio of the amount specified in subparagraph (G)(ii)
for the State to the amount specified in subparagraph
(G)(iii).''; and
(iii) in clause (ii), by striking ``or 2001'' and inserting
``2001, 2002, 2003, or 2004'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in clause (ii), by inserting ``but subject to paragraph
(4)'' after ``subsection (e)'';
(ii) in clause (iii)--
(I) by inserting ``but subject to paragraph (4)'' after
``subsection (e)''; and
(II) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(iii) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (vii); and
(iv) by inserting after clause (iii), the following:
``(iv) notwithstanding subsection (e) but subject to
paragraph (4), with respect to fiscal year 2002, shall remain
available for expenditure by the State through the end of
fiscal year 2006;
``(v) notwithstanding subsection (e), with respect to
fiscal year 2003, shall remain available for expenditure by
the State through the end of fiscal year 2007; and
``(vi) with respect to fiscal year 2004, subsection (e)
shall apply; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Amounts used in computing redistributions for fiscal
year 2002.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(V)--
``(i) the amount specified in this clause is the amount
specified in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(I) for fiscal year 2002,
less the total amount remaining available pursuant to
paragraph (2)(A)(v);
``(ii) the amount specified in this clause for a State is
the amount by which the State's expenditures under this title
in fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004 exceed the State's
allotment for fiscal year 2002 under subsection (b); and
``(iii) the amount specified in this clause is the sum, for
all States entitled to a redistribution under subparagraph
(A) from the allotments for fiscal year 2002, of the amounts
specified in clause (ii).
``(F) Amounts used in computing redistributions for fiscal
year 2003.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(VI)--
``(i) the amount specified in this clause is the amount
specified in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(I) for fiscal year 2003,
less the total amount remaining available pursuant to
paragraph (2)(A)(vi);
``(ii) the amount specified in this clause for a State is
the amount by which the State's expenditures under this title
in fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 exceed the State's
allotment for fiscal year 2003 under subsection (b); and
``(iii) the amount specified in this clause is the sum, for
all States entitled to a redistribution under subparagraph
(A) from the allotments for fiscal year 2003, of the amounts
specified in clause (ii).
``(G) Amounts used in computing redistributions for fiscal
year 2004.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(VII)--
``(i) the amount specified in this clause is the amount
specified in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(I) for fiscal year 2004,
less the total amount remaining available pursuant to
paragraph (2)(A)(vii);
``(ii) the amount specified in this clause for a State is
the amount by which the State's expenditures under this title
in fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006 exceed the State's
allotment for fiscal year 2004 under subsection (b); and
``(iii) the amount specified in this clause is the sum, for
all States entitled to a redistribution under subparagraph
(A) from the allotments for fiscal year 2004, of the amounts
specified in clause (ii).'';
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in the paragraph heading by striking ``2001'' and
inserting ``2004''; and
(B) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``Of'' and inserting
``Subject to paragraph (4), of'';
(ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``Of'' and inserting
``Subject to paragraph (4), of'';
(iii) in clause (iii), by striking ``Of'' and inserting
``Subject to paragraph (4), of'';
(iv) in clause (iv), by striking ``Of'' and inserting
``Subject to paragraph (4), of''; and
(v) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) Fiscal year 2002 allotment.--Subject to paragraph
(4), of the amounts allotted to a State pursuant to this
section for fiscal year 2002 that were not expended by the
State by the end of fiscal year 2004, 50 percent of that
amount shall remain available for expenditure by the State
through the end of fiscal year 2006.
``(vi) Fiscal year 2003 allotment.--Of the amounts allotted
to a State pursuant to this section for fiscal year 2001 that
were not expended by the State by the end of fiscal year
2005, 50 percent of that amount shall remain available for
expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year 2007.
``(vii) Fiscal year 2004 allotment.--Of the amounts
allotted to a State pursuant to this section for fiscal year
2004 that were not expended by the State by the end of fiscal
year 2006, 50 percent of that amount shall remain available
for expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year
2007.'';
(4) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``or fiscal year 2001'' and inserting
``fiscal year 2001, fiscal year 2002, fiscal year 2003, or
fiscal year 2004,''; and
(B) by striking ``or November 30, 2003,'' and inserting
``November 30, 2003, November 30, 2004, November 30, 2005, or
November 30, 2006,''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Additional extended availability of fiscal years 1998
through 2002 allotments.--
``(A) Fiscal year 1998, 1999, and 2000 allotments.--With
respect to any amounts allotted to a State pursuant to this
section for fiscal years 1998, 1999, or 2000 that were
redistributed to a State under paragraph (1), or whose
availability to a State was extended through the end of
fiscal year 2004 under paragraph (2), that were not expended
by the State by the end of fiscal year 2004, the following
rules shall apply:
``(i) 30 percent of such amounts shall remain available for
expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year 2007.
``(ii) The remainder of such amounts shall be redistributed
to States that have fully expended the amount of their fiscal
year 2002 allotments under this section in the same ratio as
unexpended fiscal year 2002 allotments are redistributed
under paragraph (1)(A)(i)(V) to such States and the amounts
redistributed under this clause shall remain available for
expenditure through the end of fiscal year 2007.
``(B) Fiscal year 2001 allotments.--With respect to any
amounts allotted to a State pursuant to this section for
fiscal year 2001 that were redistributed to a State under
paragraph (1), or whose availability to a State was extended
through the end of fiscal year 2005 under paragraph (2), that
were not expended by the State by the end of fiscal year
2005, the following rules shall apply:
``(i) 30 percent of such amounts shall remain available for
expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year 2007.
``(ii) The remainder of such amounts shall be redistributed
to States that have fully expended the amount of their fiscal
year 2003 allotments in the same ratio as unexpended fiscal
year 2003 allotments are redistributed under paragraph
(1)(A)(i)(VI) to such States
[[Page 17143]]
and the amounts redistributed under this clause shall remain
available for expenditure through the end of fiscal year
2007.
``(C) Fiscal year 2002 allotments.--With respect to any
amounts allotted to a State pursuant to this section for
fiscal year 2002 that were redistributed to a State under
paragraph (1), or whose availability to a State was extended
through the end of fiscal year 2006 under paragraph (2), that
were not expended by the State by the end of such fiscal
year, the following rules shall apply:
``(i) 30 percent of those amounts shall remain available
for expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year
2007.
``(ii) The remainder of such amounts shall be redistributed
to States that have fully expended the amount of their fiscal
year 2004 allotments in the same ratio as unexpended fiscal
year 2004 allotments are redistributed under paragraph
(1)(A)(i)(VII) to such States and the amounts redistributed
under this clause shall remain available for expenditure
through the end of fiscal year 2007.''.
SEC. 3. CONTINUED AUTHORITY FOR QUALIFYING STATES TO USE
CERTAIN FUNDS FOR MEDICAID EXPENDITURES.
Section 2105(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397ee(g)(1)(A)), as added by Public Law 108-74 (117 Stat.
895) and amended by Public Law 108-127 (117 Stat. 134), is
amended by striking ``or 2001'' and inserting ``2001, 2002,
2003 or 2004''.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Rockefeller
and others today in introducing a bipartisan proposal to extend and
redistribute expiring State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
funds.
This legislation will allow States to retain $1.07 billion in funds
originally allocated for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, and
currently scheduled to revert to the Federal Treasury on September 30,
2004. The bill also applies a 70-30 redistribution formula to the 1998-
2000 allotments. States with surplus funds scheduled to revert in
September will keep 30 percent of the money and cede 70 percent to
States that have exhausted their allotments. Additionally, the bill
will continue the current law redistribution rules through 2007. It
allows States unable to spend all of their fiscal year 2002, 2003, and
2004 SCHIP allotments within the 3-year limit, to keep half of the
unspent funds. The other 50 percent would be redistributed to States
that have exhausted their allotments.
This proposal will prevent States from losing unexpended SCHIP
allotments and allows States like Rhode Island, with efficient programs
and a high-level of need, to receive redistributed money. Without this
proposal, the overwhelming success of State SCHIP programs and quality
health coverage to millions of uninsured children will be jeopardized.
Preserving the expiring funds is essential to guaranteeing that more
than 200,000 children will not lose their health insurance coverage
between now and 2007. At a time when our Nation's uninsured rate has
climbed to 43.6 million, it makes little sense to take away Federal
funding from States that are desperately trying to enroll needy
children. This legislation is crucial to many States including my State
of Rhode Island. Without this remedy, Rhode Island is set to run out of
SCHIP funds by 2005. At 5 percent, Rhode Island currently has the third
lowest uninsured rate of any State in the Nation for children. This
bill will enable Rhode Island to continue offering health coverage to
this vulnerable population.
I urge my colleagues to join Senator Rockefeller and me in supporting
this important legislation. It is a crucial step toward ensuring that
our Nation's children will have long-term access to quality health
insurance.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Coleman):
S. 2762. A bill to encourage the use of indigenous feedstock from the
Caribbean Basin region with respect to ethyl alcohol for fuel use; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
close a loophole under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, CBI, trade
preference program which could allow large quantities of Brazilian
ethanol to be shipped to the United States duty-free. This loophole
allows companies to use the CBI program as a passthrough to get duty-
free treatment for Brazilian ethanol. This could end up displacing U.S.
production and hurting Iowa's ethanol producers. I want to help make
sure that does not happen.
Also, when the Caribbean Basin Initiative was enacted during the
Reagan administration, the purpose of the program was to encourage
trade and development with the region. I support the CBI program.
However, I believe that the program should encourage meaningful
economic development in the region. Unfortunately, one special interest
provision in the statute permits ``wet'' ethanol from Brazil to be
shipped to the CBI region and merely dehydrated, thus qualifying for
duty-free access to the U.S. market. The dehydration process which
occurs in the CBI region is not very complicated. It simply removes a
small percentage of water from ``wet'' ethanol, thereby converting it
into ``dry'' ethanol. Such ``dry'' ethanol is provided duty-free access
to the U.S. market. I do not believe that such simple processing is
substantial enough to warrant the benefit of getting duty-free access
to the U.S. market. In keeping with the original intent of the CBI, I
believe that more meaningful economic activity should occur in the CBI
region before a product qualifies for duty-free treatment.
My bill would limit the opportunity to exploit this special interest
provision. It would introduce a fixed cap on the amount of ethanol that
can take advantage of the passthrough provision. The amount of the cap
is based on the historical volume of ethanol exports from the CBI
region over the past 20 years. Thus, my bill will permit the continued
duty-free importation of some ethanol that is simply dehydrated in the
CBI region, based on historical trade amounts. However, my bill would
put a stop to the unlimited future growth of such duty-free imports.
It is my belief that this modification should not impact any of the
CBI companies that are currently operating ethanol plants in the
region. At the same time, my bill will encourage greater investment and
development in the CBI region because ethanol that is produced from
scratch in the CBI region, using CBI inputs, will continue to be
eligible for duty-free access to the U.S. market under the CBI program.
If ethanol is made from scratch in the CBI region then it will qualify
for duty-free treatment.
In sum, my bill only addresses new investments in dehydration plants,
whose sole purpose is to merely dehydrate Brazilian ethanol. Our tariff
preference programs should not be granting economic incentives in the
form of tariff preferences for such passthrough operations. In my mind,
that is not what the CBI program is for, and it is not fair for Iowa's
ethanol producers.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Congressional
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2762
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ETHYL ALCOHOL FOR FUEL USE.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 423(c)(3) of
the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (19 U.S.C. 2703 note) is amended
to read as follows:
``(B) The local feedstock requirement with respect to any
calendar year is--
``(i) 0 percent with respect to the base quantity that is
entered;
``(ii) 30 percent with respect to the 35,000,000 gallons of
dehydrated alcohol and mixtures entered in excess of the base
quantity; and
``(iii) 50 percent with respect to all dehydrated alcohol
and mixtures entered after the amount specified in clause
(ii) is entered.''.
(b) Base Quantity.--Clause (i) of section 423(c)(3)(C) of
the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (19 U.S.C. 2703 note) is amended
to read as follows:
``(i) The term `base quantity' means, with respect to
dehydrated alcohol and mixtures entered during any calendar
year--
``(I) 90,000,000 gallons in the case of dehydrated alcohol
and mixtures produced in a distillation facility located in a
beneficiary country that was established before, and in
operation on July 1, 2004; and
``(II) 0 gallons in the case of dehydrated alcohol and
mixtures produced in any other distillation facility located
in a beneficiary country.''.
[[Page 17144]]
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to calendar years beginning after 2004.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Reid):
S. 2763. A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to clarify the
treatment of accelerator-produced and other radioactive material as
byproduct material; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Dirty Bomb
Protections Acts along with Senators Gregg and Reid. This bill directs
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, to control key materials that
could be used in a dirty bomb. Unfortunately, some of these materials
are currently exempt from Federal control.
This bill follows a prior bill that I introduced with Senator Gregg
in 2002, which was the first bipartisan legislation to propose improved
domestic controls on materials that could be used in a ``dirty bomb.''
This legislation was supported and acclaimed by international dirty
bomb experts. It provided for the safeguarding of radioactive material
against use by terrorists. The bill required proper tracking, recovery,
storage and export controls for radioactive material.
Since then, the IAEA Board of Governors accepted and its General
Conference endorsed the revised ``IAEA Code of Conduct on the Safety
and Security of Radioactive Sources,'' which reflects many of the
elements in that bill. The heads of state and government of the eight
major industrialized democracies, G8, and over 30 other countries have
committed to implement the code. And at the Sea Island Summit earlier
this year, G8 leaders urged all states to implement the code and
recognize it as a global standard.
Passage of the Dirty Bomb Protections Act would allow the U.S. to
fully implement the commitments of the code by providing the NRC with
authority to control a set of substances for which they currently lack
authority, including Radium-226 and other naturally occurring
radioactive materials that for historical reasons have remained outside
of Federal control. To control these materials, the bill instructs the
NRC to: (1) promulgate final implementing regulations governing such
byproduct material; and (2) prepare and give public notice of a
transition plan for State assumption of regulatory responsibility for
such material.
I believe this bill represents an important step forward in our war
against terror and our efforts to control access to materials that
could be used to produce a dirty bomb. The language is identical to
language that passed the EPW Committee unanimously last year. I look
forward to working with Senator Inhofe and other Members of the Senate,
as well as the NRC, to advance this important legislation this year.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Hagel,
Mr. Reed, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Carper, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Reid, Mrs.
Dole, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Chafee):
2764. A bill to extend the applicability of the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Act of 2002; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce important legislation
which I believe is vital to our economic security. I am proud to
introduce this legislation, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act
of 2004, with Senators Bennett, Schumer, Jack Reed, Hagel, Dole,
Bunning, Crapo, Chafee, Harry Reid, and Ben Nelson.
As my colleagues know, the Senate hasn't been a model of legislative
productivity this year. It has been a very difficult year--there has
been partisan gridlock on a whole host of issues.
It is against this backdrop, the day that we adjourn for 6 weeks for
the August recess which includes both conventions and campaigning, that
I am proud to speak about an issue that has broad bipartisan support.
That issue is an extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.
This critically important legislation has a history of bipartisan
support and I am pleased to say that the robust support on both sides
of the aisle still exists as we consider an extension of the program.
The original TRIA legislation was not an easy undertaking. But we
persevered, negotiated, and had a frank exchange of views over numerous
months and in the end, even though it was at times a laborious,
difficult process, we produced a bipartisan bill that garnered 86 votes
in this body on this critically important issue.
I worked closely with Democratic Senators Schumer, Sarbanes, Reed,
and Corzine as well as Senators Bennett, Hagel, Phil Gramm, and many
others on the Republican side to get this critical bill passed. That is
the model that the Senate should follow more often and that is the
model that we are following as we introduce a 2-year extension of the
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act today which will provide continued
economic security and stability and avoid potential chaos in the
aftermath of a terrorist attack.
The September 11 tragedy resulted in disbelief, devastation, and
economic dislocation. An attack on our country seemed unimaginable. Few
believed any significant major terrorist attack would occur, no less
the one as horrific and devastating as the one on 9/11.
September 11 changed everything, most visibly, of course, national
and homeland security policy. But September 11 also fundamentally
changed the way insurers looked at terrorism risks which suddenly
started to resemble an act of war. As a result, after
9/11 the insurance market for terrorism nearly completely dried up.
Coverage was unavailable. Many financial transactions weren't able to
proceed. And construction workers and other hard-working Americans
suddenly found themselves economic victims of terrorism.
In short, we wrote TRIA for a very simple reason: hundreds of
thousands of American jobs and billions of dollars of business
investment hung in the balance.
We worked together on a bipartisan basis to pass this bill including
significant support from this administration which deserves its fair
share of credit for enactment of the legislation in November 2002.
TRIA was created as a 3-year Federal program to help make sure the
part of the commercial insurance marketplace, disrupted by 9/11, could
work again. Most Americans don't even know that TRIA provides a crucial
economic safety net for virtually every sector of our economy.
Transportation, real estate, utilities, construction, travel and
tourism, and financial institutions are just a few of the sectors that
need TRIA to protect them against the economic devastation that would
come because of a terrorist attack.
Under TRIA, the Government shoulders a share of the financial risk of
future attacks. This makes sense--these attacks are against us as
Americans, against our democracy, our way of life.
But TRIA also required insurers to offer terrorism coverage on
commercial policies. In addition, insurance companies would have to
bear an escalating financial burden in future years.
TRIA is working. This public-private ``shared loss'' mechanism is
making terrorism insurance available to all businesses at a reasonable
cost. Under TRIA, in the event of another terrorist attack, private
insurers will still shoulder tens of billions of dollars of terrorism
related risk.
What TRIA does is act as a backstop to the private commercial
property-casualty insurance system. It gives the market some certainty
by establishing, by law, a limit to insured terrorism losses for the
insurance industry and the Federal Government.
The Mortgage Bankers Association recently surveyed its 40 largest
commercial/multi-family mortgage banking firms. A substantial majority
of them believe that TRIA has made terrorism insurance both more
available and less expensive.
But the Mortgage Bankers also noted that failure to extend TRIA would
probably hurt the commercial real estate market. If we let TRIA expire,
we will see the same uncertain environment we saw before TRIA.
[[Page 17145]]
TRIA does not expire until the end of 2005. Now some may wonder why I
am choosing today to join with Senator Bennett and others to introduce
this legislation to extend the program.
The answer is that we cannot wait until next year.
The economic safety net that TRIA provides will begin to come apart
as early as this fall if Congress does not act.
In the next few months, commercial insurers and their policyholders
will begin negotiating new policies. But any 12-month policy taken out
after Jan 1 will include at least some time where TRIA doesn't exist if
we let it expire.
If we let TRIA expire, business consumers are going to have a hard
time getting the coverage they need. That can only hurt our economy,
and I'm sure that all Senators share the goal of growing our economy.
If we don't act this year, insurers will have to evaluate every
policy as if the backstop will not exist for part of the coverage
period.
Senator Bennett and I and other colleagues propose a 2-year extension
this year. That will help avoid destabilizing the insurance market,
and, in turn, the national economy. It will give Congress, insurers,
businesses, and Government officials time to gather all available,
relevant data.
Collecting that data--without fear of market disruption--will help
all of us develop a more permanent solution for managing our Nation's
economic exposure to catastrophic terrorism.
I know there is plenty of partisan tension in the Senate this year.
But keeping our country safe from the economic devastation of a
terrorist attack is a critical priority. It is too important to be
affected by partisan politics. We didn't let that happen last time, and
I hope everyone can work on a bipartisan basis and follow the
bipartisan model--rare in this body these days--to make sure it doesn't
happen this time.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
with my friend and colleague Senator Dodd to temporarily extend the
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. Senator Dodd was the author of the
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, or TRIA, which was enacted in 2002, and I
am joining with him in a bipartisan effort to extend this critically
important legislation this year.
As a result of the devastating attacks of 9/11 and a nonexistent
terrorism reinsurance market in its wake, TRIA was enacted to provide a
temporary economic safety net to our private insurance market. This
temporary backstop helped economic growth get back on track after the
shock of 9/11. Under current market conditions TRIA is essential to the
continued growth of nearly every sector of our economy--transportation,
energy, real estate, construction, travel and tourism, lodging, health
care, financial institutions, public entities, manufacturing, and
retail.
TRIA came into existence for a very simple reason: hundreds of
thousands of American jobs--and billions of dollars in business
transactions--hung in the balance due to uncertainty in the insurance
markets. The September 11 attacks fundamentally altered the way
insurers looked at terrorism risks. As a result, the insurance market
for terrorism dried up; coverage was unavailable; many types of
financial transactions were unable to proceed; hard-working Americans
suddenly found themselves economic victims of terrorism.
With broad, bipartisan support, Congress enacted TRIA in November
2002. TRIA was designed to be a temporary, 3-year program to bring
stability and functionality back to an essential sector of the
commercial insurance marketplace which ceased to exist after 9/11.
Fortunately, TRIA is working as intended. Terrorism insurance is
available to all businesses at a reasonable cost. Under TRIA, in the
event of further terror attacks, private insurers will cover tens of
billions of dollars of terrorism-related risk. TRIA acts as a backstop
to the private commercial property-casualty insurance system and
provides some market certainty by establishing statutory caps for
insured terrorism losses.
TRIA has enabled billions of dollars of real estate and other
business transactions previously stalled to go forward without
threatening the solvency of the commercial enterprises involved or
their insurers. A recent Mortgage Bankers Association, MBA, survey of
its 40 largest commercial/multifamily mortgage banking firms revealed
that a substantial majority of those survey respondents believe that
TRIA has made terrorism insurance both more available and less
expensive. Failure to extend TRIA with the uncertainties that still
exist in the insurance marketplace would likely have an adverse impact
on the commercial real estate market by recreating the pre-TRIA
environment that had led to rating agency downgrades of commercial
mortgage-backed securities due to lack of adequate terrorism insurance.
TRIA does not currently expire until year-end 2005--which may cause
some to wonder why we are introducing legislation today to extend the
program by 2 years now. In truth, the economic safety net that TRIA
provides will begin to fray as early as this fall if Congress does not
act. Because insurers are now required to make terrorism coverage
available throughout the life of the program--a decision rendered by
the Treasury Department earlier this summer--there is a very real
mismatch between TRIA's hard end-date and the commercial insurance
policies that will be written in the next few months.
TRIA currently has a ``hard'' end date, which means that the backstop
expires December 31, 2005. However, insurance policies that rely on
TRIA are written every day of the year, generally for a 12-month term,
although some commercial property policies covered by TRIA are
multiyear. Therefore, policies written after January 1, 2005, will have
a coverage term that extends beyond the life of the TRIA Federal
backstop. As a result, insurers will have no choice but to evaluate
every policyholder considered for coverage during this period as if the
backstop does not exist for part of the coverage period.
Because commercial insurers must make terrorism coverage available
for policies written at any time during 2005, insurers and
policyholders will be exposed to risk that they continue to be unable
to carry during the part of the coverage term that runs beyond TRIA.
Policyholders, state insurance regulators and insurers understand that
this potential mismatch between policy periods and TRIA's expiration
makes it absolutely critical that Congress acts this year to extend
TRIA beyond December 31, 2005.
Failure to extend TRIA beyond its current sunset date of December 31,
2005, will create tremendous uncertainty and potential market upheaval
for both commercial policyholders and insurers beginning as early as
this fall, when annual policies for coverage starting after January 1,
2005, are considered and negotiated.
Insurers and their policyholders already are beginning to negotiate
terms, prices and provisions for policy contracts that will renew
beginning in January 2005 and extend into 2006. Unless TRIA is extended
in 2004, policyholders whose coverage extends into 2006, and their
insurers, will not know whether TRIA's financial backstop will exist
for the full term of their coverage. This will make it difficult, if
not impossible, to accurately price such coverage and is likely to
dramatically reduce the availability of terrorism insurance to business
consumers. Such an outcome can only harm the economic recovery
underway.
A full 2-year extension this year will help avoid destabilizing the
insurance market, and, in turn, the national economy, and will enable
Congress, insurers, businesses and Government officials to gather all
available relevant data--including market data from all three years of
TRIA as insurer deductibles rise from 7 percent of prior year
commercial premiums in 2003 to 15 percent of such premiums in 2005.
Congressional action now will avoid a premature expiration of the
Federal backstop in 2005 and help ensure the economic recovery
maintains its pace.
Mr. SCHUMER. I am very pleased to join Senators Dodd and Bennett and
others in introducing a bill to extend
[[Page 17146]]
the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 for 2 years. I was actively
engaged in the formulation of the act and this bill.
This is important, urgently needed legislation. There is a strong
consensus among the affected parties that the act should be extended
now. The act, without the extension, would expire at the end of 2005.
There is a mismatch. Unless TRIA is extended this year, it will be
very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately price coverage on
policies that extend into 2006. This will likely significantly reduce
the availability of terrorism coverage. That lack of coverage could
adversely affect the economy and the economic recovery.
TRIA is working. The General Accounting Office has found that: ``TRIA
has improved the availability of terrorism insurance, especially for
some high-risk policyholder.''
Fortunately, there have been no terrorism events on U.S. soil since
9/11. We all know that we are under a constant threat and TRIA
continues to be necessary.
I noted on the Senate floor when TRIA was passed in 2002 that
Government is going to have to play a larger role. TRIA establishes a
public-private partnership on terrorism insurance. The private sector
could not solve this problem alone in 2002, plain and simple, and it
still cannot do so. We can quibble about how much and where that
Federal role should be, but it is definitely needed.
This nonpartisan bill is essentially a 2-year extension of TRIA. The
changes that are made are minor, they include: extending the ``make
available'' provision; including group life insurance policies under
the act; gradually adjusting the aggregate industry loss level used to
determine mandatory recoupment; providing for a 1 year ``soft landing''
for policies written before December 31, 2007; and requiring a study
addressing long-term solutions to terrorism exposure. These are
worthwhile modifications.
The bottom line is a simple one, and that is, our No. 1 goal should
be keeping the economy on track in this brave new post-9/11 world. If
that means altering the balance between Government and private
involvement, so be it.
TRIA has worked in New York City. It has translated into thousands of
jobs and desperately needed economic activity for the city, the region,
and the entire country. If G-D forbid, there is another terrorism
catastrophe in this country I have no doubts that the Government will
provide the needed aid. TRIA addresses part of that effort in an
orderly manner. Our clear hope is that we will never again experience
catastrophes that make this bill necessary.
I am hopeful that this bill can be quickly considered by the Banking
Committee, passed by the Senate and House, and enacted into law this
year.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Voinovich, and Mrs. Dole):
S. 2765. A bill to amend the Exchange Rates and International
Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 to clarify the conditions
under which the Secretary should enter into negotiations to correct
currency manipulations by other countries; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I respectfully request that the attached
bill be printed in the Record as introduced. If you have any questions
about this request, please contact Rob Weissert at 4-0216.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2765
SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL
POLICY.
(a) Bilateral Negotiations.--Section 3004(b) of the
Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy Coordination
Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5304(b)) is amended in the second
sentence by striking ``(1) have material global account
surpluses; and (2)''.
(b) Report.--Section 3005(b) of the Exchange Rates and
International Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 (22
U.S.C. 5305(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) a detailed explanation of the test the Secretary uses
to determine if a country is manipulating the rate of
exchange between that country's currency and the dollar for
purposes of preventing effective balance of payments
adjustments or gaining an unfair advantage in international
trade.''.
______
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 2766. A bill to amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
negotiate for lower prices for Medicare prescription drugs and to
eliminate the gap in coverage of Medicare prescription drug benefits,
to reduce medical errors and increase the use of medical technology, to
increase services in primary and preventive care by non-physician
providers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to
introduce the Prescription Drug and Health Improvement Act of 2004,
which is legislation designed to reduce the high prices of prescription
drugs. Americans, specifically senior citizens, pay the highest prices
in the world for brand-name prescription drugs. With 43 million
uninsured Americans and many more senior citizens without an adequate
prescription drug benefit, filling a doctor's prescription is
unaffordable for many people in this country. The United States has the
greatest health care system in the world; however, too many seniors are
forced to make difficult choices between life-sustaining prescription
drugs and daily necessities.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that in 2003
per capita spending on prescription drugs rose approximately 12
percent, with a similar rate of growth expected for this year. Much of
the increase in drug spending is due to higher utilization and the
shift from older, lower cost drugs to newer, higher cost drugs.
However, rapidly increasing drug prices are a critical component.
High drug prices, combined with the surging older population, are
also taking a toll on State budgets and private sector health insurance
benefits. Medicaid spending on prescription drugs increased at an
average annual rate of nearly 20 percent between 1998 and 2001. Until
lower priced drugs are available, pressures will continue to squeeze
public programs at both the State and Federal level.
To address these problems, my legislation would reduce the high
prices of prescription drugs to seniors by: one, allowing the Secretary
of Health and Human Services, HHS, to negotiate prescription drug
prices with manufacturers; and two, eliminate the coverage gap in the
Medicare Prescription Drug Program. The bill's $400 billion price tag
over the next 10 years would be offset by, three, reducing medical
errors, increasing the use of medical technology, and, four, increasing
the use of non-physician providers in primary and preventive health
care.
Prescription Drug Negotiation: This legislation would repeal the
prohibition against interference by the Secretary of HHS with
negotiations between drug manufacturers, pharmacies, and prescription
drug plan sponsors and instead authorize the Secretary to negotiate
contracts with manufacturers of covered prescription drugs. It will
allow the Secretary of HHS to use Medicare's large beneficiary
population to leverage bargaining power to obtain lower prescription
drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.
Price negotiations between the Secretary of HHS and prescription drug
manufacturers would be analogous to the ability of the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to negotiate prescription drug prices with
manufacturers. This bargaining power enables veterans to receive
prescription drugs at a significant cost savings.
In my capacity as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I
introduced the Veterans Prescription Drugs Assistance Act, S. 1153,
which was reported out of committee on June 20, 2004.
This legislation would broaden the ability of veterans to access the
Veterans Affairs Prescription Drug Program. All Medicare-eligible
veterans will be able to purchase medications at a tremendous price
reduction through
[[Page 17147]]
the Veterans Affairs' Prescription Drug Program. In many cases this
would save veterans who are Medicare beneficiaries up to 90 percent on
the cost of commonly prescribed medications. Similar savings would be
available to America's seniors from the savings achieved using the HHS
bargaining power, like the Veterans Affairs bargaining power for the
benefit of veterans.
Medicare Coverage Gap Elimination: The bill would eliminate the
coverage gap, also known as the ``doughnut hole,'' for beneficiaries in
the Medicare prescription drug program. Beginning in January 2006,
Medicare beneficiaries with an individual income of over $13,470 and
couples with an income over $18,180, 150 percent of the poverty level,
will pay a monthly premium, approximately $35, a $250 deductible, and
coinsurance of 25 percent up to an initial coverage limit of $2,250,
but then do not receive coverage until they exceed $5,100 of total
spending. Specifically, Medicare beneficiaries will have to make out-
of-pocket payments for prescription drug purchases from $2,250 to
$5,100 in total spending. After $5,100 in total spending, the
coinsurance payment for those beneficiaries is 5 percent. Medicare
beneficiaries below 150 percent of the poverty level do not have a gap
in drug coverage. My legislation would eliminate the gap in coverage
for those over 150 percent of the poverty level in the Medicare
prescription drug program, by extending the 25 percent beneficiary
coinsurance payment from $2,250 to $5,100 in total spending.
This provision comes at an expected cost of $400 billion over 10
years, which will be paid for through savings from reducing medical
errors, increasing the use of medical technology, and increasing the
use of non-physician providers in primary and preventive health care.
Reducing Medical Errors and Increasing the Use of Medical Technology:
The bill provides grants for demonstration programs to test best
practices for reducing errors, testing the use of appropriate
technologies to reduce medical errors, such as electronic medication
systems, and research in geographically diverse locations to determine
the causes of medical errors. The implementation of automated
prescription drug dispensers will prevent adverse drug reactions, which
in turn can cause further illness resulting in increased care needed to
correct the error. The utilization of electronic records will reduce
the incidence of repeat medical tests, which will result in significant
cost savings.
On November 29, 1999, the Institute of Medicine, IOM, issued a report
entitled ``To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System.'' The IOM
report estimated that anywhere between 44,000 and 98,000 hospitalized
Americans die each year due to avoidable medical mistakes. However,
only a fraction of these deaths and injuries are due to negligence.
Most errors are caused by system failures. The IOM issued a
comprehensive set of recommendations, including the establishment of a
nationwide, mandatory reporting system; incorporation of patient safety
standards in regulatory and accreditation programs; and the development
of a non-punitive ``culture of safety'' in health care organizations.
The report called for a 50-percent reduction in medical errors over 5
years.
After the report was issued, I held a series of three Labor, Health
and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee hearings on medical
errors: Dec. 13, 1999--to discuss the findings of the Institute of
Medicine's report on medical errors; Jan. 25, 2000--a joint hearing
with the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to discuss a national error
reporting system and the VA's national patient safety program; Feb. 22,
2000--a joint hearing with the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee to discuss the administration's strategy to reduce medical
errors.
After hearing from Government witnesses and experts in the field on
medical errors, I included $50 million in the fiscal year 2001 Senate
Labor, Health and Human Services and Education for a patient safety
initiative. In the Senate report, I also directed the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ, to: one, develop guidelines on
the collection of uniform error data; two, establish a competitive
demonstration program to test ``best practices''; and three, research
ways to improve provider training.
The committee also directed AHRQ to prepare an interim report to
Congress concerning the results of the demonstration program within 2
years of the beginning of the projects. The fiscal year 2002 Senate
report directed AHRQ to submit a report detailing the results of its
initiative to reduce medical errors. HHS combined both reports into
one, which it submitted to me earlier this year.
Since fiscal year 2001, the Labor/HHS Subcommittee has included
within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funding for
research into ways to reduce medical errors. The fiscal year 2002
appropriation was $55 million, in fiscal year 2003 another $55 million
was provided, and in fiscal year 2004 the appropriation was increased
to $79.5 million.
The bill seeks to assist development of private sector technology
standards to reduce medical errors by examining information technology,
providing grants, and coordinating implementation by private sector
entities. This would help ensure that this Federal investment will help
further the national health information infrastructure by sharing the
information collected through these demonstration projects with other
health facilities nationally. These efforts would help reduce medical
errors and bring the Nation's health systems into the 21st century with
a projected cost savings of $150 billion over 10 years.
Primary and Preventive Care Services: The bill includes provisions
for the use of nonphysician providers such as nurse practitioners,
physician assistants, and clinical nurse specialists by increasing
direct reimbursement under Medicare and Medicaid without regard to the
setting where services are provided. The services provided by non-
physician providers would insure that patients would receive benefits
and services to which they are entitled without compromising the high
standards of medical care. The use of these health care professionals
would provide a significant cost savings to health care systems.
The bill creates a medical student tutorial program providing grants
to encourage students early on in their medical training to pursue a
career in primary care and provides grant assistance to medical
training programs to recruit such students. This program is
advantageous for medical students by providing valuable primary care
experience, while offering services at a lower cost to primary care
facilities. The savings from this provision is estimated at $250
billion over a 10-year period.
I believe this bill can provide desperately needed access to
inexpensive, effective prescription drugs for America's seniors. The
time has come for concerted action in this arena. I urge my colleagues
to move this legislation forward promptly.
______
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 2767. A bill to provide an economic stimulus; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the
Small Business Economic Stimulus Act of 2004. In recent months, there
have been clear signs that America's economic downturn has ended and
that we are entering a period of renewed growth and prosperity. Yet not
all of the economic news has been good. As I travel through
Pennsylvania, I still hear from too many companies that they cannot
afford to make needed investments in equipment or research at this
time. As they postpone such investments, they also push off into the
future the economic growth and opportunity that would flow from them.
As a result, I continue to meet far too many Pennsylvanians who are out
of work. Thus while the economy is improving, it is still incumbent
upon us in Congress to do everything in our power to aid this recovery
and grow jobs. There is more we can do.
The bill I introduce today, the Small Business Economic Stimulus Act
of
[[Page 17148]]
2004, will help American companies take the steps they need to grow and
hire. Since small businesses create approximately 75 percent of new
jobs in America, my bill focuses on the needs of small business in
particular. My bill has three parts. Part one renews and extends three
tax provisions which are crucial to encouraging new investments in R&D
and equipment. Part two provides greater resources to trade offices and
trade promotion with a particular emphasis on programs that will enable
America's small businesses to better compete in foreign markets. Part
three creates a structure for association health plans which will
enable small businesses to negotiate less expensive health plans for
their employees, thereby saving money while continuing to provide
coverage. Together, these provisions amount to a targeted, measured,
yet crucial shot in the arm for American small business and the
American economy.
The bill I introduce today will permanently extend the research and
development tax credit. The R&D tax credit, which expired on June 30,
has proven to be of enormous value to American business. We all
understand the importance of research and development to the American
economy. Most leading American companies owe their market dominance to
the innovations coming from R&D labs. Yet R&D is expensive, and it is
often among the first items to be cut when budgets get tight. The R&D
tax credit serves America by providing an economic incentive to
companies to continue to invest in the R&D that will provide the growth
and opportunities of the future.
Studies have shown that the R&D tax credit significantly increases
research and development expenditures. The marginal effect of $1 of the
research credit creates approximately $1 of additional private research
and development spending in the short-run, and as much as $2 of extra
R&D spending in the long run. This is good for the American economy and
the American taxpayer. In fact, one study estimates that a permanent
research credit would result in our gross domestic product increasing
by $10 billion after 5 years and by $31 billion after 20 years.
In addition, the extension of the R&D tax credit will have benefits
beyond the purely economic. For example, the research and development
tax credit has proven to be critical to the U.S. biomedical research
arena. The tax credit has contributed to many successes in U.S.
scientific research and innovation, such as rapid progress in finding
cures for life threatening diseases such as AIDS, cancer and multiple
sclerosis. Today's diseases--Alzheimer's, AIDS, heart, liver and kidney
disease, prostate cancer and arthritis--are complex and are in the
final stages for research breakthroughs. If we allow the incentives to
invest in medical progress to lapse, the consequence may be irrevocable
and society may rue that decision for years to come.
Given the importance of the R&D tax credit, it makes little sense for
Congress to continue to renew it for short terms. The investment of
funds in research and development is not a temporary fix but something
that should be consistently encouraged. Towards this end, my bill
permanently extends the R&D tax credit. Such a permanent extension will
send a strong signal to American companies that the value of R&D is
recognized here in Washington. The permanent extension will also
provide greater certainty to companies seeking to make plans years in
advance.
My legislation will also renew two less well known but important tax
provisions which encourage capital investments. My bill extends for
another year a provision that allows companies to take an immediate 50-
percent depreciation on purchases of qualified equipment and machinery.
This accelerated depreciation is currently set to expire in December,
2004; equipment purchased thereafter would be subject to standard
depreciation tables. My bill provides that necessary equipment
purchased between December 2004 and December 2005 will continue to
qualify for the accelerated depreciation.
The availability of accelerated depreciation--especially at the high
rate of 50 percent--makes an enormous difference to companies
contemplating large capital investments. Companies which simply could
not afford these investments under standard depreciation face a
dramatically altered balance sheet once the accelerated depreciation is
factored in. Investments that did not previously make economic sense
will now be economically advantageous. As these investments are made,
companies will grow and hire. This change in the balance sheet will
reap a concrete benefit in jobs and growth.
In addition, my legislation extends the section 179 exclusion at the
current level of $100,000 through December 2007. This is another
esoteric sounding provision that will produce very real economic
benefits. Under this provision, companies can immediately expense, that
is, recognize as an expense to be deducted from revenues for tax
purposes, up to $100,000 invested in equipment and machinery. The
standard section 179 deduction is only $25,000. Once again, this
provision will have the effect of making investments economically
advantageous when they otherwise would not be. The greater capital
investment thereby fostered will lead to greater growth and job
opportunities.
Beyond these tax incentives, my bill also seeks to help American
business through our trade policy. My legislation focuses on two
programs in particular which help small businesses find markets for
their products abroad. My bill includes an increase in funding of $27
million for the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, USTDA. The USTDA has
proven to be critical to small businesses seeking to sell their
products abroad. The USTDA helps American businesses study and identify
opportunities in foreign markets so that they can determine which
options will be profitable. To a small American business facing a very
large global economy, the USTDA serves as an accessible and inexpensive
international sales department.
USTDA's unique public-private partnership truly extends the
effectiveness of taxpayers' dollars. Historically, $35 worth of exports
are generated for every dollar invested by USTDA. As a result, $21
billion in U.S. exports have been shipped overseas in concert with
USTDA's programs.
My legislation also includes $5 million in funding to promote the
benefits available under the Export Trading Company Act of 1982. This
legislation was enacted to stimulate U.S. exports by authorizing the
Secretary of Commerce to issue export trade certificates of review to
groups of small businesses. A certificate of review protects the holder
and the members identified in the certificate from State and Federal
Government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust
actions for the export conduct specified in the certificate and carried
out in compliance with its terms and conditions.
Given the realities of international trade, these antitrust
exemptions are crucial. In order to compete in a challenging foreign
market such as China, for example, it is extremely advantageous to have
a full-time sales representative on the ground there. Yet few small
businesses can afford to hire full-time representatives and send them
to China. The antitrust exemptions in the Export Trading Company Act of
1982 would enable a group of small businesses to band together to hire
a sales representative, open an office, and pursue the other
necessities of international trade.
The Export Trading Company Act is good legislation which solves a
critical problem. Yet few American businesses exploring international
trade are aware of the opportunities under this act, let alone take
advantage of them. As a result, the enormous economic opportunities
created by this law continue to go unrealized. I think that a minimal
investment in marketing and promoting this act will pay for itself many
times over in increased exports, growth and jobs.
Finally, my bill includes a provision that will enable small
businesses to join together to negotiate more affordable health care
plans for their employees. This provision will provide an enormous
economic boost to America's businesses--with the saving they gain
[[Page 17149]]
from better health insurance rates they can invest, grow and hire. Yet
this provision also provides clear benefits beyond the purely economic.
By making health insurance more affordable, this provision will help
reverse the growth in the ranks of the uninsured.
According to a poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation,
Americans worry more about rising health care costs than they do about
terrorist attacks. There is a reason for such concern. More than 43
million Americans under age 65 lack health insurance coverage. The
ranks of the uninsured consist primarily of working families with low
and moderate incomes--not just the unemployed. Nearly 26 million
individuals are employed and still are without health care coverage.
My bill will give small businesses the same market-based advantages
when negotiating health insurance for their employees that large
companies and unions currently enjoy. As independent entities, small
businesses have little leverage when they negotiate with health
insurance providers, and the situation they face is often one of take
it or leave it. Even when small businesses band together in local
purchasing pools, the group is often not large enough to attract new
insurance companies with less expensive plans.
My act will allow small businesses to join together in large national
pools under the auspices of bona fide associations and either purchase
insurance from a provider or self-insure the same way that large
employers and unions do. For example, the American Restaurant
Association could negotiate a plan on behalf of the hundreds of
thousands of employees who work for its member businesses. Once the
plan is in place, each individual restaurant could choose to
participate in this plan at much better rates than they could ever have
negotiated on their own.
I thank Senator Snowe for her leadership and hard work on this issue
of association health plans. On March 6, 2003, Senator Snowe introduced
S. 545, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003. This long and
very detailed bill addresses all of the issues needed to make
association health plans a reality. I signed on as a cosponsor of S.
545 on June 9, 2003, and I have included the text of S. 545 in my bill.
It is my sincere hope that the economic recovery will continue and
will pick up steam in the months to come. There is great reason for
optimism. But our optimism must not blind us to the continuing problems
that Americans face. There are measures that Congress can take--today--
which will help our businesses to grow, hire new employees, and provide
health insurance to these employees at a more affordable rate. These
measures will, in the long run, more than pay for themselves. We must
take these steps and do our part. I hope that my colleagues will join
me in supporting the Economic Stimulus Act of 2004.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 2768. A bill to provide competitive status to certain Federal
employees in the State of Alaska; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is the third occasion on which I
have spoken to the Senate about the life and accomplishments of the
late Thomas P. O'Hara, an Alaskan hero.
Thomas P. O'Hara was a protection ranger and pilot for the National
Park Service, assigned to the Katmai National Park and Preserve in the
Bristol Bay region of western Alaska. On December 19, 2002, Ranger
O'Hara and his passenger, a Fish and Wildlife Service employee, were on
a mission in the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge. Their plane
went down on the tundra.
When the plane was reported overdue, a rescue effort consisting of 14
single-engine aircraft, an Alaska Air National Guard plane, and a Coast
Guard helicopter quickly mobilized. Many of the single-engine aircraft
were piloted by Tom's friends. The wreckage was located late in the
afternoon of December 20. The passenger survived the crash, but Ranger
Tom did not.
Tom O'Hara was an experienced pilot with 11,000 hours as a pilot-in-
command. He was active in the communities of Naknek and King Salmon
where he grew up, flying children to Bible camp and coaching young
wrestlers. Tom provided a strong link between the residents of Bristol
Bay and the National Park Service.
Although Tom O'Hara was a most valued employee of the National Park
Service, he did not enjoy the same status as National Park Service
employees with competitive career status. Tom was hired under a special
hiring authority established under the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act, ANILCA, which permits land management agencies like
the National Park Service to hire, on a noncompetitive basis, Alaskans
who by reason of having lived or worked in or near public lands in
Alaska, have special knowledge or expertise concerning the natural or
cultural resources of public lands and the management thereof.
Tom O'Hara possessed this knowledge and offered it freely to the
National Park Service. But because he was hired under this special
authority, his opportunities for transfer and promotion within the Park
Service were limited, even though his service was exemplary.
As a lasting memorial to Tom O'Hara's exemplary career, I am
introducing legislation today that will grant competitive status to
ANILCA local hire employees who hold permanent appointments with the
Federal land management agencies after the completion of 1 year of
satisfactory service. In Tom's honor, the short title of this
legislation is the Thomas P. O'Hara Public Land Career Opportunity Act
of 2004.
It is my sincere hope that the enactment of this legislation will
encourage other Alaskans, particularly Alaska Natives, to follow in Tom
O'Hara's footsteps and seek lifelong careers with the Federal land
management agencies.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation 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. 2768
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 ``Thomas P. O'Hara Public Land
Career Opportunity Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. COMPETITIVE STATUS FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN
THE STATE OF ALASKA.
Section 1308 of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3198) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Competitive Status.--An individual appointed to a
permanent position under subsection (a) shall, after the
completion of 1 year of service, be considered to have
competitive status and shall enjoy the rights, privileges,
and benefits of employees holding competitive status,
including the rights, privileges, and benefits relating to
promotion and transfer.''.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Nelson
of Nebraska):
S. 2769. A bill to provide that imported ethanol shall not count
toward satisfaction of any renewable fuel standard that may be enacted;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, recent media reports indicate that at
least two companies are actively considering plans to import Brazilian
ethanol into the United States duty-free through the Caribbean Basin.
These reports have generated understandable anxiety within the farm
community.
Cargill, the Minnesota-based agri-business giant, has confirmed that
it is considering importing 63 million gallons of Brazilian ethanol
into the United States each year. And it has been reported that
Chevron-Texaco, one of the largest oil companies in the United States,
is planning construction of a plant that will enable it to import 50
million to 100 million gallons of ethanol.
Farmers in South Dakota and throughout the Midwest are concerned that
such import schemes could threaten the growth of the domestic ethanol
[[Page 17150]]
industry and undermine our effort to establish ethanol as a major
domestic energy source. They should be concerned. These import plans
would establish a dangerous precedent for other importers and
dramatically undercut the ability of the pending Renewable Fuels
Standard to enhance our national energy security and boost farm income.
The key to the next growth spurt in the domestic ethanol industry is
bipartisan legislation I wrote with Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN) that
would set mandatory annual production targets for ethanol for the next
10 years. Senator Lugar and I proposed the Renewable Fuels Standard, or
RFS, 4 years ago as a means to grow the domestic ethanol industry in a
way that both encourages investment in new community-sized ethanol
facilities and expands markets for farmers. We remain hopeful that this
proposal will clear Congress before adjournment this year.
Under our proposed RFS, domestic ethanol demand would grow from 3
billion gallons per year in 2004 to more than 5 billion gallons in
2012, providing ethanol plants and farmers with a steady growth
schedule that encourages investment in this domestic industry. This RFS
would create over 214,000 jobs, increase farm income by $1.3 billion
annually, and save the U.S. $4 billion in imported oil each year.
Plans to import ethanol threaten these benefits by injecting an
element of market uncertainty into the RFS discussion that could dampen
investment in community-sized ethanol facilities. Ethanol importation
would put the producers of Brazilian sugarcane in direct competition
with American corn growers. That is why today Senators Lugar, Hagel,
Nelson, and I are introducing legislation to clarify that ethanol
imports will not count toward the RFS targets. This bill will ensure
that farmers and domestic ethanol investors will get the full benefit
of the RFS, and it tells Cargill and Chevron accountants not to count
on the new demand created by the Renewable Fuels Standard to justify
any scheme to import ethanol.
I understand that corporate executives feel an obligation to their
shareholders. My obligation is to South Dakota farmers, ethanol
producers, and motorists who view increased ethanol demand as a means
to establish greater control over their economic and energy future.
I have fought my entire public career against outright opposition and
indifference from the giant corporate interests whose balance sheets
don't consider the value-added contribution of local economic
development. This situation is no different. As a result of our
efforts, Chevron won't get to import as much oil and refine and sell as
much high-priced gasoline as they may like, and Cargill won't get to
import ethanol and compete against South Dakota producers.
The RFS program is designed to stimulate domestic production and
enhance U.S. energy security, not to create a market opportunity for
foreign ethanol. The bill I am introducing today will help make sure
that rural communities are able to attract investment capital to
produce clean burning energy, create quality jobs for their kids, and
expand local tax bases to accommodate better schools and community
services.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
additional material be printed in the Record.
Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2769
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DISQUALIFICATION OF IMPORTED ETHANOL FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ANY RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD.
For the purpose of any renewable fuel standard that may be
enacted after the date of enactment of this Act, ethanol that
is imported, or that is derived from any matter that is
imported, shall not count toward satisfaction of the
renewable fuel standard.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE:
S. 2770. A bill to establish a National Commission on American Indian
Trust Holdings; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as we all painfully know, the United
States has broken its word to Indian people, disregarded its treaty
obligations, and breached its fiduciary trust responsibility.
Litigation has been filed, and administrations of both political
parties say the right thing, but then do not follow through to redress
legitimate grievances. The concepts of sovereignty and government-to-
government dialog are acknowledged, only later all too frequently to be
ignored.
This sad history was elevated to a new level of concern this spring
by the resignation of Mr. Alan Balaran as Special Master in the Cobell
class action against the Department of the Interior. On April 5, 2004,
Mr. Balaran made some very serious charges against the Department of
the Interior in his official letter of resignation. He alleged that
energy companies, abetted by the Department of the Interior, routinely
pay Indian people less than they pay others for oil and gas easements.
He further alleged that Interior officials regularly put the interests
of private companies ahead of the Department's fiduciary responsibility
to Indian people.
These are disturbing charges leveled by an individual knowledgeable
about the long history of trust mismanagement. Congress must get to the
bottom of this situation to fully satisfy our own fiduciary
responsibility to Indian people.
It is clear that neither the executive branch nor the Congress's
hands are clean on the trust management issue. And this not a partisan
failure. It is a governmentwide failure that requires independent
review.
I am, therefore, today introducing legislation to create a National
Commission on American Indian Trust Holdings. This Commission will be
unique in several respects. First, it will be composed of 10 prominent
U.S. citizens. Two individuals will each be appointed by the President,
Senate majority leader, Senate minority leader, Speaker of the House,
and House minority leader to place the Commission beyond politics.
Second, it will have the resources to hire the technical expertise
needed. Professionals with expertise in land and resources management,
accounting, Federal Indian policy, and trust law, among other
disciplines will be included.
The Commission will build upon past efforts without duplicating past
efforts.
Finally, the Commission will be charged with the responsibility of
reporting to the President and the Congress within 1 year on: One, how
to recoup, if possible, any damages that have resulted from the breach
of fiduciary responsibility; and, two, how to prevent any such breaches
in the future. We are looking for specific recommendations on how to
fairly account for past mistakes, how to find closure on the trust
issue, and how to prevent those mistakes from again happening in the
future.
The overall goal of the Commission is to fully and completely examine
the very serious charges made by Mr. Balaran, as outlined in his letter
to Judge Lamberth. The Commission would also be authorized to examine
other breaches of trust and to report back to the Congress and such
executive departments as may seem appropriate.
Many words have been spoken over many years about trust
responsibility and the breach of trust and fiduciary obligations, but
very little concrete action has resulted from these words. Mr.
Balaran's charges should be a wake-up call to all civic-minded
Americans to demand that fairness be restored to the administration of
Indian trust accounts. I sincerely hope that, given the track record of
the past 10 years, an independent panel of distinguished Americans will
be given an opportunity to succeed where the executive and legislative
branches have fallen short. Their review will at least get to the
bottom of Mr. Balaran's charges. And perhaps we can use the results of
this examination to generate momentum for exploring the larger trust
issues.
[[Page 17151]]
I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Balaran's letter of resignation and
the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
April 5, 2004.
Re: Cobell v. Norton, No. 96-1285.
Hon. Royce C. Lamberth
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Washington,
DC.
Dear Judge Lamberth: I hereby tender my resignation as
Special Master in the Cobell case, effective the close of
business on April 5, 2004.
This is an extraordinarily important case. I have been
privileged to work on it. For the past several months,
however, my efforts have been undermined by a series of
motions lodged by the Department of the Interior--one of
Cobell's two co-defendants--seeking my disqualification.
It is evident Interior will continue filing such motions,
preventing the case from moving forward. The agency's
motivation is clear. In recent months, I have reported
evidence of a practice--abetted by Interior--of energy
companies routinely paying individual Indians much less than
they pay non-Indians for oil and gas pipeline easements
across the Southwest. I also have uncovered evidence that
Interior fails to diligently monitor oil and gas leasing
activities on individual Indian lands. To prevent further
investigation into these matters, Interior seeks my removal
from the Cobell case.
The timing of Interior's efforts to disqualify me is not
coincidental. Interior filed its May 2003 disqualification
motion shortly after I found the agency withheld salient data
from its quarterly reports to the Court. The agency accused
me, of improperly retaining the services of a former Interior
contractor to obtain information germane to that
investigation. You found this accusation frivolous,
suggesting it was Interior that acted improperly by impeding
my investigation and that Interior had an ulterior motive for
seeking my removal. You were correct.
Interior's disqualification attempts stemmed from events
that took place several months earlier, beginning with my
March 6, 2003 visit to the Office of Appraisal Services of
the Navajo Regional Office in Gallup, New Mexico. There, in
the presence of the Department of Justice and Interior
counsel, the Chief Appraiser admitted that he appraised oil
and gas easements running across individual Indian lands for
amounts considerably less than the appraised value of
identical interests held by non-Indians. The Chief Appraiser
also admitted destroying evidence of his 20-year practice of
doing so. Interior has never denied that the Chief Appraiser
destroyed valuable trust information or that energy companies
pay individual Indians a fraction of what they pay similarly
situated non-Indians as a result of these inadequate
appraisals. (Nor has the agency taken any disciplinary action
against the Chief Appraiser. To the contrary, it has gone to
great lengths to protect him by retaining the services of two
attorneys to defend his conduct during a recent deposition.)
On August 20, 2003, I issued a report chronicling my
findings. This report was just the beginning. I soon began to
uncover evidence that Interior was putting the interests of
private energy companies ahead of the interests of individual
Indian beneficiaries.
On September 19, 2003, for example, I visited Minerals
Management Service's (MMS) Office of Minerals Revenue
Management (MRM) in Dallas--the repository of Interior's oil
and gas audit files. My visit was prompted by two events: (1)
the March 2003 report of Interior's Office of the Inspector
General, revealing that MMS officials not only fabricated oil
and gas audit files but were rewarded for their efforts; and
(2) Justice's denial of my repeated requests for access to
these files. As you noted in your March 15, 2004 decision
denying Interior's disqualification motion, since August
1999, I have visited dozens of sites to ensure that Interior
was safeguarding trust documentation in accordance with your
directives. Interior not only approved of these visits, but
encouraged its employees to cooperate with me fully during my
inspections. My visit to Dallas was different. After only two
hours, during which I uncovered chaotic recordkeeping
practices and missing audit files, NMS officials informed me
that Justice ordered that I leave.
The reason for this dramatic shift in policy is obvious.
Whereas my previous investigations exposed random incidents
of unprotected trust documents in remote Interior locations,
my recent findings implicated the agency's systemic failure
to properly monitor the activities of energy companies
leasing minerals on individual Indian lands. The consequences
of these findings could cost the very companies with which
senior Interior officials maintain close ties, millions of
dollars. (In that regard, I direct you to the recent
Inspector General Report of Investigation (PI-SI-02-0053-I),
discussing the relationship between Interior's most senior
officials and energy company executives.) Interior did not
want this information to come to light and for the first and
only time during my five-year tenure as Special Master,
ordered me to leave a site.
Just one week after my Dallas site visit, in a motion filed
on September 26, 2003, Interior issued the following
ultimatum: either you rule on its disqualification motion by
October 15, or the government would file a mandamus petition
in the Court of Appeals, seeking to have that Court
disqualify me. At that time, the government knew you were
beginning a six-defendant criminal trial on October 1, 2003,
that involved multiple counts of murder, drug offenses, and
racketeering, making it impossible for you to rule on the
disqualification issue by the October 15 ``deadline.''
Interior was just going through the motions and, in mid-
October, filed its mandamus petition in the Court of Appeals.
It is evident that Interior, supported by the Department of
Justice, is committed to removing me from this case. It is
also plain that the agency's efforts to unseat me bear no
relationship to the reasons it offers in its disqualification
motion, but rather to my discovery of significant problems
with its appraisal and record-keeping practices. A full
investigation into these matters might well result in energy
companies being forced to repay significant sums to
individual Indians. Interior could not let this happen,
Justice has been much too long in coming for the hundreds
of thousands of Native Americans whose land the government
has supposedly held in trust, in some cases for over a
century. Billions of dollars are at stake. It is past time to
get systems in place that will enable the Departments of the
Interior and Treasury to track trust data accurately in the
future, as well as render an honest and reliable accounting
in the present. In this respect, my presence in the case has
become a distraction. And while I am confident that
Interior's disqualification motions would ultimately be
denied, I have no doubt that were I to continue as Special
Master, the agency's efforts to disqualify me would persist
and accelerate. Given this, I will be of no practical service
to the Court. I hope that, with my resignation, the parties
will be able to move rapidly toward fundamental reforms. I
also hope that, understanding this background, my successors
will be more efficacious.
Finally, on a personal note, you are a courageous,
decisive, and diligent judge who strives to do justice in
each and every case. It has been my honor to have served with
you. Thank you for giving me this opportunity.
Sincerely,
Alan L. Balaran,
Special Master.
____
S. 2770
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON AMERICAN INDIAN TRUST
HOLDINGS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the United States has entered into treaties with Indian
tribes under which the United States made various commitments
to Indian tribes and Indian people;
(2) the United States functions, by treaty and statute, as
a trustee for Indian tribes and individual Indians;
(3) the United States has a fiduciary obligation to Indian
tribes and Indian people and, in accordance with that
obligation, must use the highest standard of care to protect
the assets of Indian tribes and individual Indians;
(4) the United States has failed Indian tribes and
individual Indians and abridged its treaty and other
obligations relating to the handling of trust fund management
and historical accounting;
(5) mismanagement of Indian trust assets by the United
States is a longstanding problem that spans many
administrations;
(6) the complexity and longevity of that mismanagement
neither mitigates the injustice visited on Indian tribes and
the 300,000 individual Native Americans whose accounts have
been shortchanged nor absolves the United States of its
responsibility to correct the situation in a timely manner;
(7) in 1996 a civil action, Cobell v. Norton, Civ. No. 96-
1285 (RCL), was brought in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia to attempt to obtain an order
compelling the United States to account for the trust funds
managed by the United States on behalf of individual Indians
and take all necessary action to bring the United States into
compliance with its fiduciary duties;
(8) those funds are generated from Indian trust land
royalties resulting from leases of that land to oil,
agricultural, timber, mining, and other interests;
(9) on April 5, 2004, Mr. Alan L. Balaran, the Special
Master in the Cobell case, tendered his resignation to the
Honorable Royce C. Lamberth;
(10) in his letter of resignation, Mr. Balaran stated
that--
(A) there is evidence that energy companies, assisted by
the Department of the Interior, routinely pay individual
Indians much less than they pay non-Indians for oil and gas
pipeline easements;
(B) the Special Master had uncovered evidence that the
Department fails to diligently monitor oil and gas leasing
activities on Indian land; and
[[Page 17152]]
(C) there is evidence that the Department has been putting
the interests of private energy companies ahead of the
interests of individual Indian beneficiaries, notwithstanding
their fiduciary obligation to Indian tribes and Indian
beneficiaries; and
(11) the Great Plains, Rocky Mountain, and other regions of
the United States are rich in other trust assets such as
timber, agriculture, mining, and other resources.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Balaran letter.--The term ``Balaran letter'' means the
letter dated April 5, 2004, from Special Master Alan L.
Balaran to the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth.
(2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the National
Commission on American Indian Trust Holdings established by
subsection (c).
(3) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of the Interior.
(c) Establishment of Commission.--There is established the
National Commission on American Indian Trust Holdings.
(d) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of 10
members, of whom--
(A) 2 shall be appointed by the President, 1 of whom the
President shall designate as Chairperson of the Commission;
(B) 2 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the
Senate;
(C) 2 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the
Senate;
(D) 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives; and
(E) 2 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the
House of Representatives.
(2) Qualifications; initial meeting.--
(A) Nongovernmental appointees.--An individual appointed to
the Commission may not be an officer or employee of the
Federal Government or any State or local government.
(B) Other qualifications.--It is the sense of Congress that
individuals appointed to the Commission should be prominent
United States citizens, with national recognition and
significant depth of experience in such professions as land
and resource management.
(3) Deadline for appointment.--All members of the
Commission shall be appointed not later than 60 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(4) Quorum.--Six members of the Commission shall constitute
a quorum.
(5) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall not
affect the powers of the Commission, but shall be filled in
the same manner in which the original appointment was made.
(e) Duties.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall--
(A) fully examine the allegations made in the Balaran
letter;
(B) fully examine whether grazing, leasing, and other trust
asset interests have been managed equitably and in a manner
consistent with Federal trust law (including regulations);
(C) fully examine such other alleged breaches of the
fiduciary responsibility owed by the United States to Indian
tribes and individual Indians that come to the Commission's
attention as the Commission considers appropriate;
(D) build on the investigations of other entities, and
avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of earlier studies of the
management by the Department of Indian trust assets and trust
funds; and
(E) not later than 1 year after the date as of which all
members of the Commission have been appointed, submit to the
President and Congress a report that states the findings of
the Commission and makes recommendations for corrective
measures that can be taken to--
(i) recoup any losses suffered by Indian tribes or
individual Indians as a result of breaches of fiduciary duty
by the Department; or
(ii) prevent any breaches of fiduciary duty in the future.
(2) Relationship to previous studies.--When investigating
facts and circumstances relating to the management of Indian
trust assets and trust funds, the Commission shall--
(A) first review the information compiled by, and the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations that resulted
from, previous studies (including congressional
investigations); and
(B) after that review, pursue any appropriate area of
inquiry if the Commission determines that--
(i) earlier studies had not investigated that area;
(ii) the earlier investigation of that area had not been
complete; or
(iii) new information not reviewed in the earlier studies
had become available with respect to that area.
(3) Followup review.--At least once every 2 years after the
date on which the Commission submits the report under
paragraph (1), the Commission shall--
(A) reconvene to examine the effectiveness of any actions
taken in response to the report in achieving the goals
described in clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (1)(D); and
(B) submit to the President and Congress a report that
describes the findings of the Commission and makes any
further recommendations as the Commission considers
appropriate.
(f) Powers of Commission.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Hearings and evidence.--The Commission may--
(i) hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and
places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and
administer such oaths as the Commission considers advisable
to carry out this section; and
(ii) subject to subparagraph (B)(i), require, by subpoena
or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses
and the production of such books, records, correspondence,
memoranda, papers, and documents, as the Commission or such
designated subcommittee or designated member may determine
advisable.
(B) Subpoenas.--
(i) Issuance.--
(I) In general.--A subpoena may be issued under this
subsection only--
(aa) by the agreement of the Chairperson; or
(bb) by the affirmative vote of 6 members of the
Commission.
(II) Signature.--Subject to subclause (I), subpoenas issued
under this subsection may be issued under the signature of
the Chairperson or any member designated by a majority of the
Commission, and may be served by any person designated by the
Chairperson or by a member designated by a majority of the
Commission.
(ii) Enforcement.--
(I) In general.--In the case of contumacy or failure to
obey a subpoena issued under subparagraph (A), the United
States district court for the judicial district in which the
subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found, or
where the subpoena is returnable, may issue an order
requiring such person to appear at any designated place to
testify or to produce documentary or other evidence. Any
failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the
court as a contempt of that court.
(II) Additional enforcement.--In the case of any failure of
any witness to comply with any subpoena or to testify when
summoned under authority of this section, the Commission may,
by majority vote, certify a statement of fact constituting
such failure to the appropriate United States attorney, who
may bring the matter before the grand jury for its action,
under the same statutory authority and procedures as if the
United States attorney had received a certification under
sections 102 through 104 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C.
192 through 194).
(2) Contracting.--The Commission may, to such extent and in
such amounts as are provided in Acts of appropriation, enter
into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge the
duties of the Commission.
(3) Information from federal agencies.--
(A) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from a
Federal agency such information as the Commission considers
necessary to carry out this section.
(B) Provision of information.--On request of the
Chairperson of the Commission, the head of the agency shall
provide the information to the Commission.
(4) Assistance from the secretary of the interior.--The
Secretary of the Interior shall provide to the Commission on
a reimbursable basis administrative support and other
services for the performance of the functions of the
Commission.
(5) Postal services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other agencies of the United States.
(g) Personnel Matters.--
(1) Compensation of members.--A member of the Commission
who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government
shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent
of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of
the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which the member is engaged in the performance of the duties
of the Commission.
(2) Travel expenses.--A member of the Commission shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an agency
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from the home or regular place of business
of the member in the performance of the duties of the
Commission.
(3) Staff.--
(A) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may,
without regard to the civil service laws (including
regulations), appoint and terminate an executive director and
such other additional personnel as are necessary to enable
the Commission to perform the duties of the Commission.
(B) Confirmation of executive director.--The employment of
an executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the
Commission.
(C) Compensation.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
Chairperson of the Commission may fix the compensation of the
executive director and other personnel without regard to the
provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of
title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of
positions and General Schedule pay rates.
[[Page 17153]]
(ii) Maximum rate of pay.--The rate of pay for the
executive director and other personnel shall not exceed the
rate payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
(4) Detail of federal government employees.--
(A) In general.--An employee of the Federal Government may
be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement.
(B) Civil service status.--The detail of the employee shall
be without interruption or loss of civil service status or
privilege.
(5) Procurement of temporary and intermittent services.--
The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and
intermittent services in accordance with section 3109(b) of
title 5, United States Code, at rates for individuals that do
not exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic
pay prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of that title.
(h) No Effect on Cobell Case.--Nothing in this section
limits the findings, remedies, jurisdiction, authority, or
discretion of the court in the civil action Cobell v. Norton,
Civ. No. 96-1285 (RCL) (D.D.C.).
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section.
(j) Termination of Commission.--The Commission shall
terminate on the date that is 10 years after the date on
which the Commission submits the report of the Commission
under subsection (e)(1)(D).
______
By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 2771. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve the
quality of care for cancer, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2771
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 ``Quality of Care for
Individuals With Cancer Act''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I--MEASURING THE QUALITY OF CANCER CARE
Sec. 101. Development of core sets of quality of cancer care measures.
TITLE II--ENHANCING DATA COLLECTION
Sec. 201. Expansion of national program of cancer registries.
Sec. 202. Reauthorization of national program of cancer registries.
Sec. 203. Relationship to certification.
TITLE III--MONITORING AND EVALUATING QUALITY OF CANCER CARE AND
OUTCOMES
Sec. 301. Partnerships to develop model systems for monitoring and
evaluating quality of cancer care and outcomes.
TITLE IV--STRENGTHENING COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CONTROL
Sec. 401. Comprehensive cancer control program.
TITLE V--IMPROVING NAVIGATION AND SYSTEM COORDINATION
Sec. 501. Enhancing cancer care through improved navigation.
Sec. 502. Cancer care coordination.
TITLE VI--ESTABLISHING PROGRAMS IN PALLIATIVE CARE
Sec. 601. Programs to improve palliative care.
TITLE VII--ESTABLISHING SURVIVORSHIP PROGRAMS
Sec. 701. Programs for survivorship.
Sec. 702. Cancer control programs.
TITLE VIII--PROGRAMS FOR END-OF-LIFE CARE
Sec. 801. Programs for end-of-life care.
TITLE IX--DEVELOPING TRAINING CURRICULA
Sec. 901. Curriculum development.
Sec. 902. Cancer care workforce and translational research.
TITLE X--BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER
Sec. 1001. Waivers relating to grants for preventive health measures
with respect to breast and cervical cancers.
TITLE XI--COLORECTAL CANCER
Sec. 1101. Programs to improve colorectal cancer screening.
TITLE XII--CONDUCTING REPORTS
Sec. 1201. Studies and reports by the Institute of Medicine.
TITLE I--MEASURING THE QUALITY OF CANCER CARE
SEC. 101. DEVELOPMENT OF CORE SETS OF QUALITY OF CANCER CARE
MEASURES.
(a) Development of Core Sets of Quality of Cancer Care
Measures.--Subpart 1 of part C of title IV of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 417E. DEVELOPMENT OF CORE SETS OF QUALITY OF CANCER
CARE MEASURES.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award a contract to
a national voluntary consensus organization to identify core
sets of quality of cancer care measures.
``(b) Quality of Cancer Care Measures.--An entity that
receives a contract under this section shall identify core
sets of quality of cancer care measures in consultation with
a panel or advisory group of interested parties, including
significant participation from consumer representatives
(which shall include survivors of cancer and their families
and members of organizations representing such survivors and
their families), health care providers, cancer researchers,
payers and purchasers of cancer care services and insurance,
and public and private organizations that monitor, accredit,
or seek to improve the quality of cancer care.
``(c) Report by Entity.--Not later than 24 months after the
date of enactment of this section, an eligible entity that
receives a contract under this section shall submit to the
Secretary a report that--
``(1) lists existing measures used to assess and improve
the quality of cancer care;
``(2) identifies those measures that have been
scientifically validated, those measures that still require
validation, and those aspects of cancer care for which
additional measures need to be developed or validated;
``(3) recommends a core set of validated quality of cancer
care measures, reflecting a voluntary consensus of interested
parties, for measuring and improving the quality of cancer
care;
``(4) summarizes the process used to develop the consensus
recommendations in paragraph (3), including a statement of
any minority views; and
``(5) develops a process for updating the core sets of
validated quality of cancer care measures as new scientific
evidence becomes available.
``(d) Recommendations by Secretary.--Not later than 6
months after the date the Secretary receives the report
described in subsection (c), the Secretary shall issue
recommendations on the areas described in paragraphs (1)
through (5) of such subsection and shall transmit such
recommendations to the President.
``(e) Report by President.--Not later than 6 months after
receipt of the report described in subsection (d), the
President shall, in consultation with the Quality Interagency
Coordination Task Force (established by a Presidential
Directive in 1998)--
``(1) provide to the appropriate committees of Congress a
report that describes a plan to use the core sets of quality
of cancer care measures in programs administered by the
Federal Government, including outlining activities to support
the widespread dissemination of the report, and provide any
other recommendations the President determines to be
appropriate; and
``(2) provide updated reports, in accordance with
subsection (c)(5), if new quality measures or scientific
evidence on quality of cancer care develops.
``(f) Technical Support.--The Secretary may provide
scientific and technical support to ensure that the
scientific evaluation requirements in this section are met.
``(g) AHRQ.--
``(1) Annual report.--The Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality shall include in the annual report required under
section 913(b)(2) the core set of quality of cancer care
measures developed under this section that are suitable for
quality monitoring.
``(2) Requirement.--The Secretary shall ensure that all
agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services
shall provide the information necessary for the report
described in paragraph (1) regarding quality of cancer care
measures.
``(h) Support.--The Director of the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality, acting in collaboration with the
Director of the National Cancer Institute and the Director of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall support
the development and validation of measures identified by the
report in subsection (d).
``(i) Definitions of Hospice Care; Palliative Care; Quality
of Cancer Care; Health Disparity Populations; Health
Disparities Research.--In this section the terms `hospice
care', `palliative care', `quality of cancer care', `health
disparity populations', and `minority health disparities
research' have the meanings given such terms in section
399AA.
``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as
may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 through
2010.''.
(b) Monitoring.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
the transmission of the report required under section 417E(e)
of the Public Health Service Act, the Comptroller of the
General Accounting Office shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report that evaluates the extent to
[[Page 17154]]
which Federal and private sector health care delivery
programs, States, and State cancer plans are utilizing the
core sets of quality of cancer care measures (developed under
section 417E of the Public Health Service Act) and the extent
to which its adoption is affecting the quality of cancer
care.
TITLE II--ENHANCING DATA COLLECTION
SEC. 201. EXPANSION OF NATIONAL PROGRAM OF CANCER REGISTRIES.
Part M of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 280e et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
399E, the following:
``SEC. 399E-1. MONITORING AND EVALUATING THE QUALITY OF
CANCER CARE.
``(a) Demonstration Projects.--The Secretary, acting
through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and in coordination with the Director of the
National Cancer Institute, shall award competitive grants to
State cancer registries that receive funds under this part to
enable such registries to expand their ability to monitor and
evaluate the quality of cancer care, to develop information
concerning the quality of cancer care, and to monitor cancer
survivorship.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), a State cancer registry shall be certified by
the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries
or other similar certification organization.
``(c) Application.--A State cancer registry desiring a
grant under this section shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require.
``(d) Contracting Authority.--A State cancer registry
receiving a grant under this section may enter into contracts
with academic institutions, cancer centers, and other
entities determined to be appropriate by the Secretary, to
carry out the activities authorized under this section.
``(e) Use of Funds.--A State cancer registry receiving a
grant under this section shall use amounts received under
such grant to--
``(1) collect information for public health surveillance
and quality improvement activities using the quality of
cancer care measures developed under section 417E (where
appropriate), including data concerning racial, ethnic, and
other health disparity populations within the State that may
have a disparity in incidence or survival from cancer;
``(2) develop linkages between State cancer registry data
and other databases, including those that collect outpatient
data, to gather information concerning the quality of cancer
care;
``(3) identify, develop, and disseminate evidence-based
best practices relating to cancer care regarding how States
use registry data and how to better link and coordinate the
sharing of such data;
``(4) identify geographic areas and populations within the
State that have an increased need for awareness regarding
cancer risk reduction, screening, prevention, and treatment
activities;
``(5) increase coordination between State cancer registries
and other entities, including academic institutions,
hospitals, health centers, researchers, health care
providers, cancer centers, or nonprofit organizations;
``(6) incorporate the collection of data on cancer
survivors for the purpose of improving the quality of cancer
care;
``(7) identify the impact of co-morbidity of other diseases
on survival from cancer; or
``(8) develop methods of determining whether cancer
survivors are at an increased risk for other chronic or
disabling conditions.
``(f) Privacy.--A State cancer registry receiving a grant
or an entity receiving a contract under this section shall
comply with appropriate security and privacy protocols
(including protocols required under the regulations
promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2
note)), if applicable, with respect to information collected
under this title. Nothing in this section shall be construed
to supersede applicable Federal or State privacy laws.
``(g) Databases.--
``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, a State
cancer registry may utilize appropriate databases,
including--
``(A) the National Death Index;
``(B) databases related to claims under the medicare and
medicaid programs under titles XVIII and XIX of the Social
Security Act; and
``(C) other databases maintained by the Department of
Health and Human Services (including those maintained at the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, and the National Institutes of Health).
``(2) Additional data.--A State cancer registry may utilize
data in addition to the databases described in paragraph (1),
including data maintained by private insurance plans and
health care delivery organizations.
``(h) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to require an individual or entity to submit
information to a State cancer registry under this section.
``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Health center.--The term `health center' has the
meaning given the term `federally qualified health center' in
section 1861(aa)(4) of the Social Security Act (12 U.S.C.
1395x(aa)(4)).
``(2) Quality of cancer care.--The term `quality of cancer
care' has the meaning given such term in section 399AA.
``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as
may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
``SEC. 399E-2. CANCER SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
and in coordination with the Director of the National Cancer
Institute, shall--
``(1) establish the Cancer Surveillance System (referred to
in this section as the `System') to monitor State cancer
registries funded under section 399B; and
``(2) provide for the development, expansion, and
evaluation of such registries.
``(b) Duties.--The System shall--
``(1) facilitate timely access to and exchange of accurate
quality of cancer care information among State cancer
registries including the use of the quality of cancer care
measures developed under section 417E, where appropriate;
``(2) develop guidelines permitting State cancer registries
to access the national registry clearinghouse established
under paragraph (3);
``(3) establish and maintain a registry information
clearinghouse to collect, synthesize, and disseminate
information concerning evidence-based best practices for the
creative use of State cancer registries, including
maintaining an Internet website where such information may be
accessed;
``(4) determine the feasibility of monitoring the quality
of palliative care by State cancer registries;
``(5) identify and develop evidence-based best practices
for coordination between cancer registries and other
entities;
``(6) update information collected or made available under
this section as determined to be necessary by the Secretary;
and
``(7)(A) review pediatric cancer data collected by State
cancer registries and evaluate--
``(i) such data for adequacy, completeness, timeliness, and
quality; and
``(ii) current efforts to aggregate and disseminate such
data; and
``(B) not later than January 1, 2006, submit to Congress a
report on the findings made under subparagraph (A).
``(c) Privacy.--The System shall comply with appropriate
security and privacy protocols (including protocols required
under the regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 note)), if applicable, with respect to
information collected by the System. Nothing in this section
shall be construed to supersede applicable Federal or State
privacy laws.
``(d) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `palliative
care' and `quality of cancer care' have the meanings given
such terms in section 399AA.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as
may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 through
2010.''.
SEC. 202. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL PROGRAM OF CANCER
REGISTRIES.
Section 399F(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
280e-4(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``this part,'' and inserting ``this part,
other than sections 399E-1 and 399E-2),''; and
(2) by striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2010''.
SEC. 203. MATCHING FUNDS; RELATIONSHIP TO CERTIFICATION.
(a) Matching Funds.--Section 399B(b)(1) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280e(B)(1)) is amended by
striking ``$3'' and inserting ``$5''.
(b) Relationship to Certification.--Section 399E of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280e-3) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(e) and (f), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Relationship to Certification.--The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention is encouraged to work with
eligible entities through the provision of technical
assistance and funding authority under the National Program
of Cancer Registries to assist such entities in complying
with the certification process of the North American
Association of Central Cancer Registries or similar
certification organization.''.
TITLE III--MONITORING AND EVALUATING QUALITY OF CANCER CARE AND
OUTCOMES
SEC. 301. PARTNERSHIPS TO DEVELOP MODEL SYSTEMS FOR
MONITORING AND EVALUATING QUALITY OF CANCER
CARE AND OUTCOMES.
(a) Quality of Cancer Care.--Part A of title IX of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 299 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 904. AREAS OF SPECIAL EMPHASIS.
``(a) Quality of Cancer Care.--The Secretary, acting
through the Director and in collaboration with the Director
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and
[[Page 17155]]
the Director of the National Cancer Institute, shall conduct
and support research pertaining to the measurement,
evaluation, and improvement of the quality of cancer care,
take steps to enhance the usefulness of such research to
improve patient care, and appropriately disseminate such
information by--
``(1) expanding the evidence base concerning effective
interventions for improving the quality of cancer care;
``(2) ensuring effective analysis of data collected by
State cancer registries funded under section 399B by
developing evidence-based best practices for--
``(A) the real-time recording of and automated transfer of
cancer care data to State cancer care registries; and
``(B) the linkage of registry data with private sector
claims data and other existing data systems for purposes of
analytic academic research;
``(3) developing and validating quality of cancer care
indicators and evaluate their use and usefulness; and
``(4) developing volume-based quality indicators, as
appropriate, and evaluate ongoing efforts to integrate
volume-based measures into cancer quality improvement
programs and their impact on patient decisionmaking.
``(b) Partnerships To Speed the Pace of Improvements in the
Quality of Cancer Care.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director and in collaboration with the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Director
of the National Cancer Institute, shall award competitive
grants, contracts, or enter into cooperative agreements with
eligible entities to--
``(A) foster the development or adoption of model systems
of cancer care;
``(B) speed the pace of improvement in the quality of
cancer care; or
``(C) when appropriate, carry out the other requirements of
this section.
``(2) Eligibility.--In accordance with the limitations of
section 926(c), an applicant eligible to receive a grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement under this subsection
shall be a consortium consisting of public- and private-
sector entities. Each consortium shall include an institution
of higher learning or other research entity and 1 or more of
the following:
``(A) An entity that delivers or purchases cancer care.
``(B) A professional society or societies that represent
health care providers and other cancer caregivers, including
hospice programs.
``(C) A consumer or patient organization.
``(D) An entity involved in the monitoring of quality of
cancer care or efforts to improve cancer care (including a
State or local health department).
``(d) Collaboration.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary, acting through the Director, shall ensure
coordination with appropriate Federal and State agencies,
private quality improvement entities, and accreditation or
licensure organizations with an interest in improving the
quality of cancer care.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section, the term `quality of
cancer care' has the meaning given such term in section
399AA.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 927 of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 299c-6) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(e) Quality of Cancer Care.--For the purpose of carrying
out the activities under section 904, such sums as may be
necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2010.''.
TITLE IV--STRENGTHENING COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CONTROL
SEC. 401. COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CONTROL PROGRAM.
Part B of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 243 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 320B. COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CONTROL PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
and in consultation with the Director of the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality and the Director of the
National Cancer Institute, shall establish a National
Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (referred to in this
section as the `Program') to improve the quality of cancer
care.
``(b) Program.--In carrying out the Program the Secretary
shall--
``(1) establish guidelines regarding the design and
implementation of comprehensive cancer control plans; and
``(2) award competitive grants to eligible entities to
develop, update, implement, and evaluate comprehensive cancer
control plans.
``(c) Eligibility.--An entity is eligible to receive
assistance under the Program if such entity is a State health
department, territory, Indian tribe, or tribal organization
or its designee.
``(d) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant
under this section shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require, including--
``(1) a description of how assistance under such grant will
be used to develop and implement comprehensive cancer control
programs, including programs to monitor the quality of cancer
care (which may include the use of quality of cancer care
measures developed under section 417E);
``(2) a description of how the applicant will integrate its
activities with academic institutions, nonprofit
organizations, or other appropriate entities in planning and
implementing comprehensive cancer control plans; and
``(3) a description of how activities carried out by the
applicant will be evaluated.
``(e) Use of Funds.--An entity shall use assistance
received under this section to--
``(1) convene stakeholders, including stakeholders from the
public, private, and nonprofit sectors, to determine
priorities for the State, territory, or tribe involved;
``(2) develop, update, implement, or evaluate comprehensive
cancer control plans;
``(3) assess disparities in cancer risk reduction,
prevention, diagnosis, or quality of cancer care; and
``(4) develop and disseminate best practices, where
appropriate, and evaluate the application of such practices
as necessary.
``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Comprehensive cancer control plan.--The term
`comprehensive cancer control plan' means a plan developed
with assistance provided under this section that provides for
an integrated and coordinated approach to reducing the
incidence, morbidity, and mortality of cancer, with a
particular emphasis on preventing and controlling cancer
among populations most at risk and reducing cancer
disparities among underserved populations.
``(2) Comprehensive cancer control program.--The term
`comprehensive cancer control program' means a program to
fulfill the comprehensive control plan.
``(3) Quality of cancer care.--The term `quality of cancer
care' has the meaning given such term in section 399AA.
``(4) Indian tribe; tribal organization.--The terms `Indian
tribe' and `tribal organization' have the meanings given such
terms in subsections (b) and (c) of section 4 of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b).
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as
may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 through
2010.''.
TITLE V--IMPROVING NAVIGATION AND SYSTEM COORDINATION
SEC. 501. ENHANCING CANCER CARE THROUGH IMPROVED NAVIGATION
AND CANCER CARE COORDINATION.
Title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Part R--Cancer Prevention and Treatment
``SEC. 399AA. DEFINITIONS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this part:
``(1) Culturally competent.--The term `culturally
competent', with respect to the manner in which health-
related services, education, and training are provided, means
providing the services, education, and training in the
language and cultural context that is most appropriate for
the individuals for whom the services, education, and
training are intended.
``(2) Health center.--The term `health center' has the
meaning given such term in section 399E-1.
``(3) Health disparity population.--The term `health
disparity population' has the meaning given such term in
section 903(d)(1).
``(4) Health disparities research.--The term `health
disparities research' means basic, clinical, and behavioral
research on health conditions disproportionately affecting
individuals from health disparity populations, including
research to prevent, diagnose, and treat such conditions.
Such health conditions shall include all diseases, disorders,
and conditions affecting individuals from health disparity
populations that are--
``(A) unique to, more serious, or more prevalent in such
individuals;
``(B) for which the factors of medical risk or types of
medical intervention may be different for such individuals,
or for which it is unknown whether such factors or types are
different for such individuals; or
``(C) with respect to which there has been insufficient
research involving such individuals as subjects or
insufficient data on such individuals.
``(5) Hospice care.--The term `hospice care' has the
meaning given such term in section 1861(dd)(1) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(1)).
``(6) Hospice program.--The term `hospice program' has the
meaning given such term in section 1861(dd)(2) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(2)).
``(7) Palliative care.--The term `palliative care' means
comprehensive, interdisciplinary, coordinated, and
appropriate care and services provided throughout all stages
of disease, from the time of diagnosis to the end of life,
relating to pain and other symptom management, including
psychosocial needs, that seeks to improve quality of life and
prevent and alleviate suffering for an individual and, if
appropriate, that individual's family or caregivers.
``(8) Quality of cancer care.--The term `quality of cancer
care' means the provision
[[Page 17156]]
of cancer-related, timely, evidence-based (whenever there is
scientific evidence on the effectiveness of interventions),
patient-centered care and services of individuals in a
technically and culturally competent and appropriate manner,
using effective communication and shared decisionmaking to
improve clinical outcomes, survival, or quality of life which
encompasses--
``(A) the various stages of care, including care and
services provided to individuals with a family history of
cancer, with an abnormal cancer screening test, or who are
clinically diagnosed with cancer, beginning with risk
reduction, prevention, and early detection through
survivorship, remission, and end-of-life care, and including
risk counseling, screening, diagnosis, treatment, followup
care, monitoring, rehabilitation, and hospice care; and
``(B) appropriate care and services which should be
provided throughout the continuum of care including
palliative care and information on treatment options
including information regarding clinical trials.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this part, other
than section 399FF, such sums as may be necessary for each of
fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
``SEC. 399BB. ENHANCING CANCER CARE THROUGH IMPROVED
NAVIGATION.
``(a) Demonstration Projects.--The Secretary shall award
competitive grants to eligible entities to develop,
implement, and evaluate cancer case management programs to
enhance the quality of cancer care through improved access
and navigation.
``(b) Eligibility.--An entity is eligible to receive a
grant under this section if such entity is a hospital; health
center; an academic institution; a hospice program; a
palliative care program, or a program offering a continuum of
hospice care, palliative care, and other appropriate care to
children and their families; a State health agency; an Indian
Health Service hospital or clinic, Indian tribal health
facility, or urban Indian facility; a nonprofit organization;
a health plan; a primary care practice-based research network
as defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality;
a cancer center; or any other entity determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary.
``(c) Application.--An eligible entity seeking a grant
under this section shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require, including
assurances that the eligible entity will--
``(1) target patient populations with an unequal burden of
cancer through specific outreach activities;
``(2) coordinate culturally competent and appropriate care
specified in observance of existing, relevant departmental
guidelines, including a special emphasis on underserved
populations and how their values and priorities influence
screening and treatment decisions;
``(3) coordinate with relevant ombudsman programs and other
existing coordination and navigation efforts and services,
where possible; and
``(4) evaluate activities and disseminate findings
including findings related to repeated difficulties in
accessing navigation.
``(d) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity shall use amounts
received under a grant under this section to carry out
programs in which--
``(1) trained individuals (such as representatives from the
community, nurses, social workers, cancer survivors,
physicians, or patient advocates) are assigned to act as
contacts--
``(A) within the community; or
``(B) within the health care system,
to facilitate access to quality cancer care and cancer
preventive services;
``(2) partnerships are created with community organizations
(which may include cancer centers, hospitals, health centers,
hospice programs, palliative care programs, health care
providers, home care, nonprofit organizations, health plans,
or other entities determined appropriate by the Secretary) to
help facilitate access or to improve the quality of cancer
care;
``(3) activities are conducted to coordinate cancer care
and preventive services and referrals, including referrals to
hospice programs, and palliative care programs; or
``(4) the grantee negotiates, mediates, or arbitrates on
behalf of the patient with relevant entities to resolve
issues that impede access to care.
``(e) Models.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall develop or
modify models to improve the navigation of cancer care for
grantees under this section. The Secretary shall update such
models as may be necessary to ensure that the best cancer
case management practices are being utilized.
``SEC. 399CC. CANCER CARE COORDINATION.
``(a) Demonstration Projects.--The Secretary shall award
competitive grants to eligible entities to facilitate the
development of a coordinated system to improve the quality of
cancer care.
``(b) Eligibility.--An entity is eligible to receive a
grant under this section if such entity is a hospital; a
health center; an academic institution; a hospice program; a
palliative care program; a program offering a continuum of
hospice care, palliative care, and other appropriate care to
children and their families; a State health agency; a
nonprofit organization; a health plan; a primary care
practice-based research network as defined by the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality; a cancer center; or any
other entity determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.
``(c) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant
under this section shall prepare and submit to the Secretary
an application at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Secretary may require.
``(d) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity shall use amounts
received under a grant under this section to improve
coordination of the quality of cancer care, by--
``(1) creating partnerships and enhancing collaboration
with health care providers (which may include cancer centers,
hospitals, health centers, hospice programs, health care
providers, experts in palliative care, preventive service
providers) to improve the provision of quality of cancer
care;
``(2) developing best practices for the quality of cancer
care coordination (with special emphasis provided to those
cancers that have low survival rates or individuals with
advanced disease), including the development of model
systems; and
``(3) evaluating overall activities to identify optimal
designs and essential components for cancer practices and
models to improve the coordination of cancer care services
and activities.
``(e) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall disseminate
findings made as a result of activities conducted under this
section to the public in coordination with the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality, the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, or other appropriate Federal agencies.''.
TITLE VI--ESTABLISHING PROGRAMS IN PALLIATIVE CARE
SEC. 601. PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE PALLIATIVE CARE.
Part R of title III of the Public Health Service Act (as
added by section 501), is further amended by adding at the
end the following:
``SEC. 399DD. PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE PALLIATIVE CARE.
``(a) Demonstration Projects.--The Secretary shall award
competitive grants to eligible entities to develop,
implement, and evaluate model programs for the delivery of
palliative care throughout all stages of disease for
individuals with cancer (with a special emphasis on children)
and their families.
``(b) Eligibility.--An entity is eligible to receive a
grant under this section if such entity is a hospital; an
academic institution; a hospice program; a palliative care
program; a program offering a continuum of hospice care,
palliative care, and other appropriate care to children and
their families; a nonprofit organization; a State health
agency; a health center; a cancer center; or any other entity
determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.
``(c) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant
under this section shall prepare and submit to the Secretary
an application at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Secretary may require.
``(d) Use of Funds.--An entity shall use amounts received
under a grant under this section to--
``(1) integrate palliative care with such entities as
academic institutions, community organizations, hospice
programs, hospitals, cancer patient and survivorship
organizations, health care providers, cancer centers, or
other entities determined appropriate by the Secretary;
``(2) conduct outreach and education activities to
encourage the dissemination of evidence-based clinical best
practices relating to palliative care;
``(3) increase public awareness, including outreach
campaigns, particularly to underserved populations;
``(4) disseminate evidence-based information to health care
providers and individuals with cancer and their families
regarding available palliative care programs and services;
``(5) provide and evaluate education and training programs
in palliative care for health care providers, including--
``(A) establishing pilot training programs (including
faculty training programs) in medicine, including oncology
(including pediatric oncology), family medicine, psychiatry,
psychology, pain, nursing, pharmacology, physical therapy,
occupational therapy, social work, and other relevant
disciplines; or
``(B) developing, implementing, and evaluating pilot
training programs for the staff of hospices, nursing homes,
hospitals, home health agencies, outpatient care clinics, and
other entities determined appropriate by the Secretary;
``(6) design or implement model palliative care programs
for individuals with cancer and their families including
improving access to clinical trials, where appropriate;
``(7) develop and evaluate pilot programs to address the
special needs of children or other underserved populations
and their families in palliative care programs;
``(8) conduct demonstration projects to enhance or develop
online support networks for
[[Page 17157]]
individuals with cancer and their families, including those
networks for individuals who are homebound, and develop other
methods to reach underserved cancer patients; or
``(9) determine whether strategies developed for palliative
care for individuals with cancer and their families would be
applicable to individuals with other diseases.
``(e) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall disseminate
findings made as a result of activities conducted under this
section to the public in coordination with the Director of
the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, and the heads other appropriate Federal
agencies.''.
TITLE VII--ESTABLISHING SURVIVORSHIP PROGRAMS
SEC. 701. PROGRAMS FOR SURVIVORSHIP.
Subpart 1 of Part C of title IV of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285 et seq.) (as amended by section
101), is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 417F. PROGRAMS FOR SURVIVORSHIP.
``(a) Demonstration Projects.--The Secretary shall conduct
and support research regarding the unique health challenges
associated with cancer survivorship and carry out
demonstration projects to develop and implement post-
treatment public health programs and services including
followup care and monitoring to support and improve the long-
term quality of life for cancer survivors, including
children.
``(b) Eligibility.--An entity is eligible to receive a
competitive grant under this section if such entity is an
academic institution, nonprofit organization, State health
agency, cancer center, health center, or other entity
determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.
``(c) Application.--An entity desiring a grant under this
section shall prepare and submit to the Secretary an
application at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require.
``(d) Use of Funds.--An entity shall use amounts received
under a grant under this section to plan, implement, and
evaluate demonstration projects that--
``(1) design protocols for followup care, monitoring, and
other survivorship programs (including peer support and
mentor programs);
``(2) increase public awareness about appropriate followup
care, monitoring and other survivorship programs (including
peer support and mentor programs) by disseminating
information to health care providers and survivors and their
families; and
``(3) support programs to improve the quality of life among
cancer survivors, referenced by the quality of cancer care
measures developed under section 417E (where appropriate),
with particular emphasis on underserved populations,
including children.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, such
sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2010.''.
SEC. 702. CANCER CONTROL PROGRAMS.
Section 412 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
285a-1) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``cancer and for rehabilitation and counseling respecting
cancer.'' and inserting ``cancer and for survivorship,
rehabilitation, and counseling respecting cancer.'';
(2) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``and the families of
cancer patients'' and inserting ``the families of cancer
patients, and cancer survivors''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``diagnosis, and
treatment and control of cancer'' and inserting ``diagnosis,
treatment, survivorship programs, and control of cancer.''.
TITLE VIII--PROGRAMS FOR END-OF-LIFE CARE
SEC. 801. PROGRAMS FOR END-OF-LIFE CARE.
Part R of title III of the Public Health Service Act (as
amended by section 601), is further amended by adding the
following:
``SEC. 399EE. PROGRAMS FOR END-OF-LIFE CARE.
``(a) Demonstration Projects.--The Secretary shall award
competitive grants to eligible entities to develop,
implement, and evaluate evidence-based programs for the
delivery of quality of cancer care during the end-of-life to
individuals with cancer (with a special emphasis on children)
and their families.
``(b) Eligibility.--An entity is eligible to receive a
grant under this section if such entity is a hospital; an
academic institution; a hospice program; a palliative care
program; a program offering a continuum of hospice care,
palliative care, and other appropriate care to children and
their families; a nonprofit organization; a State health
agency; a health center; a cancer center; or any other entity
determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.
``(c) Application.--An entity desiring a grant under this
section shall prepare and submit to the Secretary an
application at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require.
``(d) Use of Funds.--An entity shall use amounts received
under a grant under this section to--
``(1) integrate palliative care or end-of-life care
programs with entities including academic institutions,
community organizations, hospice programs, hospitals, cancer
patient and survivorship organizations, health care
providers, cancer centers, or other entities determined
appropriate by the Secretary;
``(2) conduct outreach and education activities to
encourage the dissemination of evidence-based clinical best
practices relating to end-of-life care;
``(3) increase public awareness, including outreach
campaigns, particularly to underserved populations;
``(4) disseminate information to health care providers and
individuals with cancer and their families regarding
available end-of-life programs, including hospice programs;
``(5) provide and evaluate education and training in end-
of-life care for health care providers, including--
``(A) establishing pilot training programs (including
faculty training programs) in medicine including oncology
(including pediatric oncology), family medicine, psychiatry,
psychology, pain, nursing, pharmacology and social work, and
other disciplines; or
``(B) developing, implementing, and evaluating pilot
training programs for the staff of hospices, nursing homes,
hospitals, home health agencies, outpatient care clinics, and
other entities determined appropriate by the Secretary;
``(6) design or implement model end-of-life care programs
for individuals with cancer and their families including
improving access to clinical trials where appropriate;
``(7) develop and evaluate pilot programs to address the
special needs of children or other underserved populations
and their families in end-of-life programs;
``(8) integrate palliative care and hospice care activities
in the delivery of end-of-life care; or
``(9) determine whether strategies developed for end-of-
life care for individuals with cancer and their families
would be applicable to individuals with other diseases.
``(e) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall disseminate
findings made as a result of activities conducted under this
section to the public in coordination with the Director of
the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, and the heads of other appropriate Federal
agencies.''.
TITLE IX--DEVELOPING TRAINING CURRICULA
SEC. 901. CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT.
Part R of title III of the Public Health Service Act (as
amended by section 801), is further amended by adding at the
end the following:
``SEC. 399FF. CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award competitive
grants for the development of curricula for health care
provider training regarding the assessment, monitoring,
improvement, and delivery of quality of cancer care.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, an entity shall be an academic institution,
nonprofit organization, cancer center, health center, medical
school, or other entity determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
``(c) Application.--An entity desiring a grant under this
section shall prepare and submit to the Secretary an
application at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require.
``(d) Use of Funds.--An entity shall use amounts received
under a grant under this subsection to--
``(1) evaluate methods of delivery of the quality of cancer
care, including palliative care, hospice care, end-of-life
care, or cancer survivorship by health care providers;
``(2) develop curricula concerning the delivery of quality
of cancer care including palliative care, hospice care, end-
of-life care, or cancer survivorship; and
``(3) provide recommendations for training protocols for
medical and nursing education, fellowships, and continuing
education in quality of cancer care including palliative
care, hospice care, survivorship, or end-of-life care for
health care providers.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as
may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 through
2010.''.
SEC. 902. CANCER CARE WORKFORCE AND TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH.
(a) Cancer Control Programs.--Section 412 of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285a-1) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Director of the Institute'' and
inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--The Director of the Institute'';
(2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) annual and long-term training goals to assure an
adequate and diverse cancer care workforce including--
``(A) preparing and implementing a plan to provide
assistance to health professionals in health professions
experiencing the most severe shortages including the
provision of grants, scholarships, fellowships, post-doctoral
stipends, or loans to eligible individuals to increase the
cancer care workforce; and
[[Page 17158]]
``(B) educating students of health professions and health
professionals in--
``(i) effective methods for the prevention and early
detection of cancer;
``(ii) the identification of individuals with a high risk
of developing cancer;
``(iii) improved methods of patient referral to appropriate
centers for early diagnosis and treatment of cancer;
``(iv) methods to deliver culturally competent care; and
``(v) other appropriate methods for providing quality of
cancer care; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Coordination With Existing Programs.--In carrying out
the activities under subsection (a)(2), the Director of the
Institute shall coordinate with existing programs, including
programs at the Health Resources and Services Administration,
to prevent duplication.''.
(b) National Cancer Research and Demonstration Centers.--
Section 414(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
285a-3(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting
the following:
``(3) clinical training (including training for allied
health professionals), loan forgiveness or post-doctoral
stipends for bench researchers, continuing education for
health professionals and allied health professionals, and
information programs for the public regarding cancer; and''.
(c) Translational Cancer Research.--Subpart 1 of part C of
title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285 et
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 414 the
following:
``SEC. 414A. TRANSLATIONAL CANCER RESEARCH.
``(a) In General.--The Director of the Institute, in
collaboration with the Director of the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality shall enter into cooperative agreements
with, and make grants to, public or nonprofit entities to
conduct multidisciplinary, translational cancer research.
``(b) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--The Director of the Institute may use
funds provided under this section to establish networks and
partnerships to link community cancer providers to programs
funded under this section.
``(2) Construction of New Facilities.--Funds provided under
this section shall not be used for the construction of new
facilities.
``(c) Strategic Plan.--Not later than October 1, 2006, the
Director of the Institute shall develop and implement a
strategic plan, in collaboration with entities performing
translational research, for identifying, expanding, and
disseminating the results of translational cancer research to
health care providers.
``(d) Duties.--An entity receiving a grant under this
section shall--
``(1) conduct research with the potential to improve the
prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer and to improve
the quality of cancer care, including palliation;
``(2) conduct clinical research studies on promising cancer
treatments including clinical trials; and
``(3) evaluate tests, techniques, or technologies in
individuals being evaluated for the presence of cancer.
``(e) Definition of Translational Cancer Research.--As used
in this section, the term `translational cancer research'
means scientific laboratory and clinical research and testing
necessary to transform scientific or medical discoveries into
new approaches, products, or processes that can assist in
preventing, diagnosing, or controlling cancer.''
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 417B(a) of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285a-8(a)) is
amended by striking ``1996'' and inserting ``2010''.
TITLE X--BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER
SEC. 1001. WAIVERS RELATING TO GRANTS FOR PREVENTIVE HEALTH
MEASURES WITH RESPECT TO BREAST AND CERVICAL
CANCERS.
(a) In General.--Section 1503 of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 300m) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Waiver of Services Requirement on Division of
Funds.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may waive the requirements
under paragraphs (1) and (4) of subsection (a) if--
``(A)(i) the State involved will use the waiver to leverage
private funds to supplement each of the services or
activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section
1501(a); or
``(ii) the application of such requirement would result in
a barrier to the enrollment of qualifying women;
``(B) the Secretary finds that granting such a waiver to a
State will not reduce the number of women in the State that
receive each of the services or activities described in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1501(a), including making
available screening procedures for both breast and cervical
cancers; and
``(C) the Secretary finds that granting such a waiver to a
State will not adversely affect the quality of each of the
services or activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of
section 1501(a).
``(2) Duration of waiver.--
``(A) In general.--In granting waivers under paragraph (1),
the Secretary--
``(i) shall grant such waivers for a period of 2 years; and
``(ii) upon request of a State, may extend a waiver for
additional 2-year periods in accordance with subparagraph
(B).
``(B) Additional periods.--The Secretary, upon the request
of a State that has received a waiver under paragraph (1),
shall, at the end of each 2-year waiver period described in
subparagraph (A), review performance under the waiver and may
extend the waiver for an additional 2-year period if the
Secretary determines that--
``(i)(I) without an extension of the waiver, there will be
a barrier to the enrollment of qualifying women; or
``(II) the State requesting such extended waiver will use
the waiver to leverage private funds to supplement each of
the services or activities described in paragraphs (1) and
(2) of section 1501(a);
``(ii) the waiver has not, and will not, reduce the number
of women in the State that receive each of the services or
activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section
1501(a); and
``(iii) the waiver has not, and will not, result in lower
quality in the State of each of the services or activities
described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1501(a).
``(3) Reporting requirement.--The Secretary shall include
as part of the evaluations and reports required under section
1508, the following:
``(A) A description of the total amount of dollars
leveraged annually from private entities in States receiving
a waiver under paragraph (1) and how these amounts were used.
``(B) With respect to States receiving a waiver under
paragraph (1), a description of the percentage of the grant
that is expended on providing each of the services or
activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2) and paragraphs
(3) through (6) of section 1501(a).
``(C) A description of the number of States receiving
waivers under paragraph (1) annually.
``(D) With respect to States receiving a waiver under
paragraph (1), a description of the number of women receiving
services under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section
1501(a) in programs before and after the granting of such
waiver.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1510(a) of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300n-5(a)) is
amended by striking ``$50,000,000'' and all that follows
through the period, and inserting ``such sums as may be
necessary for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.''.
TITLE XI--COLORECTAL CANCER
SEC. 1101. PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING.
Title XV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300k
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 1511. COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
shall award competitive grants to public and nonprofit
private entities to enable such entities to establish
demonstration programs pursuant to the general authority of
title III to carry out colorectal screening activities
including--
``(1) screening asymptomatic individuals as determined by
the Secretary in accordance with category A or B
recommendation rating of the U.S. Preventive Service Task
Force or as otherwise determined by the Secretary;
``(2) providing appropriate case management and referrals
for medical treatment of individuals screened pursuant to
this section;
``(3) establishing activities to improve the education,
training, and skills of health professionals (including
allied health professionals) in the detection and control of
colorectal cancer, as a part of their participation in the
screening program established under the grant;
``(4) evaluating the programs under this section through
appropriate surveillance or program monitoring activities;
``(5) developing and disseminating findings derived through
such evaluations and outcomes data collection; and
``(6) promoting the benefits of and participation in the
colorectal cancer screening program established under the
grant.
``(b) Requirements.--
``(1) Priority.--To be eligible for a grant under
subsection (a), an entity shall agree with respect to
activities and services under the grant to target low-
income--
``(A) individuals who are at least 50 years of age; or
``(B) individuals at high risk for colorectal cancer (as
defined in section 1861(pp)(2) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395x(pp)(2))).
``(2) Relationship to items and services under other
programs.--To be eligible for a grant under subsection (a),
an entity shall agree that grant funds will not be expended
to make payments for any item or service to the extent that
payment has been made, or can reasonably be expected to be
made, with respect to such item or service--
``(A) under any State compensation program, under an
insurance policy, or under any Federal or State health
benefits program; or
``(B) by an entity that provides health service on a
prepaid basis.
``(3) Records and audits.--To be eligible for a grant under
subsection (a), an entity shall agree that the entity will--
[[Page 17159]]
``(A) establish such fiscal control and fund accounting
procedures as may be necessary to ensure proper disbursal of,
and accounting for, amounts received under this section; and
``(B) provide agreed upon annual reports to the Secretary
or the Comptroller of the United States for the purposes of
auditing the expenditures by the entity.
``(4) Reports.--To be eligible for a grant under subsection
(a), an entity shall agree to submit to the Secretary such
reports as the Secretary determines appropriate.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as
may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 through
2009.''.
TITLE XII--CONDUCTING REPORTS
SEC. 1201. STUDIES AND REPORTS BY THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE.
(a) Contract.--The Secretary shall enter into a contract
with the Institute of Medicine to--
(1) evaluate Federal and State activities relating to
comprehensive cancer control programs and activities;
(2) evaluate the quality of cancer care (including
palliative care, end-of-life care, and survivorship) that
medicare and medicaid beneficiaries receive and the extent to
which medicare and medicaid coverage and reimbursement
policies affect access to quality cancer care;
(3) evaluate data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services and other agencies on volume-outcome relationships;
(4) evaluate access to clinical trials and the relationship
of such access to the quality of cancer care, especially with
respect to health disparity populations; and
(5) assess existing gaps in and impediments to the quality
of cancer care, including gaps in data, research and
translation, seamless patient care and navigation, palliative
care, and care provided to underserved populations.
(b) Reports.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Institute of Medicine shall submit
to the Secretary of Health and Human Services a report
containing information on the evaluation conducted under
paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (a), including data
collected at the State level through contracts with
appropriate organizations as designated by the Institute of
Medicine.
(2) 8 years.--Not later than 8 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Institute of Medicine shall submit
to the Secretary of Health and Human Services a report
containing information and recommendations on the areas
described in subsection (a), including data collected from
relevant demonstration projects.
(3) Reports.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall submit the reports described in paragraphs (1) and (2)
to the relevant committees of Congress.
(c) Definitions.--
(1) Palliative care; quality of cancer care.--The terms
`palliative care' and `quality of cancer care' have the
meanings given such terms in section 399AA of the Public
Health Service Act.
(2) Comprehensive cancer control program.--The term
`comprehensive cancer control program' has the meaning given
such term in section 320B of the Public Health Service Act.
(3) Health disparity population and health disparities
research.--The terms ``health disparity population'' and
``health disparities research'' have the meanings given such
terms in section 399AA of the Public Health Service Act.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as
may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleague
Senator Bill Frist in introducing this bipartisan legislation to
improve the prevention and treatment of cancer. The Quality of Care for
Individuals with Cancer Act is a result of the combined efforts of many
in the cancer community, including patients, families, cancer
survivors, and health providers. Its goal is to see that as many of our
fellow citizens as possible are able to obtain state-of-the-art cancer
care.
The Nation's continuing investment in medical research in the past
decade has led to many new and innovative options in cancer treatment
and prevention. We all want to believe that when a loved one or someone
we know is diagnosed with cancer, they will benefit from the latest and
most effective treatments. Unfortunately, that is often not the case.
Many cancer patients receive the wrong care, too little care, or even
too much care. Colon cancer is 85 percent curable if it is detected
early through screening. Yet today less than half of all Americans who
should be screened for colon cancer are actually screened. If we do not
act to correct these problems, over a quarter of a million parents,
sons and daughters, will die from this curable cancer in the next 5
years.
Much more can be done to extend the reach of high-quality cancer care
and reduce this burden of unnecessary suffering and premature death.
New discoveries of science can be brought much more quickly from the
research laboratory to the bedside of the patient and to the practice
of medicine in all communities.
Our bill will help assure that the care of cancer patients is
coordinated from diagnosis through successful treatment. The quality of
end of life care will be significantly improved. Needed programs will
be established to meet the ongoing needs of cancer survivors and their
families.
Health care provider training will make the latest in cancer care
available through improved education and networking. Patients will have
access to providers who know how to deliver the most effective cancer
treatment at the right time and in the right way.
Today, the best in medical research is too often not available to
treat and cure many different types of cancer, especially leukemia,
breast cancer, and prostate cancer. The treatments will vary for each
patient, but the standard of excellence in cancer care should be widely
available to all. Enactment of this legislation will bring that day
closer, and I look forward to its enactment, its implementation, and
the benefits it will bring to so many of our fellow citizens in the
years ahead.
______
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 2772. A bill to promote the development of the emerging commercial
human space flight industry, to extend the liability indemnification
regime for the commercial space transportation industry, to authorize
appropriations for the Office of the Associate Administrator for
Commercial Space Transportation, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to proudly introduce the
Space Commercial Human Ascent Serving Expeditions Act also known as the
Space CHASE Act.
Because Oklahoma has significant history in aviation, I believe it is
well positioned to be a leading State in the up-and-coming commercial
space industry.
Since 1910, beginning with Charles F. Willard who only flew a few
hundred yards in a south Oklahoma City field, Oklahomans have been
flying.
The following year, Clyde Cessna, an automobile dealer from Enid who
later formed the Cessna Aircraft Company, flew his mono-wing airplane
near Jet, OK.
Such early flights in Oklahoma continued and in 1929 perhaps one of
the most notable aviation events occurred in Waynoka, OK, where Charles
Lindbergh stopped on the first transcontinental passenger air and rail
service.
By 1931, Wiley Post, from Maysville, OK, gained international
recognition when he flew around the world in a little over 8 days. In
July 1991, I had the honor of recreating Post's trip on its 60th
anniversary.
Oklahoma's aviation history does not stop there. On November 2, 1929,
26 licensed women pilots founded what was known as the 99 Club, or the
Ninety-Nines. It was called so at the suggestion of its first
president, Amelia Earheart, because of the 117 licensed women pilots in
America who were contacted about joining the club, only 99 actually
joined. The South Central Section of the 99 Club comprising several
States including Oklahoma, has through the years, issued several
publications and in 1962, Mary Lester of the Oklahoma Chapter created a
new version of the Club's publication, the Ninety-Nine News. Today, the
99 club is an international organization of licensed women pilots from
35 countries, with its international headquarters at Will Rogers World
Airport in Oklahoma City.
In 1999, the Oklahoma State Legislature established the Oklahoma
Space Industry Development Authority, OSIDA to create a commercial
spaceport that will ``expand and economically develop the space
frontier with
[[Page 17160]]
advanced spacecraft operating facilities.'' Furthermore, OSIDA's
mission is to carry out this vision with ``. . . deliberate and
forceful . . . planning and development of spaceport facilities, launch
systems and projects, and to successfully promote and stimulate the
creation of space commerce, education and space related industries in
Oklahoma.''
In March of 2001, I appealed to NASA, on behalf of the Oklahoma Space
Industry Development Authority, to receive nearly a quarter of a
million dollars in grant money. Part of this grant is paid for the
opening of the Oklahoma Spaceport. My efforts to build a space industry
in Oklahoma are coming to fruition with that March 2002 launch of
``Dark Sky Station,'' from the Spaceport in Burns Flat. The rest of the
money from the NASA grant went to nine other organizations around the
State, dedicated to providing space-related education.
I applaud OSIDA for this aggressive economic plan and, as a result,
know of 15 companies that have entered into Memoranda of Understanding
with OSIDA: Armadillo Aerospace; Space Development; XCOR Aerospace;
Zero Gravity; Pioneer Rocketplane; Vela Technology; Rocketplane, Ltd.;
JP Aerospace; TGV Rockets; JP Skylaunch; Space Adventures; Jim Schouten
Enterprises; Universal Spaceliners; Takeoff Technologies; and Space
Assets.
Oklahoma is also home to business done by other such companies and
entities as: Beyond-Earth Enterprises, which is helping to revitalize
the passion of space travel by providing payload launch capabilities at
affordable rates; the Global Space League, Inc., a 501(c)3 nonprofit
institution which takes science experiments from students, kindergarten
through university level, to remote places normally accessible only to
professional scientists; and HighShips, which is in the business of
developing innovative lighter-than-air flying vehicles.
Several communities in southwestern Oklahoma stand to either benefit
from, take part in, or have synergies with commercial space development
including: Burns Flat which boasts the third longest runway in North
America, Sayre, Frederick, Elk City, Hobart and Altus Air Force Base. I
look forward to working with these communities in the future, such as
with Oklahoma House District 63 Representative Don Armes.
I encourage any and all companies and individuals who would like to
become involved in the commercial space industry to come to
southwestern Oklahoma. Oklahoma welcomes space industries with these
features: Tax and Financial Incentives; Oklahoma Quality Job Program:
Quarterly cash payments of 5% of new payroll for 10 years; Investment
Tax Credit: Credit equal 1% of the investment in depreciable property
for 5 years-doubles in this Enterprise zone; Sales/Use Tax Refund:
Refunds tax paid on construction materials in new manufacturing
facility; Property Tax Exemptions: 5-year abatement on 100 percent of
property tax on new investment in manufacturing space; Sales/Use Tax
Exemption: Available for machinery and equipment used in manufacturing,
including property consumed; Accelerated Federal Property
Depreciations: Provides approximately 40 percent shorter recovery
period for depreciable property on Indian land.
Training Incentives: Vocational Technology School free to employees;
customized assistance in employee screening; job training partnership
program.
Financing: Oklahoma Finance Authority low cost loans; venture capital
program facilitated by the agency; bonding by the agency; business
financial assistance.
Site Specifics: existing available buildings: Hangars, office space,
maintenance, warehouses; over 13,500 feet runway, ramp space; 3,000
acres of open space; utilities, infrastructure in place; rail spur,
major Interstate Highway access; more than 340 days of clear skies;
polar and ISS orbit launch windows available; no environmental issues;
site geology supports any type of construction.
Please come to Oklahoma to advance commercial space exploration and
avail yourself of Oklahoma's benefits.
Coming from Oklahoma's distinguished aviation heritage and innovative
activity in the aerospace sector, as well as my experience as a
commercially licensed pilot instructor, I rise today to introduce what
I believe is a bill to benefit current and future aerospace companies
in Oklahoma and throughout our entire Nation.
This legislation came to fruition after I facilitated many
negotiations between the Federal Aviation Authority, the House Science
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, the Senate Commerce Committee,
aerospace companies and the Oklahoma Space Industrial Development
Authority.
My language adds to H.R. 3752, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments
Act of 2004, which updates the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, by
accounting for a new class of sub-orbital launch vehicles that use
hybrid technology--a combination of rocket and jet engines--to create a
fair approach to future civilian suborbital flights.
In this legislation to advance the commercial space community, I have
successfully covered hybrid aerospace vehicles.
By defining a sub-orbital vehicle as a rocket-propelled vehicle, ``in
whole or in part, intended for flight on a sub-orbital trajectory, and
whose thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of the rocket-
powered portion of its ascent,'' aerospace companies will now face less
regulation than with previous definitions for this type of vehicle.
Under my language, the FAA's Office of Commercial Space
Transportation will now have sole regulation authority for sub-orbital
hybrid vehicles, and will now be appropriately considered and licensed
as launch vehicles. By this classification, aerospace companies such as
Rocketplane, which utilizes hybrid technology, will now avoid being
forced to go through a lengthy two-step licensing process formerly
required for both launch vehicles and commercial aircraft and will have
the opportunity to be licensed to carry civilian passengers much more
quickly.
In addition to the definition of sub-orbital flight, I am also proud
of the indemnification and insurance provisions of this legislation
which make it possible for small companies to enter into this business
field, and am happy to create the new ``experimental permit''
framework.
I know that my colleagues, House Science Space and Aeronautics
Subcommittee Chairman Rohrabacher and Committee Chairman Boehlert, and
their aide, Timothy Hughes, have worked diligently to update the
Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 by introducing and passing H.R.
3752.
I particularly want to thank my fellow Oklahoman and House Science
Committee member Frank Lucas for requesting my involvement in this
legislation, along with requests from Oklahoma State Senator Gilmer
Capps, Oklahoma State Representative Jack Bonny, Oklahoma Lieutenant
Governor Mary Fallon, and the Oklahoma Space Industry Development
Authority, Congressman Lucas' colloquy with Chairman Boehlert on the
floor the House of Representatives on March 4, 2004, speaks of his
interest in ensuring that this very commercial space legislation
include hybrid vehicles that fly a bit like rockets and a bit like
airplanes:
Mr. Boehlert. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) for the
purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) bringing this important bill to the
floor, because the emerging commercial human space flight
industry presents tremendous opportunities for my State of
Oklahoma and our Nation as a whole. I am particularly
appreciative of this bill's intent to ease the regulatory
burdens for entrepreneurs who are developing new suborbital
reusable launch vehicles.
Mr. Boehlert. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from New
York.
Mr. Boehlert. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
kind words. He is correct in stating that this legislation
seeks to put in place sufficient Federal regulation to
protect the general public while also promoting this
important new industry.
[[Page 17161]]
Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma. As you know, Mr. Chairman, some
suborbital reusable launch vehicles that will be used in
commercial human space flight activities may have some
attributes normally associated with airplanes as well as many
attributes of rockets. My hope is that such hybrid vehicles
would not have to be regulated under two separate regimes.
What are the chairman's views on this matter?
Mr. Boehlert. I thank the gentleman for that question.
This is a very important issue on which we have worked
extensively with industry and the executive branch in
developing this bill. As currently drafted, H.R. 3752
incorporates definitions promulgated by the Federal Aviation
Administration to distinguish between suborbital rockets,
which are under the jurisdiction of FAA's Associate
Administrator for Commercial Space Transport, and other
aerospace vehicles which are regulated by another part of the
FAA. That said, I would be happy to keep working with the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and other interested
parties as the bill moves forward to revisit the important
issue of how best to regulate hybrid vehicles that are
engaged in commercial human space flight.
Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma. I thank the chairman and I look
forward to continuing to work with him and our colleagues in
the other body to see if we can create a single regime for
hybrid commercial space flight vehicles.
While I realize H.R. 3752 creates fairness in regulation for the
newly emerging civilian space flight industry, I believe my language
takes it a step further by ensuring all companies entering this field
have a level licensing playing field including those using hybrid
technologies.
These are exciting times for this field of human endeavor. We are
currently in the middle of a competition for the ANSARI X PRIZE. This
competition is a courageous effort to refocus society's attention on
the last frontier--space. To win the $10 million ANSARI X PRIZE, the
successful team will launch a craft carrying at least three people to
an altitude of at least 100 km, 62.5 miles, return safely to Earth,
then repeat it with the same craft within 2 weeks.
With pilot Mike Melvill, the Burt Rutan team made a flight on June
21, 2004, but control problems prevented the repeat flight within the 2
weeks.
This brilliant concept of the Ansari X Prize exemplifies the
excellence that can be achieved through an incentivized approach rather
than a governmental mandate or punitive approach. Incentivize and
safely get government out of the way is the philosophy of my bill.
Tempt not only the pocketbook but the vision of anyone who has the
creativity and imagination to pursue it.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 415--TO AUTHORIZE THE PRODUCTION OF RECORDS BY THE
PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 415
Whereas, during the 106th and 107th Congresses, the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on
Governmental Affairs conducted an investigation into money
laundering activities in the U.S. financial services sector,
including examinations of money laundering activities in
private banking, correspondent banking, and the securities
industry;
Whereas, by agreement to Senate Resolution 77, 107th
Congress, the Senate authorized the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member of the Subcommittee, acting jointly, to
provide to law enforcement officials, legislative bodies,
regulatory agencies, and other entities or individuals duly
authorized by federal, state, or foreign governments, records
of the Subcommittee's investigation into the use of
correspondent banking for the purpose of money laundering;
Whereas, during the present Congress, the Subcommittee has
been conducting a followup to its earlier money laundering
investigation to evaluate the enforcement and effectiveness
of key statutory anti-money laundering provisions, using
Riggs Bank of the District of Columbia as a case history;
Whereas, the Subcommittee is asking authorization to
provide records of its followup investigation in response to
requests from law enforcement officials, legislative bodies,
regulatory agencies, and foreign agencies and officials;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United
States and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no
evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate
can, by administrative or judicial process, be taken from
such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or
in the possession of the Senate is needed for the promotion
of justice, the Senate will take such action as will promote
the ends of justice consistent with the privileges of the
Senate: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of
the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee
on Governmental Affairs, acting jointly, are authorized to
provide to law enforcement officials, legislative bodies,
regulatory agencies, and other entities or individuals duly
authorized by federal, state, or foreign governments, records
of the Subcommittee's case study investigation into the
enforcement and effectiveness of statutory anti-money
laundering provisions.
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 416--CONGRATULATING THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
FULLERTON BASEBALL TEAM ON WINNING THE 2004 COLLEGE WORLD SERIES
Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 416
Whereas on June 27, 2004, the California State University,
Fullerton (``Fullerton'') Titans won the 2004 College World
Series;
Whereas the 3 to 2 victory completed a 2 to 0 sweep of the
heavily favored Texas Longhorns;
Whereas the Fullerton team opened the season with 15 wins
and 16 losses, then continued on to win 32 of the next 38
games, finishing with 47 wins and 22 losses in the regular
season;
Whereas the Fullerton team won with the superlative
pitching of Jason Windsor, who threw a complete game and was
named Most Outstanding Player of the College World Series;
Whereas Kurt Suzuki broke a 2 and 20 slump with the game
winning RBI single;
Whereas the Fullerton roster also includes Joe Turgeon,
Justin Turner, Clark Hardman, Mark Carroll, Blake Davis,
Brett Pill, Ricky Romero, J.D. McCauley, Mike Martinez, Neil
Walton, Ronnie Prettyman, Eric Hale, Evan McArthur, Brandon
Tripp, Shawn Scobee, Scott Sarver, Bobby Andrews, Felipe
Garcia, Ryan Schreppel, Danny Dorn, Armando Carrasco, Jon
Wilhite, Nolan Bruyninckx, Lauren Gagnier, John Curtis, Evan
Myrick, Dustin Miller, Vance Otake, Eric Echevarria, P.J.
Pilittere, Sergio Pedroza, Geoff Tesmer, John Estes, Mark
Davidson, and Vinnie Pestano;
Whereas Fullerton Coach George Horton was competing against
his mentor, former Fullerton coach Augie Garrido, who led the
Titans to 3 previous national championships;
Whereas the coaching staff of George Horton, Dave Serrano,
Rick Vanderhook, and Chad Baum deserve much credit for the
accomplishments of their team;
Whereas the Fullerton baseball team has won national
championships in 1979, 1984, 1995, and 2004, making it the
only team to win a national championship in each of the past
4 decades;
Whereas the students, alumni, faculty, and supporters of
Fullerton are to be congratulated for their commitment and
pride in their institution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates the California State University,
Fullerton Titans on their College World Series championship;
(2) recognizes the achievements of the team;
(3) requests that the President recognize the outstanding
accomplishments of the team; and
(4) directs the Secretary of the Senate to make available a
copy of this resolution to California State University,
Fullerton for appropriate display and to transmit an enrolled
copy of this resolution to the 2004 California State
University, Fullerton team.
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 417--CONGRATULATING THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT
LOS ANGELES WOMEN'S SOFTBALL TEAM ON WINNING THE 2004 NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION CHAMPIONSHIP
Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 417
Whereas on May 31, 2004, the University of California at
Los Angeles (``UCLA'') women's
[[Page 17162]]
softball team won the 2004 National Collegiate Athletic
Association (``NCAA'') championship;
Whereas the 3 to 1 victory completed another UCLA softball
title run, this time over the in-State rival, the California
Bears;
Whereas the victory marked UCLA's tenth NCAA title in team
history;
Whereas the UCLA women's softball team ended the season
with an impressive 47 to 9 mark;
Whereas UCLA trailed 1 to 0 for the first 5 innings, before
Claire Sua tied the game with a solo home run;
Whereas freshman pinch hitter Kristen Dedmon hit a crucial
2-RBI single to give UCLA the lead;
Whereas senior pitcher Keira Goerl became just the second
pitcher in NCAA Division I history to win multiple title
games;
Whereas the UCLA roster also includes Caitlin Benyi, Jaisa
Creps, Lisa Dodd, Andrea Duran, Alissa Eno, Tara Henry,
Ashley Herrera, Whitney Holum, Julie Hoshizaki, Jodie
Legaspi, Stephanie Ramos, Nicole Sandberg, Amanda Simpson,
Shana Stewart, Michelle Turner, and Emily Zaplatosch;
Whereas the coaching staff of Sue Enquist, Kelly Inouye-
Perez, and Gina Vecchione deserve much credit for the
accomplishments of their team;
Whereas the UCLA team is the first team to defend its NCAA
title since 1997;
Whereas UCLA has won 10 of a possible 23 NCAA Division I
softball championships; and
Whereas the students, alumni, faculty, and supporters of
UCLA are to be congratulated for their commitment and pride
in their institution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates the University of California at Los
Angeles Bruins on winning the 2004 National Collegiate
Athletic Association Championship;
(2) recognizes the achievements of the team;
(3) requests that the President recognize the outstanding
accomplishments of the team; and
(4) directs the Secretary of the Senate to make available a
copy of this resolution to University of California at Los
Angeles for appropriate display and to transmit an enrolled
copy of this resolution to the 2004 University of California
at Los Angeles women's softball team.
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 418--DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 2004 AS ``NATIONAL
PROSTATE CANCER AWARENESS MONTH''
Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Allen, Mr. Bayh, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Burns, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Corzine, Mr.
Crapo, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Inouye,
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Miller, Mr.
Nelson of Florida, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Wyden) submitted
the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 418
Whereas countless families in the United States live with
prostate cancer;
Whereas 1 in 6 men in the United States will be diagnosed
with prostate cancer in his lifetime;
Whereas over the past decade, prostate cancer has been the
most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer and the second most
common cancer killer of men in the United States;
Whereas over 230,000 men in the United States will be
diagnosed with prostate cancer and 29,900 men in the United
States will die of prostate cancer in 2004, according to
American Cancer Society estimates;
Whereas 30 percent of new cases occur in men under the age
of 65;
Whereas a man in the United States turns 50 years old about
every 14 seconds, increasing the occurrence of cancer and,
particularly, of prostate cancer;
Whereas African-American males suffer a prostate cancer
incidence rate as much as 60 percent higher than White males
and have double the mortality rates;
Whereas obesity is a significant predictor of prostate
cancer severity and death;
Whereas if a man in the United States has 1 family member
diagnosed with prostate cancer, he has double the risk of
prostate cancer, if he has 2 family members with such
diagnosis, he has 5 times the risk, and if he has 3 family
members with such diagnosis, he has a 97-percent risk of
prostate cancer;
Whereas screening by both digital rectal examination and
prostate specific antigen blood test can diagnose the disease
in earlier and more treatable stages and reduce prostate
cancer mortality;
Whereas ongoing research promises to further improvements
in prostate cancer prevention, early detection, and
treatments; and
Whereas educating people in the United States, including
health care providers, about prostate cancer and early
detection strategies is crucial to saving men's lives and
preserving and protecting families: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates September 2004 as ``National Prostate Cancer
Awareness Month'';
(2) declares that the Federal Government has a
responsibility to--
(A) raise awareness about the importance of screening
methods and treatment of prostate cancer;
(B) increase research funding that is commensurate with the
burden of the disease so that the causes of prostate cancer,
and improved screening, treatments, and a cure for prostate
cancer, may be discovered; and
(C) continue to consider ways for improving the access to,
and quality of, health care services for detecting and
treating prostate cancer; and
(3) requests that the President issue a proclamation
calling on the people of the United States, interested
groups, and affected persons to--
(A) promote awareness of prostate cancer;
(B) take an active role in the fight to end the devastating
affects of prostate cancer on individuals, their families,
and the economy; and
(C) observe the month of September 2004 with appropriate
ceremonies and activities.
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 419--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE WITH RESPECT
TO THE CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT AND THE SMOOTH TRANSITION OF EXECUTIVE
POWER
Mr. CORNYN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on Rules and Administration:
S. Res. 419
Whereas members of the Senate, regardless of political
party affiliation, agree that the American people deserve a
Government that is failsafe and foolproof, and that
terrorists should never have the ability to disrupt the
operations of the Government;
Whereas continuity of governmental operations in the wake
of a catastrophic terrorist attack remains a pressing issue
of national importance before the United States Congress;
Whereas, at a minimum, terrorists should never have the
ability, by launching a terrorist attack, to change the
political party that is in control of the Government,
regardless of which party is in power;
Whereas, whenever control of the White House shall change
from one political party to another, the outgoing President
and the incoming President should work together, and with the
Senate to the extent determined appropriate by the Senate, to
ensure a smooth transition of executive power, in the
interest of the American people;
Whereas, under the current presidential succession statute
in section 19 of title 3, United States Code, the members of
the cabinet, defined as the heads of the statutory executive
departments under section 101 of title 5, United States Code,
fall within the line of succession to the presidency;
Whereas, during previous presidential transition periods,
the incoming President has had to serve with cabinet members
from the prior administration, including subcabinet officials
from the prior administration acting as cabinet members, for
at least some period of time;
Whereas the Constitution vests the appointment power of
executive branch officials in the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, and nothing in this
resolution is intended to alter either the constitutional
power of the President or the constitutional function of the
Senate with regard to the confirmation of presidential
nominees;
Whereas an incoming President cannot exercise the
constitutional powers of the President, in order to ensure a
smooth transition of Government, until noon on the 20th day
of January, pursuant to the terms of the twentieth amendment
to the Constitution;
Whereas cooperation between the incoming and the outgoing
President is therefore the only way to ensure a smooth
transition of Government;
Whereas Congress throughout history has acted consistently
and in a bipartisan fashion to encourage measures to ensure
the smooth transition of executive power from one President
to another, such as through the enactment of the Presidential
Transition Act of 1963 (3 U.S.C. 102 note; Public Law 88-277)
and subsequent amendments;
Whereas Congress has previously concluded that ``[t]he
national interest requires'' that ``the orderly transfer of
the executive power in connection with the expiration of the
term of office of a President and the inauguration of a new
President . . . be accomplished so as to assure continuity in
the faithful execution of the laws and in the conduct of the
affairs of the Federal Government, both domestic and
foreign'' under the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (3
U.S.C. 102 note; Public Law 88-277);
Whereas Congress has further concluded that ``[a]ny
disruption occasioned by the transfer of the executive power
could produce results detrimental to the safety and well-
being of the United States and its people'' under the
Presidential Transition
[[Page 17163]]
Act of 1963 (3 U.S.C. 102 note; Public Law 88-277); and
Whereas Congress has previously expressed its intent ``that
appropriate actions be authorized and taken to avoid or
minimize any disruption'' and ``that all officers of the
Government so conduct the affairs of the Government for which
they exercise responsibility and authority as (1) to be
mindful of problems occasioned by transitions in the office
of the President, (2) to take appropriate lawful steps to
avoid or minimize disruptions that might be occasioned by the
transfer of the executive power, and (3) otherwise to promote
orderly transitions in the office of President'' under the
Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (3 U.S.C. 102 note;
Public Law 88-277): Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that it is the sense of the Senate that during
the period preceding the end of a term of office in which a
President will not be serving a succeeding term--
(1) that President should consider submitting the
nominations of individuals to the Senate who are selected by
the President-elect for offices that fall within the line of
succession;
(2) the Senate should consider conducting confirmation
proceedings and votes on the nominations described under
paragraph (1), to the extent determined appropriate by the
Senate, between January 3 and January 20 before the
Inauguration; and
(3) that President should consider agreeing to sign and
deliver commissions for all approved nominations on January
20 before the Inauguration to ensure continuity of
Government.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I rose to address this body in
support of a Senate resolution on a profoundly nonpartisan issue. As
President Bush and the United States government continue their fight to
protect the American way of life in the war against terrorism, they
have also been fighting another battle to protect American ideals and
principles--a battle against human trafficking and slavery. Most
Americans would be shocked to learn that the institution of slavery--an
institution that hundreds of thousands of Americans shed precious blood
to destroy--continues to persist today--not just around the world, but
hidden in communities across America. This is a new fight against an
old evil. It is the most fundamental civil rights issue of our time.
I was pleased to work with my lead Democrat co-sponsor, Senator
Schumer, as well as with Senators Graham of South Carolina, Leahy, and
Clinton, to introduce and obtain full Senate approval of Senate
Resolution 414. That resolution expressed strong support for the
Justice Department's recent efforts to combat human trafficking, under
the leadership of the Civil Rights Division. The resolution noted that
the Justice Department recently held its first-ever National Conference
on Human Trafficking in Tampa, Florida, where it announced a new
comprehensive model state anti-trafficking law. The resolution
encouraged states to consider adopting such laws where they do not
currently exist.
Today, I rise in support of a Senate resolution on another profoundly
nonpartisan issue--the preservation of our system of government in the
wake of a catastrophic terrorist attack. Just as most Americans would
be shocked to learn about the incidence of forced labor and sexual
servitude in communities across the country, I believe most Americans
would be shocked to learn that our laws are profoundly inadequate to
ensure continuity of governmental operations in the wake of a
catastrophic terrorist attack.
I have spent a great deal of time and energy this past year on the
issue of continuity of government. Last September, I chaired two
hearings to examine continuity of government problems in the two
political branches of government. On September 9, I chaired a hearing
of the Senate Judiciary Committee to examine continuity problems in the
Congress, and on September 16, Senator Lott and I co-chaired a joint
hearing of the Senate Rules and Judiciary Committees to look at
problems in our system of Presidential succession.
These are not partisan issues. These are imminently nonpartisan
issues, and so I was pleased to work on those hearings with my
distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle--Senator Leahy,
the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator
Feingold, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights, which I am honored
to chair.
In November, I introduced Senate Joint Resolution 23, a proposed
constitutional amendment to ensure continuity of Congress.
Constitutional legal experts across the political spectrum have
recognized that our current laws are inadequate to ensure continuity of
Congressional operations in the wake of a catastrophic terrorist
attack, and that only a constitutional amendment can ensure that the
American people will never have to suffer under martial law.
The constitutional amendment I introduced implements the
recommendations of the bipartisan blue ribbon Continuity of Government
Commission, sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and the
Brookings Institution. That commission is led by two of our nation's
truly most distinguished American statesmen--its honorary co-chairmen,
former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford--as well as by its two
distinguished co-chairmen, former Senator Alan Simpson and former White
House Counsel Lloyd Cutler. The commission is comprised of former high-
ranking government officials of both parties, and ably staffed by
Norman Ornstein, John Fortier, and Thomas Mann.
I know that there are sharp divisions in the House over what kinds of
continuity measures to adopt--whether emergency interim appointments
are appropriate and necessary, or if expedited special elections alone
are sufficient. It is important to recognize that my amendment takes no
position in that debate. My amendment would not compel either chamber
of Congress to adopt any particular methodology for redressing
continuity problems. It would simply empower Congress to adopt
legislation to guarantee continuity of Congressional operations--power
that Congress does not currently possess. It is modeled after Article
II of the Constitution, which empowers Congress to adopt legislation to
provide for continuity of the Presidency.
On January 27 of this year, I chaired a hearing of the Senate
Judiciary Committee so that legal experts could examine the need for
Senate Joint Resolution 23. And on that same day, I introduced
implementing legislation (S. 2031), entitled the Continuity of the
Senate Act of 2004. Continuity problems affect both the House and the
Senate. Indeed, the Senate arguably faces the most dire problem of
all--if a majority of Senators are incapacitated, Congress could be
disabled for as long as four years, the amount of time it takes to
elect a new majority of Senators. The Continuity of the Senate Act of
2004 would implement the constitutional amendment proposed by Senate
Joint Resolution 23. It would simply empower each state to adopt
continuity measures for their senators in case of incapacity--following
the model of the 17th Amendment with respect to Senate vacancies. I am
pleased that Senators Dodd and Lott agreed to serve as original co-
sponsors of this legislation. After all, they are the ranking Democrat
and Republican, respectively, on the Senate Rules Committee--the
committee that would have jurisdiction to consider the Continuity of
the Senate Act, in the event that the constitutional amendment I have
proposed is approved by two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of
the states.
On May 13, I convened a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee
on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights--the subcommittee
that possesses jurisdiction over constitutional amendments. I am
pleased that the subcommittee approved Senate Joint Resolution 23 on a
bipartisan vote. I am particularly pleased that the resolution was
supported by my distinguished colleague, the subcommittee's ranking
Democrat, Senator Feingold. I know from working with him these past
several months that he is no fan of constitutional amendments. And of
course, everyone in this chamber agrees that the Constitution should
not be amended casually. Yet he recognized--as have constitutional
legal experts across the political spectrum--that the only way to
ensure continuity of Congressional operations is a constitutional
amendment. I look forward to working with Senator Hatch, the
[[Page 17164]]
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in coming weeks and months
so that the full committee can consider the merits of, and the need
for, Senate Joint Resolution 23.
Of course, Congress is not the only institution that faces serious
problems of continuity of operations. Our laws are also inadequate with
respect to Presidential succession. Article II of the Constitution
gives Congress the power to enact laws to address Presidential
succession--just as my proposed constitutional amendment would give
Congress such power with respect to continuity of Congress. Yet legal
experts across the political spectrum have written that the current
Presidential succession statute is unconstitutional and unworkable.
Accordingly, I introduced legislation in February, right before
President's Day, to reform the Presidential succession statute (S.
2073). That same day, I also introduced a Senate resolution (S. Con.
Res. 89) to establish a protocol for ensuring proper transition between
an outgoing President and a newly elected President. Both measures were
cosponsored by Senator Lott, the chairman of the Rules Committee, which
exercises jurisdiction over such matters.
I am pleased to introduce a more robust version of that same
resolution today for the Senate's consideration, in the form of a
Senate resolution that requires the consent of only this body. It is an
important step to ensuring that, no matter what, at a minimum,
terrorists will never be able to determine, by launching a terrorist
strike, which party controls the White House.
Imagine if you will that it is January 20, the inauguration date for
a new incoming President. The sun is shining, and the American people
are watching. The new President and Vice President sit on the center
platform just steps away from the Capitol Rotunda, joined by American
and foreign dignitaries. Leaders of both Houses of Congress sit nearby
as well. It is a beautiful day--but as national security and continuity
of government experts have long recognized, it is also a window of
vulnerability. If terrorists launched a successful strike on
Inauguration Day, it could wipe out not only our new President, but
also the first three people who are in the line of Presidential
succession under our current Presidential succession statute--the Vice
President, the Speaker of the House, and the President pro tempore of
the Senate.
What happens next?
Well, imagine that the election of the prior year had resulted in a
change of political party control of the White House. During previous
Presidential transition periods, a new incoming President has had to
serve with Cabinet members from the prior administration--including
sub-Cabinet officials from the prior administration acting as Cabinet
members--for at least some period of time. That means that, in the
event of a successful inaugural day attack, the official who could rise
to become Acting President, perhaps serving for four full years, could
very well be a member of the outgoing administration--indeed, a member
of the political party that the American people expelled from office at
the most recent election.
The resolution I introduce today would help prevent this from
happening. As the resolution acknowledges, members of the Senate,
regardless of political party affiliation, agree that the American
people deserve a Government that is failsafe and foolproof. We agree
that terrorists should never have the ability to disrupt the operations
of the Government. We agree that continuity of governmental operations
in the wake of a catastrophic terrorist attack remains a pressing issue
of national importance before the United States Congress. And we agree
that, at a minimum, terrorists should never have the ability, by
launching a terrorist attack, to change the political party that is in
control of the Government--a principle that applies regardless of which
party is in power.
An incoming President, of course, cannot exercise the constitutional
powers of the President, in order to ensure a smooth transition of
Government, until noon on the 20th day of January, pursuant to the
terms of the Twentieth Amendment of the Constitution. Accordingly,
cooperation between the incoming and the outgoing President is the only
way to ensure a smooth transition of government.
Whenever control of the White House shall change from one political
party to another, the outgoing President and the incoming President
should work together, and with the Senate to the extent deemed
appropriate by the Senate, to ensure a smooth transition of executive
power, in the interest of the American people. Accordingly, the
resolution establishes a non-binding protocol--a protocol with three
parts.
First, the resolution states that an outgoing President should
consider submitting the nominations of individuals to the Senate who
are selected by the President-elect for offices that fall within the
line of succession. Under the current Presidential succession statute
(3 U.S.C. Sec. 19), that means the members of the Cabinet, defined as
the heads of the statutory executive departments (5 U.S.C. Sec. 101).
Second, the resolution provides that the Senate should consider
conducting confirmation proceedings and votes on Cabinet nominations,
to the extent deemed appropriate by the Senate, between January 3 and
January 20 before the Inauguration. Of course, nothing in the
resolution purports to alter the constitutional powers of either the
President or the Senate, and indeed, nothing in this resolution could
constitutionally do so.
And third, the resolution encourages the outgoing President to
consider agreeing to sign and deliver commissions for all approved
nominations on January 20 before the Inauguration--all to ensure
continuity of government.
I am pleased that this resolution has received such strong support
amongst experts in the fields of continuity of government and
constitutional law. This is a truly nonpartisan effort, so I am
particularly pleased that the resolution is so enthusiastically
supported by constitutional legal experts such as Walter Dellinger,
Cass Sunstein, Laurence Tribe, Michael Gerhardt, and Howard Wasserman.
Rather than repeat their words here, I will simply ask unanimous
consent that their letters be included in the Congressional Record at
the close of my remarks.
Throughout history, Congress has acted consistently and in a
bipartisan fashion to encourage measures to ensure the smooth
transition of Executive power from one President to another. I think,
for example, of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and its
subsequent amendments. In that Act, Congress concluded that ``[t]he
national interest requires'' that ``the orderly transfer of the
executive power in connection with the expiration of the term of office
of a President and the inauguration of a new President . . . be
accomplished so as to assure continuity in the faithful execution of
the laws and in the conduct of the affairs of the Federal Government,
both domestic and foreign.'' Congress further concluded that ``[a]ny
disruption occasioned by the transfer of the executive power could
produce results detrimental to the safety and well-being of the United
States and its people.'' Accordingly, Congress expressed its intent
``that appropriate actions be authorized and taken to avoid or minimize
any disruption'' and ``that all officers of the Government so conduct
the affairs of the Government for which they exercise responsibility
and authority as (1) to be mindful of problems occasioned by
transitions in the office of President, (2) to take appropriate lawful
steps to avoid or minimize disruptions that might be occasioned by the
transfer of the executive power, and (3) otherwise to promote orderly
transitions in the office of President.''
Close cooperation between an incoming President and an outgoing
President is the only way to ensure a smooth transition of government.
So this evening, just days away from the first of our nation's two
great political conventions, I am pleased to introduce a resolution to
ensure continuity of government during a unique window of
vulnerability--the Presidential inaugural period. And I look forward to
further debate and discussion on other legislation to ensure the
continuity of our national government.
[[Page 17165]]
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Harvard University,
Cambridge, MA, July 22, 2004.
Hon. John Cornyn,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights & Property Rights, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senator Cornyn: I am writing to commend you for
drafting the Resolution whose text you have shared with me
expressing the sense of the Senate with respect to continuity
of government and the smooth transition of Executive power. I
write not as a friend and supporter of Senators Kerry and
Edwards, whose election this November to the presidency and
vice presidency I believe you know I strongly favor, but as a
citizen of this nation and, for more than 30 years, a
professor of constitutional law who is devoted to the success
of its government of, by, and for the people,
The Resolution I have read is a non-binding measure that
creates no obligations or rights and imposes no restrictions.
For this reason among others, it is fully consistent with the
Constitution of the United States. Unlike some such non-
binding measures, however, this one seems to me extremely
wise. It entails no posturing, and the recommendations it
makes for the transition from an incumbent president's
administration to that of a newly elected president who is
not the incumbent--a situation I fervently hope we will
confront between November 2, 2004, and January 20, 2005--seem
to me not only sensible but potentially crucial, especially
during a period of our history when fanatic international
terrorism threatens to disrupt our political and governmental
processes. The recommendations are such that a non-partisan,
good-government perspective would commend this Resolution to
the entire Senate, and I strongly support its adoption.
Yours truly,
Laurence Tribe.
____
University of Chicago Law School,
Chicago, IL, July 22, 2004.
Senator John Cornyn,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil
Rights, and Property Rights, Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cornyn: I am writing to express support, from
the standpoint of constitutional structure and good
governance, for the proposed resolution involving continuity
in government, which would contain the following language:
``Resolved, that it is the sense of the Senate that during
the period preceding the end of a term of office in which a
President will not be serving a succeeding term--
(1) that President should consider submitting the
nominations of individuals to the Senate who are selected by
the President-elect for offices that fall within the line of
succession;
(2) the Senate should consider conducting confirmation
proceedings and votes on the nominations described under
paragraph (1), to the extent deemed appropriate by the
Senate, between January 3 and January 20 before the
Inauguration; and
(3) that President should consider agreeing to sign and
deliver commissions for all approved nominations on January
20 before the Inauguration, to ensure continuity of
Government''
The significant advantage of the suggested process is that
in the event of terrorist attack or other large-scale
disruption, it would reduce the risk that there would be
``gaps'' in the personnel and operation of the Executive
Branch. If the process operates as suggested, then there
would be no period in which certain high-level offices (those
that fall within the line of succession) lack personnel of
the President's choosing. A disadvantage of the suggested
process is that it would put perhaps unwelcome time pressure
on both the President-elect and the Senate--while also
putting the sitting President in a mildly awkward position.
Nonetheless, the text of the Resolution is not rigid
(``should consider''), and there are large virtues, for the
President-elect and the Senate alike, of providing an early,
expeditious process for ensuring that the President's Cabinet
is in place. The process thus promises to reduce a serious
danger without compromising important structural values.
One of the most central goals of our constitutional system
is to create an energetic and unitary executive branch, one
that is capable of prompt and expeditious action. See The
Federalist No. 70; E. Corwin, The President--Office and
Powers 3-30 (1957). This resolution, at once bipartisan and
nonpartisan, would serve to promote that goal under
contemporary conditions.
Sincerely,
Cass R. Sunstein.
____
O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Washington, DC, July 22, 2004.
Re: ``Smooth Transition'' Proposed Legislation.
Hon. John Cornyn,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cornyn: On rare occasions a suggestion comes
along that is truly a good government idea. The ``smooth
transition'' resolution you have proposed is a premier
example. It is a simple idea that would strengthen our
government, regardless of party and regardless of ideology.
To have the outgoing President, in his final weeks in office,
submit to the Senate the nominations of those individuals the
new President-elect has chosen for the cabinet is not merely
a convenience: it is essential in an era in which our
government must be ever vigilant.
I served in the White House in February, March and April of
1993. As you will recall, the position of Attorney General
was not filled in a timely fashion. In my view this resulted
in serious mistakes being made, as the President turned to
the White House staff for advice and legal opinions that
would have come from the Department of Justice had there been
a functioning Attorney General. Because of the great and
steady influence of career lawyers at Justice, the advice
from that Department is generally more solid and consistent
over time than a President receives when he has to rely on
the White House to carry out duties that should be performed
by the Attorney General. So I know first hand how important
it is to have new Department Heads in place at the moment the
new President is sworn in to office.
Your amendment does more than facilitate the smooth
functioning of government. It sets the right tone at a time
when so many partisan battles divide us in spirit. Our
parties should compete vigorously on policy and present
alternative visions and plans to the American people. But
then we should facilitate rather than inhibit the capacity of
the prevailing party to do the job the American people have
chosen them to do. This is a sentiment I expressed four years
ago in the pages of The Wall Street Journal as the new
administration of President George W. Bush came to power. I
am taking the liberty of including a copy of ``The Wrong Way
to Oppose'' from the Journal for January 10, 2001. I wish I
had thought of your idea and included it in that piece.
I hope your resolution is adopted with great bi-partisan
support. Best wishes to you.
Very truly yours,
Walter E. Dellinger,
of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.
____
The College of William & Mary
School of Law,
Williamsburg, VA, July 22, 2004.
Hon. John Cornyn,
U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cornyn: I write to express my support for the
resolution you are introducing suggesting that the President
and Senate should each consider taking particular actions
later this year to ensure a smooth transition and the
continuity of government. I share your concerns about
possibly crippling attacks against our government by
terrorists and your efforts to ameliorate the effects of any
such attacks. I believe your proposed resolution expresses a
noble ideal for the President and the Senate to work together
as smoothly and quickly as possible to ensure that the
administration is fully staffed and operational during the
critical period after the 2004 presidential election and
before Inauguration Day in January 2005.
I appreciate that resolutions on presidential nominations
touch upon extremely sensitive constitutional terrain. The
Appointments Clause of the Constitution vests the President
with the authority to nominate certain high-ranking
officials, and presidents have fiercely protected this
prerogative from encroachment by the Senate. The Appointments
Clause also vests the Senate with the authority to provide
its ``Advice and Consent'' on presidential nominations, and
the Senate has defended this authority from interference by
any other branch. I believe your resolution has merit in part
because it accords due respect for the respective
appointments authorities of the President and the Senate. It
is non-binding. It does not require either branch to do
anything it prefers not to do. It shows due respect for the
autonomy of the President and the Senate in exercising their
respective authorities over federal appointments. Separation
of powers problems arise when one branch encroaches upon, or
seeks to usurp, the authority of another branch. But, to its
credit, the resolution avoids such problems by both
acknowledging that its purpose is not to ``alter the
constitutional power of the President or the constitutional
function of the Senate with regard to the confirmation of
Presidential nominations'' and by calling upon the President
and the Senate merely to ``consider'' taking certain actions
later this year--the President in possibly nominating the
President-elect's nominees for cabinet and other offices
requiring confirmation, and the Senate in considering holding
confirmation proceedings and votes on these nominations prior
to the Inaugural.
I understand that the President-Elect may not be able, for
whatever reason, to nominate all the people he would like by
his inaugural. I also understand that the Senate may not be
able, for whatever reason, to act as quickly as either the
President-Elect or resolution suggests it ought to in taking
final action upon his nominations. I also understand that
Presidents-Elect's nominees
[[Page 17166]]
sometimes run into troubles in confirmation proceedings, and
there is no way to prevent at least some impasses from
occurring. But your resolution does not require either the
President or the Senate to do anything in particular; it
merely expresses a noble ideal shared by those voting for it.
I believe that this resolution, like your proposed
constitutional amendment S.J. Res. 23, should be commended
for its non-partisanship. I share your hope for a smooth
transition and continuity of the government for whoever wins
this November.
Very truly yours,
Michael J. Gerhardt,
Arthur B. Hanson Professor of Law.
____
Florida International University,
Miami, FL, July 22, 2004.
Hon. John C. Cornyn,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cornyn: I write in support of your Sense-of-
Senate Resolution, proposing a new informal practice for
nominating and confirming Cabinet officials when the White
House changes party hands. The Resolution urges an outgoing
President to nominate, and the new Senate to hold hearings
and confirm, some or all of the President-elect's Cabinet
prior to the January 20 Inauguration.
Thomas Jefferson's ascension to the presidency has been
labeled the Revolution of 1800 in part because it marked one
of the first peaceful and orderly transfers of executive
power. The continued peaceful and orderly transfer of
executive power between political parties and ideologies has
become a hallmark of the American constitutional order.
However, the Inauguration ceremony that attends this
orderly transfer of power, with leaders of all three branches
of the federal government present, marks one of two periods
in which presidential succession and continuity is uniquely
vulnerable to terrorist attack. The other vulnerable period
is when the President addresses a Joint Session of Congress.
And the safety valve used then--having one person in the line
of presidential succession, whether the Vice President or a
Cabinet member, outside of Washington--is not available in
the Inauguration scenario. The only people in the line of
presidential succession not present at the January 20
ceremony are Cabinet Secretaries (or perhaps only deputies
acting as secretary) remaining from the outgoing
administration. It would be inconsistent with the expressed
will of the People if a terrorist event on January 20, 2004
left the nation (only to use the next possible example of
this scenario) not with four years of a President Kerry and
Vice President Edwards, but with four years of Acting
President Rumsfeld.
The proposal addresses this problem by ensuring that the
Cabinet members in the line of succession during the handover
of power on noon on January 20 will be the hand-picked policy
surrogates of the incoming President, those who had been
chosen to help the new President exercise executive power and
represent the national electoral constituency. Should tragedy
strike the Inauguration, the executive branch that emerges
conforms politically and ideologically with the public will
expressed the previous November. The acting president would
be of the same political party and policy commitments as the
person just chosen by the People through the Electoral
College.
I emphasize several aspects of the proposed practice.
First, it urges the Senate to hold hearings and floor votes
``to the extent feasible.'' This practice does not short-
circuit the Senate's advice-and-consent role or rigorous
vetting of the President-elect's Cabinet. It commands that
the Senate take best efforts in the two-plus weeks between
January 3 and Inauguration Day to confirm the new Cabinet,
particularly some or all of the high-profile positions at the
top of the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense, Justice,
and Homeland Security. Second, it urges the outgoing
President to sign and deliver Commissions to the new
Secretaries on the morning of January 20, prior to the
ceremony. Until that point, the lame-duck President still
acts in the event of emergencies with the counsel of his own
Cabinet.
Finally, the Resolution must be considered in light of the
Presidential Succession Act of 2004, S. 2073, 108th Cong.
(2004), which (properly, both as a constitutional and policy
matter) removes legislative officers from the line of
presidential succession. The practice created by the
Resolution, in connection with the proposed changes to the
succession statute, thus provides the only way to ensure a
popularly and politically justifiable method of presidential
succession in the event of an Inauguration Day tragedy.
This informal practice benefits both political parties and
the American People as a whole, ensuring a smooth transition
whenever executive power transfers between parties. In fact,
the partisan cooperation inherent in the practice (an
outgoing President of one party nominating the policy support
of his successor) may ease the political rancor in the wake
of a heated election. This plan deserves the support of both
parties and should be passed.
Thank you for your time. Best of luck in your efforts.
Cordially,
Howard M. Wassermann.
______
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 131--CALLING ON THE GOVERNMENT OF SAUDI
ARABIA TO CEASE SUPPORTING RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGIES THAT PROMOTE HATRED,
INTOLERANCE, VIOLENCE, AND OTHER ABUSES OF INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED
HUMAN RIGHTS AND URGING THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROMOTE
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN SAUDI ARABIA
Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Ms. Collins) submitted the following
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations:
S. Con. Res. 131
Whereas the Department of State's Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices for 2003 concluded that human rights
conditions remain poor in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia;
Whereas the Department of State's International Religious
Freedom Report for 2003 concluded that religious freedom does
not exist in Saudi Arabia;
Whereas in a report on Saudi Arabia published in May 2003,
the United States Commission on International Religious
Freedom has found that religious freedom does not exist in
Saudi Arabia and has concluded that the Government of Saudi
Arabia forcefully limits the public practice or expression of
religion to the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam;
Whereas the Government of Saudi Arabia severely restricts
non-Wahhabi places of worship and denies non-Wahhabi clerics
entry into the country;
Whereas security forces of the Government of Saudi Arabia
continue to abuse and torture detainees and prisoners,
including individuals held on account of their religious
beliefs or practices;
Whereas religious law is interpreted and enforced in Saudi
Arabia in a manner that affects every aspect of the lives of
women in Saudi Arabia and results in serious violations of
the human rights of such women;
Whereas the Government of Saudi Arabia severely limits the
freedom of movement of women and discriminates against women
in education, employment, access to healthcare, marriage, and
inheritance, among other things;
Whereas the religious police in Saudi Arabia, known as the
``Mutawaa'', arbitrarily raid private homes and exercise
broadly defined, vague powers, including the ability to use
physical force and detain individuals without due process;
Whereas the Mutawaa intimidate, harass, abuse, and detain
citizens and foreigners of both sexes;
Whereas, although the Government of Saudi Arabia has
publicly affirmed that all residents of Saudi Arabia have the
liberty to worship in private, for several years, and as
recently as the fall of 2003, Shi'a clerics have been
arrested, imprisoned, and tortured for expressing their
religious views and some foreign workers have been arrested,
detained, tortured, and deported for worshipping in private;
Whereas offensive and discriminatory language has been
found in school textbooks sponsored by Saudi Arabia, sermons
in mosques, and articles and commentary in the media about
Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims;
Whereas, in March 2004, the Government of Saudi Arabia
detained and imprisoned several democratic reformers for
criticizing the strict religious environment and the slow
pace of reform in Saudi Arabia;
Whereas the Government of Saudi Arabia, which enjoys access
to the United States media, refuses to allow the transmission
of Radio Sawa, which promotes values of democracy, tolerance,
and respect for human rights, in Saudi Arabia;
Whereas the Government of Saudi Arabia funds mosques,
university chairs, Islamic study centers, and religious
schools known as madrassas, all over the world, in at least
30 countries;
Whereas there have been several reports that some members
of extremist and militant groups that promote intolerance,
and in some cases violence, in the Middle East, Eastern
Europe, Central and South Asia, and Africa have been trained
as clerics in Saudi Arabia;
Whereas there have been a growing number of reports that
funding originating in Saudi Arabia, including, in some
cases, from individuals and organizations associated with the
Government of Saudi Arabia and the royal family, has been
used to finance religious schools and other activities that
allegedly support religious intolerance, and, in some cases,
violence, associated with certain Islamic militant and
extremist organizations in several parts of the world;
Whereas in response to an April 2004 request of the
Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives, the Comptroller General of the United States
is undertaking a study to determine what the Government of
the United
[[Page 17167]]
States is doing to identify, monitor, and counter the
influence of funding and support from Saudi Arabia for
individuals, organizations, and institutions that advocate
violence, intolerance, or religious extremism outside of
Saudi Arabia; and
Whereas the Government of Saudi Arabia has made public
statements pledging political, economic, and educational
reforms and the improved treatment of foreign residents, but
it does not appear that such pledges are being carried out is
Saudi Arabia: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That Congress--
(1) calls on the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia--
(A) to stop providing funding for religious activities that
promote hatred, violence, and human rights violations;
(B) to stop providing diplomatic status to Islamic clerics
and educators teaching outside of Saudi Arabia who are not
legally entitled to such status;
(C) to close any Islamic affairs section of an embassy of
Saudi Arabia that has been responsible for propagating
intolerance;
(D) to uphold the international commitments made by Saudi
Arabia by respecting and protecting the human rights of
citizens and foreigners of both sexes in Saudi Arabia;
(E) to ratify and fully comply with international human
rights instruments and cooperate with United Nations human
rights mechanisms, and, in particular, to sign, ratify, and
implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights done at New York December 16, 1966;
(F) to immediately implement promised judicial, political,
economic, and educational reforms;
(G) to cease messages of hatred, intolerance, or incitement
to violence against non-Wahhabi Muslims and non-Muslim
religious groups in the educational curricula and textbooks,
mosques, and media controlled by the Government of Saudi
Arabia;
(H) to permit the establishment of independent,
nongovernmental organizations to advance human rights and to
promote tolerance in Saudi Arabia, and to take action to
create an independent human rights commission for the same
purposes;
(I) to safeguard the freedom of non-Muslims, and of those
Muslims who do not follow the Wahhabi interpretation of
Islam, to worship in private in Saudi Arabia;
(J) to permit non-Wahhabi places of worship, such as
churches, to function openly in special compounds or zones
for foreigners or in unadorned buildings designated for this
purpose; and
(K) to permit the broadcasting of Radio Sawa throughout
Saudi Arabia; and
(2) urges the President--
(A) in both public and private fora, to raise concerns at
the highest levels with the Government of Saudi Arabia
regarding the ongoing and repeated violations of
internationally recognized human rights, including the right
to freedom of religion or belief, in Saudi Arabia;
(B) to designate Saudi Arabia a country of particular
concern under section 402(b)(1)(A) of the International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6442(b)(1)(A)) for
the systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of
religious freedom occurring in Saudi Arabia;
(C) to encourage the Government of Saudi Arabia to
expeditiously implement the publicly stated plans for
judicial, political, economic, and educational reform in
Saudi Arabia;
(D) to encourage the Government of Saudi Arabia to cease
any funding of efforts to propagate outside of Saudi Arabia
any religious ideology that explicitly promotes hate,
intolerance, and other human rights violations, including
violence;
(E) to request that the Government of Saudi Arabia provide
an accounting of what kinds of support from Saudi Arabia go
to religious schools, mosques, centers of learning, and other
religious organizations globally, including in the United
States, and the names of such institutions;
(F) to develop and expand specific initiatives and programs
in Saudi Arabia to advance human rights, including religious
freedom, the rights of women, and the rule of law, including,
the Greater Middle East Initiative, and the Department of
State's Middle East Partnership Initiative, Middle East
Democracy Fund, and Human Rights and Democracy Fund,
international broadcasting, including overcoming obstacles to
broadcasting Radio Sawa throughout Saudi Arabia, and other
public diplomacy programs; and
(G) to provide an unclassified report to Congress on the
efforts of the Government of the United States to raise
concerns regarding human rights, including religious freedom,
with the Government of Saudi Arabia, and the results of such
efforts and the results of any initiative or program
described in subparagraph (F).
______
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 132--AFFIRMING THE SUPPORT OF CONGRESS FOR
PRESERVING THE IMAGE OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON ON THE FACE OF $10 FEDERAL
RESERVE NOTES BECAUSE OF HIS STANDING AS ONE OF THE UNITED STATES' MOST
INFLUENTIAL FOUNDING FATHERS
Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Schumer, and Mrs.
Clinton) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
S. Con. Res. 132
Whereas Alexander Hamilton helped found and shape the
United States by dedicating his life to serve distinguished
careers as an American revolutionary soldier and statesman;
Whereas in 1772, Alexander Hamilton arrived in New York as
a student from the West Indian Island of Nevis;
Whereas in 1781, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Hamilton of
the Continental Army led a regiment of New York troops in the
Battle of Yorktown, the decisive and final major battle in
the Revolutionary War;
Whereas Alexander Hamilton served as a strong voice in the
Continental Congress and as an influential force as a New
York Delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787;
Whereas Alexander Hamilton joined James Madison and John
Jay to write a majority of the Federalist Papers that urged
the people of New York to ratify the Constitution;
Whereas from 1789 to 1795, Alexander Hamilton served in
President George Washington's Administration as the first
Secretary of the Treasury and established the first Bank of
the United States to manage trade and finance;
Whereas Alexander Hamilton's innovative mind created public
credit, a circulating medium, and the financial framework of
the United States;
Whereas Alexander Hamilton proposed the creation of the
Revenue Marines, today known as the Coast Guard, a branch of
the military that Congress created to secure the revenue of
the United States against contraband;
Whereas Alexander Hamilton exercised his vision for the
United States to establish a strong domestic manufacturing
base; and
Whereas Alexander Hamilton is known as the ``Father of
Paterson'' for his championing of the Society for
Establishing Useful Manufactures (SUM), a group that founded
Paterson, New Jersey in 1791, and established it as one of
the first industrial centers of the United States: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That Congress affirms its support for preserving
the image of Alexander Hamilton on the face of $10 Federal
reserve notes because of his standing as one of the United
States most influential founding fathers.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Senate
concurrent resolution which affirms the support of Congress for
preserving the image of Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill. Alexander
Hamilton is a Founding Father of our Nation. He was a Lieutenant
Colonel in the Revolutionary War, a voice in the Continental Congress,
and a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He authored more than
50 of the 85 ``Federalist Papers.'' He organized the Revenue Marines,
known today as the Coast Guard, and played a crucial role in the
creation of the U.S. Navy. And Alexander Hamilton is the creator of one
of America's first industrial and manufacturing centers, in Paterson,
NJ.
Alexander Hamilton was also America's first Secretary of the Treasury
and the founder of the first United States Bank. He is responsible for
the financial system that our country maintains today. He created the
first bank, the first tax system, the first budget, and a strong
currency. He had a vision for establishing the economic viability of
our fledgling country based on banking, investment, manufacturing,
industry, and commerce. We are an economic superpower and a model for
the rest of the world in large part because of Alexander Hamilton.
When we look to the Founding Fathers who played significant roles in
the formation of America, we see that among them, George Washington has
a monument in our Nation's Capital, and his image is on the $1 bill and
the quarter deservedly so. Thomas Jefferson also has an impressive
memorial in Washington, the main building of the Library of Congress is
named after him, and his image is on the $2 bill and the nickel--again,
deservedly so. Alexander Hamilton's image is on the $10 bill--and it
should remain on the $10 bill. There is perhaps no other American more
responsible for the fact that we have a $10 bill.
Of course, Washington and Jefferson were our first and third
Presidents. Many of our other Presidents have
[[Page 17168]]
been or will be appropriately memorialized in some fashion. For
instance, our 40th President, Ronald Reagan, has had Washington
National Airport and the second largest Federal building in the
country, only the Pentagon is bigger, named after him. The headquarters
of the Central Intelligence Agency at Langley, VA, has been named after
our 41st President, George H. W. Bush. One of the four office buildings
for the U.S. House of Representatives has been named after our 38th
President, Gerald Ford. And the Old Executive Office Building--right
next to the White House--has been named after our 34th President,
Dwight Eisenhower.
We stand in a Senate Chamber steeped in history; in a country quite
conscious and proud of its birth. We revere those individuals such as
Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton who were present at the creation of
our great Nation and helped to establish the democracy we enjoy as a
birthright. It is our duty to uphold their legacy and preserve their
image. Alexander Hamilton played an instrumental role in our triumph in
the Revolutionary War, the birth of our democracy, and the
establishment of our financial system. His image must, at the very
least, remain on the $10 bill. There have been many Presidents, and
there will be many more. But there will be no more Founding Fathers.
______
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 133--DECLARING GENOCIDE IN DARFUR, SUDAN
Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Levin, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms.
Mikulski, Mrs. Dole, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Leahy,
Mr. Byrd, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Smith) submitted the following
concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Con. Res. 133
Whereas Article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (signed at Paris on
December 9, 1948) states that ``the Contracting Parties
confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or
in time of war, is a crime under international law which they
undertake to prevent and to punish'';
Whereas Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide declares that ``in the
present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a)
killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately
inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d)
imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group; and (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to
another group'';
Whereas Article 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide affirms that ``[the]
following acts shall be punishable: (a) genocide; (b)
conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) direct and public
incitement to commit genocide; (d) attempt to committed
genocide; and (e) complicit in genocide'';
Whereas in Darfur, Sudan, an estimated 30,000 innocent
civilians have been brutally murdered, more than 130,000
people have been forced from their homes and have fled to
neighboring Chad, and more than 1,000,000 people have been
internally displaced; and
Whereas in March 2004 the United Nations Resident
Humanitarian Coordinator stated: ``[T]he war in Darfur
started off in a small way last year but it has progressively
gotten worse. A predominant feature of this is that the brunt
is being borne by civilians. This includes vulnerable women
and children . . . The violence in Darfur appears to be
particularly directed at a specific group based on their
ethnic identity and appears to be systemized.'': Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That Congress--
(1) declares that the atrocities unfolding in Darfur,
Sudan, are genocide;
(2) reminds the Contracting Parties to the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(signed at Paris on December 9, 1948), particularly the
Government of Sudan, of their legal obligations under the
Convention;
(3) declares that the Government of Sudan, as a Contracting
Party, has violated the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;
(4) deplores the failure of the United Nations Human Rights
Commission to take appropriate action with respect to the
crisis in Darfur, Sudan, particularly the failure by the
Commission to support United States-sponsored efforts to
strongly condemn gross human rights violations committed in
Darfur, and calls upon the United Nations and the United
Nations Secretary General to assert leadership by calling the
atrocities being committed in Darfur by their rightful name:
``genocide'';
(5) calls on the member states of the United Nations,
particularly member states from the African Union, the Arab
League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to
undertake measures to prevent the genocide in Darfur, Sudan,
from escalating further, including the imposition of targeted
means against those responsible for the atrocities;
(6) commends the Administration's leadership in seeking a
peaceful resolution to the conflict in Darfur, Sudan, and in
addressing the ensuing humanitarian crisis, including the
visit of Secretary of State Colin Powell to Darfur in June
2004 to engage directly in efforts to end the genocide, and
the provision of nearly $140,000,000 to date in bilateral
humanitarian assistance through the United States Agency for
International Development;
(7) commends the President for appointing former Senator
John Danforth as Envoy for Peace in Sudan on September 6,
2001, and further commends the appointment of Senator
Danforth as United States Ambassador to the United Nations;
(8) calls on the Administration to continue to lead an
international effort to stop genocide in Darfur, Sudan;
(9) calls on the Administration to impose targeted means,
including visa bans and the freezing of assets, against
officials and other individuals of the Government of Sudan,
as well as Janjaweed militia commanders, who are responsible
for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur, Sudan;
and
(10) calls on the United States Agency for International
Development to establish a Darfur Resettlement,
Rehabilitation, and Reconstruction Fund so that those
individuals driven off their land may return and begin to
rebuild their communities.
______
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 134--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS
THAT THE PARTHENON MARBLES SHOULD BE RETURNED TO GREECE
Mr. FITZGERALD (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Sarbanes)
submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on Foreign Relations:
S. Con Res. 134
Whereas the Parthenon was built on the hill of the
Acropolis in Athens, Greece in the mid-fifth century B.C.
under the direction of the Athenian statesman Pericles and
the design of the sculptor Phidias.
Whereas the Parthenon is the ultimate expression of the
artistic genius of Greece, the preeminent symbol of the Greek
cultural heritage--its art, architecture, and democracy--and
of the contributions that modern Greeks and their forefathers
have made to civilization;
Whereas the Parthenon has served as a place of worship for
ancient Greeks, Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics, and
Muslims;
Whereas the Parthenon has been adopted by imitation by the
United States in many preeminent public buildings, including
the Lincoln Memorial;
Whereas over 100 pieces of the Parthenon's sculptures--now
known as the Parthenon Marbles--were removed from the
Parthenon under questionable circumstances between 1801 and
1816 by Thomas Bruce, seventh Earl of Elgin, while Greece was
still under Ottoman rule;
Whereas the removal of the Parthenon Marbles, including
their perilous voyage to Great Britain and their careless
storage there for many years greatly endangered the Marbles;
Whereas the Parthenon Marbles were removed to grace the
private home of Lord Elgin, who transferred the Marbles to
the British Museum only after severe personal economic
misfortunes;
Whereas the sculptures of the Parthenon were designed as an
integral part of the structure of the Parthenon temple; the
carvings of the friezes, pediments, and metopes are not
merely statuary, movable decorative art, but are integral
parts of the Parthenon, which can best be appreciated if all
the Parthenon Marbles are reunified.
Whereas the Parthenon is a universal symbol of culture,
democracy, and freedom, making the Parthenon Marbles of
concern not only to Greece but to all the world;
Whereas, since obtaining independence in 1830, Greece has
sought the return of the Parthenon Marbles;
Whereas the return of the Parthenon Marbles would be a
profound demonstration by the United Kingdom of its
appreciation and respect for the Parthenon and classical art;
Whereas returning the Parthenon Marbles to Greece would be
a gesture of good will on the part of the British Parliament,
and would set no legal precedent, nor in any other way affect
the ownership or disposition of other objects in museums in
the United States or around the world;
[[Page 17169]]
Whereas the United Kingdom should return the Parthenon
Marbles in recognition that the Parthenon is part of the
cultural heritage of the entire world and, as such, should be
made whole;
Whereas Greece would provide care for the Parthenon Marbles
equal or superior to the care provided by the British Museum,
especially considering the irreparable harm caused by
attempts by the museum to remove the original color and
patina of the Marbles with abrasive cleaners;
Whereas Greece is constructing a new, permanent museum in
full view of the Acropolis to house all the Marbles,
protected from the elements in a safe, climate-controlled
environment;
Whereas Greece has pledged to work with the British
government to negotiate mutually agreeable conditions for the
return of the Parthenon Marbles;
Where the people of Greece have a greater, ancient bond to
the Parthenon Marbles, which were in Greece for over 2,200
years of the over 2,430-year history of the Parthenon;
Whereas the British people support the return of the
Parthenon Marbles, as reflected in several recent polls;
Whereas a resolution signed by a majority of members of the
European Parliament urged the British government to return
the Parthenon Marbles to their natural setting in Greece;
Whereas the British House of Commons Select Committee on
Culture, Media and Sport is to be commended for examining the
issue of the disposition of the Parthenon Marbles in hearings
held in 2000; and
Whereas Athens, Greece--birthplace of the Olympics--was
selected as the host city of the Olympics Games in 2004, and
the Parthenon Marbles should be returned to their home in
Athens in 2004; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the
Government of the United Kingdom should enter into
negotiations with the Government of Greece as soon as
possible to facilitate the return of the Parthenon Marbles to
Greece.
______
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 135--AUTHORIZING THE PRINTING OF A
COMMEMORATIVE DOCUMENT IN MEMORY OF THE LATE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, RONALD WILSON REAGAN
Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following
concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Con. Res. 135
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring),
SECTION 1. COMMEMORATIVE DOCUMENT AUTHORIZED.
A commemorative document in memory of the late President
of the United States, Ronald Wilson Reagan, consisting of the
eulogies and encomiums for Ronald Wilson Reagan, as expressed
in the Senate and the House of Representatives, together with
the texts of the state funeral ceremony at the United States
Capitol Rotunda, the national funeral service held at the
Washington National Cathedral, Washington, District of
Columbia, and the interment ceremony at the Ronald Reagan
Presidential Library, Simi Valley, California, shall be
printed as a Senate document, with illustrations and suitable
binding.
SEC. 2. PRINTING OF DOCUMENT.
In addition to the usual number of copies printed, there
shall be printed the lesser of--
(1) 32,500 copies of the commemorative document, of which
22,150 copies shall be for the use of the House of
Representatives and 10,350 copies shall be for the use of the
Senate; or
(2) such number of copies of the commemorative document
that does not exceed a production and printing cost of
$1,000,000, with distribution of the copies to be allocated
in the same proportion as described in paragraph (1).
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 3567. Mr. ROBERTS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 2386, to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of the United States
Government, the Intelligence Community Management Account,
and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability
System, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 3568. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Gregg) proposed an amendment to
the bill S. 720 to amend title IX of the Public Health
Service Act to provide for the improvement of patient safety
and to reduce the incidence of events that adversely effect
patient safety.
SA 3569. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Kyl (for himself, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Biden)) proposed an amendment
to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 81, expressing the
concern of Congress over Iran's development of the means to
produce nuclear weapons.
SA 3570. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Kyl) proposed an amendment to
the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 81, supra.
SA 3571. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Kyl) proposed an amendment to
the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 81, supra.
SA 3572. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Kyl (for himself, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Biden)) proposed an amendment
to the concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 398, expressing the
concern of Congress over Iran's development of the means to
produce nuclear weapons.
SA 3573. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Kyl (for himself and Mrs.
Feinstein)) proposed an amendment to the concurrent
resolution H. Con. Res. 398, supra.
SA 3574. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Kyl (for himself and Mrs.
Feinstein)) proposed an amendment to the concurrent
resolution H. Con. Res. 398, supra.
SA 3575. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 849, to provide for a land
exchange in the State of Arizona between the Secretary of
Agriculture and Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership; which was
referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 3567. Mr. ROBERTS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill S. 2386, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2005 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United
States Government, the Intelligence Community Management Account, and
the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and
for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 30, strike lines 10 through 16.
______
SA 3568. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Gregg) submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by him to the bill S. 720, to amend title IX of the Public
Health Service Act to provide for the improvement of patient safety and
to reduce the incidence of events that adversely effect patient safety;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Patient Safety and Quality
Improvement Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In 1999, the Institute of Medicine released a report
entitled To Err is Human that described medical errors as the
eighth leading cause of death in the United States, with as
many as 98,000 people dying as a result of medical errors
each year.
(2) To address these deaths and injuries due to medical
errors, the health care system must identify and learn from
such errors so that systems of care can be improved.
(3) In their report, the Institute of Medicine called on
Congress to provide legal protections with respect to
information reported for the purposes of quality improvement
and patient safety.
(4) The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee of
the Senate held 4 hearings in the 106th Congress and 1
hearing in the 107th Congress on patient safety where experts
in the field supported the recommendation of the Institute of
Medicine for congressional action.
(5) Myriad public and private patient safety initiatives
have begun. The Quality Interagency Coordination Taskforce
has recommended steps to improve patient safety that may be
taken by each Federal agency involved in health care and
activities relating to these steps are ongoing.
(6) The research on patient safety unequivocally calls for
a learning environment, rather than a punitive environment,
in order to improve patient safety.
(7) Voluntary data gathering systems are more supportive
than mandatory systems in creating the learning environment
referred to in paragraph (6) as stated in the Institute of
Medicine's report.
(8) Promising patient safety reporting systems have been
established throughout the United States and the best ways to
structure and use these systems are currently being
determined, largely through projects funded by the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality.
(9) Many organizations currently collecting patient safety
data have expressed a need for legal protections that will
allow them to review protected information and collaborate in
the development and implementation of patient safety
improvement strategies. Currently, the State peer review
protections are inadequate to allow the sharing of
information to promote patient safety.
(b) Purposes.--It is the purpose of this Act to--
(1) encourage a culture of safety and quality in the United
States health care system by providing for legal protection
of information reported voluntarily for the purposes of
quality improvement and patient safety; and
[[Page 17170]]
(2) ensure accountability by raising standards and
expectations for continuous quality improvements in patient
safety.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.
Title IX of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 299 et
seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 912(c), by inserting ``, in accordance with
part C,'' after ``The Director shall'';
(2) by redesignating part C as part D;
(3) by redesignating sections 921 through 928, as sections
931 through 938, respectively;
(4) in 934(d) (as so redesignated), by striking the second
sentence and inserting the following: ``Penalties provided
for under this section shall be imposed and collected by the
Secretary using the administrative and procedural processes
used to impose and collect civil money penalties under
section 1128A of the Social Security Act (other than
subsections (a) and (b), the second sentence of subsection
(f), and subsections (i), (m), and (n)), unless the Secretary
determines that a modification of procedures would be more
suitable or reasonable to carry out this subsection and
provides for such modification by regulation.'';
(5) in section 938(1) (as so redesignated), by striking
``921'' and inserting ``931''; and
(6) by inserting after part B the following:
``PART C--PATIENT SAFETY IMPROVEMENT
``SEC. 921. DEFINITIONS.
``In this part:
``(1) Non-identifiable information.--
``(A) In general.--The term `non-identifiable information'
means, with respect to information, that the information is
presented in a form and manner that prevents the
identification of a provider, a patient, or a reporter of
patient safety data.
``(B) Identifiability of patient.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the term `presented in a form and manner
that prevents the identification of a patient' means, with
respect to information that has been subject to rules
promulgated pursuant to section 264(c) of the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42
U.S.C. 1320d-2 note), that the information has been de-
identified so that it is no longer individually identifiable
health information as defined in such rules.
``(2) Patient safety data.--
``(A) In general.--The term `patient safety data' means--
``(i) any data, reports, records, memoranda, analyses (such
as root cause analyses), or written or oral statements that
are--
``(I) collected or developed by a provider for reporting to
a patient safety organization, provided that they are
reported to the patient safety organization within 60 days;
``(II) requested by a patient safety organization
(including the contents of such request), if they are
reported to the patient safety organization within 60 days;
``(III) reported to a provider by a patient safety
organization; or
``(IV) collected by a patient safety organization from
another patient safety organization, or developed by a
patient safety organization;
that could result in improved patient safety, health care
quality, or health care outcomes; or
``(ii) any deliberative work or process with respect to any
patient safety data described in clause (i).
``(B) Limitation.--
``(i) Collection.--If the original material from which any
data, reports, records, memoranda, analyses (such as root
case analyses), or written or oral statements referred to in
subclause (I) or (IV) of subparagraph (A)(i) are collected
and is not patient safety data, the act of such collection
shall not make such original material patient safety data for
purposes of this part.
``(ii) Separate data.--The term `patient safety data' shall
not include information (including a patient's medical
record, billing and discharge information or any other
patient or provider record) that is collected or developed
separately from and that exists separately from patient
safety data. Such separate information or a copy thereof
submitted to a patient safety organization shall not itself
be considered as patient safety data. Nothing in this part,
except for section 922(f)(1), shall be construed to limit--
``(I) the discovery of or admissibility of information
described in this subparagraph in a criminal, civil, or
administrative proceeding;
``(II) the reporting of information described in this
subparagraph to a Federal, State, or local governmental
agency for public health surveillance, investigation, or
other public health purposes or health oversight purposes; or
``(III) a provider's recordkeeping obligation with respect
to information described in this subparagraph under Federal,
State, or local law.
``(3) Patient safety organization.--The term `patient
safety organization' means a private or public entity or
component thereof that is currently listed by the Secretary
pursuant to section 924(c).
``(4) Patient safety organization activities.--The term
`patient safety organization activities' means the following
activities, which are deemed to be necessary for the proper
management and administration of a patient safety
organization:
``(A) The conduct, as its primary activity, of efforts to
improve patient safety and the quality of health care
delivery.
``(B) The collection and analysis of patient safety data
that are submitted by more than one provider.
``(C) The development and dissemination of information to
providers with respect to improving patient safety, such as
recommendations, protocols, or information regarding best
practices.
``(D) The utilization of patient safety data for the
purposes of encouraging a culture of safety and of providing
direct feedback and assistance to providers to effectively
minimize patient risk.
``(E) The maintenance of procedures to preserve
confidentiality with respect to patient safety data.
``(F) The provision of appropriate security measures with
respect to patient safety data.
``(G) The utilization of qualified staff.
``(5) Person.--The term `person' includes Federal, State,
and local government agencies.
``(6) Provider.--The term `provider' means--
``(A) a person licensed or otherwise authorized under State
law to provide health care services, including--
``(i) a hospital, nursing facility, comprehensive
outpatient rehabilitation facility, home health agency,
hospice program, renal dialysis facility, ambulatory surgical
center, pharmacy, physician or health care practitioner's
office, long term care facility, behavior health residential
treatment facility, clinical laboratory, or health center; or
``(ii) a physician, physician assistant, nurse
practitioner, clinical nurse specialist, certified registered
nurse anesthetist, certified nurse midwife, psychologist,
certified social worker, registered dietitian or nutrition
professional, physical or occupational therapist, pharmacist,
or other individual health care practitioner; or
``(B) any other person specified in regulations promulgated
by the Secretary.
``SEC. 922. PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROTECTIONS.
``(a) Privilege.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
Federal, State, or local law, patient safety data shall be
privileged and, subject to the provisions of subsection
(c)(1), shall not be--
``(1) subject to a Federal, State, or local civil,
criminal, or administrative subpoena;
``(2) subject to discovery in connection with a Federal,
State, or local civil, criminal, or administrative
proceeding;
``(3) disclosed pursuant to section 552 of title 5, United
States Code (commonly known as the Freedom of Information
Act) or any other similar Federal, State, or local law;
``(4) admitted as evidence or otherwise disclosed in any
Federal, State, or local civil, criminal, or administrative
proceeding; or
``(5) utilized in a disciplinary proceeding against a
provider.
``(b) Confidentiality.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of Federal, State, or local law, and subject to the
provisions of subsections (c) and (d), patient safety data
shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed.
``(c) Exceptions to Privilege and Confidentiality.--Nothing
in this section shall be construed to prohibit one or more of
the following uses or disclosures:
``(1) Disclosure by a provider or patient safety
organization of relevant patient safety data for use in a
criminal proceeding only after a court makes an in camera
determination that such patient safety data contains evidence
of a wanton and criminal act to directly harm the patient.
``(2) Voluntary disclosure of non-identifiable patient
safety data by a provider or a patient safety organization.
``(d) Protected Disclosure and Use of Information.--Nothing
in this section shall be construed to prohibit one or more of
the following uses or disclosures:
``(1) Disclosure of patient safety data by a person that is
a provider, a patient safety organization, or a contractor of
a provider or patient safety organization, to another such
person, to carry out patient safety organization activities.
``(2) Disclosure of patient safety data by a provider or
patient safety organization to grantees or contractors
carrying out patient safety research, evaluation, or
demonstration projects authorized by the Director.
``(3) Disclosure of patient safety data by a provider to an
accrediting body that accredits that provider.
``(4) Voluntary disclosure of patient safety data by a
patient safety organization to the Secretary for public
health surveillance if the consent of each provider
identified in, or providing, such data is obtained prior to
such disclosure. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall be
construed to prevent the release of patient safety data that
is provided by, or that relates solely to, a provider from
which the consent described in such sentence is obtained
because one or more other providers do not provide such
consent with respect to the disclosure of patient safety date
that relates to such nonconsenting providers. Consent for the
future release of patient safety data for such purposes may
be
[[Page 17171]]
requested by the patient safety organization at the time the
data is submitted.
``(5) Voluntary disclosure of patient safety data by a
patient safety organization to State or local government
agencies for public health surveillance if the consent of
each provider identified in, or providing, such data is
obtained prior to such disclosure. Nothing in the preceding
sentence shall be construed to prevent the release of patient
safety data that is provided by, or that relates solely to, a
provider from which the consent described in such sentence is
obtained because one or more other providers do not provide
such consent with respect to the disclosure of patient safety
date that relates to such nonconsenting providers. Consent
for the future release of patient safety data for such
purposes may be requested by the patient safety organization
at the time the data is submitted.
``(e) Continued Protection of Information after
Disclosure.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
patient safety data that is used or disclosed shall continue
to be privileged and confidential as provided for in
subsections (a) and (b), and the provisions of such
subsections shall apply to such data in the possession or
control of--
``(A) a provider or patient safety organization that
possessed such data before the use or disclosure; or
``(B) a person to whom such data was disclosed.
``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), and
subject to paragraph (3)--
``(A) if patient safety data is used or disclosed as
provided for in subsection (c)(1), and such use or disclosure
is in open court, the confidentiality protections provided
for in subsection (b) shall no longer apply to such data; and
``(B) if patient safety data is used or disclosed as
provided for in subsection (c)(2), the privilege and
confidentiality protections provided for in subsections (a)
and (b) shall no longer apply to such data.
``(3) Construction.--Paragraph (2) shall not be construed
as terminating or limiting the privilege or confidentiality
protections provided for in subsection (a) or (b) with
respect to data other than the specific data used or
disclosed as provided for in subsection (c).
``(f) Limitation on Actions.--
``(1) Patient safety organizations.--Except to enforce
disclosures pursuant to subsection (c)(1), no action may be
brought or process served against a patient safety
organization to compel disclosure of information collected or
developed under this part whether or not such information is
patient safety data unless such information is specifically
identified, is not patient safety data, and cannot otherwise
be obtained.
``(2) Providers.--An accrediting body shall not take an
accrediting action against a provider based on the good faith
participation of the provider in the collection, development,
reporting, or maintenance of patient safety data in
accordance with this part. An accrediting body may not
require a provider to reveal its communications with any
patient safety organization established in accordance with
this part.
``(g) Reporter Protection.--
``(1) In general.--A provider may not take an adverse
employment action, as described in paragraph (2), against an
individual based upon the fact that the individual in good
faith reported information--
``(A) to the provider with the intention of having the
information reported to a patient safety organization; or
``(B) directly to a patient safety organization.
``(2) Adverse employment action.--For purposes of this
subsection, an `adverse employment action' includes--
``(A) loss of employment, the failure to promote an
individual, or the failure to provide any other employment-
related benefit for which the individual would otherwise be
eligible; or
``(B) an adverse evaluation or decision made in relation to
accreditation, certification, credentialing, or licensing of
the individual.
``(h) Enforcement.--
``(1) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsections (c)
and (d) and as otherwise provided for in this section, it
shall be unlawful for any person to negligently or
intentionally disclose any patient safety data, and any such
person shall, upon adjudication, be assessed in accordance
with section 934(d).
``(2) Relation to hipaa.--The penalty provided for under
paragraph (1) shall not apply if the defendant would
otherwise be subject to a penalty under the regulations
promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2
note) or under section 1176 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1320d-5) for the same disclosure.
``(3) Equitable relief.--
``(A) In general.--Without limiting remedies available to
other parties, a civil action may be brought by any aggrieved
individual to enjoin any act or practice that violates
subsection (g) and to obtain other appropriate equitable
relief (including reinstatement, back pay, and restoration of
benefits) to redress such violation.
``(B) Against state employees.--An entity that is a State
or an agency of a State government may not assert the
privilege described in subsection (a) unless before the time
of the assertion, the entity or, in the case of and with
respect to an agency, the State has consented to be subject
to an action as described by this paragraph, and that consent
has remained in effect.
``(i) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to--
``(1) limit other privileges that are available under
Federal, State, or local laws that provide greater
confidentiality protections or privileges than the privilege
and confidentiality protections provided for in this section;
``(2) limit, alter, or affect the requirements of Federal,
State, or local law pertaining to information that is not
privileged or confidential under this section;
``(3) alter or affect the implementation of any provision
of section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-191; 110 Stat.
2033), section 1176 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1320d-5), or any regulation promulgated under such sections;
``(4) limit the authority of any provider, patient safety
organization, or other person to enter into a contract
requiring greater confidentiality or delegating authority to
make a disclosure or use in accordance with subsection (c) or
(d); and
``(5) prohibit a provider from reporting a crime to law
enforcement authorities, regardless of whether knowledge of
the existence of, or the description of, the crime is based
on patient safety data, so long as the provider does not
disclose patient safety data in making such report.
``SEC. 923. PATIENT SAFETY NETWORK OF DATABASES.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall maintain a patient
safety network of databases that provides an interactive
evidence-based management resource for providers, patient
safety organizations, and other persons. The network of
databases shall have the capacity to accept, aggregate, and
analyze nonidentifiable patient safety data voluntarily
reported by patient safety organizations, providers, or other
persons.
``(b) Network of Database Standards.--The Secretary may
determine common formats for the reporting to the patient
safety network of databases maintained under subsection (a)
of nonidentifiable patient safety data, including necessary
data elements, common and consistent definitions, and a
standardized computer interface for the processing of such
data. To the extent practicable, such standards shall be
consistent with the administrative simplification provisions
of Part C of title XI of the Social Security Act.
``SEC. 924. PATIENT SAFETY ORGANIZATION CERTIFICATION AND
LISTING.
``(a) Certification.--
``(1) Initial certification.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2), an entity that seeks to be a patient safety
organization shall submit an initial certification to the
Secretary that the entity intends to perform the patient
safety organization activities.
``(2) Delayed certification of collection from more than
one provider.--An entity that seeks to be a patient safety
organization may--
``(A) submit an initial certification that it intends to
perform patient safety organization activities other than the
activities described in subparagraph (B) of section 921(4);
and
``(B) within 2 years of submitting the initial
certification under subparagraph (A), submit a supplemental
certification that it performs the patient safety
organization activities described in subparagraphs (A)
through (F) of section 921(4).
``(3) Expiration and renewal.--
``(A) Expiration.--An initial certification under paragraph
(1) or (2)(A) shall expire on the date that is 3 years after
it is submitted.
``(B) Renewal.--
``(i) In general.--An entity that seeks to remain a patient
safety organization after the expiration of an initial
certification under paragraph (1) or (2)(A) shall, within the
3-year period described in subparagraph (A), submit a renewal
certification to the Secretary that the entity performs the
patient safety organization activities described in section
921(4).
``(ii) Term of renewal.--A renewal certification under
clause (i) shall expire on the date that is 3 years after the
date on which it is submitted, and may be renewed in the same
manner as an initial certification.
``(b) Acceptance of Certification.--Upon the submission by
an organization of an initial certification pursuant to
subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2)(A), a supplemental certification
pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(B), or a renewal certification
pursuant to subsection (a)(3)(B), the Secretary shall review
such certification and--
``(1) if such certification meets the requirements of
subsection (a)(1), (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), or (a)(3)(B), as
applicable, the Secretary shall notify the organization that
such certification is accepted; or
``(2) if such certification does not meet such
requirements, as applicable, the Secretary shall notify the
organization that such certification is not accepted and the
reasons therefor.
``(c) Listing.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the Secretary shall
[[Page 17172]]
compile and maintain a current listing of patient safety
organizations with respect to which the Secretary has
accepted a certification pursuant to subsection (b).
``(2) Removal from listing.--The Secretary shall remove
from the listing under paragraph (1)--
``(A) an entity with respect to which the Secretary has
accepted an initial certification pursuant to subsection
(a)(2)(A) and which does not submit a supplemental
certification pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(B) that is
accepted by the Secretary;
``(B) an entity whose certification expires and which does
not submit a renewal application that is accepted by the
Secretary; and
``(C) an entity with respect to which the Secretary revokes
the Secretary's acceptance of the entity's certification,
pursuant to subsection (d).
``(d) Revocation of Acceptance.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if
the Secretary determines (through a review of patient safety
organization activities) that a patient safety organization
does not perform one of the patient safety organization
activities described in subparagraph (A) through (F) of
section 921(4), the Secretary may, after notice and an
opportunity for a hearing, revoke the Secretary's acceptance
of the certification of such organization.
``(2) Delayed certification of collection from more than
one provider.--A revocation under paragraph (1) may not be
based on a determination that the organization does not
perform the activity described in section 921(4)(B) if--
``(A) the listing of the organization is based on its
submittal of an initial certification under subsection
(a)(2)(A);
``(B) the organization has not submitted a supplemental
certification under subsection (a)(2)(B); and
``(C) the 2-year period described in subsection (a)(2)(B)
has not expired.
``(e) Notification of Revocation or Removal from Listing.--
``(1) Supplying confirmation of notification to
providers.--Within 15 days of a revocation under subsection
(d)(1), a patient safety organization shall submit to the
Secretary a confirmation that the organization has taken all
reasonable actions to notify each provider whose patient
safety data is collected or analyzed by the organization of
such revocation.
``(2) Publication.--Upon the revocation of an acceptance of
an organization's certification under subsection (d)(1), or
upon the removal of an organization from the listing under
subsection (c)(2), the Secretary shall publish notice of the
revocation or removal in the Federal Register.
``(f) Status of Data After Removal from Listing.--
``(1) New data.--With respect to the privilege and
confidentiality protections described in section 922, data
submitted to an organization within 30 days after the
organization is removed from the listing under subsection
(c)(2) shall have the same status as data submitted while the
organization was still listed.
``(2) Protection to continue to apply.--If the privilege
and confidentiality protections described in section 922
applied to data while an organization was listed, or during
the 30-day period described in paragraph (1), such
protections shall continue to apply to such data after the
organization is removed from the listing under subsection
(c)(2).
``(g) Disposition of Data.--If the Secretary removes an
organization from the listing as provided for in subsection
(c)(2), with respect to the patient safety data that the
organization received from providers, the organization
shall--
``(1) with the approval of the provider and another patient
safety organization, transfer such data to such other
organization;
``(2) return such data to the person that submitted the
data; or
``(3) if returning such data to such person is not
practicable, destroy such data.
``SEC. 925. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
``The Secretary, acting through the Director, may provide
technical assistance to patient safety organizations,
including convening annual meetings for patient safety
organizations to discuss methodology, communication, data
collection, or privacy concerns.
``SEC. 926. PROMOTING THE INTEROPERABILITY OF HEALTH CARE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS.
``(a) Development.--Not later than 36 months after the date
of enactment of the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement
Act of 2004, the Secretary shall develop or adopt voluntary
standards that promote the electronic exchange of health care
information.
``(b) Updates.--The Secretary shall provide for the ongoing
review and periodic updating of the standards developed under
subsection (a).
``(c) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall provide for the
dissemination of the standards developed and updated under
this section.
``SEC. 927. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may
be necessary to carry out this part.''.
SEC. 4. STUDIES AND REPORTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall enter into a contract (based upon a competitive
contracting process) with an appropriate research
organization for the conduct of a study to assess the impact
of medical technologies and therapies on patient safety,
patient benefit, health care quality, and the costs of care
as well as productivity growth. Such study shall examine--
(1) the extent to which factors, such as the use of labor
and technological advances, have contributed to increases in
the share of the gross domestic product that is devoted to
health care and the impact of medical technologies and
therapies on such increases;
(2) the extent to which early and appropriate introduction
and integration of innovative medical technologies and
therapies may affect the overall productivity and quality of
the health care delivery systems of the United States; and
(3) the relationship of such medical technologies and
therapies to patient safety, patient benefit, health care
quality, and cost of care.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall prepare and submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report containing the results of the
study conducted under subsection (a).
______
SA 3569. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Kyl (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Lugar, and Mr. Biden)) proposed an amendment to the concurrent
resolution S. Con. Res. 81, expressing the concern of Congress over
Iran's development of the means to produce nuclear weapons; as follows:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
That Congress--
(1) condemns--
(A) the failure of the Government of Iran for nearly two
decades to report material, facilities, and activities to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in contravention of
its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement; and
(B) Iran's continuing deceptions and falsehoods to the IAEA
and the international community about its nuclear programs
and activities;
(2) concurs with the conclusion reached in the Department
of State's Annual Report on Adherence to and Compliance with
Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Agreements and Commitments
that Iran is pursuing a program to develop nuclear weapons;
(3) urges the President to provide to the IAEA whatever
financial, material, or intelligence resources are necessary
to enable the IAEA it to fully investigate Iran's nuclear
activities;
(4) calls upon all states party to the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, London,
and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970
(hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ``Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty''), including the United States, to
use appropriate means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons, including the suspension of all nuclear and other
cooperation with Iran, including the provision of dual use
items, until Iran fully implements the Additional Protocol to
its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA (hereafter in this
resolution referred to as the ``Additional Protocol'') and is
clearly in compliance with its obligations under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty;
(5) declares that Iran, through its many breaches during
the past 18 years of its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA,
has forfeited the right to be trusted with the development of
a full nuclear fuel cycle, especially with uranium conversion
and enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technology,
equipment, and facilities;
(6) declares that the revelations of Iran's nondisclosure
of additional enrichment and nuclear-weapons-applicable
research activities, as detailed in the reports of February
24, 2004, and June 1, 2004, by the Director General of the
IAEA, together with the statement by the Government of Iran
that it will not disclose other research programs, constitute
ample evidence of Iran's continuing policy of noncompliance
with the letter and spirit of its obligations under its
Safeguards Agreement and the Additional Protocol;
(7) recognizes, in contrast with Iran's behavior, the
positive example of Libya's decision to renounce and
dismantle its nuclear weapons program and to provide full,
complete, and transparent disclosure of all its nuclear
activities, which has enabled the IAEA to rapidly understand
and verify with high confidence the extent and scope of
Libya's program and has led to the establishment of direct
diplomatic relations with Libya, the gradual lifting of U.S.
sanctions, and the establishment of cooperative programs
between the United States and Libya;
(8) foresees a similar future for Iran, once that country
renounces and dismantles its weapons of mass destruction and
long-range ballistic missile programs and renounces its
support for international terrorist organizations;
(9) notes the assistance that the United States has
provided to southeastern Iran
[[Page 17173]]
since the Bam earthquake on December 26, 2003;
(10) calls upon Iran to immediately and permanently cease
all efforts to acquire sensitive nuclear fuel cycle
capabilities, in particular all uranium enrichment
activities, including importing, manufacturing, and testing
of related equipment;
(11) urges Iran to comply with its international
commitments and to rescind its decisions--
(A) to manufacture and construct centrifuges;
(B) to produce feed material that could be used in those
centrifuges; and
(C) to construct a heavy-water moderated reactor that could
be used for plutonium production;
(12) calls upon Iran to honor its stated commitments and
legal obligations--
(A) to grant IAEA inspectors prompt, full and unrestricted
access;
(B) to cooperate fully with the investigation of its
nuclear activities; and
(C) to demonstrate a new openness and honesty about all its
nuclear programs;
(13) welcomes the June 26, 2004, declaration at the United
States-E.U. Summit in Shannon, Ireland, in which the European
Union and the United States pledged to implement United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, which identifies
actions states should take--
(A) to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction;
(B) to establish new measures in accordance with the G8
Action Plan on Non-Proliferation, announced June 9, 2004, at
the G8 Summit in Sea Island, Georgia; and
(C) to preserve the integrity of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty;
(14) urges close cooperation between the United States and
the European Union in accordance with the reaffirmation in
their June 26, 2004, declaration of ``the IAEA Board of
Governors' Iran resolutions, which deplore Iran's
insufficient cooperation and call on Iran, inter alia, to
cooperate fully and in a timely and proactive manner, with
IAEA investigation of its nuclear programme and suspend all
enrichment-related and reprocessing activities'';
(15) calls upon the members of the European Union not to
resume discussions with Iran on multilateral trade agreements
until the IAEA Director General reports that Iran has
suspended all nuclear weapons development activity, and not
to implement such trade agreements until Iran has verifiably
and permanently ceased all nuclear weapons development
activity, including a permanent cessation of uranium
conversion and enrichment and plutonium reprocessing
activities;
(16) further calls upon the members of the European Union
to undertake such additional measures, including imposing
sanctions and sponsoring an IAEA Board of Governors report on
non-compliance pursuant to Article XII of the IAEA Statute,
as may be necessary to persuade Iran to cease all nuclear
weapons development activity and to fulfill its obligations
and commitments to the IAEA;
(17) in light of ongoing revelations of the noncompliance
of the Government of Iran regarding its obligations under the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and pledges to the IAEA, and
in light of the consequent and ongoing questions and concerns
of the IAEA, the United States, and the international
community regarding Iran's nuclear activities--
(A) urges Japan to ensure that Japanese commercial entities
not proceed with the development of Iran's Azadegan oil
field;
(B) urges France and Malaysia to ensure that French and
Malaysian commercial entities not proceed with their
agreement for further cooperation in expanding Iran's liquid
natural gas production field;
(C) calls on all countries to intercede with their
commercial entities to ensure that these entities refrain
from or suspend all investment and investment-related
activities that support Iran's energy industry; and
(D) calls on Member States of the United Nations to prevent
the Government of Iran from continuing to pursue and develop
programs or facilities that could be used in a nuclear
weapons program and to end all nuclear cooperation with Iran,
including the provision of dual use items, until Iran
complies fully with its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA
and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty;
(18) deplores any effort by any country to provide nuclear
power-related assistance to Iran at this time, and calls upon
Russia--
(A) to use all appropriate means to urge Iran to meet fully
its obligations and commitments to the IAEA; and
(B) to suspend nuclear cooperation with Iran and not
conclude a nuclear fuel supply agreement for the Bushehr
reactor that would enter into force before Iran has
verifiably and permanently ceased all nuclear weapons
development activity, including a permanent cessation of
uranium conversion and enrichment and plutonium reprocessing
activities;
(19) calls upon the governments of the countries whose
nationals and corporations are implicated in assisting
Iranian nuclear activities, including Pakistan, Malaysia, the
United Arab Emirates, and Germany--
(A) to fully investigate such assistance;
(B) to grant the IAEA all necessary access to individuals,
sites, and information related to the investigations;
(C) to take all appropriate action against such nationals
and corporations under the laws of those countries; and
(D) to immediately review and rectify their export control
laws, regulations, and practices in order to prevent further
assistance to countries pursuing nuclear programs that could
support the development of nuclear weapons;
(20) urges the IAEA Board of Governors, in accordance with
Article XII of the IAEA Statute--
(A) to report to the United Nations Security Council that
Iran has been in noncompliance with its agreements with the
IAEA; and
(B) as appropriate, to specify areas in which Iran
continues to be in noncompliance with its agreements with the
IAEA or with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or in
which its compliance is uncertain;
(21) urges the United Nations Security Council, bearing in
mind its decision in Resolution 1540 that the ``proliferation
of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their
means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international
peace and security,'' to consider measures necessary--
(A) to support the inspection efforts by the IAEA; and
(B) to prevent Iran from further engaging in clandestine
nuclear activities;
(22) further urges the United Nations Security Council,
immediately upon receiving any report from the IAEA regarding
the continuing non-compliance of Iran with its obligations,
to address the threat to international peace and security
posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program and take such action
as may be necessary under Article 39, Article 40, and Article
41 of the Charter of the United Nations;
(23) urges the United Nations Security Council, the Nuclear
Suppliers Group, the Zangger Committee, and other relevant
international entities to declare that non-nuclear-weapon
states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that commit
significant violations of their safeguards agreements
regarding uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing or
engage in activities intended to support a military nuclear
program thereby forfeit their right under the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty to engage in nuclear fuel-cycle
activities;
(24) further urges the United Nations Security Council, the
Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Zangger Committee, the
International Atomic Energy Agency, other relevant
international entities, and all states party to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the United States, to
seek consensus, no later than the 2005 Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in Geneva,
Switzerland, on the best and most equitable means to limit
the right of non-nuclear weapons states to engage in those
nuclear fuel cycle activities that could contribute to the
development of nuclear weapons, while providing those states
assured and affordable access to--
(A) nuclear reactor fuel and other materials used in
peaceful nuclear activities; and
(B) spent fuel management; and
(25) urges the President to keep Congress fully and
currently informed concerning the matters addressed in this
resolution.
______
SA 3570. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Kyl) proposed an amendment to the
concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 81, expressing the concern of
Congress over Iran's development of the means to produce nuclear
weapons; as follows:
Whereas it is the policy of the United States to oppose,
and urgently to seek the agreement of other nations also to
oppose, any transfer to Iran of any goods or technology,
including dual-use goods or technology, wherever that
transfer could contribute to its acquiring chemical,
biological, or nuclear weapons;
Whereas the United Nations Security Council decided, in
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, that ``all
States shall refrain from providing any form of support to
non-State actors that attempt to develop, acquire,
manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear,
chemical, or biological weapons and their means of
delivery'';
Whereas the United States has imposed sanctions numerous
times on persons and entities transferring equipment and
technical data to Iran to assist its weapons of mass
destruction programs;
Whereas on January 1, 1968, Iran signed the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington,
London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March
5, 1970 (the ``Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty'');
Whereas Iran, as a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state, is obligated never to
develop or acquire nuclear weapons;
Whereas Iran did not declare to the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) the existence of the Natanz Pilot Fuel
Enrichment Plant and the production-scale Fuel Enrichment
Facility under construction at Natanz until February 2003,
after the existence of the plant and facility was revealed by
an opposition group;
[[Page 17174]]
Whereas it is estimated that the Natanz Pilot Fuel
Enrichment Plant could produce enough highly enriched uranium
for a nuclear weapon every year-and-a-half to two years;
Whereas it is estimated that the Natanz Fuel Enrichment
Facility could, when completed, produce enough highly
enriched uranium for as many as 25 to 30 nuclear weapons per
year;
Whereas, in his report of June 6, 2003, the Director
General of the IAEA stated that Iran had failed to meet its
obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA to
report all nuclear material imported into Iran--specifically,
the importation of uranium hexafluoride, uranium
tetrafluoride and uranium dioxide in 1991--the processing and
use of that material, and the facilities involved in the use
and processing of the material;
Whereas the IAEA Director General stated in the same report
that Iran had produced uranium metal and was building a
uranium metal processing facility, despite the fact that
neither its light water reactors nor its planned heavy water
reactors require uranium metal for fuel;
Whereas the IAEA Board of Governors urged Iran in June 2003
to promptly rectify its failures to meet its obligations
under its Safeguards Agreement, not to introduce nuclear
material into the Natanz Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant, and to
cooperate fully with the Agency in resolving questions about
its nuclear activities;
Whereas the IAEA Director General reported to the Board of
Governors of the IAEA in August 2003 that Iran had failed to
disclose additional nuclear activities as required by its
Safeguards Agreement and continued to fail to resolve
questions about its undeclared uranium enrichment activities,
including those raised by the detection of two types of
highly enriched uranium particles at the Natanz Pilot Fuel
Enrichment Plant;
Whereas on August 19, 2003, after earlier denials, Iran
admitted in a letter that it had carried out uranium
conversion experiments in the early 1990's, experiments that
included bench scale preparation of uranium compounds and
that should have been disclosed to the IAEA in accordance
with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement;
Whereas the IAEA Board of Governors on September 12, 2003,
called on Iran to suspend all further uranium enrichment and
any plutonium reprocessing activities, disclose all its
nuclear activities, and cooperate fully with the IAEA, and to
sign, ratify, and fully implement the Additional Protocol
between Iran and the IAEA for the application of safeguards
(the ``Additional Protocol'') to strengthen investigation of
all nuclear activities within Iran, and requested all third
countries to cooperate closely and fully with the IAEA in
resolving questions about Iran's nuclear program;
Whereas IAEA inspectors and officials continued to confront
Iran with discrepancies in its explanations of its nuclear
activities;
Whereas on October 21, 2003, Iran and the Foreign Ministers
of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom issued a joint
statement in which Iran indicated that it had decided to
suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities as
defined by the IAEA;
Whereas the Governments of France, Germany, and the United
Kingdom promised a dialogue with Iran to ease Iran's access
to modern technologies and supplies in a range of areas once
certain international concerns regarding Iran are fully
resolved;
Whereas, in a subsequent letter on October 23, 2003, Iran
further admitted that it had tested uranium enrichment
centrifuges at the Kalaye Electric Company between 1998 and
2002 using its previously undeclared imported uranium
hexafluoride;
Whereas in that same letter, Iran admitted that it had a
laser uranium enrichment program, in which it used 30
kilograms of uranium not previously declared to the IAEA,
another violation of its Safeguards Agreement;
Whereas Iran indicated initially that its laser enrichment
program had achieved uranium enrichment levels of slightly
more than 3 percent, but the Director General's report of
June 1, 2004, states that the IAEA later learned that Iran
``had been able to achieve average enrichment levels of 8
percent to 9 percent, with some samples of up to
approximately 15 percent'';
Whereas the June 1, 2004, report states also that Iran's
declaration of October 21, 2003, failed to include
information that should have been provided, including the
fact that ``some samples from'' the laser uranium enrichment
project ``had been sent for assessment to the supplier's
laboratory'';
Whereas, in its letter of October 23, 2003, Iran also
admitted that it had irradiated 7 kilograms of uranium
dioxide targets and reprocessed them to extract plutonium,
another violation of its legal obligation to disclose such
activities under its Safeguards Agreement;
Whereas Iran told the IAEA on November 10, 2003, that it
would sign and ratify the Additional Protocol and would act
in accordance with the Additional Protocol pending its entry-
into-force;
Whereas, on November 10, 2003, Iran further informed the
IAEA Director General that it had decided to suspend all
enrichment and reprocessing activities in Iran, not to
produce feed material for enrichment processes, and not to
import enrichment related items;
Whereas the IAEA, through its investigative and forensic
activities in Iran and elsewhere, has uncovered and
confronted Iran about numerous lies concerning its nuclear
activities;
Whereas the Director General of the IAEA reported to the
IAEA Board of Governors on November 10, 2003, that Iran has
concealed many aspects of its nuclear activities from the
IAEA, in breach of its obligations under its Safeguards
Agreement;
Whereas, despite Iran's subsequent pledge to, once again,
fully disclose all of its nuclear activities to the IAEA, the
Director General of the IAEA, in a February 24, 2004, report,
found that Iran continued to engage in deception regarding
its nuclear activities, including failing to disclose a more
sophisticated enrichment program using more advanced
enrichment centrifuge technology imported from foreign
sources, and providing incomplete and unsupported
explanations about experiments to create a highly toxic
isotope of polonium that outside experts say is useful as a
neutron initiator in nuclear weapons;
Whereas the Director General's reports of February 24,
2001, and June 1, 2004, stated that environmental samples
from one room at the Kalaye Electric Company workshop and
from equipment that had been present in that workshop showed
more than trace quantities of uranium enriched to 36 percent
U-235, despite finding only negligible traces of this on
imported centrifuge components, and that the types of uranium
contamination at that workshop differed from those found at
Natanz, which would appear to contradict Iran's assertion
that the source of contamination at both sites is imported
centrifuge components and perhaps also its assertion that it
has not enriched uranium to more than 1.2 percent U-235 using
centrifuge technology;
Whereas the Director General stated in the June 1, 2004,
report, that ``the contamination is different on domestic and
imported centrifuges,'' that ``it is unlikely'' that the 36
percent U-235 contamination was due to components acquired
from Iran's principal supplier country, and that ``important
information about the P-2 centrifuge programme has frequently
required repeated requests, and in some cases continues to
involve changing or contradictory information'';
Whereas these deceptions by Iran are continuing violations
of Iran's Safeguards Agreement and of Iran's previous
assurances to the IAEA and the international community of
full transparency;
Whereas despite Iran's commitment to the IAEA and to
France, Germany, and the United Kingdom that it would suspend
uranium enrichment activities, it has repeatedly emphasized
that this suspension is temporary and continued to
manufacture and, until April 2004, to import, uranium
enrichment centrifuge parts and equipment, allowing it to
resume and expand its uranium enrichment activities whenever
it chooses;
Whereas the statements on February 25, 2004, of Hassan
Rowhani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council
of Iran, that Iran was not required to reveal to the IAEA its
research into more sophisticated ``P2'' uranium enrichment
centrifuges, and that Iran has other projects which it has no
intention of declaring to the IAEA, are contrary to--
(1) Iran's commitment to the IAEA in an October 16, 2003,
letter from the Vice President of Iran and the President of
Iran's Atomic Energy Organization that Iran would present a
``full picture of its nuclear activities'' and ``full
transparency'';
(2) Iran's commitment to the foreign ministers of the
United Kingdom, France, and Germany of October 21, 2003, to
full transparency and to resolve all outstanding issues; and
(3) its statement to the IAEA's Board of Governors of
September 12, 2003, of its commitment to full transparency
and to ``leave no stone unturned'' to assure the IAEA of its
peaceful objectives;
Whereas Libya received enrichment equipment and technology,
and a nuclear weapons design, from the same nuclear black
market that Iran has used, raising the question of whether
Iran, as well, received a nuclear weapon design that it has
refused to reveal to international inspectors;
Whereas the Russian Federation has announced that it will
soon conclude an agreement to supply Iran with enriched
nuclear fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power reactor, which, if
implemented, would undercut the international effort to
persuade Iran to cease its nuclear weapons development
program;
Whereas the IAEA Board of Governors' resolution of March
13, 2004, which was adopted unanimously, noted with ``serious
concern that the declarations made by Iran in October 2003
did not amount to the complete and final picture of Iran's
past and present nuclear programme considered essential by
the Board's November 2003 resolution,'' and also noted that
the IAEA has discovered that Iran had hidden more advanced
centrifuge associated research, manufacturing, and testing
activities, two mass spectrometers used in
[[Page 17175]]
the laser enrichment program, and designs for hot cells to
handle highly radioactive materials;
Whereas the same resolution also noted ``with equal concern
that Iran has not resolved all questions regarding the
development of its enrichment technology to its current
extent, and that a number of other questions remain
unresolved, including the sources of all HEU contamination in
Iran; the location, extent and nature of work undertaken on
the basis of the advanced centrifuge design; the nature,
extent, and purpose of activities involving the planned
heavy-water reactor; and evidence to support claims regarding
the purpose of polonium-210 experiments'';
Whereas Hassan Rowhani on March 13, 2004, declared that
IAEA inspections would be indefinitely suspended as a protest
against the IAEA Board of Governors' resolution of March 13,
2004, and while Iran subsequently agreed to readmit
inspectors to one site by March 29, 2004, and to others in
mid-April, 2004, including four workshops belonging to the
Defence Industries Organization, this suspension calls into
serious question Iran's commitment to full transparency about
its nuclear activities;
Whereas Iran informed the IAEA on April 29, 2004, of its
intent to produce uranium hexafluoride in amounts that the
IAEA concluded would constitute production of feed material
for uranium centrifuges and wrote in a letter of May 18,
2004, that its suspension of all uranium enrichment
activities ``does not include suspension of production of
UF6,'' which contradicted assurances provided in its letter
of November 10, 2003;
Whereas the IAEA Board of Governors' resolution of June 18,
2004, which was also adopted unanimously, ``deplores'' the
fact that ``Iran's cooperation has not been as full, timely
and proactive as it should have been'' and ``underlines that,
with the passage of time, it is becoming ever more important
that Iran work proactively to enable the Agency to gain a
full understanding of Iran's enrichment programme by
providing all relevant information, as well as by providing
prompt access to all relevant places, data and persons'';
Whereas the same resolution also expresses regret that
Iran's suspension ``commitments have not been comprehensively
implemented and calls on Iran immediately to correct all
remaining shortcomings'';
Whereas the same resolution also calls on Iran, as further
confidence-building measures, voluntarily to reconsider its
decision to begin production testing at the Uranium
Conversion Facility and its decision to start construction of
a research reactor moderated by heavy water, as the reversal
of those decisions would make it easier for Iran to restore
international confidence undermined by past reports of
undeclared nuclear activities in Iran;
Whereas Iran then announced its decision to resume
production of centrifuge components, notwithstanding both the
IAEA Board of Governors resolution of September 12, 2003,
which called on Iran ``to suspend all further uranium
enrichment-related activities,'' and Iran's voluntary
suspension of all uranium enrichment activities pursuant to
its agreement of October 21, 2003, with the foreign ministers
of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany;
Whereas Iran's pattern of deception and concealment in
dealing with the IAEA, the Foreign Ministers of France,
Germany, and the United Kingdom, and the international
community, its receipt from other countries of the means to
enrich uranium, its use of sources who provided a nuclear
weapon design to another country, its production of
centrifuge components at Defence Industries Organization
workshops, and its repeated breaches of its Safeguards
Agreement suggest strongly that Iran has also violated its
legal obligation under article II of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty not to acquire or seek assistance in
acquiring nuclear weapons; and
Whereas the maintenance or construction by Iran of
unsafeguarded nuclear facilities or uranium enrichment or
reprocessing facilities will continue to endanger the
maintenance of international peace and security and threaten
United States national interests: Now, therefore, be it
______
SA 3571. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Kyl) proposed an amendment to the
concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 81, expressing the concern of
Congress over Iran's development of the means to produce nuclear
weapons; as follows:
Amend the title so as to read: ``Expressing the concern of
Congress over Iran's development of the means to produce
nuclear weapons.''.
______
SA 3572. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Kyl (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Lugar, and Mr. Biden)) proposed an amendment to the concurrent
resolution H. Con. Res. 398, expressing the concern of Congress over
Iran's development of the means to produce nuclear weapons; as follows:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
That Congress--
(1) condemns--
(A) the failure of the Government of Iran for nearly two
decades to report material, facilities, and activities to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in contravention of
its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement; and
(B) Iran's continuing deceptions and falsehoods to the IAEA
and the international community about its nuclear programs
and activities;
(2) concurs with the conclusion reached in the Department
of State's Annual Report on Adherence to and Compliance with
Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Agreements and Commitments
that Iran is pursuing a program to develop nuclear weapons;
(3) urges the President to provide to the IAEA whatever
financial, material, or intelligence resources are necessary
to enable the IAEA it to fully investigate Iran's nuclear
activities;
(4) calls upon all states party to the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, London,
and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970
(hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ``Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty''), including the United States, to
use appropriate means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons, including the suspension of all nuclear and other
cooperation with Iran, including the provision of dual use
items, until Iran fully implements the Additional Protocol to
its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA (hereafter in this
resolution referred to as the ``Additional Protocol'') and is
clearly in compliance with its obligations under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty;
(5) declares that Iran, through its many breaches during
the past 18 years of its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA,
has forfeited the right to be trusted with the development of
a full nuclear fuel cycle, especially with uranium conversion
and enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technology,
equipment, and facilities;
(6) declares that the revelations of Iran's nondisclosure
of additional enrichment and nuclear-weapons-applicable
research activities, as detailed in the reports of February
24, 2004, and June 1, 2004, by the Director General of the
IAEA, together with the statement by the Government of Iran
that it will not disclose other research programs, constitute
ample evidence of Iran's continuing policy of noncompliance
with the letter and spirit of its obligations under its
Safeguards Agreement and the Additional Protocol;
(7) recognizes, in contrast with Iran's behavior, the
positive example of Libya's decision to renounce and
dismantle its nuclear weapons program and to provide full,
complete, and transparent disclosure of all its nuclear
activities, which has enabled the IAEA to rapidly understand
and verify with high confidence the extent and scope of
Libya's program and has led to the establishment of direct
diplomatic relations with Libya, the gradual lifting of U.S.
sanctions, and the establishment of cooperative programs
between the United States and Libya;
(8) foresees a similar future for Iran, once that country
renounces and dismantles its weapons of mass destruction and
long-range ballistic missile programs and renounces its
support for international terrorist organizations;
(9) notes the assistance that the United States has
provided to southeastern Iran since the Bam earthquake on
December 26, 2003;
(10) calls upon Iran to immediately and permanently cease
all efforts to acquire sensitive nuclear fuel cycle
capabilities, in particular all uranium enrichment
activities, including importing, manufacturing, and testing
of related equipment;
(11) urges Iran to comply with its international
commitments and to rescind its decisions--
(A) to manufacture and construct centrifuges;
(B) to produce feed material that could be used in those
centrifuges; and
(C) to construct a heavy-water moderated reactor that could
be used for plutonium production;
(12) calls upon Iran to honor its stated commitments and
legal obligations--
(A) to grant IAEA inspectors prompt, full and unrestricted
access;
(B) to cooperate fully with the investigation of its
nuclear activities; and
(C) to demonstrate a new openness and honesty about all its
nuclear programs;
(13) welcomes the June 26, 2004, declaration at the United
States-E.U. Summit in Shannon, Ireland, in which the European
Union and the United States pledged to implement United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, which identifies
actions states should take--
(A) to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction;
(B) to establish new measures in accordance with the G8
Action Plan on Non-Proliferation, announced June 9, 2004, at
the G8 Summit in Sea Island, Georgia; and
(C) to preserve the integrity of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty;
(14) urges close cooperation between the United States and
the European Union in accordance with the reaffirmation in
their
[[Page 17176]]
June 26, 2004, declaration of ``the IAEA Board of Governors'
Iran resolutions, which deplore Iran's insufficient
cooperation and call on Iran, inter alia, to cooperate fully
and in a timely and proactive manner, with IAEA investigation
of its nuclear programme and suspend all enrichment-related
and reprocessing activities'';
(15) calls upon the members of the European Union not to
resume discussions with Iran on multilateral trade agreements
until the IAEA Director General reports that Iran has
suspended all nuclear weapons development activity, and not
to implement such trade agreements until Iran has verifiably
and permanently ceased all nuclear weapons development
activity, including a permanent cessation of uranium
conversion and enrichment and plutonium reprocessing
activities;
(16) further calls upon the members of the European Union
to undertake such additional measures, including imposing
sanctions and sponsoring an IAEA Board of Governors report on
non-compliance pursuant to Article XII of the IAEA Statute,
as may be necessary to persuade Iran to cease all nuclear
weapons development activity and to fulfill its obligations
and commitments to the IAEA;
(17) in light of ongoing revelations of the noncompliance
of the Government of Iran regarding its obligations under the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and pledges to the IAEA, and
in light of the consequent and ongoing questions and concerns
of the IAEA, the United States, and the international
community regarding Iran's nuclear activities--
(A) urges Japan to ensure that Japanese commercial entities
not proceed with the development of Iran's Azadegan oil
field;
(B) urges France and Malaysia to ensure that French and
Malaysian commercial entities not proceed with their
agreement for further cooperation in expanding Iran's liquid
natural gas production field;
(C) calls on all countries to intercede with their
commercial entities to ensure that these entities refrain
from or suspend all investment and investment-related
activities that support Iran's energy industry; and
(D) calls on Member States of the United Nations to prevent
the Government of Iran from continuing to pursue and develop
programs or facilities that could be used in a nuclear
weapons program and to end all nuclear cooperation with Iran,
including the provision of dual use items, until Iran
complies fully with its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA
and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty;
(18) deplores any effort by any country to provide nuclear
power-related assistance to Iran at this time, and calls upon
Russia--
(A) to use all appropriate means to urge Iran to meet fully
its obligations and commitments to the IAEA; and
(B) to suspend nuclear cooperation with Iran and not
conclude a nuclear fuel supply agreement for the Bushehr
reactor that would enter into force before Iran has
verifiably and permanently ceased all nuclear weapons
development activity, including a permanent cessation of
uranium conversion and enrichment and plutonium reprocessing
activities;
(19) calls upon the governments of the countries whose
nationals and corporations are implicated in assisting
Iranian nuclear activities, including Pakistan, Malaysia, the
United Arab Emirates, and Germany--
(A) to fully investigate such assistance;
(B) to grant the IAEA all necessary access to individuals,
sites, and information related to the investigations;
(C) to take all appropriate action against such nationals
and corporations under the laws of those countries; and
(D) to immediately review and rectify their export control
laws, regulations, and practices in order to prevent further
assistance to countries pursuing nuclear programs that could
support the development of nuclear weapons;
(20) urges the IAEA Board of Governors, in accordance with
Article XII of the IAEA Statute--
(A) to report to the United Nations Security Council that
Iran has been in noncompliance with its agreements with the
IAEA; and
(B) as appropriate, to specify areas in which Iran
continues to be in noncompliance with its agreements with the
IAEA or with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or in
which its compliance is uncertain;
(21) urges the United Nations Security Council, bearing in
mind its decision in Resolution 1540 that the ``proliferation
of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their
means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international
peace and security,'' to consider measures necessary--
(A) to support the inspection efforts by the IAEA; and
(B) to prevent Iran from further engaging in clandestine
nuclear activities;
(22) further urges the United Nations Security Council,
immediately upon receiving any report from the IAEA regarding
the continuing non-compliance of Iran with its obligations,
to address the threat to international peace and security
posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program and take such action
as may be necessary under Article 39, Article 40, and Article
41 of the Charter of the United Nations;
(23) urges the United Nations Security Council, the Nuclear
Suppliers Group, the Zangger Committee, and other relevant
international entities to declare that non-nuclear-weapon
states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that commit
significant violations of their safeguards agreements
regarding uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing or
engage in activities intended to support a military nuclear
program thereby forfeit their right under the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty to engage in nuclear fuel-cycle
activities;
(24) further urges the United Nations Security Council, the
Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Zangger Committee, the
International Atomic Energy Agency, other relevant
international entities, and all states party to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the United States, to
seek consensus, no later than the 2005 Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in Geneva,
Switzerland, on the best and most equitable means to limit
the right of non-nuclear weapons states to engage in those
nuclear fuel cycle activities that could contribute to the
development of nuclear weapons, while providing those states
assured and affordable access to--
(A) nuclear reactor fuel and other materials used in
peaceful nuclear activities; and
(B) spent fuel management; and
(25) urges the President to keep Congress fully and
currently informed concerning the matters addressed in this
resolution.
______
SA 3573. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Kyl (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein))
proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 398,
expressing the concern of Congress over Iran's development of the means
to produce nuclear weapons; as follows:
Whereas it is the policy of the United States to oppose,
and urgently to seek the agreement of other nations also to
oppose, any transfer to Iran of any goods or technology,
including dual-use goods or technology, wherever that
transfer could contribute to its acquiring chemical,
biological, or nuclear weapons;
Whereas the United Nations Security Council decided, in
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, that ``all
States shall refrain from providing any form of support to
non-State actors that attempt to develop, acquire,
manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear,
chemical, or biological weapons and their means of
delivery'';
Whereas the United States has imposed sanctions numerous
times on persons and entities transferring equipment and
technical data to Iran to assist its weapons of mass
destruction programs;
Whereas on January 1, 1968, Iran signed the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington,
London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March
5, 1970 (the ``Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty'');
Whereas Iran, as a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state, is obligated never to
develop or acquire nuclear weapons;
Whereas Iran did not declare to the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) the existence of the Natanz Pilot Fuel
Enrichment Plant and the production-scale Fuel Enrichment
Facility under construction at Natanz until February 2003,
after the existence of the plant and facility was revealed by
an opposition group;
Whereas it is estimated that the Natanz Pilot Fuel
Enrichment Plant could produce enough highly enriched uranium
for a nuclear weapon every year-and-a-half to two years;
Whereas it is estimated that the Natanz Fuel Enrichment
Facility could, when completed, produce enough highly
enriched uranium for as many as 25 to 30 nuclear weapons per
year;
Whereas, in his report of June 6, 2003, the Director
General of the IAEA stated that Iran had failed to meet its
obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA to
report all nuclear material imported into Iran--specifically,
the importation of uranium hexafluoride, uranium
tetrafluoride and uranium dioxide in 1991--the processing and
use of that material, and the facilities involved in the use
and processing of the material;
Whereas the IAEA Director General stated in the same report
that Iran had produced uranium metal and was building a
uranium metal processing facility, despite the fact that
neither its light water reactors nor its planned heavy water
reactors require uranium metal for fuel;
Whereas the IAEA Board of Governors urged Iran in June 2003
to promptly rectify its failures to meet its obligations
under its Safeguards Agreement, not to introduce nuclear
material into the Natanz Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant, and to
cooperate fully with the Agency in resolving questions about
its nuclear activities;
Whereas the IAEA Director General reported to the Board of
Governors of the IAEA in August 2003 that Iran had failed to
disclose additional nuclear activities as required by its
Safeguards Agreement and continued to fail to resolve
questions about its
[[Page 17177]]
undeclared uranium enrichment activities, including those
raised by the detection of two types of highly enriched
uranium particles at the Natanz Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant;
Whereas on August 19, 2003, after earlier denials, Iran
admitted in a letter that it had carried out uranium
conversion experiments in the early 1990's, experiments that
included bench scale preparation of uranium compounds and
that should have been disclosed to the IAEA in accordance
with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement;
Whereas the IAEA Board of Governors on September 12, 2003,
called on Iran to suspend all further uranium enrichment and
any plutonium reprocessing activities, disclose all its
nuclear activities, and cooperate fully with the IAEA, and to
sign, ratify, and fully implement the Additional Protocol
between Iran and the IAEA for the application of safeguards
(the ``Additional Protocol'') to strengthen investigation of
all nuclear activities within Iran, and requested all third
countries to cooperate closely and fully with the IAEA in
resolving questions about Iran's nuclear program;
Whereas IAEA inspectors and officials continued to confront
Iran with discrepancies in its explanations of its nuclear
activities;
Whereas on October 21, 2003, Iran and the Foreign Ministers
of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom issued a joint
statement in which Iran indicated that it had decided to
suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities as
defined by the IAEA;
Whereas the Governments of France, Germany, and the United
Kingdom promised a dialogue with Iran to ease Iran's access
to modern technologies and supplies in a range of areas once
certain international concerns regarding Iran are fully
resolved;
Whereas, in a subsequent letter on October 23, 2003, Iran
further admitted that it had tested uranium enrichment
centrifuges at the Kalaye Electric Company between 1998 and
2002 using its previously undeclared imported uranium
hexafluoride;
Whereas in that same letter, Iran admitted that it had a
laser uranium enrichment program, in which it used 30
kilograms of uranium not previously declared to the IAEA,
another violation of its Safeguards Agreement;
Whereas Iran indicated initially that its laser enrichment
program had achieved uranium enrichment levels of slightly
more than 3 percent, but the Director General's report of
June 1, 2004, states that the IAEA later learned that Iran
``had been able to achieve average enrichment levels of 8
percent to 9 percent, with some samples of up to
approximately 15 percent'';
Whereas the June 1, 2004, report states also that Iran's
declaration of October 21, 2003, failed to include
information that should have been provided, including the
fact that ``some samples from'' the laser uranium enrichment
project ``had been sent for assessment to the supplier's
laboratory'';
Whereas, in its letter of October 23, 2003, Iran also
admitted that it had irradiated 7 kilograms of uranium
dioxide targets and reprocessed them to extract plutonium,
another violation of its legal obligation to disclose such
activities under its Safeguards Agreement;
Whereas Iran told the IAEA on November 10, 2003, that it
would sign and ratify the Additional Protocol and would act
in accordance with the Additional Protocol pending its entry-
into-force;
Whereas, on November 10, 2003, Iran further informed the
IAEA Director General that it had decided to suspend all
enrichment and reprocessing activities in Iran, not to
produce feed material for enrichment processes, and not to
import enrichment related items;
Whereas the IAEA, through its investigative and forensic
activities in Iran and elsewhere, has uncovered and
confronted Iran about numerous lies concerning its nuclear
activities;
Whereas the Director General of the IAEA reported to the
IAEA Board of Governors on November 10, 2003, that Iran has
concealed many aspects of its nuclear activities from the
IAEA, in breach of its obligations under its Safeguards
Agreement;
Whereas, despite Iran's subsequent pledge to, once again,
fully disclose all of its nuclear activities to the IAEA, the
Director General of the IAEA, in a February 24, 2004, report,
found that Iran continued to engage in deception regarding
its nuclear activities, including failing to disclose a more
sophisticated enrichment program using more advanced
enrichment centrifuge technology imported from foreign
sources, and providing incomplete and unsupported
explanations about experiments to create a highly toxic
isotope of polonium that outside experts say is useful as a
neutron initiator in nuclear weapons;
Whereas the Director General's reports of February 24,
2001, and June 1, 2004, stated that environmental samples
from one room at the Kalaye Electric Company workshop and
from equipment that had been present in that workshop showed
more than trace quantities of uranium enriched to 36 percent
U-235, despite finding only negligible traces of this on
imported centrifuge components, and that the types of uranium
contamination at that workshop differed from those found at
Natanz, which would appear to contradict Iran's assertion
that the source of contamination at both sites is imported
centrifuge components and perhaps also its assertion that it
has not enriched uranium to more than 1.2 percent U-235 using
centrifuge technology;
Whereas the Director General stated in the June 1, 2004,
report, that ``the contamination is different on domestic and
imported centrifuges,'' that ``it is unlikely'' that the 36
percent U-235 contamination was due to components acquired
from Iran's principal supplier country, and that ``important
information about the P-2 centrifuge programme has frequently
required repeated requests, and in some cases continues to
involve changing or contradictory information'';
Whereas these deceptions by Iran are continuing violations
of Iran's Safeguards Agreement and of Iran's previous
assurances to the IAEA and the international community of
full transparency;
Whereas despite Iran's commitment to the IAEA and to
France, Germany, and the United Kingdom that it would suspend
uranium enrichment activities, it has repeatedly emphasized
that this suspension is temporary and continued to
manufacture and, until April 2004, to import, uranium
enrichment centrifuge parts and equipment, allowing it to
resume and expand its uranium enrichment activities whenever
it chooses;
Whereas the statements on February 25, 2004, of Hassan
Rowhani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council
of Iran, that Iran was not required to reveal to the IAEA its
research into more sophisticated ``P2'' uranium enrichment
centrifuges, and that Iran has other projects which it has no
intention of declaring to the IAEA, are contrary to--
(1) Iran's commitment to the IAEA in an October 16, 2003,
letter from the Vice President of Iran and the President of
Iran's Atomic Energy Organization that Iran would present a
``full picture of its nuclear activities'' and ``full
transparency'';
(2) Iran's commitment to the foreign ministers of the
United Kingdom, France, and Germany of October 21, 2003, to
full transparency and to resolve all outstanding issues; and
(3) its statement to the IAEA's Board of Governors of
September 12, 2003, of its commitment to full transparency
and to ``leave no stone unturned'' to assure the IAEA of its
peaceful objectives;
Whereas Libya received enrichment equipment and technology,
and a nuclear weapons design, from the same nuclear black
market that Iran has used, raising the question of whether
Iran, as well, received a nuclear weapon design that it has
refused to reveal to international inspectors;
Whereas the Russian Federation has announced that it will
soon conclude an agreement to supply Iran with enriched
nuclear fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power reactor, which, if
implemented, would undercut the international effort to
persuade Iran to cease its nuclear weapons development
program;
Whereas the IAEA Board of Governors' resolution of March
13, 2004, which was adopted unanimously, noted with ``serious
concern that the declarations made by Iran in October 2003
did not amount to the complete and final picture of Iran's
past and present nuclear programme considered essential by
the Board's November 2003 resolution,'' and also noted that
the IAEA has discovered that Iran had hidden more advanced
centrifuge associated research, manufacturing, and testing
activities, two mass spectrometers used in the laser
enrichment program, and designs for hot cells to handle
highly radioactive materials;
Whereas the same resolution also noted ``with equal concern
that Iran has not resolved all questions regarding the
development of its enrichment technology to its current
extent, and that a number of other questions remain
unresolved, including the sources of all HEU contamination in
Iran; the location, extent and nature of work undertaken on
the basis of the advanced centrifuge design; the nature,
extent, and purpose of activities involving the planned
heavy-water reactor; and evidence to support claims regarding
the purpose of polonium-210 experiments'';
Whereas Hassan Rowhani on March 13, 2004, declared that
IAEA inspections would be indefinitely suspended as a protest
against the IAEA Board of Governors' resolution of March 13,
2004, and while Iran subsequently agreed to readmit
inspectors to one site by March 29, 2004, and to others in
mid-April, 2004, including four workshops belonging to the
Defence Industries Organization, this suspension calls into
serious question Iran's commitment to full transparency about
its nuclear activities;
Whereas Iran informed the IAEA on April 29, 2004, of its
intent to produce uranium hexafluoride in amounts that the
IAEA concluded would constitute production of feed material
for uranium centrifuges and wrote in a letter of May 18,
2004, that its suspension of all uranium enrichment
activities ``does not include suspension of production of
UF6,'' which contradicted assurances provided in its letter
of November 10, 2003;
Whereas the IAEA Board of Governors' resolution of June 18,
2004, which was also adopted unanimously, ``deplores'' the
fact
[[Page 17178]]
that ``Iran's cooperation has not been as full, timely and
proactive as it should have been'' and ``underlines that,
with the passage of time, it is becoming ever more important
that Iran work proactively to enable the Agency to gain a
full understanding of Iran's enrichment programme by
providing all relevant information, as well as by providing
prompt access to all relevant places, data and persons'';
Whereas the same resolution also expresses regret that
Iran's suspension ``commitments have not been comprehensively
implemented and calls on Iran immediately to correct all
remaining shortcomings'';
Whereas the same resolution also calls on Iran, as further
confidence-building measures, voluntarily to reconsider its
decision to begin production testing at the Uranium
Conversion Facility and its decision to start construction of
a research reactor moderated by heavy water, as the reversal
of those decisions would make it easier for Iran to restore
international confidence undermined by past reports of
undeclared nuclear activities in Iran;
Whereas Iran then announced its decision to resume
production of centrifuge components, notwithstanding both the
IAEA Board of Governors resolution of September 12, 2003,
which called on Iran ``to suspend all further uranium
enrichment-related activities,'' and Iran's voluntary
suspension of all uranium enrichment activities pursuant to
its agreement of October 21, 2003, with the foreign ministers
of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany;
Whereas Iran's pattern of deception and concealment in
dealing with the IAEA, the Foreign Ministers of France,
Germany, and the United Kingdom, and the international
community, its receipt from other countries of the means to
enrich uranium, its use of sources who provided a nuclear
weapon design to another country, its production of
centrifuge components at Defence Industries Organization
workshops, and its repeated breaches of its Safeguards
Agreement suggest strongly that Iran has also violated its
legal obligation under article II of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty not to acquire or seek assistance in
acquiring nuclear weapons; and
Whereas the maintenance or construction by Iran of
unsafeguarded nuclear facilities or uranium enrichment or
reprocessing facilities will continue to endanger the
maintenance of international peace and security and threaten
United States national interests: Now, therefore, be it
______
SA 3574. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Kyl (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein))
proposed an amendment to the concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 398,
expressing the concern of Congress over Iran's development of the means
to produce nuclear weapons; as follows:
Amend the title so as to read: ``Expressing the concern of
Congress over Iran's development of the means to produce
nuclear weapons.''
______
SA 3575. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 849, to provide for a land exchange in the State of
Arizona between the Secretary of Agriculture and Yavapai Ranch Limited
partnership; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources; as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Northern
Arizona Land Exchange and Verde River Basin Partnership Act
of 2004''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--NORTHERN ARIZONA LAND EXCHANGE
Sec. 101. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Land exchange.
Sec. 104. Exchange valuation, appraisals, and equalization.
Sec. 105. Miscellaneous provisions.
Sec. 106. Status and management of land after exchange.
Sec. 107. Conveyance of additional land.
TITLE II--VERDE RIVER BASIN PARTNERSHIP
Sec. 201. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 202. Definitions.
Sec. 203. Verde River Basin Partnership.
Sec. 204. Verde River Basin studies.
Sec. 205. Verde River Basin Partnership final report.
Sec. 206. Memorandum of understanding.
Sec. 207. Effect.
TITLE I--NORTHERN ARIZONA LAND EXCHANGE
SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Prescott National Forest in Yavapai County, Arizona
includes approximately 170 square miles of parcels of Federal
land and private land intermingled in a checkerboard pattern;
(2) the Federal land is administered by the Secretary of
Agriculture as National Forest System land;
(3) the private land is owned by the Yavapai Ranch Limited
Partnership and the Northern Yavapai, L.L.C.;
(4) portions of the private land within the checkerboard
area (including the land located in or near the Pine Creek
watershed, Juniper Mesa Wilderness Area, Haystack Peak, and
the Luis Maria Baca Float No. 5) possess attributes valuable
for public management, use, and enjoyment, including--
(A) outdoor recreation;
(B) stands of old growth pine and juniper;
(C) wildlife habitat;
(D) cultural and archaeological resources; and
(E) scenic vistas;
(5) the checkerboard ownership pattern of private land and
Federal land within the Prescott National Forest impedes
sound and efficient management and use of the intermingled
National Forest System land;
(6) acquisition by the United States of certain parcels of
land through a land exchange with Yavapai Ranch Limited
Partnership and the Northern Yavapai, L.L.C., for addition to
Prescott National Forest would serve the public objectives
of--
(A) acquiring private land that meets the criteria for
inclusion in the National Forest System;
(B) consolidating a large area of National Forest System
land to allow--
(i) permanent public access, use, and enjoyment of the
land; and
(ii) efficient management of the land;
(C) minimizing cash outlays by the United States to achieve
the objectives described in subparagraphs (A) and (B); and
(D) reducing administrative costs to the United States
through--
(i) elimination of approximately 350 miles of boundary
between private land and the Federal parcels; and
(ii) reduction of right-of-way, special use, and other
permit processing and issuance for roads and other facilities
on National Forest System land;
(7) additional parcels of National Forest System land
within Yavapai County, Arizona have been identified for
inclusion in the land exchange because the parcels--
(A) have lost their forest character;
(B) meet the National Forest Plan criteria for exchange;
and
(C) are managed under special use permits and leases for a
variety of purposes (including municipal water treatment
facilities, sewage treatment facilities, city parks, camps,
and airport-related facilities) that--
(i) limit the usefulness of the parcels for general
National Forest System purposes; but
(ii)(I) are to be conveyed by the Yavapai Ranch Limited
Partnership, to the third-party permit or lease holders in
accordance with agreements acceptable to all parties to the
agreements; or
(II) are to be purchased directly from the Secretary in
accordance with this Act; and
(8) the exchange and conveyance of the Federal land should
not result in adverse impacts on existing water users, State
water right holders, or the Verde River.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to authorize,
direct, and facilitate--
(1) an equal value exchange of Federal land and non-Federal
land between the United States, Yavapai Ranch Limited
Partnership, and the Northern Yavapai, L.L.C.; and
(2) the conveyance of portions of certain parcels of the
Federal land for community and other uses.
SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Camp.--The term ``camp'' means Camp Pearlstein,
Friendly Pines, Patterdale Pines, Pine Summit, Sky Y, and
YoungLife Lost Canyon camps in the State of Arizona.
(2) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the land
described in section 103(a)(2).
(3) Management plan.--The term ``Management Plan'' means
the land and resource management plan for Prescott National
Forest.
(4) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means
the land described in section 103(b)(2).
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(6) Yavapai ranch.--The term ``Yavapai Ranch'' means--
(A) the Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership, an Arizona
Limited Partnership; and
(B) the Northern Yavapai, L.L.C., an Arizona Limited
Liability Company.
SEC. 103. LAND EXCHANGE.
(a) Conveyance of Federal Land by the United States.--
(1) In general.--On receipt of an offer from Yavapai Ranch
to convey the non-Federal land that complies with the
requirements of this Act and that is acceptable to the
Secretary, the Secretary shall convey to Yavapai Ranch by
deed acceptable to Yavapai Ranch, subject to easements,
rights-of-way, utility lines, and any other valid
encumbrances on the Federal land in existence on the date of
enactment of this Act and any other reservations that may be
agreed to by the Secretary and Yavapai Ranch, all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to the
Federal land described in paragraph (2).
[[Page 17179]]
(2) Description of federal land.--The Federal land referred
to in paragraph (1) shall consist of the following:
(A) Certain land comprising approximately 15,300 acres
located in Yavapai County, Arizona, as generally depicted on
the map entitled ``Yavapai Ranch-Ranch Area Federal Lands'',
dated April 2002.
(B) Certain land in the Coconino National Forest, Coconino
County Arizona--
(i) comprising approximately 1,500 acres located in
Coconino National Forest, Coconino County, Arizona, as
generally depicted on the map entitled ``Flagstaff Federal
Lands-Airport Parcel'', dated April 2002; and
(ii) comprising approximately 28.26 acres in 2 separate
parcels, as generally depicted on the map entitled
``Flagstaff Federal Lands--Wetzel School and Mt. Elden
Parcels'', dated September 2002.
(C) Certain land referred to as Williams Airport, Williams
golf course, Williams Sewer, Buckskinner Park, Williams
Railroad, and Well parcels numbers 2, 3, and 4, comprising
approximately 950 acres, located in Kaibab National Forest,
Coconino County, Arizona, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ``Williams Federal Lands'', dated April 2002.
(D) Certain land comprising approximately 2,200 acres
located in Prescott National Forest, Yavapai County, Arizona,
as generally depicted on the map entitled ``Camp Verde
Federal Land--General Crook Parcel'', dated April 2002.
(E) Certain Forest Service land comprising approximately
237.5 acres located in Kaibab National Forest, Coconino
County, Arizona, as generally depicted on the map entitled
``Younglife Lost Canyon'', dated April 2002.
(F) Certain Forest Service land comprising approximately
200 acres located in Prescott National Forest, Yavapai
County, Arizona, and including Friendly Pines, Patterdale
Pines, Camp Pearlstein, Pine Summit, and Sky Y, as generally
depicted on the map entitled ``Prescott Federal Lands--Summer
Youth Camp Parcels'', dated April 2002.
(G) Perpetual easements reserved by the United States
that--
(i) run with and benefit land owned by or conveyed to
Yavapai Ranch across certain land of the United States;
(ii) are for the purposes of--
(I) operating, maintaining, repairing, improving, and
replacing electric power lines or water pipelines (including
related storage tanks, valves, pumps, and hardware); and
(II) providing rights of reasonable ingress and egress
necessary for the activities described in subclause (I);
(iii) are 20 feet in width; and
(iv) are located 10 feet on either side of each line
depicted on the map entitled ``YRLP Acquired Easements for
Water Lines'', dated April 2002.
(3) Permits.--Permits or other legal occupancies of the
Federal land by third parties in existence on the date of
transfer of the Federal land to Yavapai Ranch shall be
addressed in accordance with--
(A) part 254.15 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations
(or any successor regulation); and
(B) other applicable laws (including regulations).
(4) Condition on conveyance of camp verde parcel.--
(A) In general.--To conserve water in the Verde Valley,
Arizona, and to minimize the adverse impacts from future
development of the parcels described in paragraph (2)(D) on
current and future users of water and holders of water rights
in existence on the date of enactment of this Act and the
Verde River and National Forest System land retained by the
United States, the United States shall limit in perpetuity
the use of water on each parcel by reserving conservation
easements that--
(i) run with the land;
(ii) prohibit golf course development on the parcel;
(iii) require that public parks and greenbelts on the
parcel be watered with treated effluent;
(iv) limit total post-exchange water use to not more than
700 acre-feet of water per year; and
(v) except for water supplied to the parcel by municipal
water service providers or private water companies, require
that any water used for the parcel not be withdrawn from
wells perforated in the saturated Holocene alluvium of the
Verde River.
(B) Recordation.--The conservation easements described in
subparagraph (A) shall be recorded in the title to each
parcel described in paragraph (2)(D) that is conveyed by the
Secretary to Yavapai Ranch.
(C) Subsequent conveyance.--
(i) In general.--On acquisition of title to the parcel
described in paragraph (2)(D), Yavapai Ranch may convey all
or a portion of the interest of Yavapai Ranch in the parcel
to 1 or more successors-in-interest.
(ii) Water use apportionment.--A conveyance under clause
(i) shall, in accordance with the terms described in
subparagraph (A), include a recorded and binding agreement on
the quantity of water available for use on the parcel or
portion of the parcel conveyed, as determined by Yavapai
Ranch.
(D) Enforcement.--The Secretary shall offer to enter into a
memorandum of understanding with a political subdivision of
the State, as designated by the Director of Arizona
Department of Water Resources, that authorizes the political
subdivision to enforce the terms described in subparagraph
(A) in any manner provided by law.
(E) Liability.--
(i) In general.--Any action for a breach of a term of a
conservation easement described in subparagraph (A) shall be
against the owner of the parcel or portion of the parcel, at
the time of the breach, whose action or failure to act has
resulted in the breach.
(ii) Hold harmless.--To the extent that the United States
or a successor-in-interest to the United States no longer
holds title to a parcel or any portion of a parcel described
in paragraph (2)(D), the United States and any successor-in-
interest shall be held harmless from damages or injuries
attributable to any breach of a term of a conservation
easement described in subparagraph (A) by a subsequent
successor-in-interest if the United States or the successor-
in-interest did not contribute to the breach.
(5) Applicable Law.--In accordance with section 120(h) of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)), the United States
shall reserve an easement in any land transferred to Yavapai
Ranch.
(b) Conveyance of Non-Federal Land by Yavapai Ranch.--
(1) In general.--On receipt of title to the Federal land,
Yavapai Ranch shall simultaneously convey to the United
States, by deed acceptable to the Secretary and subject to
any encumbrances in existence on April 1, 2002, all right,
title, and interest of Yavapai Ranch in and to the non-
Federal land.
(2) Description of non-federal land.--The non-Federal land
referred to in paragraph (1) consists of approximately 35,000
acres of non-Federal land located within the boundaries of
Prescott National Forest, as generally depicted on the map
entitled ``Yavapai Ranch Non-Federal Lands'', dated April
2002.
(3) Easements.--
(A) In general.--The conveyance of non-Federal land to the
United States under paragraph (1) shall be subject to the
reservation of--
(i) perpetual and unrestricted easements that run with and
benefit the land retained by Yavapai Ranch for--
(I) the operation, maintenance, repair, improvement,
development, and replacement of not more than 3 wells in
existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
(II) related storage tanks, valves, pumps, and hardware;
and
(III) pipelines to points of use; and
(ii) easements for reasonable ingress and egress to
accomplish the purposes of the easements described in clause
(i).
(B) Existing wells.--
(i) In general.--Each easement for an existing well shall
be--
(I) 40 acres in area; and
(II) to the maximum extent practicable--
(aa) centered on the existing well; and
(bb) located in the same square mile section of land.
(ii) Limitation.--Within each 40-acre easement described in
clause (i), the United States and any permitees or licensees
of the United States--
(I) may take any actions that are necessary to use the
water from the well; but
(II) may not undertake, without the written consent of
Yavapai Ranch, any activity that materially interferes with
the use of the wells by Yavapai Ranch.
(iii) Reservation of water for the united states.--The
United States shall be entitled to \1/2\ the production of
each existing well, not to exceed a total of 3,100,000
gallons of water annually, for watering wildlife and stock
and for other National Forest System purposes from the 3
wells.
(C) Reasonable access.--Each easement for ingress and
egress shall be at least 20 feet in width.
(D) Location.--The locations of the easements and wells
shall be the locations generally depicted on a map entitled
``YRLP Reserved Easements for Water Lines and Wells'', dated
April 2002.
(c) Land Transfer Problems.--
(1) Federal land.--If any parcel of Federal land (or a
portion of a Federal parcel) cannot be conveyed to Yavapai
Ranch because of the presence of hazardous materials or if
the proposed title to a parcel of Federal land (or a portion
of a Federal parcel) is unacceptable to Yavapai Ranch because
of the presence of threatened or endangered species, cultural
or historic resources, unpatented mining claims, or other
third party rights under public land laws--
(A) the parcel of Federal land or portion of the parcel
shall be excluded from the exchange; and
(B) the non-Federal land shall be adjusted in accordance
with section 104(c).
(2) Non-federal land.--If any parcel of non-Federal land
(or a portion of a non-Federal parcel) cannot be conveyed to
the United States because of the presence of hazardous
materials or if the proposed title to a parcel or a portion
of the parcel is unacceptable to the Secretary--
(A) the parcel of non-Federal land or portion of the parcel
shall be excluded from the exchange; and
(B) the Federal land shall be adjusted in accordance with
section 104(c).
[[Page 17180]]
(d) Conveyance of Federal Land to Cities and Camps.--
(1) Subsequent conveyance.--If, after completion of the
appraisals of Federal land and non-Federal land under section
104(b), but before the completion of the exchange, Yavapai
Ranch, the cities of Flagstaff, Williams, and Camp Verde,
Arizona, and the owners of the camps enter into an agreement
for Yavapai Ranch to convey to the cities and the owners of
the camps the parcels of Federal land or portions of parcels
located in or near the cities or camps, Yavapai Ranch shall,
on acquisition of the Federal land, convey to the cities and
the owners of the camps the parcels or portions identified in
the agreement in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
(2) Direct conveyance.--
(A) In general.--If Yavapai Ranch, the cities referred to
in paragraph (1), and the owners of the camps have not
entered into an agreement in accordance with paragraph (1),
the Secretary--
(i) shall, on notification by Yavapai Ranch, the cities, or
camps, delete the parcel or any portion of the parcel from
the exchange to provide the United States with manageable
post-exchange land and boundaries; and
(ii) may, without further administrative or environmental
analyses or appraisal and in accordance with any terms and
conditions that the Secretary may require, convey to the
cities or camps all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the parcel or portion of the parcel for
consideration in an amount determined under subparagraph (B).
(B) Consideration.--In exchange for a parcel or portion of
a parcel acquired under subparagraph (A), the cities or camps
shall pay to the Secretary the fair market value of the
parcel, as determined by an independent appraisal.
(C) Disposition of proceeds.--The Secretary shall deposit
the proceeds of a sale under subparagraph (A) in a special
account in the fund established under Public Law 90-171
(commonly known as the ``Sisk Act'') (16 U.S.C. 484a).
(D) Use.--Amounts deposited under subparagraph (A) shall be
available to the Secretary, without further appropriation,
until expended, for the acquisition of land in the State of
Arizona for National Forest System purposes, including the
land authorized for exchange under this title.
SEC. 104. EXCHANGE VALUATION, APPRAISALS, AND EQUALIZATION.
(a) Equal Value Exchange.--The value of the non-Federal and
Federal land to be exchanged under this title--
(1) shall be equal, as determined by the Secretary, based
on the appraisals conducted under subsection (b); or
(2) shall be equalized in accordance with subsection (c).
(b) Appraisals.--
(1) In general.--The value of the Federal land and non-
Federal land shall be determined by appraisals using the
appraisal standards in--
(A) the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions, fifth edition (December 20, 2000); and
(B) the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice.
(2) Approval.--In accordance with part 254.9(a)(1) of title
36, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor
regulation), the appraiser shall be--
(A) acceptable to the Secretary and Yavapai Ranch; and
(B) a contractor, the clients of which shall be the
Secretary and Yavapai Ranch.
(3) Requirements.--During the appraisal process the
appraiser shall--
(A) consider the effect on value of the Federal land or
non-Federal land because of the existence of encumbrances on
each parcel, including--
(i) permitted uses on Federal land that cannot be
reasonably terminated before the appraisal; and
(ii) facilities on Federal land that cannot be reasonably
removed before the appraisal; and
(B) determine the value of each parcel of Federal land and
non-Federal land (including the value of each individual
section of the intermingled Federal and non-Federal land of
the Yavapai Ranch) as an assembled transaction consistent
with the applicable provisions of parts 254.5 and
254.9(b)(1)(v) of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (or
any successor regulation).
(4) Dispute resolution.--A dispute relating to the
appraised values of the Federal land or non-Federal land
following completion of the appraisal shall be processed in
accordance with--
(A) section 206(d) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716(d)); and
(B) part 254.10 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations
(or any successor regulation).
(5) Availability.--In accordance with the policy of the
Forest Service, and to ensure the timely and full disclosure
of the appraisals to the public, the appraisals approved by
the Secretary--
(A) shall be provided by the Secretary to--
(i) the cities of Flagstaff, Williams, and Camp Verde,
Arizona; and
(ii) the owners of the camps; and
(B) shall be available for public inspection in--
(i) the Offices of the Supervisors for Prescott, Coconino,
and Kaibab National Forests; and
(ii) public libraries in the cities referred to in
subparagraph (A)(i).
(c) Equalization of Values.--
(1) In general.--To achieve an equal value exchange of
Federal land and non-Federal land, the Secretary and Yavapai
Ranch shall adjust the acreage of the Federal land and non-
Federal land in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) until,
to the maximum extent practicable, the value is equal.
(2) Surplus of federal land.--
(A) In general.--If, after any adjustments are made to the
non-Federal land or Federal land under subsection (c) or (d)
of section 103, the final appraised value of the Federal land
exceeds the final appraised value of the non-Federal land,
the Federal land and non-Federal land shall be adjusted in
accordance with subparagraph (B) until, to the maximum extent
practicable, the value is equal.
(B) Adjustments.--Adjustments under subparagraph (A) shall
be made in accordance with the following order:
(i) By deleting--
(I) 2 portions of the Camp Verde parcel, comprising a total
of approximately 630 acres, consisting of--
(aa) a portion of the Camp Verde parcel, comprising
approximately 316 acres, located in Prescott National Forest,
and more particularly described as lots 1, 5, and 6 of
section 26, the NENE \1/4\ portion of section 26, and the
N\1/2\N\1/2\ portion of section 27, T. 14 N., R. 4 E., Gila
and Salt River Base and Meridian, Yavapai County, Arizona;
and
(bb) a portion of the Camp Verde parcel, comprising
approximately 314 acres, located in Prescott National Forest,
and more particularly described as lots 2, 7, 8, and 9 of
section 26, the SE\1/4\NE\1/4\ portion of section 26, and the
S\1/2\N\1/2\ of section 27, T. 14 N., R. 4 E., Gila and Salt
River Base and Meridian, Yavapai County, Arizona; and
(II) lots 5 through 7 of section 36, T. 14 N., R. 4 E.,
Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Yavapai County,
Arizona.
(ii) Beginning at the south boundary of section 31, T. 20
N., R. 5 W., Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Yavapai
County, Arizona, and sections 33 and 35, T. 20 N., R. 6 W.,
Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Yavapai County, by
adding to the non-Federal land to be conveyed to the United
States in \1/8\ section increments (E-W 64th line) while
deleting from the conveyance to Yavapai Ranch Federal land in
the same incremental portions of section 32, T. 20 N., R. 5
W., Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Yavapai County,
Arizona, and sections 32, 34, and 36, in T. 20 N., R. 6 W.,
Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Yavapai County,
Arizona, to establish a linear and continuous boundary that
runs east to west across the sections.
(iii) By deleting the Williams Sewer parcel, comprising
approximately 20 acres, located in Kaibab National Forest,
and more particularly described as the E\1/2\NW\1/4\SE\1/4\
portion of section 21, T. 22 N., R. 2 E., Gila and Salt River
Base and Meridian, Coconino County, Arizona.
(iv) By deleting the Williams railroad parcel, located in
the Kaibab National Forest, and more particularly described
as--
(I) the W\1/2\SW\1/4\ portion of section 26, T. 22 N., R. 2
E., Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Coconino County,
Arizona, excluding any portion northeast of the southwestern
right-of-way line of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe
Railway (Seligman Subdivision), comprising approximately 30
acres;
(II) the NE\1/4\NW\1/4\, the N\1/2\SE\1/4\NW\1/4\, the
SE\1/4\SE\1/4\NW\1/4\, the NE\1/4\, the SE\1/4\SW\1/4\, and
the SE\1/4\ portions of section 27, T. 22 N., R. 2 E., Gila
and Salt River Base and Meridian, Coconino County, Arizona,
excluding any portion north of the southern right-of-way of
Interstate 40 and any portion northeast of the southwestern
right-of-way line of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe
Railway (Seligman Subdivision), any portion south of the
northern right-of-way of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe
Railway (Phoenix Subdivision), and any portion within
Exchange Survey No. 677, comprising approximately 220 acres;
(III) the NE\1/4\NE\1/4\ portion of section 34, T. 22 N.,
R. 2 E., Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Coconino
County, Arizona, excluding any portion southwest of the
northeastern right-of-way line of the Burlington Northern and
Santa Fe Railway (Phoenix Subdivision), comprising
approximately 2 acres; and
(IV) the N\1/2\ portion of section 35, T. 22 N., R. 2 E.,
Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Coconino County,
Arizona, excluding any portion north of the southern right-
of-way line of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway
(Seligman Subdivision) and any portion south of the northern
right-of-way of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway
(Phoenix Subdivision), comprising approximately 60 acres.
(v) By deleting the Buckskinner Park parcel, comprising
approximately 50 acres, located in Kaibab National Forest,
and more particularly described as the SW\1/4\SW\1/4\, and
the S\1/2\S\1/2\NW\1/4\SW\1/4\ portions of section 33, T. 22
N., R. 2 E., Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Coconino
County, Arizona.
(vi) By deleting the Wetzel school parcel, comprising
approximately 10.89 acres, located in Coconino National
Forest, and more
[[Page 17181]]
particularly described as lot 9 of section 11, T. 21 N., R. 7
E., Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Coconino County,
Arizona.
(vii) By deleting the Mt. Eldon parcel, comprising
approximately 17.21 acres, located in Coconino National
Forest, and more particularly described as lot 7 of section
7, T. 21 N., R. 8 E., Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian,
Coconino County, Arizona.
(C) Modifications.--The descriptions of land and acreage
provided in clauses (ii), (iii), and (vii) of subparagraph
(B) may be modified to conform with a survey approved by the
Bureau of Land Management.
(3) Surplus of non-federal land.--
(A) In general.--If, after any adjustments are made to the
non-Federal land or Federal land under subsection (c) or (d)
of section 103, the final appraised value of the non-Federal
land exceeds the final appraised value of the Federal land,
the Federal land and non-Federal land shall be adjusted in
accordance with subparagraph (B) until the value is equal.
(B) Adjustments.--An adjustment referred to in subparagraph
(A) shall be accomplished by beginning at the east boundary
of section 30, T. 20 N., R. 6 W., Gila and Salt River Base
and Meridian, Yavapai County, Arizona, and adding to the
Federal land in \1/8\ section increments (N-S 64th line) and
lot lines across the section, while deleting in the same
increments portions of sections 19 and 31, T. 20 N., R. 6 W.,
Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Yavapai County,
Arizona, to establish a linear and continuous boundary that
runs north to south across the sections.
(d) Cash Equalization.--
(1) In general.--After the values of the non-Federal and
Federal land are equalized to the maximum extent practicable
under subsection (c), any balance due the Secretary or
Yavapai Ranch shall be paid--
(A) through cash equalization payments under section 206(b)
of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1716(b)); or
(B) in accordance with standards established by the
Secretary and Yavapai Ranch.
(2) Limitation.--
(A) Adjustments.--If the value of the Federal land exceeds
the value of the non-Federal land by more than $50,000, the
Secretary and Yavapai Ranch shall, by agreement, delete
additional Federal land from the exchange until the value of
the Federal land and non-Federal land is equal to the maximum
extent practicable.
(B) Deposit.--Any amounts received by the United States
under this title--
(i) shall be deposited in a fund established under Public
Law 90-171 (16 U.S.C. 484a) (commonly known as the ``Sisk
Act''); and
(ii) shall be available, without further appropriation, for
the acquisition of land or interests in land for National
Forest System purposes in the State of Arizona.
SEC. 105. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
(a) Revocation of Orders.--Any public orders withdrawing
any of the Federal land from appropriation or disposal under
the public land laws are revoked to the extent necessary to
permit disposal of the Federal land.
(b) Withdrawal of Federal Land.--The Federal land is
withdrawn from all forms of entry and appropriation under the
public land laws, including the mining and mineral leasing
laws and the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et
seq.), until the date on which the exchange of Federal land
and non-Federal land is completed.
(c) Surveys, Inventories, and Clearances.--Before
completing the exchange of Federal land and non-Federal land
under this title, the Secretary shall carry out land surveys
and preexchange inventories, clearances, reviews, and
approvals relating to hazardous materials, threatened and
endangered species, cultural and historic resources, and
wetlands and floodplains.
(d) Costs of Implementing the Exchange.--
(1) In general.--In accordance with part 254.7(a) of title
36, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor
regulation), and forest service policy, the costs of
implementing the exchange of Federal land and non-Federal
land shall be shared equally by the Secretary and Yavapai
Ranch.
(2) Credits.--Any costs incurred by Yavapai Ranch for
cultural or historic resource surveys before the date of
enactment of this Act or for independent third party
contractors under subsection (f) shall be credited against
the amount required to be paid by Yavapai Ranch under
paragraph (1).
(3) Ineligible reimbursements.--No amount paid by Yavapai
Ranch under this subsection shall be eligible for
reimbursement under section 206(f) of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716(f)).
(e) Timing.--It is the intent of Congress that the exchange
of Federal land and non-Federal land directed by this title
be completed not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(f) Contractors.--If the Secretary lacks adequate staff or
resources to complete the exchange by the date specified in
subsection (e), the Secretary or Yavapai Ranch shall contract
with independent third party contractors, subject to the
mutual agreement of the Secretary and Yavapai Ranch, to carry
out any activities necessary to complete the exchange by that
date.
SEC. 106. STATUS AND MANAGEMENT OF LAND AFTER EXCHANGE.
(a) In General.--Non-Federal land acquired by the United
States under this title--
(1) shall become part of the Prescott National Forest; and
(2) shall be administered by the Secretary in accordance
with--
(A) this title;
(B) the laws (including regulations) applicable to the
National Forest System; and
(C) other authorized uses of the National Forest System.
(b) Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Acquisition of the non-Federal land under
this title shall not require a revision or amendment to the
Management Plan.
(2) Amendment or revision.--If the Management Plan is
amended or revised after the date of acquisition of non-
Federal land under this title, the Management Plan shall be
amended to reflect the acquisition of the non-Federal land.
(c) Post-Exchange Management of Certain Land.--
(1) In general.--On acquisition by the United States, the
non-Federal land acquired by the United States and any
adjoining National Forest System land shall be managed in
accordance with--
(A) paragraphs (2) through (5); and
(B) the laws (including regulations) generally applicable
to National Forest System land.
(2) Grazing.--Each area located in the Yavapai Ranch
grazing allotment as of the date of enactment of this Act,
may as determined to be appropriate by the Secretary--
(A) remain in the Yavapai Ranch grazing allotment; and
(B) continue to be subject to grazing in accordance with
the laws (including regulations) generally applicable to
domestic livestock grazing on National Forest System land.
(3) Easements.--
(A) In general.--On completion of the land exchange under
this title, the Secretary and Yavapai Ranch shall grant each
other at no charge reciprocal easements for ingress, egress,
and utilities across, over, and through--
(i)(I) the routes depicted on the map entitled ``Road and
Trail Easements--Yavapai Ranch Area'' dated April 2002; and
(II) any other inholdings retained by the United States or
Yavapai Ranch; or
(ii) any relocated routes that are agreed to by the
Secretary and Yavapai Ranch.
(B) Requirements.--An easement described in subparagraph
(A)--
(i) shall be unlimited, perpetual, and nonexclusive in
nature; and
(ii) shall run with and benefit the land of the grantee.
(C) Rights of grantee.--The rights of the grantee shall
extend to--
(i) any successors-in-interest, assigns, and transferees of
Yavapai Ranch; and
(ii) in the case of the Secretary, members of the general
public, as determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.
(4) Timber harvesting.--
(A) In general.--After the completion of the exchange of
land under this title, except as provided in subparagraph
(B), timber harvesting for commodity production shall be
prohibited on the Federal land acquired.
(B) Exceptions.--Timber harvesting may be conducted on the
Federal land acquired under this title if the Secretary
determines that timber harvesting is necessary--
(i) to prevent or control fires, insects, and disease
through forest thinning or other forest management
techniques;
(ii) to protect or enhance grassland habitat, watershed
values, native plants, trees, and wildlife species; or
(iii) to improve forest health.
(5) Water improvements.--Nothing in this title prohibits
the Secretary from authorizing or constructing new water
improvements in accordance with the laws (including
regulations) applicable to water improvements on National
Forest System land for--
(A) the benefit of domestic livestock or wildlife
management; or
(B) the improvement of forest health or forest restoration.
(d) Maps.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary and Yavapai Ranch may
correct any minor errors in the maps of, legal descriptions
of, or encumbrances on the Federal land or non-Federal land.
(2) Discrepancy.--In the event of any discrepancy between a
map and legal description, the map shall prevail unless the
Secretary and Yavapai Ranch agree otherwise.
(3) Availability.--All maps referred to in this title shall
be on file and available for inspection in the Office of the
Supervisor, Prescott National Forest, Prescott, Arizona.
(e) Effect.--Nothing in this title precludes, prohibits, or
otherwise restricts Yavapai Ranch from subsequently granting,
conveying, or otherwise transferring title to the Federal
land after its acquisition of the Federal land.
SEC. 107. CONVEYANCE OF ADDITIONAL LAND.
(a) In General--The Secretary shall convey to an individual
or entity that represents the majority of landowners with
encroachments on the lot by quitclaim deed the parcel of land
described in subsection (b).
[[Page 17182]]
(b) Description of Land.--The parcel of land referred to in
subsection (a) is lot 8 in section 11, T. 21 N., R. 7 E.,
Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Coconino County,
Arizona.
(c) Amount of Consideration.--In exchange for the land
described in subsection (b), the individual or entity
acquiring the land shall pay to the Secretary consideration
in the amount of--
(1) $2500; plus
(2) any costs of re-monumenting the boundary of land.
(d) Timing.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date on
which the Secretary receives a power of attorney executed by
the individual or entity acquiring the land, the Secretary
shall convey to the individual or entity the land described
in subsection (b).
(2) Limitation.--If, by the date that is 270 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary does not receive
the power of attorney described in paragraph (1)--
(A) the authority provided under this section shall
terminate; and
(B) any conveyance of the land shall be made under Public
Law 97-465 (16 U.S.C. 521c et seq.).
TITLE II--VERDE RIVER BASIN PARTNERSHIP
SEC. 201. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the majority of the parcels of Federal land and non-
Federal land described in title I are located in the upper
and middle portions of the Verde River Basin, Arizona;
(2) the Verde River is a vital resource that--
(A) provides water for community and other uses within the
Verde River Basin and Phoenix, Arizona;
(B) recharges area groundwater aquifers; and
(C) sustains highly valued riparian habitat;
(3) approximately 40.5 miles of the Lower Verde River have
been designated as a national wild and scenic river with
reserved water rights to maintain flows in the River
necessary for recreational and environmental purposes;
(4) water withdrawals affect available water supplies and
baseflow throughout the Verde River Basin because of the
hydrologic connection between surface water and groundwater
resources within the entire Basin;
(5) the significant population growth over the past decade
in Yavapai County in the Verde River Basin has been
accompanied by an increase in water use in the County;
(6) the proposed development of the parcels of Federal land
to be acquired under title I would further increase demands
on limited water supplies;
(7) the Department of the Interior report entitled ``Water
2025: Preventing Crises and Conflict in the West'' identified
portions of the Verde River Basin as areas in which existing
water supplies are not adequate to meet increasing water
demands;
(8) significant declines in groundwater levels in portions
of the Verde Valley have caused water supply problems,
including water quality degradation;
(9) it is essential to the interests of the Federal
Government, the State of Arizona, and local communities in
the State to determine the long-term availability of water
supplies in the Verde Valley before the transfer and private
development of Federal land in the area; and
(10) the Upper San Pedro Partnership in the Sierra Vista
subwatershed in the State serves as a model of collaborative,
science- based water resource planning and management.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to authorize
assistance for a collaborative and science-based water
resource planning and management partnership for the Verde
River Basin in the State of Arizona, consisting of members
that represent--
(1) Federal, State, and local agencies; and
(2) economic, environmental, and community water interests
in the Verde River Basin.
SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Arizona Department of Water Resources.
(2) Partnership.--The term ``Partnership'' means the Verde
River Basin Partnership.
(3) Plan.--The term ``plan'' means the plan for the Verde
River Basin required by section 204(a)(1).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Arizona.
(6) Verde river basin.--The term ``Verde River Basin''
means the land area designated by the Arizona Department of
Water Resources as encompassing surface water and groundwater
resources, including drainage and recharge areas with a
hydrologic connection to the Verde River.
(7) Water budget.--The term ``water budget'' means the
accounting of--
(A) the quantities of water leaving the Verde River Basin--
(i) as discharge to the Verde River and tributaries;
(ii) as subsurface outflow;
(iii) as evapotranspiration by riparian vegetation;
(iv) as surface evaporation; and
(v) for human consumption; and
(B) the quantities of water replenishing the Verde River
Basin by precipitation, infiltration, and subsurface inflows.
SEC. 203. VERDE RIVER BASIN PARTNERSHIP.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may assist the Director and
the Yavapai Water Advisory Council by participating in the
establishment of a Verde River Basin Partnership to provide
science-based and collaborative water resource planning and
management activities relating to the Verde River Basin.
(b) Membership.--It is the intent of Congress that the
Partnership be composed of Federal, State, and local members
with responsibilities, expertise, and interests pertaining to
water resource planning and management.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--On establishment of
the Partnership, there are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior such sums as
are necessary to carry out the activities of the Partnership
for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
SEC. 204. VERDE RIVER BASIN STUDIES.
(a) Studies.--
(1) In general.--The Partnership shall prepare a plan for
the conduct of water resource studies in the Verde River
Basin that identifies--
(A) the primary study objectives to fulfill water resource
planning and management needs for the Verde River Basin; and
(B) the water resource studies, hydrologic models, surface
and groundwater monitoring networks, and other analytical
tools helpful in the identification of long-term water supply
management options within the Verde River Basin.
(2) Requirements.--At a minimum, the plan shall--
(A) include a list of specific studies and analyses that
are needed to support Partnership planning and management
decisions;
(B) identify any ongoing or completed water resource or
riparian studies that are relevant to water resource planning
and management for the Verde River Basin;
(C) describe the estimated cost and duration of the
proposed studies and analyses; and
(D) designate as a study priority the compilation of a
water budget analysis for the Verde Valley, including the
Camp Verde parcel described in section 103(a)(2)(D).
(b) Verde Valley Water Budget Analysis.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 14 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the U.S. Geological
Survey, in cooperation with the Director, shall prepare and
submit to the Partnership a report that provides a water
budget analysis of the portion of the Verde River Basin
within the Verde Valley.
(2) Components.--The report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include--
(A) a summary of the information available on the
hydrologic flow regime for the portion of the Middle Verde
River from the Clarkdale streamgauging station to the city of
Camp Verde at United States Geological Survey Stream Gauge
09506000;
(B) with respect to the portion of the Middle Verde River
described in subparagraph (A), estimates of--
(i) the inflow and outflow of surface water and
groundwater;
(ii) annual consumptive water use; and
(iii) changes in groundwater storage; and
(C) an analysis of the potential long-term consequences of
various water use scenarios on groundwater levels and Verde
River flows.
(c) Preliminary Report and Recommendations.--.
(1) In general.--Not later than 16 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, using the information provided in the
report submitted under subsection (b) and any other relevant
information, the Partnership shall submit to the Secretary,
the Governor of Arizona, and representatives of the Verde
Valley communities, a preliminary report that sets forth the
findings and recommendations of the Partnership regarding the
long-term available water supply within the Verde Valley
(including the Camp Verde parcel described in section
103(a)(2)(D)), taking into account the long-term consequences
analyzed under subsection (b)(2)(C).
(2) Inclusions.--To the maximum extent practicable, the
recommendations submitted under paragraph (1) shall include,
with respect to the Camp Verde parcel described in section
103(a)(2)(D)--
(A) proposed development scenarios on the parcel that are
compatible with long-term available water supply estimates;
and
(B) designation of any portions of the parcel that should
be retained as open space or otherwise managed for aquifer
recharge or baseflow maintenance.
SEC. 205. VERDE RIVER BASIN PARTNERSHIP FINAL REPORT.
Not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Partnership shall submit to the Secretary and the
Governor of Arizona a final report that--
(1) includes a summary of the results of any water resource
assessments conducted under this title in the Verde River
Basin;
[[Page 17183]]
(2) identifies any areas in the Verde River Basin that are
determined to have groundwater deficits or other current or
potential water supply problems;
(3) identifies long-term water supply management options
for communities and water resources within the Verde River
Basin; and
(4) identifies water resource analyses and monitoring
needed to support the implementation of management options.
SEC. 206. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.
The Secretary (acting through the Chief of the Forest
Service) and the Secretary of the Interior, shall enter into
a memorandum of understanding authorizing the United States
Geological Survey to access Forest Service land (including
stream gauges, weather stations, wells, or other points of
data collection on the Forest Service land) to carry out this
title.
SEC. 207. EFFECT.
Nothing in this title diminishes or expands State or local
jurisdiction, responsibilities, or rights with respect to
water resource management or control.
____________________
NOTICES OF HEARINGS/MEETINGS
committee on energy and natural resources
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has
been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The hearing will be held on Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 10 a.m.
in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the current
status of the Hard Rock Mining Industry in America. The hearing would
provide a status and trend analysis, a review of domestic mineral
reserves, a summary on exploration investments and current production
as well as permitting and reclamation issues.
Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written
testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their
testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United
States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.
For further information, please contact Dick Bouts at 202-224-7545 or
Amy Millet at 202-224-8276.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on armed services
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on July 22, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive
testimony on the Department of the Army Inspector General Report on
Detention Operation Doctrine and Training.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 22, 2004, at 10
a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on ``Regulation N.M.S. and
Developments in Market Structure.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on finance
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on
Thursday, July 22, 2004, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on The Role of
Higher Education Financing in Strengthening U.S. Competitiveness in a
Global Economy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on foreign relations
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session
of the Senate on Thursday, July 22, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a
hearing on Iraq Post-Transition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on governmental affiars
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday,
July 22, 2004, at 3:30 p.m., to consider the nomination of Allen
Weinstein to be Archivist of the United States, National Archives and
Records Administration.
committee on health, education, labor, and pensions
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to
meet for a hearing entitled ``Terror Attacks: Are We Prepared?'' during
the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 22, 2004, at 10 a.m. in SD-
430.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on the judiciary
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to continue its markup
on Thursday, July 22, 2004, at 10:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office
Building room 226.
Agenda
I. Nominations: Claude A. Allen, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Fourth Circuit; David E. Nahmias, of Georgia, to be United States
Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia; Ricardo H. Hinojosa, to
be Chair of the United States Sentencing Commission; Michael O'Neill,
to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission; Ruben
Castillo, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission;
and William Sanchez, to be Special Counsel for Immigration-Related
Unfair Employment Practice.
II. Legislation: S. 1635, L-1 Visa (Intracompany Transferee) Reform
Act of 2003, Chambliss; S. 1700, Advancing Justice through DNA
Technology Act of 2003, Hatch, Biden, Specter, Leahy, DeWine,
Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, Kohl, Edwards; S. 2396, Federal
Courts Improvement Act of 2004, Hatch, Leahy, Chambliss, Durbin,
Schumer; and H.R. 1417, to amend title 17, United States Code, to
replace copyright arbitration royalty panels with Copyright Royalty
Judges Act of 2003, Smith-TX, Berman-CA, Conyers-MI.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on the judiciary
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing
on Thursday, July 22, 2004, at 2 p.m. on ``Protecting Innovation and
Art while Preventing Piracy'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building
room 226.
Witness List
Panel I: The Honorable Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights,
United States Copyright Office.
Panel II: Mr. Gary Shapiro, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Consumer Electronics Association; Mr. Robert Holleyman, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Business Software Alliance; Mr. Andrew
Greenberg, Vice-Chairman, Intellectual Property Committee, IEEE-USA;
Mr. Kevin McGuiness, Executive Director and General Counsel,
NetCoalition; and Mr. Mitch Bainwol, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Recording Industry Association of America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
joint economic committee
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint
Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing in room 628 of
the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Thursday, July 22, 2004, from 10
a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
permanent subcommittee on investigations
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on
Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 22, 2004,
at 9 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``Buyer Beware: The Danger of
Purchasing Pharmaceuticals Over the Internet.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
select committee on intelligence
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
[[Page 17184]]
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on July 22, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on
intelligence matters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on national parks
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on
Thursday, July 22, at 2:30 p.m.
The purpose of the hearing is to conduct oversight on the
implementation of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000,
Public Law 106-181.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on science, technology, and space
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space be authorized to meet on
Thursday, July 22, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. on the subject of Saturn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of
the floor be granted to Ellen Forster during consideration of this
legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
HIGHWAY ACT EXTENSION
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
consideration of H.R. 4916, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4916) providing extension of highway, highway
safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway
Trust Fund.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
____________________
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I respectfully request if the chairman of
the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Inhofe, would
engage in a colloquy with me on the impact of the several Surface
Transportation extension bills on the so-called ``donor'' States. As
the chairman is well aware, TEA-21 contains a fundamental principle of
fairness for donor States which guarantees that no State will receive
less than a 90.5 percent rate of return of their gas tax contributions
to the Highway trust fund. In the preceding extension bills for fiscal
year 2004, this matter was not addressed because it was expected that a
full surface transportation reauthorization bill would be enacted this
year. I know my chairman has worked tirelessly to pass a new
transportation bill, but regrettably we have not completed our work.
As we face the end of the fiscal year, the multiple highway extension
bills have not followed the TEA-21 Minimum Guarantee program and the
result is that, to date, many States will not receive the 90.5 percent
guarantee in fiscal year 2004. I am particularly concerned because
again this temporary extension bill does not follow the TEA-21 formula.
I appreciate the chairman's diligence on this matter and I am aware
that some funding remains in fiscal year 2004 which may be used to
correct this problem. I would like to ask the chairman if my
understanding of this situation is correct, and would be grateful for
the chairman's view of this matter.
Mr. INHOFE. The Senator from Virginia is correct that the several
transportation extension bills enacted this year require that the next
legislation we enact must address the ``donor'' State issue for fiscal
year 2004. I remain committed to guaranteeing that all States receive a
minimum of 90.5 percent rate of return for their trust fund
contributions in fiscal year 2004. As some funding remains in the
fiscal year, I am committed to maintaining the Minimum Guarantee
program for this year so that no State receives less than a 90.5
percent return on their trust fund contributions.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and
passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any
statements be printed in the Record.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will speak very briefly. People watching
sometimes wonder what is going on in the quorum call. This is hours'
worth of quorum call right here. It took only 20 seconds to read it. It
is one reason we have the quorum calls.
No objection.
Mr. FRIST. Many hours, many hours.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 4916) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. FRIST. As in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at 5
p.m. on Tuesday, September 7, the Senate proceed to executive session
for the consideration en bloc of Calendar Nos. 791 and 792; provided
further that the time until 5:30 be equally divided between the
chairman and the ranking member or their designees.
I further ask consent at 5:30 the Senate proceed to a vote on the
confirmation of No. 791, the nomination of Virginia Maria Hernandez
Covington, to be followed immediately by a vote on the confirmation of
No. 792, the nomination of Michael Schneider, Sr.
I further ask immediately following the vote, the President
immediately be notified of the Senate's action and proceed to Calendar
No. 787, the nomination of Michael Watson.
Mr. REID. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in consultation with the Democratic leader,
what we did with that unanimous consent would allow two judges to be
voted on at 5:30, with the expectation that the third, which is Mr.
Michael Watson, be confirmed by voice vote after that.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following
nominations on today's Executive Calendar: 695, 796, 803, 804, 810,
811, and 812, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk. I further
ask consent that the nomination of John Miller, PN 1763, be discharged
from the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Senate proceed to its
consideration. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be
confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the
Senate then return to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:
Nominations
the judiciary
John O. Colvin, of Virginia, to be a Judge of the United
States Tax Court for a term of fifteen years. (Reappointment)
department of the treasury
Charles L. Kolbe, of Iowa, to be a Member of the Internal
Revenue Service Oversight Board for the remainder of the term
expiring September 14, 2004.
central intelligence
Larry C. Kindsvater, of Virginia, to be Deputy Director of
Central Intelligence for Community Management.
department of homeland security
David M. Stone, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary
of Homeland Security.
in the coast guard
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Coast Guard to the grade indicated under title 14,
U.S.C., section 271:
To be rear admiral
Read Adm. (lh) Dale G. Gabel
Rear Adm. (lh) Jeffrey M. Garrett
Rear Adm. (lh) Stephen W. Rochon
[[Page 17185]]
national oceanic and atmospheric administration
Captain Samuel P. De Bow, Jr., NOAA for appointment to the
grade of Rear Admiral (O-8), while serving in a position of
importance and responsibility as Director, NOAA Corps and
Director, Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under the provisions
of Title 33, United States Code, Section 3028(d)(1).
Captain Richard R. Behn, NOAA for appointment to the grade
of Rear Admiral (O-7), while serving in a position of
importance and responsibility as Director, Marine and
Aviation Operations Centers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, under the provisions of Title 33, United
States Code, Section 3028(d)(1).
Nominations Placed on the Secretary's Desk
in the coast guard
PN1557 COAST GUARD nomination of Craig S. Toomey, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of April 29, 2004.
PN1791 COAST GUARD nomination of Laurie J. Mosier, which
was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of July 8, 2004.
national oceanic and atmospheric administration
PH1646 NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
nominations (163) beginning Michael S. Abbott, and ending
David J. Zezula, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 18,
2004.
department of state
John Ripin Miller, of Washington, to be Director of the
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking, with the rank of
Ambassador at Large.
____________________
UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. FRIST. As in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that
during the upcoming adjournment of the Senate, all nominations remain
status quo with the exception of Deborah P. Majoras to be a Federal
Trade Commissioner, (PN 1613) and Jon D. Leibowitz, (PN 1496).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. I thank everyone for their cooperation in getting these
agreements for the judges, as well as confirming some important timely
nominations, such as the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, Mr.
Stone. There are a number of other nominations that remain on the
calendar, including a number of diplomatic positions which include the
Ambassador to Qatar, the Ambassador to Estonia, several representatives
to the United Nations. I was prepared to ask consent for these,
although I will withhold that request, but I would ask my colleagues on
the other side to look at these nominations and see if there is a way
to allow us to proceed to these ambassadorships. I will not belabor the
point this evening, but there are so many additional nominations we
have that are pending and that we should have acted upon. I hope they
will give those every consideration.
Today, more have been reported out, several Commerce Department
nominations, Albert Frink, Brett Palmer, Benjamin Wu. These will be
added to the growing list of nominations now available. These people
deserve action from the Senate.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I briefly say it should be noted in the
Executive Calendar we just approved there is not a single member of the
minority in this. We have tried to show our good faith. We have
received the assurance of the majority leader and others in the
administration that we will work to release some of the people we want
through, people nominated by Senator Daschle. We are going to work to
try to do a good job as soon as we get back.
I want the record also to reflect that Admiral Stone was approved
tonight, with the Transportation Security Agency. That simply would not
have happened but for the good work of Senator Ensign who worked very
hard on that, working to get this man's name cleared. But for him, that
would not have been done tonight.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR--S. 2704 AND S. 2714
Mr. FRIST. I understand there are two bills at the desk which are due
for a second reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bills for a second
time.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2704) to amend title XIX and XXI of the Social
Security Act to provide States with the option to cover
certain legal immigrants under the Medicaid and State
children's health insurance programs.
A bill (S. 2714) to amend part D of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act, as added by the Medicare Prescription
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, to provide
for negotiation of fair prices for Medicare prescription
drugs.
Mr. FRIST. I object to further proceedings on the measures en bloc at
this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bills will be placed on the calendar.
____________________
DECLARING GENOCIDE IN DARFUR, SUDAN
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 133, which was
submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the concurrent
resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 133) declaring
genocide in Darfur, Sudan.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today the Senate is taking historic
action, stating clearly that the atrocities occurring in Darfur are
genocide, reminding the world of its obligations under the Genocide
Convention, and calling on the administration to lead an international
effort to stop the genocide. This resolution, which I introduced with
my colleague, Sam Brownback, has broad, bipartisan support, and its
unanimous approval by the U.S. Senate sends a powerful message--that
this body will not remain silent as genocide occurs.
The situation remains, as U.N. officials have called it, ``the
world's worst humanitarian catastrophe.'' At least 30,000 have been
killed. Mr. President, 1.2 million have been violently displaced from
their villages, of whom 200,000 have fled to Chad. The potential death
toll is horrifying. Andrew Natsios, Administrator of the U.S. Agency
for International Development, has predicted that 300,000 will die this
year, even in an ``optimistic'' scenario in which humanitarian
assistance is provided, and that up to one million are at risk.
This disaster is the result of the deliberate policies of the
Government of Sudan and the ``janjaweed'' militias under its control.
Earlier this week, Human Rights Watch reported how Sudanese government
documents themselves prove Khartoum's complicity. Those documents
describe, in plain terms, the government's military support for the
militias--its, quote ``loyalist tribes''--and its policy of tolerating
the abuse of civilians by the militias.
What has been the result? Janjaweed militias, along with Sudanese
forces, have engaged in systematic attacks against civilians in Darfur.
As recently confirmed by U.S. Government satellite photographs,
villages have been burnt to the ground. Livestock and food stock have
been destroyed, and water sources poisoned. Humanitarian assistance has
been denied. Militias have murdered civilians and abducted children.
Just this week, on Monday, Amnesty International issued a report
describing how rape has been used as a weapon of war in Darfur. Amnesty
described how women and girls as young as 8 have been raped and
abducted, often with the involvement or acquiescence of Sudanese
authorities. Janjaweed militia have raped women in public, in front of
their families, with the intent of adding humiliation to the violence.
Amnesty reports gang rapes, rapes of pregnant women, and torture and
killings in the context of sexual violence. Darfurian women, who are
often reluctant to talk about these experiences, nonetheless described
how they were abducted and held captive during the day, when militia
members were looting villages, so that they could be
[[Page 17186]]
raped at night. Amnesty reported how rapes have occurred during attacks
on villages, during the flight of civilians, and in the camps, all with
total impunity. Not a single member of the janjaweed or the Sudanese
armed forces have been charged with committing rape or abducting
civilians.
In addition to stopping this violence, we must act now to prevent
death from starvation and disease. Hundreds of thousands of civilians
are currently crowded into camps, where conditions are simply stated,
horrendous. Humanitarian organizations now estimate that nearly half of
the internationally displaced civilians in Darfur have inadequate food
and shelter, that 61 percent lack sufficient water, and that 87 percent
lack adequate sanitation. Many of the camps are off limits to
international relief workers, and much of the countryside is
inaccessible as well.
The rains are adding to the obstacles presented to the humanitarian
organizations. So, too, is the lack of security created by the militias
and Sudanese forces. The result may be a complete break in the food
pipeline, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands. As U.N. Under
Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egelan said last week,
``We are now in this moment of truth, which will last for some weeks.''
Along with my colleague, Senator Brownback, I have introduced a
resolution declaring the situation in Darfur to be genocide. Why is
this so? To begin with, it is undisputed that the murders, rapes,
abductions of children, displacements and denial of humanitarian
assistance have been directed at particular ethnic groups, specifically
the ethnically African groups--the Fur, Zagahwa, and Massalit. Both the
U.S. and the U.N. have stated that ``ethnic cleansing'' is occurring.
The U.S. Ambassador for War Crimes, Pierre-Richard Prosper, has said
that there are ``indicators of genocide.''
What does the Genocide Convention of 1948 state? It defines genocide
as killing, causing serious bodily harm, and deliberately inflicting
conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction--
all of which have occurred in Darfur--committed with intent to destroy,
in whole or in part, a national ethnical, racial or religious group.
The Convention does not require that a certain number have died before
it is genocide, only that the acts are occurring.
This declaration is important because of our obligation--and that of
the world--to stop genocide before it is too late. After all, the full
name of the Genocide Convention is the ``Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.'' Article I of the Convention
states that the contracting parties ``undertake to prevent and punish''
genocide. The United States and every other permanent member of the
U.N. Security Council is a party to the Genocide Convention.
The Genocide Convention arose out of the horror of the Holocaust, in
a moment of history in which the world vowed never again to permit this
evil. But the world has spoken much more recently. In late January
2004, 55 governments participated in the Stockholm International Forum,
``Preventing Genocide; Threats and Responsibilities.'' Those
governments, which included the U.S., the U.K., France and Russia,
declared, quote:
The Holocaust . . . challenged the foundations of human
civilization . . . We are committed to shouldering our
responsibility to protect groups identified as potential
victims of genocide, mass murder or ethnic cleansing, drawing
upon the range of tools at our disposal to prevent such
atrocities in accordance with international law and fully
upholding the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide.
This was this January. What do these words mean without action? More
words, mere condemnations are not sufficient. Nor is humanitarian
assistance possible without real intervention. The lack of food, water
and sanitation have reached critical levels. But the problem is caused,
and compounded, by the lack of security. As Jan Egelan said last week,
quote ``The number one problem now is lack of security. Our trucks are
looted, our humanitarian workers are threatened and attacked.''
We must find ways to stop this catastrophe. This resolution calls on
the President to lead an international effort to stop this genocide. In
my view, to be effective, we must take whatever actions are necessary,
including armed intervention, to save the hundreds of thousands of
lives that are at stake. I have called for a U.N.-authorized
multinational force, as well as the provision of assistance to the
African Union's critically important, but thus far, inadequate mission.
In the end, the only thing that will matter is whether we have saved
these lives, whether we have done whatever it takes to stop this
genocide. This resolution is a powerful statement. But it must also
serve as an impetus to the administration and to the rest of the world
to act. Morally and legally, we have no other option.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 133) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Con. Res. 133
Whereas Article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (signed at Paris on
December 9, 1948) states that ``the Contracting Parties
confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or
in time of war, is a crime under international law which they
undertake to prevent and to punish'';
Whereas Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide declares that ``in the
present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a)
killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately
inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d)
imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group; and (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to
another group'';
Whereas Article 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide affirms that ``[the]
following acts shall be punishable: (a) genocide; (b)
conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) direct and public
incitement to commit genocide; (d) attempt to committed
genocide; and (e) complicit in genocide'';
Whereas in Darfur, Sudan, an estimated 30,000 innocent
civilians have been brutally murdered, more than 130,000
people have been forced from their homes and have fled to
neighboring Chad, and more than 1,000,000 people have been
internally displaced; and
Whereas in March 2004 the United Nations Resident
Humanitarian Coordinator stated: ``[T]he war in Darfur
started off in a small way last year but it has progressively
gotten worse. A predominant feature of this is that the brunt
is being borne by civilians. This includes vulnerable women
and children . . . The violence in Darfur appears to be
particularly directed at a specific group based on their
ethnic identity and appears to be systemized.'': Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That Congress--
(1) declares that the atrocities unfolding in Darfur,
Sudan, are genocide;
(2) reminds the Contracting Parties to the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(signed at Paris on December 9, 1948), particularly the
Government of Sudan, of their legal obligations under the
Convention;
(3) declares that the Government of Sudan, as a Contracting
Party, has violated the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;
(4) deplores the failure of the United Nations Human Rights
Commission to take appropriate action with respect to the
crisis in Darfur, Sudan, particularly the failure by the
Commission to support United States-sponsored efforts to
strongly condemn gross human rights violations committed in
Darfur, and calls upon the United Nations and the United
Nations Secretary General to assert leadership by calling the
atrocities being committed in Darfur by their rightful name:
``genocide'';
(5) calls on the member states of the United Nations,
particularly member states from the African Union, the Arab
League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to
undertake measures to prevent the genocide in Darfur, Sudan,
from escalating further, including the imposition of targeted
means against those responsible for the atrocities;
(6) commends the Administration's leadership in seeking a
peaceful resolution to the conflict in Darfur, Sudan, and in
addressing
[[Page 17187]]
the ensuing humanitarian crisis, including the visit of
Secretary of State Colin Powell to Darfur in June 2004 to
engage directly in efforts to end the genocide, and the
provision of nearly $140,000,000 to date in bilateral
humanitarian assistance through the United States Agency for
International Development;
(7) commends the President for appointing former Senator
John Danforth as Envoy for Peace in Sudan on September 6,
2001, and further commends the appointment of Senator
Danforth as United States Ambassador to the United Nations;
(8) calls on the Administration to continue to lead an
international effort to stop genocide in Darfur, Sudan;
(9) calls on the Administration to impose targeted means,
including visa bans and the freezing of assets, against
officials and other individuals of the Government of Sudan,
as well as Janjaweed militia commanders, who are responsible
for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur, Sudan;
and
(10) calls on the United States Agency for International
Development to establish a Darfur Resettlement,
Rehabilitation, and Reconstruction Fund so that those
individuals driven off their land may return and begin to
rebuild their communities.
____________________
CONDEMNING THE ATTACK ON THE AMIA JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER IN BUENOS
AIRES, ARGENTINA, IN JULY 1994
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign
Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con.
Res. 126 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the concurrent resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 126) condemning the
attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires,
Argentina, in July 1994, and expressing the concern of the
United States regarding the continuing, decade-long delay in
the resolution of this case.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, all with no intervening action or
debate, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 126) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The concurrent resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Con. Res. 126
Whereas on July 18, 1994, 85 innocent people were killed
and 300 were wounded when the Argentine Jewish Mutual
Association (referred to in this resolution as the ``AMIA'')
was bombed in Buenos Aires, Argentina;
Whereas that attack showed the same cowardice and utter
disregard for human life as the attacks on the United States
on September 11, 2001;
Whereas the United States welcomes Argentine President
Nestor Kirchner's political will to pursue the investigation
of the AMIA bombing, as demonstrated by his Executive order
opening the archives of Argentina's Secretariat for State
Intelligence (referred to in this resolution as ``SIDE'') and
by his decisions to raise the AMIA cause to national status,
and to emphasize that there is no statute of limitations for
those responsible for this attack;
Whereas it is reported that considerable evidence links the
attack to the terrorist group Hizballah, which is based in
Lebanon, supported by the Government of the Syrian Arab
Republic, and sponsored by the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Iran;
Whereas the decade since the bombing has been marked by
efforts to minimize the international connection to this
terrorist attack;
Whereas in March 2003, an Argentine judge issued arrest
warrants for 4 officials of the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Iran who are believed to have been involved in
planning or carrying out the attack against AMIA and
requested that the International Criminal Police Organization
apprehend them;
Whereas the 4 indicted Iranians are Ali Fallahian, a former
minister of security and intelligence; Mohsen Rabbani, a
former cultural attache at the Iranian Embassy in Buenos
Aires; Ali Balesh-Abadi, an Iranian diplomat; and Ali Akbar
Parvaresh, a former minister of education;
Whereas Hadi Soleimanpour, Iran's Ambassador to Argentina
in the 1990s, also has an international arrest warrant
pending against him by Argentine authorities for his
suspected primary role in the AMIA bombing;
Whereas it is reported that suicide bomber Ibrahim Hussein
Berro, a Lebanese citizen, carried out the attack on AMIA;
Whereas it has been reported that contact was made by the
Iranian embassy in Buenos Aires to Ibrahim Hussein Berro, who
lived in a mosque in Canuelas, Argentina, in the days before
the AMIA bombing;
Whereas Argentine officials have acknowledged that there
was negligence in the initial phases of the investigation
into the 1994 bombing, including the destruction or
disappearance of material evidence;
Whereas the first major criminal trial regarding the
bombing did not begin until September 2001, and those who are
currently on trial are former policemen and civilians who are
accused of playing roles only in the procurement and delivery
of the vehicle that was used in the bombing;
Whereas the judge who had presided since 2001 over the
investigation and trial related to the AMIA bombing was
removed in December 2003 due to charges that he bribed a key
witness in the AMIA case;
Whereas the new trial judge, Rodolfo Canicoba Corral, deals
with many other important cases and has few supporting staff;
Whereas on March 17, 1992, terrorists bombed the Embassy of
Israel in Buenos Aires, Argentina, killing 29 people and
injuring more than 200, and the perpetrators of the attack
also remain at large;
Whereas an inability to extradite suspected Islamic
militants and Iranian officials has debilitated the efforts
of the Government of Argentina to prosecute masterminds and
planners of the 1994 AMIA bombing;
Whereas evidence indicates that the tri-border area where
the borders of Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil meet is
suspected of harboring organizations that support terrorism
and engage in drug and arms smuggling and an assorted array
of other illicit, revenue-raising activities;
Whereas the Government of Argentina supports the 1996
Declaration of Lima to Prevent, Combat and Eliminate
Terrorism, which refers to terrorism as a ``serious form of
organized and systematic violence that is intended to
generate chaos and fear among the population, results in
death and destruction, and is a reprehensible criminal
activity'';
Whereas the Government of Argentina supports the 1998
Commitment of Mar del Plata, which calls terrorist acts
``serious common crimes that erode peaceful and civilized
coexistence, affect the rule of law and the exercise of
democracy, and endanger the stability of democratically
elected constitutional governments and their socioeconomic
development of our countries'';
Whereas the Government of Argentina actively supports the
development of the Three Plus One Counterterrorism Dialogue
with Brazil, Paraguay, and the United States;
Whereas the Government of Argentina was successful in
enacting a law on cooperation from defendants in terrorist
matters, a law that will be helpful in pursuing full
prosecution in the 1994 AMIA bombing and other terrorist
cases; and
Whereas the Second Specialized Conference on Terrorism held
in Mar del Plata, Argentina on November 23 and November 24,
1998, concluded with the adoption of the Commitment of Mar
del Plata, calling for the establishment within the
Organization of American States (referred to in this
resolution as ``OAS'') of an Inter-American Committee Against
Terrorism (referred to in this resolution as ``CICTE''): Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That Congress--
(1) reiterates its strongest condemnation of the 1994
attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires,
Argentina, and honors the victims of this heinous act;
(2) expresses its sympathy to the relatives of the victims,
who have waited 10 years without justice for the loss of
their loved ones, and may have to wait even longer for
justice to be served;
(3) underscores the concern of the United States regarding
the continuing, decade-long delay in the proper resolution of
this case;
(4) strongly urges the Government of Argentina to continue
to dedicate and provide the resources necessary for its
judicial system and intelligence agencies to investigate all
areas of the AMIA case, including by implementing Argentine
President Nestor Kirchner's Executive order mandating the
opening of the archives of the SIDE of Argentina, and to
prosecute with due haste those who are responsible for the
bombing;
(5) calls upon the international community to cooperate
fully with the investigation, including by making
information, witnesses, and suspects available for review and
questioning by the appropriate Argentine authorities;
(6) encourages the President to direct United States law
enforcement agencies to provide support and cooperation, if
requested, to the Government of Argentina, for the purposes
of deepening and expanding the investigation into this
bombing and suspected activities in support of terrorism in
the tri-border area where the borders of Argentina, Paraguay,
and Brazil meet;
[[Page 17188]]
(7) encourages the President to direct the United States
Representative to the OAS to--
(A) seek support from OAS member countries for the creation
of a special task force of the CICTE to assist, as requested
by the Government of Argentina, in the investigation of all
aspects of the 1994 AMIA terrorist attack; and
(B) urge OAS member countries to designate Hizballah as a
terrorist organization if they have not already done so;
(8) stresses the need for international pressure on the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Government
of the Syrian Arab Republic to extradite for trial
individuals and government officials who are accused of
planning or perpetrating the AMIA attack, and to immediately,
unconditionally, and permanently cease any and all assistance
to terrorists; and
(9) desires a lasting, warm relationship between the United
States and Argentina that is built, in part, on mutual
abhorrence of terrorism and commitments to peace, stability,
and democracy in the Western Hemisphere.
____________________
URGING THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE TO ENSURE A DEMOCRATIC, TRANSPARENT,
AND FAIR ELECTION PROCESS FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ON OCTOBER 31,
2004
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign
Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con.
Res. 106 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the concurrent resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 106) urging the
Government of Ukraine to ensure a democratic, transparent,
and fair election process for the presidential election on
October 31, 2004.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise to urge passage of S. Con. Res.
106, a bipartisan resolution calling upon the Government of Ukraine to
ensure a democratic, transparent and fair election process for the
presidential elections scheduled to be held in late October. This
resolution, by encouraging fair, open and transparent elections, is a
concrete expression of the commitment of the U.S. Congress to the
Ukrainian people.
The resolution underscores that an election process and the
establishment of a genuinely democratic political system consistent
with Ukraine's freely undertaken OSCE commitments is a prerequisite for
Ukraine's full integration into the Western community of nations as an
equal member, including into NATO. The October elections will be vital
in determining Ukraine's course for years to come. They present the
Ukrainian authorities with a real opportunity to demonstrate their
commitment to OSCE principles and values.
As cochairman of the Helsinki Commission, I would point out that
Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma recently cosigned a Declaration with
Russia and leaders of several other independent former Soviet states
criticizing the OSCE for focusing too much attention on human rights
and democratization. While disappointing, this diatribe is not
surprising given the fact that under President Kuchma's leadership,
Ukraine's record in such as media freedoms, elections, the rule of law
and corruption has moved in the wrong direction. It is up to the OSCE
states, including Ukraine, to implement their freely undertaken OSCE
commitments and to take corrective measures if necessary--something I
hope the Ukrainian authorities will be mindful of in the run-up to the
elections.
Ukraine's pre-election environment has already been decidedly
problematic and of great concern to the United States and the
international community. The pending resolution, S. Con. Res. 106,
focuses squarely on key problem areas, including increasing control and
manipulation of the media and attempts by national authorities to limit
access to international broadcasting, including Radio Liberty. Among
other concerns are the serious obstacles to free assembly and a free
and fair political campaign as well as substantial irregularities in
several recent elections, most notably, the mayoral election held in
April in the western Ukrainian city of Mukacheve. This election was
marred by intimidation, violence, fraud and manipulation of the vote
count, electoral disruptions and irregularities.
According to the most recent report of the nonpartisan Ukrainian
nongovernmental Committee of Voters of Ukraine:
There was no improvement in the political environment in
June compared to April and May. Instead, CVU observed an
increase in the number of cases of government pressure on the
opposition designed to impede their activities. Potential
candidates did not enjoy equal access to the media. . . . The
level of criminal interference in the pre-election process
remains very high, thus threatening free elections.
S. Con Res. 106 outlines those measures the Ukrainian authorities
need to take--consistent with their own laws and international
agreements--for a free, fair, open and transparent election process.
The Ukrainian authorities at all levels, including the executive,
legislative and judicial branches, need to ensure an election process
that enables all of the candidates to compete on a level playing field.
This includes the various ministries and agencies involved directly or
indirectly in the elections process, as well as Ukraine's courts.
Ukraine's October presidential elections should be a watershed for
the future direction of that country of great potential. Ukrainian
authorities need to radically improve the election environment if there
is to be hope for these elections to meet OSCE standards. By doing so,
they will go a long way in restoring the trust of the citizens of
Ukraine and strengthening Ukraine's independence and democracy.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution
be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 106) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The concurrent resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Con. Res. 106
Whereas the establishment of a democratic, transparent, and
fair election process for the 2004 presidential election in
Ukraine and of a genuinely democratic political system are
prerequisites for that country's full integration into the
Western community of nations as an equal member, including
into organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO);
Whereas the Government of Ukraine has accepted numerous
specific commitments governing the conduct of elections as a
participating State of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), including provisions of the
Copenhagen Document;
Whereas the election on October 31, 2004, of Ukraine's next
president will provide an unambiguous test of the extent of
the Ukrainian authorities' commitment to implement these
standards and build a democratic society based on free
elections and the rule of law;
Whereas this election takes place against the backdrop of
previous elections that did not fully meet international
standards and of disturbing trends in the current pre-
election environment;
Whereas it is the duty of government and public authorities
at all levels to act in a manner consistent with all laws and
regulations governing election procedures and to ensure free
and fair elections throughout the entire country, including
preventing activities aimed at undermining the free exercise
of political rights;
Whereas a genuinely free and fair election requires a
period of political campaigning conducted in an environment
in which neither administrative action nor violence,
intimidation, or detention hinder the parties, political
associations, and the candidates from presenting their views
and qualifications to the citizenry, including organizing
supporters, conducting public meetings and events throughout
the country, and enjoying unimpeded access to television,
radio, print, and Internet media on a non-discriminatory
basis;
Whereas a genuinely free and fair election requires that
citizens be guaranteed the right and effective opportunity to
exercise their civil and political rights, including the
right to vote and the right to seek and acquire information
upon which to make an informed vote, free from intimidation,
undue influence, attempts at vote buying, threats
[[Page 17189]]
of political retribution, or other forms of coercion by
national or local authorities or others;
Whereas a genuinely free and fair election requires
government and public authorities to ensure that candidates
and political parties enjoy equal treatment before the law
and that government resources are not employed to the
advantage of individual candidates or political parties;
Whereas a genuinely free and fair election requires the
full transparency of laws and regulations governing
elections, multiparty representation on election commissions,
and unobstructed access by candidates, political parties, and
domestic and international observers to all election
procedures, including voting and vote-counting in all areas
of the country;
Whereas increasing control and manipulation of the media by
national and local officials and others acting at their
behest raise grave concerns regarding the commitment of the
Ukrainian authorities to free and fair elections;
Whereas efforts by the national authorities to limit access
to international broadcasting, including Radio Liberty and
the Voice of America, represent an unacceptable infringement
on the right of the Ukrainian people to independent
information;
Whereas efforts by national and local officials and others
acting at their behest to impose obstacles to free assembly,
free speech, and a free and fair political campaign have
taken place in Donetsk, Sumy, and elsewhere in Ukraine
without condemnation or remedial action by the Ukrainian
Government;
Whereas numerous substantial irregularities have taken
place in recent Ukrainian parliamentary by-elections in the
Donetsk region and in mayoral elections in Mukacheve, Romny,
and Krasniy Luch; and
Whereas the intimidation and violence during the April 18,
2004, mayoral election in Mukacheve, Ukraine, represent a
deliberate attack on the democratic process: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That Congress--
(1) acknowledges and welcomes the strong relationship
formed between the United States and Ukraine since the
restoration of Ukraine's independence in 1991;
(2) recognizes that a precondition for the full integration
of Ukraine into the Western community of nations, including
as an equal member in institutions such as the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO), is its establishment of a
genuinely democratic political system;
(3) expresses its strong and continuing support for the
efforts of the Ukrainian people to establish a full
democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights in
Ukraine;
(4) urges the Government of Ukraine to guarantee freedom of
association and assembly, including the right of candidates,
members of political parties, and others to freely assemble,
to organize and conduct public events, and to exercise these
and other rights free from intimidation or harassment by
local or national officials or others acting at their behest;
(5) urges the Government of Ukraine to meet its
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
commitments on democratic elections and to address issues
previously identified by the Office of Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the OSCE in its
final reports on the 2002 parliamentary elections and the
1999 presidential elections, such as illegal interference by
public authorities in the campaign and a high degree of bias
in the media;
(6) urges the Ukrainian authorities to ensure--
(A) the full transparency of election procedures before,
during, and after the 2004 presidential elections;
(B) free access for Ukrainian and international election
observers;
(C) multiparty representation on all election commissions;
(D) unimpeded access by all parties and candidates to
print, radio, television, and Internet media on a non-
discriminatory basis;
(E) freedom of candidates, members of opposition parties,
and independent media organizations from intimidation or
harassment by government officials at all levels via
selective tax audits and other regulatory procedures, and in
the case of media, license revocations and libel suits, among
other measures;
(F) a transparent process for complaint and appeals through
electoral commissions and within the court system that
provides timely and effective remedies; and
(G) vigorous prosecution of any individual or organization
responsible for violations of election laws or regulations,
including the application of appropriate administrative or
criminal penalties;
(7) further calls upon the Government of Ukraine to
guarantee election monitors from the ODIHR, other
participating States of the OSCE, Ukrainian political
parties, candidates' representatives, nongovernmental
organizations, and other private institutions and
organizations, both foreign and domestic, unobstructed access
to all aspects of the election process, including unimpeded
access to public campaign events, candidates, news media,
voting, and post-election tabulation of results and
processing of election challenges and complaints; and
(8) pledges its enduring support and assistance to the
Ukrainian people's establishment of a fully free and open
democratic system, their creation of a prosperous free market
economy, their establishment of a secure independence and
freedom from coercion, and their country's assumption of its
rightful place as a full and equal member of the Western
community of democracies.
____________________
EXPRESSING THE DEEP CONCERN OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE FAILURE OF THE
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN TO ADHERE TO ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER A
SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT WITH THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign
Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con.
Res. 81 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the concurrent resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 81) expressing the
deep concern of Congress regarding the failure of the Islamic
Republic of Iran to adhere to its obligations under a
safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy
Agency and the engagement by Iran in activities that appear
to be designed to develop nuclear weapons.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kyl-
Feinstein amendments at the desk be agreed to; the resolution, as
amended, be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; the
title amendment be agreed to; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table; and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 3569 and 3570) were agreed to, as follows:
Amendment No. 3569
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
That Congress--
(1) condemns--
(A) the failure of the Government of Iran for nearly two
decades to report material, facilities, and activities to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in contravention of
its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement; and
(B) Iran's continuing deceptions and falsehoods to the IAEA
and the international community about its nuclear programs
and activities;
(2) concurs with the conclusion reached in the Department
of State's Annual Report on Adherence to and Compliance with
Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Agreements and Commitments
that Iran is pursuing a program to develop nuclear weapons;
(3) urges the President to provide to the IAEA whatever
financial, material, or intelligence resources are necessary
to enable the IAEA it to fully investigate Iran's nuclear
activities;
(4) calls upon all states party to the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, London,
and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970
(hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ``Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty''), including the United States, to
use appropriate means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons, including the suspension of all nuclear and other
cooperation with Iran, including the provision of dual use
items, until Iran fully implements the Additional Protocol to
its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA (hereafter in this
resolution referred to as the ``Additional Protocol'') and is
clearly in compliance with its obligations under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty;
(5) declares that Iran, through its many breaches during
the past 18 years of its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA,
has forfeited the right to be trusted with the development of
a full nuclear fuel cycle, especially with uranium conversion
and enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technology,
equipment, and facilities;
(6) declares that the revelations of Iran's nondisclosure
of additional enrichment and nuclear-weapons-applicable
research activities, as detailed in the reports of February
24, 2004, and June 1, 2004, by the Director General of the
IAEA, together with the statement by the Government of Iran
that it will not disclose other research programs, constitute
ample evidence of Iran's continuing policy of noncompliance
with the letter and spirit of its obligations under its
[[Page 17190]]
Safeguards Agreement and the Additional Protocol;
(7) recognizes, in contrast with Iran's behavior, the
positive example of Libya's decision to renounce and
dismantle its nuclear weapons program and to provide full,
complete, and transparent disclosure of all its nuclear
activities, which has enabled the IAEA to rapidly understand
and verify with high confidence the extent and scope of
Libya's program and has led to the establishment of direct
diplomatic relations with Libya, the gradual lifting of U.S.
sanctions, and the establishment of cooperative programs
between the United States and Libya;
(8) foresees a similar future for Iran, once that country
renounces and dismantles its weapons of mass destruction and
long-range ballistic missile programs and renounces its
support for international terrorist organizations;
(9) notes the assistance that the United States has
provided to southeastern Iran since the Bam earthquake on
December 26, 2003;
(10) calls upon Iran to immediately and permanently cease
all efforts to acquire sensitive nuclear fuel cycle
capabilities, in particular all uranium enrichment
activities, including importing, manufacturing, and testing
of related equipment;
(11) urges Iran to comply with its international
commitments and to rescind its decisions--
(A) to manufacture and construct centrifuges;
(B) to produce feed material that could be used in those
centrifuges; and
(C) to construct a heavy-water moderated reactor that could
be used for plutonium production;
(12) calls upon Iran to honor its stated commitments and
legal obligations--
(A) to grant IAEA inspectors prompt, full and unrestricted
access;
(B) to cooperate fully with the investigation of its
nuclear activities; and
(C) to demonstrate a new openness and honesty about all its
nuclear programs;
(13) welcomes the June 26, 2004, declaration at the United
States-E.U. Summit in Shannon, Ireland, in which the European
Union and the United States pledged to implement United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, which identifies
actions states should take--
(A) to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction;
(B) to establish new measures in accordance with the G8
Action Plan on Non-Proliferation, announced June 9, 2004, at
the G8 Summit in Sea Island, Georgia; and
(C) to preserve the integrity of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty;
(14) urges close cooperation between the United States and
the European Union in accordance with the reaffirmation in
their June 26, 2004, declaration of ``the IAEA Board of
Governors' Iran resolutions, which deplore Iran's
insufficient cooperation and call on Iran, inter alia, to
cooperate fully and in a timely and proactive manner, with
IAEA investigation of its nuclear programme and suspend all
enrichment-related and reprocessing activities'';
(15) calls upon the members of the European Union not to
resume discussions with Iran on multilateral trade agreements
until the IAEA Director General reports that Iran has
suspended all nuclear weapons development activity, and not
to implement such trade agreements until Iran has verifiably
and permanently ceased all nuclear weapons development
activity, including a permanent cessation of uranium
conversion and enrichment and plutonium reprocessing
activities;
(16) further calls upon the members of the European Union
to undertake such additional measures, including imposing
sanctions and sponsoring an IAEA Board of Governors report on
non-compliance pursuant to Article XII of the IAEA Statute,
as may be necessary to persuade Iran to cease all nuclear
weapons development activity and to fulfill its obligations
and commitments to the IAEA;
(17) in light of ongoing revelations of the noncompliance
of the Government of Iran regarding its obligations under the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and pledges to the IAEA, and
in light of the consequent and ongoing questions and concerns
of the IAEA, the United States, and the international
community regarding Iran's nuclear activities--
(A) urges Japan to ensure that Japanese commercial entities
not proceed with the development of Iran's Azadegan oil
field;
(B) urges France and Malaysia to ensure that French and
Malaysian commercial entities not proceed with their
agreement for further cooperation in expanding Iran's liquid
natural gas production field;
(C) calls on all countries to intercede with their
commercial entities to ensure that these entities refrain
from or suspend all investment and investment-related
activities that support Iran's energy industry; and
(D) calls on Member States of the United Nations to prevent
the Government of Iran from continuing to pursue and develop
programs or facilities that could be used in a nuclear
weapons program and to end all nuclear cooperation with Iran,
including the provision of dual use items, until Iran
complies fully with its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA
and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty;
(18) deplores any effort by any country to provide nuclear
power-related assistance to Iran at this time, and calls upon
Russia--
(A) to use all appropriate means to urge Iran to meet fully
its obligations and commitments to the IAEA; and
(B) to suspend nuclear cooperation with Iran and not
conclude a nuclear fuel supply agreement for the Bushehr
reactor that would enter into force before Iran has
verifiably and permanently ceased all nuclear weapons
development activity, including a permanent cessation of
uranium conversion and enrichment and plutonium reprocessing
activities;
(19) calls upon the governments of the countries whose
nationals and corporations are implicated in assisting
Iranian nuclear activities, including Pakistan, Malaysia, the
United Arab Emirates, and Germany--
(A) to fully investigate such assistance;
(B) to grant the IAEA all necessary access to individuals,
sites, and information related to the investigations;
(C) to take all appropriate action against such nationals
and corporations under the laws of those countries; and
(D) to immediately review and rectify their export control
laws, regulations, and practices in order to prevent further
assistance to countries pursuing nuclear programs that could
support the development of nuclear weapons;
(20) urges the IAEA Board of Governors, in accordance with
Article XII of the IAEA Statute--
(A) to report to the United Nations Security Council that
Iran has been in noncompliance with its agreements with the
IAEA; and
(B) as appropriate, to specify areas in which Iran
continues to be in noncompliance with its agreements with the
IAEA or with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or in
which its compliance is uncertain;
(21) urges the United Nations Security Council, bearing in
mind its decision in Resolution 1540 that the ``proliferation
of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their
means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international
peace and security,'' to consider measures necessary--
(A) to support the inspection efforts by the IAEA; and
(B) to prevent Iran from further engaging in clandestine
nuclear activities;
(22) further urges the United Nations Security Council,
immediately upon receiving any report from the IAEA regarding
the continuing non-compliance of Iran with its obligations,
to address the threat to international peace and security
posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program and take such action
as may be necessary under Article 39, Article 40, and Article
41 of the Charter of the United Nations;
(23) urges the United Nations Security Council, the Nuclear
Suppliers Group, the Zangger Committee, and other relevant
international entities to declare that non-nuclear-weapon
states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that commit
significant violations of their safeguards agreements
regarding uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing or
engage in activities intended to support a military nuclear
program thereby forfeit their right under the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty to engage in nuclear fuel-cycle
activities;
(24) further urges the United Nations Security Council, the
Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Zangger Committee, the
International Atomic Energy Agency, other relevant
international entities, and all states party to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the United States, to
seek consensus, no later than the 2005 Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in Geneva,
Switzerland, on the best and most equitable means to limit
the right of non-nuclear weapons states to engage in those
nuclear fuel cycle activities that could contribute to the
development of nuclear weapons, while providing those states
assured and affordable access to--
(A) nuclear reactor fuel and other materials used in
peaceful nuclear activities; and
(B) spent fuel management; and
(25) urges the President to keep Congress fully and
currently informed concerning the matters addressed in this
resolution.
Amendment No. 3570
Strike the preamble and insert the following:
Whereas it is the policy of the United States to oppose,
and urgently to seek the agreement of other nations also to
oppose, any transfer to Iran of any goods or technology,
including dual-use goods or technology, wherever that
transfer could contribute to its acquiring chemical,
biological, or nuclear weapons;
Whereas the United Nations Security Council decided, in
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, that ``all
States shall refrain from providing any form of support to
non-State actors that attempt to develop, acquire,
manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear,
chemical, or biological weapons and their means of
delivery'';
Whereas the United States has imposed sanctions numerous
times on persons and entities transferring equipment and
technical
[[Page 17191]]
data to Iran to assist its weapons of mass destruction
programs;
Whereas on January 1, 1968, Iran signed the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington,
London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March
5, 1970 (the ``Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty'');
Whereas Iran, as a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state, is obligated never to
develop or acquire nuclear weapons;
Whereas Iran did not declare to the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) the existence of the Natanz Pilot Fuel
Enrichment Plant and the production-scale Fuel Enrichment
Facility under construction at Natanz until February 2003,
after the existence of the plant and facility was revealed by
an opposition group;
Whereas it is estimated that the Natanz Pilot Fuel
Enrichment Plant could produce enough highly enriched uranium
for a nuclear weapon every year-and-a-half to two years;
Whereas it is estimated that the Natanz Fuel Enrichment
Facility could, when completed, produce enough highly
enriched uranium for as many as 25 to 30 nuclear weapons per
year;
Whereas, in his report of June 6, 2003, the Director
General of the IAEA stated that Iran had failed to meet its
obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA to
report all nuclear material imported into Iran--specifically,
the importation of uranium hexafluoride, uranium
tetrafluoride and uranium dioxide in 1991--the processing and
use of that material, and the facilities involved in the use
and processing of the material;
Whereas the IAEA Director General stated in the same report
that Iran had produced uranium metal and was building a
uranium metal processing facility, despite the fact that
neither its light water reactors nor its planned heavy water
reactors require uranium metal for fuel;
Whereas the IAEA Board of Governors urged Iran in June 2003
to promptly rectify its failures to meet its obligations
under its Safeguards Agreement, not to introduce nuclear
material into the Natanz Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant, and to
cooperate fully with the Agency in resolving questions about
its nuclear activities;
Whereas the IAEA Director General reported to the Board of
Governors of the IAEA in August 2003 that Iran had failed to
disclose additional nuclear activities as required by its
Safeguards Agreement and continued to fail to resolve
questions about its undeclared uranium enrichment activities,
including those raised by the detection of two types of
highly enriched uranium particles at the Natanz Pilot Fuel
Enrichment Plant;
Whereas on August 19, 2003, after earlier denials, Iran
admitted in a letter that it had carried out uranium
conversion experiments in the early 1990's, experiments that
included bench scale preparation of uranium compounds and
that should have been disclosed to the IAEA in accordance
with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement;
Whereas the IAEA Board of Governors on September 12, 2003,
called on Iran to suspend all further uranium enrichment and
any plutonium reprocessing activities, disclose all its
nuclear activities, and cooperate fully with the IAEA, and to
sign, ratify, and fully implement the Additional Protocol
between Iran and the IAEA for the application of safeguards
(the ``Additional Protocol'') to strengthen investigation of
all nuclear activities within Iran, and requested all third
countries to cooperate closely and fully with the IAEA in
resolving questions about Iran's nuclear program;
Whereas IAEA inspectors and officials continued to confront
Iran with discrepancies in its explanations of its nuclear
activities;
Whereas on October 21, 2003, Iran and the Foreign Ministers
of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom issued a joint
statement in which Iran indicated that it had decided to
suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities as
defined by the IAEA;
Whereas the Governments of France, Germany, and the United
Kingdom promised a dialogue with Iran to ease Iran's access
to modern technologies and supplies in a range of areas once
certain international concerns regarding Iran are fully
resolved;
Whereas, in a subsequent letter on October 23, 2003, Iran
further admitted that it had tested uranium enrichment
centrifuges at the Kalaye Electric Company between 1998 and
2002 using its previously undeclared imported uranium
hexafluoride;
Whereas in that same letter, Iran admitted that it had a
laser uranium enrichment program, in which it used 30
kilograms of uranium not previously declared to the IAEA,
another violation of its Safeguards Agreement;
Whereas Iran indicated initially that its laser enrichment
program had achieved uranium enrichment levels of slightly
more than 3 percent, but the Director General's report of
June 1, 2004, states that the IAEA later learned that Iran
``had been able to achieve average enrichment levels of 8
percent to 9 percent, with some samples of up to
approximately 15 percent'';
Whereas the June 1, 2004, report states also that Iran's
declaration of October 21, 2003, failed to include
information that should have been provided, including the
fact that ``some samples from'' the laser uranium enrichment
project ``had been sent for assessment to the supplier's
laboratory'';
Whereas, in its letter of October 23, 2003, Iran also
admitted that it had irradiated 7 kilograms of uranium
dioxide targets and reprocessed them to extract plutonium,
another violation of its legal obligation to disclose such
activities under its Safeguards Agreement;
Whereas Iran told the IAEA on November 10, 2003, that it
would sign and ratify the Additional Protocol and would act
in accordance with the Additional Protocol pending its entry-
into-force;
Whereas, on November 10, 2003, Iran further informed the
IAEA Director General that it had decided to suspend all
enrichment and reprocessing activities in Iran, not to
produce feed material for enrichment processes, and not to
import enrichment related items;
Whereas the IAEA, through its investigative and forensic
activities in Iran and elsewhere, has uncovered and
confronted Iran about numerous lies concerning its nuclear
activities;
Whereas the Director General of the IAEA reported to the
IAEA Board of Governors on November 10, 2003, that Iran has
concealed many aspects of its nuclear activities from the
IAEA, in breach of its obligations under its Safeguards
Agreement;
Whereas, despite Iran's subsequent pledge to, once again,
fully disclose all of its nuclear activities to the IAEA, the
Director General of the IAEA, in a February 24, 2004, report,
found that Iran continued to engage in deception regarding
its nuclear activities, including failing to disclose a more
sophisticated enrichment program using more advanced
enrichment centrifuge technology imported from foreign
sources, and providing incomplete and unsupported
explanations about experiments to create a highly toxic
isotope of polonium that outside experts say is useful as a
neutron initiator in nuclear weapons;
Whereas the Director General's reports of February 24,
2001, and June 1, 2004, stated that environmental samples
from one room at the Kalaye Electric Company workshop and
from equipment that had been present in that workshop showed
more than trace quantities of uranium enriched to 36 percent
U-235, despite finding only negligible traces of this on
imported centrifuge components, and that the types of uranium
contamination at that workshop differed from those found at
Natanz, which would appear to contradict Iran's assertion
that the source of contamination at both sites is imported
centrifuge components and perhaps also its assertion that it
has not enriched uranium to more than 1.2 percent U-235 using
centrifuge technology;
Whereas the Director General stated in the June 1, 2004,
report, that ``the contamination is different on domestic and
imported centrifuges,'' that ``it is unlikely'' that the 36
percent U-235 contamination was due to components acquired
from Iran's principal supplier country, and that ``important
information about the P-2 centrifuge programme has frequently
required repeated requests, and in some cases continues to
involve changing or contradictory information'';
Whereas these deceptions by Iran are continuing violations
of Iran's Safeguards Agreement and of Iran's previous
assurances to the IAEA and the international community of
full transparency;
Whereas despite Iran's commitment to the IAEA and to
France, Germany, and the United Kingdom that it would suspend
uranium enrichment activities, it has repeatedly emphasized
that this suspension is temporary and continued to
manufacture and, until April 2004, to import, uranium
enrichment centrifuge parts and equipment, allowing it to
resume and expand its uranium enrichment activities whenever
it chooses;
Whereas the statements on February 25, 2004, of Hassan
Rowhani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council
of Iran, that Iran was not required to reveal to the IAEA its
research into more sophisticated ``P2'' uranium enrichment
centrifuges, and that Iran has other projects which it has no
intention of declaring to the IAEA, are contrary to--
(1) Iran's commitment to the IAEA in an October 16, 2003,
letter from the Vice President of Iran and the President of
Iran's Atomic Energy Organization that Iran would present a
``full picture of its nuclear activities'' and ``full
transparency'';
(2) Iran's commitment to the foreign ministers of the
United Kingdom, France, and Germany of October 21, 2003, to
full transparency and to resolve all outstanding issues; and
(3) its statement to the IAEA's Board of Governors of
September 12, 2003, of its commitment to full transparency
and to ``leave no stone unturned'' to assure the IAEA of its
peaceful objectives;
Whereas Libya received enrichment equipment and technology,
and a nuclear weapons design, from the same nuclear black
market that Iran has used, raising the question of whether
Iran, as well, received a nuclear weapon design that it has
refused to reveal to international inspectors;
[[Page 17192]]
Whereas the Russian Federation has announced that it will
soon conclude an agreement to supply Iran with enriched
nuclear fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power reactor, which, if
implemented, would undercut the international effort to
persuade Iran to cease its nuclear weapons development
program;
Whereas the IAEA Board of Governors' resolution of March
13, 2004, which was adopted unanimously, noted with ``serious
concern that the declarations made by Iran in October 2003
did not amount to the complete and final picture of Iran's
past and present nuclear programme considered essential by
the Board's November 2003 resolution,'' and also noted that
the IAEA has discovered that Iran had hidden more advanced
centrifuge associated research, manufacturing, and testing
activities, two mass spectrometers used in the laser
enrichment program, and designs for hot cells to handle
highly radioactive materials;
Whereas the same resolution also noted ``with equal concern
that Iran has not resolved all questions regarding the
development of its enrichment technology to its current
extent, and that a number of other questions remain
unresolved, including the sources of all HEU contamination in
Iran; the location, extent and nature of work undertaken on
the basis of the advanced centrifuge design; the nature,
extent, and purpose of activities involving the planned
heavy-water reactor; and evidence to support claims regarding
the purpose of polonium-210 experiments'';
Whereas Hassan Rowhani on March 13, 2004, declared that
IAEA inspections would be indefinitely suspended as a protest
against the IAEA Board of Governors' resolution of March 13,
2004, and while Iran subsequently agreed to readmit
inspectors to one site by March 29, 2004, and to others in
mid-April, 2004, including four workshops belonging to the
Defence Industries Organization, this suspension calls into
serious question Iran's commitment to full transparency about
its nuclear activities;
Whereas Iran informed the IAEA on April 29, 2004, of its
intent to produce uranium hexafluoride in amounts that the
IAEA concluded would constitute production of feed material
for uranium centrifuges and wrote in a letter of May 18,
2004, that its suspension of all uranium enrichment
activities ``does not include suspension of production of
UF6,'' which contradicted assurances provided in its letter
of November 10, 2003;
Whereas the IAEA Board of Governors' resolution of June 18,
2004, which was also adopted unanimously, ``deplores'' the
fact that ``Iran's cooperation has not been as full, timely
and proactive as it should have been'' and ``underlines that,
with the passage of time, it is becoming ever more important
that Iran work proactively to enable the Agency to gain a
full understanding of Iran's enrichment programme by
providing all relevant information, as well as by providing
prompt access to all relevant places, data and persons'';
Whereas the same resolution also expresses regret that
Iran's suspension ``commitments have not been comprehensively
implemented and calls on Iran immediately to correct all
remaining shortcomings'';
Whereas the same resolution also calls on Iran, as further
confidence-building measures, voluntarily to reconsider its
decision to begin production testing at the Uranium
Conversion Facility and its decision to start construction of
a research reactor moderated by heavy water, as the reversal
of those decisions would make it easier for Iran to restore
international confidence undermined by past reports of
undeclared nuclear activities in Iran;
Whereas Iran then announced its decision to resume
production of centrifuge components, notwithstanding both the
IAEA Board of Governors resolution of September 12, 2003,
which called on Iran ``to suspend all further uranium
enrichment-related activities,'' and Iran's voluntary
suspension of all uranium enrichment activities pursuant to
its agreement of October 21, 2003, with the foreign ministers
of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany;
Whereas Iran's pattern of deception and concealment in
dealing with the IAEA, the Foreign Ministers of France,
Germany, and the United Kingdom, and the international
community, its receipt from other countries of the means to
enrich uranium, its use of sources who provided a nuclear
weapon design to another country, its production of
centrifuge components at Defence Industries Organization
workshops, and its repeated breaches of its Safeguards
Agreement suggest strongly that Iran has also violated its
legal obligation under article II of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty not to acquire or seek assistance in
acquiring nuclear weapons; and
Whereas the maintenance or construction by Iran of
unsafeguarded nuclear facilities or uranium enrichment or
reprocessing facilities will continue to endanger the
maintenance of international peace and security and threaten
United States national interests: Now, therefore, be it
The title amendment (No. 3571) was agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 3571
Amend the title so as to read: ``Expressing the concern of
Congress over Iran's development of the means to produce
nuclear weapons.''.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 81), as amended, was agreed
to:
The preamble, as amended, was agreed to.
The concurrent resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
(The concurrent resolution will be printed in a future edition of the
Record.)
____________________
IRAN'S DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign
Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of H. Con.
Res. 398 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the concurrent resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 398) expressing the
concern of Congress over Iran's development of the means to
produce nuclear weapons.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kyl-
Feinstein amendments at the desk be agreed to, the resolution, as
amended, be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed, the title
amendment be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 3572 and 3573) were agreed to.
(The amendments Nos. 3572 and 3573 are printed in today's Record
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
The amendment (No. 3574) was agreed to as follows:
Amend the title so as to read: ``Expressing the concern of
Congress over Iran's development of the means to produce
nuclear weapons.''.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 398), as amended, was agreed
to.
The preamble, as amended, was agreed to.
The concurrent resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
(The resolution will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
____________________
THE CALENDAR
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar Nos. 660 and 662
through 667 en bloc.
I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read the third time and
passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and
any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PERRY B. DURYEA, JR. POST OFFICE
The bill (S. 2501) to designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 73 South Euclid Avenue in Montauk, New York,
as the ``Perry B. Duryea, Jr. Post Office'' was considered, ordered to
be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed, as
follows:
S. 2501
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PERRY B. DURYEA, JR. POST OFFICE.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 73 South Euclid Avenue in Montauk, New
York, shall be known and designated as the ``Perry B. Duryea,
Jr. Post Office''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the Perry B. Duryea, Jr. Post Office.
[[Page 17193]]
____________________
GUARDIANS OF FREEDOM MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING
The bill (S. 2640) to designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 1050 North Hills Boulevard in Reno, Nevada,
as the ``Guardians of Freedom Memorial Post Office Building'' and to
authorize the installation of a plaque at such site, and for other
purposes, was considered, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
read the third time, and passed, as follows:
S. 2640
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF GUARDIANS OF FREEDOM MEMORIAL POST
OFFICE BUILDING.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Post
Office located at 1050 North Hills Boulevard in Reno, Nevada,
shall be known and designated as the ``Guardians of Freedom
Memorial Post Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Guardians of Freedom Memorial Post
Office Building''.
SEC. 2. INSTALLATION OF PLAQUE.
(a) Agreement.--The Postmaster General may enter into an
agreement with the Office of Veterans' Services of the State
of Nevada under which the Office of Veterans' Services of the
State of Nevada agrees--
(1) to install a plaque to be displayed at the Guardians of
Freedom Memorial Post Office Building referred to in section
1(a); and
(2) to maintain and update such plaque, as appropriate and
in accordance with subsections (b) and (c).
(b) Inscriptions.--
(1) Dedication.--The plaque installed pursuant to
subsection (a) shall bear the following inscription: ``This
post office building is dedicated in the memory of those men
and women of the State of Nevada who have lost their lives
while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States in the
Global War on Terrorism and in Operation Iraqi Freedom.''.
(2) Additional information.--The plaque installed pursuant
to subsection (a) shall also include with respect to the men
and women of the Armed Forces referred to in paragraph (1)
inscriptions containing the names, ranks, branches of
service, hometowns, and dates of death of such men and women.
(c) Expenditure of Costs.--The agreement referred to in
subsection (a) shall provide that the Office of Veterans'
Services of the State of Nevada shall have sole
responsibility for the expenditure of all costs associated
with the installation, maintenance, and updating of the
plaque.
____________________
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL POST OFFICE BUILDING
The bill (S. 2682) to designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 222 West 8th Street, Durango, Colorado, as
the ``Ben Nighthorse Campbell Post Office Building'' was considered,
ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and
passed, as follows:
S. 2682
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL POST OFFICE BUILDING.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 222 West 8th Street, Durango, Colorado,
shall be known and designated as the ``Ben Nighthorse
Campbell Post Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Ben Nighthorse Campbell Post Office
Building''.
____________________
JAMES E. WORSHAM POST OFFICE
The bill (H.R. 3340) to redesignate the facilities of the United
States Postal Service located at 7715 and 7748 S. Cottage Grove Avenue
in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``James E. Worsham Post Office'' and the
``James E. Worsham Carrier Annex Building'', respectively, and for
other purposes, was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the
third time, and passed.
____________________
NEWELL GEORGE POST OFFICE BUILDING
The bill (H.R. 4222) to designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 550 Nebraska Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas,
as the ``Newell George Post Office Building'' was considered, ordered
to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.
____________________
VITILAS ``VETO'' REID POST OFFICE BUILDING
The bill (H.R. 4327) to designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 7450 Natural Bridge Road in St. Louis,
Missouri, as the ``Vitilas `Veto' Reid Post Office Building'' was
considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and
passed.
____________________
PERRY B. DURYEA, JR. POST OFFICE
The bill (H.R. 4427) to designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 73 South Euclid Avenue in Montauk, New York,
as the ``Perry B. Duryea, Jr. Post Office'' was considered, ordered to
a third reading, read the third time, and passed.
____________________
NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 641, S.J. Res.
41.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 41) commemorating the opening
of the National Museum of the American Indian.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint
resolution, which had been reported from the Committee on Indian
Affairs with an amendment to strike all after the resolving clause and
the preamble and insert the part printed in italic:
S.J. Res. 41
[Whereas the National Museum of the American Indian Act (20
U.S.C. 808 et seq.) established within the Smithsonian
Institution the National Museum of the American Indian, and
authorized the construction of a facility to house the
National Museum of the American Indian on the National Mall
in the District of Columbia;
[Whereas the National Museum of the American Indian
officially opens on September 21, 2004; and
[Whereas the National Museum of the American Indian will be
the only national museum devoted exclusively to the history
and art of cultures indigenous to the Americas, and will give
all Americans the opportunity to learn of the cultural
legacy, historic grandeur, and contemporary culture of Native
Americans: Now, therefore, be it]
Whereas the National Museum of the American Indian Act (20
U.S.C. 808 et seq.) established within the Smithsonian
Institution the National Museum of the American Indian and
authorized the construction of a facility to house the
National Museum of the American Indian on the National Mall
in the District of Columbia;
Whereas the National Museum of the American Indian
officially opens on September 21, 2004; and
Whereas the National Museum of the American Indian will be
the only national museum devoted exclusively to the history
and art of cultures indigenous to the Americas, and will give
all Americans the opportunity to learn of the cultural
legacy, historic grandeur, and contemporary culture of Native
Americans: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
[SECTION 1. NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN.
[Congress--
[(1) recognizes the important and unique contribution of
Native Americans to the cultural legacy of the United States,
both in the past and currently;
[(2) honors the cultural achievements of all Native
Americans;
[(3) celebrates the official opening of the National Museum
of the American Indian; and
[(4) encourages all Americans to take advantage of the
resources of the National Museum of the American Indian to
learn about the history and culture of Native Americans.]
SECTION 1. NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN.
Congress--
(1) recognizes the important and unique contribution of
Native Americans to the cultural legacy of the United States,
both in the past and currently;
(2) honors the cultural achievements of all Native
Americans;
(3) celebrates the official opening of the National Museum
of the American Indian; and
(4) requests the President to issue a proclamation
encouraging all Americans to take advantage of the resources
of the National Museum of
[[Page 17194]]
the American Indian to learn about the history and culture of
Native Americans.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee
amendments be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, the
joint resolution be read the third time and passed, the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements in relation to
the joint resolution be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendments were agreed to.
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 41), as amended, was read the third
time and passed, as follows:
(The joint resolution will be printed in a future edition of the
Record.)
____________________
AUTHORIZING RECORD PRODUCTION BY PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of S. Res. 415, which was submitted earlier
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 415) to authorize production of
records by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, from 1999 to 2001, the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs
conducted an investigation into money laundering activities in the U.S.
financial services sector, including private banking, correspondent
banking, and the securities industry.
Following its investigation, the subcommittee received requests from
various law enforcement and regulatory agencies, legislative bodies,
and court-appointed officers, both here and abroad, for assistance in
connection with their pending investigations into the use of
correspondent banks for money laundering. By Senate Resolution 77 of
the 107th Congress, agreed to on April 26, 2001, the Senate authorized
the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, acting jointly, to
provide investigative records, obtained by the subcommittee in the
course of its investigation, in response to these requests.
Last year, the permanent subcommittee initiated a followup to its
earlier investigation to evaluate the enforcement and effectiveness of
key statutory anti-money laundering provisions, using Riggs Bank of the
District of Columbia as a case history. The subcommittee held a hearing
on the results of its investigation on July 15 of this year.
The subcommittee is seeking authority, like that granted in the 107th
Congress, to respond to requests from law enforcement and other
government agencies for access to investigative records obtained by the
Subcommittee in the course of its recent investigation. This resolution
would accordingly authorize the chairman and ranking member of the
subcommittee, acting jointly, to provide copies of its investigative
records from the Riggs Bank investigation in response to such requests.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed
to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, and any statements relating to this matter be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 415) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 415
Whereas, during the 106th and 107th Congresses, the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on
Governmental Affairs conducted an investigation into money
laundering activities in the U.S. financial services sector,
including examinations of money laundering activities in
private banking, correspondent banking, and the securities
industry;
Whereas, by agreement to Senate Resolution 77, 107th
Congress, the Senate authorized the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member of the Subcommittee, acting jointly, to
provide to law enforcement officials, legislative bodies,
regulatory agencies, and other entities or individuals duly
authorized by federal, state, or foreign governments, records
of the Subcommittee's investigation into the use of
correspondent banking for the purpose of money laundering;
Whereas, during the present Congress, the Subcommittee has
been conducting a followup to its earlier money laundering
investigation to evaluate the enforcement and effectiveness
of key statutory anti-money laundering provisions, using
Riggs Bank of the District of Columbia as a case history;
Whereas, the Subcommittee is seeking authorization to
provide records of its followup investigation in response to
requests from law enforcement officials, legislative bodies,
regulatory agencies, and foreign agencies and officials;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United
States and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no
evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate
can, by administrative or judicial process, be taken from
such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or
in the possession of the Senate is needed for the promotion
of justice, the Senate will take such action as will promote
the ends of justice consistent with the privileges of the
Senate: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of
the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee
on Governmental Affairs, acting jointly, are authorized to
provide to law enforcement officials, legislative bodies,
regulatory agencies, and other entities or individuals duly
authorized by federal, state, or foreign governments, records
of the Subcommittee's case study investigation into the
enforcement and effectiveness of statutory anti-money
laundering provisions.
____________________
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FULLERTON BASEBALL TEAM
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 416, submitted
earlier today by Senators Feinstein and Boxer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 416) to congratulate the California
State University, Fullerton baseball team on winning the 2004
College World Series.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution be
printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 416) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 416
Whereas on June 27, 2004, the California State University,
Fullerton (``Fullerton'') Titans won the 2004 College World
Series;
Whereas the 3 to 2 victory completed a 2 to 0 sweep of the
heavily favored Texas Longhorns;
Whereas the Fullerton team opened the season with 15 wins
and 16 losses, then continued on to win 32 of the next 38
games, finishing with 47 wins and 22 losses in the regular
season;
Whereas the Fullerton team won with the superlative
pitching of Jason Windsor, who threw a complete game and was
named Most Outstanding Player of the College World Series;
Whereas Kurt Suzuki broke a 2 and 20 slump with the game
winning RBI single;
Whereas the Fullerton roster also includes Joe Turgeon,
Justin Turner, Clark Hardman, Mark Carroll, Blake Davis,
Brett Pill, Ricky Romero, J.D. McCauley, Mike Martinez, Neil
Walton, Ronnie Prettyman, Eric Hale, Evan McArthur, Brandon
Tripp, Shawn Scobee, Scott Sarver, Bobby Andrews, Felipe
Garcia, Ryan Schreppel, Danny Dorn, Armando Carrasco, Jon
Wilhite, Nolan Bruyninckx, Lauren Gagnier, John Curtis, Evan
Myrick, Dustin Miller, Vance Otake, Eric Echevarria, P.J.
Pilittere, Sergio Pedroza, Geoff Tesmer, John Estes, Mark
Davidson, and Vinnie Pestano;
Whereas Fullerton Coach George Horton was competing against
his mentor, former Fullerton coach Augie Garrido, who led the
Titans to 3 previous national championships;
Whereas the coaching staff of George Horton, Dave Serrano,
Rick Vanderhook, and
[[Page 17195]]
Chad Baum deserve much credit for the accomplishments of
their team;
Whereas the Fullerton baseball team has won national
championships in 1979, 1984, 1995, and 2004, making it the
only team to win a national championship in each of the past
4 decades;
Whereas the students, alumni, faculty, and supporters of
Fullerton are to be congratulated for their commitment and
pride in their institution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates the California State University,
Fullerton Titans on their College World Series championship;
(2) recognizes the achievements of the team;
(3) requests that the President recognize the outstanding
accomplishments of the team; and
(4) directs the Secretary of the Senate to make available a
copy of this resolution to California State University,
Fullerton for appropriate display and to transmit an enrolled
copy of this resolution to the 2004 California State
University, Fullerton team.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES WOMEN'S
SOFTBALL TEAM
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 417, submitted
earlier today by Senators Feinstein and Boxer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 417) congratulating the University of
California at Los Angeles women's softball team on winning
the 2004 National Collegiate Athletic Association
Championship.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
and preamble be agreed to, en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be
printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 417) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 417
Whereas on May 31, 2004, the University of California at
Los Angeles (``UCLA'') women's softball team won the 2004
National Collegiate Athletic Association (``NCAA'')
championship;
Whereas the 3 to 1 victory completed another UCLA softball
title run, this time over the in-State rival, the California
Bears;
Whereas the victory marked UCLA's tenth NCAA title in team
history;
Whereas the UCLA women's softball team ended the season
with an impressive 47 to 9 mark;
Whereas UCLA trailed 1 to 0 for the first 5 innings, before
Claire Sua tied the game with a solo home run;
Whereas freshman pinch hitter Kristen Dedmon hit a crucial
2-RBI single to give UCLA the lead;
Whereas senior pitcher Keira Goerl became just the second
pitcher in NCAA Division I history to win multiple title
games;
Whereas the UCLA roster also includes Caitlin Benyi, Jaisa
Creps, Lisa Dodd, Andrea Duran, Alissa Eno, Tara Henry,
Ashley Herrera, Whitney Holum, Julie Hoshizaki, Jodie
Legaspi, Stephanie Ramos, Nicole Sandberg, Amanda Simpson,
Shana Stewart, Michelle Turner, and Emily Zaplatosch;
Whereas the coaching staff of Sue Enquist, Kelly Inouye-
Perez, and Gina Vecchione deserve much credit for the
accomplishments of their team;
Whereas the UCLA team is the first team to defend its NCAA
title since 1997;
Whereas UCLA has won 10 of a possible 23 NCAA Division I
softball championships; and
Whereas the students, alumni, faculty, and supporters of
UCLA are to be congratulated for their commitment and pride
in their institution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates the University of California at Los
Angeles Bruins on winning the 2004 National Collegiate
Athletic Association Championship;
(2) recognizes the achievements of the team;
(3) requests that the President recognize the outstanding
accomplishments of the team; and
(4) directs the Secretary of the Senate to make available a
copy of this resolution to University of California at Los
Angeles for appropriate display and to transmit an enrolled
copy of this resolution to the 2004 University of California
at Los Angeles women's softball team.
____________________
NATIONAL PROSTATE CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 418, which was
submitted earlier today by Senators Sessions, Reid, and others.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 418) designating September 2004 as
``National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month''.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution
be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 418) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 418
Whereas countless families in the United States live with
prostate cancer;
Whereas 1 in 6 men in the United States will be diagnosed
with prostate cancer in his lifetime;
Whereas over the past decade, prostate cancer has been the
most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer and the second most
common cancer killer of men in the United States;
Whereas over 230,000 men in the United States will be
diagnosed with prostate cancer and 29,900 men in the United
States will die of prostate cancer in 2004, according to
American Cancer Society estimates;
Whereas 30 percent of new cases occur in men under the age
of 65;
Whereas a man in the United States turns 50 years old about
every 14 seconds, increasing the occurrence of cancer and,
particularly, of prostate cancer;
Whereas African-American males suffer a prostate cancer
incidence rate as much as 60 percent higher than White males
and have double the mortality rates;
Whereas obesity is a significant predictor of prostate
cancer severity and death;
Whereas if a man in the United States has 1 family member
diagnosed with prostate cancer, he has double the risk of
prostate cancer, if he has 2 family members with such
diagnosis, he has 5 times the risk, and if he has 3 family
members with such diagnosis, he has a 97-percent risk of
prostate cancer;
Whereas screening by both digital rectal examination and
prostate specific antigen blood test can diagnose the disease
in earlier and more treatable stages and reduce prostate
cancer mortality;
Whereas ongoing research promises to further improvements
in prostate cancer prevention, early detection, and
treatments; and
Whereas educating people in the United States, including
health care providers, about prostate cancer and early
detection strategies is crucial to saving men's lives and
preserving and protecting families: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates September 2004 as ``National Prostate Cancer
Awareness Month'';
(2) declares that the Federal Government has a
responsibility to--
(A) raise awareness about the importance of screening
methods and treatment of prostate cancer;
(B) increase research funding that is commensurate with the
burden of the disease so that the causes of prostate cancer,
and improved screening, treatments, and a cure for prostate
cancer, may be discovered; and
(C) continue to consider ways for improving the access to,
and quality of, health care services for detecting and
treating prostate cancer; and
(3) requests that the President issue a proclamation
calling on the people of the United States, interested
groups, and affected persons to--
(A) promote awareness of prostate cancer;
(B) take an active role in the fight to end the devastating
affects of prostate cancer on individuals, their families,
and the economy; and
(C) observe the month of September 2004 with appropriate
ceremonies and activities.
____________________
AUTHORIZING PRINTING OF A COMMEMORATIVE DOCUMENT
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 135, which is at
the desk.
[[Page 17196]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the concurrent
resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 135) authorizing the
printing of a commemorative document in memory of the late
President of the United States, Ronald Wilson Reagan.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent
resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and that any statements relating to the concurrent resolution be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 135) was agreed to, as
follows:
S. Con. Res. 135
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring),
SECTION 1. COMMEMORATIVE DOCUMENT AUTHORIZED.
A commemorative document in memory of the late President
of the United States, Ronald Wilson Reagan, consisting of the
eulogies and encomiums for Ronald Wilson Reagan, as expressed
in the Senate and the House of Representatives, together with
the texts of the state funeral ceremony at the United States
Capitol Rotunda, the national funeral service held at the
Washington National Cathedral, Washington, District of
Columbia, and the interment ceremony at the Ronald Reagan
Presidential Library, Simi Valley, California, shall be
printed as a Senate document, with illustrations and suitable
binding.
SEC. 2. PRINTING OF DOCUMENT.
In addition to the usual number of copies printed, there
shall be printed the lesser of--
(1) 32,500 copies of the commemorative document, of which
22,150 copies shall be for the use of the House of
Representatives and 10,350 copies shall be for the use of the
Senate; or
(2) such number of copies of the commemorative document
that does not exceed a production and printing cost of
$1,000,000, with distribution of the copies to be allocated
in the same proportion as described in paragraph (1).
____________________
RECOGNIZING MEMBERS OF AMVETS
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 308, which is at
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the concurrent
resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 308) recognizing the
Members of AMVETS for their service to the Nation and
supporting the goal of AMVETS National Charter Day.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to
the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 308) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
____________________
THE CALENDAR
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar Nos. 647, 648, 649,
and 650, en bloc, that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be
agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, all en
bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
COMMENDING THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE ON THE OCCASION OF ITS
20TH ANNIVERSARY
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 109) commending the United
States Institute of Peace on the occasion of its 20th anniversary and
recognizing the Institution for its contribution to international
conflict resolution was considered and agreed to, as follows:
S. Con. Res. 109
Whereas the United States Institute of Peace (the
Institute) was established by Congress in 1984 as an
independent, nonpartisan Federal institution dedicated to the
prevention, management, and peaceful resolution of
international conflict;
Whereas the Institute fulfills its mandate from Congress
through programs and projects that support peacemaking and
the peaceful resolution of conflict abroad;
Whereas the Institute's broad congressional mandate has
allowed the Institute to become a valued source of innovative
ideas and practical policy analysis on peacemaking in zones
of conflict around the world, thereby enhancing United States
foreign policy;
Whereas the Institute is the result of long-term public
interest and dedication from Senator Spark Matsunaga of
Hawaii, Senator Jennings Randolph of West Virginia, Senator
Mark Hatfield of Oregon, Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas,
Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island, Representative Pat
Williams of Montana, Representative Dante Fascell of Florida,
Representative Dan Glickman of Kansas, Representative John
Porter of Illinois, as well as Members of Congress today;
Whereas the Institute trains thousands of government
officials, military and law enforcement personnel,
humanitarian workers, and civic activists from the United
States and abroad in the skills of professional peacemaking;
Whereas the Institute works to alleviate religious and
ethnic strife through mediation, training programs, research,
and opening of dialogue between and among religious factions;
Whereas the Institute promotes the development of the rule
of law in post-conflict and transitional societies and
provides assistance on constitution-drafting, judicial and
police reform, law revision, and war crimes accountability;
Whereas the Institute examines the role of the media in
international conflict including incitement and freedom of
the press;
Whereas the Institute attracts new generations to the
practice of peacemaking and has funded more than 150 graduate
students as Peace Scholars specializing in the resolution and
management of international conflict;
Whereas the Institute brings together practitioners and
scholars from around the world as fellows in the
distinguished Jennings Randolph Fellows Program to advance
knowledge and to publish reports and books on topics related
to the peaceful resolution of international conflict;
Whereas the Institute has trained hundreds of teachers and
enhanced curricular materials related to international
conflict, and has conducted educational seminars for
thousands of educators at schools and universities around the
country;
Whereas the Institute is strengthening curricula and
instruction, from high school through graduate school, on the
changing character of international conflict and nonviolent
approaches to managing international disputes and has
inspired the creation of dozens of courses and programs
dedicated to these topics;
Whereas the Institute has made more than 1,500 grants
totaling nearly $50,000,000 to individuals and nonprofit
organizations in 48 States in support of educational,
training, and research projects that have helped define and
build the field of conflict prevention and conflict
management in more than 64 foreign countries;
Whereas the Institute contributes to the advancement of
conflict resolution education by awarding college
scholarships to high school students through the annual
National Peace Essay Contest, training and developing
teaching guides for high school teachers, awarding grants to
university students pursuing doctoral degrees in
international conflict resolution, and awarding grants to
universities and professors in the United States researching
international conflict resolution;
Whereas the Institute works to bridge the divide with the
Muslim world and facilitate cross cultural dialogue around
the world, including in Russia and China;
Whereas the Institute's Balkans Initiative has made
positive contributions to peacebuilding in that region
including the facilitation of the Roundtable on Justice and
Reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina wherein key
officials of the 3 ethnic groups--Croats, Serbs, and
Muslims--came together to discuss war crimes;
Whereas the Institute has provided assistance to the Afghan
judicial system by helping to locate, reproduce, translate,
and distribute copies of Afghanistan's legal code, which was
destroyed by the Taliban and facilitated discussions among
the key institutions in the administration of criminal law
and justice in Afghanistan;
Whereas the Institute assisted President Nelson Mandela
with the development of South Africa's Truth and
Reconciliation Commission that was instrumental in preventing
post-apartheid bloodshed;
Whereas the Institute developed a detailed plan to handle
accountability in the wake of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda,
which became
[[Page 17197]]
the basis for Rwandan Genocide Law, and assisted the
Government of Rwanda in the implementation of the Law;
Whereas the Institute continues to work on the formation of
a formal Israeli-Palestinian Joint Legal Committee to address
legal issues and develop common approaches between the 2
different legal systems;
Whereas the Institute is committed to supporting religious
coexistence and understanding in the Middle East, and
elsewhere in the world;
Whereas the Institute has served as advisor and principal
financial supporter of the Alexandria process, a group of
prominent Muslim, Jewish, and Christian leaders from Israel,
the Palestinian Authority, and Egypt, who in January 2002
produced the ``Alexandria Declaration'', a 7-point statement
that calls, in the name of the 3 Abrahamic faiths, for the
end to bloodshed in the Holy Land;
Whereas the Institute uses its convening power to bring
together policymakers and experts on North Korea to discuss
issues of security and proliferation on the Korean peninsula
and develop policy recommendations;
Whereas the Institute is facilitating peace negotiations
between the Government of the Philippines and the Moro
Islamic Liberation Front--a Muslim insurgent group operating
in the southern island of Mindanao;
Whereas the Institute is organizing programs in Iraq to
strengthen the pillars of civil society and to contribute to
stabilization and post-conflict peacebuilding, including
training in conflict resolution for Iraqi security officials,
orientation training for personnel from the United States,
grantmaking to Iraqi organizations, collaboration with Iraqi
universities, support for interethnic and interreligious
dialogue, and assistance with rule of law issues; and
Whereas the Institute endeavors with the support of
Congress in a public-private partnership to build a permanent
headquarters on the National Mall as a working center on
peace, education, training in conflict management skills, and
the promotion of applied programs dedicated to resolution of
international conflict: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That Congress--
(1) recognizes the importance of the founding of the United
States Institute of Peace (the Institute) as a national and
international resource for peaceful conflict management and
looks forward to continuing to gain from its knowledge,
teaching, and practical applications of conflict management
as a way to promote United States security and peace in the
world;
(2) recognizes that the Institute has become an important
national resource for educational, training, and applied
programs in the prevention, management, and resolution of
international conflict;
(3) acknowledges the Institute's contribution to building
the Nation's capabilities for the prevention, management, and
resolution of international conflict and the advancement of
peace and conflict resolution education;
(4) expresses appreciation to the founding men and women of
the Institute and the support from the people of the United
States;
(5) congratulates the Institute on its 20th anniversary and
on its achievements in fulfilling its mandate from Congress;
and
(6) directs the Secretary of the Senate to make available
an enrolled copy of this resolution to the Institute.
____________________
NATIONAL VETERANS AWARENESS WEEK
The resolution (S. Res. 401) designating the week of November 7
through November 13, 2004, as ``National Veterans Awareness Week'' to
emphasize the need to develop educational programs regarding the
contributions of veterans to the country was considered and agreed to,
as follows:
S. Res. 401
Whereas tens of millions of Americans have served in the
Armed Forces of the United States during the past century;
Whereas hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their
lives while serving in the Armed Forces during the past
century;
Whereas the contributions and sacrifices of the men and
women who served in the Armed Forces have been vital in
maintaining the freedoms and way of life enjoyed by the
people of the United States;
Whereas the advent of the all-volunteer Armed Forces has
resulted in a sharp decline in the number of individuals and
families who have had any personal connection with the Armed
Forces;
Whereas this reduction in familiarity with the Armed Forces
has resulted in a marked decrease in the awareness by young
people of the nature and importance of the accomplishments of
those who have served in the Armed Forces, despite the
current educational efforts of the Department of Veterans
Affairs and the veterans service organizations;
Whereas the system of civilian control of the Armed Forces
makes it essential that the future leaders of the Nation
understand the history of military action and the
contributions and sacrifices of those who conduct such
actions; and
Whereas, on November 10, 2003, President George W. Bush
issued a proclamation urging all the people of the United
States to observe November 9 through November 15, 2003, as
``National Veterans Awareness Week'': Now, therefore, be it
Resolved,
SECTION 1. NATIONAL VETERANS AWARENESS WEEK.
(a) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the President should designate the week of November 7
through November 13, 2004, as ``National Veterans Awareness
Week''.
(b) Proclamation.--The Senate requests the President to
issue a proclamation--
(1) designating the week of November 7 through November 13,
2004, as ``National Veterans Awareness Week'' for the purpose
of emphasizing educational efforts directed at elementary and
secondary school students concerning the contributions and
sacrifices of veterans; and
(2) calling on the people of the United States to observe
National Veterans Awareness Week with appropriate educational
activities.
____________________
SMOKEY THE BEAR'S 60TH ANNIVERSARY
The resolution (S. Res. 404) designating August 9, 2004, as ``Smokey
Bear's 60th Anniversary'' was considered and agreed to as follows:
S. Res. 404
Whereas Smokey Bear's service to the United States for 60
years has protected the Nation's forests above and beyond the
call of duty;
Whereas Smokey Bear has been dedicated to educating
Americans of all ages and particularly America's youth, the
future stewards of our forests, about the need for vigilance
concerning forest health and wildfires;
Whereas Smokey Bear's message of vigilance can also be
applied to the need (1) to remove unnatural accumulations of
hazardous fuels from the public forests of the United States;
(2) to clear defensible space around homes and escape routes
in the wildland-urban interface; and (3) to suppress forest
fires that threaten communities or valuable natural
resources;
Whereas the Smokey Bear campaign is the longest running
public service campaign in the history of the United States;
Whereas Smokey Bear was the first individual animal ever to
be honored on a postage stamp;
Whereas the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture
is committed to increasing public information and awareness
about wildfires and forest protection;
Whereas the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture
is devoted to changing the public's behavior concerning
wildfires in an effort to maintain and protect the natural
resources and wildlife of the United States; and
Whereas the Forest Service of the Department of
Agriculture, the National Association of State Foresters, and
the Advertising Council have provided extraordinary support
and dedication to the purpose and efforts of Smokey Bear:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates August 9, 2004, as ``Smokey Bear's 60th
Anniversary''; and
(2) requests that the President issue a proclamation
calling upon the people of the United States to observe the
day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
____________________
NATIONAL MAMMOGRAPHY DAY
The resolution (S. Res. 407) designating October 15, 2004, as
``National Mammography Day'' was considered and agreed to as follows:
S. Res. 407
Whereas according to the American Cancer Society, in 2004,
215,990 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 40,110
women will die from this disease;
Whereas it is estimated that about 2,000,000 women were
diagnosed with breast cancer in the 1990s, and that in nearly
500,000 of those cases, the cancer resulted in death;
Whereas African-American women suffer a 30 percent greater
mortality from breast cancer than White women and more than a
100 percent greater mortality from breast cancer than women
from Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian populations;
Whereas the risk of breast cancer increases with age, with
a woman at age 70 having twice as much of a chance of
developing the disease as a woman at age 50;
Whereas at least 80 percent of the women who get breast
cancer have no family history of the disease;
Whereas mammograms, when operated professionally at a
certified facility, can provide safe screening and early
detection of breast cancer in many women;
Whereas mammography is an excellent method for early
detection of localized breast cancer, which has a 5-year
survival rate of more than 97 percent;
[[Page 17198]]
Whereas the National Cancer Institute and the American
Cancer Society continue to recommend periodic mammograms; and
Whereas the National Breast Cancer Coalition recommends
that each woman and her health care provider make an
individual decision about mammography: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates October 15, 2004, as ``National Mammography
Day''; and
(2) requests that the President issue a proclamation
calling upon the people of the United States to observe the
day with appropriate programs and activities.
____________________
AMENDING TITLES III AND IV OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3463, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3463) to amend titles III and IV of the Social
Security Act to improve the administration of unemployment
taxes and benefits.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 3463, the SUTA
Dumping Prevention Act of 2003. This bill cleared the House on July 14
by voice vote, and was held at the desk in the Senate to facilitate its
quick passage. On July 15, I introduced a companion bill with Senator
Kennedy, S. 2662, and it is cosponsored by Senators Grassley, Baucus,
Ensign, Levin, Gregg and Murray.
SUTA stands for State Unemployment Tax Avoidance. This bill addresses
employers who have lowered their State unemployment tax rate by
changing their ``experience rating.'' Experience rating is used to
determine an employer's unemployment tax rate. It means that companies
who have laid off more workers are required to pay more in State
unemployment taxes, and companies that have had fewer layoffs pay less.
Experience rating provides several incentives for employers, including
encouraging employers to maintain a stable workforce, and an incentive
to contest claims when employees quit or are fired for cause.
This legislation cracks down on employers who intentionally avoid
paying their fair share of State unemployment taxes. It prohibits
shifting employees into shell companies with the sole purpose being to
avoid paying the proper amount in unemployment taxes by changing their
experience rating. H.R. 3463 ends this abusive practice by requiring
States to deter tax rate manipulation and prevent SUTA dumping by
requiring that tax rate-related unemployment experience be transferred
with a business once it is transferred to another employer. It also
imposes penalties when the law is violated.
SUTA dumping was first exposed in December 2002 by the Labor
Department's Employment and Training Administration. Since then several
States have enacted SUTA dumping legislation, including Arkansas,
Maine, North Carolina and Washington. Though according to the General
Accounting Office, three-fifths of State unemployment administrators
indicated their State law is unable to combat the problem.
H.R. 3463 also includes language to make sure unemployment insurance
payments are not fraudulently paid to people who have returned to work.
The legislation includes a new hire database provision that authorizes
States to access nationwide work history information to ensure that
workers on a payroll are not also collecting an unemployment check.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 3463 will
decrease the Federal deficit by $499 million over 5 years and $510
million over 10 years. The savings result from increased collections
from employers who are currently engaging in SUTA dumping, and
additional savings from eliminating fraudulent unemployment insurance
payments to employed workers. The SUTA dumping provision will reduce
the Federal deficit by $429 million over 10 years, and the new hire
database provision by $81 million over 10 years.
These revenues will be added to unemployment trust funds, which
include triggers that lower unemployment tax rates as trust fund
balances rise. Enactment of H.R. 3463 promotes fairness and will lead
to reduced tax rates for employers who are today overtaxed.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time
and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that
any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 3463) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
RECOGNIZING NATIONAL HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be
discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 221 and that the
Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 221) recognizing National
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and the
importance and accomplishments of historically Black colleges
and universities.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble
be agreed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and
any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record, with the
above occurring with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 221) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 221
Whereas there are 105 historically Black colleges and
universities in the United States;
Whereas historically Black colleges and universities are
credited with making higher education financially attainable
for individuals who otherwise may not have been able to
afford postsecondary education;
Whereas historically Black colleges and universities have
significant success rates.
Whereas historically Black colleges and universities
provide a supportive social, cultural, and racial environment
for people of color who are seeking a college education;
Whereas in the United States historically Black colleges
and universities have educated 75 percent of all Blacks
having Ph.D.s, 46 percent of all Black business executives,
50 percent of all Black engineers, and 80 percent of all
Black Federal judges;
Whereas in the United States historically Black health
professional schools have trained an estimated 40 percent of
all Black dentists, 50 percent of all Black pharmacists, and
75 percent of all Black veterinarians;
Whereas in the United States historically Black colleges
and universities have educated an estimated 50 percent of all
Black attorneys and 75 percent of all Black military
officers; and
Whereas historically Black colleges and universities have
produced Members of the United States Congress, State
legislators, writers, musicians, actors, engineers,
journalists, teachers, scholars, judges, pilots, activists,
business leaders, lawyers, and doctors: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) fully supports the goals and ideals of National
Historically Black Colleges and Universities;
(2) salutes and acknowledges historically Black colleges
and universities and their presidents, faculties, staff, and
trustees for their vigorous and persistent efforts in support
of equal opportunity in higher education;
(3) commends the students who benefit from historically
Black colleges and universities for their pursuit of academic
excellence; and
(4) requests that the President issue a proclamation
calling on the people of the United States and interested
groups to conduct appropriate ceremonies, activities, and
programs to demonstrate support for historically Black
colleges and universities in the United States.
____________________
CONGRESSIONAL AWARDS GOLD MEDAL RECIPIENTS
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 400 and
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
[[Page 17199]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 400) recognizing the 2004
Congressional Awards Gold Medal Recipients.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to,
the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 400) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 400
Whereas today's youth are vital to the preservation of our
country and will be the future bearers of the bright torch of
democracy;
Whereas youth need positive direction as they transition
into adulthood;
Whereas the United States needs increased numbers of
community volunteers acting as positive influences on the
Nation's youth;
Whereas the Congressional Awards program is committed to
recognizing our Nation's most valuable asset, our youth, by
encouraging them to set and accomplish goals in the areas of
volunteer public service, personal development, physical
fitness, and expedition/exploring;
Whereas more than 14,000 young people have been involved in
the Congressional Awards program this year;
Whereas through the efforts of dedicated advisors across
the country this year 176 students earned the Congressional
Award Gold Medal; and
Whereas increased awareness of the program's existence will
encourage youth throughout the Nation to become involved with
the Congressional Awards: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) Recognizes the 2004 Congressional Award Gold Medal
recipients: Kori Agin-Batten, Elsbeth Allen, Noah Anderson,
Geoffrey Patrick Arai, Kristyn Amour, Stephen Asker, Benjamin
Jacob Ulrich Banwart, Elizabeth Barker, Robert G. Barnett,
Christopher Belcher, Regina Bennis-Hartman, Samuel B.
Blumberg, Christopher Bosch, Barrett Brandon, Blair Brandon,
Brooke Brandon, Lindsey Buscemi, Adam M. Cain, Daniel Campis,
Tina Cannon, Kent Cheung, Alexander Chun, Madeleine Clark,
Sarah Clark, Michael Clontz, Michelle Coxe, Jeremy Crump,
Kimberly Dahl, Dung Dam, Quoc Dam, Tri Dam, Kaitlin Davis,
Deanna M. DeGregorio, Erin J. DeGroot, Katherine D. DeGroot,
John Daniel DeJarnette, Clifton Michael Der Bing, Joshua W.
Detherage, Christina Dodson, Matthew Doumar, Lindsay Madison
Elgart, Marisa Enrico, Elizabeth Erratt, Julia Evans, Dewan
Kazi Farhana, Amanda Feldman, Sarah Finch, Justin Floyd,
Amanda Flynn, Richard Zachary Freed, Rigoberto Garcia, Yaneth
Garcia-Lopez, Amanda Gersch, Cory Gibson, Anna Gorin, Arielle
Gorin, Gina Marie Gormley, Daniel Grad, Tabitha Grad, Rebecca
Marie Green, Megan Hanson, Nicole Hanson, Ryan Headley, John
Baron Hoff, Jessica Honan, Laura Honan, Lindsey Howard, Harry
Kline Howell III, Dermot Sean Hoyne, Daniel Hults, Manuel
Ibarra, Angeles Jacobo, Jennifer Anne Jasper, Sarah Jennings,
Tabitha Jennings, Tyler Jussel, Atul Kapila, Nikolas Kappy,
Megan Kavanagh, Cristina Kavendek, Abbie Klinghoffer,
Alexander J. Knihnicky, Ross Kozarsky, Jeffrey David Lambin,
Andrew Langfield, Heather R. Leung-Van Hassel, Grace
Lichlyter, Zachary Myles Lindsay, Jessica M. Link, Katherine
Victoria Lugar, Ryan MacCluen, Raul Magdaleno, Raymond
Malapero, Jonathan R. Mason, Rebecca N. Massicotte, Kelly
McCormick, Benjamin McDonough, Alyssa McIntyre, Richelle
Milburn, Sri Hari Miskin, Sarath Mom, Eric Moulton, Kathleen
Mullins, Sarah Mullins, Carolina Munoz, Christine Murray,
Kathleen Murray, Samuel Nassie, Douglas Neder, Matthew Neder,
Patrick Novak, Ricardo Nunez, Maria Fatima Olvera-Santana,
Sona Or, Lauren Pace, Colby Patchin, Emily C. Patchin, Jamin
Patel, Elizabeth Philbin, Daniel R. Philbrick, Lauren Priori,
Christy Pugh, Hannah Qualls, Sarah Raymond, Brett Rendina,
Kristen N. Richter, Margarete Rosenkranz, Erin Rosen-Watson,
Julie Rothfarb, Sarah Ann Rudoff, Maggie Salter, Stacia
Scattolon, Jessinah Schaefer, Rachel Lyn Schmidt, Lindsay
Schroeder, Megan Schroeder, Loni L. Schumacher, Magan Lindsey
Scott, Mallory J. Selzer, Jessica Seppi, Anupriya Singhal,
Elyssa Starr Sisko, Geoffrey Morgan Smith, Kayla Smith,
Michael Smyth, Eric Snyder, Karin Marie Spindler, Georgia
Stegall, Charles Strong, Jared Cameron Sullivan, Danielle
Sutter, Creighton Lee Taylor, Matthew M. Thies, Sarah Tipton,
Erick Todd, Elaine Trahan, Landon Trost, Christine Truesdell,
Georgette Tzatzalos, Staff Sergeant Cornelio Umali, Lacey
VanderBoegh, Katherine Warner, Emily J. Warren, Kate V.
Warren, Brian Washakowski, Crystal-Mae Waugh, Elyse Weissman,
Joanna Whitten, Brent Wright, Chantelle Wright, Trevor John
Wright, Christopher Zaehringer, Brian Zobel, Christopher
Zobel, and Matthew Zobel; and
(2) requests that the President issue a proclamation
calling upon the people of the United States and interested
groups to promote awareness of and volunteer involvement in
the Congressional Awards program.
____________________
ENCOURAGING INCREASED INVOLVEMENT IN ASSISTING SENIOR CITIZENS
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be
discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 409 and that the
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 409) encouraging increased
involvement in service activities to assist senior citizens.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to,
the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements
relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 409) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 409
Whereas approximately 13,000,000 individuals in the United
States have serious long-term health conditions that may
force them to seek assistance with daily tasks;
Whereas 56 percent of the individuals in the United States
with serious long-term health conditions are age 65 or older;
Whereas the percentage of the population over the age of 65
is expected to rise from 13 percent in 2004 to 20 percent in
2020;
Whereas the number of individuals entering the workforce
and the number of health care professionals with geriatric
training are not keeping pace with the changing demographics;
Whereas medicaid paid for 51 percent of total long-term
care spending in 2002, as compared to the 15 percent of total
long-term care spending paid by medicare;
Whereas the long-term care system of the United States,
funded largely with Federal and State dollars, will have
difficulty supporting the coming demographic shift;
Whereas 80 percent of seniors live at home or in community-
based settings;
Whereas 3,900,000 people of the United States who are over
age 65 receive long-term care assistance in home and
community settings;
Whereas 65 percent of seniors who need long-term care rely
exclusively on friends and family, and another 30 percent
rely on a combination of paid caregivers and friends or
family;
Whereas 15 percent of all seniors over the age of 65 suffer
from depression;
Whereas studies have suggested that 25 to 50 percent of
nursing home residents are affected by depression;
Whereas approximately 1,450,000 people live in nursing
homes in the United States;
Whereas by 2018 there will be 3,600,000 seniors in need of
a nursing home bed, which will be an increase of more than
2,000,000 from 2004;
Whereas as many as 60 percent of nursing home residents do
not have regular visitors;
Whereas older patients with significant symptoms of
depression have significantly higher health care costs than
seniors who are not depressed;
Whereas people who are depressed tend to be withdrawn from
their community, friends, and family;
Whereas the Corporation for National and Community Service
(CNS) Senior Corps programs currently provide seniors with
the opportunity to serve their communities through the
Retired and Senior Volunteer Program, Foster Grandparent
Program, and Senior Companion Program;
Whereas through the Senior Companion Program in particular,
in the 2002 to 2003 program year, more than 17,000 low-income
seniors volunteered their time assisting 61,000 frail elderly
and homebound individuals who have difficulty completing
daily tasks;
Whereas numerous volunteer organizations across the United
States enable Americans of all ages to participate in similar
activities;
Whereas Faith in Action, 1 volunteer organization, brings
together 40,000 volunteers of
[[Page 17200]]
many faiths to serve 60,000 homebound people with long-term
health needs or disabilities across the country, 64 percent
of whom are 65 years of age or older;
Whereas the thousands of volunteers that, through the
Senior Companion Program and volunteer organizations
nationwide, provide companionship and assistance to frail
elderly individuals and homebound seniors, deserve to be
commended for their work;
Whereas the demand for these services outstrips the number
of volunteers, and organizations are seeking to enlist more
individuals in the United States in the volunteer effort;
Whereas companionship and assistance programs for seniors
with long-term health needs offer many demonstrated benefits,
such as: allowing frail elderly individuals to remain in
their homes; enabling seniors to maintain independence for as
long as possible; providing encouragement and friendship to
lonely seniors; and providing relief to family caregivers;
Whereas regular visitation and assistance is the best way
of assuring seniors that they have not been forgotten, and
State and local recognition of regular visitation programs
can call further attention to the importance of volunteering
on an ongoing basis; and
Whereas a month dedicated to service for seniors and
recognized across the United States will call attention to
volunteer organizations serving seniors and provide a
platform for recruitment efforts: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates September 2004 as ``Service for Seniors
Month'';
(2) recognizes the need for companionship and assistance
with daily tasks among seniors with long-term health
conditions throughout the year, and encourages the people of
the United States to volunteer regularly with homebound frail
elderly or at a nursing home or long-term care facility;
(3) encourages volunteer organizations that offer
companionship and assistance to seniors to incorporate
``Service for Seniors Month'' in their recruitment efforts;
(4) encourages individuals in the United States to
volunteer in these service organizations in order to give
back to a generation that sacrificed so much; and
(5) requests that the President issue a proclamation
calling on the people of the United States and interested
groups to observe ``Service for Seniors Month'' with
appropriate ceremonies and activities that promote awareness
of, and volunteer involvement service for, seniors with long-
term health needs.
____________________
SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL PURPLE HEART RECOGNITION
DAY
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Armed Services
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 112,
and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the concurrent resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 112) supporting the
goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consideration of
the concurrent resolution.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be
agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid
on the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements
be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 112) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The concurrent resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Con. Res. 112
Whereas the Purple Heart is the oldest military decoration
in the world in present use;
Whereas the Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the
President of the United States to members of the Armed Forces
who are wounded in conflict with an enemy force or are
wounded while held by an enemy force as prisoners of war, and
posthumously to the next of kin of members of the Armed
Forces who are killed in conflict with an enemy force or who
die of a wound received in conflict with an enemy force;
Whereas the Purple Heart was established on August 7, 1782,
during the Revolutionary War, when General George Washington
issued an order establishing the Honorary Badge of
Distinction, otherwise known as the Badge of Military Merit;
Whereas the award of the Purple Heart ceased with the end
of the Revolutionary War, but was revived in 1932, the 200th
anniversary of George Washington's birth, out of respect for
his memory and military achievements; and
Whereas National Purple Heart Recognition Day is a fitting
tribute to George Washington and to the more than 1,535,000
recipients of the Purple Heart, approximately 550,000 of whom
are still living: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That Congress--
(1) supports the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart
Recognition Day;
(2) encourages all people of the United States to learn
about the history of the Purple Heart and to honor its
recipients; and
(3) requests that the President issue a proclamation
calling on the people of the United States to conduct
appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs to
demonstrate support for people who have been awarded the
Purple Heart.
____________________
HONORING THE MEMBERS OF THE ARMY MOTOR TRANSPORT BRIGADE WHO DURING
WORLD WAR II SERVED IN THE TRUCKING OPERATION KNOWN AS THE RED BALL
EXPRESS FOR THEIR SERVICE AND CONTRIBUTION TO THE ALLIED ADVANCE
FOLLOWING THE D-DAY INVASION OF NORMANDY, FRANCE
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the Armed Services Committee be
discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 439, and that the
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the concurrent resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 439) honoring the
members of the Army Motor Transport Brigade who during World
War II served in the trucking operation known as the Red Ball
Express for their service and contribution to the Allied
advance following the D-Day invasion of Normandy, France.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consideration of
the concurrent resolution.
Mr. FRIST. I further ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution
be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider
be laid on the table, all with no intervening action or debate, and any
statements be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 439) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
____________________
APPOINTMENT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on behalf of the majority leader,
after consultation with the ranking member of the Senate Committee on
Finance, pursuant to Public Law 106-170, announces the appointment of
the following individual to serve as a member of the Ticket to Work and
Work Incentives Advisory Panel: Thomas P. Golden of Tennessee.
____________________
AUTHORIZING THE MAJORITY LEADER OR ASSISTANT MAJORITY LEADER AND THE
SENIOR SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA TO SIGN DULY ENROLLED BILLS OR JOINT
RESOLUTIONS
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that during the adjournment of the
Senate, the majority leader or assistant majority leader and the senior
Senator from Virginia be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or
joint resolutions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
AUTHORIZING COMMITTEES TO REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE MATTERS
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the Senate's
adjournment, committees be authorized to report legislative and
executive matters on Wednesday, August 25, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 17201]]
____________________
AUTHORIZING APPOINTMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, THE PRESIDENT
OF THE SENATE PRO TEMPORE, AND THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY LEADERS
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming
recess or adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, The
President pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be
authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards,
conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by
concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF BOTH HOUSES OF
CONGRESS
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 479 which is at
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the concurrent
resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 479) providing for a
conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives and a
conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent
resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 479) was agreed to, as
follows:
H. Con. Res. 479
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative
day of Thursday, July 22, 2004, or Friday, July 23, 2004, on
a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by
its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until
2 p.m. on Tuesday, September 7, 2004, or until the time of
any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent
resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate
recesses or adjourns on Thursday, July 22, 2004, Friday, July
23, 2004, or Saturday, July 24, 2004, on a motion offered
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader
or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on
Tuesday, September 7, 2004, or at such other time on that day
as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in
the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any
reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent
resolution, whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly
after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and
the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members
of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at
such place and time as they may designate whenever, in their
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
____________________
ORDERS FOR TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment under the
provisions of H. Con. Res. 479 until 12 noon on Tuesday, September 7. I
further ask unanimous consent that following the prayer and pledge the
morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved
to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later
in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business with
statements only until 5 p.m., with the time equally divided in the
usual form; provided that following morning business the Senate proceed
to executive session as provided under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the
next vote will occur at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 7. There will
be at least two votes on district judges and a third judge is expected
to be confirmed by voice vote.
We have a number of issues remaining when we return from the August
break. In addition to the executive nominations, we must continue the
appropriations process.
In addition, the Judiciary Committee reported a constitutional
amendment regarding flag desecration, and we will want to debate that
measure.
Having said that, there will be much work to do and there will be
very little time to do it.
I wish everyone a safe and happy recess. I hope everyone has time
over the next several weeks to recharge their batteries, for it will be
a busy fall legislative period.
I thank everyone for their efforts and hard work throughout this
time.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader allow
me to call a quorum?
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
AMENDING ENHANCED BORDER SECURITY AND VISA ENTRY REFORM ACT OF 2002
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary
Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now
proceed to H.R. 4417, the Biometric Visa bill, that the bill be read a
third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table,
and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want the
Record to be spread with the fact that Senator Feinstein has allowed
this matter to pass. We have worked on the matter and she feels
strongly about the CalFed bill. Numerous staff have worked on this for
hours and hours today. Several times today we thought we had it done,
and it didn't work out.
The distinguished majority leader and his staff indicated--I also
want the Record to reflect this--that everything will be done when we
get back to see if we can get this bill which the Senator from
California feels so strongly about.
But again, this would not have happened but for the cooperation of
the distinguished Senator from California, Senator Feinstein.
No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 4417) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, finally, if there is no further business to
come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand
in adjournment under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 479.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 11:46 p.m., adjourned until
Tuesday, September 7, 2004, at 12 noon.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate July 22, 2004:
commodity futures trading commission
SHARON BROWN-HRUSKA, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A COMMISSIONER OF
THE COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION FOR THE TERM
EXPIRING APRIL 13, 2009. (REAPPOINTMENT)
saint lawrence seaway development corporation
JAMES S. SIMPSON, OF NEW YORK, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
ADVISORY BOARD OF THE SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, VICE JAY C. EHLE.
department of energy
KAREN ALDERMAN HARBERT, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE
AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY (INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND
DOMESTIC POLICY), VICE VICKEY A. BAILEY.
inter-american development bank
HECTOR E. MORALES, OF TEXAS, TO BE UNITED STATES EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK FOR A TERM OF
THREE YEARS, VICE JOSE A. FOURQUET, RESIGNED.
[[Page 17202]]
international monetary fund
ALAN GREENSPAN, OF NEW YORK, TO BE UNITED STATES ALTERNATE
GOVERNOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND FOR A TERM OF
FIVE YEARS. (REAPPOINTMENT)
the judiciary
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, OF OHIO, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, VICE PAUL R. MATIA,
RETIRING.
department of justice
LISA GODBEY WOOD, OF GEORGIA, TO BE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA FOR THE TERM OF FOUR
YEARS, VICE RICHARD S. THOMPSON, RESIGNED.
RICHARD B. ROPER III, OF TEXAS, TO BE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FOR THE TERM OF
FOUR YEARS, VICE JANE J. BOYLE, RESIGNED.
department of the treasury
GREGORY FRANKLIN JENNER, OF OREGON, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, VICE PAMELA F. OLSON, RESIGNED.
department of state
YOUSIF B. GHAFARI, OF MICHIGAN, TO BE AN ALTERNATE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE FIFTY-
NINTH SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS.
JANE DEE HULL, OF ARIZONA, TO BE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE FIFTY-NINTH SESSION OF THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS.
in the air force
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be lieutenant colonel
MARJORIE B. MEDINA
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be lieutenant colonel
HENRY LEE EINSEL JR.
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be lieutenant colonel
ROBERT L. MUNSON
department of energy
JOHN S. SHAW, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE AN
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY (ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND
HEALTH), VICE BEVERLY COOK, RESIGNED.
department of the treasury
ANNA ESCOBEDO CABRAL, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE TREASURER OF THE
UNITED STATES, VICE ROSARIO MARIN.
____________________
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate July 22, 2004:
Department of Energy
JERALD S. PAUL, OF FLORIDA, TO BE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
Department of Defense
TINA WESTBY JONAS, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER).
The Judiciary
JOHN O. COLVIN, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE UNITED
STATES TAX COURT FOR A TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS.
Department of the Treasury
CHARLES L. KOLBE, OF IOWA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM
EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 14, 2004.
Central Intelligence
LARRY C. KINDSVATER, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE FOR COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT.
Department of Homeland Security
DAVID M. STONE, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
CAPTAIN SAMUEL P. DE BOW, Jr., NOAA FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE
GRADE OF REAR ADMIRAL (O-8), WHILE SERVING IN A POSITION OF
IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY AS DIRECTOR, NOAA CORPS AND
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MARINE AND AVIATION OPERATIONS, NATIONAL
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF TITLE 33, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 3028(d)(1).
CAPTAIN RICHARD R. BEHN, NOAA FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
OF REAR ADMIRAL (O-7), WHILE SERVING IN A POSITION OF
IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY AS DIRECTOR, MARINE AND
AVIATION OPERATIONS CENTERS, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 33, UNITED
STATES CODE, SECTION 3028(D)(1).
THE ABOVE NOMINATIONS WERE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE
NOMINEES' COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS TO APPEAR AND
TESTIFY BEFORE ANY DULY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE.
In the Air Force
THE FOLLOWING AIR NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE TO
THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be brigadier general
Col. Douglas M. Pierce
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be lieutenant general
Lt. Gen. Duncan J. McNabb
In the Army
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be brigadier general
Colonel Yves J. Fontaine
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be major general
Brigadier General Don T. Riley
THE FOLLOWING ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE ARMY TO THE
GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be brigadier general
Col. Jerry M. Rivera
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE
OF THE ARMY TO THE GRADES INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 12203:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. Gregory J. Hunt
To be brigadier general
Col. Jose M. Vallejo
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be general
Lt. Gen. Bantz J. Craddock
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be lieutenant general
Lt. Gen. James L. Campbell
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be lieutenant general
Maj. Gen. John M. Brown III
THE FOLLOWING ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE ARMY TO THE
GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be brigadier general
Col. Glenn K. Rieth
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
VALERIE LYNN BALDWIN, OF KANSAS, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
JOHN RIPIN MILLER, OF WASHINGTON, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
OFFICE TO MONITOR AND COMBAT TRAFFICKING, WITH THE RANK OF
AMBASSADOR AT LARGE.
IN THE MARINE CORPS
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER
TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be major general
BRIG. GEN. CORNELL A. WILSON, JR.
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER
TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be brigadier general
COL. ROBERT D. PAPAK
COL. EUGENE G. PAYNE, JR.
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES MARINE CORPS TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be brigadier general
COL. RANDOLPH D. ALLES
COL. JOSEPH F. DUNFORD, JR.
COL. PAUL E. LEFEBVRE
COL. RICHARD P. MILLS
COL. MARTIN POST
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES MARINE CORPS TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO
A POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be lieutenant general
MAJ. GEN. JAMES F. AMOS
IN THE NAVY
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be rear admiral
REAR ADM. (LH) RICHARD J. MAULDIN
REAR ADM. (LH) ANTHONY L. WINNS
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be rear admiral (lower half)
CAPT. TIMOTHY J. MCGEE
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be rear admiral
REAR ADM. (LH) STEVEN L. ENEWOLD
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be rear admiral
REAR ADM. (LH) STANLEY D. BOZIN
REAR ADM. (LH) CHARLES T. BUSH
REAR ADM. (LH) JEFFREY B. CASSIAS
REAR ADM. (LH) WILLIAM D. CROWDER
REAR ADM. (LH) RICHARD K. GALLAGHER
REAR ADM. (LH) DAVID A. GOVE
REAR ADM. (LH) TIMOTHY L. HEELY
REAR ADM. (LH) GARY R. JONES
REAR ADM. (LH) JAMES D. KELLY
REAR ADM. (LH) THOMAS J. KILCLINE, JR.
REAR ADM. (LH) SAMUEL J. LOCKLEAR III
REAR ADM. (LH) JOSEPH MAGUIRE
REAR ADM. (LH) ROBERT T. MOELLER
REAR ADM. (LH) ROBERT D. REILLY, JR.
REAR ADM. (LH) JACOB L. SHUFORD
REAR ADM. (LH) PAUL S. STANLEY
REAR ADM. (LH) MILES B. WACHENDORF
REAR ADM. (LH) PATRICK M. WALSH
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be admiral
VICE ADM. TIMOTHY J. KEATING
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT AS VICE CHIEF
OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES NAVY, AND APPOINTMENT TO
THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A POSITION OF
IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTIONS 601 AND 5035:
To be admiral
VICE ADM. JOHN B. NATHMAN
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be vice admiral
VICE ADM. ROBERT F. WILLARD
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED
[[Page 17203]]
WHILE ASSIGNED TO A POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY
UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be vice admiral
VICE ADM. ALBERT T. CHURCH III
IN THE COAST GUARD
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES COAST GUARD TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 14,
U.S.C., SECTION 271:
To be rear admiral
REAR ADM. (LH) DALE G. GABEL
REAR ADM. (LH) JEFFREY M. GARRETT
REAR ADM. (LH) STEPHEN W. ROCHON
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING LORENA A. * BAILEY AND
ENDING JASON P. * ZIMMERER, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
MARCH 12, 2004.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING RANDALL M. ASHMORE AND
ENDING JAMES O. WOOTEN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON MAY
10, 2004.
AIR FORCE NOMINATION OF NORMAN L. WILLIAMS.
AIR FORCE NOMINATION OF THOMAS R. BIRD.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING REX A. HINESLEY AND ENDING
JERI K. SOMERS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE
AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JULY 8, 2004.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING PETER W. BICKEL AND ENDING
WILLIAM D. TAYLOR, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JULY 8,
2004.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING DONALD A. AHERN AND ENDING
MICHAEL A. WOBBEMA, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JULY 8,
2004.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING STEPHAN A. * ALKINS AND ENDING
CLORINDA K. ZAWACKI, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JUNE 16,
2004.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING DOUGLAS R. DIXON AND ENDING
THORPE C. WHITEHEAD, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JUNE 16,
2004.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING NANCY H. FIELDING AND ENDING
TAMMY L. MIRACLE, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JUNE 17,
2004.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING BRIAN R. COPES AND ENDING DENNIS
P. SIMONS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND
APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JUNE 17, 2004.
NAVY NOMINATION OF GERALD R. MANLEY.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING BRIAN S. ADAMS AND ENDING JOHN
M. ZUZICH, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND
APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JUNE 24, 2004.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING MYLES E. BROOKS, JR. AND ENDING
JAMES E. WATTS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE
AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JULY 8, 2004.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING BILLY M. APPLETON AND ENDING MIL
A. YI, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND
APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JULY 8, 2004.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING CARLA M. ALBRITTON AND ENDING
EDWARD L. ZAWISLAK, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JULY 8,
2004.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING MICHAEL T. ACROMITE AND ENDING
CRAIG M. ZELIG, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE
AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JULY 8, 2004.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING TIMOTHY A. ACKERMAN AND ENDING
TERRY D. WEBB, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE
AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JULY 8, 2004.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING STEVEN E. ALLEN AND ENDING
SHARON M. WRIGHT, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JULY 8,
2004.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING KRISTEN N. ATTERBURY AND ENDING
MARY A. YONK, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE
AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JULY 8, 2004.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING DAVID A. BERGER AND ENDING ERIN
E. STONE, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND
APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JULY 8, 2004.
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING JOHN J. ADAMETZ AND ENDING
BARNEY S. WILLIAMS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JULY 8,
2004.
COAST GUARD NOMINATION OF CRAIG S. TOOMEY.
COAST GUARD NOMINATION OF LAURIE J. MOSIER.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION NOMINATIONS
BEGINNING JOHN C. CLARY III AND ENDING ANDREW P. SEAMAN,
WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN
THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON MAY 18, 2004.
[[Page 17204]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, July 22, 2004
The House met at 10 a.m.
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
Lord God, Your prophet Ezekiel envisioned an idealized kingdom. Just
as any patriot does for his or her country. As people of faith, the
Members of Congress also have ideals for the Nation. And we pray that
their visionary hopes will be realized.
Perhaps it is our own longing for equal justice for all within our
boundaries and our desire for homeland security along our borders that
help us best to understand the prophetic action of Ezekiel setting
boundaries for all the tribes of Israel.
Perhaps he teaches us that we need to set boundaries ourselves as the
best way for keeping peace and assuring prosperity. Each State, each
community, doing its part to make the whole Nation strong and
responsible.
In the end, Ezekiel saw You, the all-holy Lord God, dwelling in the
midst of it all. From this center all power would flow in and out. From
this center where You dwell all else would be measured and all would be
held together.
Lord God, dwell in our midst, now and forever. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's
proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) come
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. PASCRELL 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.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Monahan, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate has passed without amendment a bill of the
House of the following title:
H.R. 4226. An act to amend title 49, United States Code, to
make certain conforming changes to provisions governing the
registration of aircraft and the recordation of instruments
in order to implement the Convention on International
Interests in Mobile Equipment and the Protocol to the
Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on
Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment, known as the ``Cape
Town Treaty''.
The message also announced that the Senate has passed a bill and
concurrent resolutions of the following titles in which the concurrence
of the House is requested:
S. 2249. An act to amend the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act to provide for emergency food and shelter.
S. Con. Res. 125. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
60th anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising during World War II.
S. Con. Res. 130. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that the Supreme Court of the United States
should act expeditiously to resolve the confusion and
inconsistency in the Federal criminal justice system caused
by its decision in Blakely v. Washington, and for other
purposes.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER. The Chair will entertain 10 one-minute speeches per
side.
____________________
NO AVERAGE SUIT
(Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I know the photo behind me looks like an
average business suit. It is not. It is a weapon of mass destruction.
Highly classified documents were removed from the National Archives.
The Justice Department is investigating Sandy Berger, having secreted
away some misplaced highly classified documents that could be
potentially embarrassing to the former administration.
What in heaven's name was he thinking? Why would he risk both his
reputation and possible prosecution? What is there to hide in this
coat?
At the very least it is gross negligence, and at the most it is a
national security crises. With his experience, no one can claim that
these are the actions of a bumbling or absent-minded government
employee. Sandy Berger knows better.
Since when is taking and misplacing classified documents ever an
honest mistake? And we thought it was bad when the last administration
was just taking the furniture.
____________________
BAD HABITS OF THE WHITE HOUSE
(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, the White House read the 9/11 Commission
report. They know how damaging it is going to be, so they leaked the
Sandy Berger story to distract attention away from this report.
This is a bad habit of this White House. They leak a story to change
the subject when they are in deep political trouble. They leaked the
identity of a CIA agent whose husband criticized this administration.
They leaked Dick Clarke's memo when he criticized them. And they leaked
documents to discredit Paul O'Neill after he criticized them.
The timing here, unfortunately, again, is very suspicious. We need
some answers here. Can we trust this Justice Department to investigate
fairly and impartially who leaked this? And why is this administration
trying to distract the American people again from the 9/11 Commission
report, a commission that this White House did not support the creation
thereof or the continuation of this commission? And most importantly,
does this administration trust the American people with the truth? I
think not.
____________________
GOOD NEWS FROM THE PRESIDENT
(Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my
appreciation to President Bush for the good news he has given all
Americans.
Thanks to his efforts to combat terrorism, terrorists around the
world are on the run. Thanks to his economic initiatives, more than one
million new jobs have been created in the last several months. Thanks
to his education legislation, America's children are doing better in
school. Thanks to his Medicare reform, seniors pay less for
prescription drugs. Thanks to his tax relief, every taxpayer has more
to spend on their family's needs.
Yet, many of the President's opponents, frankly, hate him and the
national media is biased against him. Why does the President's good
news bring out the worst in others?
Well, I do not know, but I do have a hunch that most Americans will
give the President their heartfelt thanks on Election Day.
[[Page 17205]]
____________________
ONGOING ADMINISTRATION FAILURE
(Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, well, the Republicans can try and dredge up
the ghosts of administrations past, but this commission report released
this morning says that both the Clinton and Bush administrations are
equally culpable in 9/11. What they say is there is an ongoing failure.
The greatest failure is of our intelligence agencies and law
enforcement agencies to share information.
They say no matter how much money you dump into the intelligence
agencies, they are going to continue to fail because of the culture of
keeping their own information. They say we need to establish a new way
of sharing information among those agencies.
The gigantic bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security,
written on the back of a napkin by Karl Rove at the White House, did
not get there because it excluded the intelligence agencies who failed
the United States of America. Nothing has been done about this ongoing
failing to integrate the information. They put out something called the
TTIC, the Terrorist Threat Information Center. Guess what? They send
low-level people there on short details and they do not share. They are
like 3-year-olds about billion dollar budgets.
They have the information to make this country safe. It is time for
this Congress and this administration to take the steps we need that
are outlined in this report. Forget about Sandy Berger and a bunch of
other B.S.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The Members are reminded to
avoid profanity.
____________________
IRAQ'S RETURN TO NORMALCY
(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, there is still a lot to do, but as we speak
the Iraqi government is making progress. Iraqi police are rounding up
kidnappers. The Kurds have captured 15 foreign militants in Kirkuk,
including a key leader and an al-Qaeda affiliate.
The number of Arab and other foreign fighters currently detained in
Iraq continues to grow. Iraq's border police have apprehended more than
60,000 foreigners in the past 7 months, most of them Iranians trying to
enter Iraq illegally, and there are plenty of signs that the residents
of Baghdad are finding a sense of normalcy amidst the transition to
democracy.
Five teams participated in the first Iraqi baseball tournament,
including two female teams. Nightlife is returning to the banks of the
Tigris River, and residents have started frequenting summer cafes.
In Mosul the military is working with Iraqis to dig wells, renew
archeological digs, build a laboratory and repair a hospital elevator.
The Iraqi people are making progress despite the ongoing efforts of
terrorists to drag them back to the dark ages of Saddam Hussein.
____________________
WILL THE PRESIDENT KEEP HIS COMMITMENTS?
(Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, every single law enforcement organization,
including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs
Association, supports our efforts, or lack of them, our efforts to
continue the ban on assault weapons. Their only purpose is to kill or
maim. The President made a commitment in his campaign in 2000. He said
it. I did not. He said he would continue that ban, and now he is gone
back on it.
Now, Mayor Bloomberg of New York said something very interesting 2
weeks ago. You folks are going up there for your convention. They had
11 homicides 2 weekends ago. He stood in a press conference and said,
there are too many weapons on the street.
I say to Mayor Bloomberg, call your President, remind him of the
commitment he made in the 2000 campaign, the presidential campaign, and
make sure he keeps those commitments. We do not need another Columbine.
We do not need another spraying of people who are innocently lost day
in and day out. What we need is keeping our commitment. Will the
President?
____________________
SLOPPY SOCKS SCANDAL
(Mrs. BLACKBURN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I am hearing from my constituents on the
Sandy Berger sloppy socks scandal. They are horrified, absolutely
horrified that somebody who was trusted with our Nation's security
would stoop to such a level of carelessness that now we have the
situation where it appears he has stuffed it in his socks, in his pants
pocket, in his jacket pocket and has taken frequent, frequent restroom
breaks.
What happened with the documents?
They are offended that the former President would make this a
laughing matter and talk about how he laughed about the carelessness.
Let me tell you, my constituents want some answers.
Here is an e-mail from one of my constituents. ``I do not care when
it was discovered or when it was released, only that it took place. I
am very concerned that any government representative would minimize the
action or regard it as sloppy, careless or a mistake. It is a crime.''
The people want answers. They expect a full investigation.
____________________
{time} 1015
THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as I got up this morning, I heard on CNN
news that the Republican leadership had already decided we cannot do
anything about the 9/11 report until next year.
What we come to this morning is, first, the gentleman from Florida,
now the lady from Tennessee, to tell us that the problem is Sandy
Berger. Hey, folks, do not pay any attention to that report, just look
at Sandy Berger's picture. Come on, look at Sandy Berger's picture.
Look at Sandy Berger's picture. That is what you want to do.
This is a distraction by the White House. This is a damning report,
and we can spend all the time we want to blaming people here, but the
question is what are we going to do.
The Republicans say they care about terrorism. This here is a report
that gives us concrete things to do; and the leadership of the
Republican Party says, well, put this up on the shelf, this 9/11
report, just put it up there, and let us go down and talk about Sandy
Berger.
Did anything get lost? Did the commission say they could do not their
work? Did the Justice Department come to it with any charges against
Mr. Berger? No.
Now, we do not want to talk about the White House and Vivian Plame,
or whatever her name was, that they outed or the majority leader who
seems to be in some difficulty in Texas. We do not want to talk about
that stuff. Let us talk about what needs to be done with the terrorism
report.
____________________
THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT WASTES A LOT OF MONEY
(Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, almost every Member of this Congress wants
us to have a strong military, and we all
[[Page 17206]]
want to support our troops. Yet almost everyone realizes, too, that the
Defense Department unfortunately wastes a lot of money.
It seems to me that we have an obligation to the taxpayers to speak
out against this waste, or it will get even worse.
Now national news organizations and publications have reported that
the Defense Department has paid for 556 breast enlargements and 1,592
liposuctions for soldiers and dependents from 2000 through the first 3
months of 2004. These are very expensive operations.
I realize the Federal bureaucrats can rationalize or justify almost
any expense, especially since it is not coming out of their pockets,
but soldiers have an obligation to stay in shape and meet physical
fitness requirements and should not need liposuction for severe
obesity.
Certainly, it does not make any sense to say that breast enlargements
will make women better soldiers.
____________________
THE NATIONAL DEBT
(Mr. MATHESON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, since the start of the current
administration in January of 2001, the national debt has increased by
$1,639,772,884,702.
According to the Web site for the Bureau of the Public Debt at the
U.S. Department of the Treasury, yesterday the Nation's total
outstanding, privately held debt was $4,228,551,437,783.
Foreign holdings of U.S. privately held debt now total $1.75
trillion. This is an increase of $740 billion since January of 2001,
and it is 41 percent of all privately held U.S. debt.
For the sake of our children and our grandchildren, the fiscal health
of our country deserves far better care and attention from the White
House and from this Congress.
____________________
WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?
(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, before the ink was even dry on the 9/11
report, before we even had a chance to read it, some were saying we
should delay any action on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.
I have one simple question: What are we waiting for? Did we miss the
point of 9/11? Remember, we cannot spell 9/11 without 9-1-1 and 9-1-1
means urgent, emergency, act now, life or death. It does not mean let
us table this discussion until after the election.
The bipartisan commission has called for the creation of a national
terrorist center with a new Cabinet-level intelligence chief. They call
for the creation of a Joint House and Senate Committee on Intelligence
with budget power. I say, great, let us do it, let us act now. What are
we waiting for? What part of 9/11 does the leadership of this House not
understand?
____________________
9/11 COMMISSION REPORT
(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, today the bipartisan 9/11 Commission gave
their report to Members of Congress, and I think it was a solid report.
It pointed out we just did not have the imagination to perceive our
enemies hating us so much that they would use airplanes as missiles and
attack us in the somewhat cowardly, surprised manner that they did. We
did not have the capabilities in our intelligence community because we
looked at it through Cold War visions. We should have been looking
ahead. Finally, we did have not the right management tools. The CIA,
the FBI, and other agencies were not talking to each other.
Therefore, one of their recommendations was to put together a
national security czar, one person who would be above the CIA and the
FBI to kind of control the 15 different intelligence agencies. I think
it is an interesting proposal, one that I think most Members of
Congress are going to be receptive to.
They also said that we need to put together a committee, maybe a
select joint committee between House and Senate, for more oversight,
perhaps giving it the authority to authorize and appropriate.
Oversight, Members of Congress are going to be very interested in this,
and I am looking forward to a good bipartisan effort to address the
issues raised by the 9/11 Commission.
____________________
BORROWING MONEY
(Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the American people
understand what is happening with our fiscal House, our economic well-
being.
I wonder if the American people know, Mr. Speaker, that the President
of the United States is borrowing money to add to the largest annual
deficit in the history of the United States, borrowing money to give
tax cuts, tax cuts that will go disproportionately to households making
over $300,000 a year.
As the Wall Street Journal said just the other day, a very
conservative newspaper, all of these prior trillion dollars of tax cuts
have benefited primarily the very rich in our society, not the middle
class, not the working class and not the poor; and they give reasons
why that is so.
Instead of borrowing money, adding to the deficit for more tax cuts
for the rich, who have done very well, thank you very much, why do we
not invest that money in our Nation's infrastructure, roads, bridges,
sewers, hospitals, school buildings, so that not only do we provide
good-paying jobs but at the end of it we have something to show for it
and we do not force our local property taxpayers to pick up the tab
when the Federal Government should be paying for it, instead of giving
it to the very rich who have done extraordinarily well. God bless them,
but they do not need the money. America and our taxpayers need the
money.
____________________
MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT
(Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, on a day of good news, when we have a
report from the 9/11 Commission that has been thorough, bipartisan,
with some solid, hard-hitting suggestions to make our country safer,
when later this morning I am confident the House is going to take a
vote condemning what is going on in Sudan and calling it what it is,
genocide, moving us in the right direction. Sadly the House Republican
leadership has managed to take the terrible idea of enshrining
discrimination in our Constitution against gay and lesbian citizens and
trump it, take it one step further.
We are about to debate a rule that for the first time in our history
would pass legislation stripping from the Federal courts the ability to
rule on constitutionality of Legislation. They want to do it
specifically in a case of discrimination against our gay and lesbian
citizens.
Never before in our history have we done this. In fact our former
colleague, Bob Barr, who authored DOMA, said it is unnecessary and a
dangerous precedent. I hope the House will reject it.
____________________
TAX CUTS
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, Democrats like tax cuts, too, but the
Democratic Party's tax policies are targeted to do the most good for
the majority of Americans. Working families will be the beneficiaries
of the Democratic tax policy.
Republicans want tax cuts which give more to the have-mores. Tax cuts
for the rich are luxury toys, but tax cuts for working families are
absolute necessities.
Working families need more child care tax credits. Working families
need
[[Page 17207]]
tuition tax credits to help their children attend college and rise up
the economic ladder.
Let the corporations pay more taxes if we need revenue for the war in
Iraq or any other activity. Change the Federal rules for the way we
charge for our assets, grazing land, mining rights or the sale and
lease of the spectrum above us, which is owned by the American people.
Democrats want tax cuts, but we want tax cuts for working families.
____________________
COURT-STRIPPING LEGISLATION
(Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today, the House will attempt to do
something it has never done before, strip our courts of hearing cases
on the Defense of Marriage Act.
Eight years ago, I opposed DOMA because I felt it was a blatant act
of discrimination against gays and lesbians. To this day, I believe
Republicans forced the issue in 1996 because it was a Presidential year
and they wanted to divide the country in a desperate search for votes.
It is 8 years later, and Republicans are at it again. Last week, they
were embarrassed in the other body when they could not even muster a
majority on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Since that
did not work, why not strip the courts of authority to hear cases
regarding DOMA?
The court-stripping bill would, for the first time in our Nation's
history, take from a group of Americans the right to appeal to our
courts. It is also extremely dangerous in that it would lead to the
possibility of Congress stripping other issues from judicial review in
the future.
It is bad policy; but in an election year, Republicans simply do not
care.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3313, MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT OF
2004
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 734 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 734
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
3313) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal
court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of
Marriage Act. The bill shall be considered as read for
amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill shall be considered as adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes of
debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), 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.
On Wednesday, the Committee on Rules did meet and grant a closed rule
for H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. The rule provides
90 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
{time} 1030
This bill seeks to utilize the constitutional authority of Congress
to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal judiciary to hear cases which
may arise as a result of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, otherwise
known as DOMA. The bill reserves that authority to the States. The bill
provides that no Federal court will have the jurisdiction to hear a
case arising under DOMA's full faith and credit provision.
This provision in DOMA codified that no State would be required to
give full faith and credit to a marriage license issued by another
State if that relationship is between two people of the same sex. Long-
standing Supreme Court precedent recognizes the power of Congress to
limit the jurisdiction of courts that it creates.
In essence, the bill says no Federal court will have the opportunity
to strike down DOMA's full faith and credit provision. The result of
such a decision by the Federal courts would in effect invalidate the
numerous Defense of Marriage Acts which have passed in at least 38
States. This would mean that the citizens of States such as Michigan,
California, Virginia, Texas, and Florida, who have their own statutes
to define marriage as between one man and one woman, would have to
recognize the marriage licenses issued to same sex couples by other
States that allow that practice.
I believe the people of these States as well as the people of my home
State of North Carolina should be able to defend and preserve the
institution of marriage and that we today should support their efforts.
This is the way it has been throughout civilization. It is our job to
prevent unelected lifetime appointed Federal judges from striking down
DOMA's protection for the States. To that end, I urge my colleagues to
support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the
underlying bill. The Marriage Protection Act of 2004 is quite simply a
mean-spirited, discriminatory and misguided distraction. It does not
belong on the floor of the House of Representatives, not when there are
so many important issues facing Congress and the American people.
Nearly 900 American soldiers have now been killed in Iraq, but the
House is not talking about that today. Today the bipartisan 9/11
Commission issues its report on what happened and how to prevent it
from happening again, but we are not talking about that on the House
floor today.
This Republican leadership has failed to pass a budget, but we are
not talking about that. Today we learn that, according to the GAO, the
Pentagon has spent most of the $65 billion that Congress approved for
fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is trying to find $12.3
billion more from within the Department of Defense to make it through
the end of the fiscal year. We should be talking about that.
We still do not have a transportation bill. The minimum wage has not
been increased in years. Millions of Americans are unemployed and
without health insurance. Homeland security needs are going unmet, but
we are not talking about any of that in the House of Representatives
today.
According to the New York Times, conservative activist and Republican
adviser Paul Weyrich's solution to the bad news coming out of Iraq was
to ``change the subject'' to gay marriage. I quote, ``Ninety-nine
percent of the President's base will unite behind him if he pushed the
amendment,'' Mr. Weyrich said. ``It will cause Mr. Kerry no end of
problems.'' As for gay Republicans whose votes Mr. Bush might lose, Mr.
Weyrich wrote, ``Good riddance.''
So instead of addressing the real concerns facing American families,
the leadership of this House has decided to throw their political base
some red meat because we all know exactly what is going on here.
Mr. Speaker, we can at least be honest about it. Last week the
Republican leadership got beat badly in the other body. Not only did
they not pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, Senate Republicans could
not even agree among themselves what to vote on. So the Republican
leadership, including the White House, decided they needed a win on
something that beats up on gay
[[Page 17208]]
people and they needed to do it fast, so here we are. They could not
amend the Constitution last week so they are trying to desecrate and
circumvent the Constitution this week.
The intent of this bill is quite clear, to close the door to the
Federal courthouse for an entire group of American citizens simply
because of their sexual orientation. It is enough to take my breath
away. One of the most fundamental, sacred principles of our system is
that every single American should have access to equal justice under
the law, not some Americans, not most Americans, not just straight
Americans, but all Americans. But not any more. Not under this bill.
Under this bill for the first time in our long history, a person can
be denied access to the Federal courts when that person claims that a
Federal statute violates the Constitution.
Further, this bill takes 200 years of jurisprudence based on the
separation of powers and throws it in the trash.
Why? Because of the latest craze in Republican fund-raising appeals,
the dreaded ``activist judges.'' To all of those listening to the
debate today, I would encourage you to count how many times the phrase
``activist judges'' is thrown around. Make sure you have your
calculator.
The problem is that the Republican leadership only goes after the so-
called activist judges they disagree with. They had no problem in
activist judges in Bush v. Gore. And make no mistake about it, if this
bill passes its proponents will be back for more. Every time there is a
court decision they do not like, they will attempt to prohibit the
courts from exercising their constitutional oversight. Other issues
will be on the table, civil rights and civil liberties, voting rights,
choice, environmental protection, worker protections, all will be at
risk if a political majority in Congress disagrees with a Federal court
decision. This bill would set a dangerous, dangerous precedent.
Finally, we hear a lot of rhetoric today from supporters of this bill
protesting that they are not anti-gay, just pro-marriage. Well, the
supporters of this bill have even named it the Marriage Protection Act.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the other side, but my marriage does not need
protection, and certainly not from the Republican leadership of this
House.
This bill seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. There is no
urgency, no credible court case challenging DOMA.
So let us work on the issues that matter most to our constituents.
Let us tackle health care and education and homeland security and jobs,
let us not change the subject for political reasons, let us not
desecrate the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Cast your
vote with an eye toward being on the right side of history. Look
further than tomorrow's headlines, think about more than 30 minutes
from now, think about 30 years from now. Remember that Members of
Congress opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
Remember that Members of Congress denounced a decision in Brown v.
Board of Education in part because of activist judges. History has not
been kind to them.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to clarify the actual wording of what this bill does. It
does not favor or disfavor any particular result or any group of
people. It is motivated by a desire to preserve for the States the
authority to decide whether the shield Congress enacted to protect them
from having to accept same sex marriage licenses issued out of State
will hold. There is no ill will here toward anyone. It does not dictate
the results, either. It only places final authority over whether the
States must accept same sex marriage licenses granted in other States
in the hands of the States themselves.
This bill should be supported, I believe, by any Member who supports
the proposition that lifetime appointed Federal judges must not be
allowed to rewrite marriage policies for the States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time and bringing this rule to the floor. She is one of the great
leaders in this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill
that was originally authored by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hostettler).
For 7\1/2\ years before I came to Congress I served as a circuit
court judge in Tennessee. For many years, I have heard Federal judges
complain about the Congress expanding Federal jurisdiction too much, so
they are greatly overworked. This is a very reasonable, minimal
limitation of their jurisdiction and I am sure that even if this
legislation passes, the Federal judges will still claim that they are
very much overworked.
On July 12, 1996, the House passed and on September 10, 1996, the
Senate passed the Defense of Marriage Act. That act said the word
``marriage'' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as
husband and wife, and the word ``spouse'' refers only to a person of
the opposite sex who is a husband or wife. I repeat that. That
legislation said the word ``marriage'' means only a legal union between
one man and one woman.
That legislation further said no State shall be required to give
effect to any public act, record or judicial proceeding of any other
State respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, Territory and
so forth.
That legislation, Mr. Speaker, passed by the overwhelming margin of
342 to 67 in this House, and by the even more overwhelming margin of 85
to 14 in the Senate. That is 85 Senators voted for that legislation.
Further, it went to the President, President Clinton at that time, and
he signed that legislation into law.
This legislation, authored by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hostett-
ler), is a reasonable expansion of that legislation limiting the
jurisdiction because it is true that many, many people in this country
have been upset that unelected judges have assumed so much super-
legislative power in this country in recent years. The overwhelming
majority of the American people do believe that the only true marriage
is that between one adult man and one adult woman. There are other
limitations on marriage such as prohibitions against marriages by
family members or bigamist marriages, and I think the overwhelming
majority of the American people feel that our society, our families,
and especially our children would be better off if we defined marriage,
the only true marriage, legal marriage, as that of being between one
man and one woman.
Mr. Speaker, I know that many outstanding people come from broken
homes, but I also know that the greatest advantage that we can give to
any child is a loving mother and father. That is so important to the
future of this country. That is a greater advantage than unbelievable
amounts of money.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a man who was one of the most
respected Members of the Senate, a Senator from the other party, said
several years ago that we have been, unfortunately, defining deviancy
down, accepting as a part of life what we once found repugnant. We
should stand behind traditional marriage. We should stand behind this
legislation and support it as strongly as we possibly can.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a strong defender of the United States
Constitution.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would not be standing here
today had it not been for the courts of America, and particularly our
Federal jurisdiction. I would not have the opportunity to speak in this
august body, to have achieved an education that some might call equal
in an unequal system if we did not have Brown v. Topeka Board of
Education that broke the chains of segregation on America. I would
argue that was a high moment
[[Page 17209]]
in America's history. We do not have the time in the moments I have to
speak to chronicle that history of the courts providing opportunities
for the minority.
Today I want to explain to America that this is not a constitutional
amendment that will address the question of their fears and
apprehensions about loving individuals being together. This is a poor
fix and this is a collapse of government as we know it.
Mr. Speaker, might I say that this is an undermining and barring of
Americans from the courthouse door. I give Members an example. Just
suppose that farming policies of the State of Texas, my Texas, had been
ill-conceived and some poor farmer that Willie Nelson sings for every
year went to the Federal courthouse in Texas and asked that those
policies be declared unconstitutional or illegal. This amendment sets
the precedent for slamming the courthouse door to that farmer.
{time} 1045
Or maybe someone in Ohio, a consumer who wants to challenge the ill-
conceived consumer laws that causes thousands of injuries to our
children on the playgrounds of America, and that poor person goes to
the Federal courthouse and wants to go to the Supreme Court, that door
is slammed in their face.
I asked the Committee on Rules in their wisdom to send this out with
an unfavorable response. Unfortunately, they did not. So today we
debate an ill-conceived precedent that will deny the citizens of
America judicial review, due process, and equal protection under the
law.
I close by simply saying, we see in the Washington Post today that
the Pentagon needs billions of more dollars this year in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Today we do not debate that. We have the 9/11 report, and
today we do not have a Homeland Security authorization markup.
I ask my Republican friends, and I ask them with sincerity, why can
we not do the people's business and do it in the right way?
Mr. Speaker, I close by saying I was and still stand as a minority in
America. I cannot stand for having minority rights denied by this
amendment being passed today. I ask for a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 374, the rule issued for
the base bill, H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act (MPA). The very
fact that the bill itself has been brought to the floor of the
Committee of the Whole is obnoxious and indicative of a diminished
respect for the Constitution--with which many of us on this side of the
aisle would rather not be associated.
In addition to the contravention of and the disregard for the public
policy that has been established by statutory law, caselaw decided in
the highest court in the Nation, and most importantly the intent of the
Framers of our Constitution, the base bill, as my colleagues from
Florida so eloquently stated in the Rules Committee hearing yesterday,
``attempts to legislate morality'' for an entire nation.
In debating this very important issue, I would ask that my colleagues
put aside their personal biases and fears and examine this bill for
what it is--a threat to the framework of our democracy that is facially
unconstitutional. As legislators, we all take an oath to uphold the
integrity of the Constitution and to protect the citizens of America
from overbroad and invidious acts of the legislative and executive
branches.
H.R. 3313 is inconsistent with the Equal Protection clauses of the
Constitution and its Bill of Rights. It singles out one group of
people--lesbian and gay Americans--for different and inferior
treatment. This unequal treatment of one group is the very essence of
classifications that run afoul of the principle of Equal Protection.
The bill is with the separation of powers. The principle of judicial
review, part of the bedrock of our political system since Marbury v.
Madison, protects citizens from overreaching by the legislative and
executive branches. Our system of government relies on its ``checks and
balances'' and an independent judiciary to ensure that all legislation
complies with the Constitution. We in Congress lack the power to exempt
legislative branch actions from judicial review and we should not
attempt to reverse this process now.
The proposed Marriage Protection Amendment is inconsistent with Due
Process. Removing access to Federal courts on a question of Federal
law, such as the constitutionality of MPA, could deprive an individual
challenging such a law of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth
Amendment's Due Process Clause.
The proposed Marriage Protection Act is a major departure from our
constitutional and legal tradition. Despite many efforts over recent
decades to adopt restrictions on Federal courts in controversial areas
(such as abortion rights and school prayer), no bill instituting a
broad ban on a subject matter class or cases has passed, much less one
that disadvantages only a discrete group of people.
In Congress, our views differ on many things, but we can unite in the
fact that we believe in the constitution and we are here to serve the
public. This bill will do neither, it goes against our founding
document and it only alienates a group of people and denies them basic
rights.
I would ask that my colleagues defeat this bill and protect our
fundamental rights.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time at this
point.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, as a nonlawyer and observing that there are
many young people in the gallery today, this is actually an instructive
debate that we are having for the second time in 2 weeks. Last week,
with the sponsorship of Republicans and Democrats alike, we paid
tribute to John Marshall.
John Marshall was perhaps the most important jurist in the history of
the United States, because despite what many people think, in the
Constitution of the United States nowhere does it say who will settle
disputes between the legislature, the executive, and the courts. What
if each of the three branches come to a different conclusion?
Well, John Marshall, in 1803, 201 years ago, said the courts are
going to decide. The courts are going to be the final arbiter of what
is constitutional and what is not.
For 200 years, that has served as the way that we have operated,
virtually unquestioned. It was even unquestioned in the year 2000 when,
in the Constitution of the United States, it clearly says that Congress
has the right to choose electors, and the Supreme Court took that upon
itself. We Democrats, although we were very concerned about it,
jurists, scholars of jurisprudence said it was a terrible decision, but
no one says it should not be the courts to make that decision.
I would say to the gentlewoman or anyone who supports this bill, if
not the courts then who? Who is going to make the decision about the
constitutionality of this law?
We are left with essentially three choices. One, we can say the State
courts will make that final determination. But what if we have two
State courts that are in conflict? Who is going to resolve that
dispute?
Two, we can say that it will be the legislature that will always
decide these things, and we have 50 different legislative
interpretations, or the legislature will change every 2 years, changing
interpretation of the law.
And the third choice is just anyone can choose whatever
interpretation that they like.
Before we choose anything but the courts, before we support this, let
us remember something here. The courts are where the minority goes to
have their views heard. That one person who is standing outside a movie
theater; the courts are where that one person goes who wants to protect
his right to bear arms against a legislature that is overzealous, where
the one person goes who has burnt a flag and wants to go to find out if
what he has done is constitutional.
There are dozens and dozens of places in society where the majority
rules. The court is the only place we go to protect our constitutional
rights.
So to the sponsors of the bill, to the sponsors of the rule, I ask
them, if not John Marshall's way, if not judicial review, if not the
Supreme Court of the United States of America, then who will it be who
will decide what is constitutional and what is not?
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
for just a clarification.
[[Page 17210]]
Marbury v. Madison is entirely consistent with H.R. 3313. It
established the principle of judicial review and stands for the
proposition that the Supreme Court has the final say on the issues it
decides, provided either the issues it decides are within its original
jurisdiction or Congress by statute has granted the Supreme Court the
authority to hear the issue. It is that simple. If a case does not fall
within the jurisdiction of the Federal courts because Congress has not
granted the required jurisdiction, Federal courts simply cannot hear
the case.
The author of Marbury v. Madison was Chief Justice John Marshall, as
was stated, and Chief Justice Marshall himself, after he decided that
case, dismissed cases when the Federal courts had not been granted
jurisdiction by Congress to hear them under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule, because this debate must be
removed from the courts who are filled with unelected, lifetime judges,
and the debate should be moved from those courts back into the court of
the people, back into the courthouse square instead of in the
courthouse.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has the constitutional right to be involved in
this process, and I can tell that the debate has already covered that,
so I am going to limit my comments. But the Constitution declares that
Congress will be involved in making these sorts of decisions in
determining what the Federal courts will and will not hear. It was, in
fact, that judicial review process that Judge Marshall made in Marbury
v. Madison that began the process of judicial review that is not even
called for in the Constitution, and judicial review which has extended
the power of the courts beyond, beyond, and beyond where the original
Framers of the Constitution intended for the courts to have power and,
in doing so, have eroded the power of the legislative branch.
Mr. Speaker, we have encountered in our history a very clear, similar
case, exactly paralleling what we are doing today. We had a time in our
history when there were definitions that the courts began to give, such
as the definition of slavery.
It was the Supreme Court that decided in the Dred Scott decision that
the issue of slavery involved the will of the minority and said that
the will of the minority could not be subjected to the will of the
majority. Of course, the courts at that time did a small sleight of
hand because the minority that they were talking about was really the
minority slave holders, the owners of slaves, and they overlooked the
rights of the minority of the slaves themselves. We fought a Civil War
over the Supreme Court's definitions at that point.
Instead of really understanding that the will of the people had
spoken and the ensuing constitutional amendments, the courts later, in
the Plessy v. Ferguson case, established the Separate but Equal
Doctrine that again was offensive to the multitudes of people in this
country.
Right now we have a Supreme Court that is willing to declare its will
on the people no matter what the people say, and I think that the rule
is extremely important here, because it begins to take that right back
from the Supreme Court and put the discussion in this body who
represents and can be elected and unelected by the people. The Supreme
Court cannot be unelected, ever, and it is a very critical element of
this argument.
But to those people who say this is an emotional issue, they are
exactly correct. Our office spent over 20 hours discussing the issue,
and we have people inside our office who were on both sides of the
issue. But at the end of the day, nature has described what a marriage
is. Law only fundamentally defines what nature has already defined:
that a man and a woman come together, they create life, and it is the
only life-creating institution and the only life-creating relationship
in the world, and then the bonding process of that keeps them together
in order to nurture and to grow the children and the offspring.
Mr. Speaker, that is the relationship that people are asking about,
and it is a good question. Should gays be allowed to marry? Well, yes,
they can, and they should be allowed to marry. But marriage, by
definition of nature, is between a man and a woman, and if they are
going to marry, they have to marry a man or a woman. The discussion is
absolutely centered around this question, and it is not a matter of
right and it is not a matter of discrimination.
But what the other side of the aisle wants to do is to redefine
marriage for all people. It is the redefinition that is wrong, because
there is no civil rights abridgement here. Many black leaders are
speaking in favor of this. This is the will of the people saying we
must have a discussion among the people as to what is marriage and how
it is defined.
For these reasons, I support the rule, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard everything here, but
citing the Dred Scott decision in support of this amendment is like
citing the Ku Klux Klan in support of civil rights legislation. This
amendment is a Soviet style attack on American freedom, and the reason
requires a little look at history.
The former Soviet Union had a Constitution, like we do. The former
Soviet Union had a Bill of Rights, like we do; very similar to our Bill
of Rights. But the former Soviet Union had another little trick. Their
little trick was that the executive and legislative branches prohibited
the judicial system of the former Soviet Union from enforcing their
Bill of Rights, and what did they get? Tyranny.
The instructive lesson of the Soviet Union is that we should not go
down the path of getting rid of, yes, frustrating, nonunderstandable
courts that sometimes do not agree with Congress. But I guess the
authors of this amendment feel that they are smarter than Thomas
Jefferson and smarter than any court that ever lived.
This is not the only right that is going to be on the chopping block.
Once we do away with the independence of the American judicial system,
which has never been done in American history, ever; this Chamber has
never, ever cut the knees out of the American Bill of Rights in
American history, and this is not like the first time we have a
controversial issue that may end up in the courts. Civil rights was
controversial. Gun rights are controversial. It may be controversial if
this Congress passes a gun rights bill like the Brady Bill and then it
goes to the U.S. judicial system to see if it is constitutional, that
is controversial. But where will this stop?
I may ask the drafters, why did you stop here? Why, if you believe
the PATRIOT Act is constitutional, why do you not just do away with the
Supreme Court and not let them review that as well?
This is a first step to tyranny. It ought to be rejected.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to read a couple of quotes from Thomas Jefferson that he
made, of course, a long time ago. He lamented that ``the germ of
dissolution of our Federal Government is in the Constitution of the
federal judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day,
gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its
noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all
shall be usurped. . . .''
In Jefferson's view, leaving the protection of individual rights to
fellow judges employed for life was a very serious error. Responding to
the argument that Federal judges are the final interpreters of the
Constitution, Jefferson wrote, ``You seem . . . to consider the
[federal] judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional
questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place
us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as
other men and not more so.''
[[Page 17211]]
{time} 1100
They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the
privileges of their core. Their power is the more dangerous, as they
are in office for life and not responsible as the other functionaries
are to the elective control.
The Constitution has elected no such single tribunal, knowing that to
whatever hands confided with the corruptions of time and party, its
members would become despots.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to hear concerns about an
overreaching judiciary, and I asked a simple question. I will gladly
yield to an answer. If not the judiciary interpreting the laws of
Congress, then who does?
Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have a response?
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Mrs. MYRICK. Well, in this particular case, it is the State courts,
the right to be left to the State courts.
Mr. WEINER. Certainly. Well, in that case, who is to interpret
conflicts between the two State courts or 50 State courts?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we do
listen carefully to this debate. Why are we here today if it is not
just a sad grab for votes after the embarrassing meltdown in the Senate
last week dealing with the constitutional amendment that would have
banned same-sex marriage?
Listen to the rationale. The overworked judiciary? That certainly has
not stopped our Republican colleagues from trying to shift the burden
when it fits their ideology. They want the States to have the final
authority only in this area, not for consumer protections or
environmental policy.
The Republican leadership do not like unelected lifetime judges
making these difficult decisions.
Well, frankly, looking at their efforts to pack the Federal judiciary
with unqualified right-wing ideologues, I can understand why they are a
little nervous about it; but, that is our system. Now they are afraid
of their own conservative-leaning Supreme Court. This is so
unnecessary, that the author of DOMA, our former colleague Bob Barr,
has issued an edict. This is not needed; and Mr. Barr points out, to
his credit, that this is a terrible precedent.
Ten years from now the American public, especially our young people,
are going to wonder why we tied ourselves in knots politically trying
to discriminate against citizens based on their sexual orientation; but
if we pass this dangerous legislation today, while the controversy
surrounding rights for gay and lesbian citizens will be gone, this
dangerous, tragic, ill-conceived precedent will linger and will be
dusted off every time people want to extend their political influence
at the expense of issues that may be controversial but demand attention
from our Federal courts.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
me this time and support the rule.
The comments about conservative-leaning courts just fly in the face
of actual fact. This court in Lawrence v. Texas was not exactly right-
leaning, and that is a fairly recent decision. In fact, the case of the
Congress over being willing to declare what the courts can and cannot
look at is a very recent occurrence, as our friends on the other side
of the aisle seem to have forgotten that Mr. Daschle himself wrote into
the legislation that the court cannot even oversee the removal of
shrubbery and scrub brush from the national forest in South Dakota.
And certainly if the Supreme Court and the courts can be held back
from considering anything in the management of those forests, it might
just reach the threshold that the American people should have the right
to say that the Federal courts would not be the last point of reference
there.
I would go back again to my friend's comment that quoting the Dred
Scott decision is like quoting from the Ku Klux Klan civil rights
manual. I think that the mixing of conversations there was certainly
not based on fact. The Dred Scott decision was a decision by not a
Republican court to establish slavery as the legitimate form of
activity in this country. The Dred Scott decision was the one that
authorized and made slavery legal, and it was against the will of the
people that that was done. And it is similar to the case now where the
courts would operate against the will of the people.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, after the gentleman's comments, in his
concern for activist Federal judges, I just want to state for the
record that seven of the Supreme Court justices right now have been
appointed by Republican Presidents, and pretty conservative Republican
Presidents at that.
I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, this Member of the other body was in
violation of the rules referenced on the floor. Let me just clarify the
record there. It is perfectly legal to write into a piece of
legislation that one goes to a certain place for a point of review but
not another place. Nowhere in the Daschle legislation did it say one
has no right to the courts or no right to the Supreme Court of the
land. That is simply misstating the facts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I think it is important to understand the essence of this bill,
because it is truly very simple. What it does is it says that the
Defense of Marriage Act that was passed by this body in 1996, obviously
it is a Federal statute, cannot be reviewed by the Federal courts. That
is what it says, and it includes even the United States Supreme Court.
So for the first time in our constitutional history since the
decision in Marbury v. Madison, this body would strip from the United
States Supreme Court its essential function in our democracy, which is
the review, particularly of Federal statutes, for the determination as
to its constitutionality. That is what this debate is about today. It
is not about the defense of marriage. We did that in 1996; and by the
way, if you took a look at the recent data in terms of divorce, it has
not been very effective, I would suggest; but as the gentleman from
Oregon indicated, the author of the Defense of Marriage Act, former
Representative Robert Barr, urges a ``no'' vote on this particular bill
because of what it does. It establishes a dangerous precedent. It is
clearly unconstitutional.
Let me conclude with this statement. This bill does not defend
marriage. What it does do, however, it diminishes our democracy; and we
ought not to be about that as an institution. We should encourage our
democracy and our values.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule
considering H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. This is a
critical piece of legislation that will prevent unelected, lifetime
appointed Federal judges from arbitrarily determining the definition of
marriage for the American people.
In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act by an
overwhelming bipartisan margin. Defense of marriage firmly states that
no State shall be required to accept the same-sex marriage licenses
granted by other States. To this day, 38 States have passed similar
defense of marriage laws, demonstrating the overwhelming consensus for
the protection of the institution of marriage.
The role of Congress has always been clear on the limitation of
jurisdiction
[[Page 17212]]
of the lower Federal courts. The Marriage Protection Act is an exercise
of Congress's authority and is an appropriate remedy to address the
abuses of Federal judges on this issue. States with defense of marriage
statutes or constitutional amendments on same-sex marriage should not
be forced to accept same-sex marriages from other States.
Today the Federal courts are being used by activist judges to
redefine marriage for the American people, completely apart from public
debate upon those that the American people have elected to represent
them.
More than 200 years of American law and thousands of years of human
experience should not be arbitrarily changed by a handful of unelected
judges. The issue of marriage is too important to be decided by
judicial fiat. The American people must have a voice on this important
issue.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 3313.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule
and the underlying bill; and if enacted, this would establish a
tremendously dangerous precedent by denying the Federal judiciary the
ability to review actions of the legislative and executive branches. It
would eliminate the checks and balances that the Founding Fathers of
our Nation so wisely established in our Constitution. Such a reckless
move would cause lasting and permanent damage to our democracy.
Since John Marshall, the Constitution has had superiority over the
legislature. The Constitution gave us the right to speech and privacy,
and even if we vote for 435 to 0, certain rights are protected in our
Constitution. But if this bill were to become law, it would deny
jurisdiction to the Supreme Court and all Federal courts over any cases
related to the Defense of Marriage Act.
This bill goes beyond merely preventing same-sex couples from seeking
legal redress in our courts. It would deny judicial review to an entire
class of citizens because of passing partisan passions, and it is
willing to trample on our Constitution in order to do so. No issue is
worth paying such a price. This is a low moment in the history of this
House. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill. The
Republican leadership is trying to use a wedge issue to appeal to
right-wing constituencies in a highly charged election year, and they
are willing to trample on our Constitution. No issue is ever worth such
a price. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, we here in America are fortunate indeed for
our history and our law. We have a written Constitution that protects
our liberties, and we have a system of checks and balances that makes
sure that we do not fall prey to totalitarianism. 201 years ago, a case
was decided, Marbury v. Madison, and in that famous case, Justice
Marshall pointed out that we were at a cusp. Either the Constitution is
a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, he said, or
it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts and like other acts is
alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
He said then, and for the last 200 years we have agreed, that it is
indefatigably the province and the duty of the judicial department to
say what the law is. Make no mistake about it, this proposal, whatever
you think about gay marriage, whatever you think about DOMA, this
proposal today is a radical one. It proposes to change the system of
government that we have enjoyed here in America for over 200 years, a
system of checks and balances, where the Constitution is the paramount
authority, and the executive and the legislative branches must live
within the Constitution.
This road leads to totalitarianism; and so whatever you think on the
hot issue, the political issue of gay marriage, I urge you to reject
this first step down the road to a system of government that is
markedly different from what Americans have enjoyed for the last 200
years.
{time} 1115
I have never seen a debate of this sort in the Committee on the
Judiciary, and again today on the floor, such a serious
misunderstanding of the system of government that we have here today.
Do not let it happen here.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
I rise to support the rule and the underlying bill. We have got
several comments from our friends on the other side of the aisle that
definitely demand a closer look. First, the statement that this side of
the aisle is bringing this highly charged issue up right now as an
electionary issue. I am sorry, but it was not this side of the body
that began to cause people to go down in acts of defiance of the law,
began to get licenses and get marriages approved that were currently
against the law. It was not this side of the aisle that brought those
up. We are simply responding that now that the issue has come up, we
need to deal with it.
Also, there was a comment that we are diminishing democracy, and
absolutely the opposite thing is occurring. We are empowering the
democracy and we are empowering the people. But the other side is
working under the very knowledge and the very truth that if they can
find one court and four judges they can create law in this country.
That is not empowering democracy. This bill and this rule empower
democracy.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, oil prices at $40 a barrel, nearly 1,000
young American men and women dead in Iraq, 6,000 wounded.
What are we debating here on the floor of Congress? We are taking up
a bill to strip the Federal courts of the power to hear cases
challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Apparently, the Republican Congress is so concerned that a gay or
lesbian couple might someday have their marriage in one State
recognized in another that they are prepared to take the extreme
measure of preventing judges from interpreting the law.
While every other American will continue to enjoy the checks and
balances that come from three branches of government, the Republicans
have decided that if you are gay you should be able to get along with
just two branches of government. Why are they doing this?
Conservative activist Paul Weyrich shed some light on the current
thinking in Republican circles which explains why this bill is really
on the floor today. Here is what Mr. Weyrich had to say: ``The
President has bet the farm on Iraq. Right or wrong, he has done it.
Even if you disagree with the decision, you have to admire the
President for putting it on the line and staying the course despite
overwhelmingly bad news for months now.
``Therefore, Iraq will be an unavoidable topic of discussion in this
campaign. The problem is that events in Iraq are out of the control of
the President.''
Mr. Weyrich writes, ``There is only one alternative to this
situation: Change the subject.'' He dismisses the option of taking up
oil prices or the economy. Apparently, even he does not think those are
winners for the President.
``No,'' he concludes, ``what I have in mind to change the subject is
a winner for the President. The Federal Marriage Amendment.'' The gay
marriage issue, he gleefully advises, ``will cause Senator Kerry no end
of problems.''
So that is what it is really all about. Republican leaders in
Washington are running scared. They look at the polls on Iraq, on the
economy, on jobs and they fear that the voters are going do rise up in
November, and as a result they bring an unconstitutional act out on the
floor that will strip gays and lesbians of their rights to be able to
go to the Federal courts.
[[Page 17213]]
Vote ``no'' on this bill. It is a disgrace against the United States
Constitution.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the sponsor of this bill.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule
and, obviously, in strong support of the underlying legislation.
I would like to bring us back to a discussion of the actual
legislation that is being considered and a discussion initially of the
constitutionality of that legislation.
We have heard lots of folks that have suggested that this legislation
is in fact unconstitutional, and I think at the outset we need to
remember the wisdom of a law school professor that testified before the
United States Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual
Property of the Committee of the Judiciary in 1997, that reminded us as
Members of Congress and the country that when it comes to the teaching
of constitutional law in our law schools, which we will hear a few of
those folks who graduated from those law schools today on this very
issue, the thing that you need to understand about constitutional law
is it has virtually nothing to do with the Constitution.
And with that in mind, we will talk today about the constitutional
law and what is ``constitutional or unconstitutional'' and then we will
be talking about the Constitution.
I will be erring on the side of the actual Constitution and try to
inform my colleagues of what the Constitution actually says with
regards to, for example, separation of powers.
The notion of separation of powers is this: That the legislature has
its powers limited and enumerated in the Constitution; the Article II
branch, the executive has their powers, his powers in this particular
case, limited and enumerated in the Constitution; and in Article III
you have the very limited and enumerated powers of the judiciary in
Article III, a much smaller article in text than Article II and Article
I; and so you have that separation of powers.
It is interesting to note that in Article III, for example, it talks
a lot about the powers vested in the Congress. Well, we will talk about
that in just a moment but let us look at Article IV, Section 1 that
talks about the power of Congress with regards to the Defense of
Marriage Act that was passed in 1996.
This bill, the Marriage Protection Act, seeks to remove from the
Federal courts jurisdiction concerning the Defense of Marriage Act.
Now, why would we take that step? One reason is because we can and
another reason is because we should. I will tell you why we can in a
moment, and part of that is the fact that this power granted to
Congress that is not granted to the judiciary, that is not granted to
the executive, is so explicitly expounded in the Constitution in
Article IV, Section 1.
It says, ``Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the
public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State, and
the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such
acts, records and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof.''
So in Article IV, Section 1 we see a power of the Congress. We do not
see anything about the Supreme Court. We do not see anything about the
President. That is power explicit and exclusive to Congress. And so in
employment of that power, we passed the Defense of Marriage Act that
said no State would have to give full faith and credit to a marriage
license issued by another State if that marriage license was issued to
a same sex couple.
We exercised the explicit and exclusive authority of Congress to, by
general laws, prescribe the manner in which the effects of a marriage
license and, for example, the State of Massachusetts, was to be felt in
the State of, for example, Indiana, my home State. So we have that
power.
Once again, nothing here says the courts, nothing here says the
executive branch, and then when we move to the idea of can Congress
take from the courts certain jurisdictions we have to ask ourselves,
well, how does the Constitution grant the authority to create the
courts? Well, we turn to Article I, Section 8 and it says, ``The
Congress shall have power to constitute tribunals inferior to the
Supreme Court,'' and those are today known as the district courts and
appeals courts. We have the power to constitute them, to make them up.
Then it goes on to say in Article I, Section 8 that the Congress
shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper
for caring into execution the foregoing powers, such as constituting
the inferior tribunals, and all other powers vested by this
Constitution in the government of the United States or in any
department or officer thereof.''
So we can create the Federal courts, we can by definition abolish the
Federal courts. We do not seek to do that today, but we seek to make a
law that will carry into execution that power of creating the courts,
and that is to limit the jurisdiction.
We then turn to Article III, Section 1, and we hear once again in
Article III, which is generally referred to as the judicial branch
creation, and what does it say in Article III? It says, ``The judicial
power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and
establish.'' Then it goes on to talk about the Supreme Court and the
judicial capacity and jurisdiction of the court system.
It says in Article III, Section 2, ``In all cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and councils, the Supreme Court
shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before
mentioned,'' and that is previous in Article III, Section 2, all those
other cases, ``the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction,
both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such
regulations as the Congress shall make.''
So the United States Constitution is very clear. Congress has the
authority to create the inferior Federal courts. Congress has the
authority to make exceptions and regulations with regard to all of the
appellate cases that come before the Supreme Court. Anyone that
actually reads the Constitution and has a basic understanding of
grammar and the English language in general can find that in fact the
Constitution grants Congress the authority.
Now, the question is, so we can do this, the question remaining
before us is this: Should Congress do this? That question was answered
on Tuesday.
On Tuesday of this week a couple from Massachusetts, a lesbian couple
who had been married in Massachusetts, removed themselves to the State
of Florida and they entered into the Federal courts a complaint that
Florida would not recognize their same sex marriage license conferred
upon them.
This battle has been engaged. In fact, the attorney for the lesbian
couple that wishes to demand an overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act
said this, ``With the filing of this historic lawsuit today in the
Federal court, Florida has become a battleground.''
Well, we want to snuff that battleground out today in Congress by
claiming that the people of Florida should be able to determine the
marriage laws of the people of Florida and not the State of
Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I know what it means to be excluded from your own
Constitution, and after the experience of African Americans in this
country and a Civil War, I never thought I would see a civil war in law
where we would try to exclude any other group of Americans from the
Constitution of the United States, and that is exactly what we are
trying to do here today. We are trying to change the constitutional
system that the framers put in place over one constitutional issue.
Now, every time there is an issue like this which raises the hackles
of the country, people rush forward to try to do exactly this, to strip
the courts. They did it during the era of desegregation. They have done
it with school prayer. The fact is that the issue has been settled for
200 years in Marbury v.
[[Page 17214]]
Madison, and the issue is quite simply this: That the Supreme Court is
the final arbiter of constitutional matters.
Now, if that were not the case, if that is wrong, then the framers
were wrong, because the framers were still sitting, some of them in the
court itself, some of them in the Congress when Marbury was passed, and
under accepted principles of constitutional interpretation somebody
could have come to the floor and said the court has got it wrong and we
are going to assert ourselves. Instead they accepted Marbury v. Madison
and we must accept it.
The Supreme Court has constitutional standing in our system, and the
words are ``The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in
one Supreme Court.'' Otherwise, we would have chaos in our system
without any separations of powers. Congress would never have to account
for unconstitutional laws. All it would have to do is to put court-
stripping language in every bill and we would be a Constitution unto
ourselves because there would be no review of our unconstitutional
laws.
{time} 1130
That is unconstitutional. I think it is certainly un-American.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), for yielding me the time, and I rise in strong
support of this rule.
It pains me today to think that we are even at this place in our
Nation's history when we have to debate the importance of maintaining
the bedrock of our country, the American family.
As a fairly new grandfather myself, I have watched my children as new
parents, and I am reminded that their children are each blessed to have
a mother and father. They are uniquely suited, male and female, to
invest in their lives.
The legislation and the rule before us is not about discrimination or
civil rights as some might claim. This is about the bedrock of our
society, our community and our future. This is a big deal.
Mr. Speaker, we need to rise in strong support across the board, both
sides of the aisle, in bipartisan fashion. We support the American
family.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the time on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is not just about gays
and lesbians. I have been here 24 years. We never do anything only
once. When you have developed a particular procedure to use in defense
of your views, that gets used again and again. Today, I was going to
say you set a precedent if you pass this bill, but you do not set a
precedent. You go back in history to the Articles of Confederation.
Passage of this bill will mean that the United States Constitution,
in this particular area, will have different meanings in different
States because States will then be the ultimate decider of the
Constitution, and anyone who thinks that if we do it in this case that
is the only time we will ever do it does not follow things closely.
I am the ranking member on the minority side in the Committee on
Financial Services. There is not an area in our jurisdiction with
respect to the business community of America where the financial
community does not come to us and say we need one uniform law.
Do you not understand, Mr. Speaker, that if you set this precedent,
it will apply in other areas? Indeed, it will become boilerplate. If
you are passing legislation dealing with the second amendment and gun
rights; and environmental land takings under the fifth amendment; the
commerce clause, financial regulation, it will be a matter of course to
add this language that says, and by the way, we believe so strongly in
what we have done, it will be none of the business of the courts.
There will be different views in different States. Forget the Uniform
Commercial Code. We will have the ``multiple commercial code,'' the
multiple choice commercial code. We will have the ``Multiple Choice
Constitution.''
I guess I am regretful, maybe I can apologize, that the sight of two
lesbians falling in love and wanting to formalize that has so
traumatized the majority that they are prepared to make the biggest
hole in the United States Constitution that we have seen since we
became one Nation. You are saying there will be no more uniformity in
the Constitution, and you say it is only here.
By the way, I know a few scholars who think you will lose on full
faith and credit. You make a terrible mistake to set a precedent that
will be followed time and again. It will become truth that you really
care about an issue that you say that the United States Constitution
will no longer be a uniform document, but will be subject to dozens of
separate State interpretations.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, wrapping up my comments for this part of the
debate, I again rise to support the rule and the underlying bill.
This bill does not favor or disfavor any particular result or any
group of people. It is motivated by the desire to preserve for the
States the authority to decide whether the shield Congress enacted to
protect them from having to accept same-sex marriage licenses out of
State will hold.
This bill does not eliminate any group from the Constitution, but
instead, recognizes the 10th amendment of the Constitution which
declares that all rights are reserved for the States except those which
are specifically given to the Federal Government.
I would comment that the observations of the last gentleman are
completely contrary to the 10th amendment of the Constitution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentlewoman how many
more speakers she has on her side.
Mrs. MYRICK. I have no more speakers.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate what this bill is all about. It is a
mean-spirited, unconstitutional, dangerous distraction. No matter what
Members may think about gay marriage, the issue here today is whether
or not we will take away people's fundamental constitutional rights.
Gay men and women pay taxes, serve in the United States Congress and
in legislatures across the country, serve in our military, raise
families that participate in the political process. The idea that they
should be treated as second-class citizens and stripped of their
constitutional rights is not only wrong, it is appalling.
Now, I am from Massachusetts and my colleagues will hear supporters
of this bill talking today about the alleged catastrophe that has
occurred in my State in the last few months; but you know what, Mr.
Speaker, the world did not come to an end in Massachusetts when the
State Supreme Court made its ruling. People got up and went to work and
took their kids to school and paid their bills and lived their lives.
The world kept spinning on its axis.
In the end, I think that is what is driving the supporters of this
bill crazy. The outrage, the mass hysteria, the political momentum they
expected from this issue just have not materialized. The American
people are a lot smarter and a lot more tolerant and a lot more
reasonable than the Republican leadership gives them credit for, which
is why, Mr. Speaker, even if this bill passes today, I still have hope.
Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House took an oath that they would
uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. I hope we will
do that today. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
[[Page 17215]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4842, UNITED STATES-MOROCCO FREE
TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 738 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 738
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4842) to implement
the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement. The bill
shall be considered as read for amendment. The bill shall be
debatable for two hours equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means. Pursuant to section 151(f)(2) of the Trade Act of
1974, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the bill to final passage without intervening motion.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 4842 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to a time designated by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 738 is a standard, closed resolution
for consideration of the underlying trade legislation that provides for
fair and extensive debate on H.R. 4842, the United States-Morocco Free
Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
The rule provides 2 hours of general debate evenly divided and
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, the relationship between the Kingdom of Morocco and the
United States of America has existed throughout the history of the
United States. In December of 1777, when war raged between the American
colonies and Britain, Sultan Sidi Mohammed boldly recognized our young,
and not yet free, Republic. That magnanimous act of recognition was
cemented in a Treaty of Peace and Friendship between our countries,
ratified in July of 1878. That enduring document remains the oldest
unbroken treaty in the history of the foreign relations of the United
States. Quite simply, the Kingdom of Morocco is our most permanent and
enduring friend.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), and I
came together to form the Morocco Caucus in Congress to highlight and
to further deepen the truly magnificent and critically important
relationship between the United States and the Kingdom of Morocco. The
United States has no better friend and ally in the Maghreb, in North
Africa and in the Arab world than Morocco.
We are cognizant of, and grateful for, the help Morocco provided
during the reign of the great statesman King Hassan II in the dangerous
and prolonged struggle known as the Cold War and in the initial and
ultimately delicate stages of the peace process between Israel and her
neighbors.
We are cognizant of, and grateful for, the unequivocal and decisive
help Morocco has provided during the reign of another great statesman,
King Mohammed VI, in our common war against the forces of international
terrorism. Both our peoples have been victims of the scourge of
cowardly attacks upon unarmed civilians, and both nations have answered
the challenge of this difficult time with strong leadership and
decisive action.
The United States must be cognizant and supportive of the wisdom and
experience of Morocco, that great influence for stability in North
Africa, in the Middle East, regarding issues related to international
terrorism. We must understand that Morocco's insistence upon its
territorial integrity and its refusal to accept a terrorist state in
the Western Sahara is critically important, not only for the national
security of Morocco, but also for the security of the United States and
of our European allies.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we celebrate another milestone in the wonderful
relationship between the United States and Morocco as we prepare to
consider H.R. 4842, legislation to implement the United States-Morocco
Free Trade Agreement. This agreement will benefit both our peoples as
it facilitates and encourages ever-growing commerce between our
countries and the creation of many new jobs in Morocco and in the
United States. This agreement will help turn an already solid
relationship into an even greater friendship.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank
a few distinguished leaders for making this important free trade
agreement a reality.
{time} 1145
Understanding the importance of this agreement and with the August
recess quickly approaching, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
made great efforts to expedite the consideration of this agreement in
the House. The gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) has been
especially solid in his leadership on this critical issue, as has been
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on
Rules. Ambassador Bob Zoellick has been and continues to be a stalwart,
strong advocate on behalf of the economic interests of the United
States and especially job creation in America, and President Bush's
leadership has truly been the linchpin for great accomplishments such
as this.
While we fight terror across the globe, the United States, under this
President, has deepened economic and security-based relationships with
our friends for the benefit of our protection and our freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the
underlying legislation that we bring before the House today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, an important part of our job is to encourage the
purchase of U.S. goods and services by others in the international
community, especially now when the economy is limping along and failing
to replace the 1.1 million jobs lost since the Bush administration took
office. Hopefully opening up foreign markets for American products will
lead to the creation of good, high-paying jobs here in the United
States. However, we must be mindful of the consequences of free trade
agreements such as the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement.
Last week this body considered the free trade agreement, FTA, between
the United States and our ally Australia. Serious questions were raised
about the impact patent protection language might have on the ability
of the United States to reimport lower cost drugs from other countries
and the impact on the Australian government's low-cost pharmaceutical
drug program.
According to the Wall Street Journal, urged by the drug industry, the
U.S. Trade Representative is seeking to strengthen protections for
costlier brand-name drugs, defending the U.S.
[[Page 17216]]
companies from foreign competition of foreign producers of generic
drugs. So far the USTR has successfully added this safeguard to the
trade agreements with Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Australia, Costa Rica,
El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, and
Morocco.
The U.S.-Morocco agreement contains patent protection language which
restricts Morocco for 5 years from approving generic-drug applications
if the application is based on the data of the original manufacturer.
What impact will this 5-year ban have when enforced? Will this
interfere with a developing African nation's ability to get affordable,
generic pharmaceuticals to fight public health crises like the HIV
infection?
In response to these serious concerns, the USTR points to a letter of
understanding between the United States and Morocco. In the letter,
both countries agree that the patent provisions ``do not affect the
ability of either country to take necessary measures to protect public
health by promoting access to medicine for all, and in particular
concerning cases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other
epidemics as well as circumstances of extreme urgency or national
emergency.''
This mutual understanding is promising. However, it is not directly
part of the free trade agreement or the implementing legislation.
According to Robert Weissman of Essential Action, ``This statement of
understanding expresses noble sentiments, but is unlikely to make much,
if any, material difference in the implementation of the agreement.'' I
hope Mr. Weissman is wrong.
Approximately 16,000 Moroccans are infected with HIV, and the
pandemic of HIV and AIDS is devastating the nations of Africa. Will
Morocco be able to purchase or produce less expensive, generic anti-
viral and other medications needed to fight HIV infection? Of the 40
million people with HIV or AIDS globally, less than 10 percent have
access to drugs that have transformed many cases of HIV infection to a
chronic illness, from a death sentence. In most of the developing
world, drugs to fight HIV infection and AIDS are far too expensive for
most. Any barrier to access to more affordable generic medicine denies
essential health care to the poor.
Women are nearly half of the 40 million infected with HIV, and the
infection rate of women is climbing faster than the infection rate of
men in many regions. Irene Khan, Secretary-General of Amnesty
International, told last week's World AIDS Conference that ``gender
inequality is driving new infections among women and girls like never
before.''
Mr. Speaker, more free trade agreements are in the works. The U.S.
Trade Representative has negotiated with six Central American countries
and has just initiated negotiations with Thailand. The consequences of
trade agreements go far beyond merely eliminating trade barriers, such
as tariffs. These agreements enforce significant public policy
decisions made not by Congress, but by the Trade Representative.
Congress has a narrow role in trade agreements, so I urge my colleagues
to carefully consider the language in this and all future agreements.
Free trade must be fair trade.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier),
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the U.S.-Morocco
Free Trade Agreement. Let me begin by responding to some of the
comments my very good friend, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York
(Ms. Slaughter), offered. Those have to do with HIV/AIDS and with
gender inequality. We are all very concerned about dealing with those
very serious crises that are out there. Most of us have come to the
conclusion that one of the best tools that we can utilize to deal with
those challenges is to encourage greater economic growth. Improving the
standard of living for people will dramatically enhance the chance to
deal with gender inequality, to deal with the challenge of having the
resources to tackle greater education when it comes to the
proliferation of HIV/AIDS.
So let me say that this agreement is itself a very, very
comprehensive, unique and cutting-edge agreement which will create
opportunities on both sides of the Atlantic.
Last week this body overwhelmingly passed the U.S.-Australia Free
Trade Agreement. There is certainly a great deal of differences between
Australia and Morocco. Australia has an economy which is very much like
ours. They are a developed, industrialized nation with stringent labor
and environmental standards. And like the United States, they have an
economy that is increasingly based on services.
Morocco, by contrast, is a developing country facing many of the
challenges that confront nations throughout the developing world. They
are working very hard in Morocco to modernize their infrastructure and
develop new sectors even as they strengthen the traditional industries
like agriculture and textiles. They are aggressively pursuing labor and
environmental reforms as well as combating piracy and counterfeiting.
In short, Morocco is working diligently to climb higher and higher up
that proverbial economic ladder.
The very remarkable thing about trade liberalization is these two
trade agreements, with vastly different economies, can both be
unequivocally good for all parties involved, making it a win/win. Trade
is not only beneficial for big economies like the United States or
wealthy economies like Australia, but it is very, very important for
small, developing economies like Morocco, and I would argue in many
ways because of the contrast that exists, trade agreements like this
for developing nations create a potential for an even more dramatic
improvement in the quality of life and the standard of living in those
countries.
Unfortunately, economic isolationists often hide behind the guise of
fair trade, an argument that was just put forth by my colleague from
New York. They use fair trade to argue that because some countries lack
the resources to pay American wages or enforce identical labor
standards that we have in America, the most developed nation in the
world, that we should somehow not trade with these countries. This is a
tragically misguided argument.
It is precisely because these countries have further to go up that
economic ladder that we should and must pursue open trade. Trade
liberalization provides the tools for economic growth by opening up new
markets, by building the legal framework necessary for a healthy
business and investment environment by creating the resources to set
high labor and environmental standards. Morocco is a perfect example of
just such a country.
Mr. Speaker, for many years Morocco has been working to bring its
economy into this new and vibrant 21st century. It has been working to
increase its standard of living, and it has been striving to raise its
labor and environmental standards. In fact, Morocco's aggressive
efforts to reform its labor laws since the start of the free trade
agreement process began, culminated in a groundbreaking new labor law
that was passed just a few weeks ago.
These reforms address issues ranging from child labor to the minimum
wage to nondiscrimination of women and the disabled, leading again to
deal with the challenge that the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York
(Ms. Slaughter) raised. This new labor code makes Morocco a leader in
the developing world, and it is a testament both to Morocco's
commitment to high standards and the effectiveness and the importance
and the dynamism of economic engagement.
Morocco is living up to its commitments even before implementation of
this free trade agreement, but I want to make it very clear, while the
FTA is critical to helping Morocco stay on its current path of economic
development, it is by no means a mere gift from the United States of
America. American businesses, American consumers, American workers and
investors will
[[Page 17217]]
all benefit from this agreement. Mr. Speaker, 95 percent of all trade
in consumer and industrial goods will immediately become duty free.
American farmers will have a huge advantage as they gain greater access
than even Morocco's traditional European trading partners currently
enjoy. U.S. service providers will benefit from broad-based
liberalization across all service sectors, and American producers will
benefit from the highest intellectual property protections ever
negotiated in a free trade agreement, and that is particularly of
concern to those Members from areas like southern California where our
entertainment industry is so important. Setting an example and dealing
with this issue of intellectual property is key.
The FTA also grants us an opportunity to strengthen our relationship.
I want to say that relationship has been dramatically strengthened from
the work that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) has
done in developing this important relationship we have. He and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and others he mentioned have
been very critical to building this U.S.-Morocco Caucus, and I
congratulate them for their hard work in doing what we can to build
that relationship which I believe has played a big role in leading us
to this point where we, by an overwhelming margin, are going to pass
this.
I believe this trade agreement is going to have a chance to deal with
one of the challenges that exists in Morocco, and that is dealing with
a challenge which has been going on for a long period of time with the
Western Sahara. It is my hope that as we strengthen further this
relationship between our two countries, we will be able to see a
resolution to that.
Mr. Speaker, we know this has been a very important relationship
between our two countries. Since 1777, when our friendship formally
began, Morocco has proven to be an important and strategic partner.
This friendship has never been more apparent than throughout our recent
global efforts to combat terrorism. We all know Morocco has been a
critically important ally to us in that effort, and as a Muslim-Arab
country, they have been an ardent U.S. supporter in a part of the world
where our list of very good friends is not as strong as we would have
liked.
Mr. Speaker, on both economic and political fronts, Morocco is making
tremendous efforts. Today we are able to strengthen this important
relationship while tearing down barriers, creating new opportunities
for, as I said, American workers, American investors, American business
people, and Moroccans alike. I urge my colleagues to demonstrate their
support for our pro-economic growth agenda by voting for this rule and
for the underlying measure.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a valued member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule. However, I want to make
it clear that we do not want this as a precedent that on trade
agreements only 2 hours of debate always are allowed. In this case I
think 2 hours will be satisfactory. That will not always be true.
{time} 1200
There are good reasons to support this FTA, and I do so. There is the
historical relationship between our two countries, as mentioned. There
are the present realities in our relationship, Morocco's important role
in its area and beyond that. Also, there are some important provisions
in this agreement; for example, relating to manufacturing goods outside
of the textile area. Ninety-five percent of them will become duty-free.
There are strong services commitments, strong IPR commitments. So there
are good reasons to be supportive of this.
I do want to put in perspective, though, several issues that have
come up in our discussion, and these issues really were raised by us on
the minority side. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) likes to
talk about raising issues as if it is a reflection of economic
isolationism. That is the rubric, the mantra, the propaganda of the
majority. They try to pin it on Democrats, including John Kerry. It is
absurd. We raised several issues because they were legitimate ones, not
because we opposed expanded trade, but because we want expanded trade
to work for everybody. We want expanded trade to be shaped. We do not
think it is some magic bullet that we simply have to shoot and
everything will work out. We do not think trade policy should be on
automatic pilot. We do not think that what is necessarily appropriate
in one trade agreement is appropriate in another. These cookie cutter
approaches of this administration are wrong, and surely we do not
support this agreement because we think that the economic record of
this administration is worthy of support by anybody in this country.
So we raised a couple of issues. And the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) referred to the prescription medicine provision, and I
want to talk about it. Before I do that, a brief word and we will have
more discussion during the 2 hours about the core labor standard
provisions. The gentleman from California said we should not impose
U.S. wages, identical laws on other countries. That is not what we are
talking about. That again is propaganda from the majority side. What we
are talking about are basic core international standards, and
countries, including ours, have signed on to a declaration that says
that people should have the right to associate, to bargain, to be free
from discrimination, there should be no child or forced labor. That is
what we are talking about when we say they should be incorporated into
free trade agreements.
We asked the question, an important one, where is Morocco? Where is
Morocco today in terms of their laws and their enforcement of these
core labor standards? And the majority, because of their view that
trade always works out for the best, it is always win-win, did not
raise any questions about that. In fact, as to the reforms of 2003 in
Morocco, there was not even within our government an English
translation of these laws. And we asked for one and we looked at them.
We talked to the Moroccan government about these laws, and I am pleased
to say that we had a very useful discussion, which we initiated and the
Moroccan government responded to, regarding the status of these core
labor standards in Moroccan law and in Moroccan practice.
The reforms that were inaugurated last year were a major step
forward. The Moroccan society has some history of some freedom for
workers, and the independent union in Morocco supports this agreement,
I think, as a result. But there were issues raised as to the ability of
people to associate, to bargain, and to strike, and so we asked the
Moroccan government to give us in writing the status, and I want to
quote from their letter and I will place that letter in the Record. The
letter read this way:
``The government of Morocco is committed to protecting the right to
strike in conformance with ILO, International Labor Organization's core
principles. In particular, the government will not use Article 288 of
our penal code against lawful strikers.''
So I very much disagree with the administration's approach in
general. They have in the agreements enforce their own laws. They put
these in the agreements regardless of whether the laws incorporate the
standards and whether there is implementation of them. And when we have
a chance, when we take over, that will change. But in the meanwhile,
the question is, is there conformance, is there conformance basically
in Morocco with the core labor standards? And I think the realities as
we were able to dig them out indicate that they are basically in
conformance with the core labor standards.
Now a few words about prescription medicines. Why did we inquire?
First of all, there is the same provision here as there is in the
previous agreement, including Australia, the general patent provision
that could be applied to reimportation of prescription medicines. It
turns out in the case of Morocco that that provision is not going to
have
[[Page 17218]]
any potential effect. All of the legislation that has been introduced
regarding reimportation does not include Morocco. They have a very
small pharmaceutical industry. So I do not think, though I do not like
this provision as a general rule, that we should vote against Morocco
because of it, but we should make clear that we do not believe these
provisions or this provision should be in trade agreements.
Now what about the impact of these provisions not on our important
health needs but the important health needs of the people of Morocco?
And we were concerned about that. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) talked about AIDS. Look, if we are really concerned, and I
think we all are, we need to look at these agreements to see what is
the potential impact on the availability of medicines to people in
Morocco who are suffering from AIDS and where there is in other cases
as well some kind of a health emergency? And there were several
provisions in this agreement that raised questions about the
accessibility of the people of Morocco in these cases to necessary
pharmaceuticals and the ability of the government of Morocco to take
the steps necessary to make these drugs available. And these are fairly
technical provisions, but they relate to the lives of hundreds of
thousands of people. One relates to so-called parallel imports and the
other to test data protections.
So I will make a long story short, and, if necessary, we can talk
more about this when we have the debate of 2 hours. We entered into
discussions with USTR. We on the Democratic side sent a letter to USTR,
and they responded. And I include those two letters in the Record. And
we said, in a few words, would the provisions in these two cases
prevent accessibility to necessary drugs in a real case of emergency or
necessity? And essentially what USTR has said: The agreement in the
side letters, when read together, would not prohibit action by the
Moroccan government to provide access to these drugs. And these side
letters do have effect. The USTR has told us the following, and I want
to read them so there is clarity. This is from page 8 of the mentioned
letter to me:
``As stated in the side letter, the letter constitutes a formal
agreement between the parties. It is thus a significant part of the
interpretive context for this agreement and not merely rhetorical.''
And they also then earlier have said: ``Therefore, if circumstances
ever arise in which a drug is produced under compulsory license,''
meaning the government of Morocco has given that license to make these
drugs available, ``and it is necessary to approve that drug to protect
public health or effectively utilize the TRIPS/health solution, the
data protection provisions in the FTA would not stand in the way.'' And
they say the same as to the parallel import issue.
So I just finish by saying this to make it very clear: We were
concerned. There is an AIDS epidemic. There are other health issues of
serious import for the lives of children and other citizens of Morocco,
and we took the initiative to be sure that this agreement would not
prevent the availability of medicines in these circumstances. The
Declaration, the language that was worked out in Doha, made it clear as
to WTO that countries could protect themselves and their citizens when
there was an overriding health need, and we wanted to make sure that
nothing in this FTA would override that ability. And I am satisfied
because of the exchange of letters. I am satisfied because of what was
written to us by USTR. I am now satisfied by their categorical
statement at our hearing just a few days ago that there would be
nothing that would prevent access to these medicines in the
circumstances I mentioned because of the FTA.
For all of those reasons, I believe that the issue for Morocco has
been addressed. But I want to make it very clear that when we negotiate
these agreements in the first place, as is true for core labor
standards, as is true for health needs, as is true for anything else,
we should be sensitive to what the possible impact would be. We should
not be using cookie cutter approaches when the lives and the
livelihoods of people in our country and in other countries are
involved.
So I support this agreement. I urge passage of the rule. But I think
this has been a healthy process, and I think we have both clarified the
meaning of this agreement, and also I think what we have done is to
serve notice as to how these agreements should be negotiated in the
future.
Embassy of the
Kingdom of Morocco,
Washington, DC, July 14, 2004.
Hon. Sandy Levin,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Levin: I have deeply appreciated the
continuing opportunity to work with you on the U.S. Morocco
Free Trade Agreement. In particular, I welcome your interest
in our nation's labor law, specifically the comprehensive
reforms, passed last year.
I want to address through this letter some of the issues
that have been highlighted in conversations with you and your
staff. Under Moroccan law, it is illegal to fire an
individual because they are a member of a labor organization
or have engaged in labor organizing. To fire someone on these
grounds would be arbitrary under the 2003 law and would make
available the full remedies provided under that law.
Under Moroccan law, it is illegal to refuse to hire an
individual because they are a member of a labor organization
or have engaged in labor organizing. It is also illegal to
refuse to rehire or extend the contract of an individual for
these reasons.
Section 473 is a provision in the 2003 Labor Law and the
provision's intent is to ensure that labor representatives do
not undermine the traditional labor organizations. The
government intends to implement this provision to achieve
that goal, consistent with the core provisions of the ILO.
The right to strike is protected in the Moroccan
constitution. Further clarification of these rights is
underway. The government of Morocco is committed to
protecting the right to strike in conformance with the
International Labor Organization's core principles. In
particular, the government of Morocco will not use Article
288 of our penal code against lawful strikers.
Concerning the questions regarding Labor Representatives,
employers have the obligation to organize the elections for
the labor representatives. Employers cannot vote in these
elections and are not able to choose labor representatives.
Only employees can vote and elect freely the labor
representatives.
Employees can join freely the Union of their own choice.
Unions designate their representatives within the companies.
On the ILO involvement, Morocco has always worked with ILO.
For instance, ILO assisted Morocco to write the Labor Code of
2003 and the new law on child labor. Morocco, as in the past,
will continue to ask the support of ILO and work with this
organization in all labor issues such as new laws and will
ask its help in providing assistance for the implementation
of the current rules.
I look forward to continuing to work with you on these
issues and any others of potential concern. Nevertheless, I
wanted to get back to you in a timely manner on the key
issues addressed in this letter.
Sincerely,
Aziz Mekouar,
Ambassador.
____
Embassy of the
Kingdom of Morocco,
Washington, DC, July 19, 2004.
Hon. Sandy Levin,
Rayburn House Office Building,
House of Representatives.
Dear Representative Levin: I deeply appreciate the
opportunity to work with you on the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade
Agreement. In particular, I appreciate the opportunity to
talk to you about the pharmaceutical provisions in the Free
Trade Agreement, and about how the Government of Morocco is
meeting the health needs of its citizens.
The Government of Morocco has a well-developed health
system, including a comprehensive public health program. For
example, free medical care, including medicines, is available
through our hospitals. Morocco's health care policy includes
a strong emphasis on generic drugs.
Morocco has not needed to engage in emergency measures such
as compulsory licensing or parallel imports. In fact, there
is a well-developed domestic pharmaceutical industry in
Morocco, producing also generics, and in 2000, well in
advance of the Free Trade Agreement and completely
independent of it, Morocco decided to bar parallel imports.
In addition, as a separate, but quite important matter, the
Government of Morocco is strongly committed to and has agreed
to the highest-standard intellectual property rights
provisions in the Free Trade Agreement. The Government of
Morocco believes that effective intellectual property right
protection will play a vital role in the continued economic
development of our country.
The pharmaceutical provisions in the Free Trade Agreement
were carefully considered in Morocco. They were discussed in
detail
[[Page 17219]]
with all parties. All sectors of our health system were
involved, including the pharmaceutical industry. The
discussions also included the members of the civil society in
Morocco.
The Government of Morocco achieved in this agreement full
flexibility to meet our nation's health concerns. In
particular, the Government of Morocco believes the agreement
fully preserves its right to issue a compulsory license in
the event that this should prove necessary.
The Agreement does bar ``parallel imports'' in 1.5.9.4.
However, as described above, the Government of Morocco
already bans ``parallel imports.'' In addition, the
Government of Morocco believes that in the event that it
faced a situation where extraordinary action was required, it
could meet the needs of its people through a compulsory
license.
The Government of Morocco considered carefully the data
exclusivity provisions in the agreement. We do not believe
that they present any risk to our ability to meet the health
needs of our citizens.
Under the Agreement, a compulsory license does not override
obligations to provide data exclusivity under 15.10.1 and 2.
The Government of Morocco believes it is unlikely that a
situation would ever arise where data exclusivity would be a
barrier to the issuance of a compulsory license. If such an
event did occur, the Government of Morocco believes that an
accommodation could be reached with the owner of the data.
The Government of Morocco supports the Paragraph 6 solution
of the Doha Declaration. The Free Trade Agreement does not
restrict our ability to export under the Paragraph 6 solution
of the Doha Declaration. To the specific, 15.9.6 does not
create a barrier to exports under the Paragraph 6 solution of
the Doha Declaration.
The June 15, 2004 side letter between our two countries
addresses the ability to amend the Free Trade Agreement,
responsive to amendments to the WTO Agreement on Trade-
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Under the
Agreement, the Government of Morocco believes it can consult
immediately to amend the Agreement responsive to any WTO
amendments. Under the Agreement, it is not required to wait
for there to be an application in dispute of the Agreement.
I look forward to keep working with you.
Sincerely,
Aziz Mekouar,
Ambassador.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 15, 2004.
Hon. Robert B. Zoellick,
U.S. Trade Representative,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ambassador Zoellick: We are writing to express our
ongoing concern about sections of recently negotiated U.S.
free trade agreements (FTAs) that could affect the
availability of affordable drugs in developing countries. In
particular, we are concerned about the impact of restrictions
on parallel imports and about marketing exclusivity
requirements for pharmaceuticals included in the Morocco FTA.
Our concern relates to two points.
First, it appears that some of the provisions contradict,
both explicitly and in spirit, commitments made by the United
States in the World Trade Organization in both the November
2001 Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health
(the Doha Declaration) and the September 2003 Implementation
of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement
and Public Health (the Paragraph 6 Decision). Section
2101(b)(4)(C) of the Trade Act of 2002 (Trade Promotion
Authority or TPA) directs the Administration to respect the
Doha Declaration, necessarily including subsequent agreements
related to that Declaration.
Second, we are concerned that the FTA's restrictions on
obtaining regulatory approval for drugs, including drugs that
are already off-patent, are likely to increase prices in the
Moroccan market. These restrictions, described below, could
undermine the availability of generic versions of drugs to
treat serious health problems, including HIV/ADS, that are
widespread in many, if not most, developing countries.
Moreover, any increase in the price of drugs in a developing
country like Morocco will be borne by consumers because most
developing countries have large rural, uninsured, and poor
populations who pay out-of-pocket for drugs.
In discussions with your staff and in recent testimony
before the Committee on Ways and Means, we understand that
your office is of the view that the FTA does not interfere
with a country's efforts to ensure broader access to
medicines. We request that you explain that view to us in
writing, and in particular, by responding to the questions
outlined below. We have focused on Chapter 15 of the U.S.-
Morocco FTA, because it may be considered by Congress in the
coming weeks.
restrictions on parallel importation
Article 15.9.4 of the U.S.-Morocco FTA requires both
countries to recognize the exclusive right of a patent holder
to import a patented product, at least where the patent
holder has restricted the right to import by contractual
means. In practical terms, this provision means that neither
Morocco, nor for that matter, the United States, may allow
parallel imports of patented pharmaceutical products from the
other country, or where a national of the other country owns
the patent.
With respect to Morocco, which is a developing country,
this provision appears to limit one of the flexibilities
identified in the Doha Declaration for increasing access to
medicines, and accordingly, it appears to contradict the
direction in section 2102(b)(4)(c) of TPA. Specifically, the
Doha Declaration reaffirmed that the TRIPS Agreement provides
flexibility for WTO Members to take measures to protect
public health, including ``promot[ing] access to medicines
for all.'' One of the key flexibilities identified in the
Doha Declaration is the right of each country to determine
for itself whether to allow parallel imports.
Does Article 15.9.4 of the Morocco FTA prevent Morocco from
allowing parallel imports of a patented pharmaceutical
product?
Given that the Doha Declaration explicitly confirms the
right of each country to retain flexibility in allowing
parallel imports of drugs as one way of meeting the public
health needs of its citizens, please explain why the
provision was included given that TPA directs the
Administration to respect the Doha Declaration?
Which country sought inclusion of this provision?
If Morocco or the United States eliminated the exclusive
right of a patent holder to import a patented product, would
either be in violation of Article 15.9.4?
market exclusivity and related provisions
Article 15.10.1 of the U.S.-Morocco FTA requires that both
countries prevent the use of data submitted to support an
application for marketing approval (e.g., approval from the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)) for a new pharmaceutical
chemical product without the consent of the person submitting
such data, for a period of five years from the date of
approval. In layman's terms, this means that if a company
submits data to meet FDA-type safety and efficacy standards,
and obtains marketing approval based on that data, other
companies cannot obtain regulatory approval based on those
data for five years. Given the cost of generating such data,
this provision operates effectively as a grant of market
exclusivity in virtually all cases, including in cases where
the drug is off patent. Article 15.10.2 appears to allow an
additional three years of marketing exclusivity for new uses
of an already-approved pharmaceutical product. Article
15.10.3 requires both countries to extend patents where there
is a delay in the marketing approval process.
The provisions described above appear to be based on 1984
amendments to U.S. law known as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The
objectives of the Hatch-Waxman Act were to accelerate and
increase the availability of generic drugs in the United
States while balancing the need for continued investment in
new drugs. As you are aware, the Hatch-Waxman Act was
necessary because prior to 1984, U.S. law made it extremely
difficult and expensive to bring a generic version of a
pharmaceutical product to market, even after a patent
expired. This was because prior to the 1984 changes, a
company seeking marketing approval for a copy of an already-
approved drug had to generate its own data to support its FDA
application. The cost of generating those data effectively
precluded second entrants from entering the market. (First
entrants were able to offset the cost for generation of the
data because they enjoyed patent protection.) The Hatch-
Waxman Act allowed second entrants to rely on data submitted
by first entrants, thereby reducing costs and speeding
introduction of generic versions of drugs to the U.S. market.
In exchange for allowing second entrants to ``piggy-back''
off first entrants, first entrants were given a period of
market exclusivity, even for drugs that are off-patent.
The Hatch-Waxman Act's provisions on market exclusivity
were part of a compromise necessary to ensure that the U.S.
regulatory structure was updated to facilitate the entry of
generic drugs into the U.S. market. Most developing countries
already have robust generic markets, in large part because
they already allow producers of generic versions of drugs to
obtain regulatory approval based on data submitted by first
applicants or based on prior approval. In light of that fact,
and given that innovative drug companies largely develop
drugs for developed country markets and conduct the necessary
tests to get marketing approval in those markets regardless
of whether they are given market exclusivity in low-income
developing countries, what is the rationale for including
these provisions?
Please describe the circumstances under which the three
additional years of marketing exclusivity described in
Article 15.10.2 would apply.
Neither Article 15.10.1 or 15.10.2 on marketing exclusivity
appear to allow for reliance on previously submitted data or
prior approval during the period of market exclusivity absent
consent of the first applicant. The Doha Declaration
reaffirmed the right of countries to use flexibilities under
the TRIPS Agreement, such as compulsory licenses. A
compulsory license allows someone
[[Page 17220]]
other than the patent holder to produce and sell a drug under
patent. It is not clear to us why the grant of a compulsory
license would override a grant of market exclusivity, as
provided in Articles 15.10.1 and 15.10.02. (We note that
there is no exception to protect the public.) Please describe
how the market exclusivity provisions in Article 15.10.1 and
Article 15.10.2 relate to Morocco's ability to issue a
compulsory license.
Where a compulsory license has been issued, may a Party
automatically deem that the first applicant has consented to
reliance on the data or prior approval for the drug produced
under the compulsory license?
If the patent and test-data were owned by different
entities, does a compulsory license result in legal
``consent'' by both the patent holder and the data owner for
use of the patented material and the test data?
When the drug is off patent, and a Party wishes to permit
marketing for a second entrant, what mechanism exists in the
FTA to allow for an exception to the provisions on market
exclusivity?
Is a grant of market exclusivity pursuant to Articles
15.10.1 and 15.10.2 considered an ``investment'' with respect
to Chapter 10 of the agreement? If so, would an abridgement
of the period of market exclusivity constitute a compensable
expropriation under Chapter 10?
Article 10.6.5 of the FTA appears to clarify that any act
of patent infringement carried out by a Party in the issuance
of a compulsory license in accordance with the TRIPS does not
constitute a compensable expropriation. Issuance of a
compulsory license, however, is only one aspect of the
process of getting a drug to market. Does the clarification
in Article 10.6.5 also ensure that other measures taken by a
government to ensure that a drug on which a compulsory
license has been issued can be lawfully marketed (e.g., a
grant of marketing approval to a generic or second producer
before the period of marketing exclusivity has expired) will
not constitute compensable expropriations? If not, is there
another provision in the agreement that would ensure that
such measures do not constitute expropriations?
Article 15.10.3 requires that a patent term be extended
where there is a delay in the regulatory approval process.
The provision does not state whether delays attributable to
the applicant (e.g., failure to provide adequate data)
mitigate against extension. Article 15.9.8, the comparable
provision for extension of a patent term because of a delay
in the patent approval process, makes clear that delays
attributable to the patent applicant should not be considered
in determining whether there is a delay that gives rise to
the need for an extension. Why was similar language not
included in Article 15.10.3?
Is Morocco, or for that matter the United States, required
by the FTA to extend a patent term where there is a delay in
the regulatory approval that is attributable to the
applicant?
Bolar-Type Provisions That Limit Export
Article 15.9.6 of the U.S.-Morocco FTA appears to allow a
person other than a patent holder to make use of a patent in
order to generate data in support of an application for
marketing approval of a pharmaceutical product (e.g.,
approval from the FDA). However, Article 15.9.6 also states
that if exportation of the product using the patent is
allowed, exportation must be limited to ``purposes of meeting
marketing approval requirements.'' This provision appears to
preclude Morocco from exporting generic versions of patented
pharmaceutical products for any reason other than use in
obtaining marketing approval because that is the only
exception noted.
If that is the case, the provision would seem to curtail
Morocco's ability to act as an exporter of pharmaceutical
products to least-developed and other countries under the
Paragraph 6 Decision. Specifically, the Paragraph 6 Decision
allows countries to export drugs produced under a compulsory
license to least-developed countries or to countries that
lack pharmaceutical manufacturing capabilities. Were the
provisions to constrain Morocco's ability to export under the
Paragraph 6 Decision, the United States could be accused of
backtracking on commitments that have been made.
Please explain whether this Article prohibits Morocco from
allowing the export of generic versions of patented
pharmaceutical products for purposes other than ``meeting
market approval requirements.'' If it does not, please
explain in detail how you came to that conclusion.
If this provision does in fact limit Morocco's ability to
allow the export of generic versions of patented
pharmaceutical products, please explain how Morocco could
serve as an exporting country to help least-developed and
other countries address public health needs under the
Paragraph 6 Decision. (Exporters under the Paragraph 6
Decision are exporting to meet the health needs of an
importing country, not merely to obtain marketing approval.)
Does Article 15.9.6 allow export of a generic version of a
patented drug to get marketing approval in a third country
(i.e., other than the United States or Morocco)? (Article
15.9.6 states that ``the Party shall provide that the product
shall only be exported outside its territory for purposes of
meeting marketing approval requirements of that Party.'')
Side Letter to the Agreement
The Morocco FTA includes an exchange of letters dated June
15, 2004, between the Governments of Morocco and the United
States. The letters appear intended to clarify the
relationship between the intellectual property provisions of
the FTA and the ability of Morocco and the United States to
take measures to protect the public health.
The letters address two issues. First, the letters state
that the intellectual property provisions in the FTA ``do not
prevent the effective utilization'' of the Paragraph 6
Decision. Second, the letters state that if the TRIPS
Agreement is amended on issues related to promotion of access
to medicines, and that either the United States or Morocco
takes action in conformity with such amendments, both
countries will ``immediately consult in order to adapt [the
intellectual property provisions of the FTA] as appropriate
in light of the amendment.''
On the Paragraph 6 Decision, please explain how the
statement that the FTA does not ``prevent the effective
utilization'' is not merely rhetorical. Please be specific as
to why you believe the provisions in the FTA do not preclude
Morocco from acting as an importer or exporter of drugs under
the Paragraph 6 Decision, including how the FTA's provisions
related to market exclusivity can be waived if Morocco acts
in either capacity.
On the issue of consultation, do the letters mean that both
Parties agree to amend the FTA as soon as possible to reflect
access to medicines amendments to the TRIPS Agreement? Will
the United States refrain from enforcing provisions of the
FTA that contravene the TRIPS Agreement amendments while the
FTA is being amended? Is USTR willing to engage in an
exchange of letters with the Government of Morocco
memorializing such an understanding?
We appreciate your prompt response to these questions.
Sincerely,
Charles B. Rangel,
Ranking Democrat, Committee on Ways and Means.
Jim McDermott,
Member, Committee on Ways and Means.
Sander Levin
Ranking Democrat, Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways
and Means.
Henry A. Waxman,
Ranking Democrat, Committee on Government Reform.
____
Executive Office of the President, Office of the United
States Trade Representative,
Washington, DC, July 19, 2004.
Hon. Sander M. Levin,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Levin: Thank you for your letter of July
15, 2004, regarding certain provisions of the intellectual
property chapter of the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement
(FTA).
I have addressed each of your specific questions below. As
a general matter, for the reasons also set forth below, the
FTA does not conflict with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS
Agreement and Public Health or otherwise adversely, affect
access to medicines in Morocco. The FTA does not require
Morocco to change its policies with respect to any of the
flexibilities noted in the Doha Declaration. Furthermore, we
believe that this FTA can advance Morocco's ability to
address public health problems, both by putting in place
incentives to develop and bring new medicines to market
quickly and by raising standards of living more broadly.
The experience of Jordan under the U.S.-Jordan FTA is
illuminating. The United States and Jordan signed the FTA in
2000, during the prior Administration, and we worked with
Congress to enact that agreement in 2001. The U.S.-Jordan FTA
contains a strong intellectual property chapter that covers,
for example, data protection, one of the issues highlighted
in your letter. Jordan has witnessed a substantial increase
in pharmaceutical investment, creating new jobs and
opportunities. In addition, Jordan has approved 32 new
innovative medicines since 2000--a substantial increase in
the rate of approval of innovative drugs, helping facilitate
Jordanian consumers' access to medicines. The Jordanian drug
industry has even begun to develop its own innovative
medicines. This is an example of how strong intellectual
property protection can bring substantial benefits to
developing and developed countries together.
Your specific questions with respect to the U.S.-Morocco
FTA are addressed below.
Parallel Importation
1. Does Article 15.9.4 of the Morocco FTA prevent Morocco
from allowing parallel imports of a patented pharmaceutical
product?
Article 15.9.4 of the FTA reflects current Moroccan law and
therefore does not require Morocco to do anything it does not
already do. The FTA also reflects existing U.S. law. Both
Morocco and the United States already provide patent owners
with an exclusive
[[Page 17221]]
right to import patented products, including pharmaceuticals
but also all other types of patented products. Many
innovative industries and their employees in the United
States--from the high tech and pharmaceuticals sectors to
sectors covering chemicals and agricultural inputs, and on to
engineering and manufacturing--benefit from this long-
standing protection in U.S. patent law.
2. Given that the Doha Declaration explicitly confirms the
right of each country to retain flexibility in allowing
parallel imports of drugs as one way of meeting the public
health needs of its citizens, please explain why the
provision was included given that TPA directs the
Administration to respect the Doha Declaration?
Providing patent owners with an exclusive import right is
consistent with Article 28.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, which
states that patent owners have the exclusive right to make,
use, sell, offer for sale, and import products covered by
their patents. U.S. law, developed through a long line of
Supreme Court and lower court cases, has recognized this
right for over a hundred years. The TRIPS Agreement more
precisely articulated the exclusive import right, and, when
implementing TRIPS in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
Congress amended the patent law by providing for such a right
expressly in the statute.
At the same time, however, the TRIPS Agreement also allows
countries to choose to permit ``international exhaustion''
without challenge under WTO dispute settlement. International
exhaustion would allow parallel imports. The Doha Declaration
affirms this approach, and states that ``[t]he effect of the
provisions in the TRIPS Agreement that are relevant to the
exhaustion of intellectual property rights is to leave each
member free to establish its own regime for such exhaustion
without challenge, subject to the MFN and national treatment
provisions of Articles 3 and 4.''
Importantly, neither the TRIPS Agreement nor the Doha
Declaration require WTO members to adopt an international
exhaustion rule; they merely recognize that countries may do
so without challenge. WTO members are free to exercise their
sovereign right to choose an alternative policy. As noted,
the United States does not permit parallel imports. Morocco
also decided in 2000, well before the FTA negotiations, not
to permit parallel imports. The fact that the FTA reflects
principles already present in both Parties' laws does not in
any way lessen our commitment to the Doha Declaration. In
fact, in previous FTA negotiations with developing countries
that do not have parallel import restrictions in their
domestic law (e.g., Central America, Chile, and Bahrain), the
final negotiated texts do not contain provisions on parallel
importation.
3. Which country sought inclusion of this provision?
This provision is a standard component of the U.S. draft
text, which USTR staff has presented to Congress for review
and comment on numerous occasions. Morocco readily accepted
the proposal, without objection, and noted during the
negotiations that Moroccan patent law, like U.S. law, already
provided patentees with an exclusive importation right.
4. If Morocco or the United States eliminated the exclusive
right of a patent holder to import a patented product, would
either be in violation of Article 15.9.4?
It would depend on the details of the particular
legislation. A change in U.S. law would, however, affect many
other innovative sectors that rely on patents besides the
pharmaceutical sector. Many U.S. technology, manufacturing,
and other innovative businesses--as well as Members of
Congress--urge us regularly to vigorously safeguard U.S.
patents and the jobs they help create.
market exclusivity
5. The Hatch-Waxman Act's provisions on market exclusivity
were part of a compromise necessary to ensure that the U.S.
regulatory structure was updated to facilitate the entry of
generic drugs into the U.S. market. Most developing countries
already have robust generic markets, in large part because
they already allow producers of generic versions of drugs to
obtain regulatory approval based on data submitted by first
applicants or based on prior approval. In light of that fact,
and given that innovative drug companies largely develop
drugs for developed country markets and conduct the necessary
tests to get marketing approval in those markets regardless
of whether they are given market exclusivity in low-income
developing countries, what is the rationale for including
these provisions?
In negotiating the U.S.-Morocco FTA and other recent FTAs,
USTR has been mindful of the guidance provided in the Trade
Act of 2002, which directs USTR to seek to ``ensur[e] that
the provisions of any multilateral or bilateral trade
agreement governing intellectual property rights that is
entered into by the United States reflect[s] a standard of
protection similar to that found in United States law.'' We
understand the rationale of this guidance is to help protect
and create high-paying jobs in leading American businesses.
As a developed economy, it is understandable that U.S.
workers will be increasingly employed in higher value (and
better paid) innovative and productive jobs. On the basis of
Congress' direction, the United States sought to include
provisions that reflect U.S. law, including with respect to
the protection of data.
The protection of clinical test data has long been a
component of trade agreements negotiated by U.S.
Administrations with both developed and developing countries.
Data protection provisions were included, for example, in
many past trade agreements, including the U.S.-Jordan FTA and
the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement--both negotiated
by the prior Administration after the passage of the law to
which you refer. Such provisions were included in NAFTA, too.
They are in all recent FTAs, including the U.S.-Singapore FTA
and the U.S.-Chile FTA. Data protection provisions have also
been included in many bilateral intellectual property
agreements.
The TRIPS Agreement itself requires protection of clinical
test data against unfair commercial use. While the United
States protects data to obtain approval for new chemical
entities for five years, other countries provide different
terms. The EU, for example, protects such data for 6-10
years.
Implicit in the question, however, appears to be an
assumption that data protection is disadvantageous for
developing countries like Morocco. Yet, protection of data
actually has the potential of facilitating and accelerating
access to medicines. As recognized in Chapter 15 of the FTA
(footnotes 12 and 13), Morocco does not currently approve
generic versions of medicines based on approvals granted in
other countries. As a result, today a generic producer
wishing to sell pharmaceuticals in Morocco may obtain
approval only if an innovative producer first obtains
approval in Morocco or if the generic producer invests the
significant money and time necessary to recreate the data
itself. After an innovative producer obtains approval in
Morocco, a generic producer may rely on such data to obtain
approval for its generic product.
Therefore, under existing Moroccan law, generic
manufacturers in Morocco cannot obtain marketing approval for
a generic drug until an innovator has first obtained approval
for the drug in Morocco. Without data protection, innovative
producers will be less likely to enter the Moroccan market in
the first place because, once they obtain approval, generic
producers may capture most of the market. The data
exclusivity provisions of the FTA can thus provide an
important incentive for innovators to enter the market, which
may in turn expand the potential universe of generic drugs in
Morocco. As noted above, this is the development we are
seeing in Jordan, to the benefit of Jordan consumers.
6. Please describe the circumstances under which the three
additional years of marketing exclusivity described in
Article 15.10.2 would apply.
The question seems to imply that the basic five year term
of protection for data submitted to obtain approval of new
chemical entities may be extended to eight years. This is not
correct. There is no circumstance in which the FTA requires
that an innovator receive a data protection period longer
than five years for new chemical entities.
The three year period of protection reflects a provision in
U.S. law, which relates to new information that is submitted
after a product is already on the market (for example,
because the innovator is seeking approval for a new use of an
existing product). In that situation, at least in cases where
the origination of this new data involves considerable
effort, the FTA requires that the person providing the new
data gets three years of protection for that new data
relating to that new use. This three year period only applies
to the new data for the new use; it is not added to the
exclusivity period for any data previously submitted.
For example, if a new chemical entity is given marketing
approval, the data supporting that approval is protected for
five years. After that time, generic producers may rely on
the data to obtain approval for a generic version of the drug
for the use supported by the original data. If a new use is
subsequently discovered for the chemical entity, and the
health authority approves the new use based on new data, then
the originator of the new data is entitled to three years of
protection for that data. During that time, however, generics
can continue to produce and market the drug for the original
use.
7. Neither Article 15.10.1 or 15.10.2 on marketing
exclusivity appear to allow for reliance on previously
submitted data or prior approval during the period of market
exclusivity absent consent of the first applicant. The Doha
Declaration reaffirmed the right of countries to use
flexibilities under the TRIPS agreement, such as compulsory
licenses. A compulsory license allows someone other than the
patent holder to produce and sell a drug under patent. It is
not clear to us why the grant of a compulsory license would
override a grant of market exclusivity, as provided in
Articles 15.10.1 and 15.10.2. (We note that there is no
exception to protect the public.) Please describe how the
market exclusivity provisions in Article 15.10.1 and Article
15.10.2 relate to Morocco's ability to issue a compulsory
license.
[[Page 17222]]
The Doha Declaration recognizes that the TRIPS Agreement
allows countries to issue compulsory licenses to address
public health problems. The U.S.-Morocco FTA is fully
consistent with this principle. It contains no provisions
with respect to compulsory licensing, leaving the
flexibilities available under WTO rules unchanged.
In the negotiation of the U.S.-Morocco FTA, both parties
recognized the importance of protecting public health. Your
questions pertain to whether provisions of Chapter 15 (which
is the Intellectual Property Rights chapter) might affect
this common interest. To address this type of concern, the
United States and Morocco agreed to a side letter on public
health in which both Parties stated their understanding that
``[t]he obligations of Chapter Fifteen of the Agreement do
not affect the ability of either Party to take necessary
measures to protect public health by promoting access to
medicines for all, in particular concerning cases such as
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other epidemics as well
as circumstances of extreme urgency or national emergency.''
The Parties also stated that ``Chapter Fifteen does not
prevent the effective utilization of the TRIPS/health
solution'' reached in the WTO last year to ensure that
developing countries that lack pharmaceutical manufacturing
capacity may import drugs. Therefore, if circumstances ever
arise in which a drug is produced under a compulsory license,
and it is necessary to approve that drug to protect public
health or effectively utilize the TRIPS/health solution, the
data protection provisions in the FTA would not stand in the
way.
8. Where a compulsory license has been issued, may a Party
automatically deem that the first applicant has consented to
reliance on the data or prior approval for the drug produced
under the compulsory license?
As explained above, if the measure described in the
question is necessary to protect public health, then, as
explained in the side letter, the FTA would not stand in the
way.
9. If the patent and test-data were owned by different
entities, does a compulsory license result in legal
``consent'' by both the patent holder and the data owner for
use of the patented material and the test data?
See previous response.
10. When the drug is off patent, and a Party wishes to
permit marketing for a second entrant, what mechanism exists
in the FTA to allow for an exception to the provisions on
market exclusivity?
A patent is designed to protect one type of intellectual
property work, i.e., an invention. Protection of data is
intended to protect a different type of work, i.e.,
undisclosed test data that required significant time and
effort to compile. The fact that one type of intellectual
property protection for a product has expired, should not
lead as a matter of course to the conclusion that all other
intellectual property rights attached to the same product
should also expire. The same is true in other areas of
intellectual property. For example, a single CD may encompass
several intellectual property rights related to the music,
the performer and the record company. These rights may expire
at different times. The fact that the copyright attached to
the sound recording has expired, should not mean that the
composer or performer loses the copyright it has. As you
know, this principle is important to a broad range of U.S.
creative and innovative industries, including the
entertainment sector, America's second largest export
business.
However, as indicated in the side letter, if a circumstance
arose, such as an epidemic or national emergency, that could
only be addressed by granting a second entrant marketing
approval notwithstanding the data protection rights of the
originator of the data, the FTA would not stand in the way.
11. Is a grant of market exclusivity pursuant to Articles
15.10.1 and 15.10.2 considered an ``investment'' with respect
to Chapter 10 of the Agreement? If so, would an abridgement
of the period of market exclusivity constitute a compensable
expropriation under Chapter 10?
The definition of an ``investment'' in the FTA includes,
inter alia, ``intellectual property rights.'' Whether an
abridgement of the data protection obligation gives rise to a
compensable expropriation of an ``investment'' under Chapter
Ten is a fact-specific issue that would have to be resolved
on the merits of a particular case. It is worth noting,
however, that Article 10.6.5 provides that the expropriation
provision of Chapter Ten does not apply to the issuance of
compulsory licenses or to the limitation of intellectual
property rights to the extent that such action is consistent
with the intellectual property chapter (Chapter Fifteen). A
determination concerning the consistency of an action with
Chapter Fifteen would be informed by the side letter.
12. Article 10.6.5 of the FTA appears to clarify that any
act of patent infringement carried out by a Party in the
issuance of a compulsory license in accordance with the TRIPS
does not constitute a compensable expropriation. Issuance of
a compulsory license, however, is only one aspect of the
process of getting a drug to market. Does the clarification
in Article 10.6.5 also ensure that other measures taken by a
government to ensure that a drug on which a compulsory
license has been issued can be lawfully marketed (e.g., a
grant of marketing approval to a generic or second producer
before the period of marketing exclusivity has expired) will
not constitute compensable expropriations? If not, is there
another provision in the agreement that would ensure that
such measures do not constitute expropriations?
See response to Question 11.
13. Article 15.10.3 requires that a patent term be extended
where there is a delay in the regulatory approval process.
The provision does not state whether delays attributable to
the applicant (e.g., failure to provide adequate data)
mitigate against extension. Article 15.9., the comparable
provision for extension of a patent term because of a delay
in the patent approval process, makes clear that delays
attributable to the patent applicant should not be considered
in determining whether there is a delay that gives rise to
the need for an extension. Why was similar language not
included in Article 15.10.3?
The Parties did not find it necessary to specifically
address the issue of how to handle delays attributable to an
applicant for marketing approval in the context of data
protection. As with numerous other provisions, the Parties
retain the flexibility to address such details in their
implementation of the FTA, provided that they comply with the
basic obligation.
14. Is Morocco, or for that matter the United States,
required by the FTA to extend a patent term where there is a
delay in the regulatory approval that is attributable to the
applicant?
The FTA preserves flexibility for the Parties to address
the issue of delays attributable to an applicant for
marketing approval through their domestic laws and
regulations.
bolar provisions
15. Please explain whether this Article prohibits Morocco
from allowing the export of generic versions of patented
pharmaceutical products for purposes other than ``meeting
marketing approval requirements.'' If it does not, please
explain in detail how you came to that conclusion.
No, it does not. The Article dealing with the ``Bolar''
exception to patent rights only deals with one specific
exception. It does not occupy the field of possible
exceptions, and thus does not prevent Morocco from allowing
the export of generic versions of patented pharmaceutical
products for purposes other than ``meeting marketing approval
requirements'' when permitted by other exceptions. For
example, Morocco has the right to allow exports where
consistent with TRIPS Article 30 and WTO rules on compulsory
licensing. Morocco may, for example, allow export of generic
versions of patented drugs by issuing a compulsory license in
accordance with the TRIPS/health solution agreed last August
in the WTO.
16. If this provision does in fact limit Morocco's ability
to allow the export of generic versions of patented
pharmaceutical products, please explain how Morocco could
serve as an exporting country to help least-developed and
other countries address public health needs under the
Paragraph 6 Decision. (Exporters under the Paragraph 6
Decision are exporting to meet the health needs of an
importing country, not merely to obtain marketing approval).
As noted in the response to Question 15, the FTA does not
limit Morocco's ability to make use of the TRIPS/health
solution agreed last August to export drugs under a
compulsory license to developing countries that cannot
produce drugs for themselves.
17. Does Article 15.9.6 allow export of a generic version
of a patented drug to get marketing approval in a third
country (i.e., other than the United States or Morocco)?
(Article 15.9.6 states that ``the Party shall provide that
the product shall only be exported outside its territory for
purposes of meeting marketing approval requirements of that
Party.'')
Morocco can get marketing approval in a third country to
allow export of a generic version through the issuance of a
compulsory license for export, consistent with WTO rules.
Article 15.9.6 does not interfere with that result.
side letter
18. On the Paragraph 6 Decision, please explain how the
statement that the FTA does not ``prevent the effective
utilization'' is not merely rhetorical. Please be specific as
to why you believe the provisions in the FTA do not preclude
Morocco from acting as an importer or exporter of drugs under
the Paragraph 6 Decision, including how the FTA's provisions
related to market exclusivity can be waived if Morocco acts
in either capacity.
There are no provisions in the FTA related to compulsory
licensing, which means that it does not limit in any way
Morocco's ability to issue compulsory licenses in accordance
with WTO rules, including TRIPS Article 31 and the TRIPS/
health solution. With respect to other rules included in
Chapter 15, including data protection, the side letter states
that the FTA does not ``prevent the effective utilization of
the TRIPS/health solution.'' As stated in the side letter,
the letter constitutes a formal agreement between the
[[Page 17223]]
Parties. It is, thus, a significant part of the interpretive
context for this agreement and not merely rhetorical.
According to Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties, which reflects customary rules of treaty
interpretation in international law, the terms of a treaty
must be interpreted ``in their context,'' and that
``context'' includes ``any agreement relating to the treaty
which was made between all the parties in connection with the
conclusion of the treaty.''
19. On the issue of consultation, do the letters mean that
both Parties agree to amend the FTA as soon as possible to
reflect access to medicines amendments to the TRIPS
Agreement? Will the United States refrain from enforcing
provisions of the FTA that contravene the TRIPS Agreement
amendments while the FTA is being amended? Is USTR willing to
engage in an exchange of letter with the Government of
Morocco memorializing such an understanding?
The United States would, of course, work with Morocco to
ensure that the FTA is adapted as appropriate if an amendment
to the TRIPS Agreement were adopted to ensure access to
medicines. The only amendment currently being contemplated
with respect to TRIPS involves translating the TRIPS/health
solution from last August into a formal amendment. The United
States has no intention of using dispute settlement to
challenge any country's actions that are in accordance with
that solution. In fact, Canada passed legislation recently
that would allow it to export drugs in accordance with the
TRIPS/health solution. The United States reached an agreement
with Canada just last Friday, July 16, to suspend parts of
NAFTA to ensure that Canada could implement the solution
without running afoul of NAFTA rules.
In closing, let me emphasize that we appreciate the
importance of the U.S. commitment to the Doha Declaration on
the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health and the global effort
to ensure access to medicines in developing countries to
address acute public health problems, such as AIDS, malaria
and tuberculosis. The United States played a leading role in
developing these provisions, including enabling poor
countries without domestic production capacity to import
drugs under compulsory licenses. We also successfully called
for giving Least Developed Countries an additional ten years,
from 2006 until 2016, to implement TRIPS rules related to
pharmaceuticals. These accomplishments offer a significant
solution to the conflicts we encountered on taking office in
2001.
At the same time, as Congress has directed us, the
Administration has worked on multiple fronts to strengthen
the value internationally of America's innovation economy.
These efforts have included stronger intellectual property
protection rules and enforcement so as to assist U.S.
businesses and workers, and encourage ongoing innovation that
benefits U.S. consumers.
Our FTAs are but one component of the Administration's
broader efforts to achieve these objectives, and complement
efforts undertaken in other fora. Our FTAs not only do not
conflict with the objectives expressed in the Doha
Declaration but reinforce those objectives and facilitate
efforts to address public health problems.
Sincerely,
John K. Veroneau,
General Counsel.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
Rochester, New York for yielding me this time.
I rise today in support of the Moroccan Free Trade Agreement because
it is an important agreement with a moderate Muslim country and it
represents a vital step towards establishing broader free trade in the
Middle East.
Former Clinton administration U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor
said, ``Closer and mutually beneficial ties between Morocco and the
United States will bolster a country that has for several centuries
earned a reputation for moderation, tolerance, and stability. The
Moroccans have democratized their political structures. They recently
made historic reforms to improve women's rights, and codified new labor
rights and protections based upon key International Labor Organization
conventions.
Mr. Speaker, the Moroccan Free Trade Agreement is the first trade
pact to be negotiated with an Arab and Muslim country since September
11, and it would permit Morocco to join Jordan in the ranks of
countries that have entered into an enhanced partnership with the
United States.
{time} 1215
This agreement will enhance our foreign policy and diplomatic efforts
to bridge greater understanding and cooperation with moderate Arab
nations.
This FTA is going to ensure that U.S. businesses and workers have
greater access to the Moroccan market by further eliminating trade
barriers. It will deepen and expand bilateral commercial ties beyond
the average level of $1 billion in current annual two-way trade flows.
In fact, the United States enjoyed a surplus of $2 billion between 1999
and 2003. So they are buying more from us than we are buying from them.
This is creating more jobs in the United States.
More than 95 percent of bilateral trade in consumer and industrial
products will become duty free immediately upon entry into this
agreement, with all remaining tariffs to be eliminated within 9 years.
It is the best markets access package of any U.S. free trade agreement
with a developing country.
It is going to create new opportunities for U.S. banks, insurance,
securities and related services and telecommunications. Key U.S. export
sectors gain immediate duty-free access to Morocco, such as information
technology, machinery, construction equipment, and chemicals. Morocco
is going to accord substantial market access across its entire services
regime and adhere to strong and detailed disciplines on regulatory
transparency, a key factor.
Additionally, Morocco has agreed to strengthen its intellectual
property laws, and the agreement is going to help Morocco to further
expand its economic and labor reform efforts.
Mr. Speaker, this FTA will expand trade and bring greater economic
opportunities for U.S. workers, farmers and businesses, and is going to
promote economic development in other nations.
Through this type of economic engagement, we can forge stronger ties
with our allies around the world and promote democracy, free markets,
and improved labor standards. That is why I support this agreement. I
urge my very good friends, particularly on this side of the aisle, to
vote in favor of this implementing legislation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Virginia brought up some very
important points, and I think they are important to emphasize and not
only take note of. This agreement, in addition to the many, many
important aspects that it contains for the economy, obviously, of
Morocco, and the United States, is a very important agreement
politically; and it encourages the extraordinary progress that Morocco
has made in the area of labor rights, in the area of a free press, and
in the area of democratization.
Morocco has multiple political parties, espousing all conceivable
viewpoints. It has an elected parliament and an elected prime minister.
It has made commendable progress. It is a great friend and ally of the
United States.
For so many reasons, Mr. Speaker, it is important and appropriate for
this Congress to be moving forward today passing this implementing
legislation for the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). 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, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on adopting House Resolution 738 will be followed by 5-
minute
[[Page 17224]]
votes, as ordered, on suspending the rules and passing H.R. 4175; and
suspending the rules and adopting H. Res. 728.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 345,
nays 76, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 407]
YEAS--345
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Cooper
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Van Hollen
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--76
Alexander
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berry
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Conyers
Costello
Cramer
Cummings
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Doyle
Evans
Filner
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holden
Jackson (IL)
Kanjorski
Kildee
Kleczka
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lipinski
Lofgren
Markey
Marshall
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Rahall
Rothman
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Sherman
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--13
Bass
Carson (IN)
Collins
Gephardt
Greenwood
Kirk
Kucinich
Lowey
Majette
Paul
Quinn
Simmons
Sullivan
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1244
Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. BECERRA, Ms. BALDWIN, and Mr. McGOVERN changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GUTIERREZ and Mr. WELDON of Florida changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
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.
____________________
VETERANS' COMPENSATION COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2004
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question of
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 4175, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 4175, as amended, on which the yeas and nays
are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 421,
nays 0, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 408]
YEAS--421
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
[[Page 17225]]
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Bass
Berman
Carson (IN)
Collins
Gephardt
Greenwood
Kirk
Kucinich
Lowey
Majette
Paul
Quinn
Watt
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes are left in this vote.
{time} 1253
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING POSTPONEMENT OF A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question of
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 728.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution, H. Res. 728 on which the yeas and nays are
ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 419,
nays 2, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 409]
YEAS--419
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NAYS--2
Baird
McInnis
NOT VOTING--13
Bachus
Carson (IN)
Collins
Gephardt
Gillmor
Greenwood
Kirk
Kucinich
Lofgren
Lowey
Paul
Quinn
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members
[[Page 17226]]
are advised 2 minutes are left in this vote.
{time} 1300
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 22, I regrettably missed
recorded votes numbered 407 and 409. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea'' on both measures.
____________________
MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2004
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 734, I
call up the bill (H.R. 3313) to amend title 28, United States Code, to
limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of
Marriage Act, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 734, the bill
is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 3313 is as follows:
H.R. 3313
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 ``Marriage Protection Act of
2003''.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
(a) In General.--Chapter 99 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction
``No court created by Act of Congress shall have any
jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate
jurisdiction, to hear or determine any question pertaining to
the interpretation of section 1738c of this title or of this
section. Neither the Supreme Court nor any court created by
Act of Congress shall have any appellate jurisdiction to hear
or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of
section 7 of title 1.''.
(b) Amendment to Table of Sections.--The table of sections
at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill is adopted.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 3313
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 ``Marriage Protection Act of
2004''.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
(a) In General.--Chapter 99 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction
``No court created by Act of Congress shall have any
jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate
jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to
the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution
of, section 1738C or this section.''.
(b) Amendments to the Table of Sections.--The table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new item:
``1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will
control 45 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
{time} 1300
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time
for debate on H.R. 3313 be extended by 20 minutes, said time to be
equally controlled by myself and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 3313.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I asked the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) for the privilege of opening this debate so as to lay
before the House not only the arguments in favor of the Marriage
Protection Act, but also, and perhaps more importantly, to appeal to
Members on all sides of this issue to conduct today's debate with the
compassion and civility that it deserves.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat my appeal to Members on all sides of this
issue. I would hope that Members would conduct today's debate with the
compassion and civility that it deserves.
I really feel that, I fear that the debate about homosexual marriage,
which has recently been thrust upon the entire Nation by the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts, has begun to deviate from a productive
conversation about public policy. Too often proponents and opponents
seem more interested in talking to themselves than to each other, and
if we truly seek a national consensus on the future of marriage, little
can be gained by an afternoon spent hectoring each other.
So those who oppose homosexual marriage need not be lectured about
compassion any more than those who support it need to be lectured about
morality. You think this bill is cruel and we think same sex marriage
is a contradiction in terms. Saying so at the top of our lungs for the
next few hours will do little good for anyone, least of all the
millions of American homosexuals who deserve respect in this debate as
American citizens and as human beings.
Mr. Speaker, we are elected to judge policies, not people, and the
policy before us today, the Marriage Protection Act, would reaffirm the
current national consensus on homosexual marriage by leaving to the
States and to the American people the right to define marriage in this
country. This is the position that many Democrats say that they
support, all 50 States deciding for themselves how to define marriage
rather than a one-size-fits-all definition being imposed on them from
above, and this bill is their opportunity to publicly adhere to that
argument.
If you support the States and respect the will of the American
people, you must support this bill. The overwhelming bipartisan passage
of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, signed into law by President
Bill Clinton, provides uncontradicted testimony to the consensus
opinion of the American people, an opinion shared by every civilized
society in history. That consensus is simply that marriage is the union
between one man and one woman.
The consensus of the American people is simply that marriage is the
union between one man and one woman. It is not a contract of mutual
affection between consenting adults. It is, instead, the architecture
of family, the basic unit of civilization, and the natural means by
which the human species creates, protects and instills its values in
its children.
Traditional marriage is the most stable, enduring and efficient means
of raising children, laying down the roots of community life and
establishing the necessary and sustainable predicates of nationhood.
This is the evolution of civilization.
Individual men and women, with the innate qualities of their gender,
come together in shared sacrifice to raise children. They each make
their own unique contributions to the raising of boys and girls as male
and female models for their male and female children and create the
ideal family unit of mother, father and children, an ideal established
by nature, sustained by human experience and supported by decades of
social science.
It is not a collection of individuals but of families that come
together to form a community of shared values and
[[Page 17227]]
common purpose, and communities in turn come together and bind each
other by those shared values and common purpose to establish a common
nation. If any link, if any link in that chain breaks, like, for
instance, the erosion of the traditional family that has occurred in
this country over the last 40 years, the institution of marriage
suffers, but so does the Nation.
Children need their community and their Nation to help stabilize
their social environment so that they can have the same chances in life
we and every generation of Americans have had before them. That is why
there has always been and always will be a compelling government
interest to protect the institution of marriage from corrosion within
or artificial social engineering without.
If it is true what the Massachusetts Supreme Court says, and I do not
believe that it is, that ``marriage is an evolving paradigm,'' then
should not that evolution be an organic, natural evolution and left to
the collective and evolving wisdom of the American people?
And if, on the other hand, no such institutional evolution exists,
does not the arrogance of judges who would impose on our society their
own contrary and misguided prejudices fundamentally undermine American
democracy?
In both cases the answer is yes, and in both cases the Marriage
Protection Act will ensure that we take the proper course.
We are a nation of laws, not commandments, and neither the
conservative politician nor the liberal judge by himself has the right
to define marriage for a nation of 270 million people. That
responsibility, that responsibility lies with the people we all serve,
whether it is in Sugar Land or San Francisco and everywhere in between.
So I urge my colleagues, let us have a debate. Let us have a civil
debate. But in the end I hope my colleagues understand that that
responsibility lies in the body of the House of Representatives and you
will vote yes on the bill before us.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking the leader and the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), for allowing us to add 10 minutes on each side to this
debate.
Now, let us begin with the nature of H.R. 3313. This is not about
marriage. This is about whether the third branch of government, the
judiciary, since Marbury v. Madison will continue to be the arbiter of
what is constitutional in the American system.
So I begin by pointing out that to deny any branch, any issue the
right to full judicial review would bring about more chaos than even
the proponent of this change, which is patently unconstitutional, would
want. The legislation is the first of its kind that has ever been
brought to the floor of the House of Representatives.
Never have we ever tried to do something as breathtaking as taking
away the right of a Federal appeal when it is clearly permissive not
even to go to the Supreme Court. We had an amendment that would have
allowed the Supreme Court at least to take precedent. It was voted down
by the conservatives in the Committee on the Judiciary. This would be
the only instance in the history of the Congress that we have totally
precluded the Federal courts from considering the constitutionality of
Federal legislation.
The other body only last week decided this question the same way that
I pray we will today. They turned it back. It was considered too
unconstitutional and too unprecedented. Now, make no mistake about it,
were the bill to be enacted, the chaos that would ensue from 50 States
plus the District of Columbia issuing conflicting opinions on the
marriage law would be irrational.
Why, I ask my colleagues, and I will yield, why would anyone want to
create out of this rational body a law that would prevent the Federal
courts from deciding cases rather than allowing anywhere up to 50, 51
different decisions? I yield to anyone in this body.
So I want to urge to you that the reason is that we are actually
stripping the Federal courts from jurisdiction that has historically
been theirs. We have these branches in the judiciary. Now, what would
have happened had conservatives decided during the civil rights battles
of the sixties to have decided that we would just take the decisions
away from the courts, or Brown v. The Board or any of the tests against
the Civil Rights Act, the Voter Rights Act, would have had nowhere to
go had someone come across this incredibly weird decision.
So I rise in strong opposition to this. I urge the Members, as the
leader who preceded me said, may rationally analyze where stripping the
Federal courts from any one single issue, where that would lead this
great Constitution and democracy of over 209 years.
I rise in strong opposition to this unconstitutional, discriminatory,
divisive, and unprecedented bill. The only reason we are debating today
is that the President is in danger of losing his job and wants to
detract attention from his failure in Iraq and to bolster support
amongst right-wing conservatives.
In the past few weeks, I am sorry to say the death toll of U.S.-led
forces in Iraq topped 1,000. The bipartisan 9-11 Commission found,
contrary to the President's implications, that there was no
``collaborative relationship'' between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And we all
know that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.
What did the President do about it? He followed the advice of
conservative organizers and ``changed the subject'' so he could have a
chance of winning in November.
That is why we are here. The President and the Republican leadership
know that a constitutional amendment could not pass; in fact, it failed
the Senate last week. Instead, they are moving this divisive and
unconstitutional bill, which proposes to strip all federal courts and
the Supreme Court from reviewing not just one but two acts of Congress.
I cannot believe that proponents of this bill understand its
implications. Imagine if, in the early 1950's, a conservative Congress
had succeeded in stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear
segregation cases. The Supreme Court would never have issued its
historic Brown v. Board of Education decision declaring that separate
was not permitted in education.
Alternatively, consider the implications if a more liberal Congress
opted to prevent federal courts from hearing any Second Amendment
cases. How would my conservative colleagues like it if the California
or the Massachusetts Supreme Court was the final arbiter of the right
to bear arms in their states? Would they think it fair that a single
class of citizens--gun owners--were excluded from appeals to our
federal judicial system?
Yet that is what H.R. 3313 would do--deny any judicial review, even
by the Supreme Court--of any case brought challenging the
constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which clarifies that
states need not give full faith and credit to same sex marriages
entered into in other states. This legislation would be the first and
only instance in which Congress had totally precluded the federal
courts from considering the constitutionality of federal legislation.
This runs totally contrary to our bedrock principles. Article III of
the Constitution says ``the judicial Power of the United States, shall
be vested in one supreme Court.'' And in the more than 200 years that
have passed since Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has served as the
very touchstone of our constitutional system and our democracy.
It is no wonder that, when court stripping legislation was proposed
in the 1970's concerning school prayer, abortion, and busing,
conservatives found the proposals to be so repugnant. Then-Yale Law
School Professor Robert Bork wrote of the bills, ``you'd have 50
different constitutions running around out there, and I'm not sure even
conservatives would like the results.'' Senator Barry Goldwater stated
that the ``frontal assault on the independence of the Federal courts is
a dangerous blow to the foundations of a free society'' and warned
``there is no clear or coherent standard to define why we shall control
the Court in one area but not another.''
Today, the stakes are no less significant. As emotionally charged and
politicized as the issue of same sex marriage has become, we should not
use that controversy to permanently damage the courts, the
Constitution, and the Congress. At a time when it is more important
than ever that our Nation stand out as a beacon of freedom, we must not
countenance a bill that undermines the very protector of those
freedoms--our independent federal judiciary.
The bill is even more misguided considering that it was a state
court, not a federal court,
[[Page 17228]]
that issued an opinion that permitted same sex marriage. Further, no
federal court has even opined on the constitutionality of DOMA.
Make no mistake about it. If this bill is enacted, chaos will ensue
when the fifty states and the District of Columbia issue conflicting
opinions on DOMA. Then my colleagues on the other side will be
clamoring for review by a Supreme Court that has seven Republican
appointees and two Democratic appointees.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
Congressional Research Service.
Memorandum
To: House Committee on the Judiciary, Attention: Perry
Apelbaum.
From: Johnny H. Killian, Senior Specialist, American
Constitutional Law, American Law Division.
Subject: Precedent for Congressional Bill.
This memorandum is in response to your query, respecting
H.R. 3313, now pending before the House of Representatives,
as to whether there is any precedent for enacted legislation
that would deny judicial review in any federal court of the
constitutionary of a law that Congress has enacted, whether a
law containing the jurisdictional provision or an earlier,
separate law. We are not aware of any precedent for a law
that would deny the inferior federal courts original
jurisdiction or the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction
to review the constitutionality of a law of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act, simply prevents
one or more Federal judges from striking down the provision of the
Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, that protects States from
having to recognize same sex marriage licenses granted in other States.
This bill will prevent unelected lifetime appointed Federal judges
from taking away from the States their right codified in DOMA to reject
same sex marriage licenses issued elsewhere if States so choose.
DOMA passed the Congress overwhelmingly in the House by a vote of 342
to 67 and in the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14, and it was signed into
law by President Clinton.
{time} 1315
This afternoon we will hear from opponents of this bill that this is
an unprecedented move to restrict the jurisdiction of the Federal
courts. This is not the case.
Beginning with the first Congress, when the Judiciary Act of 1789 was
passed, the jurisdiction of the Federal courts was limited; and since
that time, Congress has passed enactments either expanding or
restricting the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, whether it be in
the area of diversity jurisdiction or elsewhere, including the
interpretation of Federal laws.
Just less than 2 years ago, as a part of a supplemental
appropriations bill, the Congress enacted a provision inserted by
Senator Daschle of South Dakota preventing Federal court review of
determinations made on the clearing of brush on Indian reservations in
South Dakota. That was not called an assault on the Constitution by
anyone. It was merely a determination by the Congress that these types
of questions should not be reviewed judicially, and that is very
clearly authorized by article III, section 2 of the Constitution.
Today, we are talking about an issue of whether the Federal courts
can interpret the Defense of Marriage Act to take away the right of the
State to determine its own marriage laws.
We have heard earlier in this debate that the supreme judicial court
of Massachusetts in an interpretation of States rights made the
determination that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses,
and in that one State only, to persons of the same gender who applied
for such a license. What this bill will do is to prevent a Federal
court from exporting the decision of a divided court in a single State
to the other States.
I do not believe that when James Madison wrote the Constitution his
idea of federalism was to allow a divided court in a single State to
set national policy, and I sincerely doubt the Constitution would have
been ratified had that been the notion that pervaded Philadelphia in
1787 and in the State legislatures elsewhere.
What we are doing here is restoring the Federal system. We are
restoring a Federal system in an area that has always been conceded to
be the province of the State.
Now, a lot of people will also argue against this bill saying that
the danger is not there. I am here to say that the danger is real.
Just 2 days ago, a lesbian couple married in Massachusetts filed the
first lawsuit in a Florida Federal court to set Federal precedent and
to strike down DOMA's protection that allows States not to recognize
same-sex marriage licenses issued in Massachusetts. The attorney for
the plaintiffs explicitly stated he filed the case because he wants a
Federal court to force every State to recognize same-sex marriage
licenses issued in Massachusetts, whether the people of that State
agree or not.
Now, the laws of Florida are different than the laws of
Massachusetts. Florida should be allowed to make its own laws and to
enforce its own laws and not to have residents who disagree with those
laws run to Massachusetts and come back and force a Federal judge to
recognize that license in Massachusetts.
The threat that is posed to traditional marriage by a handful of
Federal judges whose decisions can have an impact across State
boundaries has renewed concern about abuse of power from the Federal
judiciary. This concern has roots as old and venerable as our Nation's
history and is nothing new in the year 2004.
Thomas Jefferson wrote of Federal judges: ``Their power is the more
dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible to the
elective control.''
Abraham Lincoln said in his first inaugural address in 1861: ``The
candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon
vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed
by decisions of the Supreme Court, the people will have ceased to be
their own rulers having, to that extent, practically resigned their
government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.''
This statement by Abraham Lincoln was in the wake of the Dred Scott
decision, a decision of the Supreme Court which was the single most
important spark that began a civil war which to this day was the most
bloody conflict in our history.
A remedy to abuses by Federal judges has long been understood to lie,
among other places, in Congress's ability to limit Federal court
jurisdiction. H.R. 3313 would prevent a few Federal judges from
rewriting State marriage recognition laws in ways that do not reflect
the will of the people. Nothing in this bill denies anyone their day in
court. The bill simply provides that in cases involving DOMA's
protection of States rights, those cases are to be brought in State
court.
The door of the courthouse is not slammed shut. The people who were
married in Massachusetts and want to get recognition of their marriage
elsewhere, it is the State courthouse that they go to, not the Federal
courthouse.
Any Member who wishes to protect the Defense of Marriage Act's
protections for States from invalidation by Federal judges should
support this bill. The vast majority of Members of the House represent
States that have passed laws that specifically rely on the right of the
States codified in DOMA to resist same-sex marriage licenses issued out
of State.
The Constitution clearly provides that the lower Federal courts are
entirely creatures of the Congress, as is the appellate jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court, excluding only the Supreme Court's very limited
original jurisdiction over cases involving ambassadors and cases in
which States have legal claims against each other.
In The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton made clear the broad
nature of Congress's authority to amend Federal court decisions to
remedy perceived abuse. He wrote, describing the Constitution, that
``it ought to be recollected that the national legislature will have
ample authority to make such exceptions, and to prescribe
[[Page 17229]]
such regulations as will be calculated to obviate or remove the
inconveniences'' which are posed by decisions of the Federal judiciary.
That understanding prevails today. As a leading treatise on Federal
court jurisdiction has pointed out: ``Beginning with the first
Judiciary Act in 1789, Congress has never vested the Federal courts
with the entire `judicial power' that would be permitted by article
III'' of the Constitution. Even the famously liberal Justice William
Brennan wrote a Supreme Court opinion that said: ``Virtually all
matters that might be heard in article III Federal courts could also be
left by Congress to State courts.''
The United States Constitution applies to the State courts. That was
made clear in the 14th amendment.
Limiting Federal court jurisdiction to avoid abuses is not a partisan
issue. Senate Minority Leader Daschle, as I have previously indicated,
supported legislation enacted during the last Congress that denies the
Federal court jurisdiction over the procedures governing timber
projects in order to expedite forest clearing. If limiting the
jurisdiction of the Federal court is good enough to protect trees, it
sure ought to be good enough to protect a State's marriage policy.
Far from violating the separation of powers, legislation that leaves
State courts with jurisdiction to decide certain classes of cases would
be an exercise of one of the very checks and balances provided for in
the Constitution. No branch of the Federal Government can be entrusted
with absolute power and certainly not a handful of tenured Federal
judges appointed for life. The Constitution allows the exercise of
judicial power, but it does not grant the Federal courts the unchecked
power to define the limits of its own power.
Integral to the American constitutional system is each branch of
government's responsibility to use its powers to prevent overreaching
by the other branches. H.R. 3313 does just that, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I supported the Defense of Marriage Act. I rise now in the defense of
the Constitution of the United States. I rise now in defense of the
separation of powers. I rise now in defense of a Nation of laws, not of
men and women.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to seriously consider the
ramifications of the legislation under consideration.
If this bill becomes law, it will represent the first time in our
history that Congress has enacted legislation that completely bars any
Federal court, including the United States Supreme Court, from
considering the constitutionality of Federal legislation. Thus, it
contradicts the Supreme Court's historic ruling more than 200 years ago
in Marbury v. Madison, which enunciated the principle of Federal
judicial review of Federal laws and established the separation of
powers doctrine.
How dramatically different has that made America than every other
nation in the world, in fact? A Nation of laws.
In Marbury, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote: ``It is emphatically
the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law
is.''
This legislation, however, would undue the deference and respect that
Congress has given to the principle of judicial review. It would
intrude upon the principle of separation of powers; and as a result, I
believe it is unconstitutional.
This legislation also would undermine the independent Federal
judiciary. Even the majority's witness, hear me colleagues, the witness
called by the majority, Professor Redish, said that if Congress strips
the courts of jurisdiction it would, the majority's own witness, ``risk
undermining public faith in both Congress and the Federal courts.''
That was your witness, not ours.
And there is little doubt that this bill would set a dangerous
precedent.
The author of the Defense of Marriage Act, one of the most
conservative Members that has served in this Congress, Bob Barr, said
this: ``My main concern with H.R. 3313 is that it will lay the path for
the sponsors of unconstitutional legislation to simply add the language
from H.R. 3313 to their bills.'' Bob Barr, the sponsor of the Defense
of Marriage Act, said that.
If this end-run of judicial review becomes law, what is next? No
judicial review of laws restricting freedom of speech or religion or
laws affecting the right to vote?
I was elected to the Maryland State Senate in 1966. One of the first
bills I voted on in January of 1967 was to repeal the miscegenation
statutes that then were on the Maryland books. America has nevertheless
stood strong.
Let us reject this undermining of what America stands for, a Nation
of laws, not of men and women.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee
on the Constitution.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
for his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) for proposing this legislation and his
leadership as well.
{time} 1330
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3313, the Marriage
Protection Act. This legislation prevents unelected lifetime appointed
Federal judges from striking down the protections Congress afforded
States through the Defense of Marriage Act.
The fact of the matter remains that marriage between a man and a
woman has been and continues to be the cornerstone of our society. If
we are going to change that, if we are going to make two men able to be
married or two women able to be married in this country, and I do not
think we should, but if we were, it ought to be done through the will
of the people, and the will of the people is expressed through their
elected representatives, either at the State legislature, whatever
State they are located within, or the Congress of the United States,
should we determine to take that on nationally.
Rather than having the elected representatives do this, it has been
done piecemeal by a rogue mayor, for example, in San Francisco, or a
court by a 4 to 3 decision in Massachusetts. So clearly what has
happened here, and this is an issue that some on the other side of the
aisle might think that Members on this side of the aisle want to be
debating today, well, this is an issue which has been thrust upon us by
rogue mayors and rogue courts, not something we chose but something we
have to do.
The Subcommittee on the Constitution that I chair held four hearings
focusing on the status of marriage in the United States. One of the
hearings focused specifically on the issue we are considering today.
That hearing clearly demonstrated that we could, if we wished,
constitutionally strengthen the Defense of Marriage Act and limit the
ability of activist Federal judges to force one State's controversial
marriage laws on any other State by passing this legislation. We can
clearly constitutionally do this.
Now as my colleagues know, in 1996 the House overwhelmingly passed
the Defense of Marriage Act by a 342-67 vote. The Senate voiced similar
support passing DOMA by a vote of 85-14. It was later signed into law
by President Clinton. In passing DOMA, Congress recognized that
controversial views on marriage adopted in one State should not be
forced on other States. Understanding that marriage as defined by a
State would have an impact across State lines, Congress exercised its
authority under Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, the full
faith and credit clause, to protect States right.
Under this provision, ``full faith and credit should be given in each
State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every
other State; and the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner
in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the
effect thereof.''
[[Page 17230]]
Today, 44 States have enacted laws defining marriage as between a man
and woman. That is 88 percent of the States, and 86 percent of the
population throughout the country. So far, 38 States have specifically
rejected the recognition of same sex marriage licenses granted out of
State. Unfortunately, the will of the States could be jeopardized by
Federal judges. That is the point of this legislation.
H.R. 3313 will protect the provision of DOMA that keeps final
authority of the will of the States with the States, not with Federal
judges. Let me make something very clear. If Members voted for the
Defense of Marriage Act or purport to support it now, Members must
logically vote for the Marriage Protection Act, this law. Voting
against this legislation will undermine DOMA and potentially force
same-sex marriages on all 50 States.
The Constitution allows Congress to protect DOMA through judicial
limitations set forth in H.R. 3313. Together, Article III, Sections 1
and 2 of the Constitution, provide that the Federal courts derive
authority solely from Congress and the Supreme Court's appellate
jurisdiction is subject to such exceptions and such regulations as the
Congress shall make. Moreover, this authority was made clear as far
back as the first Judiciary Act of 1789, which according to leading
scholars ``is widely viewed as an indicator of the original
understanding of Article III.''
Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this
legislation. It is very important.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, more than anything else, today's debate is about the
politics of a national election. Perhaps our sons and daughters have
been sent to Iraq based on intelligence we now know was not correct,
perhaps millions of Americans are out of work, and many more do not
have access to a doctor. Perhaps our seniors cannot afford life-
protecting medications, but none of that matters, at least we can today
take the time out to beat up on an unpopular minority.
Mr. Speaker, that may be good politics, but it demonstrates a
dangerous contempt for our system of government. This debate is not
really about gay marriage, no matter how long they may talk about it.
The courts will or will not declare the Defense of Marriage Act
unconstitutional. We do not know that yet. If they declare the Defense
of Marriage Act unconstitutional, for those that disagree with them,
the remedy is the normal remedy, a constitutional amendment, which I
gather we will be debating on this floor in a couple of weeks before we
know what the courts do.
But this debate is about whether Congress can adopt unconstitutional
legislation on any subject and protect that legislation from
constitutional challenge by stripping the courts of their jurisdiction
to consider any such challenge. We have never done that before in our
history, and we should not do that now.
No less a conservative icon than Barry Goldwater opposed court
stripping bills in previous decades on the subjects of school prayer,
school busing and abortion, which were the big issues in those days. He
warned his colleagues that, ``The frontal assault on the independence
of the Federal courts is a dangerous blow to the foundations of a free
society.''
Our former colleague, Bob Barr, the author of the Defense of Marriage
Act which this bill purports to protect, had this to say in a letter to
the Members of Congress about this bill. ``H.R. 3313 will needlessly
set a dangerous precedent for future Congresses that might want to
protect unconstitutional legislation from judicial review. During my
time in Congress, I saw many bills introduced that would violate the
takings clause, the second amendment, the 10th amendment, and many
other constitutional protections. The fundamental protections afforded
by the Constitution would be rendered meaningless if others follow the
path set by H.R. 3313.'' That is from Bob Barr.
The distinguished majority leader of the House, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), has already said that if this bill passes he will
introduce court-stripping legislation on other subjects. In fact, the
likelihood is that language saying the court shall have no jurisdiction
to judge the constitutionality of this act will become boilerplate.
Just as every rule that we consider in this House has boilerplate
language saying that all points of order against this bill are waived,
which means the rules of the House do not apply, it will become
boilerplate on every bill of doubtful constitutionality. That would
render the Bill of Rights meaningless.
The 1936 Stalinist constitution of the Soviet Union read wonderfully
on paper. It had a long list of Bill of Rights, freedom of religion,
freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. It was not worth the paper
it was written on because there was no means of enforcing those rights.
We depend on the courts to enforce our rights against majorities
represented in Congress or State legislatures, momentary majorities
perhaps.
Without the means of the courts enforcing the Bill of Rights, the
Bill of Rights is a nullity. Our Constitution would become like the
Soviet constitution, meaningless. We must have a Federal forum to
protect liberty, otherwise that liberty will not exist.
The due process clause of the fifth amendment, passed after the
Judiciary Court Act of 1789, says that no person may be deprived of
life, liberty or property without due process of law. Due process of
law means there has to be a judicial forum to assert the right and have
the judges decide.
We are told the State courts will be the forum. The State courts will
decide whether a law, a Federal law or a State law, violates the United
States Constitution. That means we will have 50 different
constitutions, 50 different laws. We say in the Pledge of Allegiance
the United States is one Nation, indivisible; not if this bill passes.
If this bill and other bills like it pass, we will balkanize the United
States. The Constitution will mean one thing in New Jersey, another
thing in New York and a third thing in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Speaker, it is our very system of government and the
constitutional system of checks and balances which is under attack with
this bill. If the Congress by statute can prevent the Federal courts
from applying the Constitution on any subject matter, then the
protections of an independent judiciary, the protections of the Bill of
Rights, the protections of the United States Constitution, become no
more than a puff of smoke. It will, of course, be unpopular minorities,
whether religious minorities, political minorities, ethnic minorities,
racial minorities, lesbians, gays, whoever is unpopular at the moment,
who will lose their rights.
There have been many Supreme Court decisions I have found loathsome
and wrong, such as Bush v. Gore, and some of the cases invalidating or
limiting our civil rights law, but while that makes me question the
wisdom of some of the justices, even occasionally the motives, it does
not make we want to alter the fundamental structure of our government
that has protected our liberties for the last two centuries.
The evisceration of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the natural
result of this bill, threatens all of us. It is far, far more important
than the question of gay marriage, which is not really involved here
because that has not been decided by the courts. We are playing with
fire with this bill, and that fire could destroy the Nation we love.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the predictions of attacks by opponents of this bill,
including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), are slaps in the
face of the 50 States.
The Supreme Court itself agrees in this case. In a decision this
year, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that ``the whole subject of domestic
relations of husband and wife, parent and child belongs to the laws of
the States and not to the United States.'' That is Elk Grove Unified
School District v. Newdow.
The Supreme Court also has stated, ``domestic relations are
preeminently matters of State law.'' That is Mansell
[[Page 17231]]
v. Mansell, 1989. And that ``family relations are a traditional area of
State concern,'' Moore v. Sims, 1979.
So by reserving marriage law decisions to States, as this bill does,
we are doing nothing more than what the Supreme Court itself has said
is proper.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hostettler), who is the author of the bill.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the full committee, for yielding
me this time.
In my discussion during the consideration of the rule, I informed the
body of the constitutional basis for this law. I have several of the
provisions beside me here, and for Members who are actually interested
in what the Constitution says, that is available in the record as well
as in several copies that are available to every Member's office.
However, I would like to address some of the issues talked about
during this debate, and one of the issues that is a discussion of where
we are with regard to other countries, it was suggested earlier, and we
heard it in the last person's speech, that somehow we are doing as the
Soviet Union has done in the past by limiting the ability for
individuals to go before the court.
Well, the fact is that there was a mechanism in the Soviet Union very
similar to the mechanism we have in this country, and it was referred
to as the Politburo, and the Politburo was a very small entity of
individuals that made policy for the hundreds of millions of individual
citizens of the Soviet Union. We have that today in this country. We
refer to it as the United States Supreme Court. As few as five people
in black robes can look at a particular issue and determine for the
rest of us, insinuate for the rest of us, that they are speaking for
the majority when, in fact, they are not.
It is time with the passage of this legislation to say that we will
have the people in the several States to determine their marriage laws,
and we will not allow, for example, what is attempting to be done in
the State of Florida, and that is a couple that was wed in the State of
Massachusetts imposing their will on the rest of the country by
overturning the Defense of Marriage Act.
This bill uses constitutional provisions to allow the States and to
allow the citizens of the several States to determine the definition of
marriage for themselves and to not allow another State and especially
the Federal judiciary to determine the definition of marriage for them.
{time} 1345
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I think I just heard the Supreme Court of the United States
analogized to the politburo of the Soviet Union, but I am not sure. The
Hostettler fix was tried before. It has never happened, but it was
tried before and here is what Attorney General William French Smith
said in a letter to Strom Thurmond back in 1982:
``The integrity of our system of Federal law depends on a single
court of last resort having a final say on the resolution of Federal
questions. State courts could reach disparate conclusions on identical
questions of Federal law, in this case interpreting the Constitution,
and the Supreme Court would not be able to resolve the inevitable
conflicts.''
If you want to do away with the supremacy clause, repeal Marbury v.
Madison, and rip apart any uniform effort to enforce constitutional
protections, you should vote for this bill. But one day, some liberal
runaway court in some State, justices which we cannot impeach and that
we did not confirm over in the other body, one day that court will come
down and say that DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, is
unconstitutional because of the full faith and credit clause; and the
losing parties, the people who want State control on the issue of who
can marry, will not be able to appeal that to the U.S. Supreme Court
under this bill.
What a ridiculous situation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin, for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Speaker, all Americans are entitled to a fair hearing before
independent-minded judges whose only allegiance is to the law. However,
over the last several years we have witnessed some judges wanting to
determine social policy rather than interpret the Constitution. They
seem to be legislators, not judges; promoters of a partisan agenda, not
wise teachers relying on established law.
Judicial activism has reached a crisis. Judges routinely overrule the
will of the people, invent new rights, and ignore traditional morality.
Judges have redefined marriage, deemed the Pledge of Allegiance
unconstitutional, outlawed longstanding religious practices, and
imposed their personal views on all Americans.
Fortunately, there is a solution. The Constitution empowers Congress
to say that some subjects are off-limits to Federal courts. The
constitutional authority authorizing Congress to restrain Federal
courts, in fact, has been used before, and it should be used again.
The legislation being considered today preserves the right of State
courts to consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage
Act, DOMA. It prevents Federal judges from ordering States to accept
another State's domestic relations policy, an area of the law
historically under the jurisdiction of the States, not the Federal
Government.
While the bill does not dictate any conclusions about DOMA, the vast
majority of States have enacted laws that support DOMA. We need to
protect the right of the voters of those States to define marriage as
they see it.
When Federal judges step over the line, Congress has a responsibility
to drop a red flag. On behalf of the American people, we should vote
for this legislation because it rightfully restrains Federal judges who
threaten our democracy.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, reference was made before to the Daschle court-stripping
bill. There was no such thing. His bill did not court-strip. In fact,
in the case of Biodiversity Associates v. Cables, his bill was judged
constitutional. If the courts had been stripped of jurisdiction, they
could not have done that.
The CRS says, ``We are not aware of any precedent for law that would
deny the inferior Federal court's original jurisdiction or the Supreme
Court of appellate jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of a
law of Congress.''
Let us stop with this nonsense that this is not unprecedented.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
bill. It is an attack on fundamental rights and unconstitutionally
exceeds the power of this body to regulate the judicial branch of
government.
Within our constitutional framework, although Congress is expected to
follow the Constitution, it is not for Congress to make the final
decision as to what is constitutional and what is not. Since Marbury v.
Madison in 1803, at least until today, there has been a longstanding
acceptance of the principle that the United States Supreme Court is the
final arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. And although
Congress has some power to regulate the jurisdiction of Federal courts,
it cannot totally prevent the Supreme Court from ensuring that States
comply with the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, this bill not only violates numerous constitutional
principles; it is dangerous policy. If this bill were found to be
constitutional, there would be no prohibition against boilerplate
language stuck into every bill we consider, stripping judicial review
from every controversial issue.
Frankly, I am glad that this kind of legislation did not pass before
1954 so
[[Page 17232]]
Congress did not strip the Supreme Court from jurisdiction over
segregation in public schools, or before the 1960s when unelected,
lifetime-appointed activist Federal judges required Virginia to
recognize racially mixed marriages, overruling the will of the people
of Virginia.
If this bill ever became law, there would be no Federal law. Some
States would rule that DOMA is constitutional. Other States would rule
that DOMA is unconstitutional. States will adopt full faith and credit
principles in some areas and not in others. A Massachusetts or Vermont
couple moving to another State may have their relationship recognized
in some States, but not in others. If this bill passes, each State will
decide for itself what the Federal law is. Even if it passes, some
States will recognize same-sex marriages.
Mr. Speaker, simply because we anticipate that we may not like how
the Supreme Court will rule on an issue is no reason to prevent the
court from ruling. Today, some Members of Congress are afraid of how
courts may rule on issues pertaining to marriage. Tomorrow they may be
afraid of how the courts may rule on a different issue, such as
abortion or gun control. If we strip the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court over the Defense of Marriage Act, what will we do next?
Mr. Speaker, this unprecedented and perilous legislation violates
constitutional principles, establishes dangerous procedure, and
undermines the credibility of our system of government. For these
reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York has just referenced the
Daschle provision in Public Law 107-206 and said it was not, ``court-
stripping.'' I just want to quote what the provision of law says:
``Any action authorized by this section shall not be subject to
judicial review by any court of the United States.''
That quote from the law speaks for itself.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I first want to agree with what the gentleman from
Maryland and the gentleman from Virginia said on the other side. They
said we are talking about fundamental rights here. They said what we
are talking about, this decision today, defines us as Americans, that
this is about who we are as Americans. I want to agree with that. This
is an important decision, one that defines us as a country.
Who should make that decision? The gentleman from Maryland said an
individual, every individual, ought to make that decision about
marriage. Is that so? A man and a woman? Or two men? Or two women? What
about a man and two women? What about a man and three women? What about
a man and his first cousin? What if a man chooses to marry his
daughter? Is that not an individual decision? Of course not. What if a
man decides to marry a 12-year-old young lady? We said, no, that is not
an individual decision. It is a decision of law. That is who makes it.
The people make it the law.
The gentleman from Maryland said we are a Nation of laws, not people;
and that is why it is up to the people to make the decision through
their elected Members, their elected representatives, not the courts.
What about letting the courts be the final arbiter of the
Constitution? Thomas Jefferson said on August 18, 1821 that it was a
very dangerous doctrine for the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter
of what the law is. He said in 1820, it would be an act of suicide for
the Supreme Court or a judge to make the law. An act of suicide. He
said letting the Supreme Court fix the law would be for the people to
give up their own ability to rule themselves.
Mr. Speaker, as I close, I submit for printing in the Record quotes
from Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson all saying that it is the
legislature who makes the law as representatives of the people.
America's greatest leaders have long been concerned about
limiting federal judges' abuse of their authority.
Deep concern that federal judges might abuse their power
has long been noted by America's most gifted observers,
including Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.
Thomas Jefferson lamented that ``the germ of dissolution of
our federal government is in the constitution of the federal
judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day,
gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing
its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of
jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped . . .'' In
Jefferson's view, leaving the protection of individuals'
rights to federal judges employed for life was a serious
error. Responding to the argument that federal judges are the
final interpreters of the Constitution, Jefferson wrote:
``You seem . . . to consider the [federal] judges as the
ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very
dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under
the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as
other men and not more so. They have with others the same
passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their
corps . . . [T]heir power [is] the more dangerous as they are
in office for life and not responsible, as the other
functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution
has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to
whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and
party its members would become despots.''
Jefferson strongly denounced the notion that the judiciary
should always have the final say on constitutional issues:
``If [such] opinion be sound, then indeed is our
Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For
intending to establish three departments, coordinate and
independent, that they might check and balance one another,
it has given according to this opinion, to one of them alone,
the right to prescribe rules for the government of the
others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and
independent of the nation . . . The constitution, on this
hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the
judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they
please.''
Abraham Lincoln said in his first inaugural address in
1861, ``The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of
the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole
people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the
Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their
own rulers having, to that extent, practically resigned their
government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.''
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the
House.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. I do not know whether
you are for or against gay marriage, and I do not think it makes a
great deal of difference. I happen to oppose the idea. But this is an
extraordinary piece of arrogance on the part of the House of
Representatives to consider a piece of legislation which would strip
American citizens of their right to access to court. Can you imagine
anything more shameful than telling an American citizen you cannot go
into court to have your concerns addressed, to have cases and
controversies, many of which will arise under the Constitution, heard
by the courts of your Nation?
The right to access to courts to decide questions of policy is as old
as the Magna Carta, and it is as important to us as anything else in
the Constitution. Here we calmly say, you cannot have access to the
courts, the Federal courts, the lower inferior courts, and the Supreme
Court. Shame. Shame, shame, shame.
It is a precedent which is going to live to curse us, and we are
going to live to regret this day's labor because other precedents will
be following this, wherein we will strip the rights from citizens to go
to schools, to have questions relative to their equal rights, to have
questions decided about whether they can properly be detained by courts
or others and whether or not the citizen can be detained under the
authority of the Attorney General; rights of citizens under the second
amendment, the first amendment, all of the important questions of the
Constitution. Rights under the 14th and the 15th and the 13th
amendments, those will also be precedents which could follow this.
The Congress has considered these kinds of questions before. It is to
be anticipated if this works, we can look to see this kind of abusive
legislation considered in this body again. And you can be almost
certain that somebody is sitting there now out there deciding, what new
rights can we strip of American citizens because we disagree with them.
[[Page 17233]]
I do not think the question is whether or not there should be gay
marriage. The question before this body today is, are we going to
protect all of the rights of American citizens, regardless of who they
might be or how they might be affected?
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a member of the committee.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, as the prior speaker, the dean of the
House, has indicated, however one feels on the issue of gay marriage,
the question before the House today really is quite a different one,
and it is about the fundamental nature of our democracy. Really, the
plan before us is a radical, extreme plan to overturn the system of
government that we as free Americans have enjoyed for over 200 years.
I have been a Member of this House for 10 years; and I must confess,
I have never been as disappointed as I am today in the level of legal
analysis that I have heard here. It is disappointing in the extreme. I
must also say that you know you are in trouble when you have to go back
and reread a case from 1803, Marbury v. Madison, because that is what
we are talking about overturning today, that seminal case that we all
read in law school, and I read it again this week and it was inspiring
me again to understand how fortunate we are that we have a written
Constitution and that we have a system of checks and balances that
makes sure that the rights in that Constitution cannot be taken away in
a flimsy or easy way.
{time} 1400
Court Justice Marshall 201 years ago said in his decision, ``It is
emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say
what the law is. If then the courts are to regard the Constitution, and
the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature,
the Constitution and not such ordinary act must govern the case to
which they both apply.''
It is that principle of constitutional law that is threatened today,
and we should not fool ourselves into thinking that overturning our
democracy, our system of checks and balances, can be limited to just
the hot button issue of today. If this is constitutional, and many
scholars believe it is not, but if this measure passes and is
constitutional, we will end up not having the ability to rely on the
rights guaranteed to us and the generations before us in our
Constitution. We will in fact see any item that a majority of this
House and this Congress can muster enshrined as equal to the
Constitution itself. I think that that is a result that is disastrous
for the United States of America. It is not something I thought I would
see as a Member of the House of Representatives, as a member of the
House Committee on the Judiciary. It is a radical and extremist
position to take that, and I urge all Members of the House, whatever
their view is on gay marriage, to not destroy our checks and balance
system of America that we have been handed that we should treasure and
preserve and cherish instead of recklessly endanger in this way.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Marriage
Protection Act. I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler)
for his principled leadership on this issue.
The Marriage Protection Act is a constitutional remedy to a looming
constitutional crisis. Let me say, despite what we have just heard on
this blue and gold carpet, nothing in this bill shuts access by
petitioners to any State court in the land. What brings us here today
is that activist judges in some States are poised to force a new
definition of marriage on States like Indiana, and the Marriage
Protection Act will stop that strategy in its tracks.
Let me say clearly not on my watch will I stand idly by while the
courts in Massachusetts redefine marriage in Indiana, and despite what
my colleagues have said on the other side of the aisle about high
principle and constitutional ideals and a history lesson, this is about
marriage. The Bible says ``If the foundations are destroyed, what can
the righteous do?'' And marriage is such a foundation in our society.
Marriage was ordained by God, established in the law. It is the glue of
the American family and the safest harbor to raise children. We must
preserve and defend this foundation in our society, and we begin by
defending the right of States like Indiana to define marriage as it has
ever been defined and will always be defined in the hearts of the
overwhelming majority of the American people.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), distinguished minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I have been married for over 40 years, and I
cannot for the life of me think how this legislation that is on the
floor today, the so-called Marriage Protection Act, is any protection
for my marriage. In fact, I think it is not a protection of the rights
of Americans.
Every Member of this body has taken a solemn oath to protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States. That is our oath of
office. All Members should consider that this bill has far-reaching
consequences for the separation of powers that has been the hallmark of
our Constitution, our government, and our rights as American citizens.
We must today honor our oath of office and oppose this legislation.
This court-stripping bill is not about reaffirming the Defense of
Marriage Act or even about gay marriage. The fundamental issue in this
bill is whether we want to undermine the Supreme Court and the Federal
judiciary and our system of checks and balances. This bill will impact
the very foundation of our government. It impedes the uniformity of
Federal law. It sets a dangerous precedent, and it does grave damage to
the separation of powers.
When former Senator Barry Goldwater spoke against a court-stripping
bill in 1982, he warned his colleagues in the other body that it was a
frontal assault on the independence of the Federal courts and it is a
dangerous blow to the foundations of a free society. We must heed that
warning today.
This bill would prohibit Federal courts, including the Supreme Court
of the United States, from hearing cases related to the interpretation
and the validity under the Constitution of the full faith and credit
provision of the Defense of Marriage Act as well as this court-
stripping bill. If passed, it would constitute the first time in the
over 200 years of our country's history that Congress has enacted
legislation totally eliminating any Federal court from considering the
constitutionality of Federal legislation. Only State courts would be
able to decide questions related to this provision of a Federal
statute. The irony of that is that if one's State passed a law that
allowed gay marriages and they wanted to challenge it in Federal court,
they would only be confined in challenging it in a State court in their
State. So even those who would oppose gay marriage would not have
recourse to the Federal courts.
I know that the gay marriage issue is a difficult issue for many
people, and I respect that. But do not let that bait take them down a
path that would have them dishonor their oath of office that they took
to become a Member of this House. Attempting by statute to remove the
Supreme Court's and the entire Federal judiciary's power to hear a
class of cases and to even determine the constitutional validity of a
statute is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to amend the
Constitution by simple majority.
It would effectively end the Supreme Court's role as a separate and
independent branch of government. It would eliminate all means of
reconciling conflicting State court interpretations of the
Constitution. Think about that. If passed, it would prevent the Supreme
Court from being the guardian of our rights.
It has been a settled principle since Chief Justice John Marshall's
opinion in Marbury v. Madison, which has been oft quoted here today.
Marbury v. Madison stated that ``It is emphatically the province and
the duty of the
[[Page 17234]]
judicial department to say what the law is.'' Subsequent decisions and
the Court's role as an equal branch strongly suggest that Congress
cannot prohibit the Court from determining the validity of a law in the
first place.
Indeed, the author of this legislation here today stated that he
believed that the part of Marbury v. Madison that established judicial
review was ``wrongly decided.'' Over 200 years of precedent was
``wrongly decided,'' a view that can only be characterized as radical.
Just 2 months ago we all celebrated the 50th anniversary of Brown v.
The Board of Education. If the precedent established by this bill had
been in force in 1954, there may have been no Brown decision. Imagine
what would have happened to all of the advances in civil rights without
that ruling. Imagine how little we would have had to celebrate.
Numerous legal experts, including from the other party, indicate that
this bill will likely be found unconstitutional. The court-stripping
issue is not a new one. Numerous proposals have been made since the
Civil War but have never been adopted because Congress wisely exercised
restraint and respected the separation of powers and our constitutional
framework.
More recently, in 1981 and 1982, more than 30 court-stripping
proposals were introduced, primarily by former Senator Jesse Helms, to
remove such issues as school prayer, reproductive rights, school busing
from Federal courts' jurisdiction. They all failed, thanks to the
principled opposition on a bipartisan basis, principally that of, as
quoted earlier, Senator Barry Goldwater and then Attorney General under
President Ronald Reagan, Attorney General William French Smith.
Mr. Speaker, now as then, full jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is
fundamental under our system of government for a uniform and consistent
interpretation of the law even when we do not agree with the Court's
decision. The impact of this legislation goes far beyond the subject
matter that the proponents claim to be concerned with. Our Founders
carefully constructed our system of checks and balances, which we
tamper with at our peril. It is unwise and politically motivated, I
believe. It is designed simply to distract attention from the real
issues that we should be dealing with.
Today, Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans are looking for work.
Millions more Americans do not have access to quality health care since
President Bush took office. Our children are not receiving the quality
of education that they deserve to have, the opportunity that is the
promise of our country. We are driving ourselves deeply in debt with
the irresponsible reckless economic policies of the Republicans here,
giving our children obligations instead of opportunity. We have our men
and women in uniform in harm's way without the proper equipment,
training, and intelligence to get the job done, and we want them to be
second to none, and we will make sure they have what they need, but we
must take the time to do that.
And instead, what are we doing? Instead, we are gathering here to
talk about discrimination, to talk about undermining the Constitution
of the United States, to talk about dishonoring the oath of office that
we take to protect and defend the Constitution.
I agree with those who say ``this bill is as wrong as wrong can be.''
In short, this bill is bad law, bad policy. That is why it will not
have my support.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I can understand the fervor of the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), distinguished minority leader, in opposition
to this legislation. She did not support the Defense of Marriage Act
when it was passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton. But to
insinuate that this bill is an attack on the foundations of our
government is just plain wrong.
The framers of the Constitution put in Article III, Section 2
relating to the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, inferior Federal
courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to provide a
check by the legislative branch of government on the judicial branch of
government, and we have heard quotes from Thomas Jefferson and Abraham
Lincoln expressing their fears about judicial power being unchecked.
This bill is a check on judicial power, and the question is whether
we should have the elected representatives of the people, in this case
the Congress today and the State legislatures in the future,
determining Federal marriage policy, or whether we should have a
Federal judge stating that for a State to take a different position
than a divided court in Massachusetts is an unconstitutional
deprivation of rights.
Now, in the last 10 years or so Congress has restricted the
jurisdiction of the Federal courts on numerous occasions. Much has been
mentioned here about the provision that the minority leader in the
Senate, Senator Daschle, put into Public Law 107-206.
{time} 1415
The press comments about that action, which is public law today,
included headlines that said: ``Daschle seeks to exempt his State;
wants logging to prevent fires,'' and ``Plan to curb forest fires wins
support.''
Senator Daschle told the Congress and the country there was an
emergency in his State, that action needed to be taken, and we could
not have judicial review. The Congress agreed. And we did not hear the
hue and cry about the Constitution being undermined because of a
congressional determination that there had to be some logging to
prevent forest fires in South Dakota, and I think the Congress was
right in agreeing with Senator Daschle in this instance.
Now, there are a number of other instances in the past 10 years where
Congress has precluded Federal judicial review in cases. In 1996, the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was
passed. That was Public Law 104-208. It precluded all judicial review
over specified discretionary decisions of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service. There you are involving the allegations of
rights by people who are subject to deportation or other actions by the
INS. Congress, when it passed that bill, and it was signed by President
Clinton, said no judicial review. Did we hear at the time that that
undermined the Constitution? No, we did not. It was a correct decision
by the Congress to preclude judicial review on this.
After September 11, 2001, Congress passed the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Act, Public Law 107-297, precluding judicial review of
certifications by the Secretary of the Treasury that a terrorist event
had occurred. Did anybody allege that that undermined the Constitution
at the time? No way.
The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization
Act, also passed in the last Congress as Public Law 107-118, precludes
judicial review of hazardous waste cleanup programs.
So this has been going on all the time.
The Judiciary Act of 1789, one of the first bills passed by the first
Congress, recognized that the judicial power of the United States was
not unlimited and limited that judicial power. There have been
expansions and contractions in the area of diversity jurisdiction of
the Federal courts. Nobody has alleged that the Constitution is being
undermined; and, in fact, Federal judges have come to the Congress and
asked that the jurisdictional amount in diversity cases be raised so
they did not have as many cases to decide.
We have heard the Supreme Court say in asbestos that there should be
some way to prevent 600,000 cases from choking the Federal court
dockets. I would hope that we would be able to pass some kind of
asbestos litigation reform.
The fact of the matter remains that we could go on and on and on. It
does not violate the Constitution. There are over 200 years of
precedents in adjusting the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
What this bill says is that if a State decides it does not want to
recognize a same-sex marriage license granted in another State, there
will not be Federal judicial review to do so. This is a
[[Page 17235]]
States rights bill, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that
marriage and family law is primarily a matter of the States, and this
ensures that it will be.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs.
Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I find it so interesting that some of our colleagues
today are trying to talk about all sorts of other issues, and some that
support same-sex marriage are just saying this is an election year ploy
to get votes.
I can tell you that for my constituents in Tennessee, they support
what we are doing here today, and they are not concerned about whether
or not it is an election year or not. They are concerned about
protecting marriage, because they know that marriage is an institution
that is at the very core of our existence, and that is why we are here
today, to protect marriage.
I think it is very sad, very sad, that some courts and some activist
judges have taken it upon themselves to usurp the will of the people.
Let me remind my colleagues who oppose this that we are acting in the
will of the people today.
Already there is a lawsuit that is being brought by same-sex couples
in Massachusetts to force other States, like my State of Tennessee, to
accept their Massachusetts marriage license, and it is contrary to the
Defense of Marriage Act, and it is contrary to the will of the people.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, for me, this is unreal. It is unbelievable. I thought
that as a Nation and as a people that we had moved much further down
the road. To pass this legislation would be a step backward.
There is a song, and some of you are old enough to know it: ``Mr. Big
stuff, who do you think you are?'' I would ask, well, Members of
Congress, who do you think we are?
We have not been called or chosen by the people to strip the courts
of their power. We have not been ordained by some force to say, ``Don't
come in here. Don't apply for justice.''
Those of us who came through the civil rights movement saw the
Federal courts as a sympathetic referee in the struggle for justice,
for fairness and for equality.
If it had not been for the Federal courts, where would we be? If it
had not been for the Supreme Court of 1964, there would still be
legalized segregation in America. If it had not been for the Federal
courts, we would still see signs saying ``White Men,'' ``Colored Men,''
``White Women,'' ``Colored Women,'' ``White Waiting,'' ``Colored
Waiting.''
If it had not been for the Federal courts, I would not be standing
here today and many Members of Congress who are people of color would
not be standing here either.
We do not want to go back. We want to go forward. To vote for this
legislation would be like Members of Congress trying to stand in the
courthouse door, just like George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door
to stop integration of Alabama schools.
Today it is gay marriage. Tomorrow it will be something else. During
the 1960s, in 1963, in 1964, in 1965, we heard some of the same old
arguments. Have we learned anything?
Forget about the politics. Vote your conscience. Vote with your
heart, with your soul, with your gut. Do what is right and defeat this
bill.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, in spite of all this rhetoric about
protecting marriage and saving the country from rogue activist Federal
judges, the bill we are debating here today does not protect Americans
from gay marriage. We are not debating a gay marriage bill. We are
debating a court-stripping bill, and one that is more Draconian than
any such bill Congress has ever considered.
Every year, we teach elementary school students throughout America
about the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, about the precious rights we
have fought at home and abroad to protect, about our democracy that
considers all people as equals, and about the delicate system of checks
and balances upon which all of this is based.
It is a shame that Members of Congress appear to have forgotten these
most basic lessons. They have forgotten that our Founding Fathers
established three equal branches of government, no one more powerful
than the other; they have forgotten that this system has served us well
for over 200 years; and they have forgotten that this is a system that
cannot survive if one branch arbitrarily strips power from another.
This is not about gay marriage. This is not about respecting
marriage. For the record, my marriage is not threatened by gays and
lesbians in Massachusetts or California. What is the heinous crime that
gays and lesbians have committed? They want to live with the same
dignity that their fellow Americans live with every day.
Please vote this bill down.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I sit here and listen to this debate, and it is one of
many debates on this issue that we have had, and it is one of many we
will have into the future. And as I listened to the gentleman talk
about the civil rights, I harkened back to a time when I sat in the
Iowa Senate, where I heard a senator stand and say the next great civil
rights crusade is homosexual rights.
Something about how true that rang to me, it caused me to pay
attention and understand that was the message. There will always be
another civil rights crusade. We will never get this right. There will
always be people that see the glass of rights as half full, like us,
and some that will say it is half empty, like others.
I will tell you that this is not a civil right. You can look in title
VII of the Civil Rights Act, and there it says race, color, religion,
sex or national origin. Those things are all immutable characteristics,
with the exception of religion, which is constitutionally protected.
Immutable characteristics are characteristics that cannot be self-
identified, but can be independently verified, and cannot be changed.
That is not the case with homosexual marriage.
I hear other statements. The gentleman from Maryland, ``risk
undermining public faith in the courts.'' It is the courts that risk
undermining public faith in the courts. We are establishing public
faith in the process.
And the statement made by the gentlewoman from California, ``this is
nothing more than a back door attempt to amend the Constitution by
simple majority.'' No, the courts have been continually amending the
Constitution by the will of a bare majority of appointed courts. The
transfer of the will of four judges from Massachusetts against the will
of the people of the United States of America is protected by the
Constitution, and that responsibility lies with us and we must step up
to that responsibility.
So I would ask, and, as we heard from the minority witness in
hearings, the bottom line of that testimony was that the Congress can
grant authority to the courts, and we can create courts and that courts
can grasp authority by decisions that they make; but we can only limit
the courts by allowing the courts to limit themselves.
Now, how ridiculous is that? How far-reaching is the power of the
judicial branch if we will take this position that Congress cannot
limit the courts when it specifically is in the constitution? We are
charged not with just the right or the privilege, but the duty and
obligation, when we swore to uphold this Constitution, to defend the
separation of powers.
There is no civil right for marriage, there is a license for
marriage, and a license is by definition a permit to do something which
is otherwise illegal.
[[Page 17236]]
We grant that to marriages for those reasons that you have heard some
of my colleagues speak to, because the family, the father, the mother,
the children and the home, is the essential building block, not just of
this culture and this society and this civilization, but every
civilization for the last 6,000 years.
That is what is at stake here, and it is our obligation; and I think
this is the most essential issue of our time. There is no issue more
important than defending marriage, because it is the essential building
block of this society, this civilization, and every civilization. We
have the duty and obligation.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, to vote in favor of H.R. 3313, I would say that the
supporters of the bill have to reach four conclusions:
One, they have to decide that Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided.
Some people on the Committee on the Judiciary freely admitted that. You
have to agree that when John Marshall wrote, ``If the courts are to
regard the Constitution and the Constitution is superior to any
ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution and not such act
shall govern the case to which they both apply.''
Secondly, you have to come to the conclusion that DOMA is going to be
struck down by this very conservative Supreme Court. Otherwise, why
would you be here? If you thought the court was going to uphold it, and
I have to tell you, I went back and I looked at some of the speeches. A
lot of the debate was whether or not DOMA was constitutional. And, one
by one, you stood up and said, oh, it absolutely is, it absolutely is,
it absolutely is.
So you have to conclude in order to support H.R. 3313 that the
Supreme Court is about to strike down DOMA, although I do not know
where you get that indication, unless you believe it was violative of
the Constitution.
Third, you have to believe that this clause is more important than
abortion, more important than gun control, more important than the Flag
amendment, more important than any other thing, because you are
including this provision in this bill and you have not done it to
protect abortion or to ban abortion or to protect gun rights. How come?
Do you not feel strongly about those things? Do you not want to keep
the Supreme Court out of those issues?
{time} 1430
And finally, in order to support this, you have to have utter and
complete contempt for individual rights and freedoms, something I
thought conservatives stood for.
What if you are the only person in your State that believes
something? What if you are the only person in your judicial area that
believes something? And what if you are right? What if you are
protected by the Constitution?
Time and time again I have heard people stand up and say this is
about doing the will of the people. That is not what the courts are
supposed to do. The courts are supposed to protect the minority to make
sure their rights are not trampled on, protect women when they want to
vote, protect blacks when they want to be considered citizens, protect
those that want to have the full rights of the Constitution. That is
what the Court is supposed to guarantee, because that is never what the
majority does. The majority looks out for the majority rule. That is
not the role of the legislature, that is the role of the courts.
If you draw those conclusions that you think DOMA is constitutionally
flawed, Marbury v. Madison was wrongly concluded, that this is a more
important issue than abortion, gun control, anything else, and that you
have contempt for individual rights, vote yes on H.R. 3313.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from New York for yielding me this time, and I thank him for
his leadership.
I hope that this is viewed by the American people as a singular
discussion on whether or not, no matter what station in life one may
hold, whether or not one represents a voice of one or a voice of
thousands, the constitutional rights that have been protected by this
Constitution is given to you.
As I spoke to some of our very able young people that are serving us
as pages here in the United States Congress, and I am so very proud of
them because they are inquisitive without being biased or
discriminatory, but they are not our futures, they are our todays. In
trying to understand what we are doing today, this is not a
pronouncement of a constitutional amendment that requires two-thirds of
this body and three-fifths of our States, an elongated process that
would allow us to debate the question of whether or not we want to
preserve the rights of those who are not like us, some of us here, and
give them the same rights. This is not this debate.
This is, in fact, a way to sidewind itself around the idea of whether
or not whoever you are, whether you be a farmer, an environmentalist, a
parent, someone injured, a young military person fighting on the front
lines of Iraq, that you come back and the front doors of the courthouse
have been closed to you.
I am ashamed that my colleagues would misuse the constitutional
instruction for the understanding of the three branches of government,
because Article III does say this: ``The judicial power shall extend to
all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution by the laws
of the United States of America.'' Can you tell me how we can argue
that we can eliminate someone's right to go into the Court to simply
ask for relief on their petition.
I do not want to debate one's religious faith. I cannot equate myself
to you. I know what I feel in my heart, that all of us are created
equal. The Declaration of Independence said that we all are created
equal with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. I want people to be able to practice their faith. God
bless them.
But this is a tragedy, for I stand here as an unequal person in this
Nation. If it had not been for the courts of this Nation, many of us,
no matter whether you look like me or have my history, would have the
doors closed to you.
So, Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues that the reason why we
are voting against this, and I ask my colleagues to consider it,
because it would be damaging and devastating and detrimental to the
constitutional premise of the Founding Fathers who stood for 3 months
trying to establish a nation that could keep democracy for now some 200
years plus.
The crux of this is to do this: one, it does not provide for the
equal protection of the law. Two, when the legislature overreaches, you
have no place to go; you cannot go into courts and find relief. Three,
I would say that this denies you due process.
So this is not a question of one's personal determination, it is a
question of your rights as an American citizen. Might I say to you as
we look at the rights of American citizens, let me reemphasize, the
fact that the eliminating of the right to access the appellate courts
has never been done before. To my good friends and colleagues who
believe in the Constitution like I do, let us own up to the American
people, let us own up to them that what we are doing is destroying
justice as we know it. I would only say to my colleagues that I love
America, and I would only hope that when we stand to vote that no one
looks to see who is who, only to recognize that each of us are equal
under the law and should have our right of access to our courts.
Mr. Speaker, marriage is important. Marriage is a concern of many
Americans, but so is equal protection, due process and the right of
judicial review for a contentious matter raising constitutional issues
and questions of law.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this legislation. Everything from its
name to its provisions are in contravention of the principles on which
the original Framers of the Constitution created that respected
document.
We can see that this proposal purports to deceive our colleagues even
in its title. How
[[Page 17237]]
can this legislation ``protect'' marriage when it precludes access to
Federal courts when married couples seek judgment on the merits and
validity of their union? A colleague of ours in the Senate was cited,
in the context of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that recently
passed, as stating that same-sex marriages threaten a 5,000 year
history of the man-woman union as the ``proper union.''
However, this argument, along with the bill before us today, fails to
constitutionally address the cause that its proponents intend. The bill
before us today, as well as DOMA, are overbroad in their scope.
Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states that
``The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under the Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . .
(emphasis added).''
Today's debate concerns the question of whether we decide to strip
the Federal courts of their constitutionally-vested powers to even
decide whether it will hear a matter--justiceability. H.R. 3313 takes
the decision away from the Federal courts in the area of
justiceability.
First of all, the institution of marriage has roots that stem from
religion. Given that we have a great myriad of different religions and
creeds that have a wide spectrum of perspectives on marriage, it is
unrealistic to draft a single bill to mandate what character we will
accept for this union. Furthermore, man is not so omniscient that he
can, alone, determine what a legitimate union is.
If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle profess to have a
formula for the appearance of the ``traditional'' or ``acceptable''
marriage, I ask them whether the following types of family arrangements
fit their criteria: single parent, divorced, unmarried parents.
If our colleagues can summarily decide that a same-sex union does not
comport with our ideal of ``family'' or ``marriage'' because it is not
the union of a man and a woman, how do they characterize the above
unions?
On the aspect of overbreadth, this bill, while purporting to protect
our view of what an ``acceptable marriage'' is, strips the courts of
jurisdiction, strips our Federal judges on the discretion that they
have retained for years, and strips tax-paying Americans of their
legitimate right to have their causes heard by a Federal court.
As a threshold matter, we as lawmakers should enact legislation that
summarily abridges or curtails access to Federal courts only in extreme
cases or as a last resort. Furthermore, we should use the same
philosophy as it pertains to amending the U.S. Constitution. The bill
introduced in the Senate, as well as the bill before us today, amend
the document that was created by the original Framers and strip Federal
judges of their discretion on the issue of justiceability.
Lastly, I would have offered an amendment that would simply allow the
Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, to retain its
jurisdiction to hear these matters. It would be at the least, arrogant
of legislators to think that their judgment, experience, and expertise
would make them better arbiters on this issue than life-appointed
judicial officials whose job it is to make determinations concerning
our laws. The high court has made so many rulings that have changed the
lives of minorities, women, children, the disabled, and many other
aggrieved individuals and classes that stripping it of its ability to
continue this effort would be injurious to the entire Nation.
Mr. Speaker, for the above reasons, I strongly oppose this
legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished former chairman
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a wonderful debate. It is
something that I have waited for years to listen to, because these are
very important questions and the Constitution is everybody's business.
It is certainly ours.
What we are really debating is what does Article III, Section 1,
clause 1 mean. The power to court strip, is it there, and if it is
there, why is it a mortal sin for Congress to exercise it? I do not
know.
The Court is not the only repository of wisdom, nor of due process.
We could have a seminar some day on the first amendment. Why does the
establishment clause dominate jurisprudence concerning the relationship
of religion and the State, but not the free exercise, which is ignored,
which withers on the vine? What about the 10th amendment, which says
all matters not enumerated to the Court are reserved to the people? It
is ignored. It has been ignored for generations.
So as we raise up the Court as the sole repository of wisdom and
justice and fair play, we are not very historical because they are
capable of abuses, too.
Now, democracy requires checks and balances. We know that. What is
the check and balance on the Supreme Court? Unelected, these are people
who are well connected and they get confirmed, and they are imperial in
their scope, and no check and balance whatsoever.
Now, I would rather have a check and balance on the Court, just as I
want one on the Congress, and the best check and balance is the people,
the people who do the electing. That is what Article III, Section 1,
clause 1 does. It reserves to the people the ultimate decision on a
given issue.
Well, I just want to say for a court of last resort, I think ``the
people'' is superior to these people who are nominated and confirmed
and unelected and sit for life. I have never heard of an imperial state
in this country, but I have heard of an imperial court.
This is not the end of the world; this is fulfilling the very
language that our Founding Fathers were wise enough to incorporate into
the Constitution, and all of the sky-is-falling-down rhetoric is
misconceived, in my judgment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I disagree with my friend
from Illinois. This does not take the matter out of the courts; it
takes the matter of constitutionality away from the United States
Supreme Court and confers it on the 50 State supreme courts.
What this bill says is, no court created by act of Congress and the
Supreme Court shall have no jurisdiction to hear or decide any question
pertaining to, among other things, the validity under the Constitution
of Section 13, et cetera.
The State courts have, as has been acknowledged, also the right to
interpret the Federal Constitution. Frankly, from the standpoint of
there being more same-sex marriages under the Full Faith and Credit
Clause, I think there would be more if this bill became law. I do not
want the bill to become law because of its terrible precedential
consequences. But, frankly, the likelihood that this U.S. Supreme Court
will find that full faith and credit compels the nationwide recognition
of same-sex marriages is quite slight. It is likelier that there are
four, five or six State courts that will find that.
So what you are saying is not that the people will decide it as
opposed to the courts, the courts presumably made up of aliens that you
have appointed in many cases, but the fact is that it will be decided
by State supreme courts.
Now, this is the problem. The gentleman from Wisconsin says there is
precedent. He is wrong. All of the things he cited had to do with
administrative matters, with deportees who are by definition
noncitizens and who do not have the same rights. There is no case in
American history of this language: you cannot decide any question
pertaining to the validity under the Constitution. This is the first
time we have said, not that it will not be litigated, but it will not
be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. What you are doing here, you are
not repealing anything except the Constitution by going back to the
Articles of Confederation.
Here is the problem, and it is not just about same-sex marriage. As I
have said, I think there will probably be more State courts that will
find full faith and credit than national. But we all know that we never
in this body do anything only once. The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Weiner) was right when he said, what about other issues. Once you
establish this as the way you show your fealty to a principle, it will
be demanded with regard to everything else. This will become
boilerplate. So on issue after issue we will pass legislation, and we
will say, but it cannot be questioned by the Supreme Court.
Now, I can tell you, on the Committee on Financial Services on which
I serve, the business community of the United States overwhelmingly
comes
[[Page 17238]]
to us and says we need uniformity, we need uniformity. What you are
enacting here today does not say the courts do not have the final say;
it says that instead of there being one United States Supreme Court
binding interpretation on constitutional questions that are
controversial, there will be different State court interpretations, and
the impact will be much less on same-sex marriage than on economics, on
land-takings, on gun control and a whole range of other issues.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, at every critical juncture in American
history, each preceding generation has been asked to pick between
equality and inequality, justice and injustice. In that struggle, our
predecessors always tipped the scale in favor of equality and justice,
and always widening the circle of democracy. And in widening that
circle of democracy, America's character and her democratic values were
renewed.
Today we are taking a reactionary departure from constitutional
history. Our congressional predecessors never successfully attempted
such an extreme measure as this, because they knew it would violate
every principle that defines America, but this Congress and its
majority leaders, in its infinite wisdom, will take that radical step
today.
The majority leader asked for a debate known for its tolerance
concerning a piece of legislation that is neither tolerant nor
respectful of debate. The proponents of this legislation say, this is
an effort to protect the institution of marriage. Half of all marriages
end in divorce. Divorce threatens marriage. So why do we not deny
access to the Federal courts to divorcees?
If you are worried about your marriage, read your vows and leave our
Constitution alone.
Today we are not defending marriage; we are defeating the
Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence
that all men are created equal, but maybe George Orwell is more
appropriate today: all are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 3313, is not about gay
marriage, it is about taking away access to the Federal judiciary while
manipulating our Constitution by using a wedge issue. It is about
degrading the role that Federal courts have played in the enforcement
of civil rights law. It is about preventing challenges by individuals
and groups of Americans who are needy and deserving of their day in
court. Most of all, this bill is about ignoring the Constitution.
We must protect the system of checks and balances that our Founding
Fathers created. We must refuse to create this dangerous precedent.
This legislation would be precedence for removal of Federal court
jurisdiction for other contentious constitutional civil rights issues
such as gun rights, religious protections, civil rights.
Mr. Speaker, this is just plain bad policy. Do not support this bill.
Know what the proponents are after and do not let them bully you into
eroding our judicial protections.
{time} 1445
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of people saying today
that this is not about the institution of marriage. It most certainly
is about the institution of marriage. It is also how marriage is going
to be defined. I somehow cannot get my mind around the concept that the
Founders' idea was that a bare majority in one State court and a bare
majority in the Supreme Court can redefine the word of marriage and
shove that down the throats of 49 other States. Somehow that does not
seem to make sense. The Democrats here have been suggesting that the
Supreme Court should be totally sovereign in every decision, and that
one also I find rather puzzling, because the first foray of activist
judges on the Supreme Court was that brilliant decision of Dred Scott,
which said that African Americans are not actually people.
Now, if every decision of the Supreme Court is gold, how about this
one? And what was the result of this little act of activism? Well, they
are the wonderful folks who gave us the Civil War. I just cannot
understand the logic of saying and talking about the idea of separation
of powers and checks and balances and at the same time say, anything
the Supreme Court says goes. That is what I am hearing argued today.
The question is when the Supreme Court gets really goofy, and my
friends, we can pick how goofy is goofy, but when they really start
legislating from the bench, at what point and what is the mechanism to
hold them in check? Well, whose job is it? Well, it has been made
reference to here. We take an oath of office to uphold the
Constitution. It is our job, my friends, as legislators, and it is the
job of the President, who also seeks to uphold the Constitution.
Now, there is one other thing that has been stated that some staffers
probably should be let go, because they have not done their homework.
Because if we take a look in the 107th Congress alone, we can take a
look and see that the expedite, the construction of the World War II
memorial has article III, section 2, the American Service Members
Protection Act. Article III, section 2 language, Aviation Security Act.
This is all 107th Congress alone. PATRIOT Act, article III, section 2
language. Intelligence Authorization Act, article III, section 2.
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, and also the Department of Justice
Authorization Act, that is not to mention a particular elected
representative from South Dakota who said no court can have anything to
say about his clearing the undergrowth from his forest.
The question before us is a question of whether or not a redefinition
of marriage is going to be imposed on all of our States by a few
activist judges. Believe me, the answer should be no.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington for
purposes of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, what the Republicans are doing today is a ``needless,
futile and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle .
. . without precedent or justification.'' These were the very words
used by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1937 when they opposed
President Roosevelt's court packing scheme. it was exactly 67 years ago
today that the U.S. Senate voted down that dangerous plan.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation that you are asking this August body to
consider is no less dangerous. This legislation, the so-called Marriage
Protection Act, is championed by the Republican leadership. It aims to
manipulate, to indeed disrobe the Third Branch of our government, The
Judiciary.
Any why, Mr. Speaker? Because the Republican Party and this
Republican Congress wishes to deny a particular class of people their
right to come before the federal courts and defend their unalienable
rights. What a horrible precedent.
Mr. Speaker, Alexander Hamilton--the man on our ten dollar bill--in
Federalist 78 said that the courts of justice are the bulwarks of a
limited constitution against legislative encroachments, and are there
to safeguard the private rights of particular classes of citizens
against unjust and partial laws. What the Republican bill does is
attack the very foundation upon which our Founding Fathers built this
great republic.
The Republican party says that we ``need to protect marriage from
activist judges.'' Maybe there are a few activist judges out there, but
this bill strips all federal courts--even the Supreme Court--from
considering the constitutionality of a federal law that attacks the
rights of a particular class of people.
The Defense of Marriage Act is clearly a legislative encroachment
upon the Constitutional rights of Homosexuals. Why else would you bring
a bill out here that denies judicial review over that unjust and
partial law?
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Marriage
Protection Act. I took an oath when I came
[[Page 17239]]
here to protect and defend the Constitution. This bill obliterates the
Constitution.
Let me first make an observation. I am married, and many of my
colleagues are married. I do not think my marriage or my colleagues'
marriages are threatened because two gay people in Massachusetts want
to get married. Maybe it is threatened by meddling in-laws, but
certainly not by some legislation that passed in Massachusetts.
But I make that observation as an aside. This bill really is not
about marriage, gay or otherwise. This bill is about the Constitution.
This legislation sets a very dangerous precedent. It says that we are
going to set aside our very cherished separation of powers that is
provided in the Constitution that enables the courts to check us, to
say, wait a minute, Congress, you have gone too far. My colleague says,
well, we have the right to make laws. We do. If we do not like it, we
can amend the Constitution; but my Republican colleagues are not trying
to amend the Constitution. They are trying to change the Constitution
by stripping the courts. We need the separation of powers. We need the
courts to independently review the things that we do here in Congress.
Think about it. If we can strip the court's jurisdiction, the Supreme
Court's jurisdiction over this matter, what about civil rights laws?
Could not some Congress come down here and say, well, we do not need
the Federal courts or the Supreme Court ruling on civil rights laws?
What does that mean? It means that a State court in Arkansas can say
one has this right, while another State court in Nevada could say, oh,
no, you do not. That is not what the Founders envisioned. This is a
very dangerous vision of America in which the courts do not play a
critical role. Let us retain the Constitution as we know it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time
and for his leadership.
This is really a sad day. By stripping away the jurisdiction of the
Federal courts and the Supreme Court to hear challenges to the Defense
of Marriage Act, this bill opens the door to further court-stripping of
additional rights. What is next, the right to vote, the right to
assemble, the right to a trial, the right to privacy? Congress would
undo over 200 years of history and could potentially rewrite the Bill
of Rights, gutting Federal protections against discrimination that are
enshrined within the 14th amendment. Where would we be today without a
way to redress our grievances against ill-conceived or discriminatory
legislation passed by earlier Congresses?
Would interstate travel still be segregated? Would the separate but
equal doctrine still exist? Where would we have been without Brown v.
Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, or other sufficient landmark court
decisions?
From now on will we seek to limit the ability of the Federal courts
to hear challenges to any law just because one side or the other
opposed it? What does an approach like this bode for the future of our
democracy? So why are we doing this? Why are we doing this? I think we
are undermining our Constitution today, quite frankly, about trying to
get more votes in November. That is why we are doing this. Vote ``no''
on this dangerous bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa
for purposes of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, America is divided on many issues, perhaps none more
emotive than that which surrounds family values and the institution of
marriage.
For many Americans definitions are critical. Traditionalists believe
the term marriage can only properly be applied to a union between a man
and a woman. Non-traditionalists, particularly in the gay community,
believe that qualification under law for marriage or other forms of
civil unions should be provided to same sex couples and that without
changes in law to allow such to occur some citizens will have less
personal security and legal protection than other elements of the
American community.
Historically, issues of marriage come under the primary jurisdiction
of State law, but because States may have different approaches and
because there is under our Constitution a recognition that legal
arrangements made in one State are generally to be respected in others,
the Congress chose several years back (1996) to pass a law called the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to allow States not to recognize the
validity of same-sex marriages performed in other States.
The measure before Congress today is H.R. 3313, an act which would
deny Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, the right to review
the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
The arguments on the floor today have largely swirled around the
issue of marriage. My view is that the bigger issue is process. In
America, process is our most important product. Our constitutional
system was established with checks and balances. To curb the prospect
of concentration of power our Founders created three branches of
government--executive, legislative, and judicial--and then
quadruplicated these balancing arrangements by creating executive,
legislative, and judicial entities at the state, county and city
levels.
At any moment in time there will be conflict among various branches
and between various levels of government. This discord is sorted out
through time tested processes involving compromises, give and take, and
at critical moments, definitive decision-making.
In this case, whether one supports or opposes expanding marriage
definitions or favors compromise approaches such as sanctioning civil
unions, it is a dubious precedent to deny a key component of the
American governmental system--federal courts--the power to exercise its
constitutional responsibilities.
Although the Constitution gives Congress broad authority to define
the jurisdiction of courts, Congress has historically been cautious in
limiting the power of courts to review substantive law. to do so would
wreak havoc with the separation-of-power doctrine and our legal system.
If one of the objectives in the bill before us is to rein in a
runaway judiciary, we might be equally concerned about creating runaway
legislative precedents. Barry Goldwater, who was no friend of activist
judges, noted a decade ago when referring to previous court stripping
attempts: ``frontal assault on the independence of the Federal courts
is a dangerous blow to the foundations of a free society.'' It opens up
a can of worms, making all controversial issues vulnerable to similar
``court stripping'' legislation.
It is this court stripping precedent which is primarily at issue
today. But it is not the only process problem on the table. One
consequence of passage of H.R. 3313 is that it would allow each of the
50 State supreme courts to define DOMA's constitutionality but leave
the U.S. Supreme Court powerless to sort out the constitutional mess.
Confusion rather than legal clarity would be the likely result.
Judicial review is the heart of constitutional governance. To tamper
with the power of courts is a perilous undertaking.
The only oath Members of Congress take upon assuming office is to
uphold the Constitution. The founders, who had extensive experience
with political persecution, wrote a Constitution which did not put
exclusive power in the legislative and executive branches because they
wanted to place a check on popular will as well as capricious executive
governance. As Madison wrote in Federalist No. 48, ``an elective
despotism was not the government we fought for . . .''
Constitutionalism is not majoritarianism. The rights of minorities
must be respected and all citizens provided due process under the law.
Accordingly, I am convinced the constitutional obligation is to vote
``no.''
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3313,
the Marriage Protection Act of 2004, and in defense of the institution
of marriage in America.
In 2003, the Texas State Legislature defined marriage as a union
between one man and one woman. Texas joins 37 other States that have
enacted similar legislation defending traditional marriages.
With the Defense of Marriage Act, Congress declared that no State can
be forced to accept another State's definition of marriage.
Unfortunately, these actions are not enough. We have seen time and time
again the will of the people can be overturned by the actions of a few
judges.
Currently, Federal lawsuits attacking the institution of marriage are
underway in several States across the
[[Page 17240]]
country. If these lawsuits are successful, the voice of the people in
Texas and the voice of the overwhelming majority of Americans will be
ignored.
Without the Marriage Protection Act, it is possible that Federal
judges in California can determine the definition of a marriage in
Texas or any other State which tries to protect marriage.
This attack against marriage goes against every value that I and the
vast majority of my constituents hold dear. For these reasons I
strongly urge the passage of H.R. 3313.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bell).
Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, as the Democratic leader pointed out earlier,
this year marked the 50th anniversary of the historic Brown v. Board of
Education decision, and thinking about that decision in the context of
today's debate, I think we have to ask ourselves what if some of our
segregationist forefathers who felt every bit as strongly about the
issue of race as many people here today feel about the issue of gay
marriage, what if they had succeeded in passing some radical
legislation to prevent any Federal court challenge to the law of
separate but equal?
Well, obviously, the progress that we have witnessed in the area of
civil rights would have been at the very least stymied and most likely
prevented altogether. And the real question is they might have no
problem with the law that they seek to protect today, but they might
have very big problems with the law that they seek to protect tomorrow;
and ladies and gentlemen, we cannot cherry-pick. We cannot control what
might come forth in the future, because once this genie is out of the
bottle, it is out for good.
And the bottom line is, this is not. This is not how our country
works. Just how far are we going to let extremists go in tearing down
what makes this country great?
And, yes, open courts, open courts where free people can go in and
fight for what they believe is right are a part of what makes this
country great; and just because it is an election year, just because it
is an election year and some wish to fan the flames of an incredibly
controversial issue, let us not make the unforgivable mistake of
closing off our courts. It is un-American; it is wrong. Vote ``no.''
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me the time.
I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3313. I call it the
``Offense to the Constitution Act.'' Not only does this bill have
nothing to do with what it pretends to address, but it attacks one of
the fundamental principles of our American democratic system, the
separation of powers.
The Founding Fathers wisely separated the powers of the executive,
the legislative, and the judicial branches so as to avoid an abuse of
power by any one of the three. This administration was cemented and
codified in great historic American cases like Marbury v. Madison. H.R.
3313 is a direct attack on the separation of powers and the legacy of
those cases. It says: ``No court created by act of Congress shall have
any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate
jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the
interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section
1738C or this section.''
Protect the Constitution. Vote down this bill. Vote ``no'' on H.R.
3313.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I am not a constitutional scholar,
obviously. I spent 40 years working with approximately 2,000 young
people. I actively recruited those young people to go to the University
of Nebraska. I visited annually 60 to 70 of them personally in their
homes and met their parents, and I saw firsthand the difference a
family makes, for better or for worse.
In my experience, the marriage findings of 12 leading family scholars
who summarized thousands of studies on child rearing are as follows:
children raised by both biological parents within a marriage are less
likely to become unmarried parents, live in poverty, drop out of
school, have poor grades, experience health problems, die as infants,
abuse alcohol and drugs, experience mental illness, commit suicide,
experience sexual and verbal abuse, engage in criminal behavior. And
then they concluded with this statement that I think is noteworthy:
``Marriage is more than a private emotional relationship. It is also a
social good. It is the bedrock of our culture.''
And so what I observed was that a father contributes something unique
to the welfare of a child. A mother also makes a unique contribution.
Several countries, notably in Scandinavia, have changed the traditional
definition of marriage. There has always been a decline of traditional
marriage and a surge of out-of-wedlock births in these countries, and
children born in such circumstances, on average, suffer significant
dysfunction.
So the question before us is this, as I see it: Do we allow a small
number of members of the judiciary to alter an institution which has
been the backbone of this Nation? Do we allow these same jurists to do
so with a great majority of our citizens and our States firmly in
opposition to a change? Forty-four of 50 States have laws defining
marriage in a traditional manner.
Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that speaks directly to the
welfare of our children, the future of our country, and I urge support
of H.R. 3313.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me this time.
My friends, surrounding us here are profiles of the great law givers.
There are two Americans up there, Jefferson and Mason. Mason did not
sign the Constitution at the Convention. He did not, because it did not
have a Bill of Rights in it. Jefferson, on his epitaph, looked at as
one of his proudest accomplishments, was the establishment of the
clause providing for religious freedom in the State of Virginia.
{time} 1500
We have 900 dead Americans in Iraq, thousands more wounded, we have a
$600 billion deficit, we have 3 million Americans without jobs, 37
million kids are born in poverty in this country, and we are here today
proposing to try to take away one of the three pillars of a three-
legged stool that has made our country so strong for so many years.
Do not do this. A three-legged stool cannot stand. A society that
does not have a judiciary to protect the rights of the minority will
ultimately degenerate, and we must not let that happen.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me this time.
We will hear the word ``distraction'' a great deal in the next couple
of weeks because that is what is happening here today.
The 9/11 Commission came out with a report today and instead of
focusing on and discussing the issues pertaining to the 9/11
Commission's report, we are here today debating a bill that in essence
will change the Constitution without going through the formalities of
actually changing the Constitution.
We have 2 million people who are unemployed today in this country who
would like to work but do not have the opportunity to do so today. We
have 44 million Americans in this country today who do not have health
insurance coverage, and yet we are here today debating this bill on the
floor that will undermine the rights and privileges, not only of people
who are gay or lesbian in the country but all Americans, if this bill
were to become law.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends and colleagues to vote down this bill.
This bill is unfair and unjust. It will undermine the very premise of
our Constitution. I challenge my colleagues to please vote down this
bill.
[[Page 17241]]
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, most of the folks on that
side of the aisle keep talking about that we are mending and changing
the Constitution. But I think the argument has been shown to be
overwhelmingly wrong and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) will
have to agree, and he would now say clearly, it does not violate the
Constitution to pass this bill. And I think others will agree with
that.
So the people that come down here and say it violates the
Constitution are wrong, for your side of the aisle to say we are
violating the Constitution, amending and changing it, clearly we are
not.
The distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has
given you nine examples, recent examples, of where we have used almost
the same clause or language to do the same thing we are doing today.
Did you know that to expedite construction for the World War II
Memorial we did this same thing. We did it for the Terrorist Risk
Insurance Act, the Department of Justice Authorization Act, which I am
sure the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) voted for. The
Intelligence Act, the PATRIOT Act, even for campaign finance reform in
which the majority of the people on that side of the aisle voted for.
But now let us talk about the Daschle Act. Now that is more recent
and I think something we should mention. The distinguished chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary mentioned it, but I just want to read to
you what Senator Daschle actually said on the Senate floor when he
said, Due to extraordinary circumstances, timber activities will be
exempt from the National Forest Management Act and National Environment
Policy Act. And these exemptions are such that they are not subject to
judicial review by any United States court. I'd say Senator Daschle
blanketed it completely.
Let us get to the real issue. The real issue is not whether the
language in this bill is exempting U.S. courts. The real issue is the
Defense of Marriage Act. But the Defense of Marriage Act was voted for
overwhelmingly by many folks, on that side of the aisle and of course
ours, but now you are claiming a technicality by saying we are
violating the Constitution. But we all know that we do not want a
handful of judges overturning the will of individual States and
millions of Americans.
DOMA relied on the principle of federalism, which is a defined
concept in our Constitution, to defend States rights and to preserve
the sanctity of marriage. It was a perfect match, at least we thought
it was, until we found out several events later that the Supreme Court
1997 decision in Roemer v. Evans overturned a popular referendum in
their ruling. Last year in Lawrence v. Texas the Supreme Court ignored
a States right to determine its own public policy standard and
overturned its previous court ruling, which in turn created a new right
out of thin air. For years the Federal Courts have been taking
jurisdiction away from Congress. It is only proper that we exercise our
constitutional right to limit their jurisdiction.
So I would say to my colleagues, if you are against the Defense of
Marriage Act, why do you not argue that and do not use the
technicalities of saying we are violating the Constitution because you
know that is not true. And I have given you at least nine examples here
of where you on that side of the aisle have voted for the same, almost
the same language.
Now the gentleman from Massachusetts indicated that in this bill
there is unique language we have never seen before. Now Mr. Speaker all
of us have heard songs before and lots of times those songs sound the
same way. But they do not have the same language or exact words. Those
songs may sound the same, but they do not have the same words.
Likewise, this bill does the same thing as the other bills I mentioned,
but the language may not be the same.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I place into the Record the case of Biodiversity
Associates v. Cables, which contrary to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns) ruled that the Daschle bill did not apply to preclude court of
appeals review as the legislation's constitutional validity.
Biodiversity Associates v. Cable
Biodiversity Associates and Brian Brademeyer, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society,
Plaintiffs, v. Rick D. Cables, in his official capacity as
Regional Forester of the Rocky Mountain Region of the U.S.
Forest Service; Dale N. Bosworth, in his official capacity as
Chief of the U.S. Forest Service; John C. Twiss, in his
official capacity as Supervisor of the Black Hills National
Forest; U.S. Forest Service, Defendants-Appellees, Larry
Gabriel, in his official capacity as Secretary of the South
Dakota Department of Agriculture; Black Hills Regional
Multiple Use Coalition; Black Hills Forest Resource
Association; Meade County, Lawrence County, and Pennington
County, all political subdivisions the State of South Dakota,
* Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees.
*Mr. Cables, Mr. Bosworth and Mr. Gabriel, who are the
successors in office of Lyle K. Laverty, Michael Dombeck and
Darrell Cruea, respectively, have been substituted as parties
pursuant to Fed. R. App. 34(c)(2).
no. 03-1002
united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit
357 F.3d 1152; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 1702
(February 4, 2004, Filed)
Prior History: Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado. (D.C. No. 99-N-2173).
Disposition: Affirmed.
Counsel: Ray Vaughn of WildLaw, Montgomery, Alabama (Steve
Novak of WildLaw, Asheville, North Carolina, with him on the
briefs), for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Kevin Traskos, Assistant United States Attorney (John W.
Suthers, United States Attorney, with him on the brief),
Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees.
Diane Best, Assistant Attorney General (Lawrence E. Long,
Attorney General; Charles D. McGuigan, Assistant Attorney
General, with her on the brief), State of South Dakota,
Pierre, South Dakota, for Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees.
Judges: Before Murphy, Circuit Judge, Brorby, Senior
Circuit Judge, and McConnell, Circuit Judge.
Opinion By: McConnell.
For many years, Congress has been unable to come to
agreement on nationwide legislation to address the dangers of
insect infestation and fire in the national forests. In 2002,
however, in a rider to a supplemental appropriations act for
the war on terrorism, Congress passed legislation applicable
to selected sections of the Black Hills National Forest in
South Dakota and nowhere else, permitting logging and other
clearance measures as a means of averting forest fires. The
legislation specifies forest management techniques for these
lands in minute detail, overrides otherwise applicable
environmental laws and attendant administrative review
procedures, and explicitly supersedes a settlement agreement
between the Forest Service and various environmental groups
regarding management of these lands.
The question presented is whether the extraordinary
specificity of this legislation, coupled with its
displacement of a settlement agreement, amounts to
congressional violation of the Constitution's separation of
powers, by invading the province of the executive branch, the
judicial branch, or both. We hold that it does not. Article
IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2 expressly grants Congress ``Power to
dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations
respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the
United States.'' With respect to this power--like most of its
enumerated powers--Congress is permitted to be as specific as
it deems appropriate. Moreover, settlement agreements between
private litigants and the executive branch cannot divest
Congress of its constitutionally vested authority to
legislate.
background
The first law involved in this case is the law of
unintended consequences. Fire suppression efforts conducted
over more than a century in large parts of the West have had
the unintended effect of transforming forests from savannah-
like grasslands studded with well-spaced large, old, fire-
resistant trees, into thicker, denser forests. Prior to the
arrival of Europeans, these forests experienced frequent, but
relatively mild, forest fires caused primarily by lightning
and Native American activity. These fires would clear the
forest floor of undergrowth and saplings while leaving the
larger trees unscathed. The denser forests produced by fire
suppression accumulate more combustible fuel and are more
vulnerable to infestations, such as mountain pine beetles,
and to fires far more intense and devastating than those of
the pre-settlement era. Forestry experts are divided as to
the response to these conditions. Some advocate a hands-off
approach, allowing fire (outside areas of human habitation)
to reconstitute the forests in their natural state; some
advocate controlled burns; and some advocate thinning and
fuel removal.
[[Page 17242]]
The role of commercial logging as part of the last approach
has been particularly controversial.
From 1983 to 1997, the Beaver Park Roadless Area, a
relatively pristine portion of the Black Hills National
Forest, was free of logging activity, apparently because the
land management plan then in place did not allow it. In 1997,
however, the Forest Service approved a new Black Hills
National Forest plan revision (the ``1997 Revised Plan''),
which allowed logging in a significant portion of Beaver
Park's 5,109 acres. It subsequently began preparations for a
timber sale in an area called the ``Veteran/Boulder Project
Area,'' which included most of the Beaver Park land newly
authorized for logging. Especially in a part of the area
known as Forbes Gulch, a major purpose of the logging was to
counter an infestation of mountain pine beetles. The Forest
Service proceeded to clear various administrative hurdles in
preparation for the Veteran/Boulder timber sale, issuing a
final environmental impact statement on the proposed sale and
records of decision approving timber harvest both inside and
outside the Beaver Park Roadless Area.
Several environmental groups, including the Sierra Club,
the Wilderness Society, and Appellant Biodiversity
Conservation Alliance (BCA), objected strenuously to the
timber sale. The Beaver Park Roadless Area was one of the
last areas in the Black Hills National Forest still eligible
for designation as a wilderness, and logging activity would
likely disqualify it from being designated as such. The
environmental groups were also concerned about the effects
that the Veteran/Boulder timber sale would have on the
viability of the northern goshawk population in the Forest.
Accordingly, they brought administrative challenges to both
the particular project and the recently revised plan under
which it was approved.
The groups met with mixed success in their administrative
challenges. Their challenge to the Veteran/Boulder sale was
initially denied in its entirety, though the sale was stayed
pending review of the Revised Plan itself. Then, on October
12, 1999, the Chief of the Forest Service upheld the 1997
Revised Plan in most respects, but found that there was
inadequate support in the record for the conclusion that the
Revised Plan's proposed changes would not threaten the
viability of several species, including the northern goshawk.
He therefore ordered further research into that question. In
the meanwhile, the Forest Service did not stop all pending
projects, but instead provided interim directions that would
apply until the identified defects in the Revised Plan were
remedied. As a result, when the stay on the sale expired, the
Forest Service went forward and put the timber out for bid.
The Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and BCA brought
suit challenging the sale in federal district court, claiming
that the Forest Service could not rely on an ``illegal'' plan
to justify project-level decisions under that plan.
Specifically, they argued that the final environmental impact
statement's conclusion that the Veteran/Boulder sale would
not affect the viability of the northern goshawk was based on
the very findings in the 1997 Revised Plan that had been
disapproved.
In the waning days of the Clinton Administration, in
September of 2000, the Forest Service signed a settlement
agreement with the plaintiff groups, under which it agreed
not to allow any tree cutting in the Beaver Park Roadless
Area, at least until the Service approved a new land and
resource management plan remedying the defects of the 1997
plan. The settlement was approved by the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, which had
jurisdiction over the lawsuit because the relevant Forest
Service offices were in Colorado.
The process of approving a new plan took much longer than
anticipated. The record does not reveal whether the mountain
pine beetles of western South Dakota were aware of the
settlement agreement or participated in the plan revision
process, but it is clear that they did not wait for
authorization from Washington before undertaking an expanded
program of forest resource exploitation. Just two years after
the initial Veteran/Boulder environmental impact statement,
the mountain pine beetle infestation in this section of the
Black Hills had reached epidemic proportions. According to
Forest Service estimates, the pine beetles killed 114,000
trees in 2002, as compared to only 15,000 in 1999. This
convinced forest managers that immediate harvesting of
deadwood and infested trees, which the settlement agreement
prohibited, was necessary to guard against further spread of
the infestation and potentially disastrous forest fires.
Given that approval of a corrected resource management plan
was still a long way off, the Forest Service and the local
South Dakota interests that shared its concerns had a choice:
they could either attempt to obtain consent to the tree
cutting from the original parties to the agreement, or with
the help of South Dakota's congressional delegation, they
could attempt to overturn the settlement agreement's
prohibition by legislation. The Forest Service began by
trying the consensual approach. Perhaps spurred by the threat
of intervention from Congress, the signatories to the
settlement met with the Forest Service to discuss changing
the agreement in light of the mountain pine beetle problem.
The Forest Service reached agreement with the Sierra Club and
the Wilderness Society, but BCA and Brian Brademeyer, then
chair of the Black Hills Sierra Club, refused to agree to
proposed modifications in the settlement. Stymied, South
Dakota interests turned to Congress for a legislative
solution.
For some years, Congress had been considering national
legislation that would streamline the process of obtaining
environmental approval of logging and other clearance
projects in fire- and disease-threatened national forests;
but these efforts were caught up in the debate over the role
of commercial logging in forest restoration. By limiting
legislative action to a narrow geographical area, however,
and with the acquiescence of some influential environmental
groups and the active support of the state's congressional
delegation, Congress was able to reach agreement on a bill
that would permit logging and other measures in the Beaver
Park Roadless Area. In a rider to an unrelated appropriations
bill, Congress enacted into law essentially the terms of the
modified agreement negotiated between the Forest Service and
the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society. See Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to
Terrorist Acts on the United States, Pub. L. No. 107-206,
Sec. 706, 116 Stat. 820, 864 (2002) (the ``706 Rider'' or
``Rider''). The Rider, which was signed into law on August 2,
2002, required the Forest Service to take a variety of
actions that violated the settlement agreement, see, e.g.,
id. Sec. 706(d)(5), 116 Stat. at 867, and prohibited judicial
review of those actions, id. Sec. 706(j), 116 Stat. at 868.
It also specifically referred to the settlement agreement,
and stated that the agreement should continue in effect to
the extent it was not preempted by the Rider. See id., 116
Stat. at 869.
After the Rider was passed, BCA and Mr. Brademeyer
(hereinafter referred to, jointly, as ``BCA'') went to the
federal district court in Colorado to obtain an order
requiring continued enforcement of the settlement agreement,
claiming that the 706 Rider unconstitutionally trenched on
both the executive and judicial branches. The district court
denied the motion, and BCA appealed.
DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, we must determine the scope of
this Court's jurisdiction over this case. Although we would
normally have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, the 706
Rider limits that jurisdiction:
``Due to the extraordinary circumstances present here,
actions authorized by this section shall proceed immediately
and to completion notwithstanding any other provision of law
including, but not limited to, NEPA and the National Forest
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.). Such actions shall
not be subject to the notice, comment, and appeal
requirements of the Appeals Reform Act, (16 U.S.C. 1612
(note), Pub. Law No. 102-381 sec. 322). Any action authorized
by this section shall not be subject to judicial review by
any court of the United States.''
Rider 706(j), 116 Stat. at 868 (emphasis added). At oral
argument, BCA contended that the italicized language does not
preclude us from considering the constitutionality of the
Rider itself. The government disagrees, arguing that we have
jurisdiction at most to determine whether the denial of
jurisdiction, not the entire Rider, is constitutional.
In determining the extent of our jurisdiction, we must
start with the precise language of the Rider, keeping in mind
that such limitations of jurisdiction are to be construed
narrowly to avoid constitutional problems. See Johnson v.
Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 366-67, 39 L. Ed. 2d 389, 94 S. Ct.
1160 (1974). What is prohibited here is judicial review of
``any action authorized by'' the Rider. Rider Sec. 706(j),
116 Stat. at 868. BCA, however, does not seem to be seeking
judicial review of any specific actions already taken or soon
to be taken by the Forest Service. Rather, it has moved for
enforcement of the settlement agreement in the face of the
new Congressional legislation. Admittedly, the basis for the
lawsuit, and the alleged injury that gives BCA standing, is
the prospect of Forest Service action pursuant to the Rider
and in violation of the settlement agreement. Yet at this
point, no pastor prospective actions of the Forest Service
are directly at issue. The question before us is simply
whether the settlement agreement has continuing validity in
the face of Congress's intervening act.
The situation here is thus different from one in which the
court is asked to hold a party who has violated an injunction
in contempt. In such a case, the ``actions'' taken by a party
to the injunction are directly at issue. BCA's motion is more
analogous to a suit for declaratory judgment holding the
Rider itself to be unconstitutional. Because BCA seeks
judicial review of the congressional act mandating that the
settlement agreement be violated, rather than judicial review
of the Forest Service's acts authorized by the Rider, the
jurisdictional bar does not apply. See Nat'l Coalition to
Save Our Mall v. Norton, 348 U.S. App. D.C. 92, 269 F.3d
1092, 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2001). We therefore must reach the
question of whether the Rider is
[[Page 17243]]
constitutional. Because this question is purely legal, our
review is de novo. See United States v. Pompey, 264 F.3d
1176, 1179 (10th Cir. 2001).
BCA's chief argument is that the Rider trenches on the
Executive by giving the Forest Service marching orders so
detailed that they go beyond merely ``passing new
legislation'' to interpreting the law, which is ``the very
essence of `execution' of the law.'' Bowsher v. Synar, 478
U.S. 714, 733, 92 L. Ed. 2d 583, 106 S. Ct. 3181 (1986).
However, they never clearly explain what, in their view,
separates permissible legislation from impermissible
interpretation. The main flaw they find in the Rider is its
extreme particularity, making it seem as if their theory is
that extreme particularity by itself infringes the
Executive's power to enforce and execute the law. At times,
though, they make a more limited claim: that while
specificity is not per se unconstitutional, at least in this
case it is ``indicative'' of the fact that Congress has
unconstitutionally ``directed how law is to be implemented,''
rather than (constitutionally) changing the applicable law.
Appellants' Reply Br. 5. This more limited claim suggests
that it is particularity in combination with some other
feature that raises the constitutional problem. We consider
each theory in turn.
BCA bases its argument on a handful of cases in which the
Supreme Court has held that the legislative branch cannot
play a role in the interpretation and execution of the law.
See, e.g., Metro. Washington Airports Auth. v. Citizens for
the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501 U.S. 252, 271-72,
115 L. Ed. 2d 236, 111 S. Ct. 2298 (1991); Bowsher, 478 U.S.
at 725-26; INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951-52, 77 L. Ed. 2d
317, 103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983); Springer v. Philippine Islands,
277 U.S. 189, 201-02, 72 L. Ed. 845, 48 S. Ct. 480 (1928).
There is no basis, however, for BCA's assertion that the
sheer specificity of the 706 Rider takes it beyond the realm
of Congress's legislative powers. Certainly the cases cited
above do not support this position. In each of those cases,
Congress sought a role for itself in the execution of the
laws, beyond enactment of legislation, through mechanisms
such as a one-house legislative veto or the vesting of law-
executing powers in officers appointed by, or accountable to,
Congress. In Bowsher, the Court held that the Comptroller
General, who serves at the pleasure of Congress, could not be
the officer who determined what spending cuts would be made
in order to reduce the deficit under the Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings Act of 1985. 478 U.S. at 717-18, 736. Springer held
that it violated separation of powers for members of the
legislative branch to be directors of government-owned
businesses. 277 U.S. at 202-03. Similarly, Metropolitan
Washington Airports struck down an arrangement whereby a
board of review composed of members of Congress had authority
to veto key acts of the Metropolitan Washington Airport
Authority. 501 U.S. at 275-77. Chadha struck down a law that
delegated authority to the Attorney General to suspend
certain deportations, but allowed either house of Congress
acting alone to veto the Attorney General's decisions. 462
U.S. at 923, 944-59. None of these cases, or any others of
which we are aware, suggest that Congress is required to
speak with some minimum degree of generality, so as to leave
play for the Executive to exercise discretion in interpreting
the law. Rather, the Constitution expressly leaves it up to
Congress to determine how specific it may deem it ``necessary
and proper'' for the laws to be. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 8,
cl. 18. The cases cited above have simply forbidden Congress,
or its members or servants, from exerting legal authority
without observing the formalities for the passage of
legislation under the Constitution: ``bicameral passage
followed by presentment to the President.'' Bowsher, 478 U.S.
at 726 (quoting Chadha, 462 U.S. at 954-55). This is a
structural and institutional means of guaranteeing that
Congress stays within the bounds of legislating, and is far
superior to asking courts to police the shades of gray
between the poles of general and specific.
To be sure, the Constitution imposes certain specific
constraints on the power of Congress to legislate with
overmuch particularity. The Bill of Attainder Clause, U.S.
Const. art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 3, and the ``uniform Duties,
Imposts, and Excises'' Clause, id., are examples. See Sec. 8,
cl. 1 Nixon v. Adm'r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 468-73, 53
L. Ed. 2d 867, 97 S. Ct. 2777 (1977); United States v.
Ptasynski, 462 U.S. 74, 80-85, 76 L. Ed. 2d 427, 103 S. Ct.
2239 (1983). Due process and equal protection principles
similarly prevent Congress from acting with respect to
specific persons or groups in some contexts, and specificity
may be relevant to determining whether Congress has trenched
on the Executive's ability to carry out its specifically
enumerated executive powers. Nixon, 433 U.S. at 443. But when
Congress is exercising its own powers with respect to matters
of public right, the executive role of ``taking Care that the
Laws be faithfully executed,'' U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 3,
is entirely derivative of the laws passed by Congress, and
Congress may be as specific in its instructions to the
Executive as it wishes. Indeed, as the Supreme Court has
noted, Congress may even pass legislation governing ``a
legitimate class of one.'' Nixon, 433 U.S. at 472.
In the instant case, none of the Constitution's explicit
restrictions on specificity apply. The Property Clause states
that ``Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all
needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or
other Property belonging to the United States.'' U.S. Const.
art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2. The Supreme Court has ``repeatedly
observed that the power over the public land thus entrusted
to Congress is without limitations.'' Kleppe v. New Mexico,
426 U.S. 529, 539, 49 L. Ed. 2d 34, 96 S. Ct. 2285 (1976)
(internal brackets and quotation marks omitted); see also
Wyoming v. United States, 279 F.3d 1214, 1227 (10th Cir.
2002). It would be difficult if not impossible to control the
use of federal lands without reference to specific actions
affecting specific tracts of land, and we see no reason why
Congress should be forced to avoid such directives. See Save
Our Mall, 269 F.3d at 1097 (noting that particularity is
especially unproblematic when addressing unique public
amenities). The Supreme Court's remark in Metropolitan
Washington Airports seems relevant here:
``Because National and Dulles are the property of the
Federal Government and their operations directly affect
interstate commerce, there is no doubt concerning the
ultimate power of Congress to enact legislation defining the
policies that govern those operations. Congress itself can
formulate the details, or it can enact general standards and
assign to the Executive Branch the responsibility for making
necessary managerial decisions in conformance with those
standards.''
501 U.S. at 271-72 (emphasis added).
Thus, BCA is mistaken when it argues that Congress has
arrogated power to itself at the expense of the executive
branch because it ``specifically ordered the Executive Branch
to carry out a duty which had been expressly delegated to the
Department of Agriculture, the management of the Black Hills
National Forest.'' Appellants' Br. 23. To give specific
orders by duly enacted legislation in an area where Congress
has previously delegated managerial authority is not an
unconstitutional encroachment on the prerogatives of the
Executive; it is merely to reclaim the formerly delegated
authority. Such delegations, which are accomplished by
statute, are always revocable in like manner; they cannot
extend the domain reserved by the Constitution to the
Executive alone. See Stop H-3 Ass'n v. Dole, 870 F.2d 1419,
1435 n.24 (9th Cir. 1989).
We now turn to consider the view that although the 706
Rider's specificity is unobjectionable in the abstract, it is
still unconstitutional because it attempts to mandate
specific results without changing the underlying
environmental laws. BCA relies for this view chiefly on
Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society, where the Supreme Court
upheld a similar provision because it ``compelled changes in
law, not findings or results under old law.'' 503 U.S. 429,
438, 118 L. Ed. 2d 73, 112 S. Ct. 1407 (1992); see also
Apache Survival Coalition v. United States, 21 F.3d 895, 904
(9th Cir. 1994); Stop H-3 Ass'n, 870 F.2d at 1434 (upholding
a statute authorizing construction of a highway despite an
environmental regulation because it ``does not interpret [the
relevant regulation's] requirements but rather exempts H-3
from them''); Armuchee Alliance v. King, 922 F. Supp. 1541,
1550 (N.D. Ga. 1996).
Far from supporting BCA's position, however, Seattle
Audubon rejects an argument very much like its own. The case
concerned logging litigation to which Congress responded by
passing the Northwest Timber Compromise of 1990, applicable
only to timber sales entered before September 30, 1990, in
thirteen national forests in the Pacific Northwest. The key
section of that legislation stated that ``Congress determines
and directs that management of areas according to [new rules
set forth in the Northwest Timber Compromise] . . . meets the
statutory requirements that are the basis for [the
litigation].'' 503 U.S. at 434-35. The Ninth Circuit, below,
had held that this did not ``establish new law, but directed
the court to reach a specific result and make certain factual
findings under existing law in connection with two cases
pending in federal court,'' thus encroaching on the judicial
branch under United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128,
20 L. Ed. 519, 7 Ct. C1. 240 (1872). Seattle Audubon Soc'y v.
Robertson, 914 F.2d 1311, 1316 (9th Cir. 1990) (Seattle
Audubon 1). In reversing, the Supreme Court criticized the
Ninth Circuit's focus on the form of the enactment; instead,
it looked to the legal effect of the Seattle Audubon
provision:
``We conclude that subsection (b)(6)(A) compelled changes
in law, not findings or results under old law. Before
subsection (b)(6)(A) was enacted, the original claims would
fail only if the challenged harvesting violated none of five
old provisions. Under subsection (b)(6) (A), by contrast,
those same claims would fail if the harvesting violated
neither of two new provisions. Its operation, we think,
modified the old provisions.''
Seattle Audubon, 503 U.S. at 438.
This case follows a fortiori from Seattle Audubon. Just as
in Seattle Audubon, the 706 Rider has the practical effect of
changing the scope of the government's legal duties. Before
the Rider, the Forest Service was prohibited by law from
cutting trees without meeting various requirements of various
environmental laws; after the Rider, it is required to cut
trees in the Black Hills ``notwithstanding'' those laws.
Rider 706(j), 116
[[Page 17244]]
Stat. at 868. But the 706 Rider lacks the problematic
language--``the Congress determines and directs that
management of areas according to [new rules set forth in the
Northwest Timber Compromise] . . . meets the statutory
requirements that are the basis for [the litigation]''--which
the Ninth Circuit construed as interpreting rather than
amending the law. Seattle Audubon I, 914 F.2d at 1316. By
contrast, the 706 Rider orders that certain actions be taken
``notwithstanding'' the requirements of certain prior-enacted
laws, thus effectively replacing the old standards, in this
one case, with new ones. Similar statutes have been upheld as
constitutionally valid amendments of the underlying law. See
Save Our Mall, 269 F.3d at 1097; Apache Survival Coalition,
21 F.3d at 904; Stop H-3 Assn, 870 F.2d at 1434. Thus, we
need not decide whether directing specific actions without
changing the law would be an unconstitutional attempt by
Congress to usurp the Executive's role in interpreting the
law. In accordance with the counsel in Bowsher, Congress has
influenced the execution of the law here only ``indirectly--
by passing new legislation.'' 478 U.S. at 734 (citing Chadha,
462 U.S. at 958).
Next, BCA claims that the 706 Rider encroaches on the
Judiciary, in three ways: (1) by disturbing final
dispositions of cases in violation of Plaut v. Spendthrift
Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 131 L. Ed. 2d 328, 115 S. Ct. 1447
(1995); (2) by prescribing rules of decision to the Judiciary
in pending cases, in violation of United States v. Klein, 80
U.S. (13 Wall.) 128, 20 L. Ed. 519, 7 Ct. C1. 240 (1871); and
(3) by vesting review of judicial decisions in the executive
branch, in violation of the rule in Hayburn's Case, 2 U.S. (2
Dall.) 409, 1 L. Ed 436 (1792). We reject all three claims.
BCA's first contention, that the 706 Rider impermissibly
sets aside a final judicial disposition, depends on a crucial
but questionable premise: that the settlement agreement is
actually a judicial disposition rather than a mere private
agreement between the parties. Although the district court
did incorporate the settlement agreement by reference in its
order dismissing the suit, it nevertheless preferred the
latter characterization in addressing BCA's current request
for injunctive relief:
``This case doesn't even rise to the level where the Court
executed a consent decree. This is a case where the parties
sat down among themselves and settled the case. The more
proper analogy here is to an executory settlement contract.
It is true that the Court approved the settlement agreement,
but that is different from a consent decree.
* * * * *
. . . As far as I'm concerned, the Court's approval of the
settlement agreement is entitled to very, very little weight,
because it was negotiated among the parties.''
Tr. of Mot. Hr'g dated Dec. 26, 2002, at 12, App. 405.
Nevertheless, because the settlement agreement was a judicial
disposition in form if not in substance, we assume for
purposes of this appeal that it is entitled to the same
constitutional protection that it would have if the court had
decided its terms.
Within the scope of its enumerated powers, Congress has
authority to enact laws to govern matters of public right,
such as the management of the public lands, and authority to
change those laws. Even when the Judiciary has issued a legal
judgment enforcing a congressional act--for example, by a
writ of injunction--it is no violation of the judicial power
for Congress to change the terms of the underlying
substantive law. The purpose of an injunction is to define
and enforce legal obligations, not to freeze them into place.
Thus, when Congress changes the laws, it is those amended
laws--not the terms of past injunctions--that must be given
prospective legal effect. See, e.g., Miller v. French, 530
U.S. 327, 347-50, 147 L. Ed. 2d 326, 120 S. Ct. 2246 (2000);
Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 48, 24 L. Ed. 2d 214, 90 S. Ct.
200 (1969); System Fed'n No. 91 v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 648-
650, 5 L. Ed. 2d 349, 81 S. Ct. 368 (1961); Am. Steel
Foundries v. Tri-City Cent. Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184,
201-07, 66 L. Ed. 189, 42 S. Ct. 72 (1921).
The Supreme Court applied this principle to dispose of a
contention very similar to BCA's as long ago as 1855, in the
venerable case of Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge
Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421, 15 L. Ed. 435 (1855). In that
case, Pennsylvania had previously brought suit to enjoin the
construction of a bridge over the Ohio River, which would
obstruct access to Pennsylvania's ports. The Supreme Court
eventually granted an injunction requiring the bridge to be
removed or raised. It reasoned that because Congress had
``regulated the navigation of the Ohio River, and had thereby
secured to the public, by virtue of its authority, the free
and unobstructed use of the same,'' the Virginia-authorized
bridge impeding travel on the Ohio River was ``in conflict
with the acts of congress, which were the paramount law.'' 59
U. S. (18 How.) at 430 (summarizing the earlier opinion).
Thereafter, Congress passed a new law authorizing the
construction of the bridge and stating that the bridge and
one other were ``lawful structures in their present positions
and elevations.'' Wheeling Bridge, 59 U.S. (18 How.) at 429.
Pennsylvania sued again, claiming that the intervening
enactment was an unconstitutional attempt to overturn a final
decision of the Judiciary. The Supreme Court disagreed:
``If the remedy in this case had been an action at law, and
a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff for damages,
the right to these would have passed beyond the reach of the
power of congress. It would have depended, not upon the
public right of the free navigation of the river, but upon
the judgment of the court. . . . But that part of the decree,
directing the abatement of the obstruction, is executory, a
continuing decree, which requires not only the removal of the
bridge, but enjoins the defendants against any reconstruction
or continuance. Now, whether it is a future existing or
continuing obstruction depends upon the question whether or
not it interferes with the right of navigation. If, in the
meantime, since the decree, this right has been modified by
the competent authority, so that the bridge is no longer an
unlawful obstruction, it is quite plain the decree of the
court cannot be enforced. There is no longer any interference
with the enjoyment of the public right inconsistent with the
law, no more than there would be where the plaintiff himself
had consented to it, after the rendition of the decree.''
Id. at 431-32. Central to the Court's analysis was the fact
that the right to unobstructed waterways was a ``public right
. . . under the regulation of congress.'' Id. at 431. In
other words, the plaintiff had no vested property right in an
unobstructed waterway. The core violation was against
Congress's right to control the waterways, and Pennsylvania's
right to an unobstructed waterway was only the derivative
right to enjoy whatever degree of navigation Congress saw fit
to allow. So long as the will of Congress was to leave the
river unimpeded, any impediment was a violation of the public
right thus defined. But once Congress changed its mind, the
contours of that right changed, and there was no more ground
for injunctive relief. If a landowner grants her neighbor a
revocable license to use a private road across her property,
the neighbor could conceivably obtain an injunction against
any third party who prevents him from using that road.
However, that does not affect the right of the landowner to
revoke the license at any time. Should the license be
revoked, the neighbor's right to use the private road ceases,
and enforcing the injunction is no longer appropriate.
Wheeling Bridge has remained a fixed star in the Supreme
Court's separation-of-powers jurisprudence, and numerous
subsequent cases have relied on it. See, e.g., The Clinton
Bridge, 77 U.S. 454, 463, 19 L. Ed. 969 (1870) (concluding,
on the basis of Wheeling Bridge, that in public rights cases,
Congress could not only modify injunctive relief already
granted, but also could ``give the rule of decision'' in
pending cases); Hodges v. Snyder, 261 U.S. 600, 603, 67 L.
Ed. 819, 43 S. Ct. 435 (1923) (noting that the normal rule
against disturbing final judgments ``does not apply to a suit
brought for the enforcement of a public right, which, even
after it has been established by the judgment of the court,
may be annulled by subsequent legislation and should not be
thereafter enforced''); Sys. Fed'n No. 91, 364 U.S. at 648-
650 (holding that it is an abuse of discretion for a district
court not to modify an injunction to reflect changes in
underlying law); Miller v. French, 530 U.S. at 347-48.
Even Plaut v. Spendthrift Farms, Inc., the principal case
on which BCA relies, is careful not to disturb the holding of
Wheeling Bridge. There the Supreme Court had previously
imputed a uniform nationwide statute of limitations on
actions brought under Sec. 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v.
Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350, 115 L. Ed. 2d 321, 111 S. Ct. 2773
(1991), and held that the newly established statute of
limitations applied to all pending cases in the federal
courts. James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U. S.
529, 115 L. Ed. 2d 481, 111 S. Ct. 2439 (1991). Six months
later, Congress passed a law changing the statute of
limitations for those cases commenced before Lampf to what it
would have been had the Supreme Court not imposed a uniform
nationwide limitations period, and reinstating all actions
dismissed as time-barred if they would have been timely under
the limitations period of their local jurisdiction. See
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Act of 1991, Pub. L.
No. 102-242, sec. 476, Sec. 27A, 105 Stat. 2236 (codified at
15 U.S.C. Sec. 78aa-1 (1988 Supp. V)). The Supreme Court held
that this action violated the separation of powers by
requiring federal courts to reopen final judgments. Plaut,
514 U.S. at 240. It reasoned that once the judicial branch
has given its final word on a case, to allow Congress to
reopen the case by legislation would destroy the power of the
Judiciary to render final judgments. Id. at 219. Instead,
Congress would be in effect a court of last resort to which
one could appeal any ``final'' decision of the Judiciary.
In rejecting such an outcome, the Court in Plaut did no
more than follow the dicta of Wheeling Bridge itself:
``But it is urged, that the act of congress cannot have the
effect and operation to annul the judgment of the court
already rendered, or the rights determined thereby in favor
of the plaintiff. This, as a general proposition, is
certainly not to be denied, especially as it respects
adjudication upon the
[[Page 17245]]
private rights of the parties. When they have passed into
judgment the right becomes absolute, and it is the duty of
the court to enforce it.
* * * * *
Now, we agree, if the remedy in this case had been an
action at law, and a judgment rendered in favor of the
Plaintiff for damages, the right to these would have passed
beyond the reach of the power of congress.''
Wheeling Bridge, 59 U.S. (18 How.) at 431 (emphasis added),
quoted in Plaut, 514 U.S. at 226. As Plaut itself insists, it
does not call the holding of Wheeling Bridge into question at
all. 514 U.S. at 232. The disturbed court decision in Plaut
definitively resolved a private claim to a certain amount of
money, leaving the defendants with an unconditional right to
the sum in question; the judgments in this case and in
Wheeling Bridge merely prohibited future interference with
the enjoyment of a public right that remained revocable at
Congress's pleasure. The Supreme Court has since reaffirmed
the continued vitality of Wheeling Bridge in Miller v.
French. In that case, the Prison Litigation Reform Act had
set new limits on the power of courts to give injunctive
relief to prisoners, requiring (among other things) that any
injunctive relief granted be both narrowly drawn to correct
the violation of federal rights and also the least intrusive
means of correcting the violation. 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(1)(A).
The provision at issue in Miller directed that an action to
modify or terminate injunctive relief pursuant to the PLRA
would act as an automatic stay of any existing injunctive
relief if a court did not find that the injunctive relief
remained appropriate under the new standards within 30 days.
Id. 3626(b)(2).
In upholding the PLRA's automatic stay, the Supreme Court
found Wheeling Bridge controlling, distinguishing Plaut
because in that case Congress had disturbed final judgments
in actions for money damages. Miller, 530 U.S. at 344-45. The
Court held that when courts grant prospective injunctive
relief, they remain obligated to modify that relief to the
extent that ``subsequent changes in the law'' render it
illegal. Id. at 347.
This case falls squarely within the principle of Wheeling
Bridge. BCA's members' rights with respect to the national
forests is a ``public right . . . under the regulation of
congress,'' Wheeling Bridge, 59 U.S. (18 How.) at 431, in
exactly the same way that the right to unimpeded navigation
of the Ohio River was. Both rights are entirely contingent on
Congress's continuing will that the federal lands or
interstate waterways be managed in a particular way. The
settlement agreement in the Veteran/Boulder matter in no way
touched on vested private rights. To be sure, the private
interests of BCA's members are sufficiently affected to give
rise to standing, but the interest they represented in their
lawsuit was nothing other than the interest of the public in
seeing that Congress's environmental directives are observed
by the Forest Service.
BCA's attempts to distinguish Miller and Wheeling Bridge
are unavailing. It argues, first, that in those cases,
Congress simply changed the law, leaving it for the courts to
decide whether to modify their injunctions, whereas here
Congress is directly requiring the courts to modify the
settlement agreement. We see no such distinction. In those
cases, as here, Congress enacted rules in direct conflict
with existing legal obligations. In those cases, as here,
courts later had to decide whether those previous legal
obligations remained enforceable in light of Congress's act.
Second, BCA argues that the 706 Rider specifically refers
to a particular settlement agreement it means to supercede,
whereas the PLRA provision in Miller ``did not speak directly
to any pre-existing judicial ruling or issuance of relief.''
Appellants' Br. 27. The same was true in Wheeling Bridge.
There, legislation was targeted at two named bridges, one of
which was the subject of the injunction in the case. See 59
U.S. (18 How.) at 429. It is true that in Seattle Audubon,
the Court declined to address the question of whether such
targeting raised a constitutional problem. 503 U.S. at 441.
However, its silence ended four years later in Plaut. There,
a concurrence found a constitutional violation precisely
because the reopening of dismissed cases ``applied only to a
few individual instances.'' 514 U.S. at 243 (Breyer, J.,
concurring). A majority of the Court rejected that position,
describing it as ``wrong in law.'' Id. at 238. The majority
concluded that the infringement of the judicial power
consisted ``not of the Legislature's acting in a
particularized and thus (according to the concurrence)
nonlegislative fashion; but rather of the Legislature's
nullifying prior, authoritative judicial action. It makes no
difference whatever to that separation-of-powers violation
that it is in gross rather than particularized.'' Id. at 239
(emphasis in original; footnote omitted); see also id. at 239
n.9 (``While legislatures usually act through laws of general
applicability, that is by no means their only legitimate mode
of operation.'').
To avoid constant interbranch friction, the lines
separating the branches should be clear. As the Supreme Court
noted in Plaut, and as BCA's arguments illustrate, it only
``prolongs doubt and multiplies confrontation'' to make the
constitutional analysis hinge on the murky distinction
between generalized lawmaking and particularized application
of the law. 514 U.S. at 240.
It is true that the injunction BCA seeks to enforce differs
from the one in Wheeling Bridge in that it is the product of
a settlement agreement rather than a product of a judicial
declaration of right. Thus, Appellants' claimed right to keep
Beaver Park unmolested might be said to rest directly on the
terms of their contractual agreement, and only indirectly on
public rights provided by the environmental laws. We must
therefore consider whether the settlement agreement has
interposed a new set of contractual rights that adequately
support keeping the injunction in place, making changes to
the scope of the underlying public right irrelevant.
A negative answer to that question has been clear since at
least 1961, when the Supreme Court decided System Federation
No. 91 v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 648-650, 5 L. Ed. 2d 349, 81
S. Ct. 368 (1961). In that case, several nonunion railway
employees brought a class action against the railroad and
various unions for discrimination against them and other
nonunion workers. The district court eventually entered a
consent decree enjoining the defendants ``from discriminating
against the plaintiffs and the classes represented by them in
this action by reason of or on account of the refusal of said
employees to join or retain their membership in any of
defendant labor organizations, or any labor organization.''
System Fed'n No. 91, 364 U.S. at 644. At the time, labor law
did not allow collective bargaining agreements to require
union shops. 364 U.S. at 645-46.
Later, when the applicable law had changed to allow such
contracts, the unions sought modification of the decree to
make it clear that it would not prevent them from bargaining
for a union shop. Id. The district court refused to modify
the injunction; since nothing in the amended law made it
illegal for parties to agree not to have a union shop, the
court concluded that the parties were stuck with their
agreement. Id.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, but the Supreme Court reversed,
holding that the district court's refusal to modify the
decree was an abuse of discretion. 364 U.S. at 646, 650-53.
The Court reasoned that, under Wheeling Bridge, the district
court would have had to modify the decree if it had been the
result of litigation instead of consent. 364 U.S. at 650-51.
It then concluded that the same principles applied to consent
decrees:
``The result is all one whether the decree has been entered
after litigation or by consent. . . . In either event, a
court does not abdicate its power to revoke or modify its
mandate, if satisfied that what it has been doing has been
turned through changing circumstances into an instrument of
wrong. We reject the argument . . . that a decree entered
upon consent is to be treated as a contract and not as a
judicial act. . . .'' 364 U.S. at 650-51 (quoting United
States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 114-15, 76 L. Ed. 999,
52 S. Ct. 460 (1932) (Cardozo, J.)) (some ellipses in
original). The Court's reasons are also applicable here:
``The parties cannot, by giving each other consideration,
purchase from a court of equity a continuing injunction. In a
case like this the District Court's authority to adopt a
consent decree comes only from the statute which the decree
is intended to enforce. Frequently of course the terms
arrived at by the parties are accepted without change by the
adopting court. But just as the adopting court is free to
reject agreed-upon terms as not in furtherance of statutory
objectives, so must it be free to modify the terms of a
consent decree when a change in law brings those terms in
conflict with statutory objectives. In short, it was the
Railway Labor Act, and only incidentally the parties, that
the District Court served in entering the consent decree now
before us. The court must be free to continue to further the
objectives of that Act when its provisions are amended. The
parties have no power to require of the court continuing
enforcement of rights the statute no longer gives.''
364 U.S. at 651. Put briefly, a settlement agreement or
consent decree designed to enforce statutory directives is
not merely a private contract. It implicates the courts, and
it is the statute--and ``only incidentally the parties''--to
which the courts owe their allegiance. The primary function
of a settlement agreement or consent decree, like that of a
litigated judgment, is to enforce the congressional will as
reflected in the statute. The court should modify or refuse
to enforce a settlement agreement or proposed decree unless
it is ``in furtherance of statutory objectives.'' The
agreement or consent decree is contractual only to the extent
that it represents an agreement by the parties regarding the
most efficient means of effectuating their rights under the
statute. It does not freeze the provisions of the statute
into place. If the statute changes, the parties' rights
change, and enforcement of their agreement must also change.
Any other conclusion would allow the parties, by exchange of
consideration, to bind not only themselves but Congress and
the courts as well.
This principle applies even more clearly here than it did
in System Federation itself. There, the original injunction
was not inconsistent with the new law; it merely ruled out
[[Page 17246]]
an option that Congress had since made permissible but not
mandatory. If that injunction had to change, then a fortiori
the injunction at issue here, which is inconsistent with the
706 Rider, must give way.
Having disposed of the claim that the 706 Rider disturbs
the district court's final judgment in violation of Plaut, we
turn to BCA's somewhat inconsistent claim that the Rider
violates United States v. Klein because it dictates ``rules
of decision'' to the district court in a pending case.
Klein involved one episode in a series of conflicts between
the Reconstruction Congress and the balking President Andrew
Johnson. Various presidential proclamations had offered a
``full pardon, with restoration of all rights of property,''
to certain broad classes, conditioned on taking an oath of
loyalty. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 139-40. In the
Abandoned and Captured Property Act, 12 Stat. 820 (Mar. 12,
1863), however, Congress provided that the owner of seized
property could sue in the Court of Claims to recover its
proceeds only on proof that the owner ``had never given aid
or comfort to the rebellion.'' 80 U.S. at 138-39. In United
States v. Padelford, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 531, 542-43, 19 L. Ed.
788, 7 Ct. C1. 144 (1869) (mem.), the Supreme Court held that
a presidential pardon renders the pardoned ``as innocent as
if he had never committed the offense,'' and concluded that
proof of pardon was equivalent to proof that the claimant had
not aided the rebellion. Congress responded to Padelford by
passing an appropriations proviso directing the Court of
Claims to take the fact of a pardon, with some narrow
exceptions, as conclusive proof that the claimant had ``given
aid or comfort to the rebellion,'' and as grounds for
dismissing the claimant's suit. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at
142-43. The proviso also removed the Supreme Court's
authority to hear appeals of such suits. 80 U.S. at 144-45.
In Klein, the administrator of the estate of V.F. Wilson, who
had taken the oath and qualified for the pardon, sued to
recover the proceeds of Wilson's seized property. Id. at 136,
143. The Supreme Court found the proviso to be
unconstitutional, both because it attempted to impair the
effect of a presidential pardon and because it ``prescribed
rules of decision to the Judicial Department of the
government in cases pending before it.'' Id. at 146.
Klein is a notoriously difficult decision to interpret.
Read broadly, the ``rules of decision'' language of Klein
would seem to contradict the well-established principle that
courts must decide cases according to statutes enacted by
Congress. See United States v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1
Cranch) 103, 109, 2 L. Ed. 49 (1801); Miller, 530 U.S. at
344, 346-47.
In any event, the 706 Rider is very different from the
unusual legislation found unconstitutional in Klein. Central
to the Court's analysis in Klein was its conclusion that the
government's seizure of the private property at issue did not
divest its owner of his property rights. See Klein, 80 U.S.
(13 Wall.) at 136-39. Thus, the basis of the Klein suit (at
least in the eyes of the Klein court) was a private right to
property vindicated by a presidential pardon, which Congress
was therefore powerless to extinguish. See 80 U.S. at 148.
Since Congress could not manipulate these private rights,
Klein merely refused to allow Congress to accomplish
indirectly (by manipulating the judiciary's interpretation of
those private rights) what it could not accomplish directly.
Thus understood, Klein is precisely in accord with Wheeling
Bridge, as Klein itself observes. See 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at
146-47. When Congress does not control the substance of a
right, there are limits to its ability to influence the
judiciary's determination of that right, either by directing
the judiciary to decide a particular way, or by setting aside
judicial determinations after the fact. But when rights are
the creatures of Congress, as they were in Wheeling Bridge,
Congress is free to modify them at will, even though its
action may dictate results in pending cases and terminate
prospective relief in concluded ones. Thus, Klein's
prohibition on prescribing rules of decision in pending cases
has no application to public rights cases like this one.
The Supreme Court explicitly made this point in The Clinton
Bridge, a case decided only one year before Klein. That case
addressed facts almost identical to those in Wheeling Bridge.
The only difference was that Congress passed legislation
authorizing the bridge in question while the suit over its
legality was still pending, not after the injunction issued.
See 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) at 462-63. The Court noted that, in so
doing, Congress ``gave the rule of decision for the court''
in the pending case. 77 U.S. at 463. While it found that to
be unobjectionable under Wheeling Bridge, it warned that
``very different considerations would have arisen'' if
Congress had attempted to dictate the rule of decision in a
case concerning a ``private right of action.'' Id. Klein must
be read as the fulfillment of that narrow warning, not the
enunciation of any broader principle.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made it clear that Klein
does not apply to cases like this one: ``Whatever the precise
scope of Klein, . . . its prohibition does not take hold when
Congress amends applicable law.'' Plaut, 514 U.S. at 218,
quoted in Miller, 530 U.S. at 349 (internal quotation marks
and brackets omitted). Because, as we explained in Part II of
this opinion, the 706 Rider did ``amend[] applicable law,''
the Klein principle does not apply here.
Last, BCA claims that the 706 Rider violates the rule in
Hayburn's Case. Hayburn's Case has come to stand ``for the
principle that Congress cannot vest review of the decisions
of Article III courts in officials of the Executive Branch.''
Plaut, 514 U.S. at 218. BCA admits that the 706 Rider does
not literally authorize Forest Service officials to review
judicial determinations. Nevertheless, it maintains that the
706 Rider orders the Executive to ignore and violate judicial
orders, and that this is close enough to make out a claim
under Hayburn's Case. We disagree. As discussed above, it is
well-established that new law can modify old injunctive
decrees. Whenever that happens, the new law at least
implicitly orders the Executive to ignore the old decrees.
BCA maintains that in such circumstances, Congress's act
cannot constitutionally modify an injunction directly.
Instead, it claims, any modification must be made by the
court itself (though the court may be obliged to do it), and
until the court does so, the injunction remains in force.
Thus, because the 706 Rider directs the Forest Service to
proceed with its tree-cutting activities regardless of
whether the court modifies the settlement agreement, it
unconstitutionally directs the Executive to ignore an
injunction in force. But this is not the lesson of our cases.
Wheeling Bridge held, not merely that Congress's legislation
made modification of the injunction necessary, but that it
rendered the injunction unenforceable. 59 U.S. (18 How.) at
432; Miller, 530 U.S. at 346. Similarly, the provision upheld
in Miller v. French went beyond ordering judges to stay
prospective relief after 30 days; instead, it stated that a
motion to terminate injunctive relief ``shall operate as a
stay'' of that relief beginning 30 days after the motion--
thus staying the injunctive relief without any action by the
court. Miller, 530 U.S. at 331. When Congress is acting
within the boundaries set by Wheeling Bridge and Miller, the
parties to a modified injunction need not wait upon the court
to ratify the congressional change. Thus, we see no violation
of Hayburn's Case or any other constitutional principle here.
Viewed realistically, the 706 Rider intrudes on neither
executive nor judicial authority. The Rider comports with the
current view of executive branch officials regarding
management of the national forest. And while the Rider
overrides a settlement agreement entered by the district
court, that agreement was in fact a private agreement between
the parties, in which the Judiciary had little or no
independent involvement. To overturn the Rider would thus
serve not to vindicate the constitutionally entrusted
prerogatives of those two branches, but rather to keep in
place a private group's own preferences about forest
preservation policy in the face of contrary judgments by the
Executive and Congress. True principles of separation of
powers prevent settlement agreements negotiated by private
parties and officials of the executive branch from
encroaching either on the constitutionally vested authority
of Congress or on the statutorily vested authority of those
officials' successors in office. BCA's claim amounts to the
argument that an agreement forged by a private group with a
former administration, without serious judicial involvement,
can strip both Congress and the Executive of their
discretionary powers. The Constitution neither compels nor
permits such a result.
The executive branch does not have authority to contract
away the enumerated constitutional powers of Congress or its
own successors, and certainly neither does a private group.
Accordingly, the governance of the Black Hills National
Forest must be conducted according to the new rules set by
Congress, as Article IV of the Constitution provides.
For the foregoing reasons, the district court's denial of
BCA's motion is affirmed.
The Hostettler bill truly is a revolutionary assault on our
Bill of Rights. If Congress, for the first time in our
history, is able to prevent citizens from having their rights
under the constitution heard in federal court, then the Bill
of Rights will be little more than a puff of smoke.
Whatever you think of this legislation, or the Defense of
Marriage Act, Sen. Daschle's amendment is no precedent. The
Hostettler bill is truly unprecedented. For further
information, please visit the Committee website: (http://
www.house.gov/judiciary-democrats/
marriageprotectioninfo.html).
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary.
Jerrold Nadler,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I place into the Record a memo from the
Congressional Research Service that says that Congress has never passed
any legislation that denies to the Federal courts the jurisdiction to
adjudicate
[[Page 17247]]
the constitutionality of an act of Congress.
Congressional Research Service
Memorandum
To: House Committee on the Judiciary, Attention: Perry
Apelbaum.
From: Johnny H. Killian, Senior Specialist, American
Constitutional Law, American Law Division.
Subject: Precedent for Congressional Bill.
This memorandum is in response to your query, respecting
H.R. 3313, now pending before the House of Representatives,
as to whether there is any precedent for enacted legislation
that would deny judicial review in any federal court of the
constitutionality of a law that Congress has enacted, whether
a law containing the jurisdictional provision or an earlier,
separate law. We are not aware of any precedent for a law
that would deny the inferior federal courts original
jurisdiction or the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction
to review the constitutionality of a law of Congress.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to elaborate on the
point that was just made.
I have been listening to the debate. I have not heard my colleagues
here say that this is unconstitutional. The point is the legislation
the gentleman cited, the World War II Memorial, the timber legislation,
exempted from judicial review under the terms of the specific act. As
in Campaign Finance Reform it did not preclude challenges against the
constitutionality of the legislation in question. That is legitimate
use of congressional legislative authority.
What you are doing is not adjusting an act. You are saying we are not
going to be able to deal with whether or not the laws in question are
constitutional. That has never happened before.
I heard the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) here a couple of
moments ago talk about his lifetime of working with young people. I
just left 50 young volunteers who are working in Washington, D.C.
neighborhoods. As we were leaving, one of the young women said she woke
up this morning listening to what we were going to be debating here
today. It made no sense to her and asked, is there any argument that
this is being done other than pure political motivation?
This was, I thought, a very perceptive young woman. Her question, I
think, answered itself, and I hope we are not to be guilty of
undermining these young people's confidence in our activities.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I rise in opposition to this sham. What a shame it is when we have 41
million Americans without health insurance, more than 2 million jobs
lost, an additional $2 trillion in debt, that the leadership of this
Congress chooses to try again to divert attention to a divisive issue.
Having failed to even muster 50 votes in the other body to place in the
Constitution language setting one group of Americans aside as second
class citizens, this leadership now turns its attention to a full
assault on the Constitution itself.
If they cannot amend the Constitution, then attack the balance of
power. I keep hearing that activist judges should not change State
laws. Five activist judges denied all the voters of Florida the right
to have their votes counted, but this bill is far more cynical.
The other side knows it will be thrown out by the Supreme Court. That
means they can keep this issue alive for years and years.
Stop this assault. Vote no on H.R. 3313.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3313.
While I believe the institution of marriage should consist of one man
and one woman, and I voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, I
cannot support this bill. The Defense of Marriage Act has to my
knowledge not been challenged in the Federal court, and it seems like
we are putting the cart before the horse. We should allow our system of
checks and balances to work like our Founding Fathers designed it.
Whatever Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii does regarding their
marriage license does not change how Texas law does marriages.
In Texas we already have a law that states the institution of
marriage is one man, one woman. We also have a law that states that
Texas does not have to recognize marriages that are performed outside
the State of Texas. The Defense of Marriage Act supports our State law.
Marriage is a State issue and not a Federal issue. We do not seek
marriage licenses in the Federal courthouses.
What this bill is about is continued efforts of this administration
and Republicans in Congress to divide our country when we really need
unity.
Just today we heard that while our troops are fighting for our
country, they are short $12 billion in funding, even with all the
supplementals we voted for. Maybe this administration, the Republicans,
need to spend more time explaining why our troops waited months for
body armor and armor for their Humvees and we are still $12 billion
short.
Let us spend time protecting our country and not worry about ``my''
34 years of marriage. And once again, this administration has the wrong
priorities.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I want to concede to my colleagues who argue for
the constitutionality of the subject legislation that it is
constitutional.
This Congress can strip the Supreme Court of much of its
jurisdiction, can abolish all appellate courts, and can abolish all
district courts, but just because we can do something does not mean
that we should do it.
We have heard much about arrogant activist judges. What have arrogant
activist judges done? In 1954 they revoked the reprehensible doctrine
of separate but equal in Brown v. Board of Education. In 1964 they
reestablished the principle of one-person/one-vote in Reynolds v. Sims.
In 1967 they respected the sanctity of all marriages, even those across
ethnic lines.
Because we can do something does not mean we should. Let us today not
hang out the sign on the Federal courthouse door, ``Some Americans Need
Not Apply.''
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding
me time.
Daniel Webster said, Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to
the Republic for which it stands, for miracles do not cluster. And what
has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. So hold on to
the Constitution, for if it should fall, there will be anarchy
throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, Daniel Webster is no longer with us, but if we could
just realize that we will soon no longer be here either and if we do
not uphold and defend the Constitution and the foundation of this
republic and society itself, which is marriage and the family,
generations will lose this beacon of freedom that we have.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions during the 12 years
that I have been in this body, I have risen on this floor to chide my
colleagues from the Committee on the Judiciary and my colleagues in the
House for the arrogant and irresponsible belief that we are somehow
smarter than the Founding Fathers, for the belief that process in the
system and the form of government that we operate in is less important
than the result that we seek on a particular issue.
I think today is the ultimate irresponsible, extreme act in that
direction. How arrogant and irresponsible is it to say to our American
people that the United States Supreme Court will not have jurisdiction
to decide the constitutionality of an issue?
{time} 1515
How extreme is that? It just blows my mind. I have trouble coming to
[[Page 17248]]
grips with the notion that anybody could believe that this is
responsible legislating, whether it is constitutional or not, that we
would deprive the United States Supreme Court the authority to
determine the constitutionality of an issue and disperse it to 50
different supreme courts of the States and not have one court that
would be the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality. How arrogant and
irresponsible can we be?
That is exactly what this legislation does today. It says to the
American people that the Supreme Court of the United States no longer
has the authority to determine constitutional issues. How arrogant, how
irresponsible can we be?
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to support this bill. I do
not believe it is right. I think court-stripping is wrong. I do not
think it is sound; and frankly, I do not think it is going to work. How
are we going to resolve the issue between States?
I used to be in business, and Congress could have passed a law in the
1950s when the civil rights issue was heating up that would have
prohibited any challenges to the segregated businesses that existed all
around me. There never would have been a civil rights law, never would
have been a Brown v. Board of Education.
I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. It defines marriage for a
Federal purpose as a legal union between one man and one woman, and
that is good enough for me.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) to close on our
side.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, with this bill, we face no less than the
specter of a sign posted on the Federal courthouse door which reads,
``You may not defend your constitutional rights in this court; you may
not seek equal protection here; you may not petition your government
for redress here.'' Today, the ``you'' is gay and lesbian American
citizens, but who will be next?
Today, the House is considering legislation that were it to become
law would do grave damage to our Republic.
I strongly oppose H.R. 3313 and urge all Members to vote against this
legislation, and I urge the Members of the majority to reconsider this
extreme and radical approach to addressing the issue of same-sex
marriage and their concern about so-called judicial activism. Enacting
court-stripping legislation would seriously undermine the faith of the
American people in this Congress, in the courts, and in the principles
of separation of powers.
When writing the Constitution, our Founders wisely decided that the
best way to secure our freedoms and liberties was to establish three
coequal branches of government: the Congress, the executive, the
Supreme Court; and these three branches of government would have
different, but overlapping, authorities to ensure that each branch is
subject to the checks and balances. Not only will there be times that
they will be in disagreement about a particular issue or law; the
structure of the Constitution makes these conflicts inevitable.
It is a terrible mistake to strip one branch of government from its
involvement in evaluating particular laws, and this is so particularly
true when considering the courts whose constitutional and historic role
has been to defend our liberties.
Once court-stripping, this door becomes open, where will it stop?
Will this language be added to legislation on issues of abortion, guns,
prayer, school choice, affirmative action? How about the USA PATRIOT
Act? I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg.
The late Senator Barry Goldwater, a stalwart conservative, said about
previous court-stripping attempts in this Congress that it is a frontal
assault on the independence of Federal courts and a dangerous blow to
the foundations of a free society. I urge my colleagues to reject this
unnecessary, unconstitutional and unwise legislation.
Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering legislation that, if it
were to become law, would do grave damage to our Republic. I strongly
oppose H.R. 3313 and urge all members to vote against this legislation.
I urge the members in the majority to reconsider this extreme and
radical approach to addressing the issue of same sex marriage and their
concerns about so-called judicial activism. In fact, ``court
stripping'' is a bad idea in any form. The consequences of enacting
H.R. 3313 far exceed the stated objective of the majority and would
seriously undermine the faith of the American people in this Congress,
in the courts, in the principle of separation of powers, and in the
notion of checks and balances.
When writing the Constitution, the founders wisely decided that the
best way to secure our freedom and liberties was to establish 3 co-
equal branches of government--the Congress, the Executive and the
Supreme Court. These 3 branches of government have different but
overlapping authorities to ensure that each branch is subject to checks
and balances. Not only will there be times that they will be in
disagreement about a particular issue or law, the structure of the
Constitution makes these conflicts inevitable.
In my home State of Wisconsin, our State university, the University
of Wisconsin, dedicates itself to the proposition that through
``continual and fearless sifting and winnowing'' . . . ``the truth can
be found.'' In the context of our laws, this sifting and winnowing
occurs at many points in the process. In Congress, we hold hearings,
markups, and floor votes and we offer amendments, we hold conference
committees and we issue reports. The Executive proposes legislation,
engages in public debate, signs and vetoes legislation. The Court then
interprets, evaluates, settles disputes and invalidates laws based on
bedrock principles enshrined in our Constitution. Yes, this process can
be slow, frustrating, and messy at times. But, it is through the
process, which includes the court, that we sift and winnow our laws to
improve them and ensure they are fair and just for all Americans.
It is a terrible mistake to try to strip one branch of government
from its involvement in evaluating particular laws. This is
particularly true when considering the courts, whose constitutional and
historic role is to defend our liberties.
Fortunately for our citizens, it is my belief that H.R. 3313 is
unconstitutional and, if it ever becomes law, will ultimately be
invalidated. However, we should defeat this bill today, no matter what.
Mr. Speaker, during the Judiciary subcommittee on the constitution's
hearing on this issue on June 24, the majority and minority each
invited legal scholars to address the questions: ``Can Congress do
this?'' and ``Should Congress do this?'' On the former question, the 2
witnesses disagreed, although even the majority witness, Professor
Martin H. Redish of Northwestern University, noted that ``Congress
quite clearly may not revoke or confine Federal jurisdiction in a
discriminatory manner.'' But on the latter question, ``Should Congress
do this?'' the legal scholars agreed that we should not.
Let me quote Professor Redish's testimony on this question because
it is compelling: ``I firmly believe that Congress should choose to
exercise this power virtually never.'' There has long existed a
delicate balance between the authority of the Federal judiciary and
Congress, and the exclusion of substantively selective authority from
all Federal courts seriously threatens that balance.''
Once the ``court stripping'' door is open, where will it stop? Will
this language be added to legislation on the issue of abortion, guns,
prayer, school choice, affirmative action? How about the USA PATRIOT
Act? I suspect that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Like the FMA, the Marriage Protection Act is not needed. DOMA remains
the law of the land and its constitutionality has not been successfully
challenged in any United States court. Congress must tread lightly when
trying to modify the important doctrine of separation of powers that is
the basis for our government. The late Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), a
stalwart conservative, said about previous court stripping attempts
that ``frontal assault on the independence of the Federal courts is a
dangerous blow to the foundations of a free society.'' I urge you to
reject this unnecessary, unconstitutional and unwise legislation.
Mr. Speaker, with this bill, we face no less than the specter of a
sign posted on the Federal court house door which reads, ``you may not
defend your constitutional rights in this court, you may not seek equal
protection here, you may not petition your government for redress
here.'' Today, the ``you'' is gay and lesbian American citizens. Who
will it be next?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, has the time for the minority
expired?
[[Page 17249]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The time has expired on the
minority side.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this debate has
fulfilled the majority leader's admonition that the debate be civil.
There are strongly held positions on both sides of this question, and I
think that both of them have been very well articulated during the
course of this debate.
I firmly believe that this bill is not only constitutional but it is
also wise and necessary to prevent court decisions from further tearing
apart the fabric of our society.
Forty-two years after the Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison,
the court in the case of Cary v. Curtis in 1845 upheld the regulation
of the judicial power by the Congress, and I would like to quote from
that decision: ``Dependent for its distribution and organization, and
for the modes of its exercise, entirely upon the action of Congress. To
deny this position would be to elevate the judicial over the
legislative branch of the government, and to give to the Federal
judiciary powers limited by its own discretion merely.''
This bill attempts to limit the power of the Federal judiciary to
export the decision of a divided court in Massachusetts to the other 49
States which do not have laws granting marriage licenses to same-sex
individuals.
The people who have been arguing against this bill, Mr. Speaker, seem
to think that the State courts are second-class courts, but we believe
that they are equally capable of deciding Federal constitutional
questions. Nothing in H.R. 3313 denies the right of a same-sex couple
married in Massachusetts to file a petition in State court to have that
license and that marriage recognized within that State, and the State
courts are perfectly capable of making that determination.
Somehow my colleague from Wisconsin says that this bill slams the
door of the Federal courthouse to people who wish to exercise their
constitutional rights. Well, I spent a lot of time in Madison as a law
student and as a State legislator, and the current Federal courthouse
is just a few blocks away from the Dane County Courthouse, and there
are judges there that will have all the jurisdiction they need to
adjudicate the claims that the gentlewoman from Wisconsin was talking
about, and those judges I think are perfectly capable of adjudicating
those claims, notwithstanding the lack of confidence on the part of
some of the people who have been arguing against this bill.
The real issue is the issue of marriage, and marriage is the
foundation upon which any civilized society has been based, long before
the United States of America was established and the Constitution was
ratified in 1789.
Marriage is under attack as a result of the 4 to 3 decision of the
supreme judicial court of Massachusetts. This bill does not affect what
Massachusetts does with that decision.
Under this bill, it will be the legislature and the voters and the
judges in Massachusetts, should they change their mind, that will
determine whether that 4 to 3 decision stands; but what this bill will
do is to prevent the export of that Massachusetts decision to the other
49 States that do not allow marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex
couples.
I sincerely doubt that when James Madison wrote the Constitution and
when the legislatures of the 13 States at that time ratified the
Constitution that they ever dreamed that the Federal judiciary would be
used to have a decision that has been made in a single State become
national policy.
The way we prevent that from becoming national policy is by passing
this bill. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this morning's papers carry,
among others, the following stories:
--The New York Times reports that ``The 9/11 Commission is Said to
Sharply Fault Role of Congress''.
--The L.A. Times has a story titled, ``The State Department Seeks
Shift in Iraq Effort''.
--The Sun Sentinel reports that the American death toll in Iraq has
reached 900.
--The Washington Post covers military recruitment, concluding that
the pool of future recruits has dwindled to its lowest level in three
years.
--And, all these papers and others have stories on the poor shape of
the economy and the hardships that the American people are facing.
So, I ask: don't we have better things to deal with two days before
going into recess. Is there any sense of responsibility in this
Republican Congress?
This bill, more than anything else, is about the politics of a
national election. The White House political machine is in full gear,
playing to the lowest denominator to reinvigorate the xenophobic and
intolerant wing of the Republican Party.
Recognizing that they lack the votes to pass the discriminatory
Federal Marriage Amendment, the Republican House leadership is now
focusing on slamming shut federal courthouse doors to gay and lesbian
Americans.
This bill is at its core a bar on redress for violations of
fundamental rights. If Congress by statute can end run the Bill of
Rights, no rights to liberty, due process, or equality under the law
are safe. Further, it would set the terrible precedent of barring
citizens from challenging government infringement of fundamental rights
in federal court.
For more than 200 years the federal judiciary has been a check on
legislative and executive action. By eliminating an entire subject from
the courts' jurisdiction, this legislation threatens to upset the
delicate balance between the branches of the federal government that
has served our nation well. Indeed, passage of this legislation would
represent one of the broadest attacks on the separation of powers in
American history.
Once again, it's proven that the most unpopular and vulnerable
members of society are all too often the first targets of government
repression. But once the federal courthouse door has been slammed shut
to one group, it won't be long before others are similarly excluded.
I am reminded of an incisive quote by Holocaust survivor Ellie
Wiesel. He said,
``They came first for the communists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came
for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they
came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.''
I am here to strongly oppose this legislation.
I can remember of one other group in America that had to wander every
county courthouse in the country to try to vindicate their rights under
the Federal Constitution.
Blacks have experienced the injustice, abuse, and disgrace that the
Republican Party is promoting with this bill. For example, after the
Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that school
segregation violated the Constitution, racist lawmakers furiously
sought to exempt federal courts from ruling on public education laws.
I became a public servant with the express mission of preventing one
of the worst chapters of American history from repeating itself.
Therefore, I oppose this rule and the underlying bill, and ask--beg--
my colleagues to act responsibly and protect the constitution by voting
no.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3313,
the so-called Marriage Protection Act. This bill would expressly forbid
the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing cases on
a Constitutional matter. That not only sounds absurd to me, but I'm
sure it confuses American Government students across the country who
are learning every day about our system of checks and balances and the
role of the courts in our country.
But this bill not only violates the principle of separation of
powers, it also grossly violates our equal protection and due process
rights. This bill singles out a group of people who simply want to live
in peace with the person they love and denies them access to the courts
in order to fight for equal rights. If we pass this bill, then I wonder
who is next--what group of people is next on the target list for being
singled out and denied rights?
It strikes me that this bill is yet another example of how the
Republican leadership in this country simply changes the rules when
things aren't going their way so that the outcome will shift in their
favor, regardless of the effects on our civil rights. We've seen votes
held open for hours and funding cut off for popular and critical
programs just so the Republican leadership can have their way. And,
[[Page 17250]]
in this case, the Republican leadership is willing to go so far as to
change the Constitutional rules and principles that we have lived by
for centuries--the guarantee that any group or individual who feels
their rights have been violated can go to court to seek redress--in
order to protect a law that we passed eight years ago. This is simply
unacceptable, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 3313.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3313, the so-
called ``Marriage Protection Act.''
I was really tempted to offer an amendment mandating that every
Member of Congress watch ``School House Rock'' before they are allowed
to cast another vote. If you have kids, you are probably familiar with
School House Rock. It is the old, ever-popular kids show that explains
how American government works. It imparts information on basic civics
in fun and easy to understand terms, for example, how there are three
branches of government that provide the check and balances that are the
bedrock of our country.
But then I decided that, although more of my colleagues than I ever
believed possible desperately need this sort of basic primer on
government, it didn't seem fair to waste Members' time, like our time
is being wasted today as we are forced to debate and vote on this
utterly absurd piece of legislation.
Our Founding Fathers established clear separation of powers between
the three branches of government. Rep. Hostettler and the Republican
leadership are trying to dictate to our formerly independent judiciary
what cases it can or cannot consider. This is a court-stripping measure
that could lead to Congress's removal of the courts' jurisdiction any
time a controversial measure might come before the federal bench.
The Hostettler bill would ban any federal court, including the
Supreme Court, from having jurisdiction over challenges to the Defense
of Marriage Act. This would mark a nearly unprecedented effort by one
independent branch of the federal government, the Congress, to limit
the jurisdiction of the judiciary branch.
This is the Republican leadership's last ditch effort to get a vote
on gay marriage in the House to effect the election this fall. We are
considering legislation to pre-empt an action that has not taken place.
The Defense of Marriage Act, which passed in 1996, is not being
challenged. This is a cop out, not a compromise. They know they don't
have the votes on the Federal Marriage Amendment so they are grasping
at straws.
In Federalist Paper 78, Alexander Hamilton defended the need for an
independent judiciary. As the only branch of the federal government not
swayed by campaigning, Hamilton asserted that it was the branch best
able to protect the Constitution from political meddling by the
Congress or the President. He also foresaw just the type of action
being attempted by Republicans in Congress today, warning ``. . . there
is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the
legislative and executive powers.
If this bill, by some miracle were actually to be signed into law,
and by an even bigger miracle, was not immediately overturned because
of its blatant unconstitutionality, it would be a horrible precedent in
preventing the most basic redress available to the American people.
Imagine bill after bill being passed in Congress, with the same
language tacked on at the end saying that once this law passes it can
never be challenged in the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
Today the issue is gay marriage, but tomorrow the issue could be
anything.
This bill is incredibly short-sighted and it goes against the very
principles that so many of its supporters purport to honor as public
servants. It really would be laughable if it weren't so scary.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this ridiculous, unconstitutional and frankly
un-American bill.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member voted for the Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA), P.L. 104-199, which defines marriage as ``a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife'' and a spouse
as ``a person of the opposite sex that is a husband or a wife.'' It
allows each state to determine if it will recognize the same sex
marriages sanctioned by other states. Also, it is this Member's view
that the legal approval of same-sex marriages is not in the public
interest--as contrasted with legislation authorizing civil unions
between two people of the same sex. In short, that means this Member
opposes same-sex marriages and believes that the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court's decision was both ill-advised and harmful.
However, I believe that attempting to strip the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Supreme Court to possibly consider this issue is a rather
extraordinary step that is an unfortunate and even dangerous precedent
for future attempts to justify stripping the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Supreme Court on other controversial societal issues. Therefore, this
Member voted ``no'' on H.R. 3313. The rights of the minority must be
protected from inappropriate use of power by a majority, and the
Supreme Court sometimes is the final protector of the minority;
stripping the court of jurisdiction gradually by legislative action
will disturb the necessary checks and balances established in the U.S.
Constitution.
This Member makes this statement fully acknowledging that judicial
activists in both the Federal Government and state governments
sometimes badly abuse their position as was the case with the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
3313, the Marriage Protection Act. This dangerous bill would severely
undermine our constitutional checks and balances and set a precedent
that undermines the independence of the federal judiciary.
Republicans in Congress and the Bush Administration know their
domestic and foreign policies are failing--so they are changing the
subject. The war in Iraq is a quagmire. Our schools under funded. Our
seniors are without the prescription drugs they need and millions of
Americans are without jobs.
Despite the many challenges facing our nation, the Republicans have
chosen to ignore the real needs of the American people. In the process,
they are hijacking our constitutional checks and balances and advancing
an extreme right-wing agenda.
For years, key decisions by the courts on the social issues of the
day, including school prayer, busing, abortion and the Ten
Commandments, have been followed by Republican court-stripping bills to
remove the court's authority to hear challenges to such important
cases. The Marriage Protection Act is just another example of a power
grab that extends Republican control from the White House to Congress
to the federal judiciary.
This attack on the Judicial Branch's authority to hear cases based on
Legislative and Executive actions is in fundamental contrast to the
spirit of our democracy and the U.S. Constitution. Appropriately, most
legal scholars have agreed that even if this bill was to become law, it
would be unconstitutional. The fact that this legislation has advanced
far enough to warrant a vote in the full U.S. House should raise alarm
to the extent the Republican Majority will go to advance their right
wing agenda.
This legislation should be defeated. The House must send a strong
message that we reaffirm our constitutional system of checks and
balances between the three branches of government, and we support the
basic, civil rights of all Americans--regardless of age, gender, race
or sexual orientation. We have a responsibility to protect the
Constitution, not render it unnecessary.
Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise against H.R. 3313, the Marriage
Protection Act, not because I seek to promote gay marriage but because
I believe this bill fails to pass constitutional muster.
Perhaps it is for this reason that Congress has never enacted
legislation to prohibit all federal courts, including the Supreme
Court, from hearing cases on constitutional matters. It is not within
the interest of this institution to begin this practice now. This path
can only lead us towards a slippery slope with no clear end in sight.
I understand there are strong feelings on the issue of gay marriage
on either side of the debate. I, for one, strongly believe in the
sanctity of marriage and that marriage is between one man and one
woman. But what this bill does is preclude even the ultimate arbiter of
the United States legal system, the Supreme Court, from reviewing a
constitutional matter. In fact, under this bill, even those who would
seek to overturn a state's gay marriage law would not be able to appeal
to the Supreme Court.
Certainly, Congress has stripped statutory questions, like tree
cutting, from federal courts. But none of these issues have fallen upon
constitutional grounds. Even the non-partisan Congressional Research
Service maintains that ``We are not aware of any precedent for a law
that would deny the inferior federal courts original jurisdiction or
the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction to review the
constitutionality of a law of Congress.''
However, I strongly believe in the concept of ``checks and
balances.'' Rest assured, should a federal court begin to exercise
judicial activism that hijacks the powers of the other two branches, it
is up to those branches of government to check the judicial branch and
bring it back into balance. But this isn't the case here. In fact, one
could question whether or not
[[Page 17251]]
Congress, with this bill, would encroach upon the powers of the Supreme
Court in having the final say.
As of today, our system of ``checks and balances'' is working. Until
this environment changes or breaks down, the most positive action
Congress can take is to let the system work.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 3313, legislation which would
prevent our courts from ruling on the constitutionality of the Defense
of Marriage Act.
I value our justice system and place great faith in the ability of
our courts to ensure the laws we pass are constitutional. The bottom
line is, taking the federal courts out of the process by specific
legislation is not an appropriate remedy for any issue.
I am sensitive to my colleagues and constituents who oppose gay
marriage. But we cannot deny Americans the constitutional rights to
which they are entitled and ignore two centuries of judicial precedent,
in order to address an issue that should be decided by the states.
I strongly oppose H.R. 3313 and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, in July of 1996, I stood on the House Floor
and spoke in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act. Eight years
later, here I am again, standing in opposition to another attempt to
divide this nation in an election year and ostracize some of our
citizens. Only this time, we're going even further. This time, we are
considering legislation that would, for the first time in our Nation's
history, seek to exclude a specific group of people from access to the
federal court system.
The fact that we are having this debate at this time is as shameful
as the debate itself. Our Nation faces many pressing and critical
problems: the size of the Federal deficit and its effect on our
international competitiveness; threats from rogue nations and
terrorists; and an intelligence system that is in desperate need of
repair, to name a few. Yet, rather than focusing our energy on
protecting our citizens, Congress is debating of a resolution that
would take away the rights of some Americans.
There are three really good reasons to vote against H.R. 3313. It's
unconstitutional, it discriminates against some Americans, and, for
those of you who supported DOMA, it will muddle the definition of
marriage and undermine the stated intent of DOMA.
Eight years ago, I warned that the Defense of Marriage Act was an
unconstitutional solution in search of a problem. With the measure we
are considering today, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have out-done themselves. H.R. 3313 is the mother of all
unconstitutional legislation.
The bill strips the U.S. Supreme Court's original jurisdiction over
cases where a state is a party in a DOMA dispute. Original jurisdiction
is conferred on the Supreme Court by the Constitution, not by Congress.
Second, this bill is overtly discriminatory. If it were enacted into
law, Congress would, for the first time in U.S. history, block a
specific group of Americans--same-sex couples and their children--from
having full access to the federal court system. It is unconscionable
that we would even consider legislation to deny ANY American the right
to seek justice through our federal court system.
Finally, we were told that the intent of DOMA was to preserve the
traditional definition of marriage. Now we are considering legislation
that would make each of the 50 state supreme courts the final authority
on the constitutionality of DOMA. This will create a patchwork of state
laws on the recognition of marriage, and muddle its definition. Those
who support this bill can no longer hide behind the states' rights or
the marriage preservation argument. This measure reveals the clear
intent of its drafters--to deny certain individuals equal treatment
under the law.
I urge my colleagues to stand up and reject this divisive, untimely,
and likely unconstitutional bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the so-
called Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313). This bill, contrary to its
title, has nothing to do with protecting the institution of marriage.
This bill is, in fact, an all-out assault on the U.S. Constitution and
our entire system of government. H.R. 3313 has monumentally perilous
implications for three basic principles of our democracy--equal
protection, due process, and the separation of power between the three
branches of government.
This bill discriminates against one class of people, homosexuals, by
saying they cannot challenge a law in federal court to determine
whether their fundamental rights have been violated. This bill would
enable any future majority in Congress to draft laws that would
discriminate against any class of people or minority group, and which
would then be insulated from a challenge in federal court.
As delineated in the Constitution, the separation of powers doctrine
represents the fundamental principle that our federal government
consists of three basic and distinct functions, each of which must be
exercised by a different branch of government, so as to avoid the
arbitrary or excessive exercise of power by any single ruling body.
Through this structure, the Framers of the Constitution sought to
create an effective, interdependent governmental system which would
limit the power vested in any one branch. H.R. 3313, if enacted, would
undermine our system of checks and balances, which was carefully
crafted by our Founding Fathers to ensure that none of the three arms
of government could encroach upon another, or impose its will
unilaterally upon the public.
One element of the checks and balances system is the principle of
judicial independence, which is so crucial to maintaining our unique
democratic system. The Supreme Court's role (under the 1803 case of
Marbury v. Madison) is as the final authority on the constitutionality
of federal laws. By passing H.R. 3313, Congress would arbitrarily usurp
the Supreme Court's power and rightful purpose by appointing itself as
both maker and arbiter of the law.
In 1937, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt sent to Congress a bill
to reorganize the federal judiciary, which was motivated by the
consistent opposition that his New Deal legislation had been
encountering in the lower federal courts and the Supreme Court. By
increasing the number of judges on the Supreme Court, President
Roosevelt hoped to change the balance of opinion of the court.
President Roosevelt's proposal met with fiery opposition in Congress--
even by those who supported his New Deal policies. Simply put, whether
the underlying intent of a legislative initiative is good or bad, if it
subverts the Constitution and destroys the independence of the
judiciary, it should be defeated.
Over the years, notable conservatives have spoken out against similar
court stripping proposals. For example, in 1985, Senator Barry
Goldwater stated, ``What particularly troubles me about [court
stripping proposals] is that I see no limit to the practice. There is
no clear or coherent standard to define why we shall control the Court
in one area but not another. The only criterion seems to be that
whenever a momentary majority can be brought together in disagreement
with a judicial action, it is fitting to control the federal courts.''
Goldwater also said ``those who seek absolute power . . . are simply
demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth,
and let me remind you they are the very ones who always create the most
hellish tyranny. Absolute power does corrupt and those who seek it must
be suspect and must be stopped.''
During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents
repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way
to tyranny by the central government, and they demanded a ``bill of
rights'' that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens.
The ten amendments to the Constitution, which were enumerated in 1789,
have since been expanded to include other democratic principles.
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment prohibits states
from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws. The question of whether the equal protection clause has been
violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals
the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same
right.
Another fundamental principle which is mentioned in the 5th and 14th
amendments, due process, requires that the procedures by which laws are
applied must be evenhanded, so that individuals are not subjected to
the arbitrary exercise of government power. In his 1961 dissenting
opinion in Poe v. Ullman, Justice Harlan stated, ``[t]he guaranties of
due process, though having their roots in Magna Carta's `per legem
terrae' and considered as procedural safeguards `against executive
usurpation and tyranny,' have in this country `become bulwarks also
against arbitrary legislation.'''
Indeed, this bill, if enacted, has implications that will haunt this
body and our entire nation for years to come. Our Founding Fathers, by
setting up our government with checks and balances, sought to protect
the future of our democracy from the tyranny of the majority. Thomas
Paine, in ``The Rights of Man'' said ``every age and generation must be
as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which
proceeded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave
is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. . . . That which
may be thought right and found convenient in one age may be
[[Page 17252]]
thought wrong and found inconvenient in another. In such cases, who is
to decide, the living or the dead?''
In earlier days, narrow-minded legislators have advocated court-
stripping to fight policies they opposed, such as desegregation, but
those efforts have always been defeated by sensible, rational
lawmakers. No other Congress has passed a law that totally eliminates
the federal courts' ability to review the constitutionality of a
federal law. I pray that this 108th Congress will not be the first.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill because it sets a
dangerous precedent and upsets the delicate balance of power that is
the heart of our Constitutional democracy. For more than 200 years,
America has flourished under the Constitution of 1789 because the
Framers successfully erected a system of checks and balances that
assigned to the courts the task of interpreting the laws. This bill
would upset that balance by intruding on that process and stripping
from the courts the powers set forth by our Founding Fathers.
The implications of this precedent are very serious and go well
beyond the boundaries of the current debate. If Congress passes H.R.
3313, what is to stop this Congress or a future Congress from stripping
the courts of the duty to hear cases involving gun ownership, the death
penalty, property rights, or any other controversial issue? Nothing.
And this dangerous precedent would only encourage Congress to undertake
such meddling. The notion that this Congress, which cannot even pass a
budget or the appropriation bills needed to keep the government
running, has better judgment on Constitutional matters than Thomas
Jefferson, James Madison and John Marshall, is ludicrous.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in outraged opposition to H.R. 3313,
the So-Called ``Marriage Protection Act.'' This blatantly
unconstitutional piece of legislation speaks volumes about the
uncontrollable homophobia of the Republican Party and its desperation
to change the subject from the quagmire in Iraq.
The Republicans' fear of the Federal courts is somewhat surprising.
The Supreme Court, after all, despite occasionally tempering the
Republicans' hatred of minorities, immigrants, the accused, and others
who have the gall to insist on their Constitutional rights, has been
pretty good to the Republican Party. It gave them the President they
wanted and has given them great leeway to run roughshod over the
environment and the disabled in the name of States' rights.
Most legal experts agree that this Court would likely uphold the
Defense of Marriage Act, and yet the Republicans would rather set a
new, frightening precedent of letting 50 different State courts be the
final arbiters of our laws. They prefer that State judges, rather than
Federal judges confirmed by the Senate, make Constitutional law.
Thankfully, the right wing wasn't in control of the Republican Party
back when desegregation and Miranda warnings were before the courts, as
there were court-stripping proposals on those subjects, too. They would
never think of passing a bill today barring African Americans from
seeking the protection of Federal courts, but sadly, gay and lesbian
Americans incur their wrath over everything from the breakdown of the
family to the continued inability of the Red Sox to win the World
Series. Their delusion would be funny if it weren't so reckless and
harmful.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is all about re-directing blame. Everyone here
realizes that if Congress could just pass whatever laws it wanted and
throw in a line to keep them from being held unconstitutional, our
Constitution and our Separation of Powers would be rendered
meaningless. So let's just admit what this is really about: changing
the subject from Iraq and attacking defenseless Americans.
Shame on any Member of this body who will trample on our Constitution
just to score a few political points. If the Oath we all took to
``support and defend the Constitution of the United States'' means
anything to you, you will ``No'' on this election-year ploy.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, it is a cliche to say that there
is no perfect legislation. But, to use another cliche, this bill seems
to be an exception that proves that rule--because it is not only
perfectly unnecessary but also a perfectly bad idea.
The bill seeks to prevent any Federal court--including the U.S.
Supreme Court--from deciding ``any question pertaining to the
interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution'' of the part
of the ``Defense of Marriage Act'' (DOMA) that says no State is
required to give legal recognition to a same-sex relationship that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of any other State. It also is
intended to prevent any Federal court review of the constitutionality
of this bill itself.
That would mean that the State courts alone would have the power and
responsibility for interpreting two Federal laws. I cannot support
that.
My opposition does not mean I think State court judges are not
qualified to decide such questions. I have very high regard for their
ability and for the vital role that the States and their courts play in
our Federal system.
But I have an even higher regard for the fact that each State is a
part of a greater whole--of the United States--which make up one
nation, based on the principles of ``liberty and justice for all,'' in
the words of the Pledge of Allegiance.
And this bill directly attacks that national unity, seeking to
replace it with a system in which each of the 50 State supreme courts
would be the final authority on important questions involving relations
between the States and between the Legislative and Judicial branches of
the Federal Government.
This is not only unnecessary--no court, State or Federal, has ruled
on DOMA--but both possibly unconstitutional and definitely dangerous.
I say possibly unconstitutional because the Judiciary Committee's
report and today's debate show there are strong disagreements about the
constitutionality of the bill, even among Members with much greater
legal expertise than I can claim.
But while its constitutionality seems doubtful at best, I have no
doubt about the bill's dangers and I am convinced that whether or not
it is constitutional, it should be rejected.
In reaching that conclusion, I find myself in agreement with our
former colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, Bob Barr.
In a letter of July 19th, Mr. Barr notes the potential for the
``chaotic result'' of ``50 different interpretations reached by State
supreme courts, with no possibility of the U.S. Supreme Court reversing
any incorrect interpretation'' of the Federal laws involved.
But he then goes on to say that the ``principal problem'' with the
bill is even worse: ``H.R. 3313 will needlessly set a dangerous
precedent for future Congresses that might want to protect
unconstitutional legislation from judicial review. . . . The
fundamental protections afforded by the Constitution would be rendered
meaningless if others follow the path set by H.R. 3313.''
I completely agree with than analysis. And Mr. Barr and I are not
alone in that view. In more or less the same terms, it is echoed by
many others, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Legal Momentum,
and the Human Rights Campaign.
Of course, this bill does have its supporters, and in fact may
attract a majority when we vote today. But if today there is a majority
for putting DOMA beyond Federal judicial review, tomorrow there may be
a different majority with a different idea of what legislation should
be given such status.
Will tomorrow's majority want to protect future gun-control laws from
the judges who struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act? Or will they
want to prohibit the Federal courts from ruling on such matters as
State immunity from certain lawsuits? Or might they seek to reverse Roe
v. Wade or some other Supreme Court decision by passing a new law and
prohibiting the courts from reviewing it?
None of us can know the answers to those questions, because nobody
knows what the future holds. But I am convinced that what we do today
could shape the future in ways that could undermine the checks of the
balances of the constitution and thus weaken the restraints on
legislative power that protect the liberties of all Americans.
And because I think it would be profoundly unwise to risk so much on
such a radical experiment, I will vote against this bill.
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, marriage goes to the
heart of our families and our society. My home State of South Carolina
is one of at least 42 States that have laws on the books defining
marriage as the union of a man and a woman. These laws were passed by
the State legislature; those elected to represent the views of their
constituents. My constituents contact me on a daily basis about this
one issue more than any other issue. They want me to ensure marriage
between a man and a woman is preserved.
Yet some in this country, elected by no one, believe they have the
right to supercede the wishes of my constituents and the constituents
of other members here today.
I respectfully disagree. I believe the only way to ensure court
action does not override State law is for the House and Senate to take
action. I thank Mr. Hostettler for bringing this legislation to the
floor of the people's house for debate, it is time we, as elected
officials, have an opportunity to give a voice to our constituents'
concerns.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to vote in favor of
H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act and protect the sanctity of
marriage.
[[Page 17253]]
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to H.R.
3313, the so-called ``Marriage Protection Act,'' a misnomer that would
make George Orwell smile. The fact is, just like the Federal Marriage
Amendment, this Court Stripping bill is unnecessary, unwise, and serves
as little more than a distraction from the many urgent matters facing
our Nation.
Like the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Court Stripping bill is not
needed. The Defense of Marriage Act remains the law of the land and its
Constitutionality has not been overturned in any United States court.
Furthermore, H.R. 3313 is a grave threat to the protection and
enforcement of civil rights laws, and will erase decades of social
progress all in the name of ``marriage protection.''
Historically, the judicial branch has often been the sole protector
of the rights of minority groups against the will of the popular
majority. Cases such as Brown v. Board of Education come to mind. The
Court Stripping bill would deny the courts the ability to hear
challenges to a legislation by a specific minority group, in this case
gays and lesbians, thus creating a slippery slope where any law could
be subject to ``courtstripping.''
This is a serious challenge to our fundamental system of checks and
balances. The Court Stripping bill is the first, and undoubtably NOT
the last, effort by the Republican Congress to hamstring an independent
Federal judiciary. This reckless bill would take away even the Supreme
Court's authority to decide on a Federal law.
Those who are advocating the Court Stripping bill today use the
argument of ``judicial activism'' in Massachusetts and other States as
a justification. Make no mistake about it, these same arguments were
also advanced by defenders of segregation in the South in response to
the Brown v. Board of Education decision and other decisions such as
Loving v. Virginia that invalidated State anti-miscegenation law.
There are so many issues that this Republican-controlled Congress has
failed to address. We don't have a budget. We haven't passed all of our
appropriations bills we are engaged in, with no end in sight, and our
economy has failed to generate the jobs necessary to keep the GDP
growing. Meanwhile, this Republican Congress is taking up a divisive,
discriminatory, and completely unnecessary legislation just to appeal
to their far right base and to drive a wedge into this upcoming
election. It is cynical and simply dead wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this
hateful, unconstitutional, and discriminatory legislation.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3313, the
Marriage Protection Act, introduced by my good friend and fellow
Hoosier Mr. Hostettler.
In recent years, judicial activism has continued to attack the
traditions that have defined this Nation--our pledge of allegiance
declared unconstitutional--and now it seems that marriage is its next
target.
In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act by a wide margin
in this Chamber and in the other body. I cosponsored the Defense of
Marrige Act. It was necessary to pass the Defense of Marrige Act to
preserve the States their ability to decide for themselves how marriage
is to be constituted within their respective borders. To remind this
body of the definition of federalism seems elementary, but I fear that
a lesson may be needed for those who do not support this legislation.
The Defense of Marrige Act provides that for Fedreal law, marrige
shall mean the union of one man and one woman. It further provides that
the States do not have to recognize alternative unions established in
other States. Since that time, 44 States of our Union have passed laws
that provide that marriage shall consist only of the union of one man
and one woman. My State of Indiana has done so.
Now, traditional marriage is under attack and the ability of States
to protect traditional marriage within their borders is threatened . .
. threatened by the judicial branch.
The Marriage Protection Act, H.R. 3313, is a further step to insure
that States maintain the ability to define marriage within their
borders and that States are not forced, against the will of their
citizens acting through their elected State legislatures, to accept the
contortions of marriage legalized in other States. H.R. 3313 would
prohibit the lower Federal courts and the Supreme Court from hearing
cases that arise under the Defense of Marrige Act.
Congress has clear Constitutional authority to establish the
jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts. In Article III, Congress is
given the authority to establish the lower courts and to define the
appellate jurisdiction under the regulation of Congress. This is part
of the checks and balances that our Founding Fathers wove into the
Constitution, to ensure that one branch does not exercise power beyond
its bounds.
It is unfortunate that circumstances have arisen that have created
the need for H.R. 3313. One State in the Nation has declared that
``marriage'' can be applied to relationships other than one man and one
woman; and our fear is that the Federal courts will take the action of
one State court and apply it to all 50 States. H.R. 3313 is insurance
that the action of this State in expanding the definition of marriage
does not have to be recognized in other States unless the people of
that State agree to do so.
I commend the gentleman from Indiana's 8th district for introducing
this legislation and I strongly urge its adoption.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to urge my
colleagues to vote against this bill. The Marriage Protection Act would
strip the jurisdiction of Federal courts to hear cases interpreting the
Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal Marriage Statute.
First, this bill is wrong because it will strip Federal courts,
including the Supreme Court, of their ability to hear and review
Constitutional cases, something that Congress has never done in our
history. The courts are an equal branch of our government. Any attempt
to weaken their authority undermines a 200-year precedent and severely
endangers the separation of powers that our government is based on. The
fact that this kind of action has never been undertaken in the history
of this great nation speaks to the absurdity of the bill.
Second, this bill is discriminatory. It singles out one group of
people and tells them their interests won't be heard by the highest
courts in the land This sends a chilling message, not only to the
citizens of this country, but to people all over the world that the
United States is moving backward, not forward on issues of civil
rights.
Mr. Speaker, no legal crisis exists. This bill is all about politics
. . . driving a wedge between people on the eve of party conventions
and a national election. It's not only cynical, it's a disservice to
the people we represent. What we do with this issue will be forever
remembered. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. by casting a no
vote, we say no to discrimination and state our unwillingness to upset
the balance of the equal branches of government.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3313, the so-
called Marriage Protection Act. I believe Congress should be focused on
supporting American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, helping
the eight million Americans who are looking for jobs, and passing a
budget laying out our priorities for fiscal year 2005. Instead, we are
debating a bill that fails to address the issues that are of the most
importance to our citizens and that is blatantly unconstitutional.
H.R. 3313 would strip the Federal courts, including the Supreme
Court, of jurisdiction over any cases dealing with the Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA). This would lead to a patch-work of different
decisions from various States which would prove to be unmanageable.
Furthermore, it would establish a ridiculous precedent. Whenever
Congress passes a law, it could merely insert comparable language
prohibiting Federal courts from ever reviewing that legislation to
ensure it complies with the United States Constitution. In effect, this
bill places the actions of Congress above the law. Clearly, this is not
what our Founders intended when they established the separation of
powers that has worked well for over 200 years.
This bill is unconstitutional in three ways: it violates the
principle of equal protection by depriving a group of people of their
right to their day in court; it is inconsistent with the due process
clause which demands an independent judicial forum capable of
determining Federal constitutional rights; and it violates the concept
of separation of powers, so crucial to our system of governance.
Grammar school students in my home state of Wisconsin could tell you
that the American system of government finds its strength from our
system of checks and balances, a concept that was bold and
revolutionary when the Constitution was written over 200 years ago and
is now embraced by countries around the world. It is this system that
keeps the presidency from becoming a dictatorship, the court from
becoming an oligarchy, and members of Congress from becoming despots.
If we strip the Federal courts of their seminal role in our process of
law, we will have rejected the work of James Madison and the other
Founding Fathers who wrote the document that is the oldest written
constitution in the world still in effect. Furthermore, it jeopardizes
all the rights guaranteed in our Constitution, especially the Bill of
Rights. It would also allow a future Congress, that may not like gun
ownership in our country, to prohibit gun ownership and then strip
Federal courts from the ability to review
[[Page 17254]]
the law to see if it complies with the Second Amendment.
I cannot vote for a bill that would blatantly reject the
Constitution, a document which I swore to uphold upon entering
Congress. Regardless of our views on particular issues, I believe that
each of us in the House of Representatives should respect the Federal
courts as an equal branch of government, and I urge my colleagues to
reject this bill.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the drastic
and shortsighted measure to strip courts of their authority to review
the Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. This is a very
clear and easy vote for me, but in no way does that make it
insignificant. To the contrary, this is the most important civil rights
vote of the year. Congress has not passed a federal court stripping
measure since 1868, though it has been attempted on nearly every hot
button issue in the past 50 years (prompted by Brown v. Board, Roe v.
Wade, Loving v. Virginia, and others), always with the premise of the
need to ``limit activist judges.''
Republicans are trying to undermine the legitimacy of these justices
because they are not elected. The founders deliberately created an
unelected body that would not have to make the political calculations
that the President and Members of Congress need to consider in our
controversial decisions. Justices are, by design, removed from the
political or electoral process to serve lifetime appointments where
they can make independent decisions. Naturally, these decisions often
come before the public is quite ready for them. Such was the case with
the prohibition of interracial marriage. In 1967, the Supreme Court
stated that such a prohibition would ``deprive . . . liberty without
due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as
one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of
happiness by free men.'' We now look back on the prohibition of
interracial marriage as abhorrent and appreciate the court's decision
in Loving v. Virginia in helping us reach this realization.
This bill is not about marriage, as the title claims. This bill is
about denying a day in court for an entire class of Americans. This is
a question of fairness, equality, and social justice. We cannot, in the
interest of fairness to all, exclude selected groups of Americans from
enjoying equal protection under the law. Furthermore, court stripping
is blatantly unconstitutional. It violates the separation of powers,
due process, and equal protection clauses in our Constitution.
If you think this is an easy vote because it will never pass
constitutional muster to become law, I remind you of the oath we all
took the day we were sworn into office. Every single one of us has
sworn to ``protect and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'' A vote in favor of this
bill is an attack on the very document that we have sworn to defend.
This body is not at liberty to pick and choose which of the laws we
pass should be subject to judicial review. The founders created three
equal branches of government, a true system of checks and balances that
has served us well for over 200 years. The power of one should not
outweigh the other or the system will be fundamentally undermined.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure to condone
discrimination, undermine the Constitution, and disrupt the democratic
process.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose
H.R. 3313, the so-called ``Marriage Protection Act.'' There is nothing
in this bill that will provide protection to us or to the institution
of marriage. On the contrary, this bill will create an extremely
dangerous precedent in our legislative system and could cause
inculculable harm.
When I was sworn in as a member of this House, I promised to uphold
the Constitution of the United States. Every member of this body made
the same promise. The Majority's push for passage of this bill sadly
signals a step back from that promise and further calls into question
the true motivations of the bill's supporters.
The unconstitutionality of this bill is quite clear. The 14th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, ``No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.''
By denying Americans who wish to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act
their day in federal court, H.R. 3313 blatantly violates this equal
protection clause. The bill singles out a specific group of Americans
and tells them that they cannot have their day in court, thereby
denying them due process.
Moreover, this bill violates the separation of powers. Our democracy
is reliant upon an independent judiciary, and judicial review is a
crucial part of our system of checks and balances. By adding a clause
to a bill stipulating that cases against it must not be heard by
federal courts as H.R. 3313 does, we are overreaching our powers to
legislate.
If this bill passes the House today, I ask the leaders in the
Majority: What's next? If we enact a bill into law saying that Defense
of Marriage Act cases cannot be heard in federal courts, where do we
stop? School prayer, gun control, abortion, obscenity--shall we say
that none of these issues may be heard in federal court? What issue or
group of people will be next?
Broad opposition to this bill from my constituents and colleagues
gives me hope that this bill may not make its way to the President's
desk. Those opposed include the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law, Human Rights Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union, the
Alliance for Justice, and even former Representative Bob Barr, the
original sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act. These groups represent
only a small portion of those firmly opposed to this bill.
The fact is, this debate is not about supporting or opposing gay
marriage. Rather, it is about the cost of passing a bill that would
result in the revocation of constitutional rights for certain
Americans. This bill is a drastic, misguided piece of legislation with
strictly political aims, and if this bill passes, it will be a tragic
day for democracy. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to vote against this bill, and to preserve the constitutional
rights of all Americans.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called
Marriage Protection Act, which has nothing to do with protecting
marriage.
This bill is nothing more than the latest Republican attempt to
divide Americans and distract us from issues that people care about. It
is about singling out one group of Americans for unequal justice under
law.
Constitutionally, this bill is a non-starter. The Constitution
established an independent judiciary to protect every citizen's rights
and to check the power of Congress and the executive. Courts exist to
protect the rights of all Americans, even those who are often
disenfranchised and marginalized.
Unable to amend the Constitution to their liking, the Republican
majority is now waging an unprecedented assault on the independence of
the judiciary and the separation of powers in our government. If
Congress strips the courts of jurisdiction over the Defense of Marriage
Act, there is no telling what other issues will be subject to court
stripping.
All of us in Congress took an oath to defend the Constitution. This
bill is an attack on our most basic constitutional principles--and just
as important, a mean-spirited attack on our country's values of
fairness, tolerance, and equality.
Earlier this week, the Speaker asserted that Congress doesn't have
time this year to implement the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission--urgent measures to protect our security. So why are we here
today using our time to divide people for political reasons? Let's
reject this cynical political ploy and move on to the real business of
the American people.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, in July of 1996, I stood on the House Floor
and spoke in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act. Eight years
later, here I am again, standing in opposition to another attempt to
divide this nation in an election year and ostracize some of our
citizens. Only this time, we're going even further. This time, we are
considering legislation that would, for the first time in our Nation's
history, seek to exclude a specific group of people from access to the
federal court system.
The fact that we are having this debate at this time is as shameful
as the debate itself. Our Nation faces many pressing and critical
problems: the size of the Federal deficit and its effect on our
international competitiveness; threats from rogue nations and
terrorists; and an intelligence system that is in desperate need of
repair, to name a few. Yet, rather than focusing our energy on
protecting our citizens, Congress is debating of a resolution that
would take away the rights of some Americans.
There are three really good reasons to vote against H.R. 3313. It's
unconstitutional, it discriminates against some Americans, and, for
those of you who supported DOMA, it will muddle the definition of
marriage and undermine the stated intent of DOMA.
Eight years ago, I warned that the Defense of Marriage Act was an
unconstitutional solution in search of a problem. With the measure we
are considering today, my colleagues on
[[Page 17255]]
the other side of the aisle have out-done themselves. H.R. 3313 is the
mother of all unconstitutional legislation.
The bill strips the U.S. Supreme Court's original jurisdiction over
cases where a state is a party in a DOMA dispute. Original jurisdiction
is conferred on the Supreme Court by the Constitution, not by Congress.
Second, this bill is overtly discriminatory. If it were enacted into
law, Congress would, for the first time in U.S. history, block a
specific group of Americans--same sex couples and their children--from
having full access to the federal court system. It is unconscionable
that we would even consider legislation to deny ANY American the right
to seek justice through our federal court system.
Finally, we were told that the intent of DOMA was to preserve the
traditional definition of marriage. Now we are considering legislation
that would make each of the 50 state supreme courts the final authority
on the constitutionality of DOMA. This will create a patchwork of state
laws on the recognition of marriage, and muddle its definition. Those
who support this bill can no longer hide behind the states' rights or
the marriage preservation arguments. This measure reveals the clear
intent of its drafters--to deny certain individuals equal treatment
under the law.
I urge my colleagues to stand up and reject this divisive, untimely,
and likely unconstitutional bill.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act. You know it's sad that we're
even having this debate. However we are being forced to. Marriage and
the American family are under attack by activist groups and they're
using wayward judges to chip away at this sacred institution. For the
sake of our country, Congress must respond.
This bill would prevent federal courts from forcing states like
Texas to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in another state.
Well in Texas, the people have spoken. We have a Defense of Marriage
Act on the books. The lone star state only recognizes marriage between
a man and a woman, regardless of what other states might do.
However, in light of recent events in Massachusetts and elsewhere,
it has become necessary to ensure that the will of the people of Texas
isn't circumvented by some unelected judge. And one of the remedies to
abuses by federal judges lies in Congress' authority to limit federal
court jurisdiction.
Congress shouldn't be afraid to properly exercise checks and
balances provided for in the Constitution. It is our responsibility to
prevent overreaching by the courts. We've got to reign in these zealous
judges who think they can legislate.
Back home we have a popular slogan, ``Don't mess with Texas.'' Well
I've got one for this debate, ``Don't mess with marriage!''
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
so-called ``Marriage Protection Act.''
How marriage is being protected by keeping committed gay and lesbian
couples from getting married does not make sense to me. Will it
strengthen heterosexual relationships? Reduce promiscuity and unwed
pregnancy? Instruct people on the importance of communication to a
successful relationship?
No, it would do none of these things.
What it would do is take away Americans right to Due Process and
represent a radical departure from our Constitutional and legal
tradition in an effort to single out a specific group of American
citizens for discrimination. This bill would strip our federal court
system of its independence, setting a dangerous precedent and
threatening the underpinnings of our free and democratic society.
The Marriage Protection Act precludes federal courts from reviewing
the constitutionality of the cross-state recognition section of ``the
Defense of Marriage Act.''
The result of this legislation would be that if DOMA is challenged,
the 50 State Supreme Courts would each issue a separate and final
ruling on the cross-state recognition section of DOMA. The Supreme
Court, whose job is to settle conflicting or contradictory state and
federal court rulings, would have its hands tied, thus thwarting their
ability to resolve the ensuing confusion. What a mess.
If we decide to wall off the federal courts ability to rule on this
issue, where will such actions stop? One can easily foresee a number of
other hot button social issues with which this country is clearly
divided being blocked in a similar fashion from consideration at the
federal level.
Furthermore, we already have sufficient legislation to allow
individual states the ability to retain and structure marriage laws the
way they see fit. While I opposed and continue to oppose the Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA) which passed the House back in 1996, this law is
still fully functional and in effect. Since then, it has not been
invalidated by any court anywhere in the country.
Mr. Speaker, I am troubled that we are wasting floor time to discuss
this issue today. At a time when there are many more pressing matters
needing to be discussed and deserving of debate, we are considering
``The Marriage Protection Act,'' a classic example of an election year
wedge issue designed for maximum political impact. I implore the House
to consider the full implications of this legislation and urge its
defeat.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of the
measure before us, H.R. 3313.
Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are lawyers by
training and they have given us an excellent analysis of the legal
problems with this bill.
They have pointed out that by denying the Supreme Court its role as
the final authority on the constitutionality of federal laws, the bill
unnecessarily and unconstitutionally usurps the Supreme Court's power.
Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer. I am a teacher by training and even
without the benefit of legal training, I can see the unfairness of this
court stripping bill.
What this bill is trying to do is change the rules of the game, only
in this case the rules we are talking about are fundamental principles
imbedded in our Constitution.
If I were to ask a class of elementary school kids whether they
thought it was fair to change the rules so that a federal law, passed
by Congress and signed by the President did not have to face the
scrutiny of our federal courts--they would all be scratching their
heads. They would ask me, ``what about the idea of checks and
balances?''
If I mentioned this scenario to some Junior High students they would
simply say, ``we see what you are doing, you're rigging the system.''
Teens can be a lot more cynical.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of protecting marriage, it's about
protecting the sanctity of separation of powers--and you don't have to
be a lawyer to see that.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I take very seriously my oath of office to
the U.S. House of Representatives.
In it, I swear to ``always protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States . . . so help me God.''
I will be doing just that when I vote against H.R. 3313. This bill,
which strips the courts of their right--and obligation--to hear
challenges to federal law, is a direct attack on our U.S. Constitution.
I have long been a supporter of the Defense of Marriage Act that
Congress passed in 1996.-I believe that marriage should be defined as a
union between a man and woman.
Despite my support for DOMA--we cannot as Members of Congress,
knowingly vote for legislation that undermines the clearly stated
separation of powers between the three branches of government as
outlined in the Constitution. This separation of power between the
legislative, executive and judicial branches serves as the foundation
of our democracy and our system of government.
If we fail today to ``support and defend'' the Constitution, what's
next? This legislation sets a terrible precedent!
Will Congress prevent the federal courts, including the Supreme
Court, from interpreting civil rights, worker or religious rights laws?
Will the courts next be blocked from reviewing actions of the executive
branch?
Do we really want to head in a direction where the Constitution and
courts reflect only on the political views of the political party that
controls the U.S. House, Senate and the Presidency?
I will not use my constituents' vote in the U.S. House of
Representatives to undermine our Constitution for blatant election-year
politics. And election-year politics is the only reason why this
misguided legislation is on the floor. It is truly shameful, as this
legislation undermines the integrity and the moral authority of this
legislative body to the American people.
Vote ``no'' on H.R. 3313.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3313, The Marriage
Protection Act. This bill prevents unelected, lifetime-appointed
federal judges from striking down the provision of the Defense of
Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly passed in the
House and the Senate and was signed into law by President Clinton in
1996.
H.R. 3313 simply provides that cases involving the section of Defense
of Marriage Act--that protects states' rights--must be brought in state
court. This brings valuable protection to the states and ensures that
one state does not have to recognize a same sex marriage granted by
another state.
It also keeps federal courts from forcing states to recognize same-
sex marriages that other states, such as Massachusetts, have legalized.
[[Page 17256]]
This bill is a good first step, but what is ultimately needed in
order to protect time-honored, traditional marriage is an Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to pass this
amendment last week. That vote was 48 to 50, with Senators John Kerry
and John Edwards failing to vote. It fell short of the number needed to
ensure passage so that the American people could consider a
Constitutional Amendment.
My constituents in Florida, and the majority of the American people,
do not agree with a hand full of activist judges and courts that are
redefining marriage in America. They do not agree with the demands of
four unelected members of Massachusetts State Supreme Court who have
overturned the laws of the State of Massachusetts and sanctioned same
sex marriages.
A family headed by a mother and a father has been a basic building
block of society for thousands of years, and it is imperative that its
integrity be successfully protected from those who wish to re-define
marriage by trying to equate other relationships to that of traditional
marriage between one man and one woman.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 3313.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage
Protection Act (H.R. 3313), I urge all my colleagues to support this
bill. H.R. 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state's
laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex
marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act
thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with
individual states and communities, which is what the drafters of the
Constitution intended.
The practice of judicial activism--legislating from the bench--is now
standard procedure for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine
of strict construction as outdated and, instead, treat the Constitution
as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case.
For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of
justice is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to
interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on
promoting a social agenda than on upholding the rule of law, Americans
find themselves increasingly governed by judges they did not elect and
cannot remove from office.
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June.
The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own
standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the
court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the
advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal
government the authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth
Amendment, the State of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning
social matters, using its own local standards, without federal
interference. But, rather than adhering to the Constitution and
declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to
stretch the ``right to privacy'' to justify imposing the justices'
vision on the people of Texas.
Since the Lawrence decision, many Americans have expressed their
concern that the Court may next ``discover'' that state laws defining
marriage violate the Court's wrongheaded interpretation of the
Constitution. After all, some judges may simply view this result as
taking the Lawrence decision to its logical conclusion.
One way federal courts may impose a redefinition of marriage on the
states is by interpreting the full faith and credit clause to require
all states, even those which do not grant legal standing to same-sex
marriages, to treat as valid a same-sex marriage licenses from the few
states which give legal status to such unions as valid. This would have
the practical effect of nullifying state laws defining marriage as
solely between a man and a woman, thus allowing a few states and a
handful of federal judges to create marriage policy for the entire
nation.
In 1996, Congress, exercised its authority under the full faith and
credit clause of Article IV of the United States Constitution by
passing the Defense of Marriage Act that ensured each state could set
its own policy regarding marriage and not be forced to adopt the
marriage policies of another state. Since the full faith and credit
clause grants Congress the clear authority to ``prescribe the effects''
that state documents such as marriage licenses have on other states,
the Defense of Marriage Act is unquestionably constitutional. However,
the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the
Constitution necessitates congressional action to ensure state
officials are not forced to recognize another state's same-sex marriage
licenses because of a flawed judicial interpretation of the full faith
and credit clause. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the
power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-
control federal judges. It is long past time we begin using our
legitimate authority to protect the states and the people from
``judicial tyranny.''
Since the Marriage Protection Act only requires a majority vote in
both houses of Congress and the President's signature to become law, it
is a more practical way to deal with this issue than the time-consuming
process of passing a constitutional amendment. In fact, since the
Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly passed both houses, and the
President supports protecting state marriage laws from judicial
tyranny, there is no reason why the Marriage Protection Act cannot
become law this year.
Some may argue that allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition
of marriage can result in a victory for individual liberty. This claim
is flawed. The best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized
political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is
concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the
power of the federal government over the states. Allowing federal
judges unfettered discretion to strike down state laws, or force a
state to conform to the laws of another state, in the name of liberty,
leads to centralization and loss of liberty.
While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states,
government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the
institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of
government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state
recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private
individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their
wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their
faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church, not the day they
received their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the
state. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or
congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an
act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to stop
rogue federal judges from using a flawed interpretation of the
Constitution to rewrite the laws and traditions governing marriage. I
urge my colleagues to stand against destructive judicial activism and
for marriage by voting for the Marriage Protection Act.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3313, the
Marriage Protection Act. As a cosponsor of this important legislation,
I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and the leadership for bringing it to
the House floor.
H.R. 3313 prohibits any federal court, including the Supreme Court,
from hearing challenges to a key provision of the Defense of Marriage
Act (DOMA), which will preserve the rights of states to not recognize
same-sex unions permitted in other states. I support this limitation of
federal court jurisdiction in this area.
I would like to point out, however, that H.R. 3313 does not address
the current situation in Nebraska.
In 2000, seventy percent (70 percent) of Nebraska voters approved a
state constitutional amendment defining marriage as ``one man, one
woman''--and barring civil unions or domestic partnerships. The ACLU is
currently challenging this amendment in federal district court. In a
preliminary ruling, the federal district judge (Judge Bataillon)
indicated sympathy with the ACLU's claim.
As I understand it, H.R. 3313 would not prevent federal courts from
striking down state provisions, such as the one approved by Nebraska
voters.
For that reason, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution may be
required to further protect state statutes and constitutional
amendments from challenge in the federal courts. While I will vote for
this legislation, it is becoming increasingly clear to me and many of
my colleagues that further action may be required by the Congress to
protect and defend traditional marriage in America.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice strong
objections to H.R. 3313, the so called Marriage Protection Act. This
Act prohibits federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United
States, from hearing cases on the constitutionality of provisions of
the Defense of Marriage Act, including those relating to same-sex
marriage licenses.
This bill is phony, and it is a sham. The title of the bill itself is
false advertising. While claiming to ``protect'' marriage, all the bill
does is strip federal courts of jurisdiction so that they cannot even
consider whether laws on same-sex marriages are consistent with our
United States Constitution. For over 200 years, our Constitution has
defined our nation and protected our rights. It is a document of
empowerment, not limitation. But the Republican leadership wants to put
a fence around it and padlock the gate, and they are doing it for
purely political purposes.
[[Page 17257]]
The United States Congress should not be in the business of stripping
federal courts of their ability to hear particular cases. Such actions,
if imposed in the 1960's, could have been used to prevent federal
courts from hearing voting rights cases. To limit the power of the
courts like this for purely partisan purposes sets a dangerous
precedent and is simply intolerable. It would undermine the
independence of the judicial branch and run contrary to the vision set
forth by our founding fathers in the Constitution.
Even for people who, like myself, believe that marriage is between a
man and a woman, this measure does nothing to strengthen or protect
those bonds. It seems to me that if a threat exists to marriage, it is
that too many of them fail. For every two marriages that occurred in
the 1990s, one ended in divorce. The stresses on marriages today are
great, but they don't have to do with the jurisdiction of the federal
courts. This bill does nothing to deal with problems like affordable
housing, quality education and training, daycare for young children,
high costs of gasoline, electricity and food, high unemployment rates
and underemployment, and the lack of health care coverage and other
benefits that place severe strains on many families.
Today, the very nature of the typical American family is changing.
Just as families headed by only one adult were rare only a few decades
ago but are common today, non-traditional couples are now a widespread
fact of American society. Nearly 200 Fortune-500 companies and numerous
municipalities and organizations have already recognized this fact on
their own and provide benefits to same sex couples. In addition,
several municipalities have adopted local ordinances prohibiting
discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing and employment.
It is simply unfair to deny law-abiding American citizens the
protections of civil law with respect to taxation, inheritance,
hospital visits and the like, and it is wrong to shackle the federal
courts by preventing them from even considering court cases pertaining
to these matters.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3313, which would
prevent federal courts from hearing cases related to provisions of the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that allow states to refuse to recognize
same-sex marriage licenses issued in other jurisdictions.
The Constitution--perhaps the greatest invention in history--has been
the source of our freedom in this great country for more than two
centuries. The framework of government it established has allowed our
diverse people to live together, to balance our various interests, and
to thrive. It has provided each citizen with broad, basic rights.
The judiciary was designed to be the one branch of the federal
government that is not influenced or guided by political forces. This
independent nature enables the judiciary to thoughtfully and
objectively review laws enacted by the legislative branch to ensure
that Federal law is in line with the Constitution. Throughout the
development of our nation, this check has been vital to protecting the
rights of minorities.
The legislation that we are considering today is a political measure
that will threaten this precious system of checks and balances.
Although the Constitution gives Congress the power to limit the
jurisdiction of the Federal judiciary and the appellate jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court, I am certain that the founding fathers did not
intend for Congress to use this power to change the jurisdiction of the
courts over a political issue. This legislation will set a dangerous
precedent that Congress can deny the judicial branch the right to
review specific pieces of legislation simply because Congress is
concerned that the judiciary will find the legislation
unconstitutional. This is a clear misuse of Congressional authority and
it is a misguided attempt to legislate on a controversial social issue.
In addition to undermining the authority of the judiciary, H.R. 3313
would deprive a minority population--gay men and women--of basic
freedoms. This bill would limit their right to due process by barring
individuals from challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. Congress
should not limit an individual's ability to seek redress in the court
system simply because some Members object to the sexual orientation of
others.
And if that is not bad enough, H.R. 3313 would set a pattern that
would cause unimaginable harm. Today its gay men and women, tomorrow
laws dealing with any other area would be exempted for judicial review.
Altering the framework of our government and restricting access to
the courts is not the appropriate way to resolve a divisive political
issue. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am here today with my
colleagues in support of H.R. 3315, the Marriage Protection Act. I
represent the people of the 3rd Congressional district of North
Carolina, a district that has asked me to support and protect the
sanctity of marriage between man and woman. Let me read just a small
part of a pastoral letter by Bishop Sheridan of Colorado as he explains
the history behind our tradition of marriage: ``Every civilization
known to mankind has understood marriage as the union of a man and a
woman . . . no one can simply redefine marriage to suit a political or
social agenda. Once again, we must be clear about this matter. The
future of our world depends upon the strength of the family, the basic
unit of our society. The future of the family depends on the state of
marriage.''
Mr. Hostettler's bill will give states their Constitutional right to
protect traditional marriage. No state should be forced to recognize a
same-sex marriage if that state's citizens do not believe in honoring
such a union. I stand with the majority of the people in the 3rd
district, the citizens of North Carolina and indeed the majority of all
Americans when I say that I strongly believe in protecting marriage as
an exclusive union between one man and one woman.
I believe the moral future of a our country is dependent upon the
Judeo-Christian values that make up the foundation of America, and if
America is to survive as a strong nation it must protect those values.
This bill is one way Congress can stands up for traditional American
values.
I close with a quote from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in his
dissent of the 5-4 case of Lawrence v. Texas: ``But persuading one's
fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of
democratic majority will is something else . . . Today's opinion
dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a
distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions,
insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I staunchly oppose H.R. 3313, the so-called
``Marriage Protection Act.'' This bill is an attack on our
Constitution, an insult to the fundamental freedoms of our society, and
a shameful election year stunt by the Republican party.
Sadly, although its hard to imagine, this bill is even worse than the
proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. While I also oppose that
legislation, and any effort to write discrimination based on sexual
orientation into our laws, this measure presents an even deeper
constitutional crisis. What this bill attempts to do is strip the
federal court system and the Supreme Court of the ability to decide the
constitutionality of a law. Regardless of the issue in question, this
bill is a flagrant attack on the basic separation of powers enumerated
in the constitution and the inherent right of each branch of government
to have full power over its sphere of jurisdiction.
Equally troubling is the purpose of the bill--to single out one
minority group and argue that they do not have the right to be heard in
court on an issue important to them. The idea that the gay and lesbian
community somehow doesn't deserve equal protection under the law is an
affront to the Bill of Rights and its guarantee that all Americans have
a right to due process.
It is no secret that the Bush Administration will stop at nothing to
appeal to its conservative base by discriminating against same-sex
couples. But it is an embarrassment to our democracy that the
Republican party would promote these initiatives as a ploy to distract
from the Administration's far-reaching policy failures. One recent e-
mail newsletter sent on June 7, 2004 by veteran right-wing conservative
Paul Weyrich openly suggested:
``The president has bet the farm on Iraq . . . Given what the
continued killing has done to the president's standing in the polls
this far, it is a lead-pipe cinch that as we lead up to the first days
of November 2004, violence is going to be horrific. . . The only one
alternative to this situation: change the subject. . . Ninety-nine
percent of the president's base will unite behind him if he pushed the
[Federal Marriage] Amendment.''
I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act when it was considered in the
House in 1994. Ten years later, I continue to believe that these
initiatives against gay marriage do nothing to preserve the institution
of marriage, but serve only to fan the flames of intolerance and
prejudice. I urge my colleagues to reject this woefully misguided bill
and its crude objectives.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives is acting
well within its Constitutional authority in considering H.R. 3313.
Currently, many state courts including
[[Page 17258]]
those in Massachusetts have begun the process of defining marriage
through judicial decree. Because of the Constitution's Full Faith and
Credit Clause, this judicial activism may be forced upon all the
remaining states, including Utah, undermining the traditional
definition of marriage and family.
These and other state and federal courts imperial judges are acting
in an extra-constitutional fashion and assuming the powers of
legislatures.
In Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled
on a 4-3 vote in Goodridge v. Massachusetts Dep't of Health, 798 N.E.
2d 941 (Mass. 2003) that the state's refusal to issue marriage licenses
to same-sex couples violated the state constitution. The court found
that the traditional definition of marriage, the same definition used
throughout history, was evidence of ``invidious'' discrimination. In a
follow-up opinion, these same judges stated the current definition of
marriage in Massachusetts was a ``stain'' on the state constitution and
needed to be ``eradicated''.
On May 17th of this year, the Goodridge decision went into effect and
the state of Massachusetts began issuing same-sex marriage licenses.
This new and expanded definition of marriage opens many more questions
than it answers. What happens if these individuals move to other states
after they are married? What benefits and rights must the new
jurisdiction accommodate and what other obligations will be thrust on a
jurisdiction that does not recognize such unions?
These are difficult and divisive questions, and this is why
representatives elected by the people and not the courts should decide
them. Those opposed to an open and deliberative debate and public votes
by elected legislators have preferred judicial activism instead.
The Defense of Marriage Act, which passed both Houses of Congress and
was signed into law by President Clinton, is central to our debate.
DOMA was passed to prevent one state from imposing its family law
policy on another state. Historically, family law has always been left
to the states. However, scholars on both sides of the ideological aisle
have stated their Constitutional concerns with the language of DOMA. If
DOMA challenges are successful, then one case in one court could
conceivably set social policy for the nation.
When the judicial branch loses its moral compass, it is the
responsibility of the Congress to exert its authority to keep the
judicial branch in check. In this particular circumstance, the Congress
has two options. The first is a Constitutional Amendment. The second is
assertion of its authority in the Constitution under Article III,
Section 2 clause 2 and ``regulate'' the jurisdiction of the federal
courts and make ``exceptions'' to their jurisdiction.
I have reservations about amending the U.S. Constitution. But that
may be our last resort. As President Bush stated, ``If judges insist on
forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left
to the people would be the constitutional process.'' I agree with
President Bush.
We are debating H.R. 3313, which limits the role of federal courts.
This legislation states, ``No court created by an act of Congress shall
have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate
jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the
interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section
1738C.'' The referenced section relates to the DOMA language allowing
states to opt to not recognize the same-sex marriages of another state.
HR 3313 is simply Congress reaffirming its intent under DOMA and
disallowing judicial review.
Some argue that Congress should not limit the jurisdiction of the
federal courts. I would like to remind them of the provision Senator
Daschle inserted into a Defense Appropriations bill in the 107th
Congress that exempted all forest management projects in the Black
Hills National Forest from any further NEPA requirements, from
administrative appeals, from Endangered Species Act Section 7
consultation procedures, from review by any court, and from court
ordered injunctions. I agreed with Senator Daschle and supported this
legislation not only because it set a precedent for good forest policy,
but also because it is a precedent for Congress's authority to limit
the jurisdiction of the courts.
Chief Justice Marshall inferred in Marbury v. Madison that if the
Supreme Court identifies a conflict between a constitutional provision
and a congressional statute, the Court has the authority to declare the
state unconstitutional. It is clear that Congress has the duty and
responsibility to make sure that no act promulgated by it exceeds the
Constitution.
In this particular case, the Congress is exerting its explicit
authority to limit the jurisdiction of the Courts. This cannot be held
unconstitutional by the federal courts or the Supreme Court because
they cannot hear it. They have no jurisdiction because Congress
withholds jurisdiction. It is the natural check on the courts' power
that the founding fathers built into our system of checks and balances.
I say with all sincerity to those opposed to this legislation, the
spirit of the law is explicit. State family law is for the states to
decide. The Supreme Court in a 2004 decision, Elk Grove Unified School
District v. Newdow, 124 S. Ct. 2301, 2309 (2004) (citing and quoting In
re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890)), reaffirmed this presumption by
stating, ``the whole subject of domestic relations . . . belongs to the
laws of the State and not to the laws of the United States.'' If the
opponents of this legislation deny this reaffirmation of the law, a
Constitutional Amendment to protect the definition of marriage is the
only alternative.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House
consideration of H.R. 3313. My opposition to the bill is based on my
belief that when I took my congressional oath to uphold and protect the
United States Constitution and the people of America, I pledged to
represent and protect all three branches of government.
H.R. 3313 purports to prohibit the Supreme Court from serving as the
ultimate and final arbiter on legal matters. The legislation is wrongly
inspired because it reflects the arrogance of its crafters who are
engaged in exercising excessive legislative authority. H.R. 3313 seeks
to establish legal precedent that will allow radical ideologues to
preclude the ability of the Supreme Court to hear cases and render
decisions, in an effort to limit the Court's judicial authority. The
consideration of this measure is the initial volley of a frontal
assault on the Constitution.
In my consideration of the bill I have continued to be mindful that I
subscribe to a personal belief that marriage is a sacred relationship
which is directly related to my strong belief in, and support of
children. I also believe that children must be protected and supported
so that they can thrive and replenish the earth. I worry about the
welfare of our children if the Court's authority is eviscerated. If
H.R. 3313 is passed, I am afraid that the Supreme Court will be
stripped of its judicial authority, and ultimately its ability to
fulfill its mandate to render justice.
It is against this backdrop that I oppose H.R. 3313. The legislation
is designed to derail the judicial process and the proponents of the
bill are trying to justify their efforts by contending that they are
trying to stop judicial activism. So I rise in strong opposition to
this bill and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the political
aisle to defeat this measure.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
H.R. 3313. This unwise legislation would circumvent the checks and
balances guaranteed in our Constitution by irreparably altering the
role of the judicial branch of government. ``The Washington Post''
stated in their July 21 editorial: ``This is as wrong as wrong can
be.''
In addition to altering the very foundation of our system of
government, H.R. 3313 attempts to abridge the rights of gays and
lesbians. Federal courts have played an indispensable role in the
enforcement of civil rights laws, often being the sole protector of
minority groups, ensuring they are afforded the freedoms guaranteed to
all Americans. Enacting this bill would weaken the rights of
individuals seeking protection from government through the Federal
courts.
This bill would take away the right to judicial review established
in the landmark Marbury v. Madison case of 1803. The 200 year old legal
precedent set in that case established once and for all that the
Federal courts have authority over Federal laws.
The framers of the Constitution intended the balance of power
between the branches to protect the minority from the tyranny of the
majority. This legislation is not just about same sex marriage, it's
about who we are as a country. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
obstructionist legislation. As members of Congress it is our
responsibility to protect the Constitution that has served us well for
more than 200 years and is a model to the world of a government for and
by the people.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 734, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
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. The question is on the passage of the bill.
[[Page 17259]]
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on passage of
H.R. 3313 will be followed by 5-minute votes on suspending the rules
and passing H.R. 4056; and suspending the rules and adopting H. Res.
652.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233,
nays 194, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 410]
YEAS--233
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--194
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bass
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kolbe
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--8
Carson (IN)
Collins
Greenwood
Kirk
Kucinich
Lowey
Paul
Quinn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor) (during the vote). Members are
reminded that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1553
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. SANDLIN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
COMMERCIAL AVIATION MANPADS DEFENSE ACT OF 2004
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question of
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 4056, as amended.
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. Mica) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 4056, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are
ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 423,
nays 0, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 411]
YEAS--423
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
[[Page 17260]]
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Carson (IN)
Collins
Gephardt
Greenwood
Istook
Kirk
Kucinich
Lowey
Paul
Portman
Quinn
{time} 1603
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
URGING GOVERNMENT OF BELARUS TO ENSURE DEMOCRATIC, TRANSPARENT, AND
FAIR ELECTION PROCESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The unfinished business is the
question of suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H.
Res. 652.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution, H. Res. 652, on which the yeas and nays are
ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 421,
nays 0, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 412]
YEAS--421
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Collins
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Gephardt
Greenwood
[[Page 17261]]
Kirk
Kucinich
Lowey
Paul
Portman
Quinn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest) (during the vote). Members
are advised that there are 2 minutes left in this vote.
{time} 1610
So (two thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for debate on rollcall
vote 407, rule providing for consideration of U.S.-Morocco Free Trade
(H. Res. 738); rollcall vote 408, to increase disability compensation
for veterans (H.R. 4175); rollcall vote 409, expressing that
Presidential elections should not be postponed due to terrorist attacks
(H. Res. 728); rollcall vote 410, final passage of Marriage Protection
Act (H.R. 3313), rollcall vote 411, Commercial Aviation MANPADS Defense
Act (H.R. 4056); and rollcall vote 412, expressing the sense of
Congress for fair elections in Belarus (H. Res. 652).
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' for rollcall votes
407, 408, 409, 410, 411, and 412.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, during an absence on July 22, 2004, I
regrettably missed rollcall votes 407-412 and other votes. Had I been
present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall No. 407:
``yea''; rollcall No. 408: ``yea''; rollcall No. 409: ``yea''; rollcall
No. 410: ``no''; rollcall No. 411: ``yea''; rollcall No. 412: ``yea''.
H.R. 4842--United States-Morocco Free Trade Implementation Act:
``yea''; H.R. 4837--Military Construction Appropriations Act for FY05:
``yea''; Conference Report on H.R. 4613--DOD Appropriations Act for
FY05: ``yea''; H. Con. Res. 436--Celebrating 10 years of majority rule
in S. Africa: ``yea''; H. Con. Res. 418--Diplomatic relations between
the U.S. and Japan: ``yea''; H. Con. Res. 468--Condemning the attack on
the AMIA Center: ``yea''; H. Con. Res. 467--Declaring genocide in
Darfur, Sudan: ``yea''; Stenholm Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1308:
``yea''.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, today, I was absent attending to a
previously scheduled commitment and missed the votes on rollcall No.
411, on H.R. 4056, the Commercial Aviation MANPADS Defense Act;
rollcall No. 412, on H. Res. 652, urging the Government of the Republic
of Belarus to ensure a democratic, transparent, and fair election
process for its parliamentary elections in the Fall of 2004.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 411,
``yea'' on rollcall No. 412.
____________________
PRIVILEGED REPORT ON RESOLUTION DIRECTING SECRETARY OF STATE TO
TRANSMIT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO TREATMENT OF PRISONERS AND DETAINEES IN
IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN AND GUANTANAMO BAY
Ms. HARRIS, from the Committee on International Relations, submitted
a privileged report (Rept. No. 108-631) on the resolution (H. Res. 699)
directing the Secretary of State to transmit to the House of
Representatives documents in the possession of the Secretary of State
relating to the treatment of prisoners and detainees in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, which was referred to the House
Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
PRIVILEGED REPORT ON RESOLUTION REQUESTING PRESIDENT TO TRANSMIT
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OR DETAINEES IN IRAQ,
AFGHANISTAN OR GUANTANAMO BAY
Mr. HUNTER, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted a
privileged report (Rept. No. 108-632) on the resolution (H. Res. 689)
of inquiry requesting the President and directing certain other Federal
officials to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14
days after the date of the adoption of this resolution documents in the
possession of the President and those officials relating to the
treatment of prisoners or detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Guantanamo
Bay, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed.
____________________
PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE TO HAVE UNTIL 5 P.M., AUGUST 27,
2004, TO FILE REPORT ON H.R. 3551, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2004
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Science may have until August 27, 2004, at 5 p.m. to file the
following report: H.R. 3551, Surface Transportation Research and
Development Act of 2004.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
____________________
UNITED STATES-MOROCCO FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 738, I call up
the bill (H.R. 4842) to implement the United States-Morocco Free Trade
Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of H.R. 4842 is as follows:
H.R. 4842
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``United
States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I--APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, THE AGREEMENT
Sec. 101. Approval and entry into force of the Agreement.
Sec. 102. Relationship of the Agreement to United States and State law.
Sec. 103. Implementing actions in anticipation of entry into force and
initial regulations.
Sec. 104. Consultation and layover provisions for, and effective date
of, proclaimed actions.
Sec. 105. Administration of dispute settlement proceedings.
Sec. 106. Arbitration of claims.
Sec. 107. Effective dates; effect of termination.
TITLE II--CUSTOMS PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Tariff modifications.
Sec. 202. Additional duties on certain agricultural goods.
Sec. 203. Rules of origin.
Sec. 204. Enforcement relating to trade in textile and apparel goods.
Sec. 205. Regulations.
TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS
Sec. 301. Definitions.
Subtitle A--Relief From Imports Benefiting From the Agreement
Sec. 311. Commencing of action for relief.
Sec. 312. Commission action on petition.
Sec. 313. Provision of relief.
Sec. 314. Termination of relief authority.
Sec. 315. Compensation authority.
Sec. 316. Confidential business information.
Subtitle B--Textile and Apparel Safeguard Measures
Sec. 321. Commencement of action for relief.
Sec. 322. Determination and provision of relief.
Sec. 323. Period of relief.
Sec. 324. Articles exempt from relief.
Sec. 325. Rate after termination of import relief.
Sec. 326. Termination of relief authority.
Sec. 327. Compensation authority.
Sec. 328. Business confidential information.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to approve and implement the Free Trade Agreement
between the United States and Morocco entered into under the
authority of section 2103(b) of the Bipartisan Trade
Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3803(b));
(2) to strengthen and develop economic relations between
the United States and Morocco for their mutual benefit;
(3) to establish free trade between the 2 nations through
the reduction and elimination of barriers to trade in goods
and services and to investment; and
(4) to lay the foundation for further cooperation to expand
and enhance the benefits of such Agreement.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
[[Page 17262]]
(1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the United
States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement approved by Congress
under section 101(a)(1).
(2) HTS.--The term ``HTS'' means the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States.
(3) Textile or apparel good.--The term ``textile or apparel
good'' means a good listed in the Annex to the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)).
TITLE I--APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, THE AGREEMENT
SEC. 101. APPROVAL AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE AGREEMENT.
(a) Approval of Agreement and Statement of Administrative
Action.--Pursuant to section 2105 of the Bipartisan Trade
Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3805) and section
151 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2191), Congress
approves--
(1) the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement entered
into on June 15, 2004, with Morocco and submitted to Congress
on July 15, 2004; and
(2) the statement of administrative action proposed to
implement the Agreement that was submitted to Congress on
July 15, 2004.
(b) Conditions for Entry Into Force of the Agreement.--At
such time as the President determines that Morocco has taken
measures necessary to bring it into compliance with those
provisions of the Agreement that are to take effect on the
date on which the Agreement enters into force, the President
is authorized to exchange notes with the Government of
Morocco providing for the entry into force, on or after
January 1, 2005, of the Agreement with respect to the United
States.
SEC. 102. RELATIONSHIP OF THE AGREEMENT TO UNITED STATES AND
STATE LAW.
(a) Relationship of Agreement to United States Law.--
(1) United states law to prevail in conflict.--No provision
of the Agreement, nor the application of any such provision
to any person or circumstance, which is inconsistent with any
law of the United States shall have effect.
(2) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(A) to amend or modify any law of the United States, or
(B) to limit any authority conferred under any law of the
United States,
unless specifically provided for in this Act.
(b) Relationship of Agreement to State Law.--
(1) Legal challenge.--No State law, or the application
thereof, may be declared invalid as to any person or
circumstance on the ground that the provision or application
is inconsistent with the Agreement, except in an action
brought by the United States for the purpose of declaring
such law or application invalid.
(2) Definition of state law.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``State law'' includes--
(A) any law of a political subdivision of a State; and
(B) any State law regulating or taxing the business of
insurance.
(c) Effect of Agreement With Respect to Private Remedies.--
No person other than the United States--
(1) shall have any cause of action or defense under the
Agreement or by virtue of congressional approval thereof; or
(2) may challenge, in any action brought under any
provision of law, any action or inaction by any department,
agency, or other instrumentality of the United States, any
State, or any political subdivision of a State, on the ground
that such action or inaction is inconsistent with the
Agreement.
SEC. 103. IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS IN ANTICIPATION OF ENTRY INTO
FORCE AND INITIAL REGULATIONS.
(a) Implementing Actions.--
(1) Proclamation authority.--After the date of the
enactment of this Act--
(A) the President may proclaim such actions, and
(B) other appropriate officers of the United States
Government may issue such regulations,
as may be necessary to ensure that any provision of this Act,
or amendment made by this Act, that takes effect on the date
the Agreement enters into force is appropriately implemented
on such date, but no such proclamation or regulation may have
an effective date earlier than the date the Agreement enters
into force.
(2) Effective date of certain proclaimed actions.--Any
action proclaimed by the President under the authority of
this Act that is not subject to the consultation and layover
provisions under section 104 may not take effect before the
15th day after the date on which the text of the proclamation
is published in the Federal Register.
(3) Waiver of 15-day restriction.--The 15-day restriction
in paragraph (2) on the taking effect of proclaimed actions
is waived to the extent that the application of such
restriction would prevent the taking effect on the date the
Agreement enters into force of any action proclaimed under
this section.
(b) Initial Regulations.--Initial regulations necessary or
appropriate to carry out the actions required by or
authorized under this Act or proposed in the statement of
administrative action submitted under section 101(a)(2) to
implement the Agreement shall, to the maximum extent
feasible, be issued within 1 year after the date on which the
Agreement enters into force. In the case of any implementing
action that takes effect on a date after the date on which
the Agreement enters into force, initial regulations to carry
out that action shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be
issued within 1 year after such effective date.
SEC. 104. CONSULTATION AND LAYOVER PROVISIONS FOR, AND
EFFECTIVE DATE OF, PROCLAIMED ACTIONS.
If a provision of this Act provides that the implementation
of an action by the President by proclamation is subject to
the consultation and layover requirements of this section,
such action may be proclaimed only if--
(1) the President has obtained advice regarding the
proposed action from--
(A) the appropriate advisory committees established under
section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155); and
(B) the United States International Trade Commission;
(2) the President has submitted to the Committee on Finance
of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the
House of Representatives a report that sets forth--
(A) the action proposed to be proclaimed and the reasons
therefor; and
(B) the advice obtained under paragraph (1);
(3) a period of 60 calendar days, beginning on the first
day on which the requirements set forth in paragraphs (1) and
(2) have been met has expired; and
(4) the President has consulted with such Committees
regarding the proposed action during the period referred to
in paragraph (3).
SEC. 105. ADMINISTRATION OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS.
(a) Establishment or Designation of Office.--The President
is authorized to establish or designate within the Department
of Commerce an office that shall be responsible for providing
administrative assistance to panels established under chapter
20 of the Agreement. The office may not be considered to be
an agency for purposes of section 552 of title 5, United
States Code.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for each fiscal year after fiscal year
2004 to the Department of Commerce such sums as may be
necessary for the establishment and operations of the office
under subsection (a) and for the payment of the United States
share of the expenses of panels established under chapter 20
of the Agreement.
SEC. 106. ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS.
The United States is authorized to resolve any claim
against the United States covered by article 10.15.1(a)(i)(C)
or article 10.15.1(b)(i)(C) of the Agreement, pursuant to the
Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedures set forth in
section B of chapter 10 of the Agreement.
SEC. 107. EFFECTIVE DATES; EFFECT OF TERMINATION.
(a) Effective Dates.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this
Act take effect on the date the Agreement enters into force.
(b) Exceptions.--Sections 1 through 3 and this title take
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Termination of the Agreement.--On the date on which the
Agreement terminates, the provisions of this Act (other than
this subsection) and the amendments made by this Act shall
cease to be effective.
TITLE II--CUSTOMS PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. TARIFF MODIFICATIONS.
(a) Tariff Modifications Provided for in the Agreement.--
(1) Proclamation authority.--The President may proclaim--
(A) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
(B) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
(C) such additional duties,
as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to
carry out or apply articles 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 4.1, 4.3.9,
4.3.10, 4.3.11, 4.3.13, 4.3.14, and 4.3.15, and Annex IV of
the Agreement.
(2) Effect on moroccan gsp status.--Notwithstanding section
502(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2462(a)(1)),
the President shall terminate the designation of Morocco as a
beneficiary developing country for purposes of title V of the
Trade Act of 1974 on the date of entry into force of the
Agreement.
(b) Other Tariff Modifications.--Subject to the
consultation and layover provisions of section 104, the
President may proclaim--
(1) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
(2) such modifications as the United States may agree to
with Morocco regarding the staging of any duty treatment set
forth in Annex IV of the Agreement,
(3) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
(4) such additional duties,
as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to
maintain the general level of reciprocal and mutually
advantageous
[[Page 17263]]
concessions with respect to Morocco provided for by the
Agreement.
(c) Conversion to Ad Valorem Rates.--For purposes of
subsections (a) and (b), with respect to any good for which
the base rate in the Tariff Schedule of the United States to
Annex IV of the Agreement is a specific or compound rate of
duty, the President may substitute for the base rate an ad
valorem rate that the President determines to be equivalent
to the base rate.
SEC. 202. ADDITIONAL DUTIES ON CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL GOODS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Agricultural safeguard good.--The term ``agricultural
safeguard good'' means a good--
(A) that qualifies as an originating good under section
203;
(B) that is included in the U.S. Agricultural Safeguard
List set forth in Annex 3-A of the Agreement; and
(C) for which a claim for preferential treatment under the
Agreement has been made.
(2) Applicable ntr (mfn) rate of duty.--The term
``applicable NTR (MFN) rate of duty'' means, with respect to
an agricultural safeguard good, a rate of duty that is the
lesser of--
(A) the column 1 general rate of duty that would have been
imposed under the HTS on the same agricultural safeguard good
entered, without a claim for preferential tariff treatment,
on the date on which the additional duty is imposed under
subsection (b); or
(B) the column 1 general rate of duty that would have been
imposed under the HTS on the same agricultural safeguard good
entered, without a claim for preferential tariff treatment,
on December 31, 2004.
(3) F.O.B.--The term ``F.O.B.'' means free on board,
regardless of the mode of transportation, at the point of
direct shipment by the seller to the buyer.
(4) Schedule rate of duty.--The term ``schedule rate of
duty'' means, with respect to an agricultural safeguard good,
the rate of duty for that good set out in the Tariff Schedule
of the United States to Annex IV of the Agreement.
(5) Trigger price.--The ``trigger price'' for a good means
the trigger price indicated for that good in the U.S.
Agricultural Safeguard List set forth in Annex 3-A of the
Agreement or any amendment thereto.
(6) Unit import price.--The ``unit import price'' of a good
means the price of the good determined on the basis of the
F.O.B. import price of the good, expressed in either dollars
per kilogram or dollars per liter, whichever unit of measure
is indicated for the good in the U.S. Agricultural Safeguard
List set forth in Annex 3-A of the Agreement.
(b) Additional Duties on Agricultural Safeguard Goods.--
(1) Additional duties.--In addition to any duty proclaimed
under subsection (a) or (b) of section 201, and subject to
paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) of this subsection, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall assess a duty on an
agricultural safeguard good, in the amount determined under
paragraph (2), if the Secretary determines that the unit
import price of the good when it enters the United States is
less than the trigger price for that good.
(2) Calculation of additional duty.--The additional duty
assessed under this subsection on an agricultural safeguard
good shall be an amount determined in accordance with the
following table:
If the excess of the trigger price over The additional duty is an
the unit import price is:. amount equal to:
Not more than 10 percent of the trigger 0.
price.
More than 10 percent but not more than 40 30 percent of the excess of
percent of the trigger price. the applicable NTR (MFN)
rate of duty over the
schedule rate of duty.
More than 40 percent but not more than 60 50 percent of such excess.
percent of the trigger price.
More than 60 percent but not more than 75 70 percent of such excess.
percent of the trigger price.
More than 75 percent of the trigger price. 100 percent of such excess.
(3) Exceptions.--No additional duty shall be assessed on a
good under this subsection if, at the time of entry, the good
is subject to import relief under--
(A) subtitle A of title III of this Act; or
(B) chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).
(4) Termination.--The assessment of an additional duty on a
good under this subsection shall cease to apply to that good
on the date on which duty-free treatment must be provided to
that good under the Tariff Schedule of the United States to
Annex IV of the Agreement.
(5) Tariff-rate quotas.--If an agricultural safeguard good
is subject to a tariff-rate quota under the Agreement, any
additional duty assessed under this subsection shall be
applied only to over-quota imports of the good.
(6) Notice.--Not later than 60 days after the date on which
the Secretary of the Treasury assesses an additional duty on
a good under this subsection, the Secretary shall notify the
Government of Morocco in writing of such action and shall
provide to the Government of Morocco data supporting the
assessment of additional duties.
SEC. 203. RULES OF ORIGIN.
(a) Application and Interpretation.--In this section:
(1) Tariff classification.--The basis for any tariff
classification is the HTS.
(2) Reference to hts.--Whenever in this section there is a
reference to a heading or sub-heading, such reference shall
be a reference to a heading or subheading of the HTS.
(b) Originating Goods.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of this Act and for purposes
of implementing the preferential tariff treatment provided
for under the Agreement, a good is an originating good if--
(A) the good is imported directly--
(i) from the territory of Morocco into the territory of the
United States; or
(ii) from the territory of the United States into the
territory of Morocco; and
(B)(i) the good is a good wholly the growth, product, or
manufacture of Morocco or the United States, or both;
(ii) the good (other than a good to which clause (iii)
applies) is a new or different article of commerce that has
been grown, produced, or manufactured in Morocco, the United
States, or both, and meets the requirements of paragraph (2);
or
(iii)(I) the good is a good covered by Annex 4-A or 5-A of
the Agreement;
(II)(aa) each of the nonoriginating materials used in the
production of the good undergoes an applicable change in
tariff classification specified in such Annex as a result of
production occurring entirely in the territory of Morocco or
the United States, or both; or
(bb) the good otherwise satisfies the requirements
specified in such Annex; and
(III) the good satisfies all other applicable requirements
of this section.
(2) Requirements.--A good described in paragraph (1)(B)(ii)
is an originating good only if the sum of--
(A) the value of each material produced in the territory of
Morocco or the United States, or both, and
(B) the direct costs of processing operations performed in
the territory of Morocco or the United States, or both,
is not less than 35 percent of the appraised value of the
good at the time the good is entered into the territory of
the United States.
(c) Cumulation.--
(1) Originating good or material incorporated into goods of
other country.--An originating good or a material produced in
the territory of Morocco or the United States, or both, that
is incorporated into a good in the territory of the other
country shall be considered to originate in the territory of
the other country.
(2) Multiple procedures.--A good that is grown, produced,
or manufactured in the territory of Morocco or the United
States, or both, by 1 or more producers, is an originating
good if the good satisfies the requirements of subsection (b)
and all other applicable requirements of this section.
(d) Value of Materials.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
value of a material produced in the territory of Morocco or
the United States, or both, includes the following:
(A) The price actually paid or payable for the material by
the producer of such good.
(B) The freight, insurance, packing, and all other costs
incurred in transporting the material to the producer's
plant, if such costs are not included in the price referred
to in subparagraph (A).
(C) The cost of waste or spoilage resulting from the use of
the material in the growth, production, or manufacture of the
good, less the value of recoverable scrap.
(D) Taxes or customs duties imposed on the material by
Morocco, the United States, or both, if the taxes or customs
duties are not remitted upon exportation from the territory
of Morocco or the United States, as the case may be.
(2) Exception.--If the relationship between the producer of
a good and the seller of a material influenced the price
actually paid or payable for the material, or if there is no
price actually paid or payable by the producer for the
material, the value of the material produced in the territory
of Morocco or the United States, or both, includes the
following:
(A) All expenses incurred in the growth, production, or
manufacture of the material, including general expenses.
(B) A reasonable amount for profit.
(C) Freight, insurance, packing, and all other costs
incurred in transporting the material to the producer's
plant.
(e) Packaging and Packing Materials and Containers for
Retail Sale and for Shipment.--Packaging and packing
materials and containers for retail sale and shipment shall
be disregarded in determining whether a good qualifies as an
originating good, except to the extent that the value of such
[[Page 17264]]
packaging and packing materials and containers have been
included in meeting the requirements set forth in subsection
(b)(2).
(f) Indirect Materials.--Indirect materials shall be
disregarded in determining whether a good qualifies as an
originating good, except that the cost of such indirect
materials may be included in meeting the requirements set
forth in subsection (b)(2).
(g) Transit and Transshipment.--A good shall not be
considered to meet the requirement of subsection (b)(1)(A)
if, after exportation from the territory of Morocco or the
United States, the good undergoes production, manufacturing,
or any other operation outside the territory of Morocco or
the United States, other than unloading, reloading, or any
other operation necessary to preserve the good in good
condition or to transport the good to the territory of the
United States or Morocco.
(h) Textile and Apparel Goods.--
(1) De minimis amounts of nonoriginating materials.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a
textile or apparel good that is not an originating good
because certain fibers or yarns used in the production of the
component of the good that determines the tariff
classification of the good do not undergo an applicable
change in tariff classification set out in Annex 4-A of the
Agreement shall be considered to be an originating good if
the total weight of all such fibers or yarns in that
component is not more than 7 percent of the total weight of
that component.
(B) Certain textile or apparel goods.--A textile or apparel
good containing elastomeric yarns in the component of the
good that determines the tariff classification of the good
shall be considered to be an originating good only if such
yarns are wholly formed in the territory of Morocco or the
United States.
(C) Yarn, fabric, or group of fibers.--For purposes of this
paragraph, in the case of a textile or apparel good that is a
yarn, fabric, or group of fibers, the term ``component of the
good that determines the tariff classification of the good''
means all of the fibers in the yarn, fabric, or group of
fibers.
(2) Goods put up in sets for retail sale.--Notwithstanding
the rules set forth in Annex 4-A of the Agreement, textile or
apparel goods classifiable as goods put up in sets for retail
sale as provided for in General Rule of Interpretation 3 of
the HTS shall not be considered to be originating goods
unless each of the goods in the set is an originating good or
the total value of the nonoriginating goods in the set does
not exceed 10 percent of the value of the set determined for
purposes of assessing customs duties.
(i) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Direct costs of processing operations.--
(A) In general.--The term ``direct costs of processing
operations'', with respect to a good, includes, to the extent
they are includable in the appraised value of the good when
imported into Morocco or the United States, as the case may
be, the following:
(i) All actual labor costs involved in the growth,
production, or manufacture of the good, including fringe
benefits, on-the-job training, and the costs of engineering,
supervisory, quality control, and similar personnel.
(ii) Tools, dies, molds, and other indirect materials, and
depreciation on machinery and equipment that are allocable to
the good.
(iii) Research, development, design, engineering, and
blueprint costs, to the extent that they are allocable to the
good.
(iv) Costs of inspecting and testing the good.
(v) Costs of packaging the good for export to the territory
of the other country.
(B) Exceptions.--The term ``direct costs of processing
operations'' does not include costs that are not directly
attributable to a good or are not costs of growth,
production, or manufacture of the good, such as--
(i) profit; and
(ii) general expenses of doing business that are either not
allocable to the good or are not related to the growth,
production, or manufacture of the good, such as
administrative salaries, casualty and liability insurance,
advertising, and sales staff salaries, commissions, or
expenses.
(2) Good.--The term ``good'' means any merchandise,
product, article, or material.
(3) Good wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of
morocco, the united states, or both.--The term ``good wholly
the growth, product, or manufacture of Morocco, the United
States, or both'' means--
(A) a mineral good extracted in the territory of Morocco or
the United States, or both;
(B) a vegetable good, as such a good is provided for in the
HTS, harvested in the territory of Morocco or the United
States, or both;
(C) a live animal born and raised in the territory of
Morocco or the United States, or both;
(D) a good obtained from live animals raised in the
territory of Morocco or the United States, or both;
(E) a good obtained from hunting, trapping, or fishing in
the territory of Morocco or the United States, or both;
(F) a good (fish, shellfish, and other marine life) taken
from the sea by vessels registered or recorded with Morocco
or the United States and flying the flag of that country;
(G) a good produced from goods referred to in subparagraph
(F) on board factory ships registered or recorded with
Morocco or the United States and flying the flag of that
country;
(H) a good taken by Morocco or the United States or a
person of Morocco or the United States from the seabed or
beneath the seabed outside territorial waters, if Morocco or
the United States has rights to exploit such seabed;
(I) a good taken from outer space, if such good is obtained
by Morocco or the United States or a person of Morocco or the
United States and not processed in the territory of a country
other than Morocco or the United States;
(J) waste and scrap derived from--
(i) production or manufacture in the territory of Morocco
or the United States, or both; or
(ii) used goods collected in the territory of Morocco or
the United States, or both, if such goods are fit only for
the recovery of raw materials;
(K) a recovered good derived in the territory of Morocco or
the United States from used goods and utilized in the
territory of that country in the production of remanufactured
goods; and
(L) a good produced in the territory of Morocco or the
United States, or both, exclusively--
(i) from goods referred to in subparagraphs (A) through
(J), or
(ii) from the derivatives of goods referred to in clause
(i),
at any stage of production.
(4) Indirect material.--The term ``indirect material''
means a good used in the growth, production, manufacture,
testing, or inspection of a good but not physically
incorporated into the good, or a good used in the maintenance
of buildings or the operation of equipment associated with
the growth, production, or manufacture of a good, including--
(A) fuel and energy;
(B) tools, dies, and molds;
(C) spare parts and materials used in the maintenance of
equipment and buildings;
(D) lubricants, greases, compounding materials, and other
materials used in the growth, production, or manufacture of a
good or used to operate equipment and buildings;
(E) gloves, glasses, footwear, clothing, safety equipment,
and supplies;
(F) equipment, devices, and supplies used for testing or
inspecting the good;
(G) catalysts and solvents; and
(H) any other goods that are not incorporated into the good
but the use of which in the growth, production, or
manufacture of the good can reasonably be demonstrated to be
a part of that growth, production, or manufacture.
(5) Material.--The term ``material'' means a good,
including a part or ingredient, that is used in the growth,
production, or manufacture of another good that is a new or
different article of commerce that has been grown, produced,
or manufactured in Morocco, the United States, or both.
(6) Material produced in the territory of morocco or the
united states, or both.--The term ``material produced in the
territory of Morocco or the United States, or both'' means a
good that is either wholly the growth, product, or
manufacture of Morocco, the United States, or both, or a new
or different article of commerce that has been grown,
produced, or manufactured in the territory of Morocco or the
United States, or both.
(7) New or different article of commerce.--
(A) In general.--The term ``new or different article of
commerce'' means, except as provided in subparagraph (B), a
good that--
(i) has been substantially transformed from a good or
material that is not wholly the growth, product, or
manufacture of Morocco, the United States, or both; and
(ii) has a new name, character, or use distinct from the
good or material from which it was transformed.
(B) Exception.--A good shall not be considered a new or
different article of commerce by virtue of having undergone
simple combining or packaging operations, or mere dilution
with water or another substance that does not materially
alter the characteristics of the good.
(8) Recovered goods.--The term ``recovered goods'' means
materials in the form of individual parts that result from--
(A) the complete disassembly of used goods into individual
parts; and
(B) the cleaning, inspecting, testing, or other processing
of those parts that is necessary for improvement to sound
working condition.
(9) Remanufactured good.--The term ``remanufactured good''
means an industrial good that is assembled in the territory
of Morocco or the United States and that--
(A) is entirely or partially comprised of recovered goods;
(B) has a similar life expectancy to, and meets similar
performance standards as, a like good that is new; and
[[Page 17265]]
(C) enjoys a factory warranty similar to that of a like
good that is new.
(10) Simple combining or packaging operations.--The term
``simple combining or packaging operations'' means operations
such as adding batteries to electronic devices, fitting
together a small number of components by bolting, gluing, or
soldering, or packing or repacking components together.
(11) Substantially transformed.--The term ``substantially
transformed'' means, with respect to a good or material,
changed as the result of a manufacturing or processing
operation so that--
(A)(i) the good or material is converted from a good that
has multiple uses into a good or material that has limited
uses;
(ii) the physical properties of the good or material are
changed to a significant extent; or
(iii) the operation undergone by the good or material is
complex by reason of the number of processes and materials
involved and the time and level of skill required to perform
those processes; and
(B) the good or material loses its separate identity in the
manufacturing or processing operation.
(j) Presidential Proclamation Authority.--
(1) In general.--The President is authorized to proclaim,
as part of the HTS--
(A) the provisions set out in Annex 4-A and Annex 5-A of
the Agreement; and
(B) any additional subordinate category necessary to carry
out this title consistent with the Agreement.
(2) Modifications.--
(A) In general.--Subject to the consultation and layover
provisions of section 104, the President may proclaim
modifications to the provisions proclaimed under the
authority of paragraph (1)(A), other than provisions of
chapters 50 through 63 of the HTS, as included in Annex 4-A
of the Agreement.
(B) Additional proclamations.--Notwithstanding subparagraph
(A), and subject to the consultation and layover provisions
of section 104, the President may proclaim--
(i) modifications to the provisions proclaimed under the
authority of paragraph (1)(A) as are necessary to implement
an agreement with Morocco pursuant to article 4.3.6 of the
Agreement; and
(ii) before the end of the 1-year period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act, modifications to correct
any typographical, clerical, or other nonsubstantive
technical error regarding the provisions of chapters 50
through 63 of the HTS, as included in Annex 4-A of the
Agreement.
SEC. 204. ENFORCEMENT RELATING TO TRADE IN TEXTILE AND
APPAREL GOODS.
(a) Action During Verification.--
(1) In general.--If the Secretary of the Treasury requests
the Government of Morocco to conduct a verification pursuant
to article 4.4 of the Agreement for purposes of making a
determination under paragraph (2), the President may direct
the Secretary to take appropriate action described in
subsection (b) while the verification is being conducted.
(2) Determination.--A determination under this paragraph is
a determination--
(A) that an exporter or producer in Morocco is complying
with applicable customs laws, regulations, procedures,
requirements, or practices affecting trade in textile or
apparel goods; or
(B) that a claim that a textile or apparel good exported or
produced by such exporter or producer--
(i) qualifies as an originating good under section 203 of
this Act, or
(ii) is a good of Morocco,
is accurate.
(b) Appropriate Action Described.--Appropriate action under
subsection (a)(1) includes--
(1) suspension of liquidation of the entry of any textile
or apparel good exported or produced by the person that is
the subject of a verification referred to in subsection
(a)(1) regarding compliance described in subsection
(a)(2)(A), in a case in which the request for verification
was based on a reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity
related to such goods; and
(2) suspension of liquidation of the entry of a textile or
apparel good for which a claim has been made that is the
subject of a verification referred to in subsection (a)(1)
regarding a claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B).
(c) Action When Information is Insufficient.--If the
Secretary of the Treasury determines that the information
obtained within 12 months after making a request for a
verification under subsection (a)(1) is insufficient to make
a determination under subsection (a)(2), the President may
direct the Secretary to take appropriate action described in
subsection (d) until such time as the Secretary receives
information sufficient to make a determination under
subsection (a)(2) or until such earlier date as the President
may direct.
(d) Appropriate Action Described.--Appropriate action
referred to in subsection (c) includes--
(1) publication of the name and address of the person that
is the subject of the verification;
(2) denial of preferential tariff treatment under the
Agreement to--
(A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the
person that is the subject of a verification referred to in
subsection (a)(1) regarding compliance described in
subsection (a)(2)(A); or
(B) a textile or apparel good for which a claim has been
made that is the subject of a verification referred to in
subsection (a)(1) regarding a claim described in subsection
(a)(2)(B); and
(3) denial of entry into the United States of--
(A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the
person that is the subject of a verification referred to in
subsection (a)(1) regarding compliance described in
subsection (a)(2)(A); or
(B) a textile or apparel good for which a claim has been
made that is the subject of a verification referred to in
subsection (a)(1) regarding a claim described in subsection
(a)(2)(B).
SEC. 205. REGULATIONS.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out--
(1) subsections (a) through (i) of section 203;
(2) amendments to existing law made by the subsections
referred to in paragraph (1); and
(3) proclamations issued under section 203(j).
TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS
SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Moroccan article.--The term ``Moroccan article'' means
an article that qualifies as an originating good under
section 203(b) of this Act or receives preferential tariff
treatment under paragraphs 9 through 15 of article 4.3 of the
Agreement.
(2) Moroccan textile or apparel article.--The term
``Moroccan textile or apparel article'' means an article
that--
(A) is listed in the Annex to the Agreement on Textiles and
Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)); and
(B) is a Moroccan article.
(3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the United
States International Trade Commission.
Subtitle A--Relief From Imports Benefiting From the Agreement
SEC. 311. COMMENCING OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.
(a) Filing of Petition.--
(1) In general.--A petition requesting action under this
subtitle for the purpose of adjusting to the obligations of
the United States under the Agreement may be filed with the
Commission by an entity, including a trade association, firm,
certified or recognized union, or group of workers, that is
representative of an industry. The Commission shall transmit
a copy of any petition filed under this subsection to the
United States Trade Representative.
(2) Provisional relief.--An entity filing a petition under
this subsection may request that provisional relief be
provided as if the petition had been filed under section
202(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252(a)).
(3) Critical circumstances.--Any allegation that critical
circumstances exist shall be included in the petition.
(b) Investigation and Determination.--Upon the filing of a
petition under subsection (a), the Commission, unless
subsection (d) applies, shall promptly initiate an
investigation to determine whether, as a result of the
reduction or elimination of a duty provided for under the
Agreement, a Moroccan article is being imported into the
United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms
or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions
that imports of the Moroccan article constitute a substantial
cause of serious injury or threat thereof to the domestic
industry producing an article that is like, or directly
competitive with, the imported article.
(c) Applicable Provisions.--The following provisions of
section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) apply
with respect to any investigation initiated under subsection
(b):
(1) Paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) of subsection (b).
(2) Subsection (c).
(3) Subsection (d).
(4) Subsection (i).
(d) Articles Exempt From Investigation.--No investigation
may be initiated under this section with respect to any
Moroccan article if, after the date on which the Agreement
enters into force, import relief has been provided with
respect to that Moroccan article under this subtitle.
SEC. 312. COMMISSION ACTION ON PETITION.
(a) Determination.--Not later than 120 days (180 days if
critical circumstances have been alleged) after the date on
which an investigation is initiated under section 311(b) with
respect to a petition, the Commission shall make the
determination required under that section.
(b) Applicable Provisions.--For purposes of this subtitle,
the provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section
330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d) (1), (2),
and (3)) shall be applied with respect to determinations and
findings made under this section as if such determinations
and findings were made under section 202 of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252).
(c) Additional Finding and Recommendation if Determination
Affirmative.--If the
[[Page 17266]]
determination made by the Commission under subsection (a)
with respect to imports of an article is affirmative, or if
the President may consider a determination of the Commission
to be an affirmative determination as provided for under
paragraph (1) of section 330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930)
(19 U.S.C. 1330(d)), the Commission shall find, and recommend
to the President in the report required under subsection (d),
the amount of import relief that is necessary to remedy or
prevent the injury found by the Commission in the
determination and to facilitate the efforts of the domestic
industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition.
The import relief recommended by the Commission under this
subsection shall be limited to that described in section
313(c). Only those members of the Commission who voted in the
affirmative under subsection (a) are eligible to vote on the
proposed action to remedy or prevent the injury found by the
Commission. Members of the Commission who did not vote in the
affirmative may submit, in the report required under
subsection (d), separate views regarding what action, if any,
should be taken to remedy or prevent the injury.
(d) Report to President.--Not later than the date that is
30 days after the date on which a determination is made under
subsection (a) with respect to an investigation, the
Commission shall submit to the President a report that
includes--
(1) the determination made under subsection (a) and an
explanation of the basis for the determination;
(2) if the determination under subsection (a) is
affirmative, any findings and recommendations for import
relief made under subsection (c) and an explanation of the
basis for each recommendation; and
(3) any dissenting or separate views by members of the
Commission regarding the determination and recommendation
referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2).
(e) Public Notice.--Upon submitting a report to the
President under subsection (d), the Commission shall promptly
make public such report (with the exception of information
which the Commission determines to be confidential) and shall
cause a summary thereof to be published in the Federal
Register.
SEC. 313. PROVISION OF RELIEF.
(a) In General.--Not later than the date that is 30 days
after the date on which the President receives the report of
the Commission in which the Commission's determination under
section 312(a) is affirmative, or which contains a
determination under section 312(a) that the President
considers to be affirmative under paragraph (1) of section
330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d)(1)), the
President, subject to subsection (b), shall provide relief
from imports of the article that is the subject of such
determination to the extent that the President determines
necessary to remedy or prevent the injury found by the
Commission and to facilitate the efforts of the domestic
industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition.
(b) Exception.--The President is not required to provide
import relief under this section if the President determines
that the provision of the import relief will not provide
greater economic and social benefits than costs.
(c) Nature of Relief.--
(1) In general.--The import relief (including provisional
relief) that the President is authorized to provide under
this section with respect to imports of an article is as
follows:
(A) The suspension of any further reduction provided for
under Annex IV of the Agreement in the duty imposed on such
article.
(B) An increase in the rate of duty imposed on such article
to a level that does not exceed the lesser of--
(i) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS
on like articles at the time the import relief is provided;
or
(ii) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the
HTS on like articles on the day before the date on which the
Agreement enters into force.
(C) In the case of a duty applied on a seasonal basis to
such article, an increase in the rate of duty imposed on the
article to a level that does not exceed the lesser of--
(i) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS
on like articles for the immediately preceding corresponding
season; or
(ii) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the
HTS on like articles on the day before the date on which the
Agreement enters into force.
(2) Progressive liberalization.--If the period for which
import relief is provided under this section is greater than
1 year, the President shall provide for the progressive
liberalization of such relief at regular intervals during the
period in which the relief is in effect.
(d) Period of Relief.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), any import
relief that the President provides under this section may not
be in effect for more than 3 years.
(2) Extension.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (C), the
President, after receiving an affirmative determination from
the Commission under subparagraph (B), may extend the
effective period of any import relief provided under this
section if the President determines that--
(i) the import relief continues to be necessary to remedy
or prevent serious injury and to facilitate adjustment by the
domestic industry to import competition; and
(ii) there is evidence that the industry is making a
positive adjustment to import competition.
(B) Action by commission.--(i) Upon a petition on behalf of
the industry concerned that is filed with the Commission not
earlier than the date which is 9 months, and not later than
the date which is 6 months, before the date any action taken
under subsection (a) is to terminate, the Commission shall
conduct an investigation to determine whether action under
this section continues to be necessary to remedy or prevent
serious injury and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic
industry to import competition and whether there is evidence
that the industry is making a positive adjustment to import
competition.
(ii) The Commission shall publish notice of the
commencement of any proceeding under this subparagraph in the
Federal Register and shall, within a reasonable time
thereafter, hold a public hearing at which the Commission
shall afford interested parties and consumers an opportunity
to be present, to present evidence, and to respond to the
presentations of other parties and consumers, and otherwise
to be heard.
(iii) The Commission shall transmit to the President a
report on its investigation and determination under this
subparagraph not later than 60 days before the action under
subsection (a) is to terminate, unless the President
specifies a different date.
(C) Period of import relief.--Any import relief provided
under this section, including any extensions thereof, may
not, in the aggregate, be in effect for more than 5 years.
(e) Rate After Termination of Import Relief.--When import
relief under this section is terminated with respect to an
article, the rate of duty on that article shall be the rate
that would have been in effect, but for the provision of such
relief, on the date on which the relief terminates.
(f) Articles Exempt From Relief.--No import relief may be
provided under this section on any article that--
(1) is subject to an assessment of additional duty under
section 202(b); or
(2) has been subject to import relief under this subtitle
after the date on which the Agreement enters into force.
SEC. 314. TERMINATION OF RELIEF AUTHORITY.
(a) General Rule.--Subject to subsection (b), no import
relief may be provided under this subtitle with respect to a
good after the date that is 5 years after the date on which
duty-free treatment must be provided by the United States to
that good pursuant to Annex IV of the Agreement.
(b) Presidential Determination.--Import relief may be
provided under this subtitle in the case of a Moroccan
article after the date on which such relief would, but for
this subsection, terminate under subsection (a), if the
President determines that Morocco has consented to such
relief.
SEC. 315. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.
For purposes of section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2133), any import relief provided by the President
under section 313 shall be treated as action taken under
chapter 1 of title II of such Act.
SEC. 316. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION.
Section 202(a)(8) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2252(a)(8)) is amended in the first sentence--
(1) by striking ``and''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end ``, and title
III of the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act''.
Subtitle B--Textile and Apparel Safeguard Measures
SEC. 321. COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.
(a) In General.--A request under this subtitle for the
purpose of adjusting to the obligations of the United States
under the Agreement may be filed with the President by an
interested party. Upon the filing of a request, the President
shall review the request to determine, from information
presented in the request, whether to commence consideration
of the request.
(b) Publication of Request.--If the President determines
that the request under subsection (a) provides the
information necessary for the request to be considered, the
President shall cause to be published in the Federal Register
a notice of commencement of consideration of the request, and
notice seeking public comments regarding the request. The
notice shall include a summary of the request and the dates
by which comments and rebuttals must be received.
SEC. 322. DETERMINATION AND PROVISION OF RELIEF.
(a) Determination.--
(1) In general.--If a positive determination is made under
section 321(b), the President shall determine whether, as a
result of the reduction or elimination of a duty under the
Agreement, a Moroccan textile or apparel article is being
imported into the
[[Page 17267]]
United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms
or relative to the domestic market for that article, and
under such conditions as to cause serious damage, or actual
threat thereof, to a domestic industry producing an article
that is like, or directly competitive with, the imported
article.
(2) Serious damage.--In making a determination under
paragraph (1), the President--
(A) shall examine the effect of increased imports on the
domestic industry, as reflected in changes in such relevant
economic factors as output, productivity, utilization of
capacity, inventories, market share, exports, wages,
employment, domestic prices, profits, and investment, none of
which is necessarily decisive; and
(B) shall not consider changes in technology or consumer
preference as factors supporting a determination of serious
damage or actual threat thereof.
(b) Provision of Relief.--
(1) In general.--If a determination under subsection (a) is
affirmative, the President may provide relief from imports of
the article that is the subject of such determination, as
described in paragraph (2), to the extent that the President
determines necessary to remedy or prevent the serious damage
and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic industry to
import competition.
(2) Nature of relief.--The relief that the President is
authorized to provide under this subsection with respect to
imports of an article is an increase in the rate of duty
imposed on the article to a level that does not exceed the
lesser of--
(A) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS
on like articles at the time the import relief is provided;
or
(B) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS
on like articles on the day before the date on which the
Agreement enters into force.
SEC. 323. PERIOD OF RELIEF.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the import
relief that the President provides under subsection (b) of
section 322 may not, in the aggregate, be in effect for more
than 3 years.
(b) Extension.--
(1) In General.--Subject to paragraph (2), the President
may extend the effective period of any import relief provided
under this subtitle for a period of not more than 2 years, if
the President determines that--
(A) the import relief continues to be necessary to remedy
or prevent serious damage and to facilitate adjustment by the
domestic industry to import competition; and
(B) there is evidence that the industry is making a
positive adjustment to import competition.
(2) Limitation.--Any relief provided under this subtitle,
including any extensions thereof, may not, in the aggregate,
be in effect for more than 5 years.
SEC. 324. ARTICLES EXEMPT FROM RELIEF.
The President may not provide import relief under this
subtitle with respect to any article if--
(1) the article has been subject to import relief under
this subtitle after the date on which the Agreement enters
into force; or
(2) the article is subject to import relief under chapter 1
of title II of the Trade Act of 1974.
SEC. 325. RATE AFTER TERMINATION OF IMPORT RELIEF.
When import relief under this subtitle is terminated with
respect to an article, the rate of duty on that article shall
be the rate that would have been in effect, but for the
provision of such relief, on the date on which the relief
terminates.
SEC. 326. TERMINATION OF RELIEF AUTHORITY.
No import relief may be provided under this subtitle with
respect to any article after the date that is 10 years after
the date on which duties on the article are eliminated
pursuant to the Agreement.
SEC. 327. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.
For purposes of section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2133), any import relief provided by the President
under this subtitle shall be treated as action taken under
chapter 1 of title II of such Act.
SEC. 328. BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
The President may not release information which is
submitted in a proceeding under this subtitle and which the
President considers to be confidential business information
unless the party submitting the confidential business
information had notice, at the time of submission, that such
information would be released, or such party subsequently
consents to the release of the information. To the extent a
party submits confidential business information to the
President in a proceeding under this subtitle, the party also
shall submit a nonconfidential version of the information, in
which the confidential business information is summarized or,
if necessary, deleted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) each will control 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in strong
support of H.R. 4842, which will implement the United States-Moroccan
Free Trade Agreement. This Free Trade Agreement is comprehensive, it is
solid, and it will benefit American workers across the spectrum,
including farmers, consumers, businesses, and therefore the United
States economy.
Morocco has been since the inception of this country and is today an
important strategic partner of the United States. This agreement will
enhance and in fact solidify our economic relationship. Not only will
this agreement advance our relationship with Morocco, but it serves as
a cornerstone to assist the President's broader initiative to create a
Middle East free trade area by the year 2013.
The United States has entered into additional agreements, Morocco,
Bahrain. We have entered into trade and investment framework agreements
with Kuwait, Yemen, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Saudi
Arabia. Many of these countries have expressed interest in moving
forward and negotiating a free trade agreement similar to the Moroccan
agreement.
Mr. Speaker, this is a long overdue day, but it has arrived, and I am
pleased to say that the Senate has already acted on this legislation,
and when the House concludes its business on this bill it will be sent
to the President for his signature, and this is a marvelous way to end
this portion of the 108th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield
time as he sees fit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I would like the record to remain clear that in my opinion the
gentleman from California stole the election in Florida, and I just
want to get that out of the way.
But having said that, I think that this agreement that we reach today
gives us an opportunity to see what we could be doing, especially as it
relates to international treaty agreements, if we attempt to work
together.
The government of Morocco has been friendly to the United States for
years, and it is a developing country that has strived to have a
relationship between organized labor and to work to improve the quality
of life for its workers.
{time} 1615
We Democrats truly believe that we should have a bipartisan approach
to these types of issues and that there are certain principles we think
should be in all trade agreements, and that is that you protect
American jobs and that you provide for basic international labor
standards in these agreements, and you do no harm.
There are certain provisions here that deal with intellectual rights
that we really approve of, but we also believe that we should never
allow ourselves to deprive people of medicine that they may need for
their health and, indeed, for their life.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has worked very, very hard to
make certain that we on the Democratic side do not unilaterally just
say out of hand that if we do not find the language we want that we
will not be supporting the bill. Indeed, we are more concerned with
having language that all civilized and industrialized countries would
want to have as a standard that can be reached with the United States
on international health.
Mr. Speaker, because of that, I ask unanimous consent to yield the
balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the
distinguished senior member of the Subcommittee on Trade, and that he
be allowed to yield time as he sees fit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
[[Page 17268]]
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Trade.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased that the United States and the
Kingdom of Morocco have reached agreement on a bilateral free trade
agreement. Morocco has long been a key ally in the Middle East. As many
have noted, Morocco was the first country to recognize our sovereignty;
and in 1786 we signed the U.S.-Morocco treaty of peace and friendship,
which remains the longest unbroken treaty in our Nation's history.
Once implemented, this treaty agreement will be the second of its
kind between the U.S. and a moderate Muslim ally, following our trade
agreement with the Kingdom of Jordan.
This is an important strategic agreement. While we have had a long-
standing diplomatic relationship with Morocco, the U.S.-Morocco FTA
cements the economic relationship between our countries. Two-way trade
between the U.S. and Morocco is significant, at nearly $1 billion per
year. The United States exported over $465 million to Morocco last
year, with a trade surplus of over $79 million.
This FTA will eliminate trade barriers, lower tariffs, and provide
increased market access for U.S. companies. By knocking down trade
barriers in Morocco and in the rest of the world, we can help support
even more American jobs. In fact, the International Trade Commission
estimates that trade between our countries should double once this
agreement is implemented.
This is a strong agreement for all sectors of the U.S. economy. Under
its terms, over 95 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial
goods to Morocco will become duty free immediately. This follows the
high standards set by recently passed trade agreements with Singapore,
Chile, and Australia. This is important for U.S. manufacturers.
This is also a strong agreement for the services sector of our
economy, whether it be telecommunications, e-commerce for digital
commerce, or new opportunities for U.S. financial institutions. The
agreement also contains state-of-the-art intellectual property
provisions, including commitments in trademarks, copyrights and
patents, as well as tough penalties for piracy and counterfeiting.
Taken together, these provisions continue a trade policy that best
helps U.S. business compete in a global marketplace.
Mr. Speaker, the Farm Bureau strongly supports this agreement, which
covers all agricultural products, because for every $1 in increased
imports from Morocco, U.S. farmers can expect $10 in increased exports
to Morocco. In 2003, the United States had a trade surplus in
agricultural products with Morocco of about $82 million, with exports
of over $152 million. The Farm Bureau estimates that this agreement
could increase U.S. agricultural exports to over $450 million by 2015,
tripling our current exports. Furthermore, because Morocco's agreement
with the European Union does not include agriculture, this FTA should
give American farmers a competitive advantage over our EU counterparts.
Some have questioned whether labor laws in Morocco are adequate. To
that end, I would like to point out that the U.S.-Morocco FTA, like all
of our trade agreements, requires Morocco to enforce domestic labor
laws in accordance with the bipartisan guidance provided by the
Congress in Trade Promotion Authority.
Furthermore, in anticipation of a U.S.-Morocco FTA, the Moroccan
government, business community, and labor force, working together in a
tripartite manner, found consensus in passing a comprehensive new labor
law earlier this year that is consistent with ILO standards.
Accordingly, the agreement language creating an obligation to
effectively enforce one's laws is, in essence, the same as an
enforceable ILO standard in this agreement. I, for one, applaud Morocco
for its efforts in overhauling its labor laws in anticipation of
completing this important trade agreement.
Some on the other side, including the Subcommittee on Trade ranking
member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and the Committee on
Ways and Means ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), have raised thoughtful questions with regard to various
provisions contained in this agreement. I think we have worked well
together to address these concerns, and I am pleased that we have their
support. While we may continue to disagree on certain issues, there is
a lot of common ground from which to work, and I look forward to
continuing to work with them to pass important trade agreements.
Unfortunately, I am sure that a small group on the other side who do
oppose free trade may come to the House floor today and argue that this
agreement is inadequate in certain respects.
I would ask my colleagues to not be fooled by this rhetoric, which we
hear every time when we contemplate trade agreements. We heard it last
week during debate on our Australian Free Trade Agreement, a country
with which we have a $9 billion trade surplus; we heard it during
debate 1 year ago regarding Chile and Singapore; and I am sure we will
hear it today with regard to Morocco, a country with which we have a
trade surplus.
Please do not be fooled. This discomfort has less to do with the
provisions of this agreement than it does their dislike of free trade
generally.
Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of Members on both sides of the aisle
think differently. The American people know that millions of American
jobs are dependent upon free trade. U.S. products exported to Morocco
currently face an average tariff of more than 20 percent. This FTA will
give American businesses exporting to Morocco a leg up to compete as
they compete with the European Union. That means better, higher-paying
jobs here at home. Perhaps that is why the U.S.-Morocco FTA passed the
Committee on Ways and Means by a 26 to 0 vote on Tuesday and passed the
Senate by an overwhelming vote of 85 to 13 yesterday. I look forward to
another strong, bipartisan vote today.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize my strong support for this
agreement and my appreciation to the administration and Members on both
sides of the aisle for their efforts in completing it.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and ask unanimous consent that he
control the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, while the Jordan Free Trade Agreement passed in the last
year of the Clinton administration represented a step forward in free
trade policy, recent free trade agreements provide a template to
purposely and purposefully circumvent labor and environmental laws.
To make matters worse, USTR and its pharmaceutical allies are now
including language in each trade agreement in front of this body to ban
reimportation in all agreements they negotiate. The Morocco Free Trade
Agreement is the latest example of this trade, we call it, devolution.
Last week we voted on the U.S.-Australia FTA. While Australian
workers, to be sure, enjoy the benefits of good labor laws and the
enforcement of those laws, the precedent was the same. Labor and
environmental protections were given short shrift in the core text of
the agreement, while USTR focused on ensuring the gold standard for the
pharmaceutical industry.
It is almost as if the U.S. Government dispatched the USTR again to
protect the big drug companies in this country. It is no surprise, with
the rest of the record in this body and in this administration in
protecting the drug companies on every single issue possible.
But Morocco is not Australia, and I have significant concerns about
labor
[[Page 17269]]
and working conditions there. Like Singapore and Chile, the labor
provisions in the Morocco FTA are intentionally unenforceable.
Violations of core labor standards cannot be taken to dispute
resolution. The commitment to enforce domestic labor laws is subject to
remedies weaker than those available for commercial disputes. Again,
the commercial part of the agreement is always better, if you will,
than the labor part of the agreement, because of this body's and this
administration's low regard for worker rights.
This violates the negotiating objective of Fast Track that equivalent
remedies should exist for all parts of the agreement.
Further, the ``enforce your own laws'' standard allows countries the
opportunity to rewrite and weaken their labor laws to attract
investment and seems to be a magnet for corporate interests all over
the world to lobby those legislatures and those congresses and
parliaments to weaken their own labor law, because they are not
international labor organization standards.
Today we will vote on the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement
containing the same flawed policies on labor and on the environment and
on reimportation. The same provisions in Morocco are in the Central
America Free Trade Agreement. This agreement does not look much
different from CAFTA. So for those of you, and I think it is pretty
clear a majority of the Bush administration would have brought that
agreement up this summer, those of you voting ``no'' on CAFTA, you are
really voting for a pretty similar agreement on Morocco.
Every free trade template brought before this House is, as Yogi Berra
used to say, like deja vu all over again.
First, the Medicare bill passed this year specifically prohibited the
U.S. Government from negotiating lower drug prices for America's
seniors and consumers. That was one this Congress and this Bush
administration gave to the drug industry. Then the pharmaceutical
industry punished American consumers by restricting the volume of drug
inventories in Canada to prevent importation to the U.S. Then the U.S.
Trade Representative and the administration included language in the
Australia Free Trade Agreement that enables pharmaceutical companies to
prevent prescription drug reimportation to the detriment of American
consumers. Again, another bouquet from this Congress and the Bush
administration to the drug industry.
I do not think the connection is anything but obvious when you look
at the amount of money the drug industry has given to the Republican
Party, given to Republican leadership, and given to President Bush.
Now similar provisions contained in last year's Singapore FTA and in
the upcoming CAFTA are in the Morocco FTA bill that will be voted on.
Though Morocco is not on the list of countries today covered by pending
drug legislation, the importation provisions in this FTA prove this is
a precedent, it was in Australia, now it is in this, that the USTR
plans to extends this to all future trade agreements.
There is broad support in this House, there is even broader support
among seniors and among consumers, because they are not getting
campaign contributions from the drug industry, for lowering drug prices
and for allowing Americans to purchase safe, affordable drugs from
other developed nations.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the administration's back-door effort
again to close drug reimportation through trade negotiations. It is
important to overcome attempts by free trade proponents to reduce this
debate to a choice between free trade and no trade, and frame the
discussion around priorities affected by irresponsible trade policy,
labor protections, the environment, and affordable pharmaceutical
access for all nations.
This is not a debate on whether one supports trade; this is a debate
on whether one supports responsible trade. I urge my colleagues to
oppose this irresponsible trade agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, concerns about the consistency of any future drug
reimportation provisions with this free trade agreement are
hypothetical. The agreement has no force under U.S. law except to the
extent that Congress passes an implementing bill to change U.S. law.
{time} 1630
Thus, even if Congress changes U.S. law and the new law were somehow
inconsistent with the agreement, that new law would trump the
agreement. The agreement cannot prevent Congress from allowing drug
reimportation.
The drug reimportation debate in Congress has focused on changes to
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that would be necessary to
allow drug reimportation, such as changing its provision that only the
original manufacturer may reimport a drug. There is nothing in the
Morocco FTA or the implementing bill that addresses the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act for this requirement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong support of the United States-Morocco Free
Trade Agreement pending before us here in this Chamber today.
This agreement will provide 95 percent of consumer and industrial
products in bilateral trade become duty-free immediately upon entering
into this important, historic agreement.
The chairman has already indicated that the Senate has passed this
bill and it will go right from this Chamber to the President's desk for
signature.
I strongly concur with Ambassador Bob Zoellick when he stated, ``Our
agreement with Morocco is not just a single announcement, but a vital
step in creating a mosaic of United States free trade agreements across
the Middle East and North Africa.''
This agreement sends a strong message to this particular region of
the world. This agreement enables fair and free trade between long-
standing allies. In fact, Morocco and the United States signed a Treaty
of Peace and Friendship in 1786. The Kingdom has continuously provided
military and diplomatic support for United States foreign operations,
and this partnership is solid and it is respected.
I congratulate President Bush and his Majesty, King Mohammed VI, on
this historic Free Trade Agreement.
I would like to point out to the gentleman on the other side of the
aisle that was speaking about prescription drugs and associate myself
with the remarks of the chairman concerning this matter, this House has
passed now on two occasions a bill that said that if the Food and Drug
Administration can certify that drugs from various countries, namely
Canada, are what they are and they are pure and they are not
counterfeit, that they can be imported. Under the Clinton
administration they said they could not certify that. Under the Bush
administration they said they cannot certify that. I think clearly we
are going in that direction, but that has absolutely nothing to do with
the bill that is before us.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this trade agreement that we are
considering today contains provisions that essentially mimic the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law that is currently being
litigated and whose scope is as yet unclear. The DMCA, while intended
to protect the interests of copyright holders, may also endanger the
rights and expectations of consumers.
There is substantial reason to believe that the DMCA is having an
adverse impact on technological innovation. There are a lot of cases on
appeal, and I think ultimately this body is going to have to sort
through the DMCA so that we do not kill and stifle technological
innovation.
The FCC is now based on the DMCA, asserting the right to preapprove
every product that moves data in the United States. It sounds a little
bit like the
[[Page 17270]]
old Stalinist regime. I think we are going to have to revisit that, and
I am concerned about the provisions in this act.
However, I have been reassured by the Trade Representative as well as
the Secretary of Commerce that the insertion of this provision in these
types of trade agreements will not prevent the Congress from doing what
ultimately we are going to have to do, which is to stop the
technological stranglehold that we have placed on that sector of the
economy, such as TiVo that we read about today, which the FCC is now
asserting that they get to decide what TiVo gets to innovate.
So based on those representations, I am going to certainly vote for
this agreement today. Certainly, my district in the heart of the
Silicon Valley needs to export, especially at a time when 35 percent of
the households say someone in their home has been out of work for more
than 3 months since January of 2001, when Mr. Bush became President.
At the same time, I call on Congress to show some leadership to the
rest of the world by amending the DMCA to make sure that we protect the
rights of copyright holders, but that we also do not stifle innovation.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record the letters from the Trade
Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, and an article I have
written on this subject.
Executive Office of the President, The United States
Trade Representative,
Washington, DC, June 17, 2003.
Hon. Zoe Lofgren,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman Lofgren: Thank you for your recent
letter regarding the Singapore and Chile Free Trade
Agreements, specifically the provisions that reflect the U.S.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). I am pleased that my
staff had the opportunity to brief you on our FTA
negotiations, including on the provisions that address
copyright protection in the digital age. I would like to
address your remaining concerns.
In the Trade Act of 2002, Congress mandated that we seek
provisions that reflect a standard of protection similar to
that found in U.S. law and that provide strong protection for
new and emerging technologies and new methods of transmitting
and distributing products embodying intellectual property. To
that end, we have included provisions in our FTAs that
reflect the historic and precedent setting standards for
intellectual property protection set forth in the DMCA. We
firmly believe that this legislation is evidence of
Congressional leadership internationally and should be a
model for how governments strike the correct balance between
copyright holders and the interests of society in the digital
age.
Our FTA provisions that reflect the DMCA were developed in
close consultation with the same major domestic stakeholders
that worked with Congress to forge the balance in the DMCA.
As you may be aware, these groups have recently reiterated
their support for our FTAs to Members of Congress and to me.
While reflecting the balance in the DMCA, our FTA provisions
merely distill the key principles of U.S. legislation; they
do not replicate every detail. This is the approach we take
throughout the text of the Agreement when reflecting U.S.
standards. We take this approach, in part, because we
recognize and support, as with all provisions of U.S. law,
the Congressional prerogative to adopt further amendments as
may be deemed appropriate in the future.
I fully understand that the DMCA has stimulated a vigorous
debate in America as well as in Congress and that there are
legislative proposals to amend the DMCA to address what may
be unintended consequences arising from its implementation.
Although at this time there does not appear to be widespread
support in Congress, or the national community at large, for
substantially revising the existing, fundamental balance
struck by the DMCA, we are quite confident that our FTA
provisions are sufficiently broad to encompass amendments
that Congress may adopt in the future that remain within the
overall balance struck in the DMCA. Moreover, the DMCA itself
provides for a periodic administrative rule-making procedure
to review the effect of the DMCA on users' ability to make
certain non-infringing uses and to create additional
exemptions to allow for such uses--a carve-out echoed in the
FTA provisions.
As I believe my staff clarified during their briefing, we
have not had the opportunity to examine H.R. 1066 and H.R.
107 in detail and have not opined on the extent to which
these proposals are consistent with our FTAs. What my staff
did indicate, which I want to reiterate here, is that the
Administration has sought to reflect faithfully a standard of
protection for intellectual property similar to that
contained in U.S. law as instructed by Congress, but in no
way to require a change in U.S. law. Legislative proposals
that do not fundamentally alter the existing overall balance
struck in U.S. law, and that comply with all existing
international obligations regarding intellectual property,
will also comply with our FTAs.
I hope this information is helpful to you.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Zoellick.
____
The Secretary of Commerce,
Washington, DC, June 5, 2003.
Hon. Zoe Lofgren,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Lofgren: Thank you for your letter
expressing your concerns regarding the Singapore and Chile
Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). One of the important
negotiating objectives of these agreements was to encourage
our trading partners to provide for strong protection and
enforcement of intellectual property rights, which is
especially important in the modern digital trade environment.
Although many of our trading partners already belong to the
World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights, the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty, and the WIPO
Performances and Phonograms Treaty, FTAs build on that
foundation. The Singapore and Chile FTAs will ensure that
authors and owners of copyrighted works made available in
digital form receive commensurate protection, thereby
strengthening trade relations with these countries. They also
provide a framework of certainty around which companies can
begin to build legitimate businesses for the enjoyment of
creative works.
I also would like to take the opportunity to respond to
specific issues raised in your letter. You expressed concern
that the incorporation of provisions based on the Digital
Millennium copyright Act (DMCA) in the Singapore and Chile
FTAs may have an adverse impact on technological innovation.
I believe, however, that strong protection and enforcement of
intellectual property rights in FTAs facilitate the expansion
of trade and investment in digital technologies and products,
thereby advancing the interests of all parties to the FTAs.
You also expressed concern about the balance of interests
reflected in both the DMCA and the Singapore and Chile FTAs.
As you are aware, in enacting the DMCA, Congress worked hard
to achieve a balance among the various groups with interests
in the legislation, including copyright owners, users, and
Internet service providers, that also met the international
obligations set forth in the WIPO treaties. That balance is
reflected in the Singapore and Chile FTAs. If the Congress
amends the DMCA in the future, the FTAs should then be
reviewed for consistency with the amended DMCA.
I believe that the U.S. free trade agreements with
Singapore and Chile are milestones in progress toward strong
protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights
protection for the digital age. I hope that my comments have
helped you to decide in favor of supporting the Singapore and
Chile FTAs.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to
contact me or Brenda Becker, Assistant Secretary for
Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at (202) 482-3662.
Sincerely,
Donald L. Evans.
____
[From San Jose Mercury News, Nov. 17, 2003.]
FCC Rule Could Harm Tech Innovation
(By Zoe Lofgren)
The Federal Communications Commission recently gave itself
unprecedented powers to keep new television sets, digital
video recorders, handheld devices, third-generation cell
phones and even computers out of the hands of American
consumers.
How? The FCC issued new rules on the so-called ``broadcast
flag,'' a proposal first put forth by the Motion Picture
Association of America purportedly to encourage broadcasters
to offer more digital programming.
The broadcast flag is a single bit of data added to the
digital television shows beamed out across the country. By
itself, the bit does nothing. Instead, the meat of the new
rule requires every future device capable of playing these
shows to recognize the flag and include built-in technologies
that prevent them from being pirated.
But here's the kicker. Under the new rules, the FCC gets
to decide if a particular technology provides sufficient
protection. If you're not on the FCC's pre-approved list, you
can't sell your product.
So what does this mean to you and me? It could mean that
future consumer electronics and computing products will never
come to market. In our digital world, the FCC is not only
targeting television sets. Computers, DVRs and handheld
devices can handle flagged content. Indeed, any future device
capable of handling digital content could potentially be
covered.
Do we want the FCC wielding veto power over a new Apple
computer, Palm handheld or Motorola cell phone? Of course
not. This country's technological leadership is rooted
[[Page 17271]]
in our ability to quickly adapt and innovate, words that are
not often used to describe the federal government.
The FCC's plan sounds a little like the old Soviet Union.
And we know how well centralized state control worked for
them. That's why Congress never gave the FCC the power to
dictate the design of new computers or consumer electronics
devices.
In fact, in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Congress
specifically disavowed such mandates. Apparently, the FCC
never got the message. Instead, the FCC believes that its
ancillary authority over broadcasting extends to every
product that brushes up against digital television. To
justify their absurd conclusion, the commissioners even argue
that they have the authority to regulate these industries
because Congress never said they couldn't.
The main problem with this or any other government mandate
is that they are rooted in the present. It is impossible to
predict where American ingenuity will take us. We should do
everything we can to foster this ingenuity, not put up
roadblocks that will only place our inventors at a
competitive disadvantage.
The FCC's attempt to become the self-anointed gatekeeper to
future innovation will undoubtedly benefit the small
consortium of companies with approved technologies. But it
will also diminish the incentive to bring new technologies to
market, hurt consumers who have bought pre-flag devices, and
set a dangerous precedent for government mandates on
technology.
That's not to say that the broadcast flag proposal should
not be discussed. If Congress, not the FCC, decides that the
broadcast flag is necessary, then it should examine ways to
implement the flag without stifling innovation and
competition. For example, voluntary, non-proprietary
standards that preserve interoperability could be set by
international non-governmental bodies.
The real goal should not be to slow down innovation, but to
find ways for broadcasters to get paid when they deserve
payment.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), who is cochair of the Morocco Caucus.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering landmark legislation to
implement the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement, and delve deeper into
the bonds of friendship with the Kingdom of Morocco. Just 4 days ago,
we marked exactly 217 years of official relations with Morocco, the
longest unbroken diplomatic relationship in the existence of the United
States. While the furthering of our positive ties with Morocco is
certainly an important goal, this FTA really stands on its own as a
benefit to our economy.
The U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement was negotiated over a period of
a year and a half and, once implemented, will be truly a win-win for
both of our countries. This is, in my view, an FTA which contains the
best market access package of any FTA that has been negotiated with a
developing country.
I believe it has the potential to serve as a model for future free
trade agreements with developing countries, particularly because of
tough provisions to enforce intellectual property rights. The Morocco
Free Trade Agreement contains the most advanced intellectual property
chapter in any FTA negotiated thus far. It contains language that not
only commits Morocco to fight piracy, but to fight piracy on products
that are potentially coming through as transshipment.
Morocco is a natural market for many American companies, and a Free
Trade Agreement will bring both countries closer together for mutual
benefit.
The International Trade Commission has also determined that U.S.
exports to Morocco are likely to increase dramatically, by $740
million, while imports from Morocco are likely to increase by nearly
$200 million after full implementation of the Free Trade Agreement.
The major reason for the anticipated increase in U.S. exports is due
to the fact that on day one of this agreement, 95 percent of tariffs on
industrial and consumer goods will be eliminated. Morocco has
demonstrated consistently its commitment to being a fair and
responsible trading partner. They have taken steps to guarantee the
security of foreign investment in Morocco, and have enacted sweeping
labor laws to protect their workers and to improve women's rights.
These negotiations were a catalyst for Morocco moving forward with a
modernizing labor code.
Moreover, workers in Morocco have the right to associate,
collectively bargain, and to strike. The new labor law also improved
worker safety, raised the minimum wage, and created additional
safeguards on child labor, all core obligations of the U.S.-Morocco
Free Trade Agreement, including labor and environmental provisions,
which are subject to the dispute settlement provisions of the
agreement, and the agreement includes strong enforcement mechanisms,
including the ability to suspend trade concessions or establish
monetary assessments.
This agreement deepens America's dialogue with the Middle East and
North Africa, and builds upon the free trade agreements already reached
with Israel and Jordan.
The U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement, in my view, is an essential
part of the puzzle in moving forward to strengthen our trade
relationships with our trading partners, establish stronger, more
enforceable trade agreements, and establish over time a level playing
field in which American companies and American workers can thrive.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the passage of this FTA will be a significant
achievement in moving toward a stronger trade policy for the United
States, and on the strength of that, I urge all of my colleagues to
join me in supporting this FTA.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me
this time.
Let me begin by saying I am prepared to yield time to any proponent
of this bill who can tell me what the minimum wage is in Morocco. I
heard that it has gone up. What is it, 20 cents an hour, 30 cents an
hour? What is the minimum wage in Morocco?
I am prepared to yield time if anyone who is supporting this bill
will tell me if Morocco is a democratic society. We heard about
workers' rights. My understanding is that it is an hereditary monarchy
where the legislature there could be abolished at any time by the King.
Does anybody want to respond to that? I am waiting. I hear no response.
A few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, we were told that gay marriage was
going to destroy the fabric of American society. Well, I will tell my
colleagues what is going to destroy the fabric of American society:
pieces of legislation like this that are wiping out the middle class of
this country, are lowering our standard of living, are making the gap
between the rich and the poor grow wider.
I would yield again to my friends who are pushing this bill if they
will tell me whether they agree with Thomas Donohue, the President of
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who several weeks ago urged, urged
American companies to outsource, urged American companies to throw our
workers out on the street and go to China or Morocco.
Will any proponents of this legislation tell me that they disagree
with Mr. Donohue? I yield time to anybody who says they disagree with
Mr. Donohue, the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce. I do not hear it.
In other words, the proponents of this bill are telling us that they
think it is a good idea that Americans workers are thrown out on the
street, lose decent paying jobs, and are forced to compete in a race to
the bottom against desperate people all over the world who are working
for pennies an hour.
Mr. Speaker, what is happening in our society today is that while
productivity increases, while technology expands, the reality is that
the middle class is shrinking and the average American worker is
working longer hours for lower wages. There are a lot of reasons for
that, but certainly one of the reasons is that our working class, our
middle class is being asked to compete against desperate people in
Morocco, in China, all over this world. And American corporations are
saying, why should I pay an American worker $10, $15 an hour, have
unions, protect the environment, when I can go to Morocco, I can go to
China, and big money interests in this country, with the help
[[Page 17272]]
of the Republican leadership, is going to make it easier for me to go
abroad.
What is happening to this economy is an outrage in terms of the needs
of our kids. The U.S. Department of Labor has projected that 7 out of
the 10 fastest-growing jobs in the next 10 years are going to pay low
wages, require a high school degree, with minimal benefits. We are
losing our manufacturing base. In the last 3 years, 2.7 million good-
paying manufacturing jobs gone. Now they are taking our information
technology jobs to India. Gone. And what is going to be left for our
kids? Well, Wal-Mart is doing very well; Burger King is doing very
well. Is that what we want for our kids? Why are we selling out the
middle class of this country? Why are we allowing corporate America to
go abroad?
Well, I would suggest that we should look at the campaign
contributions that come in to this institution from corporate America.
No, let us have trade that is fair, not this trade agreement.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The new Morocco labor law is a significant improvement over existing
labor laws and regulations. The law raises the minimum employment age
from 12 to 15 to combat child labor, reduces the work week from 48 to
44 hours with overtime rates payable for additional hours, and calls
for a periodic review of the Moroccan minimum wage.
{time} 1645
Effective July 1, 2004, the minimum wage in Morocco will increase by
10 percent. Morocco did this to make itself a more attractive FTA
partner.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me
the time and for his leadership on this issue.
I hope the American public was listening carefully to our friend and
colleague from Vermont. What he said was what tears apart the fabric of
America is to allow our farmers to sell more of their corn to Morocco.
He made the point that our farmers who are trying to sell more corn to
Morocco, because they buy a lot of it, our farmers who grow wheat and
sell more of it will sell more of it to Morocco, that that is bad for
America, that companies in Texas, from workers, from petro chemical
plants, our computer manufacturing plants, our chemical plants, hard-
working workers who are trying to build more products to sell overseas
to Morocco, that this will tear apart the fabric of America.
I think it is just the opposite. The problem we have is that there
are too many American-need-not-apply signs around this world. We are
not able to sell our products and our goods and our services across the
world. American workers are the most productive. Our products are
great. We need a chance to sell them to customers throughout the world,
and what this agreement does is make sure that we are given a fair
chance to sell the great products that we build.
In Texas we are the fourth largest exporting State to Morocco, $23
million of goods and services: ag products, petroleum products,
chemical products, processed foods, computers and electronics. All made
by Texas workers who want to sell their products overseas, but we are
blocked. This agreement opens those markets for all workers, because
that is their future, to sell more products to whoever can afford to do
that.
And as Americans, we know that unless we open these markets, if we
just agree to sell to ourselves, to allow Europe to sell to these
markets, Asia to sell to these markets, South America to sell to these
markets, our prosperity is in danger. This is a great agreement for
American workers, and I strongly support it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Passage of this agreement stands to greatly benefit the United States
of America, which enjoys a consistent yearly trade surplus with
Morocco, totaling over $1.5 billion from 1992 to 2003. This agreement
is a high-standard, comprehensive one that will eliminate tariff and
nontariff barriers to trade.
In fact, the agreement represents the best industrial and consumer
goods market access package of any U.S. FTA with a developing nation.
The agreement also levels the playing field for U.S. businesses,
farmers, and workers vis-a-vis European competitors, who have for far
too long enjoyed a competitive advantage over the United States
suppliers of goods, services, and agricultural products. The agreement
will also serve as a key building block toward the establishment of a
broader Middle East free trade area.
Through this FTA, Morocco also sets an important example throughout
the developing world of the benefits of trade liberalization and
strategic importance of high-standard rules that should govern trade.
In this respect, the FTA includes the best of intellectual property
rights protections negotiated to date by the United States.
In addition, the Moroccan government has used the FTA negotiating
process to strengthen its own laws, particularly with respect to the
status of women and labor rights, two measures which distinguish
Morocco from many of its Arab neighbors.
Finally, this FTA is historic. It is a historic milestone in the
United States and Morocco bilateral relationship, which began well over
200 years ago, where Morocco was the first country to recognize the
newly independent United States of America. Morocco today remains one
of the United States' closest political allies in the war against
terror and a steadfast friend in advancing peace in the Middle East.
And it is for these reasons I urge all of my colleagues to support
the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement. This is a solid agreement that
promotes our commercial interests and contains important provisions on
agriculture, labor, and intellectual property.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate the former speaker
for his presentation and what he had to say.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Bereuter).
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
legislation. I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
There are a number of economic reasons why this FTA is very much in
the national interest of the United States, but I want to focus a few
comments on the diplomatic or foreign policy reasons. The FTA with
Morocco is in our Nation's interest because it will begin to implement
the President's vision for a U.S.-Middle East free trade area. I also
believe it is important to support the economic reform that is going on
in Morocco, a nation where Islam has deep roots and which occupies a
leadership position in the Arab world.
As mentioned frequently here, American friendship in Morocco extends
back to the beginning of our Republic. We have the longest-standing
friendship treaty with that country of any in the world. The enactment
of the FTA legislation with Morocco is a vitally important part of the
process of boosting economic reform inside the Kingdom of Morocco. In
addition, this FTA helps further link the Middle East into the global
economic system and spur economic growth and investment. These closer
commercial links with our key allies such as Morocco are critically
important to the region of the world. And hear this: this legislation
makes it less likely, less likely that jobs and businesses will move to
Morocco, not more likely.
It is also vital to point out that Morocco has recently undertaken a
diplomatic offensive designed to improve its relations with its
neighbors to settle a 3-decade-old Saharan conflict. It is also
stepping up its antiterrorism cooperation with the U.S. and with
Algeria. And recently, it was designated as a major non-NATO ally. That
should enable it to get the requisite assistance and cooperation to
strengthen our regional and bilateral relationship.
Mr. Speaker, for economic or export reasons, there are three primary
reasons why this is a good step for us. This
[[Page 17273]]
FTA is in the best agriculture interest of the United States. Number
two, the FTA will give us market access for businesses. And, three, it
meets the labor and environmental standards set out in the Trade
Promotion Act.
In the area of agriculture, it means, for example, that we are going
to have an estimated triple increase in our exports to Morocco. In the
area of industrial products, it is suggested that our greater market
access will be very important. More than 95 percent of the bilateral
trade industrial products will become duty-free immediately upon entry
into force of this agreement. And in the third area, as I mentioned, it
does meet the labor and environmental standards.
Moreover, Morocco recently passed a comprehensive new labor law that
meets international labor organizational core labor standards,
including right of workers to strike.
In conclusion, this is a very good step for the United States. It is
very good for our bilateral relations, and I would say finally that the
Mediterranean Group of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I happen to be
the president, recently visited Morocco, and as a result of that visit,
by unanimous action in the standing committee, we decided to upgrade
Morocco from observer status to an associate member status because of
the significant progress they are making in democracy in their
parliament.
For all of these reasons, I urge strong support of the legislation.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, here we go again contemplating the
passage of another free trade agreement before we have done the basic
reforms that we need to do to protect the American company, the
American workers, the American community.
The truth is we need a moratorium on any further trade agreements
until we reach a political consensus in this country about what those
agreements are going to be like.
For example, there is such inconsistency in the decisions we make in
this body. Are people aware that we cannot go visit Cuba as free
American citizens? And the administration has just recently decided
that those who live in this country with relatives in Cuba can only go
there every 10 years to visit their loved ones. Why? Well, because Cuba
is a communist country. Fidel Castro is an authoritarian dictator. And,
yet, we are encouraging free trade with China. We want our citizens to
travel to China. We want our companies to invest in China.
The last time I knew or heard, China was a communist country, it was
authoritarian, it was a country that routinely violates human rights,
puts those of religious faith in prison. Why the inconsistency? Why the
inconsistency?
Now, my friends talk about how we are going to sell all of the wheat,
agricultural products to Morocco. Those who like these free trade
agreements enjoy talking about all of the products we are going to
export. They never talk about all the products that are being flooded,
poured into this country. Every day that passes, this country has a
$1.5 billion trade deficit, every day, $1.5 billion.
I have here a copy of the economic report of the President. He
submitted this and transmitted it to Congress in February of this year.
His signature is on this economic report. I think that makes him
responsible for what is inside it.
On page 25 of that report under a section titled ``International
Trade and Finance'' are these words: ``When a good or a service is
produced at lower cost in another country, it makes sense to import it
rather than to produce it domestically.''
I read it again for those who may have thought they were unable to
believe their ears. In the President's economic report to the Nation
are these words: ``When a good or a service is produced at lower cost
in another country, it makes sense to import it rather than to produce
it domestically.''
I ask Mr. Don Evans, Secretary of Commerce, reported to be one of the
President's closest personal friends, if he would give me a list of the
products that cannot be produced at lower cost in another country, a
country like China where they use slave labor, where they violate human
rights. We need to wake up in this country. The American people need to
demand that the President and those of us who serve in this Chamber put
their needs first.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Pitts) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
California (Chairman Thomas) as well for his leadership on the U.S.-
Morocco Free Trade Agreement. I am a free trader and believe that free
trade helps our Nation and the nations of the world. However, I am
deeply concerned about the issue of Western Sahara, and I have had
concerns that the U.S. needed to make clear that this free trade
agreement covers only the internationally- and the U.S.-recognized
borders of Morocco and does not include the disputed territory of
Western Sahara. It is my understanding that the language in the
conference report makes clear that the free trade agreement does not
cover resources, goods, services, or any other entity related to trade
that originates in Western Sahara.
I would ask the gentleman, does the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement
cover trade with the disputed territory of Western Sahara?
{time} 1700
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PITTS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. CRANE. The Committee on Ways and Means' report states the clear
coverage of the free trade agreement. ``The committee notes that the
FTA will cover trade with and investment in the territory of Morocco as
recognized by the United States, which does not include the Western
Sahara.''
Mr. PITTS. I thank the chairman for that clarification.
The following is a letter from USTR making clear that we do not
support Morocco's claim over the Western Sahara and the FTA does not
recognize or include the Western Sahara.
Executive Office of the President, the United States
Trade Representative,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2004.
Hon. Joseph R. Pitts,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Pitts: Thank you for your letter of July
19, 2004, concerning our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with
Morocco and the status of Western Sahara.
The Administration's position on Western Sahara is clear:
sovereignty of Western Sahara is in dispute, and the United
States fully supports the United Nations' effort to resolve
this issue. The United States and many other countries do not
recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara and have
consistently urged the parties to work with the United
Nations to resolve the conflict by peaceful means.
The FTA will cover trade and investment in the territory of
Morocco as recognized internationally, and will not include
Western Sahara. As our Harmonized Tariff Schedule makes
clear, for U.S. Customs purposes, the United States treats
imports from Western Sahara and Morocco differently. Nothing
in the FTA will require us to change this practice. The
Administration will draft the proclamation authorized in the
legislation implementing the FTA (H.R. 4842) to provide
preferential tariff treatment for goods from the territory of
Morocco. Preferential tariff treatment will not be provided
to goods from Western Sahara.
I hope this letter addresses your question regarding the
FTA and the status of Western Sahara. I encourage you to
support the FTA. It will create economic opportunities for
U.S. manufacturing and service firms, workers, and farmers,
and will support economic reforms and foreign investment in
Morocco.
Thank you again for your letter. Please feel free to
contact me should you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Zoellick.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, thank you for your leadership.
While trade is a vital component to strengthening with the greater
Middle East, promoting the spread of democracy is even more so. The
Sahrawi are
[[Page 17274]]
a peaceful pro-Western, pro-democracy people. They want the
international community, including the U.N. Security Council and the
United States, to uphold its commitment to a free and transparent
referendum for self-determination, and it is unacceptable that Morocco
has been allowed to prevent that vote from taking place.
During his tenure the former Secretary of State Baker proposed a plan
that both parties accepted at first, and the Moroccans accepted the
plan, but as soon as the people of Western Sahara accepted they
withdrew their support, and I am deeply concerned that the Moroccan
government, as patterned, will use this agreement with help from
friends in France and others to attempt to increase its exploitation of
the resources.
I just want to clarify the statement about the people of Western
Sahara. Earlier today someone said that the Sahrawis are terrorists. I
take exception to this remark, as the people of Western Sahara, and
like many others in North Africa and the Middle East, have actually
tried to peacefully solve the conflict. The State Department does not
consider the people of Western Sahara to be terrorists. It is a
misstatement. It is wrong. It is unproductive in our fight against
terrorism to suggest that they are, and our own State Department does
not believe the people of Western Sahara are terrorists.
Secondly, I visited there. I visited the refugee camps. I know the
people. They are not terrorists. Members of this House should go to the
refugee camps. They should see the terrible malnutrition of the people,
the lack of health care, the refugee camps. If they would visit the
refugee camps they would know that the information fed to them by
supporters is inaccurate.
Mr. Chairman, I am voting for the FTA because there is protection for
the people and resources of Western Sahara and because I believe the
free trade will help the people of Morocco and those of surrounding
countries.
The following is a series of items that would make clear that this
agreement should not be abused by Morocco to profit off of land that it
has no legitimate claim to.
Western Sahara--Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975
International Court of Justice
In its Advisory Opinion which the General Assembly of the
United Nations had requested on two questions concerning
Western Sahara, the Court,
With regard to Question I, ``Was Western Sahara (Rio de Oro
and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spain a
territory belonging to no one (terra nullius)?'',
--decided by 13 votes to 3 to comply with the request for
an advisory opinion;
--was unanimously of opinion that Western Sahara (Rio de
Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spain
was not a territory belonging to no one (terra nullius).
With regard to Question II, ``What were the legal ties
between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco and the
Mauritanian entity?'', the Court
--decided by 14 votes to 2 to comply with the request for
an advisory opinion;
--was of opinion, by 14 votes to 2, that there were legal
ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco of the
kinds indicated in the penultimate paragraph of the Advisory
Opinion;
--was of opinion, by 15 votes to 1, that there were legal
ties between this territory and the Mauritanian entity of the
kinds indicated in the penultimate paragraph of the Advisory
Opinion.
The penultimate paragraph of the Advisory Opinion was to
the effect that:
The materials and information presented to the Court show
the existence, at the time of Spanish colonization, of legal
ties of allegiance between the Sultan of Morocco and some of
the tribes living in the territory of Western Sahara. They
equally show the existence of rights, including some rights
relating to the land, which constituted legal ties between
the Mauritanian entity, as understood by the Court, and the
territory of Western Sahara. On the other hand, the Court's
conclusion is that the materials and information presented to
it do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty
between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of
Morocco or the Mauritanian entity. Thus the Court has not
found legal ties of such a nature as might affect the
application of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) in the
decolonization of Western Sahara and, in particular, of the
principle of self-determination through the free and genuine
expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory.
For these proceedings the Court was composed as follows:
President Lachs; Vice-President Ammoun; Judges Forster, Gros,
Bengzon, Petren, Onyeama, Dillard, Ignacio-Pinto, de Castro,
Morozov, Jimenez de Arechaga, Sir Humphrey Waldock, Nagendra
Singh and Ruda; Judge ad hoc Boni.
Judges Gros, Ignacio-Pinto and Nagendra Singh appended
declarations to the Advisory Opinion; Vice-President Ammoun
and Judges Forster, Petren, Dillard, de Castro and Boni
appended separate opinions, and Judge Ruda a dissenting
opinion.
In these declarations and opinions the judges concerned
make clear and explain their positions.
Course of the Proceedings
(paras. 1-13 of Advisory Opinion)
The Court first recalls that the General Assembly of the
United Nations decided to submit two questions for the
Court's advisory opinion by resolution 3292 (XXIX) adopted on
13 December 1974 and received in the Registry on 21 December.
It retraces the subsequent steps in the proceedings,
including the transmission of a dossier of documents by the
Secretary-General of the United Nations (Statute, Art. 65,
para. 2) and the presentation of written statements or
letters and/or oral statements by 14 States, including
Algeria, Mauritania, Morocco, Spain and Zaire (Statute, Art.
66).
Mauritania and Morocco each asked to be authorized to
choose a judge ad hoc to sit in the proceedings. By an Order
of 22 May 1975 (1.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 6), the Court found
that Morocco was entitled under Articles 31 and 68 of the
Statute and Article 89 of the Rules of Court to choose a
person to sit as judge ad hoc, but that, in the case of
Mauritania, the conditions for the application of those
Articles had not been satisfied. At the same time the Court
stated that those conclusions in no way prejudged its views
with regard to the questions referred to it or any other
question which might fall to be decided, including those of
its competence to give an advisory opinion and the propriety
of exercising that competence.
Competence of the Court
(paras. 14-22 of Advisory Opinion)
Under Article 65, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the Court
may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the
request of any duly authorized body. The Court notes that the
General Assembly of the United Nations is suitably authorized
by Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter and that the two
questions submitted are framed in terms of law and raise
problems of international law. They are in principle
questions of a legal character, even if they also embody
questions of fact, and even if they do not call upon the
Court to pronounce on existing rights and obligations. The
Court is accordingly competent to entertain the request.
Propriety of Giving an Advisory Opinion
(paras. 23-74 of Advisory Opinion)
Spain put forward objections which in its view would render
the giving of an opinion incompatible with the Court's
judicial character. It referred in the first place to the
fact that it had not given its consent to the Court's
adjudicating upon the questions submitted. It maintained (a)
that the subject of the questions was substantially identical
to that of a dispute concerning Western Sahara which Morocco,
in September 1974, had invited it to submit jointly to the
Court, a proposal which it had refused: the advisory
jurisdiction was therefore being used to circumvent the
principle that the Court has no jurisdiction to settle a
dispute without the consent of the parties; (b) that the case
involved a dispute concerning the attribution of territorial
sovereignty over Western Sahara and that the consent of
States was always necessary for the adjudication of such
disputes; (c) that in the circumstances of the case the Court
could not fulfill the requirements of good administration of
justice with regard to the determination of the facts. The
Court considers (a) that the General Assembly, while noting
that a legal controversy over the status of Western Sahara
had arisen during its discussions, did not have the object of
bringing before the Court a dispute or legal controversy with
a view to its subsequent peaceful settlement, but sought an
advisory opinion which would be of assistance in the exercise
of its functions concerning the decolonization of the
territory, hence the legal position of Spain could not be
compromised by the Court's answers to the questions
submitted; (b) that those questions do not call upon the
Court to adjudicate on existing territorial rights; (c) that
it has been placed in possession of sufficient information
and evidence.
Spain suggested in the second place that the questions
submitted to the Court were academic and devoid of purpose or
practical effect, in that the United Nations had already
settled the method to be followed for the decolonization of
Western Sahara, namely a consultation of the indigenous
population by means of a referendum to be conducted by Spain
under United Nations auspices. The Court examines the
resolutions adopted by the General Assembly on the subject,
from resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, the
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples, to resolution 3292 (XXIX) on Western
Sahara, embodying the request for advisory
[[Page 17275]]
opinion. It concludes that the decolonization process
envisaged by the General Assembly is one which will respect
the right of the population of Western Sahara to determine
their future political status by their own freely expressed
will. This right to self-determination, which is not affected
by the request for advisory opinion and constitutes a basic
assumption of the questions put to the Court, leaves the
General Assembly a measure of discretion with respect to the
forms and procedures by which it is to be realized. The
Advisory Opinion will thus furnish the Assembly with elements
of a legal character relevant to that further discussion of
the problem to which resolution 3292 (XXIX) alludes.
Consequently the Court finds no compelling reason for
refusing to give a reply to the two questions submitted to it
in the request for advisory opinion.
Question I: ``Was Western Sahara (Rio de Oro and Sakiet El
Hamra) at the Time of Colonization by Spain a Territory
Belonging to No One (terra nullius)?''
(paras. 75-83 of Advisory Opinion)
For the purposes of the Advisory Opinion, the ``time of
colonization by Spain'' may be considered as the period
beginning in 1884, when Spain proclaimed its protectorate
over the Rio de Oro. It is therefore by reference to the law
in force at that period that the legal concept of terra
nullius must be interpreted. In law, ``occupation'' was a
means of peaceably acquiring sovereignty over territory
otherwise than by cession or succession; it was a cardinal
condition of a valid ``occupation'' that the territory should
be terra nullius. According to the State practice of that
period, territories inhabited by tribes or peoples having a
social and political organization were not regarded as terrae
nullius: in their case sovereignty was not generally
considered as effected through occupation, but through
agreements concluded with local rulers. The information
furnished to the Court shows (a) that at the time of
colonization Western Sahara was inhabited by peoples which,
if nomadic, were socially and politically organized in tribes
and under chiefs competent to represent them; (b) that Spain
did not proceed upon the basis that it was establishing its
sovereignty over terrae nullius: thus in his Order of 26
December 1884 the King of Spain proclaimed that he was taking
the Rio de Oro under his protection on the basis of
agreements entered into with the chiefs of local tribes.
The Court therefore gives a negative answer to Question I.
In accordance with the terms of the request for advisory
opinion, ``if the answer to the first question is in the
negative'', the Court is to reply to Question II.
Question II: ``What Were the Legal Ties of This Territory
with the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian Entity?''
(paras. 84-161 of Advisory Opinion)
The meaning of the words ``legal ties'' has to be sought in
the object and purpose of resolution 3292 (XXIX) of the
United Nations General Assembly. It appears to the Court that
they must be understood as referring to such legal ties as
may affect the policy to be followed in the decolonization of
Western Sahara. The Court cannot accept the view that the
ties in question could be limited to ties established
directly with the territory and without reference to the
people who may be found in it. At the time of its
colonization the territory had a sparse population that for
the most part consisted of nomadic tribes the members of
which traversed the desert on more or less regular routes,
sometimes reaching as far as southern Morocco or regions of
present-day Mauritania Algeria or other States. These tribes
were of the Islamic faith.
Morocco (paragraphs 90-129 of the Advisory Opinion)
presented its claim to legal ties with Western Sahara as a
claim to ties of sovereignty on the ground of an alleged
immemorial possession of the territory and an uninterrupted
exercise of authority. In the view of the Court, however,
what must be of decisive importance in determining its answer
to Question II must be evidence directly relating to
effective display of authority in Western Sahara at the time
of its colonization by Spain and in the period immediately
preceding. Morocco requests that the Court should take
account of the special structure of the Moroccan State. That
State was founded on the common religious bond of Islam and
on the allegiance of various tribes to the Sultan, through
their caids or sheiks, rather than on the notion of
territory. It consisted partly of what was called the Bled
Makhzen, areas actually subject to the Sultan, and partly of
what was called the Bled Siba, areas in which the tribes were
not submissive to him; at the relevant period, the areas
immediately to the north of Western Sahara lay within the
Bled Siba.
As evidence of its display of sovereignty in Western
Sahara, Morocco invoked alleged acts of internal display of
Moroccan authority, consisting principally of evidence said
to show the allegiance of Saharan caids to the Sultan,
including dahirs and other documents concerning the
appointment of caids, the alleged imposition of Koranic and
other taxes, and acts of military resistance to foreign
penetration of the territory. Morocco also relied on certain
international acts said to constitute recognition by other
States of its sovereignty over the whole or part of Western
Sahara, including (a) certain treaties concluded with Spain,
the United States and Great Britain and Spain between 1767
and 1861, provisions of which dealt inter alia with the
safety of persons shipwrecked on the coast of Wad Noun or its
vicinity, (b) certain bilateral treaties of the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries whereby Great
Britain, Spain, France and Germany were said to have
recognized that Moroccan sovereignty extended as far south as
Cape Bojador or the boundary of the Rio de Oro.
Having considered this evidence and the observations of the
other States which took part in the proceedings, the Court
finds that neither the internal nor the international acts
relied upon by Morocco indicate the existence at the relevant
period of either the existence or the international
recognition of legal ties of territorial sovereignty between
Western Sahara and the Moroccan State. Even taking account of
the specific structure of that State, they do not show that
Morocco displayed any effective and exclusive State activity
in Western Sahara. They do, however, provide indications that
a legal tie of allegiance existed at the relevant period
between the Sultan and some, but only some, of the nomadic
peoples of the territory, through Tekna caids of the Noun
region, and they show that the Sultan displayed, and was
recognized by other States to possess, some authority or
influence with respect to those tribes.
The term ``Mauritanian entity'' (paragraphs 139-152 of the
Advisory Opinion) was first employed during the session of
the General Assembly in 1974 at which resolution 3292 (XXIX),
requesting an advisory opinion of the Court, was adopted. It
denotes the cultural, geographical and social entity within
which the Islamic Republic of Mauritania was to be created.
According to Mauritania, that entity, at the relevant period,
was the Bilad Shinguitti or Shinguitti country, a distinct
human unit, characterized by a common language, way of life,
religion and system of laws, featuring two types of political
authority: emirates and tribal groups.
Expressly recognizing that these emirates and tribes did
not constitute a State, Mauritania suggested that the
concepts of ``nation'' and of ``people'' would be the most
appropriate to explain the position of the Shinguitti people
at the time of colonization. At that period, according to
Mauritania, the Mauritanian entity extended from the Senegal
river to the Wad Sakiet El Hamra. The territory at present
under Spanish administration and the present territory of the
Islamic Republic of Mauritania thus together constituted
indissociable parts of a single entity and had legal ties
with one another.
The information before the Court discloses that, while
there existed among them many ties of a racial, linguistic,
religious, cultural and economic nature, the emirates and
many of the tribes in the entity were independent in relation
to one another; they had no common institutions or organs.
The Mauritanian entity therefore did not have the character
of a personality or corporate entity distinct from the
several emirates or tribes which comprised it. The Court
concludes that at the time of colonization by Spain there did
not exist between the territory of Western Sahara and the
Mauritanian entity any tie of sovereignty, or of allegiance
of tribes, or of simple inclusion in the same legal entity.
Nevertheless, the General Assembly does not appear to have so
framed Question II as to confine the question exclusively to
those legal ties which imply territorial sovereignty, which
would be to disregard the possible relevance of other legal
ties to the decolonization process. The Court considers that,
in the relevant period, the nomadic peoples of the Shinguitti
country possessed rights, including some rights relating to
the lands through which they migrated. These rights
constituted legal ties between Western Sahara and the
Mauritanian entity. They were ties which knew no frontier
between the territories and were vital to the very
maintenance of life in the region.
Morocco and Mauritania both laid stress on the overlapping
character of the respective legal ties which they claimed
Western Sahara to have had with them at the time of
colonization (paragraphs 153-160 of the Advisory Opinion).
Although their views appeared to have evolved considerably in
that respect, the two States both stated at the end of the
proceedings that there was a north appertaining to Morocco
and a south appertaining to Mauritania without any
geographical void in between, but with some overlapping as a
result of the intersection of nomadic routes. The Court
confines itself to noting that this geographical overlapping
indicates the difficulty of disentangling the various
relationships existing in the Western Sahara region at the
time of colonization.
For these reasons, the Court (paragraphs 162 and 163 of the
Advisory Opinion) gives the replies indicated on pages 1 and
2 above.
____
[From Reuters News Service, Jan. 13, 2004]
Sardines and Sovereignty in Western Sahara
(By Eileen Byrne)
Laayoune, Western Sahara.--On trawlers at the quayside near
Laayoune, the main city in Moroccan-controlled Western
Sahara,
[[Page 17276]]
the crew unload sardines in wicker baskets thrown from hand
to hand.
The traditional baskets are misleading, because the yield
of sardines, octopus and squid from the Western Saharan ports
of Laayoune, Boujdour and Dakhla has come to represent more
than 60 percent of Morocco's total annual fisheries yield of
almost one million tons. With sovereignty over the Western
Sahara still in dispute, this is a politically significant
catch.
The uncertainty about the future of this vast, mainly
desert territory in the northwest corner of Africa puts a
dampener, for now, on investment in tourism for winter sun-
seekers, officials in Laayoune admit.
But against the backdrop of diplomatic stalemate, as the
United Nations strives for a solution to the dispute between
Morocco and the Polisario separatist movement, Morocco is
keen to show that the regional economy is developing apace.
The fishing sector is one area where the authorities can
point to significant growth, always under the firm guiding
hand of the central government.
southern-most subjects
Claiming Western Sahara as its historic ``southern
provinces,'' Morocco controls most of the territory.
The Polisario movement, based across the border in Algeria,
sees the future of the area as an independent state, governed
by its Saharan Arab inhabitants, known as Sahrawis.
Since a 1991 cease-fire, successive U.N. initiatives aimed
at ending a dispute which dates from 1975, and asserting the
Sahrawis' right to ``self-determination,'' have failed.
Advocates of independence for Western Sahara stress the
territory's mineral wealth, with the phosphate mine at Boukra
near Laayoune, and possible offshore oil reserves.
But the Boukra mine is loss-making and subsidized by the
Office Cherifien des Phosphates' more important phosphate
production near Khouribga, according to officials. It is
fishing that generates new jobs and export earnings. Western
Sahara fish products now account for up to seven percent of
Morocco's total export earnings of 85.6 billion dirhams
($9.80 billion).
Morocco declined to renew a fishing accord with the
European Union which until the late 1990s had allowed foreign
boats into Moroccan waters. It has instead spent heavily
since then on port infrastructure in Western Sahara, as
though consolidating its hold on the territory.
Like all other businesses in Western Sahara, the sardine
canning businesses, and plants processing octopus for
Japanese dinner tables, pay no taxes except for payroll
contributions.
They also benefit from the subsidies in the prices of fuel,
power and water with which Morocco woos its southern-most
subjects, who account for less than two percent of the
kingdom's 29.6 million population.
Local investors are often Sahrawi notables who see the
territory's future with Rabat rather than the Polisario and
who play a prominent role in the local economy. A little over
a generation ago, the Sahrawis' lifestyle revolved around
camel and goat rearing. Fish did not figure at all in the
Sahrawi diet and even today few Sahrawis work directly with
fish.
But among new investors, the favorable conditions for
businesses can sometimes encourage over-hasty decisions.
octopus for the japanese
Lining the walls of the conference room in the Laayoune
governor's headquarters, photos showed a visit to Western
Sahara by Morocco's King Mohammed.
Some 40 men, and one woman wrapped in the colored veil worn
in Western Sahara, listened to Morocco's Fisheries Minister
Taieb Rhafes. He had flown down from Rabat to explain why he
was extending a ban on octopus fishing.
With him were representatives of Moroccan banks whose loans
to local investors had encouraged a proliferation of octopus-
freezing plants around Dakhla, from a handful in 1997 to 90
in 2003. The octopuses have been almost wiped out by over-
fishing, the minister explained. It takes only three months
to have an octopus-freezing plant up and running, said an
official.
At Laayoune port, the fishermen are not Sahrawis, but come
from Moroccan ports further north--Agadir, Essaouira and
Safi. A spontaneous movement of sardines southwards, traced
by Morocco's fisheries research institute, the INRH,
coincided with the development of infrastructure in the
Western Sahara. The fishermen followed the fish southwards,
bringing their expertise with them.
Moroccan officials have no separate figures for employment
among Sahrawis and non-Sahrawis. ``There are no two
communities here,'' only Moroccan citizens, Laayoune Governor
Mohamed Rharrabi told Reuters.
With the sea-faring culture far-removed from the
traditional Sahrawi lifestyle, it seems fishing will provide
only some of the jobs needed in the Laayoune region, where
unemployment at the last census was 40 percent among 20 to 24
year-olds.
____
Denmark Does Not Recognise Moroccan Sovereignty on Western Sahara
[From Sahara Press Service (SPS), June 22, 2004]
COPENHAGEN--Danish Government, does not ``recognise
Moroccan sovereignty on Western Sahara'', declared Danish
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Per Stig Mfller, in
response to a question he answered before of his Parliament,
according to close sources to the Saharawi representation to
Denmark.
Answering a question asked by Danish Member of the
Parliamentary group Enhedslisten (Union list, in English),
Mr. Soern Soendergaard, the Minister for Foreign Affairs
asserted that his Government ``does not recognise Moroccan
sovereignty on Western Sahara'', considering Moroccan
presence on the territory as illegal and unacceptable.
Regarding the peace plan, elaborated by UN Secretary
General's former Personal Envoy, James Baker, Mr. Mfller
affirmed that this plan remains applicable, recalling that it
``is accepted by Polisario Front and the neighbouring
countries and is unanimously adopted by Security Council in
its resolution 1495''.
Finally, the Head of Danish diplomacy reiterated ``the
support of Denmark of the efforts paid by UN's Secretary
General and his former Personal Envoy aimed at reaching a
just and lasting solution to the conflict'', in Western
Sahara conforming to international legality and by
implementing UN's resolutions.
____
[From Sahara Press Service (SPS), June 24, 2004]
German PDC/CSU Calls to Immediate Settlement of Western Sahara Conflict
Berlin.--The parliamentary group of German Christian
Democrat Party (PDC/CSU) in Bundestag (Parliament), called on
Thursday to an immediate settlement of Western Sahara's
conflict, exhorting international community to pay more
efforts in defending Saharawi people's ``right to self-
determination''.
In a communique publicised on Thursday, of which SPS
received a copy, PDC/CSU parliamentary Group's spokesperson,
Dr. Christian Ruck, asserted that ``Western Sahara conflict's
settlement tolerates no more delays'', calling international
community to pay more efforts in defending Saharawi people's
``right to self-determination''.
UN Secretary General's former Personal Envoy, James Baker's
resignation ``may push to failure'' the peace plan for self-
determination of Saharawi people, though this plan
constitutes ``a reasonable compromise to realise peace in
this region'', deplored the spokesperson.
Thus, the international community is called to ``prove to
the people of this region, who is still suffering this old
aging conflict, that its right to self-determination remains
a priority for the international community'', which should
also defend UN's principles and international law, so as to
reach a peaceful settlement to this problem, concluded the
communique.
____
[From Upstream Online & Hardcopy, July 2, 2004]
Svitzer Feels Heat in Western Sahara
(By Barry Morgan)
Fugro affiliate Svitzer has just completed a marine survey
on Kerr-McGee's Boujdour acreage off the disputed territory
of Western Sahara.
Based in Norfolk in the UK, Svitzer is the latest company
to attract brickbats from activists determined to persuade
industry players not to sign deals with Morocco, which
occupies the territory and claims its resources.
Following a one-year extension, KMG's reconnaissance permit
will expire on 29 October. However, its tenure is contested
by the Sahrawi independence militia, which has long fought
for sovereign control, stirring international controversy
over the licencing regime imposed by Rabat.
Fellow UK consultancy Robertson Research International
(RRI) is also poised to complete survey work in Western
Sahara, despite question marks over the legitimacy of UK
corporate involvement in what the UK government calls a
``non-self governing territory'' where it says sovereignty
remains to be determined under UN auspices. For its part, RRI
said it is not directly contracted to Rabat.
Confirmation of RRI's involvement comes hard on the heels
of a campaign launched by Western Sahara support groups
across Europe against exploration and production companies
doing business at the behest of Rabat.
Kerr-McGee, Total and TGS-Nopec were blasted for jumping
the gun on a fragile peace process in which the UN has sought
diplomatic consensus ahead of a referendum on self-
determination for the Sahrawi people.
Activists' primary target of late has been UK-registered
Wessex Exploration, which was recently invited to Rabat to
finalise a preliminary but open-ended deal to analyse onshore
data ahead of an exploration push outlined by Moroccan state
oil company managing director Amina Benkhadra.
Wessex has been warned that ``its reputation would suffer''
if it did not back off or negotiate with the Sahrawi
authorities.
In the meantime, several UK parliamentarians have moved to
seek clarification of the
[[Page 17277]]
UK government's position on British companies doing business
in Western Sahara. Concerned MPs led by the Labour Party's
David Drew, want to pin down Whitehall on its attitude.
Drew will shortly table a parliamentary question seeking
greater clarity. Drew now speaks for the Western Sahara
Support Group and two Conservative MPs are expected to join
existing members before they resurface as a parliamentary
force.
The UK Foreign Office insists sovereignty in Western Sahara
remains undetermined as long as UN calls to resolve the
crisis via the so-called Baker Peace Plan remain unheeded.
``We want to push the UK to promote the Plan so that Morocco
withdraws. It should also tell British companies that they
should not get involved in Western Sahara at this time while
the UN mandate remains unimplemented,'' said Drew.
The Foreign Office currently has no problem with companies
winning reconnaissance or E&P licences from Rabat, so long as
the practical effect complies with constraints laid down by
the UN Legal Office on ``disregarding the rights'' of the
Sahrawi people.
This means Kerr-McGee and Total can use TGS-Nopec and Fugro
to shoot seismic as long as rigs are not deployed to confirm
or produce oil finds.
Meanwhile, the acquisition of strategically important
seismic data for Rabat as the licensor remains legal under
the ``look but don't touch'' interpretation of both UK and US
governments. However, a UK official said that ``we'd have to
revisit this opinion if activity got this far. There is no
official endorsement''.
``Right now, our view is that UK companies going into
Western Sahara are on their own and we cannot link them to
the Department of Trade & Industry or offer the support of
any other government mechanisms,'' the source added.
Two UK-registered companies presently stand on both sides
of the fence. Sterling Resources has inherited an exclusive
offshore PSC from AIM-listed Fusion Oil & Gas following a
recent take-over, while Wessex is under increasing pressure
after retaining its exclusive study licence from Rabat.
After expending $600 million on peace-keeping efforts, the
UN system is tiring of the Western Sahara crisis, with UN
Special Envoy James Baker resigning in frustration last
month.
The UN's new representative, Alvaro de Soto, said this week
that he would pursue the same policy as Baker, suggesting no
new ideas to break the deadlock were on the table.
____
[From afrol News, July 12, 2004]
Norwegian Industry To Exploit Sahrawi Fish Resources
Norwegian officials are in the process of promoting
Norwegian investments in the booming fisheries industry in
Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara, despite protests by Sahrawi
officials. The fisheries industry is the dominant economic
sector in the territory, promoting new Moroccan settlements
here. Norwegian capital and knowledge is to help this
development.
According to information made available to afrol News, the
Norwegian Ambassador in Morocco, Arne Aasheim last week was
on a three-day visit to El Aaiun, the capital of the Western
Sahara territory. Here, he had meetings with the Moroccan
authorities governing the occupied territory and
representatives of the fisheries sector.
Sources wanting to remain anonymous told afrol News that
the primary focus in these meetings was on how Norwegian
companies could strengthen their foothold in the booming
Moroccan fisheries industry, which mainly is based in the
occupied territory. Morocco has been singled out as a golden
opportunity for Norway's many companies operating in the
fisheries sector.
Norway is one of Europe's leading fisheries nations, also
regarding the larger definition of the industry, including
the construction of fisheries vessels, fishing technology and
fish processing and distribution technology.
Morocco, on the other hand, during the last years has
singled out the fisheries industry as one of its most
promising sectors for economic development. After refusing to
renew a fisheries agreement with the European Union in 1999,
Moroccan authorities are now promoting the establishment of a
large national fleet of fishing vessels, fish processing
plants and an export infrastructure. Since 2001,
approximately euro 150 million have been invested into the
sector annually.
The controversial bit of Morocco's booming fisheries
industry is that it is mostly based on the rich fisheries
resources off the cost of occupied Western Sahara. According
to international law, an occupying state is obliged to manage
the renewable resources of the territory it occupies.
However, revenues from these resources are to be channelled
into the development of the people of the territory.
In the case of Western Sahara, the revenues of the
exploitation of the territory's resources however do not go
to the internationally recognised representatives of the
Sahrawis--the exiled Polisario government--but instead to the
strengthening of Morocco's occupation of the territory.
Almost the entire work force of the fisheries sector in
Western Sahara is of Moroccan origin and the sector's growth
is promoting more Moroccan settlements in the occupied
territory.
While the Norwegian government generally has defended the
case of the Sahrawis in their conflict with Morocco, this has
not been the case in the important fisheries sector. Mr
Aasheim's predecessor at Norway's Rabat Embassy, Ole Kristian
Holthe, since 2000 has been an active and passionate promoter
of Norwegian investments in Morocco's booming fisheries
sector, non-regarding the location of these investments.
In February 2002, Ambassador Holthe met with the society
for Norwegian Maritime Exporters (NME) in Haugesund,
informing about that access to ``the Moroccan market is
something that is happening now.'' He especially emphasised
on the large number of fishing vessels that Moroccan
authorities were ordering in an international tender.
Explaining that Morocco is ``the most stable Arab country
oriented towards the West,'' Mr Holthe added that the
problems surrounding Western Sahara should not endanger
Norwegian investments. ``Norwegian authorities may consider
that [official] Norwegian trade promotion devices should not
be involved in investments [in Western Sahara], but my
opinion is that, as long as one enters as a partner in the
fisheries industry--and looks at this geographically--then it
should be safe.''
According to research done by the Norway-based
international fisheries media `IntraFish', Norwegian
authorities already in 2002 were financially aiding exporters
to get a foothold in Morocco; including the occupied
territories. This included aid by the Norwegian government's
agency guaranteeing export financing and the Scandinavian
Investment Bank. At least kroner 30 million (euro 4 million)
were available to finance Norwegian exports to Morocco's
fisheries sector.
These government efforts have already produced several
Norwegian investments in Western Sahara. In October 2002, the
Norwegian company Finsam announced it was constructing an ice
producing plant in ``Laayoune, Morocco''--which translates
into El Aaiun in Western Sahara. This ice plant is mainly
producing ice for fish landed in El Aaiun.
Other Norwegian investments in the occupied territory's
fishery sector include the company Selfa Arctic, which is
``constructing modern coastal fisheries in Morocco;'' Simrad,
which delivers marine electronics to Morocco, including to
its ``Moroccan retailer in Laayoune;'' Astia Holdings, which
exports fishing vessels and equipment to Morocco; and Furuno,
which sells electronic navigation equipment in Morocco.
Ambassador Holthe's indiscrete promotion of Norwegian
export opportunities in Western Sahara however became too
much for Norwegian authorities. Already in November 2002,
Foreign Minister Jan Petersen instructed his Rabat Ambassador
to write an official letter to companies investing in Western
Sahara and inform them about the political risk and ethical
problems.
According to information given to afrol News, however,
Ambassador Holthe smoothened the wording in the letter he
sent out to Norwegian companies, saying that the Embassy
could see no limits in international law regarding
investments in Western Sahara. In 2003, Mr Holthe was
replaced and sent to the Norwegian Embassy in Iran for
reasons unknown to afrol News.
Since that, Ambassador Aasheim has inherited the complex
question of Norwegian investments in Western Sahara. As far
as afrol News has been able to establish, the Norwegian
Embassy in Rabat has not lowered its profile regarding this
promotion since Mr Aasheim's appointment. Last week's
official promotion trip by the Ambassador to El Aaiun is
probably the first ever investment promotion trip to the
occupied territories by any Norwegian government official.
It therefore came as a shock to the Polisario exile
government. Mouloud Said, the Polisario Representative in
Washington told afrol News today that his government
considers ``any transaction between the occupying power with
any other entity or government as completely illegal at the
eyes of international law, and we do condemn any attempt to
strengthen the Moroccan occupation.''
We are disappointed because traditionally, the Norwegians
government has been in support of the peoples' right to self-
determination all over Africa and in particular in Western
Sahara, added Mr Said. ``This is uncharacteristic coming from
the representative from a government known for its defence of
human rights and the right of self-determination.''
Mr Said further said that the Polisario considered a UN
legal opinion issued in 2001, regarding oil exploration in
Western Sahara to be of relevance in this case. The legal
opinion concluded that Morocco had no right to act on behalf
of Western Sahara and market its resources, according to Mr
Said.
Unfortunately, afrol News was not able to gather reactions
from Norwegian authorities. The Norwegian Embassy in Rabat
did not answer phone calls from afrol News neither on Friday
nor today, while spokesperson Cathrine Andersen at the
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs refused to supply
[[Page 17278]]
afrol News with a direct phone number to Ambassador Aasheim,
claiming the Ministry had ``no other information'' on how to
get in contact with its Rabat Embassy.
____
Framework Agreement on the Status of Western Sahara (Baker Plan I)
Annex I of SG Report S/2001/613 of 20 Jun 01
The authority in Western Sahara shall be as follows:
1. The population of Western Sahara, through their
executive, legislative and judicial bodies shall have
exclusive competence over local governmental administration,
territorial budget and taxation, law enforcement, internal
security, social welfare, culture, education, commerce,
transportation, agriculture, mining, fisheries and industry,
environmental policy, housing and urban development, water
and electricity, roads and other basic infrastructure.
2. The Kingdom of Morocco will have exclusive competence
over foreign relations (including international agreements
and conventions) national security and external defence
(including determination of borders, maritime, aerial or
terrestrial and their protection by all appropriate means)
all matters relating to the production, sale, ownership or
use of weapons or explosives and the preservation of the
territorial integrity against secessionist attempts whether
from within or without the territory. In addition, the flag,
currency, customs, postal and telecommunication systems of
the Kingdom shall be the same for Western Sahara. With
respect to all functions described in this paragraph (2) the
Kingdom may appoint representatives to serve it in Western
Sahara.
3. In Western Sahara the executive authority shall be
vested in an Executive, who shall be elected by a vote of
those individuals who have been identified as qualified to
vote by the Identification Commission of the United Nations
Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, and whose names
are on the United Nations provisional voter lists (completed
as of 30 December 1999) without giving effect to any appeals
or other objections. To qualify as a candidate for Executive,
one must be an individual who has been identified as
qualified to vote as aforesaid and whose name is on said
provisional voter lists. The Executive shall be elected for a
term of four years. Thereafter, the Executive shall be
elected by majority vote of the Assembly. The Executive shall
appoint administrators in charge of executive departments for
terms of four years. The legislative authority shall be
vested in an Assembly, the members of which shall be directly
elected by voters for terms of four years. The judicial
authority shall be vested in such courts as may be necessary,
the judges of which shall be selected from the National
Institute for Judicial Studies but shall be from Western
Sahara. Such courts shall be the authority on territorial
law. To be qualified to vote for members of the Assembly, a
person must be 18 years or older and either (i) a continuous
resident of the territory since 31 October 1998, or (ii) a
person listed on the repatriation list as of 31 October 2000.
4. All laws passed by the Assembly and all decisions of the
courts referred to in paragraph 3 above must respect and
comply with the constitution of the Kingdom of Morocco,
particularly with respect to the protection of public
liberties. All elections or referenda referred to in this
agreement shall be conducted with all appropriate guarantees
and in keeping with the Code of Conduct agreed to by the
parties in 1997, except where to do so would be inconsistent
with the terms hereof.
5. Neither the Kingdom nor the executive, legislative, or
judicial bodies of the Authority of Western Sahara referred
to above may unilaterally change or abolish the status of
Western Sahara. Any changes or modifications of this
agreement has to be approved by the Executive and the
Assembly of Western Sahara. The status of Western Sahara will
be submitted to a referendum of qualified voters on such date
as the parties hereto shall agree, within the five year
period following the initial actions to implement this
agreement. To be qualified to vote in such a referendum a
voter must have been a full time resident of Western Sahara
for the preceding one year.
6. The Secretary-General of the United Nations will offer
his mediation and good offices to assist the two parties
hereto in the implementation or interpretation of this
agreement.
7. The parties agree to implement this agreement promptly
and request the assistance of the United Nations to this end.
____
[From the Christian Science Monitor, Mar. 26, 2004]
Sahara Refugees Form a Progressive Society
Literacy and democracy are thriving in an unlikely place
(By John Thorne)
Tindouf, Algeria.--A dozen women recline on the steps of
the main girls' school in the Saharawi refugee camps, their
pastel robes like blots of water-color on the whitewashed
cement. When the door opens and the headmistress emerges, the
women suddenly leap up and crowd around her, clamoring. They
are mothers seeking places for their daughters in the
already-crowded school.
The Saharawi women are among the most liberated of the
Muslim world, and their status is characteristic of the well-
organized, egalitarian society that has developed in the
refugee camps over the past three decades. For all their
bleakness, the Saharawi camps boast a representative
government, a 95 percent literacy rate, and a constitution
that enshrines religious tolerance and gender equality.
The Saharawis are the Arab nomads of Western Sahara, bound
together by their Yemeni ancestry and their dialect,
Hassaniya, which remains close to classical Arabic. For
centuries, they roamed the territory with their camels and
goats, sometimes trading with Spanish colonizers, and became
known as ``blue men'' for the indigo robes they wear.
When Spain abandoned Western Sahara in 1975, Morocco
invaded and drove the Saharawis into neighboring Algeria.
Trading their camels for Land Rovers, they fought a guerrilla
war under the leadership of the Polisario Front, an
independence movement, until the UN brokered a ceasefire in
1991. Since then, the promised vote on independence has been
stalled by disagreement over who should be allowed to
participate.
Equality
Meanwhile the Saharawi refugees, numbering some 160,000,
have clung on in camps amid the flat, stony wastes near the
town of Tindouf, in southwest Algeria. Subsisting on foreign
aid--chiefly rice, bread, and a few root vegetables--most
suffer from chronic malnutrition. Their settlements consist
almost wholly of adobe huts and dusty canvas tents, appearing
from afar as brown smudges on the slightly lighter brown
desert.
``Women built these camps,'' says Menana Mohammed, deputy
secretary-general of the Union of Saharawi Women. When the
Saharawis arrived at Tindouf, most of the men had stayed
behind as soldiers. ``You'll still find women doing all kinds
of work, including leading,'' Ms. Mohammed adds.
While most of the top brass are men, the minister of
culture is a woman. Women hold one fourth of the seats in the
Saharawi parliament, and they make up most of the civil
service, including teachers, nurses, and doctors.
``These days our chief concern is education,'' says
Mohammed. All young Saharawis learn Spanish as well as
Arabic, and some attend universities in Spain, Cuba, and
Algeria through the sponsorship of those countries'
governments.
``In the camps, we had to be both sexes, because the men
were all away fighting,'' says Mohammed. There is an old
Saharawi saying, she says, that rings especially true today:
``A tent is raised on two poles: a man and a woman.'' The
Saharawis' traditionally tough, wandering lifestyle has
always made them regard husband and wife as equal leaders of
the household.
Individualism
It has also begotten an individualistic approach to Islam.
While most Muslims tend to stress the importance of the
Islamic community, ``the Saharawis believe that religion is a
very personal issue,'' says Mouloud Said, the Polisario's
representative in the United States. ``It's a personal
relationship between the human being and his Creator. This is
the mentality of the nomadic society.''
Mosques are conspicuously absent from the camps, in large
part because the Saharawis ``don't believe that to speak to
God, you need a fancy place,'' explains Mr. Said.
Saharawis seldom pray in groups save on important Muslim
holidays, and view even these ceremonies as purely optional.
For some, this is a welcome escape-hatch from the religion's
bloodier rituals.
``Each person has his own Islam,'' says Zorgan Laroussi, a
translator in the camps who chose not to attend the mass
slaughter of camels for the feast of al-Eid al-Fitr, which
marks the end of Ramadan. His brother-in-law Salek did go,
and relishes explaining the ritual's finer points while the
two men and their families share a dish of grilled
hindquarters.
Saharawis are equally welcoming of other religions. ``There
is an almost continuous presence of church groups from all
over the world--in particular the U.S.--in the camps,'' says
Said. ``Every year for the last four years, there has been a
joint prayer at Easter.''
``Tolerance is not something new, but it's something
[Saharawi leaders] encourage,'' he says. ``In a tolerant
society, the center prevails, not the extremes. That means
respect for others, whether for the faith or their ideas.''
This credo finds ample use in the Saharawis' recent
conversion to a united democratic government. Following their
flight from Western Sahara, they quickly saw that overcoming
the desert and the Moroccan Army meant forsaking old tribal
loyalties. ``What's most important is that we Saharawis hang
together, so we highlight stories that promote unity among
us,'' says Minister of Culture Miriam Salek, who works with
the Ministry of Education and the Saharawi Youth Organization
to keep alive Saharawi folklore and history.
Democracy
In 1976, the Polisario proclaimed, and more or less became,
the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic. Although a government-
in-
[[Page 17279]]
exile, it is recognized by 75 countries, and the UN formally
considers Western Sahara an occupied territory.
Tier upon tier of elected officials make up the camp
government, from the national parliament down to neighborhood
councils. Saharawis are avid voters, and many participate in
local civil service--even if it's merely taking a twice-
weekly shift on the trash detail, or helping dole out
rations.
This could be the blueprint for an independent Western
Sahara, and there is a general sense of pride and excitement
among the Saharawis for their new society. ``This has worked
so far, what we have here,'' says one young daira (district)
councilman, ``and it should still work in Western Sahara. We
built this on the hope of the people, and I don't think
they'll want to change.''
But as the years drag on, many fear they will never have
the chance to find out. Their smoothly running camps and
refusal to resort to terrorism keep them out of the public
consciousness, relieving pressure on the UN to push for a
quick settlement to the 29-year-old conflict. ``We have been
landless for so long,'' laments Tellib Helli Embarik, an old
tribal leader. ``I don't know if the UN is just waiting for
us to disappear or what!''
____
[From the Hill, July 13, 2004]
Deserting the Baker Plan
(By David Keene)
President Bush likes to talk about nurturing democracy
within the Muslim world, but he's doing little for the pro-
Western Muslims of the Western Sahara whose future rests in
his hands.
If you don't know much about the plight of these people,
you aren't alone. They have been languishing in refugee camps
in western Algeria for nearly 30 years and will remain there
until the United States stops playing chief enabler to
Moroccan government that invaded and seized their country
when it was freed from colonial rule by Spain in the '70s.
I've visited the camps, and to suggest that the people who
inhabit them live under harsh conditions is to speak
euphemistically.
The Western Saharan or Saharawi peoples tried to resist
the Moroccans, but hundreds of thousands of them were forced
to flee to Algeria before a U.S.-equipped Moroccan army
determined to seize their land. Today more than 300,000 of
them survive as best they can, unable to see their relatives
or visit their homeland.
Realizing they didn't have the capability to defeat
Morocco on the battlefield, the Saharawi faced a choice. They
could fall on the asymmetric warfare of the terrorist,
surrender or turn to the international community. They
perhaps rather naively chose the latter course and went to
the United Nations and the World Court seeking justice.
Meanwhile, they've built a functioning democracy that
guarantees equal rights to men and women alike, educated
their children and let it be known that all they want to do
is live in peace with those around them. Their congressional
friends in the United States include people such as Sens. Jim
Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Reps Joe
Pitts (R-Pa.), Mark Green (R-Wis.) and Donald Payne (D-N.J.),
but so far few of their colleagues and virtually no one in
the Bush administration or the media seem to share their
concerns.
This is in spite of the fact that virtually everyone
agrees the Saharawi are right. The International Court of
Justice in 1975 ruled Morocco had no right to the land
seized, but the king of Morocco ignored the ruling and the
United Nations sought a referendum in which the people of the
region could vote on whether they wanted to be ruled by their
colonial masters or by leaders of their own choosing.
Meanwhile, the United States stood by silent as our
Moroccan ally consolidated control over the region to become
the last colonial power on the African continent.
Publicly, of course, the Moroccans declared that they too
believed in self-determination, but marched hundreds of
thousands of Moroccans into the region and declared that if
there was to be a vote, these folks should be allowed to vote
too. The Saharawi and the United Nations balked at this
baldfaced attempt to stuff the ballot boxes, but finally
appointed former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker as a
special envoy to work something out. Baker eventually came up
with a ``compromise'' plan that would grant the vote to
enough Moroccans to give them a majority if they stuck
together and suggested a period of autonomy within Morocco
followed by a vote to decide whether the region would go its
own way.
To everyone's surprise, the Sahrawi accepted the ``Baker
Plan.'' They know they can't survive in the camps forever and
suspect that more than a few of the Moroccans who will vote
might welcome the chance to escape the tender mercies of
their king. The Moroccans immediately rejected the plan
announcing that they will never accept any scheme that
includes the possible loss of the territory they have
grabbed.
The United Nations doesn't know what to do, and Baker has
thrown up his arms and resigned. The king's only real ally in
the United Nations is France, but it's our silent acceptance
of whatever he wants do to that has allowed him to thumb his
nose at the world. Everyone knows that as long as King
Mohammed VI can keep the United States in line, he will
remain intransigent.
During the king's visit to Washington last week, President
Bush supposedly brought up the Baker Plan, but one wonders if
he pressed very hard. He has, after all, said nothing about
the Saharawi in public and done everything from declaring
Morocco a ``major non-NATO ally'' to leading the charge for a
U.S.-Moroccan Free Trade Agreement to give the King the
impression that we aren't about to do anything at all about
the way he acts in his own neighborhood.
Meanwhile, the Saharawi hang on, praying for the day when
an American president who talks about democracy and justice
will come to their aid.
____
[From the Washington Times, July 9, 2004]
Beyond Diplomatic Niceties
(By Joseph Pitts and Donald Payne)
This week, His Majesty, King Mohammed of Morocco is in
Washington to tout the newly signed US.-Morocco Free Trade
Agreement and to bask in his nation's newly christened status
as a ``major non-NATO ally''.
While we do not oppose free trade or establishing stronger
allies, we would do well to look past the diplomatic niceties
that surround such trips. His Majesty's country illegally
occupies a swath of land in West Africa known as Western
Sahara. His government has promised the people of Western
Sahara, the Sahrawi, a vote to determine their own future.
More than a decade later, that vote has yet to occur.
Powerful friends in Europe and here in Washington have
helped His Majesty's government postpone this vote and
consolidate control over the country The Moroccan government
says its colonial rule over Western Sahara ensures its
``territorial integrity'' and preserves stability in the
region. But this idea is simply divorced from reality on the
ground.
During trips to the country, we have learned the Sahrawis
are peaceful, pro-Western and pro-democracy. In short,
despite living under an illegitimate colonial power, they
have established a deep-rooted culture of democracy, capable
of supporting a viable state. They have their own elected
leaders, many of them women. They have provided education and
equal rights to all their citizens--men and women.
The only stability a sovereign, democratic Western Sahara
disrupts is a status quo defined by tyranny. The King will
deny this. Official Washington will ignore it. But it is the
truth.
From 1884 until 1975, Western Sahara was a Spanish colony.
Upon Spain's withdrawal, Morocco invaded. The Sahrawis have
fought a lonely battle for liberation ever since, many
suffering in the refugee camps that dot Algerian sand dunes.
The U.N. International Court of Justice ruled Morocco's claim
to Western Sahara was illegitimate. Morocco ignored the
ruling.
In 1991, Morocco accepted the U.N.-brokered cease-fire
promising the Sahrawis a referendum for national self-
determination. Moroccan officials moved tens of thousands of
their own citizens to Western Sahara, attempting to stack the
vote in its favor. In 1997, the United Nations asked former
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker to help implement the
referendum. Morocco continued to balk.
The U.N.'s voter identification commission, using agreed-
upon criteria, set out to identify the eligible voters. After
years of interviews with each, the U.N. in January 2000
published the provisional list of voters, rejecting the
majority of Moroccan applicants. Morocco--fearing it would
lose the upper hand--reneged on its commitment to the
referendum.
To break the impasse, Mr. Baker submitted a compromise plan
to the Security Council in July 2003. The plan included a
referendum for the Sahrawis and gave Moroccans who settled in
Western Sahara through 1999 the right to vote, making them
the majority of the electorate. Convinced a peaceful solution
was possible, the leading Sahrawi political group--the
POLISARIO Front--reluctantly accepted the terms of Mr.
Baker's plan. Its gesture was never reciprocated. Morocco,
supported by France, rejected the Baker Plan from the outset.
As this battle rages, Sahrawis suffer. The Moroccan
government continues to imprison Sahrawi activists, exploit
the natural resources of Western Sahara, and prohibit foreign
journalists from transmitting the truth to the outside world,
as evidenced by the recent expulsion of several Danish
reporters.
The U.N. has spent more than $600 million to maintain this
dreadful status quo. Successive U.S. administrations,
Republican and Democrat, have walked a fine line on this
issue. Morocco is a longstanding ally. However, alliance with
powerful nations should not provide the cover to ignore
international commitments and deny the basic human right of
self-determination to a peaceful, democratic people.
When the president meets with King Mohammed this week, he
should not ignore His Majesty's opposition to democracy in
the Western Sahara. The spread of freedom is central to our
mission as a nation. This is ever more important as the
administration works to spread democracy in Islamic nations.
[[Page 17280]]
Unlike many others in the Middle East and North Africa, the
Sahrawis have chosen a peaceful path to democracy. We owe the
democratic people of Western Sahara no less than the support
we have given others in their fight for independence--the
right to have a say in their own future.
When Congress considers the US.-Morocco free trade
agreement, it should seriously consider how it will aid His
Majesty's attempt to exploit an area to which he has no
legitimate claim. Ignoring Western Sahara will put a vote for
Sahrawis further out of reach.
The time has come to abandon empty promises and hollow
rhetoric in favor of a free, fair, and transparent referendum
for the Sahrawis. This is the only way to build a peaceful,
democratic future for Western Sahara and the entire region.
____
Letter dated 29 January 2002 From the Under-Secretary-General for
Legal Affairs, the Legal Counsel, addressed to the President of the
Security Council
1. In a letter addressed to me on 13 November 2001, the
President of the Security Council requested, on behalf of the
members of the Security Council, my opinion on ``the legality
in the context of international law, including relevant
resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly
of the United Nations, and agreements concerning Western
Sahara of actions allegedly taken by the Moroccan authorities
consisting in the offering and signing of contracts with
foreign companies for the exploration of mineral resources in
Western Sahara''.
2. At my request, the Government of Morocco provided
information with respect to two contracts, concluded in
October 2001, for oil-reconnaissance and evaluation
activities in areas off-shore Western Sahara, one between the
Moroccan ``Office National de Recherches et d'Exploitations
Petrolieres'' (ONAREP) and the United States oil-company Kerr
Mc-Gee du Maroc Ltd., and the other between ONAREP and the
French oil company TotalFinaElf E&P Maroc. Concluded for an
initial period of 12 months, both contracts contain standard
options for the relinquishment of the rights under the
contract or its continuation, including an option for future
oil contracts in the respective areas or parts thereof.
3. The question of the legality of the contracts concluded
by Morocco off-shore Western Sahara requires an analysis of
the status of the territory of Western Sahara, and the status
of Morocco in relation to the Territory. As will be seen, it
also requires an analysis of the principles of international
law governing mineral resource activities in Non-Self-
Governing Territories.
4. The law applicable to the determination of these
questions is contained in the United Nations Charter, in
General Assembly resolutions, pertaining to decolonization,
in general, and economic activities in Non-Self-Governing
Territories, in particular, and in agreements concerning the
status of Western Sahara. The analysis of the applicable law
must also reflect the changes and developments which have
occurred as international law has been progressively codified
and developed, as well as the jurisprudence of the
International Court of Justice and the practice of States in
matters of natural resource activities in Non-Self-Governing
Territories.
A. The status of Western Sahara under Moroccan administration
5. A Spanish protectorate since 1884, Spanish Sahara was
included in 1963 in the list of NonSelf-Governing Territories
under Chapter XI of the Charter (A/5514, Annex III).
Beginning in 1962, Spain as administering Power transmitted
technical and statistical information on the territory under
Article 73 (e) of the Charter of the United Nations. This
information was examined by the Special Committee with Regard
to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (``Special
Committee''). In a series of General Assembly resolutions on
the Question of Spanish/Western Sahara, the applicability to
the territory of the Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (General
Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), was reaffirmed.
6. On 14 November 1975, a Declaration of Principles on
Western Sahara was concluded in Madrid between Spain, Morocco
and Mauritania (the Madrid Agreement), whereby the powers and
responsibilities of Spain, as the administering Power of the
territory, were transferred to a temporary tripartite
administration. The Madrid Agreement did not transfer
sovereignty over the territory, nor did it confer upon any of
the signatories the status of an administering Power--a
status which Spain alone could not have unilaterally
transferred. The transfer of administrative authority over
the territory to Morocco and Mauritania in 1975, did not
affect the international status of Western Sahara as Non-
Self-Governing Territory.
7. On 26 February 1976, Spain informed the Secretary-
General that as of that it had terminated its presence in
Western Sahara and relinquished its responsibilities over the
Territory, thus leaving it in fact under the administration
of both Morocco and Mauritania in their respective controlled
areas. following the withdrawal of Mauritania from the
Territory in 1979, upon the conclusion of the Mauritano-
Sahraoui agreement of 19 August 1979 (S/13504, Annex I),
Morocco has administrated the territory of Western Sahara
alone. Morocco however, is not listed as the administering
Power of the territory in the United Nations list of Non-
Self-Governing Territories, and has, therefore, not
transmitted information on the territory in accordance with
Articles 73 (e) of the United Nations Charter.
8. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and given the status of
Western Sahara as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, it would be
appropriate for purposes of the present analysis to have
regard to the principles applicable to the powers and
responsibilities of an administering Power in matters of
mineral resource activities in such a Territory.
B. The law applicable to mineral resource activities in Non-Self-
Governing Territories
9. Article 73 of the United Nations Charter lays down the
fundamental principles applicable to Non-Self-Governing
Territories. Members of the United Nations who assumed
responsibilities for the administration of these territories
have whereby recognized the principle that the interest of
the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and have
accepted as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the
utmost the well-being of the inhabitants of these
territories. Under Article 73 (e) of the Charter, they are
required to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for
information purposes statistical and other information of a
technical nature relating to economic, social, and
educational conditions in the territories under their
administration.
10. The legal regime applicable to Non-Self-Governing
Territories was further developed in the practice of the
United Nations and, more specifically, in the Special
Committee and the General Assembly. Resolutions of the
General Assembly adopted under the agenda item
``implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples'', called upon
the administering Powers to ensure that all economic
activities in the Non-Self-Governing Territories under their
administration do not adversely affect the interests of the
peoples of such territories, but are instead directed to
assist them in the exercise of their right to self-
determination. The Assembly also consistently urged the
administering Powers to safeguard and guarantee the
inalienable rights of the peoples of these territories to
their natural resources, and to establish and maintain
control over the future development of those resources (GA
res 35/118 of 11 December 1980; 52/78 of 10 December 1997;
54/91 of 6 December 1999; 55/147 of 8 December 2000; and 56/
74 of 10 December 2001).
11. In the resolutions adopted under the item ``Activities
of foreign economic and other interests which impede the
Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in territories
under Colonial Domination'', the General Assembly reiterated
that ``the exploitation and plundering of the marine and
other natural resources of colonial and Non-Self-Governing
Territories by foreign economic interests, in violation of
the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, is a threat
to the integrity and prosperity of these Territories'' and
that ``any administering Power that deprives the colonial
people of Non-Self-Governing Territories of the exercise of
their legitimate rights over their natural resources . . .
violates the solemn obligations it has assumed under the
Charter of the United Nations'' (GA res. 48/46 of 10 December
1992 and 49/40 of 9 December 1994).
12. In an important evolution of this doctrine, the General
Assembly in resolution 50/33 of 6 December 1995, drew a
distinction between economic activities that are detrimental
to the peoples of these territories and those directed to
benefit them. In paragraph 2 of that resolution, the General
Assembly affirmed ``the value of foreign economic investment
undertaken in collaboration with the peoples of Non-Self-
Governing Territories and in accordance with their wishes in
order to make a valid contribution to the socio-economic
development of the Territories''. This position has been
affirmed by the General Assembly in later resolutions (GA
res. 52/72 of 10 December 1997; 53/61 of 3 December 1998; 54/
84 of 5 December 1999; 55/38 of 8 December 2000; and 56/66 of
10 December 2001).
13. The question of Western Sahara has been dealt with by
both the General Assembly, as a question of decolonization,
and by the Security Council as a question of peace and
security. The Council was first seized of the matter in 1975,
and in resolutions 377 (1975) of 22 October 1975 and 379
(1975) of 2 November 1975 it requested the Secretary-General
to enter into consultations with the parties. Since 1988, in
particular, when Morocco and the Frente Polisaro agreed, in
principle, to the settlement proposals of the Secretary-
General and the Chairman of the OAU, the political process
aiming at a peaceful settlement of the question of Western
Sahara has been under the purview of the Council. For the
purposes of the present analysis, however, the body of
Security Council resolutions pertaining to the political
process is not relevant to the legal regime applicable to
mineral resource activities in Non-Self-
[[Page 17281]]
Governing Territories and for this reason is not dealt with
in detail in the present letter.
14. The principle of ``permanent sovereignty over natural
resources'' as the right of peoples and nations to use and
dispose of the natural resources in their territories in the
interest of their national development and well-being, was
established in General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14
December 1962. It has since been reaffirmed in the 1966
International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights and on Civil and Political Rights, as well as in
subsequent General Assembly resolutions, most notably,
resolution 3201 (S-VI) of 1 May 1974, ``Declaration on the
Establishment of a New International Economic Order'', and
Resolution 3281 (XXIX) containing the Charter of Economic
Rights and Duties of States. While the legal nature of the
core principle of ``permanent sovereignty over natural
resources'', as a corollary to the principle of territorial
sovereignty or the right of self-determination, is
indisputably part of customary international law, its exact
legal scope and implications are still debatable. In the
present context, the question is whether the principle of
``permanent sovereignty'' prohibits any activities related to
natural resources undertaken by an administering Power (cf.
para. 8 above) in a Non-Self-Governing Territory, or only
those which are undertaken in disregard of the needs,
interests and benefits of the people of that territory.
c. the case law of the international court of justice
15. The question of natural resource exploitation by
administering Powers in Non-Self-Governing Territories was
brought before the International Court of Justice in the Case
of East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) and the Case Concerning
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia). In
neither case, however, was the question of the legality of
resource exploitation activities in Non-Self-Governing
Territories conclusively determined.
16. In the Case of East Timor, Portugal argued that in
negotiating with Indonesia an agreement on the exploration
and exploitation of the continental shelf area of the Timor
Gap, Australia had failed to respect the right of the people
of East Timor to permanent sovereignty over its natural
wealth and resources, and the powers and rights of Portugal
as administering Power of East Timor. In the absence of
Indonesia's participation in the proceedings, the
International Court of Justice concluded that it lacked
jurisdiction.
17. In the Nauru Phosphate Case, Nauru claimed the
rehabilitation of certain phosphate lands worked out before
independence in the period of the Trusteeship administration
by Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Nauru
argued that the principle of permanent sovereignty over
natural resources was breached in circumstances in which a
major resource was depleted on grossly inequitable terms and
its extraction involved the physical reduction of the land.
Following the Judgment on the Preliminary Objections, the
parties reached a settlement and a Judgment on the merits was
no longer required.
d. the practice of states
18. In the recent practice of States, cases of resource
exploitation in Non-Self-Governing Territories have, for
obvious reasons, been few and far apart. In 1975, the United
Nations Visiting Mission to Spanish Sahara reported that at
the time of the visit, four companies held prospecting
concessions in off-shore Spanish Sahara. In discussing the
exploitation of phosphate deposits in the region of Bu Craa
with Spanish officials, the Mission was told that the
revenues expected to accrue would be used for the benefit of
the Territory, that Spain recognized the sovereignty of the
Saharan population over the Territory's natural resources and
that, apart from the return of its investment, Spain laid no
claim to benefit from the proceeds (A/10023/Rev.1, p. 52)
19. The exploitation of uranium and other natural resources
in Namibia by South Africa and a number of Western
multinational corporations was considered illegal under
Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural Resources of
Namibia, enacted in 1974 by the United Nations Council for
Namibia, and was condemned by the General Assembly (GA res.
36/51 of 24 November 1981, and 39/42 of 5 December 1984). The
case of Namibia, however, must be seen in the light of
Security Council resolution 276 (1979) of 30 January 1970,
which declared that the continued presence of South Africa in
Namibia was illegal and that consequently all acts taken by
the Government of South Africa were illegal and invalid.
20. The case of East Timor under the United Nations
Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) is unique
in that, while UNTAET is not an administering Power within
the meaning of Article 73 of the United Nations Charter, East
Timor is still technically listed as a Non-Self-Governing
Territory. By the time UNTAET was established in October
1999, the Timor Gap Treaty was fully operational and
concessions had been granted in the Zone of Cooperation by
Indonesia and Australia, respectively. In order to ensure the
continuity of the practical arrangements under the Timor Gap
Treaty, UNTAET, acting on behalf of East Timor, concluded on
10 February 2000, an Exchange of Letters with Australia for
the continued operation of the terms of the Treaty. Two years
later, in anticipation of independence, UNTAET, acting on
behalf of East Timor, negotiated with Australia a draft
``Timor Sea Arrangement'' which will replace the Timor Gap
Treaty upon the independence of East Timor. In concluding the
agreement for the exploration and exploitation of oil and
natural gas deposits in the continental shelf of East Timor,
UNTAET, on both occasions, consulted fully with
representatives of the East Timorese people, who participated
actively in the negotiations.
e. conclusions
21. The question addressed to me by the Security Council
namely, ``the legality . . . of actions allegedly taken by
the Moroccan authorities consisting in the offering and
signing of contracts with foreign companies for the
exploration of mineral resources in Western Sahara,'' has
been analysed by analogy as part of the more general question
of whether mineral resource activities in a Non-Self-
Governing Territory by an administering Power is illegal, as
such, or only if conducted in disregard of the needs and
interests of the people of that territory. An analysis of the
relevant provisions of the United Nations Charter, General
Assembly resolutions, the case law of the International Court
of Justice and the practice of States, supports the latter
conclusion.
22. The principle that the interests of the peoples of Non-
Self-Governing Territories are paramount, and their well-
being and development is the ``sacred trust'' of their
respective administering Powers, was established in the
Charter of the United Nations and further developed in
General Assembly by resolutions on the question of
decolonization and economic activities in Non-Self-Governing
Territories. In recognizing the inalienable rights of the
peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories to the natural
resources in their territories, the General Assembly has
consistently condemned the exploitation and plundering of
natural resources and any economic activities which are
detrimental to the interests of the peoples of these
territories and deprive them of their legitimate rights over
their natural resource. It recognized, however, the value of
economic activities which are undertaken in accordance with
the wishes of the peoples of those territories, and their
contribution to the development of such territories.
23. In the Cases of East Timor and Nauru, the International
Court of Justice did not pronounce itself on the question of
the legality of economic activities in Non-Self-Governing
Territories. It should be noted, however, that in neither
case was it alleged that mineral resource exploitation in
such territories was illegal per se. In the Case of East
Timor, the conclusion of an oil exploitation agreement was
allegedly illegal because it was not concluded with the
administering Power (Portugal); in the Nauru Case, the
illegality allegedly arose because the mineral resource
exploitation depleted unnecessarily or inequitably the
overlaying lands.
24. The recent State practice, though limited, is
illustrative of an opinio juris on the part of both
administering Powers and third States: where resource
exploitation activities are concluded in Non-Self-Governing
Territories for the benefit of the peoples of these
territories, on their behalf, or in consultation with their
representatives, they are considered compatible with the
Charter obligations of the administering Power, and in
conformity with the General Assembly resolutions and the
principle of ``permanent sovereignty over natural resources''
enshrined therein.
25. The foregoing legal principles established in the
practice of States and the United Nations pertain to economic
activities in Non-Self-Governing Territories, in general, and
mineral resource exploitation, in particular. It must be
recognized, however, that in the present case, the contracts
for oil reconnaissance and evaluation do not entail
exploitation or the physical removal of the mineral
resources, and no benefits have as of yet accrued. The
conclusion is, therefore, that, while the specific contracts
which are the subject of the Security Council's request are
not in themselves illegal, if further exploration and
exploitation activities were to proceed in disregard of the
interests and wishes of the people of Western Sahara, they
would be in violation of the international law principles
applicable to mineral resource activities in Non-Self-
Governing Territories.
Hans Corell,
Under-Secretary for legal Affairs,
The Legal Counsel.
____
Kingdom of Morocco,
Ministry of Interior, Secretariate,
Rabat, January 22, 1998.
From: The Minister of State for the Interior.
To: All Walis and Governors of the Kingdom's Prefectures and
Provinces.
Object: Training workshops for applicants for identification
for the referendum to confirm the Moroccanness of the
Sahara.
This circular results from examination of the daily
activity reports on the ethnic workshops, forwarded by
yourselves, and
[[Page 17282]]
from remarks, suggestions and proposals made by the Moroccan
party's Observers in the light of seven weeks of
identification, some twenty weeks from the end of this
operation.
The results of identification having so far fallen short of
the necessary level, owing in part, certainly, to evidence
from the Chyoukh representing the other party which is often
negative, but also owing to the manifestly insufficient
preparation of our applicants, you are invited to pay the
closest attention to this briefing and supervise personally,
in accordance with my earlier instructions, the strict
application of the following measures:
1. Exhaustive pre-identification of the applicants and
their sub-fractions:
It emerges from the daily activity reports from the ethnic
workshops forwarded by yourself that, unfortunately, only a
small number of Walis and Governors (see list attached to
this circular) have an exact knowledge of the tribes and sub-
fractions relevant to their respective commands, and have
consequently been able to provide the Ministry of the
Interior with statistical data on the applicants that
conforms to the information in the central index.
The others are invited immediately to produce their data on
the tribes and sub-fractions and on the number of applicants
present in their respective commands and held ready to be
summoned at any time to MINURSO's Identification Centres.
It goes without saying that an incomplete knowledge of the
sub-fractions and their numbers in a prefecture or province
results in underestimation of the real population of
applicants, so that an insufficient number of these is being
trained and taken to the Identification Centres, contrary to
the objective of my earlier instructions.
The Walis and Governors concerned will therefore, on
receipt of this circular, require their information
technology units to contact the central information
technology service to arrange immediate presentation of the
province's or prefecture's data on the sub-fractions and
their numbers.
2. Preparation of applicants for identification:
As specified in my previous circulars, the basis for the
summoning and identification of applicants by MINURSO is the
form filled out by them in 1994, on which the computerised
data-banks used by this mission and by the Ministry of the
Interior itself are both based.
Each applicant is registered and can be sought through his
form number. The form contains the applicant's main details
and those of his father and mother, in addition to all the
elements that specify which identification criterion, out of
the five criteria defined by the United Nations Peace Plan,
is likely to be fulfilled by the applicant.
The applicant must also have perfect knowledge at least of
the contents of the said form. However, when this document
does not reflect the applicant's real situation, he should
not be imprisoned by it but should seek to make it easy for
the Identification Commission to recognise key elements, such
as:
the birthplaces of the applicant and his immediate family
(father, mother, children).
the seasonal pasture zones frequented in the Sahara by the
applicant or his family.
landmark dates in relation to the birth of the applicant
and his immediate family (father, mother, children) in the
Sahara.
the lineage of the applicant and his immediate family and
kinship with a known Sahrawi family.
the history of the applicant's tribe and family.
geography of the region in which they lived and travelled.
Lastly, there is a need to inculcate the applicant with a
psychological stance enabling him to:
demystify the identification operation and the MINURSO
commission.
be motivated and aware of the stakes in the referendum.
have confidence in himself and be self-assured.
overcome shyness and diffidence and speak loudly and
clearly.
learn in advance, from applicants already identified as
belonging to the same subfraction, what questions the
Identification Commission is asking.
be able to cite one or more family members already counted
or identified, and give their numbers.
convince the Moroccan Cheikh who will then convince the
Identification Commission.
Full mastery of these elements implies preliminary training
of the applicant in his prefecture or province of origin and
2 or 3 days of fine tuning with the Moroccan Cheikh before
the identification session.
3. Responsibilities of the Cheikh and the Observer:
As specified in the document attached to this circular,
concerning ``verification of eligibility'' of applicants, the
Cheikh's main mission with MINURSO is to testify that the
applicant fulfils one of the five identification criteria
defined by the United Nations Peace Plan.
To this end, it is necessary for the Cheikh to meet at
least once with the Observer and the applicants from each
sub-fraction to become amply acquainted with the latter in
preparation for the identification session. A list, in
Arabic, of the applicants from his sub-fraction should be
supplied to the Cheikh.
To facilitate contact between the applicants and the Cheikh
of their fraction, the Observer teams will be tripled to
enable them to follow the identification operation at the
same time as preparing the applicants.
In the identification session the Cheikh should appear
credible and convincing and should not restrict himself to
recognizing the applicant, but seek to support and defend him
as well. He should listen closely to the applicant's
declaration and give active, reasoned and coherent testimony
in support of the applicant's answers.
He should have perfect knowledge of the applicant, his
lineage and his links with the sub-fraction and region.
He should relate this in a clear and convincing manner to
the Identification Commission to elicit a positive verdict
from it.
4. Role of the Instructors
Close contact between the Instructor, the Cheikh and the
Observer is essential to train the Cheikh, teach him the
identification process and the five eligibility criteria,
raise his awareness, motivate him and remove any complexes he
may have about the MINURSO Commission.
At least one full-day session involving the Observer, the
Instructor, the Cheikh and the applicants from the sub-
fraction is necessary to coordinate, evaluate and plan their
common action.
For each ethnic sub-fraction, it is proposed that a group
of applicants from the Southern Provinces who have already
been identified, along with qualified cadres from these
provinces, should be formed to help with the training
programme of applicants from the Northern Provinces.
These applicants should identify the best-known and most
widely distributed parts of their lineage and make them known
to the Identification Commission.
In the same context, applicants from the Northern Provinces
who are of Sahrawi origin should be integrated with their
respective tribes to familiarize themselves with certain
details that may help facilitate their identification.
Nevertheless, in cases where applicants in this category
are certain of their Sahrawi origin but have acquired the
culture of Northern Morocco, those concerned should defend
their Moroccan personality while providing convincing proofs
of their Sahrawi origin.
Lastly, agents of the authorities, notables, young people
and women should be mobilized in support of this operation.
A special unit is to be established for preparing the
Chyoukh, and a system set up to train the Instructors and the
Chyoukh in, for example:
the identification process.
the five criteria.
the role of the Chyoukh.
the technical arrangements.
Finally, deserving Chyoukh are to be encouraged and treated
with respect.
In conclusion, the next twenty weeks are of determining
importance for the outcome of the referendum to confirm the
Moroccanness of the Sahara, whose result depends on your
immediate action to apply integrally all the instructions you
have been given on this subject, which I invite you once
again to execute rigorously in liaison with the central
Governors concerned, who are required to keep me regularly
informed.
Driss Basri,
The Minister of State for the Interior.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott), a colleague and friend from the Committee
on Ways and Means.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the President and his Trade
Representative say that the U.S.-Morocco free trade agreement is a good
idea because it will strengthen our economic ties with moderate, I
emphasize moderate, Muslim countries.
Well, first of all, two-way trade flow between the United States and
Morocco is around a billion dollars a year. Morocco is a tiny economy
with little economic significance. The U.S. Commerce Department
indicated the trade agreement will have a negligible impact on trade
and negligible impact on our economies.
Furthermore, while I recognize that King Mohammed VI has made great
strides recently, particularly with regard to the rights of women, we
should not forget two very important issues. One, Morocco is a monarchy
and the king is deemed the country's religious leader. This FTA is
really about strengthening ties with moderate monarchies; Jordan,
Bahrain and others have preceded it.
There are dozens of Muslim countries that are vibrant democracies,
Egypt, that we should have chosen to pursue trade agreements before we
chose Morocco.
[[Page 17283]]
But, two, the way in which Morocco has handled the Western Sahara is
really a stain on their nation. In 1975, when the Western Sahara went
free from Spain, the Moroccans moved in immediately and said this is
our country. It is a very, very wealthy country in natural resources.
Both oil is being drilled for by Kerr McGee and other American and
British companies, and the fishing industry off the coast is very
proficient.
So before signing an agreement with them, with a nation that has been
occupying a territory to which it has no legal claim for 25 years, a
nation that has erected a 2,000-kilometer wall to keep the inhabitants
of Western Sahara from fleeing, with a country that has no respect for
the right of self-determination, we should have ensured that the area
of Western Sahara was justly and peacefully resolved. It would have
been a lever we could have used to get them to resolve this.
The U.N. has said you should have an election and they just never
quite get around to having it for 25 years.
I am really pleased, however, that the chairman of the House
Committee on Ways and Means and the ranking member, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel), have worked with me to insert language into the
official committee documents to indicate that in no way does the free
trade agreement cover trade investment in the Western Sahara.
The issue is this: If you drill oil in the Western Sahara and the
Moroccans take it into Morocco, is it then eligible for tariff-free
dealings with the United States? And the answer should be no, and there
should really never have been a trade agreement until that legal claim
was relinquished or we had some sort of agreement on all of this.
What we do have is a letter which the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Pitts) inserted in the Record. I suspect I have one very similar
to his but he will insert it also in the Record. I will include a
letter from the Trade Representatives saying that in dealing with
Morocco we are dealing with Morocco as understood by the United Nations
and the United States, and we are not using this as a kind of end-
around to go out and get more oil.
One wonders why did we go to Morocco? What is it about Morocco? It is
a little tiny country, very little trade with us. What is being done
here that really needs to be done?
I think we need to protect the indigenous people of the Sahrawi who
live in Western Sahara. They need to have the protection from this
United States reaching in and taking their resources by the back door.
I thank the chairman for bringing this issue to the floor.
Executive Office of the President, The United States
Trade Representative
Washington, DC, July 20, 2004.
Hon. Jim McDermott,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman McDermott: Thank you for your letter of
July 19, 2004, concerning our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with
Morocco and the status of Western Sahara.
The Administration's position on Western Sahara is clear:
sovereignty of Western Sahara is in dispute, and the United
States fully supports the United Nations' efforts to resolve
this issue. The United States and many other countries do not
recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara and have
consistently urged the parties to work with the United
Nations to resolve the conflict by peaceful means.
The FTA will cover trade and investment in the territory of
Morocco as recognized internationally, and will not include
Western Sahara. As our Harmonized Tariff Schedule makes
clear, for U.S. Customs purposes, the United States treats
imports from Western Sahara and Morocco differently. Nothing
in the FTA will require us to change this practice. The
Administration will draft the proclamation authorized in the
legislation implementing the FTA (H.R. 4842) to provide
preferential tariff treatment for goods from the territory of
Morocco. Preferential tariff treatment will not be provided
to goods from Western Sahara.
I hope this letter addresses your question regarding the
FTA and the status of Western Sahara. I encourage you to
support the FTA. It will create economic opportunities for
U.S. manufacturing and service firms, workers, and farmers,
and will support economic reforms and foreign investment in
Morocco.
Thank you again for your letter. Please feel free to
contact me should you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Zoellick.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
One of the earlier speakers called for a moratorium on trade
agreements. There is nothing that we could do that would hurt American
workers more than a moratorium.
Over the last few years Europe has consummated about 36 bilateral
trade agreements in this part of the world, and we have consummated
about three. Now, when they create a trade agreement with a bilateral
agreement with one of these countries, what they are doing is socking
in product standards that advantage their products and disadvantage our
products.
When we write a free trade agreement with one of these countries it
is entirely different. That is why countries like to work with us. It
is comprehensive. It includes all products and it is fair, transparent
and modern, and I commend Morocco for not only its commitment to
develop its economy in a way in which everyone benefits and everyone
prospers, but to have evidenced that commitment by changing their labor
law in preparation for this free trade agreement. I think that is very
commendable.
They changed their labor law to raise the minimum employment age, to
reduce the number of hours in a workweek, to call for periodic review
of the Moroccan minimum wage, to improve health and safety regulations,
and I am skipping over a lot of details, to guarantee the right of
association and collective bargaining. They looked at the world
standards of how you should treat your workforce and they changed their
laws to make those standards their standards.
They are moving. They are developing. Europe is trading with them
twice as many dollars worth of product as we are in America. This free
trade agreement will change that and ensure American jobs, creating new
ones as well.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Moroccan so-
called free trade agreement and ask the question, why has the United
States as a result of these free trade agreements over the last 20
years amassed the largest trade deficit in the United States history?
They have told us when NAFTA was passed we would have a trade balance.
We would in fact have hundreds of thousands of new jobs in this
country.
What have we got? We have got the largest trade deficit with Mexico
we have ever had, the largest trade deficit with Canada we have ever
had, and an outwash of jobs from the United States to Mexico, over
900,000 jobs and counting, nearly a million jobs. NAFTA did not work.
Then they said, well, let us sign the China Free Trade Agreement.
Boy, that will really be great. We will bring democracy to China. What
have we got? We have got the largest growing trade deficit in the
history of the United States with China. Every day companies are
closing in this country, moving more production to China where wages
are what? Ten cents an hour, 20 cents an hour.
The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) asked the opposition here,
what is the minimum wage in Morocco? Nobody stood up. Do you know what
it is? Eighty cents, 80 cents an hour in Morocco.
What makes you think if we pass another NAFTA-like trade agreement,
this time with Morocco, are we going to make it any better? This is no
different than what we have had. In fact, it is more of the same and
even worse.
Our trade balance with Morocco is going down. Now, I think this
agreement with Morocco has nothing to do with trade. It has everything
to do with the Sahara and with oil relationships along the western
side, and that
[[Page 17284]]
is a whole other story not for this debate. But why would we want to
sign a free trade agreement with a kingdom? Why would we want to
empower a monarchy which this will do? You cannot have free trade with
a country that is not free. Look at Saudi Arabia, where the majority of
terrorists came from. That is a kingdom. Why would we want to empower
those who hold assets in undemocratic countries? That is exactly what
this agreement will do with Morocco.
This agreement is worse than NAFTA. NAFTA's labor and environmental
provisions are a joke anyway. They are just side agreements with no
teeth. This agreement has nothing, let me repeat, this has nothing to
do with labor or environment. It does not have anything like the
Jordanian trade agreement which made a step toward labor and the
environment. Further, this agreement blocks the reimportation of
prescription drugs as the Australian agreement did.
This agreement provides for the privatization of public services,
more outsourcing of our service jobs in this country. There are no
adjustment provisions in this agreement for workers who lose their
jobs. In fact, in the old NAFTA agreement, they now do not even want to
count how many American workers are losing jobs in this country so we
can provide them with transitional assistance here at home. This
agreement has no adjustment provisions.
One of the interesting provisions in this bill deals with Chapter 11.
It guarantees that if investors get in trouble in Morocco--such as,
what if terrorists do some things over there we do not like--this
agreement protects their private risk through government. Even our own
constitution does not do that on investment. Investors get a good deal
in this agreement, workers do not.
Let me address one of the other unusual aspects of this agreement. It
changes the wording of the provisions that deal with agriculture and
food safety from being ``equal to'' to what is called ``equivalency''.
Who is going to define equivalency on food safety and how it is
different from ``equal to''? Or who is going to define equivalency on
prescription drugs? What it does is it puts us on a downward path
compared to the high standards we have set in this country for our own
food and drug safety.
This is a bad deal. It is a bad deal economically. It is a bad deal
politically. In view of our standing in the Muslim and Arab world, this
is a bad deal. It does not promote democracy.
I encourage my colleagues in this body to vote no on this NAFTA-like
expansion that now aims to include Morocco.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, but we are
discussing the U.S.-Morocco FTA, which passed the Committee on Ways and
Means by a vote of 26 to nothing. In addition, we have a trade surplus
with Morocco. Trade with Morocco creates jobs. The projections are
right now that over the next decade our exports will triple in the
agricultural sector alone, and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program
already provides benefits to anyone adversely effected by trade, and
there is no need for a new program.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, just to correct the record, and I am sure the
gentlewoman misspoke, the United States does not have a free trade
agreement with China. We have normal trade relations but no free trade
agreement with China.
{time} 1715
Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of this U.S.-Morocco free trade
agreement and thank the gentleman from Illinois for his leadership on
this.
Today, I am not going to talk about the merits of the agreement. I
think there are plenty of them; but instead, I want to point out what I
think this agreement means in the context of U.S. policy for the
broader Middle East.
This agreement would be the second free trade agreement that we would
have with a country in the Middle East, and it would be another
cornerstone of U.S. free trade efforts in this region. Achieving free
trade and integrating this region into the global economy is of
critical concern to the United States.
Economically, socially, this region faces enormous problems, enormous
dilemmas. Inequality in many Middle Eastern countries has grown. It has
not diminished in recent decades.
Political, economic, and social systems are intertwined and appear
closed to those in the outside world. For those who are not already a
part of the system, improvement in their lives is only a distant dream.
In July 2002, the United Nations Development Program released a
report with some discouraging statistics. Middle Eastern regional
growth over the last 2 decades has been the lowest in the world except
for sub-Saharan Africa. Labor productivity has been on the decline
since 1960. 65 million people are illiterate. One of every two women
can neither read nor write. Ten million children are not in school.
Unemployment has reached 15 percent with many areas experiencing much
higher rates.
The Middle East cannot be healthy socially or politically so long as
its economies are in crisis. The United States has a strong interest in
helping to stimulate the economies and promote stability in the region.
Now, the U.S.-Morocco free trade agreement cannot by itself solve the
deep and widespread economic and social inequalities which permeate
this region, but the U.S.-Morocco free trade agreement is a step in
helping one country in this region deepen its integration into the
world trading system and reach its aspirations for development.
Passing this agreement will help this North African country develop
and practice a system of the rule of law that will have implications
far beyond trade and the commercial sector.
I urge my colleagues to support this agreement. It is more than just
an agreement. It symbolizes our efforts, the efforts of the United
States, to integrate this country and this region in partnership with
shared aspirations and expectations.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), another distinguished member of the Committee
on Ways and Means.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). He does a terrific job with the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) on a bipartisan basis to ensure
that every opinion is heard on the Subcommittee on Trade over at the
Committee on Ways and Means. I think oftentimes that is why we have the
final product that we do.
Let me use this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to explain why I will be
voting in favor of this bilateral free trade agreement between the
United States and Morocco, even though there are several aspects of the
agreement that trouble me.
My chief disappointment with the agreement is that, once again, the
administration refused to specifically require our trading partner to
abide by the five most basic internationally recognized labor
standards.
The International Labor Organization has identified those principles
as the right to associate and bargain collectively, and prohibitions on
forced labor, discrimination and child labor.
Instead of assuring these minimal protections for foreign workers,
our recent trade agreements have imposed a different standard. They
require our partners to enforce whatever labor laws exist in that
particular country, regardless of how lax those laws might be.
While I strongly believe that this is the wrong negotiating tack as a
general matter, in the specific case of Morocco, the country's labor
laws more than surpass international minimum standards; and by all
accounts, it appears that the government is making a genuine and
conscientious effort to work with unions, workers, and employers to
bolster its worker protections even further, including the right
[[Page 17285]]
to strike. The labor provisions of this agreement are not perfect, but
they represent a workable starting point.
Although this agreement is not what I would ideally like to see, it
represents an important first step. Fundamentally, I believe that the
U.S. can improve its international standing and its national security
by expanding trade and strengthening its relationships with moderate
Muslim countries. Unfortunately, more and more Muslim voices are
calling for boycotts of the United States and its products. That makes
it all the more critical for us to reach out to those who are eager to
form a partnership with us.
Over the long term, I believe that agreements with nations such as
Morocco are mutually beneficial from an economic standpoint. They also
represent an opportunity to help mend international relations that have
endured a great deal of strain over the last several years.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement could be better. Certainly I would have
negotiated it differently, but it will pave the way for progress in a
region that is critically important to the United States, and so it
does have my support.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell me how much time we have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Crane) has 29 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin) has 16 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown)
has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois
(Chairman Crane) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas)
and our ranking members of the Committee on Ways and Means for moving
this free trade agreement so effectively through the committee process
and onto the floor so that before we break for August recess we can
express our support for this agreement.
I do rise in support of the U.S.-Morocco free trade agreement, Mr.
Speaker. This is our second trade agreement with an Arab country. With
our trade agreement with Morocco, along with those of Israel, Jordan,
and Bahrain, we are working to improve economic opportunities in North
Africa and in the Middle East.
While the Moroccan economy is much smaller than ours, it remains a
key export market for the United States and for my home State. In a
State where approximately one in three jobs is now related to trade, it
is not surprising that Washington State was the top exporter to Morocco
with over $112 million in 2003.
By eliminating 95 percent of the tariffs immediately on United States
manufactured goods, we are improving the competitiveness of our
businesses in Morocco. Of the $465 million total United States exported
from Morocco last year, nearly 29 percent, or $134 million, was due to
aerospace products. It is very important to the Northwest, where so
many jobs are directly or indirectly affected by our aerospace
industry. In fact, Boeing aircraft dominate Royal Air Morac's fleet
with a potential of 17 more planes on order.
This agreement will also strengthen intellectual property rights
standards for patents, for trademarks and for copyrights so that our
high-tech industries are protected in our digital economy. Higher
standards, however, are not enough unless there is a commitment for
better enforcement of these standards.
For this reason, I am very pleased with Morocco's commitment to
better enforcement of intellectual property rights, such as increasing
criminal penalties for piracy and for counterfeiting.
This is a very good agreement for our agricultural community. It
eliminates duties on our products, and it liberalizes quotas on
critical commodities. It also ensures that United States commodities
will have equivalent access to any other trade agreements that Morocco
negotiates with any other country. If Morocco gives another country
better market access on agricultural products, our farmers get the same
benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this trade agreement so
that we can build an economic bridge with Morocco and the Middle East.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am a little puzzled by this debate. I heard my friend from Texas
talk about all the great promises of free trade and how these trade
agreements are going to mean so much to our farmers and to our workers
and to our businesses. I have heard the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Crane) say some of the same kinds of things, but I guess I am puzzled
because I have heard that throughout my entire 12 years in Congress.
I have heard every trade agreement that comes to the floor, so many
speakers say over and over and over again that if we pass these trade
agreements, we are going to have more jobs, we are going to do more
exports, we are going to have our balance in trade; and look what has
happened in the last 12 years.
Our trade deficit when I came to this Congress was about one-fourth
of what it is today. We import $1.5 billion more every day than we
export. George Bush, Senior, said for every $1 billion of trade, either
export or import, it was equivalent to somewhere in the vicinity of 14
or 15 or 16,000 jobs. Well, we have almost a $500 billion trade
deficit. Do the math. That is an awful lot of lost jobs.
When we pass these trade agreements, we continue to hemorrhage jobs.
We continue to have job loss. We continue to lose manufacturing jobs.
One out of six manufacturing jobs in my State has been lost since
George Bush took office. We have lost 165 jobs every day of the Bush
administration.
So the answer to that is let us do more of what we have already been
doing, let us do more tax cuts for the wealthiest people in society,
hoping that maybe some of it will trickle down to more jobs, and let us
do more trade agreements which ship jobs overseas? People in our
communities say these trade agreements are not working.
China, entry of China in WTO; NAFTA; Singapore, Chile, Australia,
Morocco, these trade agreements are not translating into more jobs, and
people at home know that. In spite of what people in this institution
say, in spite of how people in this institution vote, the fact is we
continue to lose manufacturing jobs in this country. We have lost
millions of jobs in this Bush administration, and then we turn around
and do the same thing over and over and over. We make the same promises
over and over and over and the results are the same. When we will ever
learn?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think it is important for everyone to understand that we have a
trade surplus at the current time with Morocco. The projections are,
though, that with this free trade agreement we will have a very
dramatic increase in our exports, especially our exports in the
agricultural community with that dramatic drop in tariff barriers that
have struck our access there, but we are making progress, dramatic
progress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Ryan), our distinguished colleague on the committee.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time. I will just briefly pause and say, having a surplus
with Morocco actually helps us with our trade deficit surplus figure
because it adds to the surplus side of it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pause for a moment and thank those who
made this possible. I would like to thank those negotiators at the U.S.
Trade Representative who worked long and hard hours with the Moroccans
to make this agreement possible. I would like to thank our committee
chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas); our subcommittee
chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane); and also I would
like to thank
[[Page 17286]]
the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), who spearheaded this
through committee and here in Congress. This is a great product. This
is a great thing.
Now, specifically, why is this beneficial to our constituents? Why is
this good for America?
Well, number one, manufacturing, a very important sector to our
economy especially in my home State of Wisconsin. This is a great deal
for manufacturing. This gets rid of the tariffs on our manufacturing
goods going to Morocco.
Number two, and even more important, agriculture. For every $1 of
imports we take from Morocco in imports, we export $10. This is a great
agreement for agriculture, especially since the Europeans, who enjoy a
50 percent higher trade flow advantage with Morocco than we have at the
present time, do not have an agreement with Morocco on agriculture. Let
me say it another way. Morocco and Europe trade a lot with each other,
50 percent more than we do with Morocco. That is going to change with
this agreement, thankfully; but the Europeans do not have an
agriculture agreement with Morocco. We will, and that means we will
sell even more agricultural products to Morocco. That is a great thing.
We have a trade surplus with Morocco. They are a great trading
partner. This is good for jobs. It is good for manufacturing. It is
good for agriculture; but Mr. Speaker, there is a broader vision here.
There is a broader purpose for all of this.
This is part of the President's MEFTI plan. This is part of the
Middle Eastern Free Trade Initiative. What is that initiative? That
initiative is to recognize we need to play a constructive role in the
Middle East; that in the war on terror, the most important aspect,
long-term vision of that war on terror is improving our understanding
and our relations with moderate Muslim countries, with the Arab world.
This accomplishes this.
We have 10 TIFAs in place, 10 trade and investment framework
agreements in place, throughout the Gulf, throughout Northern Africa,
to engage in discussion and dialogue with those countries to help bring
them up to the rules of democracy, rules of free enterprise,
enforceable contracts, the rule of law, women's right to vote, open
societies.
{time} 1730
This is what these trade agreements produce. So not only do we
produce trade agreements like this Moroccan agreement, which is good
for jobs in America, we produce political reforms by engaging in a
partnership with those in the Middle East who want democracy and want
openness. Because of these agreements and because of the role we play
in the world, we serve as a catalyst to getting these countries to open
their societies.
Here is one example with the Moroccan agreement. Because of this
trade agreement, Morocco passed a great piece of legislation in their
constitution and their law for labor standards. They have been trying
to do this for 20 years. For 20 years labor groups in Morocco have been
trying to get the right to collectively bargain, a shorter workweek,
better laws to protect against child labor. Those things are the law of
the land in Morocco because of this agreement.
So what we are doing with this broad initiative, through trade
investment framework agreements, which lead to these free trade
agreements like we have with Jordan and Bahrain and now Morocco, what
this accomplishes is bringing these nations into a partnership of
democracy, of freedom, of openness and prosperity. That is how we end
up improving the lives of people in the Middle East, and that at the
end of the day, and I am going to make this connection, is how we make
sure that young men and women who are susceptible to the likes of al-
Qaeda, who grow up in tyrannical countries with lives where they have
no hope and no place to put their creative energies and turn to the
likes of al-Qaeda, now have hope in the countries where they did not
have them before.
Now young people in these countries who are opening up their systems,
bringing democracy, bringing open societies, they have hope. They have
a place to channel their energies. This will be one if we improve our
relationship, our cultural understanding, our dialogue, and, yes, our
trade with these countries.
The Moroccan trade agreement is a perfect example of this vision. I
urge Members to pass this trade agreement. It is good for jobs, it is
good for Americans, it is good for Moroccans, and it is good for our
foreign policy in the Middle East. That is a very, very important goal.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in support of this free trade agreement between the United
States and Morocco. It has been a pleasure for me to work not only with
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley)
and others from our side, but also with Members from the other side of
the aisle, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor),
and the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) in making this bill
a reality today on the floor.
As a Member who supports free trade and fair trade, and as a member
of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia on the
Committee on International Relations, I was happy to work with Members
to develop this legislation, which goes beyond being just a trade bill
and morphing into a foreign policy tool.
Morocco has been a strong ally and friend of the United States since
we declared our independence, and this agreement will continue to
strengthen our long-standing relationship. This free trade agreement
with Morocco will immediately eliminate duties on 95 percent of
nontextile industrial imports, which will be the best market access the
U.S. enjoys with a developing nation.
Besides the economic benefits from the implementation of this free
trade agreement, it also has spurred our friends in Morocco to create a
comprehensive new labor law which just went into effect this past June.
The Moroccan new labor law raises the minimum employment age, reduces
the workweek with overtime rates, improves worker health and safety
regulations, addresses gender equity, and promotes employment of the
disabled. This labor law also guarantees rights of association and
collective bargaining. I believe we can credit this movement in terms
of improvement of labor standards in Morocco to hopes by Morocco of
agreement on this trade agreement.
Morocco has been a stabilizing force in the Middle East, and this
agreement will help Morocco to continue on the path of moderation. In
fact, Morocco has been a good friend to one of our strongest allies,
Israel. Morocco has the largest population of Jews outside of Israel in
the Middle East and has played an important role in trying to stabilize
the current situation by continuing to play a role as a critical back
channel for communications among Israel, the Arab world, and the United
States.
At the core of this trade initiative is the belief that through
economic opportunity and partnership with the United States and Israel
the goal of peace in this region can be furthered. I support this free
trade agreement between the United States and Morocco, and I urge
Members to vote for final passage.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for
his outstanding commitment in this effort to advance our free trade
relations and to advance the civilized values that free trade causes.
He has done outstanding work in that effort, and I commend him. I thank
his colleagues on his side of the aisle for their
[[Page 17287]]
strong bipartisan support on this important bill.
Mr. Speaker, the administration strongly supports H.R. 4842, which
will approve and implement the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement, as
signed by the United States and Morocco on June 15, 2004.
The U.S.-Morocco FTA advances U.S. economic interests and meets the
negotiating principles and objectives set out by the Congress in the
Trade Act of 2002. The FTA will benefit the people of the United States
and Morocco and illustrate to other developing countries the advantages
of more open markets for trade and investment.
The FTA provides for increased access for American farmers, workers
and businesses to Morocco's markets. Pursuant to the agreement, Morocco
will provide strong protection for intellectual property, ensure that
rules on electronic commerce are nondiscriminatory, and provide U.S.
firms access to covered government procurement opportunities on the
same basis that Moroccan firms enjoy.
The U.S.-Morocco FTA provides a significant opportunity to encourage
economic reform and development in a moderate Muslim nation and is an
important step in implementing the President's plan for a broader U.S.-
Middle East Free Trade Area. It also sets a strong example of the
benefits of open trade and democracy. Opening markets is part of the
President's six-point plan for continuing to strengthen America's
economy and to create more opportunities for American farmers, workers
and businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
A couple of points I would like to make as we are having this debate.
One, we hear that there currently is a trade surplus with Morocco, but
we have to look back just a few years and remember that we had a trade
surplus with Mexico before we signed NAFTA. I think when we get
ourselves into these trade agreements the argument is we have a trade
surplus but things are going to change, and we need to look at that
here.
What I cannot understand today, not only with this agreement but the
legislation that passed out of this House earlier, is what are the
priorities? We are trying to strip the Supreme Court of their power
that was given to them by the Constitution. We are going off on another
trade agreement here. In Ohio, we just lost 14,000 more jobs just in
the month of June. The unemployment rate in Ohio went from 5.6 percent
to 5.8 percent. What are the priorities of this Congress?
In every single trade agreement that has been passed by this
Congress, there has been a promise that has been made along with it. We
say we are going to open up markets, we are going to export, and we are
going to trade. And as we get rid of those low-paying jobs, we are
going to invest in education, we are going to make sure our country is
competitive, and we are not living up to that part of the bargain.
We have 59,000 engineers which graduated from this country in 2001,
and over 200,000 that graduated from China. If we do not fix the
problem we have with our Pell Grants, our student loans, No Child Left
Behind in the State of Ohio alone is underfunded for $1.5 billion for
one school year, we cannot keep trading and not educating. That is the
problem with these trade agreements. If we are going to compete in a
global economy, we have to invest in our students or we are going to
lose the middle class in the United States of America.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Michigan for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate and I fully agree with Members
from States like Ohio that have been devastatingly impacted by trade
bills that have not worked.
It is unusual for me to extend myself on trade bills and provide my
support, but as I have looked at this particular trade bill let me
congratulate the negotiators. They have gone more than the extra mile.
I have always said that where we can help developing nations, and
particularly those in Africa that I have worked with over the time of
my years in Congress, this is an important step we are making.
I cite in this trade bill some very interesting factors. First of
all, I am gratified there are no immigration aspects to this bill
because I oppose definitively any immigration issues on this bill
because the immigration system in this Nation is broken and we must fix
it in a way that is fair and balanced to all those who come to this
country to seek opportunity.
This bill, however, speaks to the issue of labor concerns. I am
delighted in 2003 Morocco undertook a major social dialogue involving
the government of Morocco and talked about adopting and did adopt in
fact major labor law reforms in July 2003 which reflected a common
agreement and was endorsed by all groups. Standards of labor treatment
and the elimination of child labor laws has been the result of these
negotiations, as well as the recognition of the right to associate and
participate in labor unions. Morocco made anti-union and other forms of
discrimination illegal, providing strong penalties against such
conduct, creating a legal obligation to engage in collective
bargaining.
And yes, Mr. Speaker, let me also say that this particular treaty
also recognizes in the fight against HIV/AIDS that we have the ability
for the government of Morocco to buy generic drugs. I would hope as we
look at treaties, as we look at labor agreements that deal in trade, as
we look at formulating trade agreements in the future, Morocco as a
developing nation is a very good standard by which to answer the
Members' questions about the sizable loss of manufacturing jobs and
other jobs around America. I too believe that we need job creation, the
creation of manufacturing jobs, and we need to invest in the workforce
of America.
I believe that this strong trade agreement will allow us to show the
people of Morocco how to develop their economic infrastructure, to be
the consumers of our products here in the United States as we improve
our trade to balance with them. We want to decrease the trade imbalance
and increase the amount of exports to Morocco and help it to become an
economic engine that will receive our products from the United States.
When that occurs, I am prepared to support a trade agreement such as
this, and I rise to support the Morocco trade agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 4842, the ``United States-
Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.'' Mr. Speaker, having
traveled to Africa, I have seen the value when U.S. trade markets are
opened to this part of the world. Morocco is an important ally in a
region that needs our support. I support the long-term goal of
increasing free trade with Africa and its surrounding neighbors. This
legislation will build stronger and more effective commercial
relationships in a region of the world where economic hope is
unfortunately non-existent, developing nations like Morocco need our
partnership.
Mr. Speaker, one of my strong issues is the worldwide fight against
the deadly pandemic: the HIV/AIDS virus. In August of 2003, the U.S.
led the work towards a WTO consensus that allows poor countries without
domestic drug production capacity to issue compulsory licenses to
import drugs needed to combat diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria,
tuberculosis and other infectious epidemics. The Morocco FTA will not
affect that country's ability to take measures necessary to protect
public health or to use the WTO solution to import drugs. This
agreement ensures that government marketing-approval agencies will not
grant approval to patent-infringing pharmaceuticals.
As far as the agreement is concerned, Morocco has agreed to
establish tariff-rate quotas for beef that grow over time, providing
significantly increased access to the important market in high-quality
beef. In this respect, the U.S. will have superior access over the
European Union, and virtually every one else, as well. This legislation
levels the playing field
[[Page 17288]]
between U.S. wheat producers and the EU, though the transition to
parity is longer than I prefer.
We should welcome Morocco into the larger network of U.S. free trade
partners. The Agreement provides benefits for businesses wishing to
supply services cross-border (for instance, by electronic means) as
well as businesses wishing to establish a presence locally in the other
country. Strong and detailed disciplines on regulatory transparency
supplement the Agreement's cross-cutting transparency provisions.
In this agreement, Morocco will allow U.S.-based firms to supply
insurance on a cross-border basis (through electronic means) for key
markets including reinsurance, reinsurance brokerage, and, subject to a
two-year phase-in, marine, aviation and transport (MAT) insurance and
brokerage. Morocco also will allow U.S.-based firms to offer services
cross-border to Moroccans in areas such as financial information and
data processing, and financial advisory services.
Of further benefit to U.S. insurance suppliers, Morocco will phase-
out certain mandatory reinsurance cessions and expedite the
introduction of insurance products. Each government commits that users
of the telecom network will have reasonable and nondiscriminatory
access to the network, thereby preventing local firms from having
preferential or ``first right'' of access to telecom networks.
U.S. phone companies will have the right to interconnect will former
monopoly networks in Morocco at non-discriminatory, cost-based rates.
U.S. firms seeking to build a physical network in Morocco will have
non-discriminatory access to key facilities, such as telephone switches
and submarine cable landing stations.
This agreement is important because Morocco is an emerging market at
the crossroads of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. It imports $11
billion in products each year. Currently, U.S. products entering
Morocco face an average tariff of more than 20 percent, while Moroccan
products are only subject to an average 4 percent duty in the United
States.
Each government will prohibit bribery, including bribery of foreign
United States officials, and establish appropriate criminal penalties
to punish violators. This Agreement establishes a secure, predictable
legal framework for U.S. investors operating in Morocco.
All forms of investment will be protected under the Agreement, such
as enterprises, debt, concessions, contracts and intellectual property.
U.S. investors will enjoy in almost all circumstances the right to
establish, acquire and operate investments in Morocco on an equal
footing with Moroccan investors, and with investors of other countries.
Pursuant to the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (TPA), the
Agreement draws from U.S. Legal principles and practices to provide
U.S. investors in Morocco a basic set of substantive protections that
Moroccan investors in the United States currently enjoy under the U.S.
legal system.
This agreement fully meets the labor objectives set out by the
Congress in TPA. Labor obligations are part of the core text of the
Agreement. Each government reaffirms its obligations as members of the
International Labor Organization (ILO), and commits to strive to ensure
that its domestic laws provide for labor standards consistent with
internationally recognized labor principles. The Agreement makes clear
that it is inappropriate to weaken or reduce domestic labor protections
to encourage trade or investment.
Each government will be required to effectively enforce its own
domestic labor laws, and this obligation is enforceable through the
Agreement's dispute settlement procedures.
Procedural guarantees in the Agreement require each government to
provide access for workers and employers to fair, equitable and
transparent labor tribunals or courts.
The Agreement includes a cooperative mechanism to promote respect for
the principles embodied in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work, and compliance with ILO Convention 182
on the Worst Forms of Child Labor.
In closing, I support the Moroccan Free Trade Agreement.
{time} 1745
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have noticed in these debates on
these trade issues is there is one common thread. There are many, but
there is one really thick common thread that is woven through all these
trade agreements, in not just these trade agreements but that is
perhaps woven through much of what this Congress has done in the last 3
years, during the Bush years, and that is whatever the drug industry
wants, whatever the pharmaceutical companies want.
We know the drug industry is the most profitable industry in America
by a factor of three or four times in profitability over other Fortune
500 industries. We also know the drug industry has 600-plus lobbyists,
more than one per Member. We also know the drug industry has given more
money to President Bush, tens of millions of dollars, and to Republican
leadership than any other industry. And we know they have gotten their
way.
They wrote the Medicare bill, we know that, with the insurance
industry. We know they have begun to try to dry up drug supplies in
Canada, prescription drugs, so that Americans have more difficulty
going to Canada to get drugs. We know that the FDA, once one of the
best agencies in the Federal Government, has been co-opted by the drug
industry so that on issue after issue they take the drug industry's
side rather than the public safety or the consumers' side. And most
importantly, I do not know that Members on the other side of the aisle
are quite aware of this, but certainly the public is aware at how high
drug prices, how much they have skyrocketed in the 3 years since
President Bush has, I was going to say turned a blind eye to drug
industry abuses but really actually fronted for and assisted in drug
industry abuses.
One more example of that is all of these trade agreements, what
happened with the Australia Free Trade Agreement, how it would for all
intents and purposes block reimportation, that is, our ability,
American consumers' ability to buy prescription drugs from another
country, to get drugs at half or a third or a fourth of their price. We
are now seeing the same in the Morocco bill.
But let us kind of scratch the surface a little and what you will
find, Mr. Speaker, is in April, United States Trade Rep, Ambassador
Zoellick, gave Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Southeast Asian
public affairs, Ralph Ives, additional responsibilities as the
Assistant U.S. Trade Rep for pharmaceutical policy. He was the chief
negotiator in the Australia FTA, which included these provisions we
talked about which, of course, benefit the pharmaceutical industry.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we hear that this same Mr. Ives, who I said was the
chief Australia FTA negotiator on pharmaceutical interests on behalf of
the Bush administration, we find out next month he will leave USTR to
become vice president of AdvaMed, a medical supply company. We have
also learned that Claude Burke, another negotiator for U.S. taxpayers,
paid by our government, a Bush appointee for intellectual property
rights, has already left and now is working for another drug company,
working for Abbott Labs.
So this revolving door of the drug industry where the drug industry
gives money to President Bush, President Bush then helps the drug
industry, then these people who are working for taxpayers negotiate a
good deal for the drug company, then leave and come back and work for
the drug industry. Is there no shame with this crowd, with my
Republican friends who have fronted for this drug industry that is
fleecing the American public and with the administration? That is one
issue.
The other, Mr. Speaker, is why do we pass a trade agreement when we
see the same story repeated over and over and over? We just turn the
calendar back, rewind the clock, and we see it over and over again. We
see speaker after speaker come to this floor and make all kinds of
promises. We have a trade surplus in Morocco, so we ought to pass a
trade agreement. Just like we had a trade surplus with Mexico, we
passed NAFTA; and now we have a $25 billion a year, plus-plus-plus,
trade deficit.
They promise more agricultural exports. They promise more American
jobs. They promise more business for American companies. They promise
more exports of American products. But look what happens. In my State
in the last 3 years, we have lost one out of six manufacturing jobs.
Does that mean these trade agreements with Mexico, with WTO in China,
with Morocco, with Australia, with Chile, with
[[Page 17289]]
Singapore, does that mean these trade agreements are working? There is
no evidence that they are working. We continue to hemorrhage jobs. We
now have a $450 billion trade deficit, $1.5 billion trade deficit every
day. So our answer is, boy, let's do more of the same because that must
be working.
It is clearly not working. We have lost jobs during the Bush
administration, the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net
loss of jobs. So what are we going to do? We are going to keep pursuing
the same economic policy we have had the last 3 years, more tax cuts
for the most privileged people in society, maybe some of it will
trickle down into economic growth. Clearly that has not worked. More
trade agreements, like Morocco, like Australia, like NAFTA, like China,
more trade agreements. That has not worked because we continue to
hemorrhage jobs. We continue to ship jobs overseas.
Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Speaker, since none of that seems to have
worked, maybe we ought to try something different. Maybe we ought to
have a trade agreement that does not sell out to the drug industry.
Maybe we ought to have a trade agreement with enforceable labor and
environmental standards, international labor organization standards.
Maybe we ought to have a trade agreement that puts American workers
first, that puts the environment first, that puts food safety first,
that puts American consumers of prescription drugs first. Maybe, just
maybe, we ought to put a hold on these trade agreements that continue
to ship jobs overseas and, instead, pass something that works for
American consumers, that works for American workers, that works for our
communities, and that works for the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
When we discussed the rule, I went over some of the benefits of this
agreement, those relating to manufacturing goods, and we have been
deeply hurt in the manufacturing area in the United States these last 3
years. This agreement should open up Morocco to more goods made in
America. I referred to the agricultural area. This agreement does open
up the Moroccan market to agricultural goods produced in the United
States of America. It will also liberalize the service areas that are
important for our development. And there is reference to intellectual
property safeguards.
I want to spend a few minutes now talking about the broader
perspective here, the perspective, I think, with which we must look at
trade agreements and expanded trade.
First, there has been some reference here to bipartisanship, and it
is true that this will pass with bipartisan support. Not complete. But
I want it clear that there has been these last 3 years no basic
bipartisan consensus on trade. That has been true of the big issues. We
fought out TPA here, and it passed narrowly. CAFTA was negotiated on a
narrow basis without adequate bipartisan participation. The same has
been true today of the FTAA.
The failure of this administration to build a bipartisan consensus, a
strong bipartisan foundation, to renew that foundation that once
existed here, I think, has handicapped discussions within the WTO. We
cannot make the tough decisions relating to negotiations in the WTO
that affect American workers, businesses, farmers and others except on
the basis of a strong bipartisan foundation. We do not have it.
Secondly, we on the Democratic side together, all of us, reject the
use of one agreement as a model for others. For example, we have
discussed core labor standards. Where labor laws in a country are
essentially adequate, as was true of Jordan, the standard enforce-your-
own-laws, which was the basic standard in Jordan, can work; but it will
not work in cases where laws are very inadequate. So that is why we
Dems essentially in unison reject the CAFTA that was negotiated. We
support a Central American Free Trade Agreement, but one that is
different than was negotiated.
So the basic issue, therefore, is not, as some in the majority have
stated, whether one is for or against free trade, for or against
expanded trade. It is whether the terms of expanded trade will be
shaped to benefit all and not just a few. We do not assume that
expanded trade is automatically positive all around.
That is why when this agreement came up, we raised two issues. One of
them related to core labor standards. There was reform. We wanted to
know the facts about those reforms. We wanted to know the realities
within Morocco. We wanted to know whether it was more or less like
Jordan and not more or less like Central America.
And so we dug into the facts. We made it clear to the Moroccan
government that we cared, and I must say I think it is because
Democrats have been raising these issues perhaps more than any other
factor that the Moroccan government undertook some reforms, and we
received back a communication from the government of Morocco. I submit
for printing in the Record the letter that was sent to us and the three
other letters referred to during the debate on the rule.
The material referred to is as follows:
Embassy of the
Kingdom of Morocco,
Washington, DC, July 19, 2004.
Hon. Sandy Levin,
Rayburn House Office Building,
House of Representatives.
Dear Representative Levin: I deeply appreciate the
opportunity to work with you on the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade
Agreement. In particular, I appreciate the opportunity to
talk to you about the pharmaceutical provisions in the Free
Trade Agreement, and about how the Government of Morocco is
meeting the health needs of its citizens.
The Government of Morocco has a well-developed health
system, including a comprehensive public health program. For
example, free medical care, including medicines, is available
through our hospitals. Morocco's health care policy includes
a strong emphasis on generic drugs.
Morocco has not needed to engage in emergency measures such
as compulsory licensing or parallel imports. In fact, there
is a well-developed domestic pharmaceutical industry in
Morocco, producing also generics, and in 2000, well in
advance of the Free Trade Agreement and completely
independent of it, Morocco decided to bar parallel imports.
In addition, as a separate, but quite important matter, the
Government of Morocco is strongly committed to and has agreed
to the highest-standard intellectual property rights
provisions in the Free Trade Agreement. The Government of
Morocco believes that effective intellectual property right
protection will play a vital role in the continued economic
development of our country.
The pharmaceutical provisions in the Free Trade Agreement
were carefully considered in Morocco. They were discussed in
detail with all parties. All sectors of our health system
were involved, including the pharmaceutical industry. The
discussions also included the members of the civil society in
Morocco.
The Government of Morocco achieved in this agreement full
flexibility to meet our nation's health concerns. In
particular, the Government of Morocco believes the agreement
fully preserves its right to issue a compulsory license in
the event that this should prove necessary.
The Agreement does bar ``parallel imports'' in 1.5.9.4.
However, as described above, the Government of Morocco
already bans ``parallel imports.'' In addition, the
Government of Morocco believes that in the event that it
faced a situation where extraordinary action was required, it
could meet the needs of its people through a compulsory
license.
The Government of Morocco considered carefully the data
exclusivity provisions in the agreement. We do not believe
that they present any risk to our ability to meet the health
needs of our citizens.
Under the Agreement, a compulsory license does not override
obligations to provide data exclusivity under 15.10.1 and 2.
The Government of Morocco believes it is unlikely that a
situation would ever arise where data exclusivity would be a
barrier to the issuance of a compulsory license. If such an
event did occur, the Government of Morocco believes that an
accommodation could be reached with the owner of the data.
The Government of Morocco supports the Paragraph 6 solution
of the Doha Declaration. The Free Trade Agreement does not
restrict our ability to export under the Paragraph 6 solution
of the Doha Declaration. To the specific, 15.9.6 does not
create a barrier to exports under the Paragraph 6 solution of
the Doha Declaration.
The June 15, 2004 side letter between our two countries
addresses the ability to amend the Free Trade Agreement,
responsive to amendments to the WTO Agreement on Trade-
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Under the
Agreement, the Government of Morocco believes it can consult
[[Page 17290]]
immediately to amend the Agreement responsive to any WTO
amendments. Under the Agreement, it is not required to wait
for there to be an application in dispute of the Agreement.
I look forward to keep working with you.
Sincerely,
Aziz Mekouar,
Ambassador.
____
Embassy of the
Kingdom of Morocco,
Washington, DC, July 14, 2004.
Hon. Sandy Levin,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Levin: I have deeply appreciated the
continuing opportunity to work with you on the U.S. Morocco
Free Trade Agreement. In particular, I welcome your interest
in our nation's labor law, specifically the comprehensive
reforms, passed last year.
I want to address through this letter some of the issues
that have been highlighted in conversations with you and your
staff. Under Moroccan law, it is illegal to fire an
individual because they are a member of a labor organization
or have engaged in labor organizing. To fire someone on these
grounds would be arbitrary under the 2003 law and would make
available the full remedies provided under that law.
Under Moroccan law, it is illegal to refuse to hire an
individual because they are a member of a labor organization
or have engaged in labor organizing. It is also illegal to
refuse to rehire or extend the contract of an individual for
these reasons.
Section 473 is a provision in the 2003 Labor Law and the
provision's intent is to ensure that labor representatives do
not undermine the traditional labor organizations. The
government intends to implement this provision to achieve
that goal, consistent with the core provisions of the ILO.
The right to strike is protected in the Moroccan
constitution. Further clarification of these rights is
underway. The government of Morocco is committed to
protecting the right to strike in conformance with the
International Labor Organization's core principles. In
particular, the government of Morocco will not use Article
288 of our penal code against lawful strikers.
Concerning the questions regarding Labor Representatives,
employers have the obligation to organize the elections for
the labor representatives. Employers cannot vote in these
elections and are not able to choose labor representatives.
Only employees can vote and elect freely the labor
representatives.
Employees can join freely the Union of their own choice.
Unions designate their representatives within the companies.
On the ILO involvement, Morocco has always worked with ILO.
For instance, ILO assisted Morocco to write the Labor Code of
2003 and the new law on child labor. Morocco, as in the past,
will continue to ask the support of ILO and work with this
organization in all labor issues such as new laws and will
ask its help in providing assistance for the implementation
of the current rules.
I look forward to continuing to work with you on these
issues and any others of potential concern. Nevertheless, I
wanted to get back to you in a timely manner on the key
issues addressed in this letter.
Sincerely,
Aziz Mekouar,
Ambassador.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 15, 2004.
Hon. Robert B. Zoellick,
U.S. Trade Representative,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ambassador Zoellick: We are writing to express our
ongoing concern about sections of recently negotiated U.S.
free trade agreements (FTAs) that could affect the
availability of affordable drugs in developing countries. In
particular, we are concerned about the impact of restrictions
on parallel imports and about marketing exclusivity
requirements for pharmaceuticals included in the Morocco FTA.
Our concern relates to two points.
First, it appears that some of the provisions contradict,
both explicitly and in spirit, commitments made by the United
States in the World Trade Organization in both the November
2001 Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health
(the Doha Declaration) and the September 2003 Implementation
of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement
and Public Health (the Paragraph 6 Decision). Section
2101(b)(4)(C) of the Trade Act of 2002 (Trade Promotion
Authority or TPA) directs the Administration to respect the
Doha Declaration, necessarily including subsequent agreements
related to that Declaration.
Second, we are concerned that the FTA's restrictions on
obtaining regulatory approval for drugs, including drugs that
are already off-patent, are likely to increase prices in the
Moroccan market. These restrictions, described below, could
undermine the availability of generic versions of drugs to
treat serious health problems, including HIV/ADS, that are
widespread in many, if not most, developing countries.
Moreover, any increase in the price of drugs in a developing
country like Morocco will be borne by consumers because most
developing countries have large rural, uninsured, and poor
populations who pay out-of-pocket for drugs.
In discussions with your staff and in recent testimony
before the Committee on Ways and Means, we understand that
your office is of the view that the FTA does not interfere
with a country's efforts to ensure broader access to
medicines. We request that you explain that view to us in
writing, and in particular, by responding to the questions
outlined below. We have focused on Chapter 15 of the U.S.-
Morocco FTA, because it may be considered by Congress in the
coming weeks.
restrictions on parallel importation
Article 15.9.4 of the U.S.-Morocco FTA requires both
countries to recognize the exclusive right of a patent holder
to import a patented product, at least where the patent
holder has restricted the right to import by contractual
means. In practical terms, this provision means that neither
Morocco, nor for that matter, the United States, may allow
parallel imports of patented pharmaceutical products from the
other country, or where a national of the other country owns
the patent.
With respect to Morocco, which is a developing country,
this provision appears to limit one of the flexibilities
identified in the Doha Declaration for increasing access to
medicines, and accordingly, it appears to contradict the
direction in section 2102(b)(4)(c) of TPA. Specifically, the
Doha Declaration reaffirmed that the TRIPS Agreement provides
flexibility for WTO Members to take measures to protect
public health, including ``promot[ing] access to medicines
for all.'' One of the key flexibilities identified in the
Doha Declaration is the right of each country to determine
for itself whether to allow parallel imports.
Does Article 15.9.4 of the Morocco FTA prevent Morocco from
allowing parallel imports of a patented pharmaceutical
product?
Given that the Doha Declaration explicitly confirms the
right of each country to retain flexibility in allowing
parallel imports of drugs as one way of meeting the public
health needs of its citizens, please explain why the
provision was included given that TPA directs the
Administration to respect the Doha Declaration?
Which country sought inclusion of this provision?
If Morocco or the United States eliminated the exclusive
right of a patent holder to import a patented product, would
either be in violation of Article 15.9.4?
market exclusivity and related provisions
Article 15.10.1 of the U.S.-Morocco FTA requires that both
countries prevent the use of data submitted to support an
application for marketing approval (e.g., approval from the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)) for a new pharmaceutical
chemical product without the consent of the person submitting
such data, for a period of five years from the date of
approval. In layman's terms, this means that if a company
submits data to meet FDA-type safety and efficacy standards,
and obtains marketing approval based on that data, other
companies cannot obtain regulatory approval based on those
data for five years. Given the cost of generating such data,
this provision operates effectively as a grant of market
exclusivity in virtually all cases, including in cases where
the drug is off patent. Article 15.10.2 appears to allow an
additional three years of marketing exclusivity for new uses
of an already-approved pharmaceutical product. Article
15.10.3 requires both countries to extend patents where there
is a delay in the marketing approval process.
The provisions described above appear to be based on 1984
amendments to U.S. law known as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The
objectives of the Hatch-Waxman Act were to accelerate and
increase the availability of generic drugs in the United
States while balancing the need for continued investment in
new drugs. As you are aware, the Hatch-Waxman Act was
necessary because prior to 1984, U.S. law made it extremely
difficult and expensive to bring a generic version of a
pharmaceutical product to market, even after a patent
expired. This was because prior to the 1984 changes, a
company seeking marketing approval for a copy of an already-
approved drug had to generate its own data to support its FDA
application. The cost of generating those data effectively
precluded second entrants from entering the market. (First
entrants were able to offset the cost for generation of the
data because they enjoyed patent protection.) The Hatch-
Waxman Act allowed second entrants to rely on data submitted
by first entrants, thereby reducing costs and speeding
introduction of generic versions of drugs to the U.S. market.
In exchange for allowing second entrants to ``piggy-back''
off first entrants, first entrants were given a period of
market exclusivity, even for drugs that are off-patent.
The Hatch-Waxman Act's provisions on market exclusivity
were part of a compromise necessary to ensure that the U.S.
regulatory structure was updated to facilitate the entry of
generic drugs into the U.S. market. Most developing countries
already have robust generic markets, in large part because
they already allow producers of generic versions of drugs to
obtain regulatory
[[Page 17291]]
approval based on data submitted by first applicants or based
on prior approval. In light of that fact, and given that
innovative drug companies largely develop drugs for developed
country markets and conduct the necessary tests to get
marketing approval in those markets regardless of whether
they are given market exclusivity in low-income developing
countries, what is the rationale for including these
provisions?
Please describe the circumstances under which the three
additional years of marketing exclusivity described in
Article 15.10.2 would apply.
Neither Article 15.10.1 or 15.10.2 on marketing exclusivity
appear to allow for reliance on previously submitted data or
prior approval during the period of market exclusivity absent
consent of the first applicant. The Doha Declaration
reaffirmed the right of countries to use flexibilities under
the TRIPS Agreement, such as compulsory licenses. A
compulsory license allows someone other than the patent
holder to produce and sell a drug under patent. It is not
clear to us why the grant of a compulsory license would
override a grant of market exclusivity, as provided in
Articles 15.10.1 and 15.10.02. (We note that there is no
exception to protect the public.) Please describe how the
market exclusivity provisions in Article 15.10.1 and Article
15.10.2 relate to Morocco's ability to issue a compulsory
license.
Where a compulsory license has been issued, may a Party
automatically deem that the first applicant has consented to
reliance on the data or prior approval for the drug produced
under the compulsory license?
If the patent and test-data were owned by different
entities, does a compulsory license result in legal
``consent'' by both the patent holder and the data owner for
use of the patented material and the test data?
When the drug is off patent, and a Party wishes to permit
marketing for a second entrant, what mechanism exists in the
FTA to allow for an exception to the provisions on market
exclusivity?
Is a grant of market exclusivity pursuant to Articles
15.10.1 and 15.10.2 considered an ``investment'' with respect
to Chapter 10 of the agreement? If so, would an abridgement
of the period of market exclusivity constitute a compensable
expropriation under Chapter 10?
Article 10.6.5 of the FTA appears to clarify that any act
of patent infringement carried out by a Party in the issuance
of a compulsory license in accordance with the TRIPS does not
constitute a compensable expropriation. Issuance of a
compulsory license, however, is only one aspect of the
process of getting a drug to market. Does the clarification
in Article 10.6.5 also ensure that other measures taken by a
government to ensure that a drug on which a compulsory
license has been issued can be lawfully marketed (e.g., a
grant of marketing approval to a generic or second producer
before the period of marketing exclusivity has expired) will
not constitute compensable expropriations? If not, is there
another provision in the agreement that would ensure that
such measures do not constitute expropriations?
Article 15.10.3 requires that a patent term be extended
where there is a delay in the regulatory approval process.
The provision does not state whether delays attributable to
the applicant (e.g., failure to provide adequate data)
mitigate against extension. Article 15.9.8, the comparable
provision for extension of a patent term because of a delay
in the patent approval process, makes clear that delays
attributable to the patent applicant should not be considered
in determining whether there is a delay that gives rise to
the need for an extension. Why was similar language not
included in Article 15.10.3?
Is Morocco, or for that matter the United States, required
by the FTA to extend a patent term where there is a delay in
the regulatory approval that is attributable to the
applicant?
Bolar-Type Provisions That Limit Export
Article 15.9.6 of the U.S.-Morocco FTA appears to allow a
person other than a patent holder to make use of a patent in
order to generate data in support of an application for
marketing approval of a pharmaceutical product (e.g.,
approval from the FDA). However, Article 15.9.6 also states
that if exportation of the product using the patent is
allowed, exportation must be limited to ``purposes of meeting
marketing approval requirements.'' This provision appears to
preclude Morocco from exporting generic versions of patented
pharmaceutical products for any reason other than use in
obtaining marketing approval because that is the only
exception noted.
If that is the case, the provision would seem to curtail
Morocco's ability to act as an exporter of pharmaceutical
products to least-developed and other countries under the
Paragraph 6 Decision. Specifically, the Paragraph 6 Decision
allows countries to export drugs produced under a compulsory
license to least-developed countries or to countries that
lack pharmaceutical manufacturing capabilities. Were the
provisions to constrain Morocco's ability to export under the
Paragraph 6 Decision, the United States could be accused of
backtracking on commitments that have been made.
Please explain whether this Article prohibits Morocco from
allowing the export of generic versions of patented
pharmaceutical products for purposes other than ``meeting
market approval requirements.'' If it does not, please
explain in detail how you came to that conclusion.
If this provision does in fact limit Morocco's ability to
allow the export of generic versions of patented
pharmaceutical products, please explain how Morocco could
serve as an exporting country to help least-developed and
other countries address public health needs under the
Paragraph 6 Decision. (Exporters under the Paragraph 6
Decision are exporting to meet the health needs of an
importing country, not merely to obtain marketing approval.)
Does Article 15.9.6 allow export of a generic version of a
patented drug to get marketing approval in a third country
(i.e., other than the United States or Morocco)? (Article
15.9.6 states that ``the Party shall provide that the product
shall only be exported outside its territory for purposes of
meeting marketing approval requirements of that Party.'')
Side Letter to the Agreement
The Morocco FTA includes an exchange of letters dated June
15, 2004, between the Governments of Morocco and the United
States. The letters appear intended to clarify the
relationship between the intellectual property provisions of
the FTA and the ability of Morocco and the United States to
take measures to protect the public health.
The letters address two issues. First, the letters state
that the intellectual property provisions in the FTA ``do not
prevent the effective utilization'' of the Paragraph 6
Decision. Second, the letters state that if the TRIPS
Agreement is amended on issues related to promotion of access
to medicines, and that either the United States or Morocco
takes action in conformity with such amendments, both
countries will ``immediately consult in order to adapt [the
intellectual property provisions of the FTA] as appropriate
in light of the amendment.''
On the Paragraph 6 Decision, please explain how the
statement that the FTA does not ``prevent the effective
utilization'' is not merely rhetorical. Please be specific as
to why you believe the provisions in the FTA do not preclude
Morocco from acting as an importer or exporter of drugs under
the Paragraph 6 Decision, including how the FTA's provisions
related to market exclusivity can be waived if Morocco acts
in either capacity.
On the issue of consultation, do the letters mean that both
Parties agree to amend the FTA as soon as possible to reflect
access to medicines amendments to the TRIPS Agreement? Will
the United States refrain from enforcing provisions of the
FTA that contravene the TRIPS Agreement amendments while the
FTA is being amended? Is USTR willing to engage in an
exchange of letters with the Government of Morocco
memorializing such an understanding?
We appreciate your prompt response to these questions.
Sincerely,
Charles B. Rangel,
Ranking Democrat, Committee on Ways and Means.
Jim McDermott,
Member, Committee on Ways and Means.
Sander Levin
Ranking Democrat, Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways
and Means.
Henry A. Waxman,
Ranking Democrat, Committee on Government Reform.
____
Executive Office of the President, Office of the United
States Trade Representative,
Washington, DC, July 19, 2004.
Hon. Sander M. Levin,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Levin: Thank you for your letter of July
15, 2004, regarding certain provisions of the intellectual
property chapter of the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement
(FTA).
I have addressed each of your specific questions below. As
a general matter, for the reasons also set forth below, the
FTA does not conflict with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS
Agreement and Public Health or otherwise adversely, affect
access to medicines in Morocco. The FTA does not require
Morocco to change its policies with respect to any of the
flexibilities noted in the Doha Declaration. Furthermore, we
believe that this FTA can advance Morocco's ability to
address public health problems, both by putting in place
incentives to develop and bring new medicines to market
quickly and by raising standards of living more broadly.
The experience of Jordan under the U.S.-Jordan FTA is
illuminating. The United States and Jordan signed the FTA in
2000, during the prior Administration, and we worked with
Congress to enact that agreement in 2001. The U.S.-Jordan FTA
contains a strong intellectual property chapter that covers,
for example, data protection, one of the issues highlighted
in your letter. Jordan has witnessed a substantial increase
in pharmaceutical investment, creating new jobs
[[Page 17292]]
and opportunities. In addition, Jordan has approved 32 new
innovative medicines since 2000--a substantial increase in
the rate of approval of innovative drugs, helping facilitate
Jordanian consumers' access to medicines. The Jordanian drug
industry has even begun to develop its own innovative
medicines. This is an example of how strong intellectual
property protection can bring substantial benefits to
developing and developed countries together.
Your specific questions with respect to the U.S.-Morocco
FTA are addressed below.
Parallel Importation
1. Does Article 15.9.4 of the Morocco FTA prevent Morocco
from allowing parallel imports of a patented pharmaceutical
product?
Article 15.9.4 of the FTA reflects current Moroccan law and
therefore does not require Morocco to do anything it does not
already do. The FTA also reflects existing U.S. law. Both
Morocco and the United States already provide patent owners
with an exclusive right to import patented products,
including pharmaceuticals but also all other types of
patented products. Many innovative industries and their
employees in the United States--from the high tech and
pharmaceuticals sectors to sectors covering chemicals and
agricultural inputs, and on to engineering and
manufacturing--benefit from this long-standing protection in
U.S. patent law.
2. Given that the Doha Declaration explicitly confirms the
right of each country to retain flexibility in allowing
parallel imports of drugs as one way of meeting the public
health needs of its citizens, please explain why the
provision was included given that TPA directs the
Administration to respect the Doha Declaration?
Providing patent owners with an exclusive import right is
consistent with Article 28.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, which
states that patent owners have the exclusive right to make,
use, sell, offer for sale, and import products covered by
their patents. U.S. law, developed through a long line of
Supreme Court and lower court cases, has recognized this
right for over a hundred years. The TRIPS Agreement more
precisely articulated the exclusive import right, and, when
implementing TRIPS in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
Congress amended the patent law by providing for such a right
expressly in the statute.
At the same time, however, the TRIPS Agreement also allows
countries to choose to permit ``international exhaustion''
without challenge under WTO dispute settlement. International
exhaustion would allow parallel imports. The Doha Declaration
affirms this approach, and states that ``[t]he effect of the
provisions in the TRIPS Agreement that are relevant to the
exhaustion of intellectual property rights is to leave each
member free to establish its own regime for such exhaustion
without challenge, subject to the MFN and national treatment
provisions of Articles 3 and 4.''
Importantly, neither the TRIPS Agreement nor the Doha
Declaration require WTO members to adopt an international
exhaustion rule; they merely recognize that countries may do
so without challenge. WTO members are free to exercise their
sovereign right to choose an alternative policy. As noted,
the United States does not permit parallel imports. Morocco
also decided in 2000, well before the FTA negotiations, not
to permit parallel imports. The fact that the FTA reflects
principles already present in both Parties' laws does not in
any way lessen our commitment to the Doha Declaration. In
fact, in previous FTA negotiations with developing countries
that do not have parallel import restrictions in their
domestic law (e.g., Central America, Chile, and Bahrain), the
final negotiated texts do not contain provisions on parallel
importation.
3. Which country sought inclusion of this provision?
This provision is a standard component of the U.S. draft
text, which USTR staff has presented to Congress for review
and comment on numerous occasions. Morocco readily accepted
the proposal, without objection, and noted during the
negotiations that Moroccan patent law, like U.S. law, already
provided patentees with an exclusive importation right.
4. If Morocco or the United States eliminated the exclusive
right of a patent holder to import a patented product, would
either be in violation of Article 15.9.4?
It would depend on the details of the particular
legislation. A change in U.S. law would, however, affect many
other innovative sectors that rely on patents besides the
pharmaceutical sector. Many U.S. technology, manufacturing,
and other innovative businesses--as well as Members of
Congress--urge us regularly to vigorously safeguard U.S.
patents and the jobs they help create.
market exclusivity
5. The Hatch-Waxman Act's provisions on market exclusivity
were part of a compromise necessary to ensure that the U.S.
regulatory structure was updated to facilitate the entry of
generic drugs into the U.S. market. Most developing countries
already have robust generic markets, in large part because
they already allow producers of generic versions of drugs to
obtain regulatory approval based on data submitted by first
applicants or based on prior approval. In light of that fact,
and given that innovative drug companies largely develop
drugs for developed country markets and conduct the necessary
tests to get marketing approval in those markets regardless
of whether they are given market exclusivity in low-income
developing countries, what is the rationale for including
these provisions?
In negotiating the U.S.-Morocco FTA and other recent FTAs,
USTR has been mindful of the guidance provided in the Trade
Act of 2002, which directs USTR to seek to ``ensur[e] that
the provisions of any multilateral or bilateral trade
agreement governing intellectual property rights that is
entered into by the United States reflect[s] a standard of
protection similar to that found in United States law.'' We
understand the rationale of this guidance is to help protect
and create high-paying jobs in leading American businesses.
As a developed economy, it is understandable that U.S.
workers will be increasingly employed in higher value (and
better paid) innovative and productive jobs. On the basis of
Congress' direction, the United States sought to include
provisions that reflect U.S. law, including with respect to
the protection of data.
The protection of clinical test data has long been a
component of trade agreements negotiated by U.S.
Administrations with both developed and developing countries.
Data protection provisions were included, for example, in
many past trade agreements, including the U.S.-Jordan FTA and
the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement--both negotiated
by the prior Administration after the passage of the law to
which you refer. Such provisions were included in NAFTA, too.
They are in all recent FTAs, including the U.S.-Singapore FTA
and the U.S.-Chile FTA. Data protection provisions have also
been included in many bilateral intellectual property
agreements.
The TRIPS Agreement itself requires protection of clinical
test data against unfair commercial use. While the United
States protects data to obtain approval for new chemical
entities for five years, other countries provide different
terms. The EU, for example, protects such data for 6-10
years.
Implicit in the question, however, appears to be an
assumption that data protection is disadvantageous for
developing countries like Morocco. Yet, protection of data
actually has the potential of facilitating and accelerating
access to medicines. As recognized in Chapter 15 of the FTA
(footnotes 12 and 13), Morocco does not currently approve
generic versions of medicines based on approvals granted in
other countries. As a result, today a generic producer
wishing to sell pharmaceuticals in Morocco may obtain
approval only if an innovative producer first obtains
approval in Morocco or if the generic producer invests the
significant money and time necessary to recreate the data
itself. After an innovative producer obtains approval in
Morocco, a generic producer may rely on such data to obtain
approval for its generic product.
Therefore, under existing Moroccan law, generic
manufacturers in Morocco cannot obtain marketing approval for
a generic drug until an innovator has first obtained approval
for the drug in Morocco. Without data protection, innovative
producers will be less likely to enter the Moroccan market in
the first place because, once they obtain approval, generic
producers may capture most of the market. The data
exclusivity provisions of the FTA can thus provide an
important incentive for innovators to enter the market, which
may in turn expand the potential universe of generic drugs in
Morocco. As noted above, this is the development we are
seeing in Jordan, to the benefit of Jordan consumers.
6. Please describe the circumstances under which the three
additional years of marketing exclusivity described in
Article 15.10.2 would apply.
The question seems to imply that the basic five year term
of protection for data submitted to obtain approval of new
chemical entities may be extended to eight years. This is not
correct. There is no circumstance in which the FTA requires
that an innovator receive a data protection period longer
than five years for new chemical entities.
The three year period of protection reflects a provision in
U.S. law, which relates to new information that is submitted
after a product is already on the market (for example,
because the innovator is seeking approval for a new use of an
existing product). In that situation, at least in cases where
the origination of this new data involves considerable
effort, the FTA requires that the person providing the new
data gets three years of protection for that new data
relating to that new use. This three year period only applies
to the new data for the new use; it is not added to the
exclusivity period for any data previously submitted.
For example, if a new chemical entity is given marketing
approval, the data supporting that approval is protected for
five years. After that time, generic producers may rely on
the data to obtain approval for a generic version of the drug
for the use supported by the original data. If a new use is
subsequently discovered for the chemical entity, and the
health authority approves the new use based on new data, then
the originator of the new data is entitled to three
[[Page 17293]]
years of protection for that data. During that time, however,
generics can continue to produce and market the drug for the
original use.
7. Neither Article 15.10.1 or 15.10.2 on marketing
exclusivity appear to allow for reliance on previously
submitted data or prior approval during the period of market
exclusivity absent consent of the first applicant. The Doha
Declaration reaffirmed the right of countries to use
flexibilities under the TRIPS agreement, such as compulsory
licenses. A compulsory license allows someone other than the
patent holder to produce and sell a drug under patent. It is
not clear to us why the grant of a compulsory license would
override a grant of market exclusivity, as provided in
Articles 15.10.1 and 15.10.2. (We note that there is no
exception to protect the public.) Please describe how the
market exclusivity provisions in Article 15.10.1 and Article
15.10.2 relate to Morocco's ability to issue a compulsory
license.
The Doha Declaration recognizes that the TRIPS Agreement
allows countries to issue compulsory licenses to address
public health problems. The U.S.-Morocco FTA is fully
consistent with this principle. It contains no provisions
with respect to compulsory licensing, leaving the
flexibilities available under WTO rules unchanged.
In the negotiation of the U.S.-Morocco FTA, both parties
recognized the importance of protecting public health. Your
questions pertain to whether provisions of Chapter 15 (which
is the Intellectual Property Rights chapter) might affect
this common interest. To address this type of concern, the
United States and Morocco agreed to a side letter on public
health in which both Parties stated their understanding that
``[t]he obligations of Chapter Fifteen of the Agreement do
not affect the ability of either Party to take necessary
measures to protect public health by promoting access to
medicines for all, in particular concerning cases such as
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other epidemics as well
as circumstances of extreme urgency or national emergency.''
The Parties also stated that ``Chapter Fifteen does not
prevent the effective utilization of the TRIPS/health
solution'' reached in the WTO last year to ensure that
developing countries that lack pharmaceutical manufacturing
capacity may import drugs. Therefore, if circumstances ever
arise in which a drug is produced under a compulsory license,
and it is necessary to approve that drug to protect public
health or effectively utilize the TRIPS/health solution, the
data protection provisions in the FTA would not stand in the
way.
8. Where a compulsory license has been issued, may a Party
automatically deem that the first applicant has consented to
reliance on the data or prior approval for the drug produced
under the compulsory license?
As explained above, if the measure described in the
question is necessary to protect public health, then, as
explained in the side letter, the FTA would not stand in the
way.
9. If the patent and test-data were owned by different
entities, does a compulsory license result in legal
``consent'' by both the patent holder and the data owner for
use of the patented material and the test data?
See previous response.
10. When the drug is off patent, and a Party wishes to
permit marketing for a second entrant, what mechanism exists
in the FTA to allow for an exception to the provisions on
market exclusivity?
A patent is designed to protect one type of intellectual
property work, i.e., an invention. Protection of data is
intended to protect a different type of work, i.e.,
undisclosed test data that required significant time and
effort to compile. The fact that one type of intellectual
property protection for a product has expired, should not
lead as a matter of course to the conclusion that all other
intellectual property rights attached to the same product
should also expire. The same is true in other areas of
intellectual property. For example, a single CD may encompass
several intellectual property rights related to the music,
the performer and the record company. These rights may expire
at different times. The fact that the copyright attached to
the sound recording has expired, should not mean that the
composer or performer loses the copyright it has. As you
know, this principle is important to a broad range of U.S.
creative and innovative industries, including the
entertainment sector, America's second largest export
business.
However, as indicated in the side letter, if a circumstance
arose, such as an epidemic or national emergency, that could
only be addressed by granting a second entrant marketing
approval notwithstanding the data protection rights of the
originator of the data, the FTA would not stand in the way.
11. Is a grant of market exclusivity pursuant to Articles
15.10.1 and 15.10.2 considered an ``investment'' with respect
to Chapter 10 of the Agreement? If so, would an abridgement
of the period of market exclusivity constitute a compensable
expropriation under Chapter 10?
The definition of an ``investment'' in the FTA includes,
inter alia, ``intellectual property rights.'' Whether an
abridgement of the data protection obligation gives rise to a
compensable expropriation of an ``investment'' under Chapter
Ten is a fact-specific issue that would have to be resolved
on the merits of a particular case. It is worth noting,
however, that Article 10.6.5 provides that the expropriation
provision of Chapter Ten does not apply to the issuance of
compulsory licenses or to the limitation of intellectual
property rights to the extent that such action is consistent
with the intellectual property chapter (Chapter Fifteen). A
determination concerning the consistency of an action with
Chapter Fifteen would be informed by the side letter.
12. Article 10.6.5 of the FTA appears to clarify that any
act of patent infringement carried out by a Party in the
issuance of a compulsory license in accordance with the TRIPS
does not constitute a compensable expropriation. Issuance of
a compulsory license, however, is only one aspect of the
process of getting a drug to market. Does the clarification
in Article 10.6.5 also ensure that other measures taken by a
government to ensure that a drug on which a compulsory
license has been issued can be lawfully marketed (e.g., a
grant of marketing approval to a generic or second producer
before the period of marketing exclusivity has expired) will
not constitute compensable expropriations? If not, is there
another provision in the agreement that would ensure that
such measures do not constitute expropriations?
See response to Question 11.
13. Article 15.10.3 requires that a patent term be extended
where there is a delay in the regulatory approval process.
The provision does not state whether delays attributable to
the applicant (e.g., failure to provide adequate data)
mitigate against extension. Article 15.9., the comparable
provision for extension of a patent term because of a delay
in the patent approval process, makes clear that delays
attributable to the patent applicant should not be considered
in determining whether there is a delay that gives rise to
the need for an extension. Why was similar language not
included in Article 15.10.3?
The Parties did not find it necessary to specifically
address the issue of how to handle delays attributable to an
applicant for marketing approval in the context of data
protection. As with numerous other provisions, the Parties
retain the flexibility to address such details in their
implementation of the FTA, provided that they comply with the
basic obligation.
14. Is Morocco, or for that matter the United States,
required by the FTA to extend a patent term where there is a
delay in the regulatory approval that is attributable to the
applicant?
The FTA preserves flexibility for the Parties to address
the issue of delays attributable to an applicant for
marketing approval through their domestic laws and
regulations.
bolar provisions
15. Please explain whether this Article prohibits Morocco
from allowing the export of generic versions of patented
pharmaceutical products for purposes other than ``meeting
marketing approval requirements.'' If it does not, please
explain in detail how you came to that conclusion.
No, it does not. The Article dealing with the ``Bolar''
exception to patent rights only deals with one specific
exception. It does not occupy the field of possible
exceptions, and thus does not prevent Morocco from allowing
the export of generic versions of patented pharmaceutical
products for purposes other than ``meeting marketing approval
requirements'' when permitted by other exceptions. For
example, Morocco has the right to allow exports where
consistent with TRIPS Article 30 and WTO rules on compulsory
licensing. Morocco may, for example, allow export of generic
versions of patented drugs by issuing a compulsory license in
accordance with the TRIPS/health solution agreed last August
in the WTO.
16. If this provision does in fact limit Morocco's ability
to allow the export of generic versions of patented
pharmaceutical products, please explain how Morocco could
serve as an exporting country to help least-developed and
other countries address public health needs under the
Paragraph 6 Decision. (Exporters under the Paragraph 6
Decision are exporting to meet the health needs of an
importing country, not merely to obtain marketing approval).
As noted in the response to Question 15, the FTA does not
limit Morocco's ability to make use of the TRIPS/health
solution agreed last August to export drugs under a
compulsory license to developing countries that cannot
produce drugs for themselves.
17. Does Article 15.9.6 allow export of a generic version
of a patented drug to get marketing approval in a third
country (i.e., other than the United States or Morocco)?
(Article 15.9.6 states that ``the Party shall provide that
the product shall only be exported outside its territory for
purposes of meeting marketing approval requirements of that
Party.'')
Morocco can get marketing approval in a third country to
allow export of a generic version through the issuance of a
compulsory license for export, consistent with WTO rules.
Article 15.9.6 does not interfere with that result.
side letter
18. On the Paragraph 6 Decision, please explain how the
statement that the FTA does
[[Page 17294]]
not ``prevent the effective utilization'' is not merely
rhetorical. Please be specific as to why you believe the
provisions in the FTA do not preclude Morocco from acting as
an importer or exporter of drugs under the Paragraph 6
Decision, including how the FTA's provisions related to
market exclusivity can be waived if Morocco acts in either
capacity.
There are no provisions in the FTA related to compulsory
licensing, which means that it does not limit in any way
Morocco's ability to issue compulsory licenses in accordance
with WTO rules, including TRIPS Article 31 and the TRIPS/
health solution. With respect to other rules included in
Chapter 15, including data protection, the side letter states
that the FTA does not ``prevent the effective utilization of
the TRIPS/health solution.'' As stated in the side letter,
the letter constitutes a formal agreement between the
Parties. It is, thus, a significant part of the interpretive
context for this agreement and not merely rhetorical.
According to Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties, which reflects customary rules of treaty
interpretation in international law, the terms of a treaty
must be interpreted ``in their context,'' and that
``context'' includes ``any agreement relating to the treaty
which was made between all the parties in connection with the
conclusion of the treaty.''
19. On the issue of consultation, do the letters mean that
both Parties agree to amend the FTA as soon as possible to
reflect access to medicines amendments to the TRIPS
Agreement? Will the United States refrain from enforcing
provisions of the FTA that contravene the TRIPS Agreement
amendments while the FTA is being amended? Is USTR willing to
engage in an exchange of letter with the Government of
Morocco memorializing such an understanding?
The United States would, of course, work with Morocco to
ensure that the FTA is adapted as appropriate if an amendment
to the TRIPS Agreement were adopted to ensure access to
medicines. The only amendment currently being contemplated
with respect to TRIPS involves translating the TRIPS/health
solution from last August into a formal amendment. The United
States has no intention of using dispute settlement to
challenge any country's actions that are in accordance with
that solution. In fact, Canada passed legislation recently
that would allow it to export drugs in accordance with the
TRIPS/health solution. The United States reached an agreement
with Canada just last Friday, July 16, to suspend parts of
NAFTA to ensure that Canada could implement the solution
without running afoul of NAFTA rules.
In closing, let me emphasize that we appreciate the
importance of the U.S. commitment to the Doha Declaration on
the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health and the global effort
to ensure access to medicines in developing countries to
address acute public health problems, such as AIDS, malaria
and tuberculosis. The United States played a leading role in
developing these provisions, including enabling poor
countries without domestic production capacity to import
drugs under compulsory licenses. We also successfully called
for giving Least Developed Countries an additional ten years,
from 2006 until 2016, to implement TRIPS rules related to
pharmaceuticals. These accomplishments offer a significant
solution to the conflicts we encountered on taking office in
2001.
At the same time, as Congress has directed us, the
Administration has worked on multiple fronts to strengthen
the value internationally of America's innovation economy.
These efforts have included stronger intellectual property
protection rules and enforcement so as to assist U.S.
businesses and workers, and encourage ongoing innovation that
benefits U.S. consumers.
Our FTAs are but one component of the Administration's
broader efforts to achieve these objectives, and complement
efforts undertaken in other fora. Our FTAs not only do not
conflict with the objectives expressed in the Doha
Declaration but reinforce those objectives and facilitate
efforts to address public health problems.
Sincerely,
John K. Veroneau,
General Counsel.
This is what was said in this letter: ``The government of Morocco is
committed to protecting the right to strike in conformance with the
International Labor Organization's core principles. In particular, the
government will not use 288 of our penal code against lawful
strikers.''
I do think that our inquiry, I do think the responsible discussions
that were held with the Moroccan government and their officials
indicated that, in practice, the labor standards within Morocco
essentially meet the ILO standards.
We next raised the issue of prescription medicines. We did not assume
more trade would automatically benefit everybody, including our
citizens and also the citizens of Morocco. On reimportation, we do not
like the language the way it was inserted there, the general language
on patent protection. However, reimportation from Morocco has never
been suggested in any of the legislation introduced; and so I think for
this purpose, for this bill, it is not an issue.
But there were two provisions that could restrict the access of
citizens of Morocco to prescription medicines. We are talking about
people whose health is at stake. We are talking about the spread of
AIDS. We are talking about the spread of other ailments and other
diseases. And the question became whether anything in this FTA would
restrict the government of Morocco from having access for their
citizens to these prescription medicines. That access was assured in
the Doha Declaration. And so there followed a letter from us on the
Democratic side to USTR; and here is what was said, their understanding
of the provisions including the side letters:
``If circumstances ever arise in which a drug is produced under a
compulsory license and it is necessary to approve the drug to protect
public health or effectively utilize the TRIPS/health solution, the
date of protection provisions in the FTA would not stand in the way.''
They also said, USTR, in interpreting what was in this FTA: ``If the
measure described in the question is necessary to protect public
health, then, as explained in the side letter, the FTA would not stand
in the way.''
They also said: ``This side letter constitutes a formal agreement
between the parties. It is thus a significant part of the interpretive
context for this agreement and not merely rhetorical.''
In a word, the government of Morocco has the flexibility to assure
the health of its citizens under the Doha Declaration.
{time} 1800
Because of our efforts to clarify what was going on in terms of core
labor standards and conditions in Morocco and because of our efforts in
the response of USTR on prescription medicines, we feel that this
agreement should be approved.
However, our questions serve notice that we should be very sensitive
in the future in how we shape trade agreements. We should not assume
there is no need to shape expanded trade. We have made it clear it is
essential that we do so, and it is under that kind of structure, it is
within that perspective, that I suggest that we approve this agreement
between our two nations, with whom there are very significant
relationships.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to first commend our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
on the Committee on Ways and Means for guaranteeing unanimous
commitment to passage of our Free Trade Agreement with Morocco and look
forward to working with them in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas).
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, my assumption is that the closing remarks on
the part of the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee was an
endorsement. It sounded as though we began with an extremely flawed
product and, through their efforts, they were successful in righting
the ship so that we could actually have a minimally decent document. I
wonder where they were when President Clinton wanted fast track, their
President, and three quarters of them voted against providing the
President.
So when we listen to the remarks, we really have to put it, one, in
context and then appreciate that intensity or outlandishness does not
equal votes. And when I close shortly, take a look at the votes in
terms of who is for and who is against.
But I do want to spend just 1 minute analyzing the level of the
content and the direction of the debate. The ranking member from New
York began this discussion by indicating that I stole the election in
Florida. That certainly was an appropriate beginning on a debate on a
Free Trade Agreement with Morocco. I would probably classify it
[[Page 17295]]
as silly, but that is the level of debate that we often engage in. And
it is just a pleasure to allow the rest of the country to understand
the level at which exchanges are made not only in committee but on the
floor when we try to engage in a serious discussion.
I heard an indication that people were interested in jobs, and, of
course, I will talk about the gentleman from Ohio and his diatribe in a
minute.
You missed the boat on the jobs issue. That was the jobs growth tax
bill. It has had a major positive effect on jobs. You were ``no'' on
that one as well. We have got 46 of the 50 States expanding.
Unemployment is down in all regions of the country. This is the fastest
growth in the last 20 years. And based upon your debating style, at
that point I would pause and parenthetically say even including the
Clinton years so that we can understand that the mention of Bush in
every other sentence and in a negative way was clearly focused on the
Free Trade Agreement and had nothing to do with attempting to influence
an election. We have got 1.5 million jobs, continuing to grow, and they
will continue to grow right through the election.
But I want to especially focus on the other gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Ryan) because at some point we cannot allow statements made on the
floor of the House to stand when they are so outrageously false. The
statement referred to legislation that we were considering earlier, and
the statement was that what we did denied what the Constitution
provides. I would urge everyone at some time, and especially certain
Members, to look at the Constitution and turn to Article III, the
judicial article, and look at Section 2. And I will just read it
briefly, referring to the judicial branch: ``In all cases affecting
Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a
State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original
jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme
Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with
such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall
make.''
The Congress was exercising its constitutional function in indicating
that areas of appellate jurisdiction were not to be examined by the
court, and it absolutely floors me, well, I guess it does not based
upon the other statements made by those on the other side of the aisle,
that not only apparently they do not know the Constitution, but they
actually invoke it in a totally false way on the floor of the House of
Representatives.
So what I would really urge Members to do is not pay any attention to
what was said necessarily on the other side of the aisle but take a
look at the vote for this particular measure. H.R. 4842 certainly
deserves the overwhelming majority support of this House. I believe it
will be bipartisan. And, please, we will take away from this particular
bill on the floor the fact that the vote was bipartisan even if the
rhetoric is not and at times not just silly but downright, flat-out
wrong.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-Morocco free trade agreement is
bad for America.
The agreement prohibits the importation of lower cost
pharmaceuticals, and delays the availability of lower cost generic
drugs by creating new patent-like protections for drug regulatory data.
Together, these measures will maintain high prescription drug prices in
the U.S.
The agreement contains a side letter permitting Morocco to ignore
enforcement of its labor laws with no penalty whatsoever. Under this
loophole, American employers and workers under U.S. labor law could be
at a disadvantage if actual conditions in Morocco are so lax as to
create a much cheaper business environment.
The agreement prohibits the preferences for government contracts to
be given for: employing U.S. workers, using recycled materials, paying
prevailing or living wages. Furthermore, no criminal record of tax
evasion, endangering the lives of workers, or pollution can disqualify
a company for a government contract.
These flaws are not necessary for trade between nations. They are,
however, elements in an anti-consumer, anti-worker, anti-environment
and anti-democratic agenda. For these reasons, I oppose the U.S.-
Morocco free trade agreement.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, while I intend to vote for the Morocco Free
Trade Agreement, I want to stress to the administration how important
it is to respect the report language on ``Western Sahara'' which was
included in this bill by my colleague, the gentleman from Washington,
Mr. McDermott. This language reflects the sentiment voiced in a recent
bipartisan letter to the U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick.
Under no circumstances should the U.S. proceed with the
implementation of a free trade agreement that does not categorically
exclude the terrority known as the Western Sahara. The U.S., as well as
the international community, does not recognize Morocco's sovereignty
over Spain's former colony. Morocco has steadfastly refused any efforts
by the United Nations to permit a free and fair referendum on self-
determination for the Sahrawi people of Western Sahara. We should not
permit Morocco to use the agreement to further its illegal occupation
of Western Sahara.
I urge the administration to take these concerns seriously and to
implement a free trade agreement that does not violate the sovereignty
and rights of the people of Western Sahara.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice a significant concern
with regard to the proposed Free Trade Agreement between the United
States and Morocco. While this is a concern specific to Morocco, it
highlights a broader issue that I and many of my colleagues share in
regard to the pace and ``individuality'' of the many bilateral FTAs
being negotiated by the USTR.
Reviewing the February 25, 2004 State Department Country Report on
Human Rights for Morocco, I came across several issues. The report
highlights a series of human rights abuses in Morocco and I believe
these unacceptable practices need to be a priority of the United States
as it builds and strengthens its long-standing ties with Morocco.
I was greatly concerned with an issue that comes up several times in
the report. To quote one sentence: ``The judiciary lacked independence
and was subject to government influence and corruption.'' As I assume
we can all agree, the lack of an independent judiciary and corruption
are significant, fundamental barriers to the development of a sound,
growing trade relationship.
As the Ways and Means Committee considered this agreement I asked
representatives of the USTR about this fundamental issue. They had no
comment and promised to follow-up with me. I want to thank Chairman
Thomas for for seconding my concerns at the markup and also seeking a
response. The USTR has made available to me the American Bar
Association report on the state of Morocco's judicial system, citing
some hope for reform.
My impression is that the state of the judiciary in the Kingdom of
Morocco and corruption in commerce are issues that received little
attention as the USTR negotiated this agreement. That should not be the
case. Bilateral FTAs are a means to address issues such as these with
key trade partners and strengthen the basis for trade relations. An
independent judiciary is essential to sound, long-term trade relations.
As well, corruption in many foreign nations has long been a concern of
the United States; one where we have long set a high standard and
required our businesspeople to operate on an ethical basis.
I understand the USTR's current interest in pursuing a large number
of bilateral agreements to advance trade around the world--particularly
as our more broad based talks and negotiations on global agreements
have stalled. That being said, quantity should not supplant quality in
agreements. Our goals in each of our trade agreements should remain
high and be targeted to the situation in each nation. I am concerned in
this agreement we have not met our highest goals and lost an
opportunity.
Reluctantly, I intend to support this FTA because I believe the
government of Morocco has demonstrated its commitment to working with
us and raising its own standards; the new labor rights laws enacted
last year are a good example. But I want to strongly urge the USTR to
show more care and attention to the individuality of nations as we move
forward, particularly as it relates to institutional reforms and the
protection of human rights.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, time sure flies when you're having fun. Just
last week I expressed serious misgivings about the U.S.-Australian Free
Trade Agreement (FTA), noting, among other problems, that it set a bad
precedent for future trade bills. Those concerns are confirmed today by
this bill. The U.S.-Morocco FTA is a bad agreement that protects U.S.
pharmaceutical manufacturers while ignoring labor standards and the
healthcare needs of Moroccan citizens.
I warned you last week that a vote for the Australian FTA was a vote
against prescription
[[Page 17296]]
drug reimportation, and it's true again today. We cannot continue to
allow USTR to include intellectual property provisions in FTAs that
undermine Congress's ability to provide affordable prescription drugs
through reimportation. True, we aren't going to be importing drugs from
Morocco any time soon, but what happens in the next FTA, and the one
after that? It should be clear by now that the USTR is merely a shill
for the pharmaceutical industry, engaged in nothing more than closing
the door to drug reimportation at the request of the Administration.
Unfortunately, the Morocco agreement doesn't stop at undermining the
debate over reimportation. In fact, it goes much further by limiting
access to potentially life saving drugs in Morocco. Because the
agreement limits parallel importation, if a pubic health emergency
breaks out, Morocco cannot import affordable drugs from neighboring
countries if a U.S. country manufacturers the drug.
Once again, the pharmaceutical industry has used the administration
and a free trade agreement to protect its profits, without any concern
for global health. If Morocco has a public health crisis, it would be
forced to purchase drugs from U.S. manufacturers instead of getting
immediate access to the same drugs from nearby countries. The U.S.
pharmaceutical industry has been gouging prices here in America for
years; just think what they can do to prices when a developing country
is in crisis.
You would think one provision limiting access to drugs in Morocco
would be victory enough for the pharmaceutical manufacturers, but this
industry just does not stop. Also included in the FTA are limits on the
use of test data and market exclusivity provisions that could raise the
price of drugs in Morocco and further limit access.
Because the FTA limits test data usage and creates 5 years of market
exclusivity, the introduction of generic drugs in the Moroccan market
will be substantially delayed. When generics are not available, prices
increase--along with manufacturers' profits--and poorer citizens have
less purchasing power to obtain life saving drugs.
There is also the strong possibility that these data and exclusivity
provisions will further tie the hands of the Moroccan government during
a public health emergency. The FTA and side letter are amazingly vague
on whether Morocco can engage in compulsory licensing of otherwise
patented drugs during a health crisis. Here again, the pharmaceutical
manufacturers will do anything to make sure they are the monopoly
power, even when lives are at stake.
Today we vote on nothing less than the future course of domestic and
international pharmaceutical policies. USTR will continue to use trade
agreements to limit our ability to import affordable pharmaceuticals
from other countries. It is also clear that future negotiations are
going to limit drug access in other countries so that U.S.
pharmaceutical manufacturers can make even more money abroad. These are
bad policies, and we should not let the Administration continue to
implement them by slipping them into free trade agreements.
I am also concerned that USTR has once again failed to include core
labor standard requirements in a free trade agreement. USTR should not
continue to use the ``enforce your own laws'' standard in FTAs without
developing countries. I understand Morocco is moving in the right
direction in terms of labor rights, but there is no reason this FTA
should not have held them to the core labor standards developed by the
International Labour Organization (ILO). The ILO standards ensure
workers' human rights and their right to organize and strike. We cannot
have acceptable free trade without a level playing field, and these
standards are the key to ensuring trade between the U.S. and other
countries is both free and fair.
This is a bad free trade agreement that sets a bad precedent for all
future trade negotiations. We cannot continue to let the administration
make health policy without Congressional input, and we surely would not
let the pharmaceutical industry have their way just because of their
large campaign donor status. We also cannot ignore workers' rights by
allowing trade partners to enforce their own laws when those laws do
not meet international labor standards.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade
Agreement.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Morocco Free
Trade Agreement and believe it will promote domestic growth in
manufacturing and exports. I look forward to seeing this agreement
enacted into law. I also support, thank and congratulate the United
States Trade Representative and staff in negotiating the inclusion of
full duty drawback and duty deferral rights for U.S. manufacturers,
exporters and workers in this FTA. Free trade agreements should include
no language that eliminates or otherwise restricts the application of
duty drawback and duty deferral programs to U.S. manufacturers and
exporters. The language in the Singapore, Australia, Israel and Jordan
FTAs and in the CAFTA, for example, have no such restrictive language
and we should continue to model future agreements after these FTAs.
This issue is of significant importance to many U.S. manufacturers and
exporters, including those in my home State of Louisiana.
Duty drawback and duty deferral programs reduce production and
operating costs by allowing our manufacturers and exporters to recover
duties that were paid on imported materials when the same or similar
materials are exported either whole or as a component part of a
finished product. Duty drawback positively affects nearly $16 billion
of U.S. exports each year. Additionally, nearly 300,000 U.S. jobs are
directly related to exported goods that benefit from drawback, and
these high quality jobs could be adversely affected by eliminating or
restricting drawback. In my own home State of Louisiana, drawback and
duty deferral programs provide substantial benefits to local
industries, allowing them to compete on a level playing field in the
global market. Drawback and deferral prevents outsourcing and saves
U.S. manufacturing and jobs. As long as the programs provide a
competitive advantage in production and sales for U.S. manufacturers
and exporters, they will assist in preventing U.S. jobs from moving
offshore.
Drawback makes a significant difference to U.S. companies at the
margin when exporting to our FTA partners where they compete against
foreign producers that either have substantially lower costs of
production or enjoy low or zero import duty rates. This export
promotion program is one of the last WTO-sanctioned programs that
provide a substantial advantage to U.S. companies participating in the
export market. The application of these programs to U.S. manufacturers
and exporters should not be restricted in future free trade agreements
that we negotiate with our trading partners.
We need to work hard to complete free trade agreements that provide
as many competitive advantages as we can to U.S. manufacturers
competing in the global market, encourage growth in U.S. exports, and
create U.S. jobs.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my support for
H.R. 4842, legislation implementing a free trade agreement with the
nation of Morocco.
For more than two centuries, Morocco has been a steadfast friend to
the United States. Few Americans would guess that Morocco was the first
nation to extend recognition to the new American nation on December 20,
1777. Morocco is also one of only six Muslim nations to be designated
as a ``major non-NATO ally.'' So it is only fitting that we establish a
free trade agreement with such a long-time friend and supporter.
Under this FTA, more than 95 percent of bilateral trade between our
countries will be duty-free from the first day of implementation. North
Carolina exports to Morocco are generally small, valued at just more
than 8 million dollars. Morocco is my state's 80th biggest export
market with tobacco products, chemical manufacturing, and
transportation equipment being our top three exports.
However, North Carolina stands to gain much from increased access to
this new market, especially in the field of agriculture. Tariffs on key
North Carolina products like soybeans and processed poultry products
will be cut significantly. One significant provision in this agreement
is that Morocco has agreed to accept U.S. inspection standards for
poultry. Phony sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions on U.S. exports
have long been a hallmark of international trade. Having Morocco accept
our inspection regime will go along way to improving access to that
market.
According to an analysis by the American Farm Bureau Federation, this
agreement is expected to result in a 10 to 1 gain for the U.S.
agricultural sector. Within the next 10-11 years, the U.S. should
expect to increase agricultural exports to Morocco by $225 million.
What's more, the FTA includes a provision giving U.S. agriculture an
``automatic upgrade.'' Should Morocco negotiate another trade agreement
providing another nation with more favorable market access for
agriculture, our FTA automatically obtains the same level of access as
the other nation. This will ensure America's competitiveness against
other nations seeking to enter the Moroccan market.
I believe the geopolitical reasons for establishing this free trade
agreement with another Muslim nation in a volatile region overcomes the
few deficiencies inherent in the agreement, particularly with regard to
textiles. Because of the small amount of trade between our two
[[Page 17297]]
countries, any potential adverse impact should be minimized. However,
this administration cannot continue to count on this Member's support
for other trade agreements if it is not willing to stand up for even
stronger labor and environmental standards and better protections for
America's fragile textile industry.
I ask my colleagues to support this agreement.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the bill is considered read for
amendment, and the previous question is ordered.
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. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the
passage of H.R. 4842 will be followed by 5-minute votes, as ordered, on
suspending the rules and adopting House Concurrent Resolution 436; and
House Concurrent Resolution 418.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 323,
nays 99, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 413]
YEAS--323
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Akin
Allen
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--99
Aderholt
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Berry
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardoza
Coble
Conyers
Costello
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Doggett
Doyle
Emerson
Evans
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Goode
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Hostettler
Hunter
Jackson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lipinski
Markey
Marshall
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Pombo
Rogers (AL)
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--12
Cannon
Carson (IN)
Collins
Gephardt
Greenwood
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lowey
Meehan
Paul
Quinn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1832
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, and Messrs. BARRETT of South Carolina,
RUSH, BURTON of Indiana and BUTTERFIELD changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________
CELEBRATING 10 YEARS OF MAJORITY RULE IN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question of
suspending the rules and agreeing to the concurrent resolution, H. Con.
Res. 436, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 436, as amended, on
which the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 422,
nays 0, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 414]
YEAS--422
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Conyers
[[Page 17298]]
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Ackerman
Carson (IN)
Collins
Ford
Gephardt
Greenwood
Kirk
Kucinich
Lowey
Meehan
Paul
Quinn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1841
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the concurrent 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.
____________________
RECOGNIZING IMPORTANCE IN HISTORY OF 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF ESTABLISHMENT
OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND JAPAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question of
suspending the rules and agreeing to the concurrent resolution, H. Con.
Res. 418.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 418, on which the yeas
and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 416,
nays 0, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 415]
YEAS--416
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
[[Page 17299]]
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Ackerman
Calvert
Carson (IN)
Collins
Conyers
Ford
Gephardt
Greenwood
Hobson
Kirk
Kucinich
Lowey
Meehan
Paul
Quinn
Sabo
Schiff
Waters
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1849
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A further message from the Senate by Mr. Monahan, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate has passed a bill of the following title in
which the concurrence of the House is requested:
S. 2724. An act to amend section 33(a) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657c(a)) to clarify that the National
Veterans Business Development Corporation is a private
entity.
____________________
ELECTION OF MEMBER TO CERTAIN STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I
offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 741) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 741
Resolved, That the following named Member be and is hereby
elected to the following standing committees of the House of
Representatives:
Committee on Agriculture: Mr. Butterfield (to rank
immediately after Ms. Herseth).
Committee on Small Business: Mr. Butterfield (to rank
immediately after Mr. Udall of New Mexico).
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4613, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2005
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 735, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 735
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 4613) making appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and
for other purposes. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 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.
The Defense Appropriations Conference Report provides the tools and
the resources for our military to wage an aggressive war against
terrorism, while defending our Nation against ever-changing military
threats.
Each generation of Americans has been called to defend our freedom,
and each time our forefathers and -mothers have answered that call. Our
generation's time of national trial has come, and we are being called
to stop a new kind of enemy, different from any that we have ever
fought before. This enemy is patient, building resources and striking
where and when we are least prepared.
The enemy uses a different method each time, and this enemy requires
a new kind of defense. And this is what the conference report is
continuing to build.
I agree with President Bush when he says that our Armed Forces must
be ready to confront every threat from any source that can bring sudden
terror and suffering to America.
Our forces must be ready to deploy to any point of the globe on short
notice, and this bill provides $416.2 billion in new discretionary
spending authority for the Department of Defense. It also includes $25
billion in emergency spending, requested by the President for early
fiscal year 2005 costs associated with operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Our Nation must have, and we will have, ready forces that can bring
victory to our country and safety to our people. The world's best
soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines also deserve the world's best
weaponry; and to ensure that, we must invest in procurement accounts.
And this report contains $77.6 billion for procurement. We need to give
our military the weapons that they need for the future threats.
If this war against terror means that we must find it wherever it
exists and pull it out by the roots and bring people to justice, our
military must have the means to achieve this.
This bill also makes significant improvements in the quality of life
for our men and women who serve in the Armed Forces, including a 3.5
percent pay raise and targeted pay raises to mid-grade noncommissioned
officers, generous housing allowances that will significantly decrease
the out-of-pocket housing expenses of our service personnel, and
provide access to high quality health care. We can never pay our men
and women in uniform on the scale that matches the magnitude of their
sacrifice, but this bill reflects our respect for their selfless
service.
I feel strongly that we need a strong national defense, and we need
to be prepared. And with this conference report, we will be. The
primary responsibility for us as elected officials is to provide for
the common defense of our fellow countrymen; and to that end, I urge my
colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying bill, because
now, more than ever, we must improve our national security.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, just yesterday, the gentlewoman from North Carolina and
I were here on the floor debating another very important bill for our
soldiers, the Military Construction Appropriations bill. Like the
Defense appropriations bill, that bill funds vital programs for our
troops. Unfortunately, this House's leadership made what I think was a
terrible mistake by allowing a provision to improve housing for our
troops and their families to potentially be completely stripped from
that bill. If that happens, almost 50,000 military families will be
affected and continue to live in substandard housing. I think that
shows real disregard and disrespect for our soldiers; and frankly, I
find it disgraceful.
I understand that we will be continuing debate on the Military
Construction bill in just a few minutes, so I suppose we will see
shortly how the matter is resolved, but the conference
[[Page 17300]]
report on the Defense Appropriations bill is a different matter.
I am pleased to join the gentlewoman in support of the conference
report and the rule providing for its conversation. Throughout my 26
years in Congress, I have always worked hard to keep our military
strong and our troops safe. I believe that providing for our national
defense is one of our most important duties as Members of Congress and
that providing funding for our troops to ensure their safety and the
success of the war on terror is our obligation.
I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that the bill before us now does a
good job of providing vital support for our troops. The bill gives our
troops a much-deserved 3.5 percent pay raise and gives the Department
of Defense $25 billion in emergency supplemental funding for the war on
terror.
These funds directly and significantly aid our servicemen and -women
by providing them with the tools they need to fight the war on terror
and return home safely. It will provide every soldier with body armor,
provide our troops with more armored Humvees and increase the size of
the Army to relieve the burden on our overworked soldiers. It is a good
bill, and I support its passage wholeheartedly.
I note also that the conference report provides very substantial
funding for the F-22 Raptor, for the V-22 Osprey and for the Joint
Strike Fighter. These are fine weapon systems. Much of the work is done
in the north Texas area that I represent, and I commend the committee
for continuing to support those systems. I am glad we were able to get
it right in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule and adoption of the
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
735, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4613) making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report
is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House on
July 20, 2004, at page 16403.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis)
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
We will not take a great deal of time of our colleagues in the House.
Following the tradition of the ranking member of the full committee and
my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), we
certainly want to extend our great thanks to all of our colleagues and
staff.
Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to present to the House the
conference agreement on fiscal year 2005 Defense appropriations bill.
My colleagues, one month ago--exactly to this day--the House passed
its version of this bill, with overwhelming support. The Senate
followed suit shortly afterwards, and like the House, the other body
showed nearly unanimous support for this bill.
And here we are tonight, with this conference report. We present a
bipartisan Defense bill, targeted at supporting our men and women in
the Defense Department and intelligence community, at a most critical
time in the Nation's history.
It is during a time of war.
It is during a time of challenge for our Nation and freedom-loving
people everywhere.
And it is during a time when our country, once again, must take on
the mantle of leading the world community.
This is as the United States has done before--as it must do today;
and as it must continue to do in the future.
The President, and this Congress, understand this challenge. The
President asked us to consider this bill--the largest Defense bill, in
terms of dollars, in our Nation's history. In recognition of this, as I
mentioned on a bipartisan basis both the House and the Senate moved
this bill late last month into conference. And now we will soon be
asking the House, and the other body, to send this final product to the
President.
Mr. Speaker, I must say this conference agreement is an even better
bill than passed the House. I truly believe that. I can say that
because of the tremendous work done by the Members of the conference
committee on both sides of the Capitol.
Mr. Speaker, we would not be here tonight without the leadership and
experience of my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha.
And we would not be here without the experience, skill, and tenacity
of the leaders of the Senate Defense Subcommittee, my friends, the
senior Senators from Alaska and Hawaii.
The support and counsel of our chairman, Bill Young, and our ranking
Member David Obey have also been invaluable at every step of the
process. As has been the support of all the Members of the Defense
subcommittees--both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the Capitol. I
personally want to thank, and acknowledge, all of them.
I must pay tribute to our staffs--especially Sid Ashworth and Charlie
Houy, who lead the Senate staff, and our subcommittee staff, led by
Kevin Roper and David Morrison. Many thanks also to the full committee
staff, Jim Dyer, John Blazey, Dale Oak, Therese McAuliffe, and John
Scofield.
This bill reflects our best, collective judgment on how to meet those
many challenges and demands confronting the Nation.
What does this bill do? We provide over $416 billion to support our
Defense and intelligence communities; most importantly it supports the
ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the global war on
terrorism; it supports our troops who are on the front lines--it fully
funds the pay raise, as well as the military pay, benefits, and medical
programs; this bill increases funding to support the overall readiness
of DoD forces worldwide; and it increases funding for intelligence.
Looking ahead, this bill also supports major equipment and research
needs. For example--we provide over $1.6 billion over the budget
request--to help restock and accelerate production of those items being
used by our Army and Marine Corps in Iraq--ammunition; trucks;
helicopters; and armored vehicles.
This bill also fully supports the President's objective of, later
this year, initially fielding a missile defense to protect the United
States. We also fund missile defenses for our troops in the field.
It continues production of major platforms such as the Virginia class
submarine, the C-17, and V-22 transport aircraft, and the F/A-18 and F/
A-22 fighters.
And this bill increases funding to support ``military
transformation''.
Mr. Speaker, most importantly, this bill puts first and foremost our
men and women in uniform, especially those on the front lines. In that
regard, as you all know, the President asked that we include in this
bill some $25 billion to help defray the ongoing costs of our
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have done just that--and shaped
these funds in a way to provide our deployed forces with the funds they
need to meet their most immediate demands.
Mr. Speaker, in summary, this is a bill that I am very, very proud
of. And it is one that each and every Member of the House can take
pride in also. It deserves your overwhelming support.
Now, if the House would indulge me, I want to thank a few people.
Under the rules of our conference, this is the last Defense
appropriations bill that I will have the privilege of bringing before
the House as chairman. It has been a remarkable and rewarding
experience. I want to thank my subcommittee members--on my side, Dave
Hobson, Henry Bonilla, George Nethercutt, Duke Cunningham, Rodney
Frelinghuysen, Todd Tiahrt, and Roger Wicker.
On the other side of the aisle, Norm Dicks, Martin Sabo, Peter
Visclosky, and Jim Moran.
I want to also accord special thanks to the ranking Member of the
full committee, Dave Obey, and of course, to my predecessor, our full
committee chairman Bill Young, who has set a standard that I try every
day to emulate. And of course, I must acknowledge my partner, our
former chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Jack Murtha. I also
must recognize the terrific staff that I've gotten to know pretty well
over the past few years.
Chairman Young, and Jim Dyer, the chief clerk of the full committee,
you've really done a great job in putting together a great team for us
on the subcommittee; Alica Jones, Doug Gregory, Betsy Phillips, Paul
Juola, Steve Nixon, Leslie Albright, Greg Lankler, Sarah
[[Page 17301]]
Young, Paul Terry, Kris Mallard, Sherry Young, Kevin Jones, Callie
Michael, and Linda Muir in our computer shop who provides us with so
much support.
The same goes for our minority staff, David Morrison and Bill Gnacek.
I must thank Carl Kime, of my personal office, who watches this bill
for me and does an outstanding job. And, of course, all of the staff in
my congressional office for their support and contributions.
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention those committee staff who have
moved on to other endeavors, but who made significant contributions
while they were with us. They include John Shank, Greg Dahlberg, Dave
Kilian, Trish Ryan, Tina Jonas, Dave Norquist, Greg Walters, and Celia
Alvarado.
And I cannot let this moment pass without mentioning Letitia White,
formerly of my personal staff, who worked so hard on this bill for many
years.
Finally, I must mention the clerk of the subcommittee, Kevin Roper,
who pulls all this together. And for whom this conference may be the
``last time around'' as well.
Thank you so much. My colleagues, I thank all of you for your help,
and for the privilege of serving with you.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert for the record a
summary of the conference agreement.
[[Page 17302]]
[[Page 17303]]
[[Page 17304]]
[[Page 17305]]
[[Page 17306]]
[[Page 17307]]
[[Page 17308]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
put some very laudatory comments about the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lewis) in the record, because this is his last time as a chairman
maybe.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my good friend from California,
the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, Congressman Jerry
Lewis. Since joining the Defense Subcommittee, Congressman Lewis has
been one of the strongest supporters of our men and women in uniform
that this Congress has ever known. As Chairman, he has guided the
Subcommittee without partisanship or political agenda to ensure that
our military remains the best military in the world. The Defense
Department and the people of our great Nation owe Jerry Lewis a debt of
gratitude for his unyielding support and hard work. And for that, I
salute him.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in support of the
conference agreement on H.R. 4613, the Department of Defense (DoD)
Appropriations Act for FY2005. This Member would like to thank the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), Chairman of the
Subcommittee and the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murtha) for their fine work on this important measure.
This Member is very pleased that several projects important to
Nebraska and our nation are included in the conference report. First,
the final agreement includes $3.5 million for the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) for the Fibrinogen Bandages for Battlefield
Wounds Project. This is a very innovative research and development
initiative which shows great promise.
These funds will be used for biomedical tissue engineering research
to develop inexpensive, safe and effective fibrinogen for use in
bandages, foam and other medical devices. This source of fibrinogen,
developed from recombinant proteins instead of human plasma, will
remove the major obstacle to the development of an affordable
fibrinogen bandage. This research will build on the Department of
Defense's (DoD) $20 million investment to produce fibrinogen from
transgenic animals rather than human plasma and will create a safer,
less expensive and abundant supply for bandages and medical devices. A
cost-effective abundant fibrinogen supply will enable development of
state-of-the-art bandages and medical devices, saving the lives of
wounded soldiers and other trauma victims.
Second, this Member is pleased that $2.5 million is included for
another UNL research initiative on Advanced Materials for Mine
Detection and Blast Mitigation. These funds will be used to support
research on advanced materials for mine detection and blast mitigation
that will help protect U.S. soldiers in all environments. This
research, which focuses on remote mine detection and the development of
materials for advanced composite armor and lightweight body armor and
hardened structures, contributes to programs currently underway or
envisioned at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory.
Using nanotechnology research will improve remote mine detection,
biological threat detection, and body armor. This effort will increase
protection and save lives of our soldiers fighting the war on
terrorism. UNL researchers have recently produced some of the most
advanced nanofibers in the world, opening the possibility for the
development of materials with entirely new characteristics. The
University will work closely with the scientific staff at the Army
Research Laboratory as they proceed with this research.
Third, this Member is encouraged that $3 million was added for the
Satellite Communications for Learning Act (SCOLA)/Defense Language
Institute (DLI) Foreign Language Center. Furthermore, this Member very
pleased by the successful establishment of a congressionally mandated
research and development line within the Army's R&D aggregation. This
change is critical for language skills development, maintenance and
language learning throughout the DoD.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support
H.R. 4613.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX, further proceedings on this question
will be postponed.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the conference
report on H.R. 4613, and that I may include tabular material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
____________________
{time} 1900
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Pursuant to House Resolution 732
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill, H.R. 4837.
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4837) making appropriations for military construction,
family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Bereuter in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, July
20, 2004, all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4837
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated for military
construction, family housing, and base realignment and
closure functions administered by the Department of Defense,
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other
purposes, namely:
Military Construction, Army
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, military
installations, facilities, and real property for the Army as
currently authorized by law, including personnel in the Army
Corps of Engineers and other personal services necessary for
the purposes of this appropriation, and for construction and
operation of facilities in support of the functions of the
Commander in Chief, $1,862,854,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2009: Provided, That of this amount, not to
exceed $140,554,000 shall be available for study, planning,
design, architect and engineer services, and host nation
support, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of
Defense determines that additional obligations are necessary
for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate of
the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, naval installations,
facilities, and real property for the Navy and Marine Corps
as currently authorized by law, including personnel in the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command and other personal
services necessary for the purposes of this appropriation,
$1,081,042,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009:
Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $93,284,000
shall be available for study, planning, design, and architect
and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the
Secretary of Defense determines that additional obligations
are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate
of the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Air Force
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, military
installations, facilities, and real property for the Air
Force as currently authorized by law, $797,865,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That of this
amount, not to exceed
[[Page 17309]]
$165,367,000 shall be available for study, planning, design,
and architect and engineer services, as authorized by law,
unless the Secretary of Defense determines that additional
obligations are necessary for such purposes and notifies the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and Senate of the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Defense-Wide
(including transfer of funds)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, installations,
facilities, and real property for activities and agencies of
the Department of Defense (other than the military
departments), as currently authorized by law, $718,837,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That
such amounts of this appropriation as may be determined by
the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to such
appropriations of the Department of Defense available for
military construction or family housing as the Secretary may
designate, to be merged with and to be available for the same
purposes, and for the same time period, as the appropriation
or fund to which transferred: Provided further, That of the
amount appropriated, not to exceed $63,482,000 shall be
available for study, planning, design, and architect and
engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary
of Defense determines that additional obligations are
necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate of
the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Army National Guard
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Army National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United
States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts,
$394,100,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009:
Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $74,982,000
shall be available for study, planning, design, and architect
and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the
Secretary of Defense determines that additional obligations
are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate
of the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Air National Guard
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Air National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United
States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts,
$180,533,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009:
Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $20,433,000
shall be available for study, planning, design, and architect
and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the
Secretary of Defense determines that additional obligations
are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate
of the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Army Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Army Reserve as authorized by chapter
1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military
Construction Authorization Acts, $116,521,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That of this
amount, not to exceed $13,413,000 shall be available for
study, planning, design, and architect and engineer services,
as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such
purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and Senate of the determination and
the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Naval Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the reserve components of the Navy and
Marine Corps as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10,
United States Code, and Military Construction Authorization
Acts, $30,955,000, to remain available until September 30,
2009: Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $1,653,000
shall be available for study, planning, design, and architect
and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the
Secretary of Defense determines that additional obligations
are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate
of the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Air Force Reserve as authorized by
chapter 1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military
Construction Authorization Acts, $111,725,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That of this
amount, not to exceed $8,612,000 shall be available for
study, planning, design, and architect and engineer services,
as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such
purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and Senate of the determination and
the reasons therefor.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment Program
For the United States share of the cost of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for
the acquisition and construction of military facilities and
installations (including international military headquarters)
and for related expenses for the collective defense of the
North Atlantic Treaty Area as authorized by section 2806 of
title 10, United States Code, and Military Construction
Authorization Acts, $165,800,000, to remain available until
expended.
Family Housing Construction, Army
For expenses of family housing for the Army for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law,
$636,099,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Army
For expenses of family housing for the Army for operation
and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor
construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance
premiums, as authorized by law, $926,507,000.
Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine
Corps for construction, including acquisition, replacement,
addition, expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized
by law, $139,107,000, to remain available until September 30,
2009.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps
For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine
Corps for operation and maintenance, including debt payment,
leasing, minor construction, principal and interest charges,
and insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $696,304,000.
Family Housing Construction, Air Force
For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law,
$846,959,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for
operation and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing,
minor construction, principal and interest charges, and
insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $854,666,000.
Family Housing Construction, Defense-Wide
For expenses of family housing for the activities and
agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the
military departments) for construction, including
acquisition, replacement, addition, expansion, extension, and
alteration, as authorized by law, $49,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2009.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
For expenses of family housing for the activities and
agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the
military departments) for operation and maintenance, leasing,
and minor construction, as authorized by law, $49,575,000.
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund
For the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement
Fund, $2,500,000, to remain available until expended, for
family housing initiatives undertaken pursuant to section
2883 of title 10, United States Code, providing alternative
means of acquiring and improving military family housing and
supporting facilities.
Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses of construction, not otherwise provided for,
necessary for the destruction of the United States stockpile
of lethal chemical agents and munitions in accordance with
the provisions of section 1412 of the Department of Defense
Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the
destruction of other chemical warfare materials that are not
in the chemical weapon stockpile, as currently authorized by
law, $81,886,000, to remain available until September 30,
2009: Provided, That such amounts of this appropriation as
may be determined by the Secretary of Defense may be
transferred to such appropriations of the Department of
Defense available for military construction as the Secretary
may designate, to be merged with and to be available for the
[[Page 17310]]
same purposes, and for the same time period, as the
appropriation to which transferred.
Base Realignment and Closure Account
For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1) of the Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687
note), $246,116,000, to remain available until expended.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 101. None of the funds made available in this Act
shall be expended for payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee
contract for construction, where cost estimates exceed
$25,000, to be performed within the United States, except
Alaska, without the specific approval in writing of the
Secretary of Defense setting forth the reasons therefor.
Sec. 102. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction shall be available for hire of passenger
motor vehicles.
Sec. 103. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction may be used for advances to the Federal
Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, for the
construction of access roads as authorized by section 210 of
title 23, United States Code, when projects authorized
therein are certified as important to the national defense by
the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 104. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to begin construction of new bases in the United
States for which specific appropriations have not been made.
Sec. 105. None of the funds made available in this Act
shall be used for purchase of land or land easements in
excess of 100 percent of the value as determined by the Army
Corps of Engineers or the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, except: (1) where there is a determination of value
by a Federal court; (2) purchases negotiated by the Attorney
General or his designee; (3) where the estimated value is
less than $25,000; or (4) as otherwise determined by the
Secretary of Defense to be in the public interest.
Sec. 106. None of the funds made available in this Act
shall be used to: (1) acquire land; (2) provide for site
preparation; or (3) install utilities for any family housing,
except housing for which funds have been made available in
annual Military Construction Appropriations Acts.
Sec. 107. None of the funds made available in this Act for
minor construction may be used to transfer or relocate any
activity from one base or installation to another, without
prior notification to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and Senate.
Sec. 108. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for the procurement of steel for any construction
project or activity for which American steel producers,
fabricators, and manufacturers have been denied the
opportunity to compete for such steel procurement.
Sec. 109. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense for military construction or family housing during
the current fiscal year may be used to pay real property
taxes in any foreign nation.
Sec. 110. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to initiate a new installation overseas without prior
notification to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and Senate.
Sec. 111. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be obligated for architect and engineer contracts estimated
by the Government to exceed $500,000 for projects to be
accomplished in Japan, in any NATO member country, or in
countries bordering the Arabian Sea, unless such contracts
are awarded to United States firms or United States firms in
joint venture with host nation firms.
Sec. 112. None of the funds made available in this Act for
military construction in the United States territories and
possessions in the Pacific and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in
countries bordering the Arabian Sea, may be used to award any
contract estimated by the Government to exceed $1,000,000 to
a foreign contractor: Provided, That this section shall not
be applicable to contract awards for which the lowest
responsive and responsible bid of a United States contractor
exceeds the lowest responsive and responsible bid of a
foreign contractor by greater than 20 percent: Provided
further, That this section shall not apply to contract awards
for military construction on Kwajalein Atoll for which the
lowest responsive and responsible bid is submitted by a
Marshallese contractor.
Sec. 113. The Secretary of Defense is to inform the
appropriate committees of Congress, including the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate,
of the plans and scope of any proposed military exercise
involving United States personnel 30 days prior to its
occurring, if amounts expended for construction, either
temporary or permanent, are anticipated to exceed $100,000.
Sec. 114. Not more than 20 percent of the funds made
available in this Act which are limited for obligation during
the current fiscal year shall be obligated during the last 2
months of the fiscal year.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 115. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction in prior years shall be available for
construction authorized for each such military department by
the authorizations enacted into law during the current
session of Congress.
Sec. 116. For military construction or family housing
projects that are being completed with funds otherwise
expired or lapsed for obligation, expired or lapsed funds may
be used to pay the cost of associated supervision,
inspection, overhead, engineering and design on those
projects and on subsequent claims, if any.
Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds appropriated to a military department or defense agency
for the construction of military projects may be obligated
for a military construction project or contract, or for any
portion of such a project or contract, at any time before the
end of the fourth fiscal year after the fiscal year for which
funds for such project were appropriated if the funds
obligated for such project: (1) are obligated from funds
available for military construction projects; and (2) do not
exceed the amount appropriated for such project, plus any
amount by which the cost of such project is increased
pursuant to law.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 118. During the 5-year period after appropriations
available to the Department of Defense for military
construction and family housing operation and maintenance and
construction have expired for obligation, upon a
determination that such appropriations will not be necessary
for the liquidation of obligations or for making authorized
adjustments to such appropriations for obligations incurred
during the period of availability of such appropriations,
unobligated balances of such appropriations may be
transferred into the appropriation ``Foreign Currency
Fluctuations, Construction, Defense'' to be merged with and
to be available for the same time period and for the same
purposes as the appropriation to which transferred.
Sec. 119. The Secretary of Defense is to provide the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and Senate with an annual report by February 15, containing
details of the specific actions proposed to be taken by the
Department of Defense during the current fiscal year to
encourage other member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, Japan, Korea, and United States allies
bordering the Arabian Sea to assume a greater share of the
common defense burden of such nations and the United States.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 120. In addition to any other transfer authority
available to the Department of Defense, proceeds deposited to
the Department of Defense Base Closure Account established by
section 207(a)(1) of the Defense Authorization Amendments and
Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526)
pursuant to section 207(a)(2)(C) of such Act, may be
transferred to the account established by section 2906(a)(1)
of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10
U.S.C. 2687 note), to be merged with, and to be available for
the same purposes and the same time period as that account.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 121. Subject to 30 days prior notification to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and Senate, such additional amounts as may be determined by
the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to the Department
of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund from amounts
appropriated for construction in ``Family Housing'' accounts,
to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes
and for the same period of time as amounts appropriated
directly to the Fund: Provided, That appropriations made
available to the Fund shall be available to cover the costs,
as defined in section 502(5) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, of direct loans or loan guarantees issued by the
Department of Defense pursuant to the provisions of
subchapter IV of chapter 169, title 10, United States Code,
pertaining to alternative means of acquiring and improving
military family housing and supporting facilities.
Sec. 122. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be obligated for Partnership for Peace Programs in the New
Independent States of the former Soviet Union.
Sec. 123. (a) Not later than 60 days before issuing any
solicitation for a contract with the private sector for
military family housing the Secretary of the military
department concerned shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate and
the Committees on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives and Senate the notice described in subsection
(b).
(b)(1) A notice referred to in subsection (a) is a notice
of any guarantee (including the making of mortgage or rental
payments) proposed to be made by the Secretary to the private
party under the contract involved in the event of--
(A) the closure or realignment of the installation for
which housing is provided under the contract;
(B) a reduction in force of units stationed at such
installation; or
(C) the extended deployment overseas of units stationed at
such installation.
[[Page 17311]]
(2) Each notice under this subsection shall specify the
nature of the guarantee involved and assess the extent and
likelihood, if any, of the liability of the Federal
Government with respect to the guarantee.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 124. In addition to any other transfer authority
available to the Department of Defense, amounts may be
transferred from the account established by section
2906(a)(1) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note), to the fund established by
section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374) to pay for expenses
associated with the Homeowners Assistance Program. Any
amounts transferred shall be merged with and be available for
the same purposes and for the same time period as the fund to
which transferred.
Sec. 125. Notwithstanding this or any other provision of
law, funds made available in this Act for operation and
maintenance of family housing shall be the exclusive source
of funds for repair and maintenance of all family housing
units, including general or flag officer quarters: Provided,
That not more than $20,000 per unit may be spent annually for
the maintenance and repair of any general or flag officer
quarters without 30 days advance notification to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and Senate and Committees on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives and Senate, except that an after-the-fact
notification shall be submitted if the limitation is exceeded
solely due to costs associated with environmental remediation
that could not be reasonably anticipated at the time of the
budget submission: Provided further, That the Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller) is to report annually to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and Senate all operations and maintenance expenditures for
each individual general or flag officer quarters for the
prior fiscal year.
Sec. 126. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act
or any other appropriation Act.
Sec. 127. None of the funds made available in this Act
under the heading ``North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment Program'', and no funds appropriated for
any fiscal year before fiscal year 2005 for that program that
remain available for obligation, may be obligated or expended
for the conduct of studies of missile defense.
Sec. 128. Whenever the Secretary of Defense or any other
official of the Department of Defense is requested by the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
to respond to a question or inquiry submitted by the chairman
or another member of that subcommittee pursuant to a
subcommittee hearing or other activity, the Secretary (or
other official) shall respond to the request, in writing,
within 21 days of the date on which the request is
transmitted to the Secretary (or other official).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 22, line 2 be
considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring Members back up to
date on what has happened on the legislation which we started
considering yesterday.
This bill funds military construction, which includes a lot of
quality of life programs for our military men and women and their
families. The funding level is $10 billion, and I am disappointed that
the actual funding level is only a 1.6 percent increase over military
construction last year, which after inflation is actually a real cut in
military construction funding during a time of war.
I think that is inexcusable given our war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
This bill appropriates $489 million below what we actually spent for
military construction 2 years ago before the Iraqi war even began. And
even worse, it is $900 million below what President Bush said would be
needed this year, just 12 months ago when he made that prediction.
Despite the fact that we are actually increasing military
construction, not even enough funds to make up for inflation, we have
39,000 Army families living in inadequate housing, 34,000 Army barracks
are inadequate, 70 percent of Army facilities are C-3 or C-4, which
means they are mission impaired, 16,000 Navy and Marine Corps families
live in inadequate housing, 31,000 Air Force families live in
inadequate housing.
Given this inadequate allocation to address the real priority of
military housing and construction and quality of life programs, I
commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). He has worked in
a thorough and fair manner to take what is a wholly inadequate amount
of funding for military construction and to spend that money as wisely
and fairly and as carefully as possible, and I salute him in that
effort.
The best thing about this bill, at least in this moment, is it
prevents a looming crisis in military housing construction. That crisis
is, if we do not allow an amendment passed by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) in this bill to stay in this bill, this
November we are going to put a freeze immediately on 24,000 new
military homes throughout the United States, and that will delay by
another year homes for another 26,000 military families next year.
So we are going to basically either freeze or delay new housing for
50,000 military families across 22 States, even recognizing some of
those families have loved ones serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To recap further, unfortunately yesterday the House leadership
strong-armed an atrocious rule through this House, a rule that I
consider to be a slap in the face of every military family in America,
a rule that took 20 to 25 minutes of extra arm twisting so it could
pass by one vote. That rule, pushed by the Speaker and the majority
leader, will allow one Member out of 435 in this House in the next few
moments to basically kill our effort to resolve the military housing
crisis, and every Member of the House who voted on that rule knew
exactly what was going to happen when they voted for it.
I find it unbelievable that the same House leadership that just 2
months ago on the day that the Armed Services bill put a cap on this
bill at the same level that will force this crisis, on that very same
day the House leadership supported a $69 billion tax cut that will give
Members of Congress a tax cut.
So here we are, the leadership is pushing tax cuts for Members of
Congress, they can find time to rename dozens of post offices, they can
find the money to push the $69 billion tax cut, but when it comes to
protecting a promise of better housing for our military men and women
and their families, the House leadership sadly and unfairly said, no,
we cannot do that.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman for his statements and for
his effort this year. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has gone
all out working with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) to
craft a solution here. I have supported his efforts and I have Fort
Lewis, Washington, McChord Air Force Base, in fact, in Fort Lewis we
have one of the RCI, the Residential Construction Initiatives. It has
worked better than any project for housing in the history of the
country. And that is why this is so destructive. And we are not talking
about spending additional military construction dollars.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Edwards was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. All we are saying is we are going to raise a limit by $500
million so that these transactions can occur in a public-private
partnership.
This is what we have always heard from the majority party is the
right way to go, these public-private partnerships. Down in Fort Hood
this is a great success.
[[Page 17312]]
Mr. EDWARDS. Six thousand new Army homes.
Mr. DICKS. I went out with General Soriano, the Commanding Officer at
I CORPS. We went out and walked through these brand new houses being
built under the Residential Construction Initiative. The wives of the
sergeants were telling us this is the greatest thing that has ever
happened in the Army.
I have been out there when these deployments occur, and one of the
things the spouses say and one of the things the members of the
services say when they are deployed is they worry about their family,
they worry about the housing, they worry about health care, they worry
about what is going to happen to their families while they are gone. I
know from my years of experience, 26 years on the Subcommittee on
Defense, 18 years on this subcommittee, that quality of life and having
this new housing and getting it done in a timely way is crucial.
That is why the objection to this by the majority party to me is so
unexplainable, because one thing we have always been good about in this
House is on a bipartisan basis rising above limitations, things of that
nature, to get the job done for the men and women who are serving, and
especially now when we are in a time of war, especially now when the
services are stressed in a most difficult way, and with all these
deployments. We are over-deployed.
We saw what the GAO said today. There is not enough money out there
to properly deal with the problems we have got. So to pile this last
thing on, this poke in the eye of the military families by not raising
this limit, to me is one of the worst things that has happened in my 28
years in the House.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has
expired.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and I yield
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his eloquent
comments and his leadership and strong support for better quality
housing for our families.
I want to summarize where we are. Basically, the same House
leadership that said just 2 months ago on the same day we refused to
increase the cap so 50,000 new military families over the next 2 years
could get new housing, in the same day they push through a $69 billion
tax cut that is going to give me a $2,000 tax break.
We could afford the tax break for Members of Congress but we could
not afford to take care of our promise of better housing for military
families.
Now, the gentleman talked about a poke in the eye. The final poke in
the eye is this is not the only bad news that the servicemen and women
and veterans are going to hear today, because the same leadership that
could support the tax cuts for Members of Congress could not find a way
to improve housing and fund that program for military families, the
most important effective housing improvement program for our military
in our Nation's history. Guess what, in the Committee on Appropriations
today we voted out a veterans' health care appropriations bill that
basically, well, let me tell you what the National Commander of
Disabled American Veterans says about it.
``To the veterans of this Nation it is incomprehensive that our
government cannot afford to fund their medical care and benefits
programs at a time it can afford generous tax cuts costing hundreds of
billions of dollars more.''
The American Legion, the DAV, the VFW all went on to say that the
leadership-pushed veterans' health care bill today is going to cut,
after inflation, real veterans' health care services by $1.3 billion.
Now with the action of the leadership yesterday on the rule and one
Member of the House today, we will say to 50,000 military families, we
will break our promise to you of better housing.
I think that is a terrible message for us to send our military
families. While we go on a month long recess and vacation they are
sitting there looking at veterans' health care cuts and frozen
programs.
Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I want to say here is a situation
where this does not cost extra money. All we are talking about is
raising the limit. The Office of Management and Budget is for this. The
Secretary of Defense is for this. The service Secretaries are for this.
The Chiefs of Staff of each of the services are for this. I mean, the
President is for this. And it would seem to me with all of that support
and with the chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), who has
been a tremendous leader on this, why is it that we cannot get this
done? Why is it that we cannot take care of these people?
To me this is unexplainable.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Let me put a face on these people.
We are talking about 1,194 military families at Elmendorf Air Force
Base in Alaska will next year have their housing delayed. In New York
at Fort Drum, 2,272 military families, many of whom had loved ones that
had already served in Iraq, will have their housing program this year
frozen. In Florida, Eglin and Hurlburt Air Force Bases 2,739 military
families will have their housing promises broken. In Virginia 1,268
families at Langley. In Texas, Sheppard Air Force Base 1,288 families.
This is one more broken promise to our military families at a time
when they are making incredible sacrifices to our country.
What it does, we talked about a 1.6 percent increase for military
construction in this bill, but the truth is that once this objection is
raised then that will not allow us to even spend that meager amount of
funding for our housing program. So we could end up with an actual cut
not only in veterans' health care during a time of war this year, we
could end up with an actual cut in military construction during a time
of war. That is unconscionable coming from a leadership that said we
could afford to give Members of Congress a tax cut just 2 months ago.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to have a colloquy between myself and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. Chairman, I would like to invite you to engage in a brief
colloquy with me on an issue regarding Fort Hunter Liggett in
California.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I would be happy to discuss Fort Hunter Liggett with
the gentleman.
Mr. FARR. As the gentleman knows, Fort Hunter Liggett is today
surrounded by U.S. Forest Service property.
{time} 1915
In fact, prior to becoming a military base, most of the land was in
the possession of the Forest Service, and another huge tract of land
next door was owned by the famed Hearst family.
During the 1995 BRAC round, Fort Hunter Liggett was realigned and the
cantonment area was excessed to the National Park Service. This means
virtually all the functional buildings to support troop activities were
given away, but all the land was retained by the military and put under
the control of the Army Reserve.
The National Park Service, in preparation for accepting the
cantonment area, studied its options with regard to management of this
new property. In its report just released last month, the National Park
Service labeled the land of Fort Hunter Liggett as ``relatively
unchanged landscape'' from the time of the California's missionaries;
as having ``no equivalent'' in terms of protected, undisturbed habitat;
and as a ``rarity'' in its ``representation of cultural and natural
history.''
However, because of the type of BRAC action at Fort Hunter Liggett,
the land is not available to the Park
[[Page 17313]]
Service and the Department of the Interior has indicated its reluctance
to add such a huge tract of land to its inventory.
I guess, Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to say is that Fort Hunter
Liggett, as active a military base as it is, still is a unique natural
resource to our country; and it would be a shame to lose that resource
should the base ever find itself nonessential to the military mission
of our country.
While the Park Service, at this point anyway, seems disinclined to
pursue further ownership of lands at Fort Hunter Liggett, the Forest
Service is very interested.
Of course, no one is talking about giving anyone any land at Fort
Hunter Liggett right now. It is a very active base, and I expect that
it will merit strong support within the BRAC process for keeping it
open and functioning.
But, Mr. Chairman, I wish to inquire if the gentleman is aware that
the version of the Military Construction bill that is working its way
through the other body does, in fact, contain the language addressing
the issue of future land status at Fort Hunter Liggett.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would reply to the gentleman that,
yes, I am aware of this language and that it tracks with the
gentleman's desire to see the land preserved and conserved for future
open, natural space by giving the U.S. Forest Service the right of
first refusal for Fort Hunter Liggett lands at such time as the Army
deems them surplus.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response and
his observation that I do desire to keep Fort Hunter Liggett as a
natural resource if and when the military finds it is no longer
essential to its mission; and I emphasize again to the chairman, only
if and when the land is no longer essential to its military mission. I
have no desire to close Fort Hunter Liggett as long as the Army finds
it critical to its mission.
The chairman knows that I hoped to attach to the House bill we are
debating right now language similar to that inserted on the other side,
but in the interest of the House rules and jurisdictional matters, I
chose not to.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield again, I
am aware of the gentleman's deep interest in this issue and appreciate
his flexibility in finding ways to address this issue.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I would ask one further question of the
chairman. I would ask that the gentleman would work with me during the
conference on this issue to retain language we all find agreeable that
will keep the Forest Service as first in line to get Fort Hunter
Liggett when and if it is excessed.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield,
I assure the gentleman that I will be more than happy to work with him
in conference on this issue.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership and
cooperation and friendship.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to speak on this matter, but I
am a little disconcerted about discussions that would suggest that
anybody on either side of the aisle is interested in some way or
another of placing a limit on the opportunity for our men and women who
are serving us across the country by way of their housing or by way of
their potential for income.
I did not speak extensively on the earlier bill, but within that bill
we had funding, full funding for a pay adjustment for our troops. I
believe that everybody here who knows this subject knows that the
authorizing committee just the other day moved a separate bill that
would lift the lid in terms of the housing challenges we are talking
about.
It is not the intention of the Members of this House in any way,
shape or form to do anything but support our troops. Indeed, the last
bill that passed the House had a $25 billion amendment as a part of its
package that reflects our effort to make sure that money upon the time
that bill is signed is readily available to fight the war overseas, as
well as to make sure that we are doing what is necessary to care for
the families, the men and women who make up the strength of this
Nation.
I must say that my colleague from the Committee on Appropriations
knows full well that on both sides of the aisle we are committed to
serving our troops. This is not a partisan question by any matter or
means. It is very dangerous to our national security when people try to
carry this to partisan levels, and so that is the only reason I am
speaking today is because the House has worked beautifully in this
connection. It was a bit disconcerting for me at least to hear what I
considered to be rhetoric rather than substance.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I worked for 6
months on a bipartisan basis, talking to everyone from the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget;
and the chairman of the authorizing committee to try to solve this in a
bipartisan manner behind the scenes. At every step of the way for 6
months people said, well, it will get done, it will get done.
The problem is, we are about to take our August recess and it is not
done.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman suggested
that we are about to take the August recess; and thereby, I suppose,
people are on vacation. I do not know about the gentleman, but I intend
to go home and work and communicate to my constituents all of that
which we are doing for the men and women who are serving us in this
country. I mean, it is very, very important that we not suddenly decide
this may be an issue whereby I can impact or give the impression that
maybe one side is more holy than the other in terms of what we are
trying to do for our troops. It is just the reverse. We have done our
work well because we do so in an almost nonpartisan manner.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope as the gentleman is preparing to leave our
body as my classmate and my dear friend, I hope that we will have a lot
of time in the future to discuss the positive of this kind of
discussion. In turn, all of us know that we serve our troops best when
we take partisanship out of it.
Indeed, today, I am very proud of my colleague, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), for the work he has done here; and I hope
we can move forward from this point and discuss his bill in terms of
the real values that have been contributed here. So congratulations to
my colleague, and I appreciate him giving me this time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply observe that no two people in this House
have worked harder to keep partisanship or any other illegitimate
consideration out of this issue than have the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). They have
proceeded in tandem to try to produce concrete, as opposed to
theoretical, results for the military families in this country who are
deserving of a decent place to live.
But what we are being faced with is this: my mentor in this House,
when I first came, was Dick Bolling from Missouri who for many years
served this House in spectacular fashion on the Committee on Rules, and
he often told me that the greatest enemy to true legislative progress
was what he called ``dung hill politics.'' By that he meant Members
being more interested in preserving the jurisdiction of their committee
or the narrow interest that was associated with a committee or
subcommittee, rather than focusing on the broader interests of the
American people who we are supposed to serve.
It seems to me that this discussion tonight is an example of what
Dick Bolling was worried about because what we have going here, as I
said yesterday, is a charade.
The gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Texas have
[[Page 17314]]
brought to the floor a bill which provides concrete assurances that at
least 24,000 more military families will receive decent housing; but
apparently the Committee on the Budget is unhappy, at least the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget is unhappy, with the way the
committee has gone about this; and so he intends, as I understand it,
shortly to exercise a point of order which will strike from this bill
the Congress' ability to deliver that housing to those military
families.
In order to create an impression that these families are not being
hurt, it appears that what the House will now hide behind is a motion
taken yesterday to try to increase the authorization for this program,
which would have the result, if the bill was enacted into law, of
accomplishing the very same thing that is being accomplished by this
bill. The problem is the way this Congress works, there is absolutely
no assurance that a freestanding, independent authorization bill will
go anywhere in the other body; and that is why, if you want to preserve
that housing for those members, it is essential to keep this language
in this bill.
That is what the gentleman from Michigan has been trying to do. That
is what the gentleman from Texas has been trying to do on a bipartisan
basis, and we ought to be supporting that effort rather than finding
technicalities as reasons to deep-six the very fine work that they have
attempted to do.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First, let me respond to the gentleman from California's (Mr. Lewis)
comments that both parties, every Member cares about our troops. I
absolutely agree with that. In fact, let me repeat the statement I made
on the floor yesterday on this subject, and I quote myself, ``Every one
of us, Democrat and Republican alike, genuinely respects the service
and sacrifice of our troops and their families. No one should doubt
that fact, but I strongly believe our budget priorities should better
reflect that respect.''
Those were my comments. Let me talk about partisanship.
It was the Republican leadership that shoved through a rule last
night or on the floor yesterday that was done on a partisan basis. In
fact, it was so partisan they had to leave the vote open an extra 20,
25 minutes to, on a partisan basis, force Republicans or convince
Republicans to vote against their own interests in their own districts
to support a rule that is allowing 50,000 military family housing to be
put at risk.
Secondly, the Committee on the Budget, as I last recall, and I am a
member of that committee, put together its budget on a partisan basis.
That is where the partisanship came in, if it came in at all.
But to totally put to bed any idea that this is a partisan issue, I
have letters.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Edwards, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the Air Force Association sent a letter to
the chairman of the Committee on Rules asking them to not pass the rule
that they did.
The Association of the U.S. Army, a letter signed by General Gordon
Sullivan, former chief of staff for the Army, put in there that
``RCI,'' the Army's housing program, ``has a tremendous positive impact
on quality of life for our soldiers.
``I would ask that you work to ensure the amendment'' to protect
housing ``is protected by the Rules Committee and reaches the House
floor.''
The Military Officers Association of America asks that the House
leadership not shove through a partisan rule that would be unfair to
military families.
So did the National Military Family Association.
I do not think any of our colleagues would suggest that the
Association of the U.S. Army and the Military Officers Association of
America and these other military organizations are acting out of a
partisan basis. This does not have anything to do with partisanship. It
has to do with standing up for fairness for military families who are
making an incredible sacrifice for the American family during a time of
war; and in doing so, I will not hesitate to stand up to the Republican
leadership of this House which shoved through a rule that is going to
allow this housing to be put at risk, and I will not hesitate to stand
up to any Democrats who would hesitate in fully supporting military
housing.
{time} 1930
We all support our troops, but we have an opportunity by passing this
bill without a point of order to do something tangible about it. Good
intentions, goodwill do not provide better housing for 50,000 military
families. Passing this bill, as we passed it out of committee in a
bipartisan fashion, that is the way to make a difference for military
families who are so deserving of this support.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I had a couple of amendments at the desk that I will
not offer in favor of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). The reason I offered those amendments is
the Pentagon has a day care facility located on its campus that has
capacity for over 200 children. After September 11, 2001, parents of
those children were assured they would not have to be relocated. Now
they are told without any real warning that they have 60 days to
vacate. This is nearly 3 years after the attack on the Pentagon.
In Northern Virginia, there is a waiting list of 12 to 18 months at
most of the day care facilities, so we offered an amendment to try to
speed up the process of building a new day care facility at nearby Fort
Myer. That is what this colloquy concerns because it is beyond me why
the Pentagon would tell the parents that they have only 60 days to
vacate.
They say they have information that the Pentagon might be more likely
to be a target between now and Election Day. If that is the case, they
need to evacuate them immediately. There is some suspicion as to the
purpose, but I do not want to engage in that speculation. I want to do
what we can as a legislative body to ensure there is an alternative
site because I think most parents would agree that if they had an
opportunity to sit down and talk with the decisionmakers at the
Pentagon that it makes sense to begin to relocate the children.
Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg), I understand that the Pentagon, in response to the recent
decision to close the day care facility at the Pentagon, has offered to
expand and accelerate the planning and construction of the new day care
facility at Fort Myer, but at the earliest will be able to start
construction in October 2005; is that correct?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. It is my
understanding that the Army has accelerated this project and will be in
a position to award a contract in October 2005.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, does the Army have an updated
estimate on how much this project will cost and when this project will
be completed?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. The Army estimates the project will cost
approximately $17 million. I do not know how long it will take to
complete the facility, but the actions taken so far suggest to me that
they will move it forward in an expeditious fashion.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, my concern is there may be a
lack of coordination between the Army and the Washington Headquarters
[[Page 17315]]
Services at the Department on how to proceed with the design, planning
and construction of the new day care facility. To the gentleman's
knowledge, is the Army working with the Washington Headquarters Service
on moving forward with this timetable of October 2005?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the
Washington Headquarters Service is working with the Army to move this
project forward and is prepared to provide the additional funding
needed to expand the original project scope at Fort Myer to accommodate
the children the gentleman speaks of from the Pentagon facility.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope I can work closely
with the gentleman from Michigan on ensuring that the Pentagon work
quickly toward providing a completed alternative day care facility at
Fort Myer as soon as possible. I would hope that in the meantime the
Department dedicates all means necessary to find immediate interim
solutions for the parents of the more than 100 children at the Pentagon
today who are still without adequate child care options.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to work with the
gentleman to ensure the Department proceeds with this project as soon
as possible. I just want to say I appreciate the discussions we have
had and the gentleman's interest in bringing a resolution to this that
will satisfy all of us. I commend the gentleman for this.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
assistance on this matter. My present concern remains how best to
encourage the Pentagon to focus on providing interim day care service.
I look forward to working with you to see if there is any assistance we
could provide for interim solutions.
I want to recognize the fact that the gentleman from Northern
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf),
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, State, Justice, both of
whom have constituents in this situation, as I do, and they have also
worked very diligently on this. We appreciate the opportunity to work
with the gentleman from Michigan.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 129. Section 2883(g)(1) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``$850,000,000'' and inserting
``$1,350,000,000''. The amendment made by this section shall
not be subject to scoring for purposes of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Point of Order
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against section
129 of the bill because it violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which
prohibits legislative language that directly amends existing law.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that the gentleman makes the
point of order. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on this point
of order.
I understand the gentleman is reserving a point of order because the
provision in question is legislation, and therefore prohibited on an
appropriations bill under clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the
House. However, I would like to point out to the gentleman the reason
why this provision is in the bill.
As the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services stated earlier,
this provision is supported by the authorizing committee and it is not
in a defense authorization bill because of an objection by the
Committee on the Budget. So with the support of the authorizing
committee, the Committee on Appropriations voted to include this
provision in the military construction bill, and thus made a value
judgment to address military families' lives and welfare.
Now I believe the gentleman agrees with this policy because yesterday
he introduced a bill and it passed almost unanimously. However, that
bill may not go anywhere and I do not think that we should be playing
with people's livelihoods with promises that we cannot keep.
I would also point out that under the Armey protocol, A-R-M-E-Y, this
provision should not have been left exposed if the chairman of the
authorizing committee does not object to the inclusion of this
legislative provision in an appropriations bill. Only a piece of the
language, which is directed at scorekeeping, is within the purview of
the Committee on the Budget.
It is further regrettable that this provision is going to be stricken
even though it is strongly supported by the administration and the
House. It does not break the bank, as the chairman of the Committee on
the Budget purports, or he would not have introduced a bill that does
exactly the same thing yesterday.
I concede it is legislation and I concede it is subject to a point of
order, but I also concede it is the right thing to do for our military
families, and I believe the majority of the American people will agree
with me.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
to think about all of this before he insists on his point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I do.
Mr. Chairman, what a difference 1 hour makes. Less than 1 hour ago on
this floor the House of Representatives passed a rule for the defense
appropriations bill which waives all points of order against that bill,
and yet because the House leadership instructed the Committee on Rules
and twisted arms to force many Republican House members to vote on a
bill that does not protect a point of order on this, because of that
decision, inconsistent with a rule we just passed in this House by
unanimous vote less than 60 minutes ago, because of that we are
basically going to put at risk the most important military housing
improvement program in American history, a program that does not only
improve housing and show respect in a tangible way to men and women and
families, to children who are making incredible sacrifices for our
country, but a measure that is saving taxpayers billions of dollars by
building these houses more efficiently.
In a House that ignores technicalities every single day to carry out
priorities much less important than quality military housing for our
families during a time of war, we are going to put this incredibly
important program at risk.
Finally, I want to say this. Let us be clear, this is not today just
an action of one person, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). I
respect the gentleman. He is a person of principle. I might disagree
with the debate on fiscal responsibility when we voted 2 months ago for
a $69 billion tax cut that helps Members of Congress and today we
cannot afford to take care of a few thousand military families'
housing, but I do respect him. He is a person of deep principle.
This is not just an action of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
This was an action which was allowed and encouraged by the House
leadership by forcing an unfair rule through this House, a rule that
was opposed by the Military Officers Association of America, the
Association of the U.S. Army, the Air Force Association, and the
National Military Family Association.
This action is also something that was allowed by 212 votes, a
passage of that rule by one vote, 212 to 211. One Member changing his
or her vote, and we could have prevented this tragedy from happening
today.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge the gentleman to consider not recognizing
the technicality raised here that will harm tens of thousands of
military families during a time of war.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, there have been a lot of speeches already,
and I understand it is permissible to speak to the point of order, but
many of these speeches are just repeats of what has been done and can
be done in regular order in consideration of the bill.
[[Page 17316]]
Mr. Chairman, I would insist on my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman raises a valid point. Members are to
limit their remarks to relevant arguments on the point of order; the
Chair has exercised some tolerance in that respect.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to be heard on the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, it is important for us to respect the rules of the
House, but sometimes the rules give Members powers to do things that
they ought not do. Just because we have the power to do something does
not necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do it. Sometimes it
is important to exercise restraint. I think this is one of those cases.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) correctly points out that an
hour ago we waived all points of order on a huge spending bill, many
times more dollars than we have in this bill. There were many points of
order that could have been lodged against this bill when it came from
the Committee on Rules, but the House leadership chose to expose only
one item in the bill to a point of order, and that is the item that
would have delivered decent housing to 24,000 military families.
What the House did or what the majority did by adopting that rule is
to say in effect that peace in the family was more important than the
sure delivery of decent housing to 24,000 military families.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfortunate that the majority leadership
has dictated to the House that it must allow this one provision to be
eliminated, but there is not much we can do about it and I also
unfortunately have to concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has heard from the chairman of the
subcommittee, the ranking member of the subcommittee, and the ranking
member of the full committee, and is prepared to rule on the point of
order raised by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
The Chair finds that this provision directly amends existing law. The
provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the provision is
stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 130. The fitness center at Homestead Air Reserve Base,
Florida, shall be known and designated as the ``Sam Johnson
Fitness Center''. Any reference to such facility in any law,
regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the
United States shall be considered to be a reference to the
Sam Johnson Fitness Center.
{time} 1945
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would just like to announce to my colleagues today that there was a
decision made by the Pentagon to move 3,900 troops to Fort Lewis,
Washington, from Fort Polk, Louisiana, for a third Stryker Brigade. The
reason I bring this up in the context of military construction is we
have done a lot of military construction work at Fort Lewis, but we are
going to have to do more. That is why the consequences of the decision
just made here to me are so serious, because this RCI program that we
have discussed which was started by this committee, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hobson) when he was chairman worked with all of us to try to
further this program, and I believe that this is one of the most
constructive programs that we have ever enacted.
I hope that, working together, the leadership of this Congress, we
can figure out, if we cannot do it in the military construction bill,
maybe we can figure out another way to do it. Maybe the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) can do it, as he mentioned yesterday, that he
would take care of this in the conference on the authorization bill
between the House and the Senate and help us find a way to work through
this.
The reason I am so passionate about this program is because I have
seen what it does out at Fort Lewis. In fact, with the help of the
chairman, I am trying to get Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base,
which are right adjacent to each other on I-5 in Tacoma, Washington, in
my congressional district, along with Adam Smith, these two major
bases, McChord has the C-17, and those two bases can cooperate in a
joint RCI project. I am working with Assistant Secretary Gibbs,
Assistant Secretary Prosch to try to get them to cooperate and work
together as was done at Fort Dix with an Air Force base and an Army
base there and worked out in a terrific joint venture.
I would just say to all of my colleagues, this is one of the best
programs we have ever enacted because we use the housing allowance of
the troops, that housing allowance goes to the company, and then the
company goes out and does the financing and builds this new military
housing. It is terribly popular with the troops. That is why as I see
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) on the floor, who have all
worked on this, I just hope that we can continue to work together until
the end of this Congress to figure out some way, maybe working with the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) in the authorization bill, to
find a solution to this.
I think the overwhelming will here is to keep this program moving
forward. We hope that by 2007 we can get rid of all of the backlog of
housing that is substandard in all of the services. This is one of the
goals of Secretary Rumsfeld and the service chiefs and the Secretaries
of each of the services.
I want to compliment the chairman again. This year the chairman did
something quite unique. He got the chief of staff of each of the
services to come and testify before the committee because he wanted to
drive home the point of how important military construction is. I
commend the chairman for doing that. This is something that had not
been done and there was some resistance, but I think once all the
chiefs got there, they realized that this was a friendly committee, a
committee that is trying to improve military housing, military
construction, and that we would have a chance then to talk directly to
the service chiefs on this important subject.
As mentioned by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), all of the
outside groups that support military families have written letters in
favor of this initiative. I hope even with the unfortunate decision of
the Committee on Rules not to protect this provision which was crafted
in a bipartisan basis, there has not been any partisanship here, but it
is the duty of the minority to point out when the majority is not
living up to its responsibilities.
In this case, I believe not protecting that amendment was a mistake
on the part of the leadership in the majority party. It is our
responsibility in the minority and in the highest standards of this
House to point out when the majority makes a mistake. That is our duty
in this legislative process. I hope again that we can pull together
after this unfortunate incident and try to find a solution before this
Congress is over. If we do, it will be one of the most important things
accomplished in this Congress. I want to say again, this is supported
by the President, OMB, the Secretary of Defense, and all the service
chiefs.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the hour is late and I am not going to take much time,
but I think we would all be remiss if we did not acknowledge that this
fitness center is going to be named after one of our dear colleagues
who was a real war hero, in my opinion. Sam Johnson was shot down in
Vietnam and spent 7\1/2\ years in a Vietnamese prison camp, the Hanoi
Hilton; and he suffered tremendously during that 7\1/2\-year period. I
think it is very, very fitting that he be honored by naming this
fitness center after him. In fact, if I had my way and I think my
colleagues, we would probably name a couple of air bases in total after
him because he is a wonderful guy and a great Congressman.
Sam, if you are listening, we sure love you, buddy.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, let me add my thoughts to those of my friend from
Indiana (Mr. Burton). What a great American Sam Johnson is. We cannot
[[Page 17317]]
do enough to recognize his service. I appreciate that being included.
Just briefly, let me say that on the issue of military housing, I
have got a plaque on my wall from the National Military Family
Association for working with the families of our military. One of the
great joys this year and the year before has been how all of the people
in this body, men and women, Republicans and Democrats, have worked
together so well with our chairman and the chairman of the full
committee to address the issues of housing for our soldiers.
So as I have got that plaque on my wall, as I think about Fort Bragg
and the epicenter of the universe and all those fine soldiers at Pope
Air Force Base and around our country, I am just proud of our chairman
and our Congress for working together across every imaginable line to
do everything that we can to provide the best possible housing. We have
done that. It is under way. I am extremely confident that we will find
a way to make sure that that happens. I appreciate that. I appreciate
our soldiers.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. I just want to say that my friend from North Carolina
who so capably represents Fort Bragg, I, as he knows, have five
military installations in my district that I am proud to represent.
Tomorrow night, in fact, I am going to be at Fort Stewart talking to
some of the soldiers. This is a program that does enjoy wide bipartisan
support. We are going to keep working on this and find a way to make it
happen.
We had lots of discussion in the appropriations committee. We could
not quite come to a consensus of where to offset some money. I think
there are a lot of programs out there that we should cut, reduce,
eliminate, in order to provide adequate housing for our troops and the
quality of life for our soldiers in general.
But the one thing to remember is we are in this position because of a
technical change in the way the Congressional Budget Office has decided
to score military housing. What they are doing is they charge all the
money up-front, even though the private sector is paying for it. It is
a paper entry. It is not a real dollar entry. I certainly respect what
the Committee on the Budget is doing in trying to keep the integrity of
the budget process going. I think it is very, very important that we
all try to work through this thing. But if we are faced with this
change in the scoring from the Congressional Budget Office, I would
like to see us find some waste, some duplication, and just some fat in
the budget and come up with the money for our soldiers because I think
it is so important.
I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have enjoyed working with him
on various installation issues.
Mr. HAYES. Reclaiming my time, I could not agree more. We will find a
way. It will be done. I thank our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines
and Coasties.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to read into the Record the States
and the specific military installations that have just had a guarantee
of new housing for their military families taken away from them.
Perhaps we will solve this another day. I have been trying to work for
6 months on a bipartisan basis to get this resolved. I am not sure this
late in the Congress I have tremendous confidence that it will get
resolved, but the real pity is that we could have resolved it today if
the leadership had let go through the Committee on Rules the exact same
rule we unanimously approved on the military appropriations bill just
an hour ago.
The States that have just lost a chance because of this technicality
that were allowed by the rule pushed by the leadership that will lose a
guarantee to have new military housing for their service men and women
are Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming.
To add to the military installations I had already mentioned a few
moments ago that will either have their housing frozen this year and,
in fact, a promise broken to those military families or have their
housing expected in 2006 to be delayed a year would include Fort Knox,
Kentucky, 3,380 military families affected by this technical ruling.
Fort Rucker in Alabama, 1,516 military families. Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas, 1,580 military families. Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi,
1,682 military families. New Mexico, Holloman Air Force Base, 1,440.
Fort Gordon, Georgia, 872 families. Scott Air Force Base in Illinois,
475. MCB in Hawaii, Phase 1, 1,377 families will have their hopes for
better housing dashed or delayed for a year or more. Camp Lejeune, an
important Marine Corps installation in North Carolina, 838 families. In
addition to an additional 3,516 families at Camp Lejeune that this year
will have their new housing put on hold.
These are not just numbers and names, these are real men and women,
real military families making unbelievable sacrifices in behalf of
every family in this House and in our Nation that have just lost the
opportunity because of an unfair rule opposed by numerous military
organizations exercised, as the gentleman had the right to exercise,
just a moment ago a technicality to kill that dream of a new home.
It is a shame that dream has been killed today. I certainly urge
those who perhaps did not want it to be taken care of today to work
together, and I will pledge to work together in good faith with them to
try to solve it in the months ahead, but there was no reason not to
give this promise today to our military people. They do not ask to be
delayed when they are asked to serve their country. When they are asked
to go to combat, they go. When we had an opportunity to stand up for
them, we should not have been AWOL. We should not have delayed. We
should have taken action. That is what is the most shameful thing about
what has happened today on this bill.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to have the opportunity to respond very
briefly to the gentleman from Texas. First and foremost, he is a member
of the Committee on the Budget. He has been working on this a long
time, as many Members have. There are some challenges we are going to
have to overcome, there is no question. I understand that there is some
skepticism about the bill that was passed yesterday, but I would hope
that the other body would recognize the fact that a bill that was
passed with the unanimous support of the House of Representatives could
be expedited and that we could send a very clear signal to our men and
women in uniform as well as their families that are looking for
housing, that are having to deal with in many instances, as the
gentleman knows far better than I, substandard housing, that we could
deal with this in a very expeditious manner, the way we did yesterday,
in an appropriate way, in a legislative way, not in an extraordinary
way.
I would hope that the other body would take this up as quickly and as
expeditiously as the House of Representatives did. We can accomplish
that. We can do it in a bipartisan way as it was done yesterday. And it
can be on the President's desk in moments, without further action,
without further ado, without having to make them wait or wonder.
The military construction bill that we are considering right now, its
future, we could argue, is also uncertain, given the fact that just
about every prognosticator of the appropriations process suggests that
we will not be completing the appropriations process on time this year,
either as 13 individual appropriation bills or even as an omnibus bill
but that, in fact, we may have to live under a continuing resolution
for some time.
So while there is uncertainty about military construction and other
appropriation matters, there should not have to be concern or question
about our
[[Page 17318]]
military families and what needs to be done as quickly as possible. It
can be done expeditiously. It can be done using the vehicle that was
passed yesterday by an overwhelming margin.
{time} 2000
I would hope that other Members will not try any further delaying
tactics for our men and women in uniform. I would hope that we can pass
that bill as quickly as possible in the other body, that it will not be
delayed, that it would enjoy the same kind of bipartisan support that
we have here.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Military Construction
Appropriations Act, 2005.''
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman Knollenberg
and the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee Staff once
again for their hard work and efforts to produce an excellent bill for
us to consider here today.
The importance of our willingness here in Congress to immediately and
effectively take care of the needs of our men and women in the Armed
Services, and to look after their families, certainly goes without
saying. It does not matter whether they are located here at home
protecting our homeland security, or whether they are directly in
harm's way while serving abroad to serve their country. We must support
them in every way that we possibly can.
This legislation represents a vital and immediate need for our troops
and their families--to provide adequate and improved facilities for
training and equipment; to provide better housing for these brave men
and women, and their families, who unselfishly protect our national
interests on a daily basis; to provide quality of life improvements
such as chapels, child development centers, schools, and fitness
centers; to better equip our hospitals and medical and dental
facilities; for public safety and security here in our local
communities; and to ensure the continued strength, construction and
development of our overseas bases and our weapons systems that protect
American interests.
The sacrifice that these men and women have made to this Nation
demands our attention and steadfast support to help them do the job
that they have chosen to do, and to better their lives in any way that
we can find. Many of you are concerned that this bill contains an
increase on the cap on Federal contributions to the Military Housing
Privatization program from $850 Million to $1.3 Billion in this Fiscal
Year. This money is urgently needed to fully fund family housing
construction and maintenance, and to eliminate inadequate housing that
our troops must live in. This funding directly supports two bases in my
home State of Alabama, at Redstone and at Fort Rucker, and I want to
rise in support of the men and women serving there.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the Chairman for an excellent
bill, and to urge its passage to fully support these men and women in
our Armed Services.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this
bill to provide for military construction in Fiscal Year 2005.
At a time when our Armed Forces are attempting to streamline and
transform their operations, this bill provides crucial funding to
upgrade, maintain and construct the facilities necessary for this
process.
One project of particular interest to me, and which I requested funds
for, is a Houston Armed Forces Reserve Center, however, this project
was not earmarked in the House bill.
The proposed facility will be designed for both Texas Army National
Guard units and Marine Corps Reserve units.
Several existing National Guard facilities will either be vacated by
this relocation, or remaining units will be closer to their required
space authorizations.
The vacated facilities will reduce the average age of existing
facilities and lessen maintenance backlogs.
This facility will have a direct impact on soldier readiness by
providing proper authorized space to conduct indoor training, reduce
driving distances for a majority of the soldiers residing in Houston,
and provide modern facilities support for soldiers.
Additionally, this facility is in line with the military's goal of
creating joint-use bases.
While the House bill did not provide an earmark for funding this
project, I am hopeful that our appropriators will see fit to include
this request in the conference report.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record:
[[Page 17319]]