[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[Issue]
[Pages 23969-24172]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 23969]]
VOLUME 151--PART 18
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, October 27, 2005
The House met at 10 a.m.
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
O God of light and understanding, fill Your people with great
expectations. With Your guidance and creative presence, good people
working together can accomplish almost any goal set before them.
Heartfelt prayer must conform their intention to Your holy will.
Be with the Members of Congress today as they accomplish the work of
the people in this House of Representatives. Stir within them a wisdom
that penetrates every problem. Send them sound knowledge to surround
every issue important to this Nation, so that the consequences of their
action, which will be felt around the world, may build true security
and grant lasting peace both in our day 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 gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) come forward
and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER. The Chair will entertain up to 10 one-minutes on each
side.
____________________
HONORING OUR TROOPS' SACRIFICE
(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, following an historic election, the Iraqi
people took another huge step towards democracy with nearly 79 percent
approving a new constitution. However, this political milestone was not
reached without a cost paid by our American soldiers.
As we sadly marked the 2,000th death in Iraq, we must take time to
honor the sacrifice our soldiers have made for this country. Our men
and women are fighting terrorists in Iraq, so that we do not have to
fight them in this country. Now is the time to honor these soldiers and
thank their families for the sacrifices they are making to keep our
country safe.
Unfortunately, there are some out there who have chosen this solemn
occasion to score political points. They are using this opportunity to
call for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Nothing could be more
wrong. Bailing out would hand a victory to the terrorists and a defeat
to the United States.
One group is actually using this occasion to raise funds. Featured on
their Web site is a television ad featuring a coffin in the sand. Click
on this ad, and you are immediately taken to a contribution page asking
for a donation.
Mr. Speaker, we need to continue to honor our troops by staying the
course in Iraq. Using these sacrifices for political purposes, as many
are doing, is wrong.
____________________
CLEAN DRINKING WATER
(Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, our Chaplain reminded us that our
actions on the floor of the House are felt around the world. Well,
today, one half of the people who are ill around the world are sick
needlessly from water-borne disease, and up to 5 million are going to
die this year as a result.
We know how to solve this problem, and the solution is affordable.
For less than what it costs our Europeans for perfume in a year, or
less than what Americans spend on elective surgery, we could fulfill
the United Nations commitment to cut in half the people without safe
drinking water and sanitation by the year 2015.
Sadly, the United States, despite its leadership in the United
Nations on this issue, still does not have a comprehensive program to
address this crisis. Our International Relations Committee is sending
to the floor bipartisan legislation to correct this policy deficiency.
H.R. 1973, the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act, will
establish safe drinking water and sanitation as a core foreign policy
principle and create a plan. Today is the last day to add your name to
the list of sponsors. I ask that you do so before it reaches the floor.
____________________
SHERIFF SIGI GONZALEZ, JR., TEXAS LAWMAN
(Mr. POE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, in the early morning hours of this past
weekend, I accompanied Zapata County Sheriff Sigifredo ``Sigi''
Gonzalez, Jr., his SWAT team and posse of deputies who were patrolling
the U.S.-Mexico border in south Texas.
Every day Sigi leads his small 24-member force into the daily battle
to protect Zapata County from the invasion of drug lords and human
smugglers. Lots of drug money, filthy lucre, as I call it, fund these
dangerous drug organizations and human smugglers that lurk across the
Rio Grande River. These outlaws have better guns, better vehicles,
better electronic surveillance equipment than the good guys. They even
track our peace officers with GPS when they use their cell phones.
These drug demons who bring narcotics into the United States make
$30,000 a week. Sheriff Gonzalez makes about $40,000 a year.
Sheriff Gonzalez is an unwavering patriot and an outstanding Texas
lawman. He is defending America against illegal invaders and fighting
the war against vicious, violent drug cartels
[[Page 23970]]
that threaten our home and our country. He and his dedicated deputies
need resources and funding to help fund the war for the border. Our
homeland is worth protecting. That is just the way it is.
____________________
THREE GREAT WOMEN
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the lives
of three great women. The old people used to say that trouble comes in
threes; and the threes I am thinking of are Constance Baker Motley, who
was the first African-American woman elected to the New York State
Senate in 1964, first woman to serve as Manhattan Borough president in
1965, and appointed the first African-American Federal judge in 1966.
The second is C. Delores Tucker, the first African-American woman to
serve as Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and in
any State in America. She went on to be an advocate for appointment of
women in presidential administrations.
Third, we lost Rosa Parks this week. They are three significant,
hard-working, dedicated African-American women who stood out in history
in the work that they did. I stand today and ask all of you to join me
in extending sympathies and condolences to the families of C. Delores
Tucker, Constance Baker Motley, and Rosa Parks.
____________________
PRESIDENT ADDRESSES ECONOMIC CLUB OF WASHINGTON, DC
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. When it comes to making tough choices in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina, Madam Speaker, Presidential leadership will make the
difference. Yesterday in remarks before the Economic Club of
Washington, DC, the President of the United States called on Congress
to ``redouble our efforts to be wise about how we spend your money.''
The President went on to say, ``We can help the people of the gulf
coast region recover and rebuild and we can be good stewards of the
taxpayers' dollars at the same time.'' He called on Congress to reduce
unnecessary spending, to identify offsets, and pledged again to offer
spending rescissions to provide the emergency relief, in his words, in
a fiscally responsible way.
President George W. Bush yesterday encouraged Congress to push the
envelope when it comes to cutting spending, and his strong leadership
will make the difference. Congress should heed the call of President
Bush to rebuild with generosity and fiscal responsibility in the wake
of Hurricane Katrina.
____________________
CLIMATE CHANGE
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I am urging all Members of the House to
join in support of House Resolution 151, which is a resolution of
inquiry that requests the President of the United States to provide to
the House of Representatives documents in his possession relating to
the anticipated effects of climate change on the coastal regions of the
United States.
With the devastation of hurricanes Wilma, Rita and others, we are
aware that there is a new phenomenon that is affecting this country
with respect to climate change. Scientists may dispute whether or not
the meteorological changes that we have witnessed are somehow related
to changes in the global climate, but one thing for sure, it is
important that Congress begin a dialogue with the administration.
It is important that we find out what connection there may be with
climate change and effects on coastal regions. Hurricane Katrina
certainly illustrated that we should be concerned about climate change.
This resolution of inquiry, now sponsored by 151 Members of the House,
aims to get the facts from the administration and begin a dialogue that
would be important to our Nation's economy and our national security.
____________________
CONCERN--NOT PANIC
(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, have you seen the headlines:
Bird Flu Anxiety Spreads Across Europe.
Bird Flu Could Kill 150 Million People.
WHO Warns of Dire Flu Pandemic.
Media should report facts, not create panic. Unfortunately, today
many of the stories we see and read are short on facts and long on
panic. It is time we brought some sanity to all the sensationalism. No
one should doubt the potential of the bird flu. However, responsible
people are working diligently to be certain that we are prepared for
any threat and are able to respond quickly.
Certain facts are important to keep in mind. This Avian flu virus has
been around since at least 1997. It is not a new phenomenon. The CDC
states that ``the current risk to Americans is low.'' So there is cause
for concern, but not panic. Our real concern should be expanded. We
need to address our ability to respond to any infectious disease.
Providing incentives to U.S.-based companies for vaccine production and
building a routine adult immunization program are just two of the
positive steps we should take. Importantly, these actions should move
forward in an environment of concern, not panic.
____________________
{time} 1015
IRAQ MILESTONES
(Mr. EMANUEL asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, this week we passed two milestones in
Iraq: The constitution was ratified, and, tragically, the 2,000th
American died. These milestones, one positive, one clearly negative,
provide us with an opportunity to review our progress in Iraq. This is
not a time to debate how we got into Iraq. What is important is
resolving the mess.
Hear what the experts are saying: Retired Army Lieutenant General
William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, said that
the invasion of Iraq ``will turn out to be the greatest strategic
disaster in U.S. history.''
Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser under the first President
George Bush, said, ``You have to know when to stop using force. You can
encourage democracy over time, with assistance, and aid, the
traditional way. Not how the neoconservatives'' are trying to do it in
Iraq.
And Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired lieutenant colonel and former
Secretary of State Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff at the State
Department, said President Bush's foreign policy was ``ruinous'' and
said that ``we have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in
Iran.''
These are not the words of partisans or the board members of
MoveOn.org. As these experts and the American people know, it is time
for a new direction and new priorities. We can do better. The current
path is not a path to success. It is time for the President to level
with the American people and produce a plan forward.
____________________
SUPPORTING THE NOMINATION OF DR. BEN BERNANKE
(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I am thrilled that
President Bush has nominated a son of South Carolina to serve as
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
As a boy in Dillon, South Carolina, Ben Bernanke demonstrated his
brilliance for economics at a young age. He taught himself calculus,
excelled at his SATs, and eventually received his doctorates from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he specialized in monetary
policy.
[[Page 23971]]
Throughout the course of his career, he has taught our Nation's top
schools and been a leader of our economic institutions. As President
Bush's economic adviser, he has played a pivotal role in sustaining
economic growth in our country. Today Dr. Bernanke is respected as one
of the world's most accomplished monetary economists.
As a successor to Chairman Alan Greenspan, Dr. Bernanke will
certainly have big shoes to fill. With his background, I am confident
that he has the knowledge, experience, and ability to serve as Chairman
of the Federal Reserve Board.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September 11.
____________________
HONORING THE LEGACY OF ROSA PARKS AND JUDGE CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY
(Mr. MEEKS of New York asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Madam Speaker, it is with great pain that I
stand here today to mourn the recent passing of several phenomenal
women and leaders in our Nation's struggle for equal justice under the
law. The passing of Rosa Parks and Judge Constance Baker Motley is a
sad reality, but I stand to commemorate their triumphant lives. Judge
Motley and Rosa Parks faced racism head on and continued to work for a
more just world until their last days.
Rosa Parks was 92 years old and almost made it to the 50th
anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott, which she set in motion by
refusing to give her seat to a white man on Montgomery's segregated
city bus system. Mrs. Parks was arrested for her action.
As a New Yorker, I hold dearly the legacy of Judge Constance Baker
Motley. That is why I introduced legislation to honor her. Constance
Baker Motley won nine out of 10 civil rights cases she argued before
the Supreme Court. She worked on all of the major school segregation
cases, including Brown v. Board of Education, and advised civil rights
leaders including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Judge Motley was the first African-American woman to serve in the New
York State Senate. She was the first black woman to be appointed to a
Federal judgeship.
Rosa Parks once said, ``Memories of our lives, of our works, and our
deeds will continue in others.'' She was absolutely right. Not only
will the memories live on, but the legacy has forever stirred the
resolve of many in our Nation to advocate for social justice, human
dignity, and harmony.
____________________
CONTINUING THE FIGHT AGAINST BREAST CANCER
(Mrs. KELLY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mrs. KELLY. Madam Speaker, I rise today, as we near the end of Breast
Cancer Awareness Month, to emphasize that we must continue doing
everything possible to help women across our country suffering from
breast cancer. This Congress must remain committed to increased breast
cancer research and ensure that necessary laws are in place so that no
woman is forced to fight breast cancer and red tape at the same time.
I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan Breast Cancer Patient
Protection Act that I sponsored together with the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). One hundred and fifty-one cosponsors in the
House have recognized the importance of passing this bill, but we need
more support. Together we can improve treatment coverages and access to
inpatient care for the more than 200,000 women diagnosed with breast
cancer each year.
The widespread commitment to fighting breast cancer was seen in so
many amazing community efforts this past month. I particularly want to
recognize the outstanding efforts of Lillian Jones and our Hudson
Valley chapter of the American Cancer Society. They organized our very
successful Making Strides Against Breast Cancer walk in Central Valley,
New York. Also deserving of tremendous praise are Willa Wright and the
Putnam County chapter of ACS and so many other groups in New York's
Hudson Valley who continue to unite to fight breast cancer.
Congress must unite and fight breast cancer right along with them.
____________________
SUPPORTING BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
(Mr. BISHOP of New York asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Speaker, too many American families
have experienced the loss of a loved one or know someone close who has
suffered from some form of cancer. Breast cancer in particular is the
leading cause of death among between 40 and 55, including my sister-in-
law Abby Irwin, who died at 41 after an 11-year struggle.
Two hundred thousand new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed
this year alone, including 1,100 in my district. The good news is the
96 percent survival rate when breast cancer is detected early. In fact,
a study being published today in the New England Journal of Medicine
found that mammograms contributed to a 65 percent drop in breast cancer
deaths in the last decade.
Back home on Long Island, I am proud to have an active breast cancer
advisory board with leading researchers, advocates, and survivors. I
found their insights and ideas to be invaluable assets.
We should continue to do all that we can every day, not just during
Breast Cancer Awareness Month, to encourage the survivors, volunteers,
and health care professionals to keep up the fight against breast
cancer.
Madam Speaker, by raising awareness, we bring ourselves that much
closer to the promise of a cure.
____________________
REFORMING OUT-OF-CONTROL FEDERAL SPENDING PROGRAMS
(Mr. HENSARLING asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, this week the House will begin work on
reconciliation, which is a way that we begin to reform out-of-control
spending programs in order to help pay for the hurricane relief. There
are only three ways that we can pay for this hurricane relief. Either,
number one, we are going to raise taxes on the American people yet
again, we are going to pass debt on to our children, or we are going to
find a way to moderate the growth of Federal programs.
The Democrats say that this is tantamount to massive cuts that will
hurt the poor. Madam Speaker, next year's budget is going to be greater
than this year's budget, which was greater than last year's budget.
What we call mandatory spending, which encompasses most of these
welfare programs, mandatory spending is going to grow at a rate of 6.3
percent as opposed to 6.4. I believe only an accountant for Enron would
call that a cut.
Also, Madam Speaker, the best way to help the poor is through
paychecks, not welfare checks. And under the economic policies of this
administration, 4 million new jobs have been created with a future. We
have the highest rate of homeownership in the history of America and
unparalleled economic growth.
____________________
DENOUNCING THE PRESIDENT OF IRAN'S STATEMENT THAT ``ISRAEL MUST BE
WIPED OFF THE MAP''
(Mr. LANTOS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, three generation ago Adolf Hitler
threatened to destroy the Jewish people, and the appeasers and the
pseudosophis-
ticates said it was merely oratory. A few months ago, the leadership of
Syria threatened to destroy the Prime Minister of Lebanon, and the
pseudoso-
phisticates and the appeasers thought
[[Page 23972]]
it was only oratory. Yesterday the President of Iran announced that it
is his policy to destroy the State of Israel, and the
pseudosophisticates and the appeasers again say this is only oratory.
But of course, it is more than that. I call on the United Nations,
and all civilized nations, to take appropriate action, in the U.N. and
individually, denouncing this outrageous statement. There is no room
for the President of a nation to call for the destruction of a member
state of the United Nations, the sole democracy in the Middle East and
a close ally of the United States.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE LIFE OF JUDGE CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY
(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, Sadly, I have had to commemorate the lives
of two important black women who died earlier: C. Delores Tucker, Rosa
Parks.
However, this morning I rise to celebrate the life of one of
America's great lawyers, Constance Baker Motley, the first black woman
on the Federal bench. That, however, is surely not her greatest public
service. What greater service to one's country than to have been an
architect of the legal strategy that brought equality under law to the
United States. She argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court. Perhaps
the most notorious was the James Meredith case that integrated the
University of Mississippi. She made 22 trips into Mississippi for that
case alone; then, the University of Alabama; also the University of
Georgia, where she helped Charlane Hunter-Gault integrate that
university. Charlane Hunter-Gault said that Ms. Motley ``talked about
the South in those days as if it were a war zone and she was fighting
in a revolution. No one . . . was going to distract her from carrying
her task to a successful conclusion.'' Indeed, in the 1960s, the South
was a war zone not only for activists, but for their lawyers.
In a car with Medgar Evers, Mr. Evers told her to put away her legal
pad and not to look back. He, of course, was later assassinated.
She was so outstanding that every office wanted Mrs. Motley to be
their first. She was the first woman to serve in the New York Senate,
the first to serve as Manhattan borough president. She was the first
woman, and for me perhaps the most important of her firsts, to argue a
case before the United States Supreme Court, because she inspired a
whole generation of young lawyers.
It should astonish us that the first African-American woman was
appointed to the bench only in 1966, only 40 years ago. It should
remind us that the integration of the courts of our country is and
remains part and parcel of establishing equality under the law.
____________________
H.R. 4011, MERCURY IN DENTAL AMALGAM PROHIBITION BILL
(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. WATSON. Madam Speaker, dentistry must stop hiding the large
presence of mercury in dental fillings. The common name for dental
fillings is ``silver.'' The term is deceptive because it contains more
than 50 percent mercury.
Who can conclusively say dental mercury is safe when in our bodies?
It is undisputed as a fact that mercury vapor is released during the
entire life of a mercury filling.
Madam Speaker, mercury amalgam is considered dangerous when it is put
in the mouth, and it is labeled a hazardous waste when it is coming
out. Dental offices contribute approximately 54 tons of toxic mercury
to the environment each year. Mercury hurts the body's immune system.
Mercury also causes neural development problems. My bill will protect
children, pregnant women, and nursing mothers immediately.
We have abandoned other remnants of pre-Civil War medicine, and we
have abandoned all other uses of mercury in the body. Now is the time
to ban mercury in dental fillings.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE 2005 WORLD SERIES CHAMPION CHICAGO WHITE SOX
(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, did you see the headlines?
``Sox Win the World Series.''
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentleman will
remove his hat.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the Speaker. This House will never
be out of decorum. I see that.
Madam Speaker, the headlines are clear: The Sox win the World Series,
and I rise to congratulate the 2005 World Series Champions, the Chicago
White Sox, on their first title in 88 years. Not only were the White
Sox in first place in the Central Division every single day of the 2005
baseball season, but they also had the best record in the American
League for the entire season as they amassed a total of 99 wins.
This team had no batters with an average above .300, they had no
superstars, yet they came together as a team, led by manager Ozzie
Guillen, characterized by their stellar pitching and tenacious defense.
This team epitomized the work ethic of the city of Chicago.
I would like to congratulate the Houston Astros on a great season and
a hard-fought World Series. Every game was close and could have gone
the other way.
I would also like to congratulate the American League Championship
Series MVP Paul Konerko and World Series MVP Jermaine Dye for their
stellar play.
Congratulations are also in order for the entire front office of the
White Sox, including Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, Vice Chairman Eddie
Einhorn and General Manager Ken Williams, who were the architects of
this championship team.
Madam Speaker, last, but not least, I would like to congratulate the
dedicated and long-suffering fans of the city of Chicago and the South
Side who once again celebrate a champion.
And to my friends and colleagues from the other side, both Democrats
and Republicans:
``Na na na na,
Na na na na,
Hey hey hey,
Goodbye.''
Maybe next year, guys.
Thanks, and God bless you.
Go Sox.
____________________
{time} 1030
COMMUNICATION FROM DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF HON. DENNIS MOORE, MEMBER OF
CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan) laid before the
House the following communication from Julie Merz, District Director of
the Honorable Dennis Moore, Member of Congress:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
October 20, 2005.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you formally, pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have been served with a subpoena, issued by the
District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, for testimony in a
criminal case.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House.
Sincerely,
Julie Merz,
District Director.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 420, LAWSUIT ABUSE REDUCTION ACT OF
2005
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up H. Res. 508 and ask for its immediate consideration.
[[Page 23973]]
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 508
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 420) to amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure to improve attorney accountability, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam 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.
Madam Speaker, House Resolution 508 is a structured rule. It provides
for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill, and it provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill
shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
and shall be considered as read.
It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules
Committee report accompanying the resolution. It provides that the
amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order
printed, may be offered only by the Member designated in the report,
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole.
This resolution waives all points of order against the amendments
printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 508 and
the underlying legislation, H.R. 420, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act
of 2005.
First, I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, not just for the underlying bill but for a number of recent
bills aimed at strengthening our legal system by protecting people's
rights under the law and shielding them from frivolous proceedings.
Additionally, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the
chairman of the Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet, and
Intellectual Property, for sponsoring H.R. 420.
Madam Speaker, over the past couple of weeks, this House has taken
several important steps to reform our legal system, to relieve our
overburdened court dockets and drastically reduce the number of costly
frivolous claims against innocent and legitimate businesses.
On October 24, we passed and sent to the President's desk S. 397, the
Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, by a vote of 283 to 144 in the
House. I might add that in the spirit of bipartisanship, 59 Democrats
and one Independent joined 223 Republicans in passing this landmark
legislation that refocuses liability for gun violence on the actual
criminal, the person who pulled the trigger.
Additionally in this House, 226 Republicans, along with 80 Democrats,
passed H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of
2005. This bill also reaffirms the need for individuals to take
responsibility for their own actions and not expect someone else to
foot the bill for the adverse health consequences of their own
gluttony.
Today, Madam Speaker, we have another prime opportunity to pass
meaningful legislation to strengthen our court system even further and
to protect the falsely accused.
The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005 will go a long way to curb
the actions of individuals who would seek to abuse our courts by gaming
the judicial system. Last week, there were probably millions of people
across this country who tuned in, ticket in hand, to see if they had
won a $340 million Powerball jackpot. Unfortunately, there are also
people who look to the courts, legal briefs in hand, as if it were the
Powerball lottery.
However, Madam Speaker, it is the American people and small
businesses that pay the ultimate price for frivolous lawsuits and this
type of jackpot justice. They pay for it through higher prices for
goods and services, they pay for it through diminished quality of
products, they pay for it through loss of economic freedom, and they
pay for it through a clogged court system that has been turned into an
ATM for junk lawsuits. In fact, the current tort system is estimated to
cost American people well over $200 billion per year.
Clearly, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005 is a bill that is
sorely overdue, sorely needed and, I might add, was approved by this
House in the last Congress by a vote of 229 to 174.
With respect to the underlying bill, it would amend Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by restoring the mandatory sanctions
for the filing of frivolous lawsuits. This bill would require that
courts impose an appropriate penalty on attorneys, law firms, or
parties who continue to file frivolous lawsuits. Also this bill would
eliminate the ``free pass'' provision that allows attorneys to avoid
sanctions if they withdraw their frivolous claim after a motion for
sanctions has been filed.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 420 also would prevent forum shopping by
requiring that personal injury cases only be brought in those
jurisdictions either where the plaintiff, the defendant or a related
business resides, or where the alleged injury or surrounding
circumstances occurred.
This act would also institute a three-strikes-and-you're-out sanction
that would suspend an attorney from practicing in Federal court if a
Federal judge determines the lawyer has violated Rule 11 on three or
more occasions.
H.R. 420 clearly emphasizes that personal responsibility is not just
some catch phrase that applies only to some people, such as a fast-food
connoisseur, a firearms owner, a consumer or, indeed, a doctor.
Personal responsibility and professional accountability should be the
rule for those in the legal field, too, and that is why this House
should pass this bill.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I would just emphasize that House
Resolution 508 is a straightforward rule and H.R. 420 is a
straightforward bill. Simply put, it just makes sense to stop and
[[Page 23974]]
punish the willful abuse of our legal system by the slash-and-burn
tactics of frivolous lawsuits.
As always, I look forward to the consideration of this rule, and I
ask my colleagues to support it and the underlying bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, here we go again. Whenever the Republican leadership
appears to be floundering or simply needs some legislative filler, they
turn to the Judiciary Committee for some kind of anti-lawyer, anti-
lawsuit bill.
We recently considered a bill to ban lawsuits against people who want
to sue fast food companies, even though these cases are nonexistent.
Now we are here considering another bill that will pass the House and
go nowhere in the Senate.
The fact is that the Republican leadership has run out of meaningful
legislation to consider. They have run out of ideas. So here we are
once again considering another bill that attacks America's judicial
system and takes away rights from our fellow citizens.
Time after time, the Republican leadership refuses to bring necessary
legislation to the floor. Where, Madam Speaker, is the legislation
combating poverty or ending hunger or increasing access to affordable
and comprehensive health care? Where are their priorities? There are 45
million Americans who have no health insurance in this country. Where
is the increase in the minimum wage? Where is the legislation to lower
gas and oil prices?
It was comical to see the Republican leadership gather at a press
conference the other day in reaction to the news that oil companies are
making record profits. And what was their response? They very nicely
asked the oil companies to do more. Why should the oil companies do
more when they have passed legislation to give oil companies more tax
breaks and more oil subsidies?
Where, Madam Speaker, is the oversight into the Iraq war? Over 2,000
Americans have lost their lives in Iraq, and all we get from this
leadership and all we get from this White House is ``stay the course.''
Well, stay the course is not a policy; it is a sound bite. We owe our
young men and women more than just a sound bite.
Where is the genuinely independent 9/11-style commission to
investigate the botched response to Hurricane Katrina and to make
recommendations on how to prevent such another tragedy in the future?
Where is the fully constituted, functioning Ethics Committee to look
into the numerous ethics charges that are mounting in this body?
No, here we are dealing with legislation that we dealt with last year
that is going nowhere.
The fact is, the Republican leadership does not care much about these
issues, and I know they are out of step with the American people on
these issues. So, instead, they bring us the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction
Act once again. This is like watching a bad TV rerun. It was not good
the first time; it is even worse the second time.
{time} 1045
Remember, we considered this bill last year, and just like last year,
it will pass this Republican-controlled Congress. They will do their
press releases, they will send it over to the Senate, and it will go
nowhere.
Later today we will hear from members of the House Judiciary
Committee who have particular subject expertise on the specifics of
this legislation. I will leave it to these Members to explain the
intricacies of the Federal Code and the Rules of Civil Procedure and
how Rule 11 fits in. I would like for a few minutes, however, to talk
about the continued abuse of power that the Republican majority takes
to a new level today.
Under this rule and under this bill, Republican fund-raisers are
rewarded, while the majority party continues its unabashed assault on
the judicial branch of this Nation. Do not just take my word for it,
Madam Speaker. One of the broadest arrays of groups that I have ever
seen has come together to oppose this misguided, short-sighted, mean-
spirited legislation. These groups include, but are certainly not
limited to, the NAACP, the Legal Defense Fund, the American Bar
Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the
National Women's Law Center, and the Consumers Union.
The one that stands out the most, however, is the opposition from the
Judicial Conference of the United States. Now, what is that? What is
this conference that opposes what my Republican friends will describe
as a critically important piece of legislation?
The Judicial Conference was created by this very Congress in 1922.
Their congressionally mandated mission is to be the principal
policymaking body concerned with the administration of the United
States courts. The presiding officer of this organization is none other
than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. You know what the Judicial
Conference has to say about this legislation? In a three-page letter to
Chairman Sensenbrenner, in short, they say it is unnecessary and it is
harmful. If they were less judicious in their choice of words, they
would say what I say: It stinks.
But what they say, Madam Speaker, this group representing the Federal
judges of this country, is that this legislation is fatally flawed.
They say that Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, what the
underlying legislation aims to fix, is working better today than ever
before. In fact, in their letter to the Judiciary Committee chairman,
they say that Federal district judges are united in their opposition to
any legislation which seeks to amend rule 11. They specifically urge
Congress to reject this legislation.
Now, Madam Speaker, let us think this through for just a second,
shall we? The organization representing President-appointed, Senate-
confirmed judges thinks this legislation is unwise. Why do we think we
know better than our Federal judges how to operate the Federal
judiciary? Frankly, I would laugh if I did not think that the majority
was so sincere in their attempts to undermine the constitutional rights
of every single American. Shame on you. Shame on all of you for trying
to eviscerate the Constitution, all for a few extra campaign dollars,
because that is what this is about.
The underlying legislation is not sound public policy, plain and
simple. On the contrary, it is outright political grandstanding. So let
us be honest and let us call this bill and this debate what they really
are: legislative abuse and a political charade.
The majority's reckless disregard for judicial integrity mocks our
Constitution's separation of powers doctrine, and I implore my
colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, in response to some of the comments that
were made, I just want to hold up this document that lists over 300
groups in support of LARA, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005, and
I will include them in the Record.
I would like to also point out that the Federal Judicial Center was
in opposition to class action reform, which we passed in the previous
Congress and in the 108th by a vote in this body of 279 to 149.
Groups Supporting H.R. 420--The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005
Advanced Medical Technology Association.
Air Conditioning Contractors of America.
Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee.
Alabama Restaurant Association.
Alabama Trucking Association, Inc.
Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant and Retailers
Association.
Alliance of Automotive Service Providers of Minnesota.
Alliance of Automotive Service Providers of Pennsylvania.
America Chamber of Commerce (NV).
American Apparel and Footwear Association.
American Automotive Leasing Association.
American Bakers Association.
American Boiler Manufacturers Association.
American Business Conference.
[[Page 23975]]
American Chemistry Council.
American Council of Engineering Companies.
American Health Care Association.
American Home Furnishing Alliance.
American Insurance Association.
American International Automobile Dealers Association.
American Legislative Exchange Council.
American Machine Tool Distributors Association.
American Petroleum Institute.
American Rental Association.
American Road & Transportation Builders Association.
American Supply Association.
American Trucking Associations.
American Tort Reform Association.
American Veterinary Distributors Association.
American Wholesale Marketers Association.
Antelope Valley Chamber of Commerce (CA).
Ardmore Chamber of Commerce (OK).
Arkansas Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Arkansas Hospitality Association.
Arizona Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Arizona Restaurant & Hospitality Association.
Associated Builders & Contractors.
Associated General Contractors of America.
Associated Equipment Distributors.
ASFE--Associated Soil & Foundation Engineers.
Associated Wire Rope Fabricators.
Association for High Technology Distribution.
Association of Equipment Manufacturers.
Association of Pool & Spa Professionals.
AMT--The Association for Manufacturing Technology.
Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association.
Automotive Parts Remanufacturers Association.
Automotive Parts & Service Association of Illinois.
Aviation Distributors & Manufacturers Association.
Bay Area Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.
Bearing Specialists Association.
Brunswick-Golden Isles Chamber of Commerce (GA).
Business Council of New York State, Inc.
Business Roundtable.
California Central Coast Chapter, National Electrical
Contractors Association.
California Restaurant Association.
California/Nevada Automotive Wholesalers Association.
Central California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.
Central Illinois, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Chamber of Business and Industry of Centre County (PA).
Chamber of Commerce for Anderson & Madison County (IN).
Chamber of Commerce of the Mid-Ohio Valley (WV).
Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse of Central Texas.
Citizens for Civil Justice Reform.
City of Chicago, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Civil Justice Association of California.
Cleaning Equipment Trade Association.
Cleveland Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Coalition for Uniform Product Liability Law.
Colorado Civil Justice League.
Colorado Motor Carriers Association.
Colorado Restaurant Association.
Connecticut Restaurant Association.
Construction Industry Round Table.
Copper & Brass Service Center Association.
Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers.
Crawfordsville/Montgomery Chamber of Commerce (IN).
Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce (OH).
Delaware Motor Transport Association.
Delaware Restaurant Association.
East Texans Against Lawsuit Abuse.
The Employers Association.
Electrical Manpower Development Trust.
Equipment Leasing Association.
Florida Chamber of Commerce.
Florida Restaurant Association.
Food Industry Suppliers Association.
Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association.
Gases and Welding Distributors Association.
General Aviation Manufacturers Association.
Georgia Association of Petroleum Retailers, Inc.
Georgia Industry Association.
Georgia Restaurant Association.
Great Lakes Petroleum Retailers & Allied Trades
Association.
Georgia Motor Trucking Association.
Hawaii Restaurant Association.
Hawaii Transportation Association.
Health Industry Distributors Association.
Healthcare Distribution Management Association.
Heating, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors
International Association.
Hobbs Chamber of Commerce (NM).
Hospitality Association of South Carolina.
Hospitality Minnesota--Minnesota's Restaurant, Hotel &
Lodging and Resort & Campground Associations.
Hudson Valley Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association (NY).
Humble Area Chamber of Commerce (TX).
Idaho Lodging and Restaurant Association.
Illinois Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Illinois Civil Justice League.
Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch.
Illinois Quad City Chamber.
Illinois Restaurant Association.
Independent Electrical Contractors.
Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, Inc.
Independent Sealing Distributors.
Industrial Compressor Distributor Association.
Industrial Supply Association.
International Association of Plastics Distributors.
International Foodservice Distributors Association.
International Franchise Association.
International Furniture Suppliers Association.
International Housewares Association.
International Safety Equipment Association.
International Sanitary Supply Association.
International Sign Association.
International Sleep Products Association.
International Truck Parts Association.
Iowa Hospitality Association.
Iowa Motor Truck Association.
Jackson Area Manufacturers Association.
Kansas Chamber of Commerce.
Kansas City Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Kansas Restaurant and Hospitality Association.
Kentucky Motor Transport Association.
Kentucky Restaurant Association.
Kern County Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association (CA).
Kingman Area Chamber of Commerce (AZ).
Lakewood Chamber of Commerce (WA).
Latrobe Area Chamber of Commerce (PA).
Lawn and Garden Marketing and Distribution Association.
Lebanon Valley Chamber of Commerce (PA).
Los Angeles Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.
Los Angeles Fastener Association.
Louisiana Motor Transport Association.
Louisiana Restaurant Association.
Maine Liability Crisis Alliance.
Maine Restaurant Association.
Manufactured Housing Institute.
Manufacturers' Association of Northwest Pennsylvania.
Marion Area Chamber of Commerce (IL).
Maryland Business for Responsive Government.
Maryland Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Massachusetts Restaurant Association.
Material Handling Equipment Distributors Association.
Mechanical Contractors Association of America.
Memphis Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Metals Service Center Institute.
Mason Contractors Association of America.
Michigan Chamber of Commerce.
Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch.
Michigan Restaurant Association.
Minnesota Trucking Association.
Mississippi Hospitality and Restaurant Association.
Mississippi Manufacturers Association.
Mississippi Trucking Association.
Mississippians for Economic Progress.
Missouri Motor Carriers Association.
Missouri Restaurant Association.
Montana Chamber of Commerce/Montana Liability Coalition.
Montana Motor Carriers Association.
Montana Restaurant Association.
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association.
Motorcycle Industry Council.
National Association of Chemical Distributors.
National Association of Convenience Stores.
National Association of Electrical Distributors.
National Association of Home Builders.
National Association of Manufacturers.
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies.
National Association of Sign Supply Distributors.
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.
National Concrete Masonry Association.
National Council of Chain Restaurants of the National
Retail Federation.
National Electrical Contractors Association.
National Federation of Independent Business.
National Lumber & Building Materials Dealers Association.
National Marine Distributors Association.
National Paint & Coatings Association.
National Pest Management Association.
National Propane Gas Association.
National Restaurant Association.
NRF--The National Retail Federation.
National Roofing Contractors Association.
National School Supply & Equipment Association.
[[Page 23976]]
National Shooting Sports Foundation.
NAHAD--The Association for Hose & Accessories Distributors
NPES--The Association for Suppliers of Printing, Publishing
and Converting Technologies.
National Small Business Association.
Nebraska Restaurant Association.
Nebraska Trucking Association.
Nevada State Medical Association.
New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association.
New Jersey Automobile Wholesalers Association.
New Jersey Business & Industry.
New Jersey Motor Truck Association.
New Jersey Restaurant Association.
New Mexico Alliance for Legal Reform.
New Mexico Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
New Mexico Restaurant Association.
Nevada Restaurant Association.
New York State Automotive Aftermarket Association.
New York State Motor Truck Association.
New York State Restaurant Association.
North American Horticultural Supply Association.
North Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry.
North Carolina Restaurant Association.
North Carolina Trucking Association.
North Dakota State Hospitality Association.
North Florida Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
North Louisiana Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
North Texas Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Northeastern Illinois Chapter, National Electrical
Contractors Association.
Northern California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.
Northern Illinois Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Northern New York Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce.
Office Products Wholesalers Association.
Ohio Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.
Ohio Manufacturers Association.
Ohio Restaurant Association.
Ohio Trucking Association.
Oklahoma Restaurant Association.
Orange Chamber of Commerce (CA).
Orange County Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.
Oregon Restaurant Association.
Outdoor Power Equipment & Engine Service Association.
Outdoor Power Equipment Institute.
Outdoor Power Equipment Aftermarket Association.
Pacific Printing & Imaging Association (AK, HI, ID, MT, OR,
WA).
Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute.
Painting & Decorating Contractors of America.
Penn-Ohio Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Pennsylvania Health Care Association.
Pennsylvania Restaurant Association.
Paris Area Chamber of Commerce & Tourism (IL).
Pennsylvania Automotive Wholesalers Association.
Pet Industry Distributors Association.
Petroleum Equipment Institute.
Petroleum Marketers Association of America.
Petroleum Retailers & Auto Repair Association.
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association.
Post Card and Souvenir Distributors Association.
Power Transmission Distributors Association.
Printing & Graphic Communications Association.
Printing & Imaging Association of Mid-America (KS, MO, OK,
TX).
Printing & Imaging Association, Mountain States.
Printing Association of Florida.
Printing Industries Association of San Diego.
Printing Industries of Michigan.
Printing Industry Association of the South (AL, AR, KY, LA,
MS, TN, WV).
Printing Industries of America.
Printing Industries of Illinois/Indiana Association.
Printing Industries of New England (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI).
Production Engine Remanufacturers Association.
Property Casualty Insurers Association of America.
Red River Valley Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association (TX).
Retail Industry Leaders Association.
Restaurant and Hospitality Association of Indiana.
Restaurant Association of Maryland, Inc.
Restaurant Association of Metro Washington, Inc.
Rhode Island Hospitality and Tourism Association.
Richmond/Spring Grave Chamber (IL).
Rio Grande Valley Partnership.
Rubber Manufacturers Association.
Safety Equipment Distributors Association, Inc.
Saguaro Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association (AZ).
St. Paul Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association (MN).
San Diego Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
San Diego County Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.
San Diego Employers Association.
Scaffold Industry Association.
Security Hardware Distributors Association.
SSDA-AT--Service Station Dealers Of America/ National
Coalition Petroleum Retailers and Allied Trades.
Silicon Valley Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.
SBE Council--Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council.
Small Business Legislative Council.
SMC Business Councils.
Snack Food Association.
South Carolina Trucking Association.
South Carolina Civil Justice Coalition.
South Dakota Retailers Association.
Southern Nevada Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Specialty Equipment Market Association.
Society of American Florists.
The State Chamber of Oklahoma.
Steel Tank Institute.
Tarpon Springs Chamber of Commerce (FL).
Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry.
Tennessee Restaurant Association.
Texas Association of Business.
Texas Civil Justice League.
Texas Restaurant Association.
Textile Care Allied Trades Association.
Tire Industry Association.
Truck Renting and Leasing Association.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.
Utah Restaurant Association.
Valve Manufacturers Association.
Vermont Lodging and Restaurant Association.
Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association.
Virginia Trucking Association.
Washington State Liability Reform Coalition.
Washington Restaurant Association.
Waste Equipment Technology Association.
West Virginia Chamber of Commerce.
West Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association.
West Virginia Motor Truck Association.
Western Association of Fastener Distributors.
Western New York Chapter, National Electrical Contractors
Association.
Western Pennsylvania Chapter, National Electrical
Contractors Association.
Weston Area Chamber of Commerce (FL).
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce.
Wisconsin Motor Carriers Association.
Wisconsin Restaurant Association.
Wood Machinery Manufacturers of America.
Woodworking Machinery Industry Association.
Wyoming Lodging & Restaurant Association.
Wyoming Trucking Association, Inc.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, if I could inquire from the gentleman
how many more speakers he has, because I am the last speaker on my
side.
Mr. GINGREY. To the gentleman from Massachusetts, we do not actually
have any additional speakers at this time, so right now I am reserving
the balance of my time for the purpose of closing, unless another
speaker comes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record as
well another letter signed by a number of groups urging a vote against
H.R. 420.
I would also like to include a letter that was sent to every Member
of Congress by Michael S. Greco, the President of the American Bar
Association, opposing this legislation.
I would also like to insert in the Record the text of the letter that
I mentioned in my opening speech from the Judicial Conference of the
United States which very strongly opposes this legislation.
October 25, 2005.
Dear Representative: We urge you to oppose H.R. 420, a bill
that would restore the discriminatory impact of the old
version of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
trample on states' rights to run their own courts, and
increase the extent and expense of litigation rather than
reduce it.
H.R. 420 seeks to roll back Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure to an earlier 1983 version of the rule, which
would undermine carefully crafted standards that were enacted
in 1993. Those changes expanded responsibilities of
litigants, while at the same time providing greater
constraints and flexibility in dealing with violations of
[[Page 23977]]
the rule. The current rule requires litigants to ``stop-and-
think'' before making legal or factual contentions. It also,
however, emphasizes the duty of candor by subjecting
litigants to potential sanctions for insisting upon a
position after it is no longer tenable, and by generally
providing protection against sanctions if they withdraw or
correct contentions after a potential violation is called to
their attention.
There is no evidence that the current Rule 11 is not
working. In fact, Department of Justice statistics show that
the number of lawsuits is declining in both federal and state
courts. The end result of H.R. 420 would be a shift of the
function of Rule 11 from deterring frivolous litigation to
increasing litigation by those who have the resources and the
time to litigate against opposing counsel. History shows that
mandatory Rule 11 sanctions imposed in 1983, and to which
H.R. 420 would have us return, were used disproportionately
against plaintiffs' (particularly civil rights) attorneys and
those attempting to extend the law in support of unpopular
causes. More than a decade ago, civil rights organizations--
including some of the undersigned organizations--worked to
amend Rule 11 because the old rule unfairly discouraged
meritorious civil rights claims. H.R. 420 seeks to force
litigants to operate under the terms that we fear, like the
former rule we worked so hard to amend, will be used to
punish and deter valid claims of discrimination.
Nationwide surveys about the former rule found that motions
for sanctions were most frequently sought and granted in
civil rights cases. Expressing his concerns about the former
Rule 11, the Honorable Robert L. Carter, United States
District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York,
noted, ``I have no doubt that the Supreme Court's opportunity
to pronounce separate schools inherently unequal [in Brown v.
Board of Education] would have been delayed for a decade had
my colleagues and I been required, upon pain of potential
sanctions, to plead our legal theory explicitly from the
start.'' The language of H.R. 420 purporting to protect civil
rights claims provides insufficient protection for victims of
discrimination because the more severe rules outlined in H.R.
420 can still be applied in civil rights. Had supporters of
the bill wanted to effectively protect those who seek justice
under our civil rights laws, they could have exempted those
claims from the scope of the bill.
Moreover, H.R. 420 not only changes the rules for federal
courts, it is unprecedented in that its reach extends to
state court cases. Section 3 of the bill provides, upon
motion, the court is required to assess the costs of the
action ``to the interstate economy.'' If the court determines
that the state court action ``affects interstate commerce,''
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ``shall apply
to such action.'' Imagining the proceedings necessary to
determine whether a particular state court action ``affects
interstate commerce'' is mind-boggling. This provision will
certainly spawn satellite litigation. Moreover, the total
disregard for federalism is astounding.
Finally, the vast majority of the federal judiciary opposes
the changes contained in H.R. 420. The Judicial Conference of
the United States, headed by the late Chief Justice
Rehnquist, clearly stated in a letter to Chairman
Sensenbrenner that ``the proposed changes to Rule 11 will not
help deter litigation abuses, but will increase satellite
litigation, costs, and delays.'' The letter also notes there
is ``a remarkable consensus'' among Federal district court
judges in opposition to changing the rule.
If you have any questions or need more information, please
contact Pamela Gilbert, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP,
representing the Center for Justice & Democracy,
202.587.5064; Sandy Brantley, Legislative Counsel, Alliance
for Justice, 202.822.6070; or Jillian Aldebron, Civil Justice
Counsel, Public Citizen's Congress Watch, 202.454.5135.
Sincerely,
Alliance for Justice.
Center for Justice & Democracy.
Citizens for a Safer Minnesota.
Consumer Federation of America.
District of Columbia Million Mom March.
Legal Community Against Violence.
Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence.
National Association of Consumer Advocates.
New Yorkers Against Gun Violence.
Public Citizen.
USAction.
Violence Policy Center.
Virginians Against Handgun Violence.
____
American Bar Association,
Chicago, IL, October 10, 2005.
Dear Representative: I write regarding H.R. 420, the
``Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act.'' The American Bar Association
strongly opposes this legislation and respectfully urges you
to vote ``No'' when it is brought to the floor of the House
of Representatives in the near future.
Without any demonstrated problem with the enforcement or
operation of Rule 11, H.R. 420 would (1) impose mandatory
sanctions for any violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and remove its current ``safe harbor''
provisions; (2) enforce a mandatory suspension from
practicing law of an attorney who has violated Rule 11 three
times; (3) impose federal mandatory Rule 11 sanctions upon
any civil state court claim that materially affects
interstate commerce; and (4) impose specific venue
designation rules upon any personal injury claim filed in any
state or federal court.
As a threshold matter, the ABA strongly opposes the
legislation because these amendments to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure are being proposed without utilizing the
process set forth in the Rules Enabling Act. This departure
from the procedure of the Rules Enabling Act is also being
proposed without any demonstrated problem with the operation
of the Rules Enabling Act. The ABA fully supports the Rules
Enabling Act process, which is based on three fundamental
concepts: (1) the essential and central role of the judiciary
in initiating judicial rulemaking; (2) the use of procedures
that permit full public participation, including
participation by members of the legal profession; and (3)
provision for a Congressional review period. We view the
proposed rules changes to the Federal Rules in H.R. 420 as an
unwise retreat from the balanced and inclusive process
established by Congress when it adopted the Rules Enabling
Act.
In 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2072-74, Congress prescribed the
appropriate procedure for the formulation and adoption of
rules of evidence, practice and procedure for the federal
courts. This well-settled, congressionally specified
procedure contemplates that evidentiary and procedural rules
will in the first instance be considered and drafted by
committees of the United States Judicial Conference, will
thereafter be subject to thorough public comment and
reconsideration, and will then be submitted to the United
States Supreme Court for consideration and promulgation.
Finally and most importantly, the proposed rules resulting
from the inclusion of all of the stakeholders, is transmitted
to Congress, which retains the ultimate power to veto any
rule before it takes effect.
This time-proven process proceeds from separation-of-powers
concerns and is driven by the practical recognition that,
among other things:
(1) rules of evidence and procedure are inherently a matter
of intimate concern to the judiciary, which must apply them
on a daily basis;
(2) each rule forms just one part of a complicated,
interlocking whole, rendering due deliberation and public
comment essential to avoid unintended consequences; and
(3) the Judicial Conference is in a unique position to
draft rules with care in a setting isolated from pressures
that may interfere with painstaking consideration and due
deliberation.
We do not question Congressional power to regulate the
practice and procedure of federal courts. Congress exercised
this power by delegating its rulemaking authority to the
judiciary through the enactment of the Rules Enabling Act,
while retaining the authority to review and amend rules prior
to their taking effect. We do, however, question the wisdom
of circumventing the Rules Enabling Act, as H.R. 420 would
do. The fact that the proposed changes to the Rules are
flawed should give pause to those who are asked to support
the circumvention of the process of the Rules Enabling Act.
Not following the processes set forth in the Rules Enabling
Act would frustrate the purpose of the act and potentially
harm the effective functioning of the judicial system.
The ABA supports the current version of Rule 11 because it
has proven to be an effective means of discouraging dilatory
motions practice and frivolous claims and defenses. There has
been no demonstrated problem with the enforcement or
operation of Rule 11. The ABA opposes the provisions in H.R
420 to enforce a mandatory suspension of an attorney for Rule
11 violations. The filing of frivolous claims and defenses is
an important issue that deserves attention. It is appropriate
and right for courts to have the ability to sanction
attorneys for abusing the legal system by filing claims meant
to harass or intimidate litigants. It is, however, important
to remember that Rule 11 violations can be levied even when,
in hindsight, there may have been a legitimate claim,
especially for civil rights cases or environmental
litigation. Attorneys practicing in these areas may be
subject to more Rule 11 sanctions than attorneys who handle
other types of cases.
A system that provides for mandatory suspension of
attorneys with three Rule 11 violations would have an
extremely chilling effect on the justice system and could
disproportionately impact attorneys who practice in
particular areas, such as civil rights or environmental law.
This type of mandatory suspension is even more damaging when
taken in combination with efforts to require mandatory
sanctions for Rule 11 violations, which cannot be appealed
until after a judgment is rendered in a case.
Equally important, the ABA strongly opposes enactment of
H.R. 420 because Congress should not dictate venue rules for
state courts. State rules relating to venue and jurisdiction
should be developed at the state level and supported by
extensive study, vetted publicly, and made subject to comment
by the legal profession. To do otherwise
[[Page 23978]]
would violate our long-established principles of federalism.
It should remain solely within the purview of the individual
states to establish local rules for procedures, either
through their state legislatures or through a grant of
rulemaking authority to their state judiciaries.
The imposition of Rule 11 mandatory sanctions upon the
individual state courts would also violate our time-honored
principles of federalism. Earlier this year, the Conference
of Chief Justices adopted a resolution in opposition to
federal usurpation of state court authority as guaranteed by
the United States Constitution. This resolution ``strongly
opposed'' the enactment of any federal legislation that would
``drastically change the traditional state role in
determining ethics, jurisdiction and venue rules in state
litigation.'' The determination of the states to establish
and operate their judicial systems in accordance with
principles important to each state is entitled to respectful
deference from the federal government. Great deference should
also be given to the views of these state court leaders.
For these compelling reasons the ABA strongly opposes the
enactment of H.R. 420. We respectfully urge you to vote
``No'' on this legislation.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Greco,
President.
____
Judicial Conference
of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 17, 2005.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to provide you with a copy
of the Federal Judicial Center's Report of a Survey of United
States District Judges' Experiences and Views Concerning Rule
11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The report was prepared
at the request of the Judicial Conference's Advisory
Committee on Civil Rules to provide information as part of
the Advisory Committee's study of proposals introduced in
Congress to amend Rule 11. The report makes it clear that the
vast majority of federal district judges believe that the
proposed changes to Rule 11 will not help deter litigation
abuses, but will increase satellite litigation, costs, and
delays.
Since 1995, legislation has regularly been introduced that
would reinstate a mandatory sanctions provision of Rule 11
that was adopted in 1983 and eliminated in 1993. The 1993
change followed several years of examination and was made on
the Judicial Conference's recommendation, with the Supreme
Court's approval, and after Congressional review. The 1983
provision was eliminated because during the ten years it was
in place, it did not provide meaningful relief from the
litigation behavior it was meant to address and generated
wasteful satellite litigation that had little to do with the
merits of a case. On January 26, 2005, Representative Lamar
Smith introduced the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005
(H.R. 420). The bill would restore the 1983 version of Rule
11, undoing the amendments to Rule 11 that took effect in
December 1993. The enclosed report shows a remarkable
consensus among federal district judges supporting existing
Ru1e 11 and opposing its amendment.
In 1983, Rule 11 was amended to require judges to impose
sanctions for violations that could include attorneys' fees.
The 1983 version of Rule 11 was intended to address certain
improper litigation tactics by providing some punishment and
deterrence. The effect was almost the opposite. The 1983 rule
presented attorneys with financial incentives to file a
sanction motion. The rule was abused by resourceful lawyers.
A ``cottage industry'' developed that churned tremendously
wasteful satellite sanctions litigation that had everything
to do with strategic gamesmanship and little to do with the
underlying claims or with the behavior the rule attempted to
regulate. Rule 11 motions came to be met with counter motions
that sought Rule 11 sanctions for making the original Rule 11
motion. The 1983 version of Rule 11 spawned thousands of
court decisions unrelated to the merits of the cases, sowed
discord in the bar, and generated widespread criticism.
The 1993 amendments to Rule 11 were designed to remedy
major problems shown by experience with the 1983 rule, allow
courts to focus on the merits of the underlying cases rather
than on Rule II motions, but still provide a meaningful
sanction for frivolous pleadings. The rule establishes a
``safe harbor,'' providing a party 21 days within which to
withdraw a particular claim or defense before sanctions can
be imposed. If the party fails to withdraw an allegedly
frivolous claim or defense within the 21 days, a court may
impose sanctions, including assessing reasonable attorney
fees. Rule 11 does not supplant other remedial actions
available to sanction an attorney for a frivolous filing,
including punishing the attorney for contempt, employing
sanctions under 28 D.S.C. 1927 for ``vexatious''
multiplication of proceedings, or initiating an independent
action for malicious prosecution or abuse of process.
H.R. 420 would amend Rule 11 to restore the 1983 version,
by removing a court's discretion to impose sanctions on a
frivolous filing and by eliminating the rule's safe-harbor
provisions. The Judicial Conference opposed the Lawsuit Abuse
Reduction Act of2004 (H.R. 4571), the predecessor of H.R.
420. The Judicial Conference based its position on the
problems caused by the 1983 version of Rule 11, which H.R.
420 would restore. The Judicial Conference noted that these
problems included:
creating a significant incentive to file unmeritorious Rule
11 motions by providing a possibility of monetary penalty;
engendering potential conflict of interest between clients
and their lawyers, who advised withdrawal of particular
claims despite the clients' preference;
exacerbating tensions between lawyers; and
providing little incentive, and perhaps a distinct
disincentive, to abandon or withdraw--and thereby admit error
on--a pleading or claim after determining that it no longer
was supportable in law or fact.
The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules regularly monitors
the operation of the Civil Rules, inviting the bench, bar,
and public to inform it of any problems. The Committee stands
ready to address any deficiency in the rules, including Rule
II. Although the Committee is mindful of Congressional
concerns about frivolous filings addressed in pending
legislation, the Committee has not received any negative
comments or complaints on existing Rule II from the bench,
bar, or public. To gain a clearer picture of the operation of
Rule 11, the Committee asked the Federal Judicial Center to
survey the experience of the trial judges who must apply the
rules. The survey sought responses from judges with
experience under the 1983 version as well as judges serving
only after the 1993 version was adopted. The results of the
Federal Judicial Center's survey show that judges strongly
believe that Rule 11, which was carefully crafted to deter
frivolous filings without unduly hampering the filing of
legitimate claims or defenses, continues to work well. The
survey's findings include the following highlights:
More than 80 percent of the 278 district judges surveyed
indicate that ``Rule 11 is needed and it is just right as it
now stands'';
87 percent prefer the existing Rule 11 to the 1983 version
or the version proposed by legislation (e.g., H.R. 4571 or
H.R. 420);
85 percent strongly or moderately support Rule 11's safe
harbor provisions;
91 percent oppose the proposed requirement that sanctions
be imposed for every Rule 11 violation;
84 percent disagree with the proposition that an award of
attorney fees should be mandatory for every Rule 11
violation;
85 percent believe that the amount of groundless civil
litigation has not grown since the promulgation of the 1993
rule, with 12 percent noting that such litigation has not
been a problem, 19 percent noting that such litigation
decreased during their tenure on the Federal bench, and 54
percent noting that such litigation has remained relatively
constant; and
72 percent believe that addressing sanctions for discovery
abuse in Rules 26(g) and 37 is better than in Rule 11.
The judges' experiences with the 1993 version of Rule 11
point to a marked decline in Rule 11 satellite litigation
without any noticeable increase in the number of frivolous
filings. H.R. 420 would effectively reinstate the 1983
version of Rule 11 that proved so contentious and wasted so
much time and energy of the bar and bench. Rule 11 in its
present form has proven effective and should not be revised.
The findings of the Federal Judicial Center underscore the
Federal district judges' united opposition to legislation
amending Rule 11. I urge you on behalf of the Judicial
Conference to oppose legislation amending Rule 11.
The Judicial Conference appreciates your consideration of
its views. If you have any questions, please feel to contact
me. I may be reached at (202) 273-3000. If you prefer, you
may have your staff contact Karen Kremer, Counsel, Office of
Legislative Affairs, Administrative Office of the United
States Courts, at (202) 502-1700.
Sincerely,
Leonidas Ralph Mecham,
Secretary.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I think the reason why we have no other
speakers on this side is because everything that possibly could be said
was said last year. So all we need to do is just replay the tape
recorder and listen to all the arguments. We just seem to be repeating
the same debates over and over and over again.
Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
This is unwise policy. I understand that the genesis of this
legislation is to appeal to those who like to contribute lots of money
to particular campaigns, but, quite frankly, I think that is not a
sound reason to pass this legislation.
As I mentioned before, the Judicial Conference of the United States
has outlined very clearly why this is a bad bill. I would hope that my
colleagues would listen to some of the experts and
[[Page 23979]]
do what is right and reject this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I might point out that the people that
oppose this legislation, as the gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned
earlier, are the very ones that support his party. So I think that
there is a little balance there, if that be true in either instance.
Madam Speaker, I would first like to close this debate by thanking my
colleagues for a very productive discussion of both the rule and H.R.
420. The opportunity before this House today is another example of how
this Congress has improved our legal system and preventing frivolous
lawsuits from closing the doors of justice for those who have truly
been harmed.
Contrary to what the opponents of legal reform might say, the
underlying bill, as well as other recent bills, do not demonstrate
contempt for our legal system or the esteemed profession of attorneys,
but rather demonstrate respect for the important and historic role of
our judicial system in defending the rights and ensuring the
constitutional application of the laws. Frivolous lawsuits have not
only driven up costs and destroyed economic opportunity for the
American people, but they have also damaged the image of the courts.
When the American people stop respecting the decisions of the
judiciary, the courts begin to lose their effectiveness, and they cease
to perform their constitutionally mandated role.
For the sake of the courts and for the sake of the American people,
we in this House need to push forward with this additional meaningful
and genuine reform. Therefore, I would like to urge all of my
colleagues on both sides of the center aisle to support this rule and
the underlying bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, while the Committee on Rules
reported out a rule that made in order a substantive amendment offered
by the Gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, I rise in opposition to
it, H. Res. 508 because the legislation underlying is pernicious.
As I mentioned during the Committee on the Judiciary's oversight
hearing on this legislation during its first iteration in the 108th
Congress and reiterated in my statement for the markup, one of the main
functions of that body's oversight is to analyze potentially negative
impact against the benefits that a legal process or piece of
legislation will have on those affected. The base bill before the House
today does not represent the product of careful analysis and therefore,
it is critical that Members be given the ability to offer amendments to
improve its provisions.
In the case of H.R. 4571, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act the
oversight functions of the Judiciary Committee allowed us to craft a
bill that will protect those affected from negative impacts of the
shield from liability that it proposes. This legislation requires an
overhaul in order to make it less of a misnomer--to reduce abuse rather
than encourage it.
The goal of the tort reform legislation is to allow businesses to
externalize, or shift, some of the cost of the injuries they cause to
others. Tort law always assigns liability to the party in the best
position to prevent an injury in the most reasonable and fair manner.
In looking at the disparate impact that the new tort reform laws will
have on ethnic minority groups, it is unconscionable that the burden
will be placed on these groups--that are in the worst position to bear
the liability costs.
When Congress considers pre-empting state laws, it must strike the
appropriate balance between two competing values--local control and
national uniformity. Local control is extremely important because we
all believe, as did the Founders two centuries ago, that State
governments are closer to the people and better able to assess local
needs and desires. National uniformity is also an important
consideration in federalism--Congress' exclusive jurisdiction over
interstate commerce has allowed our economy to grow dramatically over
the past 200 years.
This legislation would reverse the changes to Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, FRCP, that were made by the Judicial
Conference in 1993 such that (1) sanctions against an attorney whose
litigation tactics are determined to harass or cause unnecessary delay
or cost or who has been determined to have made frivolous legal
arguments or unwarranted factual assertions would become mandatory
rather than discretionary to the court, (2) discovery-related activity
would be included within the scope of the Rule, and (3) the Rule would
be extended to state cases affecting interstate commerce so that if a
state judge decides that a case affects interstate commerce, he or she
must apply Rule 11 if violations are found.
This legislation strips State and Federal judges of their discretion
in the area of applying Rule 11 sanctions. Furthermore, it infringes
States' rights by forcing State courts to apply the rule if interstate
commerce is affected. Why is the discretion of the judge not sufficient
in discerning whether Rule 11 sanctions should be assessed?
If this legislation moves forward in this body, it will be important
for us to find out its effect on indigent plaintiffs or those who must
hire an attorney strictly on a contingent--fee basis. Because the
application of Rule 11 would be mandatory, attorneys will pad their
legal fees to account for the additional risk that they will have to
incur in filing lawsuits and the fact that they will have no
opportunity to withdraw the suit due to a mistake. Overall, this
legislation will deter indigent plaintiffs from seeking counsel to file
meritorious claims given the extremely high legal fees.
Furthermore, H.R. 4571, as drafted, would allow corporations that
perform sham and non-economic transactions in order to enjoy economic
benefits in this country .
This is a bad rule that will have terrible implications on our
legislative branch, and I ask that my colleagues to defeat the rule,
defeat the bill, and support the Substitute offered by Mr. Schiff. We
must carefully consider the long-term implications that this bill, as
drafted, will have on indigent claimants, the trial attorney community,
and facilitation of corporate fraud.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam 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.
____________________
DISAPPROVINGTHERECOMMENDA-
TIONS OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 2908(d) of Public Law
101-510, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
joint resolution (H.J. Res 65) disapproving the recommendations of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
The motion was agreed to.
{time} 1055
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 65) disapproving the recommendations of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, with Mr. Gingrey in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
By unanimous consent, the joint resolution was considered read the
first time.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section 2908(d) of Public Law 101-510,
debate shall not exceed 2 hours.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) will be recognized for 1
hour in opposition to the joint resolution and a Member in favor of the
joint resolution will be recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the 1 hour in support
of the resolution.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) will be
recognized for 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed
to control that time. I also ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to
designate the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) as controlling our
time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
[[Page 23980]]
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, tonight marks the end of a long and difficult process
for selecting military installations for closure and realignment.
Under BRAC law, the realignment and closure recommendations by the
BRAC 2005 Commission will become binding, unless a joint resolution of
disapproval, such as the one before us today, is enacted.
For those of us with military installations in our districts, the
BRAC process is a trying one. And I might mention we have had four BRAC
rounds previous to this one. Every one of us spent the last 4 years
making a case to the Pentagon and the BRAC Commission with respect to
the military value of our bases. Nevertheless, both DOD and the BRAC
Commission have determined that a portion of our military
infrastructure should be closed or realigned.
As a result, the final recommendations of the Commission include 22
closures that we would designate as major closures, 33 major
realignments, and many smaller closure and realignment actions.
According to the Commission, these actions will save more than $15
billion over the next two decades with annual savings of more than $2.5
billion after implementation.
Some of my colleagues have questioned the need for a round of BRAC
and the timing of this round. While I understand and appreciate such
concerns, I believe that these issues have been thoroughly discussed
and debated. In addition, by a vote of 43 to 14, the Armed Services
Committee reported this resolution adversely to the House with a
recommendation that it do not pass. As such, I intend to vote against
House Joint Resolution 65 today, thereby allowing the BRAC Commission
recommendations to stand, and I would urge my colleagues to join me in
doing so.
On a final note, I would like to thank the BRAC Commissioners for
their service. Since their appointments this spring, the Commissioners
visited more than 170 installations, conducted 20 regional hearings and
20 deliberative hearings, and participated in hundreds of meetings with
public officials. Also, Mr. Chairman, I would particularly like to
thank the chairman of the Commission, Anthony J. Principi. Tony
Principi took on another tough one in chairing this BRAC Commission. It
is a commission in which you get beaten up lots of times, second-
guessed a lot, and cross-examined a lot. Yet, it is a necessary
position, and it is one that requires a guy or a lady with a lot of
integrity. Chairman Principi is just such a person.
Also, we had on our committee two former members of the Armed
Services Committee who were on the BRAC Commission, Jim Bilbray and Jim
Hansen, and Mr. Chairman, they have served us well as senior statesmen
in again what amounted to very, very difficult roles.
{time} 1100
I would like to acknowledge the good work of all of the
commissioners. It is not an easy job and it is, to some degree, a very
thankless job. Nonetheless, it is necessary and they put a lot of time
and a lot of sweat into this process. So I want to thank them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the reason that I introduced this resolution is because
I feel very strongly that we are in a position in the House to send a
very strong message of support to those who are doing the hard work in
Iraq, those who have done the hard work in Afghanistan, and those men
and women who we call our citizen soldiers, and a big debt of thanks
for what they have been doing in the work that we have asked them to
do.
I have been a very strong supporter of the President's position when
we went to Afghanistan because I thought we needed to bring down al
Qaeda. And no politician can take credit for what has taken place in
Afghanistan. It has been done by the hardworking men and women who
brought down al Qaeda and the 25,000 troops that are still there.
And no politician can take credit for what has taken place in Iraq. I
supported the resolution to go to Iraq. I have supported President Bush
on every request that he has made before this House for the money to
support our troops, and now we have more than 135,000 troops and many
men and women working in the State Department and the embassy there
trying to help stand up a democracy, help stand up a police force, and
help bring about democracy in Iraq.
If we go along with the BRAC Commission recommendations, what we say
to those hardworking men and women who have done the work that we have
asked them to do is that we are thinking about, not thinking about, the
BRAC recommendations would close the bases, close some of the guard
bases, say to the citizen soldiers who have done the hard work, thanks,
but we don't need you any longer.
This is the wrong message to be sending. These hardworking men and
women have done the job that we asked them to do, and that is the
reason that we have seen such great success in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
So I ask Members today to support this resolution and send a message to
those who have done the hard work that these BRAC recommendations are
not the right approach.
When the establishment of the BRAC came about, it was prior to 9/11.
It was prior to going into Afghanistan, prior to going into Iraq, and
prior to us asking our men and women, the citizen soldiers and the
full-time military, to do the hard work that they are doing. This sends
the wrong message. This is not the message that we want to send to
those that are there, that the Guard bases and the air bases and the
military bases that are being recommended for closure or realignment
were not right.
When we are spending the kind of money that we are spending, we are
not saving an awful lot through these BRAC recommendations. I would
submit to the House that if 9/11 had happened prior to us passing this
BRAC, that BRAC would not have passed, we would not have established a
commission, because we would need a very strong military and we would
need these Guard bases.
I also want to point out to the House that there is a Federal law
that has been ignored by BRAC and ignored by the Defense Department. It
is a Federal law that says you cannot close air and Guard Reserve bases
without the authority of the Governor of the State, and this has been
ignored.
It was ignored by BRAC, and it was ignored by the Defense Department.
I think it is a law that has standing, and I think it is a law that
makes an awful lot of sense. The Governors should have a say in what
bases are closed. But it was a law that was ignored. So I say to those
in the House that today is not the day to send the kind of message that
we will be sending if we do not approve the resolution that was
considered by the Armed Services Committee and being considered here
today. We need to pass this resolution.
If we pass the resolution, we do send a strong message to our citizen
soldiers and to the military that the work that they are doing is
important, that the Guard bases that they represent, that the air bases
that they represent are important, and that our citizen soldiers have
done the good work.
There is going to be another report coming from the Defense
Department about realigning and about the kind of defenses that our
country wants. We do not know what that report will say, but I think it
is another indication that the BRAC is premature. I know what the
chairman said about those who served on the BRAC, but I am not sure
that we were quite as well served by some of those members as we could
have been in some of their deliberations.
These are people that were called upon to do very difficult work.
They have completed their work, and now it is up to Congress to speak.
The Defense Department has spoken. BRAC has spoken. The President has
spoken. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is up to the House to speak today.
I urge the House to adopt this resolution in support of those that
have done
[[Page 23981]]
the hard work, in support of those who are citizen soldiers who come
from the communities that we represent and say to them, we thank you
for your hard work. We thank you for what you have done. We thank you
for bringing down al Qaeda. We thank you for helping stand up a
democracy in Iraq, and we are not going to eliminate the bases from
which you come or realign them.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer H.J. Res. 65, a resolution that I
introduced that would disapprove the recommendations of the 2005
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.
As I have stated many times since this BRAC round began, it is
absolutely wrong that we are considering closing and realigning bases
while we are at war. We in Congress spend quite a bit of time
proclaiming that we are doing all we can to care for our troops.
Spending billions of dollars closing and realigning bases isn't caring
for our troops--it's just plain wrong.
Congress created the BRAC process so that there would be a non-
partisan, independent method of reviewing our military's post-Cold War
excess infrastructure. Unfortunately, we live in a different world
today and we face challenges that we, as a nation, couldn't even
imagine in the late 1980s. There is no more ``peacetime dividend'' to
be gained from closing bases. The Global War on Terrorism has reached
deep into our military structure and showed us that we can no longer
ask our military to do more with less.
This BRAC Commission was asked to do a very difficult task in a very
uncertain environment. Early next year the Department of Defense will
issue its latest Quadrennial Defense Review, a document that will
outline the future structure of our military as they continue their
fight against terror. We do not know what the QDR will contain, and
what sort of infrastructure will be required to support it. We are also
waiting to hear the plan for bringing as many as 70,000 troops and
their families home from Europe and Asia as the Department reduces its
Cold War footprint overseas. We do not know what that plan will
contain, either, but those 70,000 people and their dependents will have
to live and work somewhere. The BRAC Commission noted in its report to
the President that the timing of this BRAC round was not ideal because
of all of the uncertainty surrounding these upcoming major events. Even
the most well-intentioned decisions, if they are made without taking
all of the facts into account, can end up hurting those we say we are
trying to help.
The list of recommendations that were released by the Department of
Defense on May 13 contained more proposed actions than all previous
BRAC rounds combined. In its report to the President, the BRAC
Commission was very critical of the Department's methods. The Pentagon
lumped together unrelated activities into one recommendation, leaving a
mess for the Commission to try to untangle. The DoD proposed the
consolidation of many jobs and commands that had similar names, even if
they did not have the same missions. There was apparently no
interaction between the Pentagon and other federal agencies that share
assets and installation space, such as the Department of Veterans
Affairs and the United States Coast Guard, agencies that could be now
left in serious financial straits if the burden of maintaining these
facilities falls completely on them. And, most striking of all, there
was very little cooperation and interaction between the Pentagon and
the Department of Homeland Security. How can we feel secure in voting
on these recommendations without knowing the full impact they will have
on our homeland security? These bases are not simply staging areas
before our military goes to fight overseas. Our military is vital to
securing our homeland. We cannot make it more difficult for them to
achieve that mission.
The one aspect of this year's BRAC round that brought this issue home
to many of my colleagues was the inclusion of Air National Guard bases.
I am proud to say that I represent 2 flying units of the Illinois Air
National Guard in my district, and I have seen first-hand the vital
roles they play in our nation's defense. We ask our Guard to make
extraordinary sacrifices and become masters of a wide range of issues,
from fighting against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan to rescuing
victims and providing relief to those who are impacted by natural
disasters here at home. They do so willing and heroically, leaving
behind their families and their jobs as soon as they get the call.
These Guard units, under the purview of the governors of the states,
are now being closed or ``enclaved'' without the consent of the
governors and without proper consultation of the State Adjutants
General. This is how we support those who serve both their states and
the federal government? These men and women are not going to uproot
their entire lives to follow their units to other states. We will lose
them, their knowledge, and their expertise. This is a price we cannot
afford to pay.
Title 10 of the United States Code prohibits the closure or
relocation of Army and Air National Guard units without the consent of
the governors of the states in which those units are located. A number
of governors have gone on record and refused to give their consent for
the movement of their National Guard units. Many states have filed
lawsuits in federal court demanding that the Pentagon and the BRAC
Commission follow federal law. The Speaker, Senator Durbin and I
brought this provision to the attention of the Secretary of Defense in
a letter dated March 24. To date, the Pentagon still has not been able
to answer that letter. On July 14, the BRAC Commission's own Deputy
General Counsel issued an opinion that not only are the proposed Air
Guard moves in violation of federal law, they may be unconstitutional.
The Commission ignored its own lawyer! This BRAC round is going to
leave us with flying units that no longer have planes, and for what
reason? These Air Guard moves do not save money. They will weaken the
Air Guard in many states and make recruiting and retention of these
dedicated Airmen next to impossible. Not only is this wrong, it is
illegal, a clear violation of Title 10 of the United States Code.
Lawsuits are still pending.
Much has been said about the proposed ``savings'' if this round of
BRAC is enacted. A figure of $35 billion in savings over 20 years seems
to be popular in the media. However, this $35 billion figure includes
assumed personnel cost savings; savings that both the BRAC Commission
and the GAO have stated should not be included. Once those personnel
savings are removed, the total savings falls to approximately $15.1
billion over the next 20 years. We cannot forget that this round of
BRAC will cost $21 billion to enact. That kind of math simply does not
make sense.
This round of BRAC has strayed far from Congress' original intent. We
aren't reducing excess infrastructure to save money. This BRAC is the
beginning of implementing major force structure changes without the
consultation of Congress. Sweeping changes like this require more than
just one up or down vote.
I have heard a number of my colleagues state that they will support
this round of BRAC even though they do not agree with it, simply
because this is the process that Congress established. This is not
something we can close our eyes and blindly support. We are a nation at
war, the timing is wrong, the savings are not there, and Guard units
are being moved out of their states in violation of federal law. The
process did not work this time, and we need to stand up and say
``Stop''.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have long supported the base closure process as a way
to eliminate excess infrastructure in the Department of Defense. This
is an important and very noble goal. We need all of our resources to be
devoted towards supporting our fighting men and women. This includes
having the best and most efficient facilities.
For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I will today vote to uphold the list
recommended by the BRAC Commission and against the resolution of
disapproval.
Even though I support the BRAC, I would like to take this opportunity
to comment on the process that was used in this round of BRAC. In the
last three BRAC rounds, the Defense Department demonstrated that it
could successfully close bases and reduce infrastructure through a
measured and deliberative process.
In this round, however, neither the Department of Defense nor the
BRAC Commission, in my opinion, has lived up to the high standards that
we set for them. The execution of the process and the final outcome has
suffered. The end result is that I doubt we will see another round of
base closures due to missteps along the way.
This is it, Mr. Chairman. This is it for BRAC. But even with the BRAC
shortfalls, I feel that the Congress created a law that we are
obligated to follow. While it missed some opportunities, the commission
made some closures that will benefit the Nation. There are some
outstanding prospects for jointness included on the list.
I sincerely hope that the Department of Defense will work to maximize
their effect, while it works to assist communities that will be
affected by closures with redevelopment.
[[Page 23982]]
Mr. Chairman, we must vote upon the product that is before us and the
good that it can do. This BRAC may not be perfect, but we must take the
opportunity presented to us to streamline our military infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to join Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member
Skelton in opposing House Joint Resolution 65.
I was not a fan of us doing this BRAC round. The gentleman from
Illinois said that if 9/11 had happened before the approval of this
round, we probably would not have had a BRAC round. But the truth is
that we have reaffirmed this BRAC round time and time again since 9/11.
Each year I would offer an amendment in the Armed Services Committee
to put off the BRAC for many of the reasons that the gentleman from
Illinois has stated: to put off the BRAC for 2 years until we could see
where we are about bringing troops home, to see where we are on our war
against terror.
Each time it would pass overwhelmingly in committee, it would pass
overwhelmingly in this House, and we would be shot down in the
conference committee by the Senate and the White House. We lost that
battle. That would have been my choice.
But once we have gone through this process, I think we should proceed
with it at this point. Just 5 months ago, the House voted down an
amendment that would have delayed BRAC, the 2005 BRAC, indefinitely. I
argued then, as I do today, that we must allow the BRAC process at this
point to run its course.
As it turned out, that course took several unexpected twists and
turns along the way. On the positive side, the BRAC Commission removed
several significant bases from the closure list. In doing so, they
validated our belief that our military should not give up the ability
to surge to meet future crises in times of war and peace, allowing this
ability that is fundamental to our Nation's security.
On the negative side, the commission's actions on some issues like
the commission's directive relating to the Naval Air Station Oceana,
for example, raise a number of questions about the credibility
underlying the BRAC process.
Considering that credibility is the foundation upon which BRAC is
built, such questions are troubling. While I do not believe the BRAC
2005 outcome to be sufficiently flawed to vote to disapprove it, I have
reached the conclusion that any future use of the existing BRAC laws to
close or realign bases would be a mistake.
In balance, Mr. Chairman, I feel that this may have been the best
BRAC process that we have had in all of the BRAC processes we have had.
There are problems with it. It has never been perfect. It was not
perfect this time. But I think it was perhaps the smoothest and best
process that we have had.
To those of my colleagues who still may be on the fence about today's
vote, I would point out that disapproval of the BRAC 2005
recommendations would guarantee yet another round of base closures in
the very near future.
Bases on today's closure list would likely appear again on the future
list. And those bases that escaped closure this time would again be at
risk of closure or realignment. Whether or not you support any given
closure or realignment within BRAC 2005, I hope that all of my
colleagues will recognize that the alternative, which is another round
of BRAC in the near future, would be even worse.
My friends, I do not want to go through this again. Any of us who
represent bases across this Nation do not want to continually go
through this kind of agony. For all of these reasons, I will vote
against H.J. Res. 65 and vote to allow the BRAC process to run its
course.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me just speak for a minute or two. I
thought there were going to be some other Members that wanted to speak
in favor of the resolution; but until they arrive, let me just talk for
a minute or two about some of the costs.
The BRAC Commission estimated that $35 billion would be saved over a
20-year period, but the $35 billion figure includes assumed cost
savings due to military personnel actions. Both the BRAC Commission and
the GAO believe the military personnel savings should be excluded from
the overall savings figure.
Once those personnel savings are removed, the overall savings fall to
approximately $15 billion over 20 years. There is a one-time up-front
cost of $21 billion to implement the BRAC round, and the DOD claimed
that the savings from military personnel are not savings at all. These
costs do not disappear; they simply shift from one base to another, and
those folks are still in the military, and we still have to pay for
them.
For some Air Force recommendations, the military personnel cost
savings represents 90 percent of the total savings. And in the case of
the Air National Guard end strength, it remained mostly the same.
Obviously, no savings come from simply moving positions around the
country.
If we keep the same number of personnel, DOD spending levels will not
actually be reduced. The BRAC Commission concludes that DOD savings
estimates were vastly overstated and overestimated. And there is also a
quote from the commission on page 330 of their report: ``In fact, the
commission is concerned that there is a likelihood that the 2005 BRAC
round could produce only marginal net savings over the 20-year
period.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1115
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my two very good
friends, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for yielding me time, and I thank the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for bringing forth this
resolution, which I support because it is a resolution of disapproval.
Now, you should know where I am coming from, Mr. Speaker. In my
congressional district there are almost 23,000 people being displaced
because of BRAC. It is the equivalent of four major military bases. But
we could accept that, and Senator Warner, the chairman of the Senate
Committee on Armed Services, has said as well we can accept that
decision, but for the fact that it is inconsistent with the BRAC
authorizing legislation which was designed to save money and to improve
military effectiveness. It does neither.
Initially, its was supposed to save $48.8 billion over 20 years. The
latest analysis tells us that it is actually going to save only $15.1
billion over 20 years, about $700 million per year, which,
incidentally, is about as much as we spend in a day in Iraq now.
So the question is, why we would be disrupting the lives of so many
thousands of people if we are going to save so little money. And, in
fact, even this savings estimate is suspect because as the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) has explained, it is based upon personnel
savings, and all we are doing is moving the personnel around the
country. That does not save any money.
In fact, what is going to happen based upon the surveys we have taken
of the personnel that are going to be displaced from northern Virginia,
as many as 50-75 percent of the employees are going to decide not to
move, to leave the government. And who are these people?
Well, it turns out they are the most experienced, they are the most
skilled, they are the very people that we need the most to lead our
defense agencies. In other words, this is going to cause a brain drain,
and it is one that we can ill afford at the Federal level. As many of
you may know, because it applies to most urban metropolitan areas, with
the cost of housing, both spouses have to be in the workforce, and it
is very disruptive to tell families that one of
[[Page 23983]]
the wage-earners has to move hundreds of miles away.
In this case, the Missile Defense Agency is a good example. About 2-
to 3,000 people are going to be moving down to Alabama. Now, I like
Alabama, I like the gentleman who represents that district, but the
reality is not all of them are going to move, because they like our
schools, their children are in the school system, their spouses have
jobs here, and most of them have security clearances, which means they
are going to be picked up by the private sector in a New York minute.
Is this in the national interest? I do not think so. I do not think
it is in the national interest. I could see if we were going to save
the money. I could see if we were going to follow the intent of the
BRAC process, which was to improve military preparedness, but I do not
know how we achieve that. We were supposed to take people that were in
facilities that were overcrowded and move them to surplus facilities in
other parts of the country. That is not being achieved.
Now, Senator Warner, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, did a very extensive analysis, of the BRAC legislation
because he happened to be the architect of it, and he shows that these
decisions, are inconsistent with the intent of that authorizing
legislation. That alone is reason to oppose the BRAC conclusions and
support this resolution.
We are going to, in fact, have to spend billions of dollars on
building new facilities, and the fact that that money is going to have
to come out of the Military Construction, Quality of Life
appropriations subcommittee where we need to be conserving money to pay
for veterans health care for the thousands of veterans that are coming
back from the Iraq and Afghanistan war, defies common sense.
I do not think this is in the national interest, Mr. Speaker. I think
that this body should support this resolution of disapproval until we
get recommendations that show us how we are actually going to save
money and improve military effectiveness.
Now, Secretary Rumsfeld has improved new building standards, and that
was the justification that the BRAC Commission used to move these
people. And the building standards necessitate that you cannot be
within 100 feet of the sidewalk where the public is allowed. You cannot
be near a public transit station. You cannot have public underground
parking. You cannot do any of the things that you have to do in a
metropolitan area like northern Virginia or the Washington metro area,
even though we have buildings that are right on the sidewalk that are
just as important in Florida and Texas that were not touched. But in
northern Virginia they made the decision to implement these building
standards as they apply to any DOD agency no matter how unlikely a
terrorist target that agency might be.
But there are very different building standards that apply to the
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the FBI,
all of these other agencies that would be just as likely a terrorist
target, so it does not seem to make sense. In fact, I question why we
would have published the location of all of these defense agencies when
terrorists did not know where they existed, could not even figure out
the acronyms for the agencies.
But we have very different, inconsistent building security standards,
one by the General Services Administration, which has the authorizing
responsibility for building Federal buildings; and another by DOD,
which is not supposed to be building its own buildings, but are
requiring enormous restrictions that preclude a location in a
metropolitan area anyplace in the country, and that are going to cost
such a premium to build, they are going to make them prohibitive for
any other activity to be in those buildings.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on at greater length on why I do not think
that these recommendations make sense from a cost standpoint, from a
military effectiveness standpoint, from just a common-sense standpoint.
I will not do that, but I will summarize by again pointing out that
these recommendations are going to cost billions of dollars to build
new buildings for DOD money that we do not have, that we are going to
have to take from veterans health care. It is not going to improve our
military preparedness. It is going to cause a brain drain in terms of
many of the agencies that we rely so much on for technological
superiority and intelligence. And when you have a recommendation that
causes such additional cost and is going to make it so much more
difficult to implement our military mission, I think the right thing to
do is to reject it.
That is what this resolution does. That is what I would urge my
colleagues in this body to do, to vote for the resolution of
disapproval that has been offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
LaHood) so as to have the administration go back and tell us ways they
can, in fact, save money, ways they can, in fact, improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of our military mission.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonner). The Committee will rise informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley) assumed the chair.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of it clerks, announced
that the Senate has passed with amendments in which the concurrence of
the House is requested, a bill of the House of the following title:
H.R. 3057. An act making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other
purposes.
The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its
amendments to the bill (H.R. 3057) ``Making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes,'' requests a
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
thereon, and appoints Mr. McConnell, Mr. Specter, Mr. Gregg, Mr.
Shelby, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bond, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Cochran,
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Byrd, to be the conferees on the part of
the Senate.
The message also announced that the Senate has passed a bill of the
following title in which the concurrence of the House is requested:
S. 1285. An act to designate the Federal building located
at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Rosa
Parks Federal Building''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Committee will resume its sitting.
____________________
DISAPPROVING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND
REALIGNMENT COMMISSION
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Science.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, many of us who have been privileged to serve in this
great institution for some time have been through this process many
times. This is not the first or second or third. We have had BRAC after
BRAC. But I could not agree more with my distinguished colleague from
Colorado (Mr. Hefley) who observed this was the best BRAC of all. We
are finally getting it right. This was the least political, most
professional BRAC we have ever had. And that is a tribute to Chairman
Principi and all of the distinguished members of the panel: Admiral
Gehman; General Newton; former Congressman and colleague Jim Bilbray;
Phil Coyle; Sam Skinner; General Turner; Jim Hansen, another former
colleague who served with great distinction; and General Hill. This
reads like a Who's Who list of distinguished Americans who are
providing a very important service for our Nation.
The fact is DOD had too much physical inventory. It is costing DOD to
[[Page 23984]]
maintain that physical inventory. It is costing the taxpayers. So
understandably they wanted some realignment, adjustments; and there had
to be winners and losers. As someone who has been on both sides of that
issue, let me say I know what it is like. I can feel the pain of the
losers. But I would say to those who are on the short end of the
recommendation, one, you should have confidence that the
recommendations were made once again by the least political, most
professional BRAC we have ever had, a BRAC whose individual members,
including the Chairman, were available not just to have a courtesy
photo opportunity, but to hear out those of us who had presentations
before that Commission.
They asked pertinent questions. They had on-site visits. They were
very, very serious about their important work; and they were not alone.
The highly dedicated and very competent professional staff of BRAC was
even more accessible. You can understand when you get on the phone and
you try to get a conversation with Chairman Principi or General So-and-
So or Admiral So-and-So, a lot of people want to talk to them. I must
say that I was fortunate to be able to talk to each and every one of
them. I had quality time. But the fact of the matter is the staff
followed through once again with on-site visits, and that was so very
important.
The dedication and determination demonstrated by the Commission, its
accessibility for individual members, their willingness to listen
produced a product that I think we can all be proud of.
Let me once again address those who represent communities who are not
treated favorably by the BRAC recommendations. I have been through that
before with a magnificent Air Force base that dissolved back as a
result of the 1993 Commission report, and in 1995 it actually closed
down with a couple of exceptions. And there were some people in the
community at large who wanted to write the economic obituary for that
community, Rome, New York, and the surrounding areas. There were
others, a lot of us, not just me, the mayor, the county executive,
local officials, business communities, that were determined to make the
best of a bad situation.
{time} 1130
Today, that once-vibrant military installation, Griffis Air Force
Base, is now a very vibrant business and technology park with upwards
of 4,000 people gainfully employed there; but part of that installation
involves an Air Force research laboratory which was set off as a
containment area as a result of the decision to close the base in 1993,
and the people at DOD and everywhere were wondering would this work.
It has worked in spades, and now the Air Force research laboratory,
incidentally operating out of a $25 million state-of-the-art new
facility, is the center of excellence for the entire Air Force in
command, control, communications, and intelligence technology. It is an
information directorate, and it not only services the Air Force well
but it services a whole wide range of other activities. It is serving
so well.
So BRAC looked at that and made the decision that some operations
that had been located there should be transferred elsewhere in line
with the overall scheme of the Air Force to consolidate like operations
at a central facility. Some moved out; some moved in. The net result is
maybe a gain of 15 to 25 jobs for Rome, New York. I am not supporting
the BRAC because we have got 15 or 25 jobs. I am supporting the process
and what it did and what it produced.
Let me tell my colleagues another story. At that same business and
technology park, we now have a defense finance accounting service, and
that employs exactly 382 people. DOD said, well, we want to
consolidate, restructure. We do not need 26 locations all over the
country. We want to go down to three locations. That did not really
make a heck of a lot of sense; and when all was said and done, when the
BRAC looked at that, they recognized that maybe the answer was
somewhere in between. Instead of going from 26 to three, they went from
26 to about five or six, consolidating, saving money, improving
efficiency.
Guess what. This facility at Rome, New York, which incidentally is
operating and out of a new $10 million state-of-the-art facility, was
examined very carefully. They did not just listen to me, and they did
not make a decision that was posited with that because I had a
scintillating personality or I had some influence down here. Influence
down here did not make much difference in this process.
What they listened to were the facts, and the facts are that when
they examined all of the DFAS operations, in 16 measurable categories
where you could quantify, where you could measure, where you could
compare the output of one against the other, this installation was at
or near the top.
A final BRAC decision, not only are those 382 jobs preserved, 600
additional are coming.
So I say it from the perspective of a proud Member of a district who
is gaining, and I say it as a proud Member of this institution who
identified with creating a process that is serving our Nation well; and
therefore, I would strongly oppose the resolution to disapprove and
urge that the movement go forward.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois both for
introducing this resolution and for yielding me some time to speak in
support of the resolution.
The stakes could not be higher. Of course, we should take steps, even
if politically difficult, to cut waste and improve efficiency in the
military. Let us look where we are.
The Pentagon has recommended closures through the BRAC Commission.
The BRAC Commission has approved them. Now the House is going to stamp
them approved before the Department of Defense has completed its force
structure review. This is exactly the opposite of what was supposed to
happen. The BRAC commissioners themselves pointed out when they began
their hearings this summer that the entire process has the cart before
the horse.
Also, the Overseas Basing Commission noted that the Pentagon had not
factored in the impact of the return of tens of thousands of personnel
from Europe to the United States in its BRAC recommendations; and even
now, we are proceeding with the BRAC process before the Pentagon has
even completed its periodic force review, which is supposed to be the
blueprint for what we need for the 21st century.
So we will be closing bases, losing key personnel, diminishing
critical capabilities, even before we have determined which of those
capabilities we need in order to meet current and future threats. The
process, Mr. Chairman, has been backwards.
I certainly can find fault with some of the specifics in here. I am
very familiar with the excellent work done by the people at Fort
Monmouth in central New Jersey where they do electronics, command,
control, communications, computers. They have taken the lead in
developing countermeasures to detect and disarm roadside bombs in Iraq.
It is hard to think of anything that could be more important.
We know that a large number of these scientists, probably 70, 80
percent of these scientists and engineers and procurement experts will
not make the move if Fort Monmouth is closed. That capability would be
lost at a time that we cannot afford it.
The harm to the military, to the Army, and to the joint services
effort, I can assure my colleagues, is much greater than the harm to
New Jersey. That is why I am highlighting this example of the problems.
Let me be clear, I have nothing but great respect for each of the
commissioners and their staffs. They worked for months a grueling
schedule, reams of data, listening attentively, openly. In the end,
however, the commission produced a series of recommendations that could
not be right because the whole thing was flawed from the beginning.
They got the cart before the horse.
In the resolution before us today, we have the means to stop this
flawed and
[[Page 23985]]
dangerous process, and it is apparent that the commissioners knew that
they were not getting it right.
In the case of Fort Monmouth, for example, in their recommendations,
they charged Congress, not that they are able to charge Congress, but
nevertheless they did, to review their results with respect to Fort
Monmouth to say do not go ahead with them if it might hurt the
capabilities that we need to fight terrorism around the world, to
support our troops in the field and Iraq and Afghanistan. They actually
said that in their recommendations. They were acknowledging that they
were not getting it right, or at least they thought they might not be
getting it right.
They have got the cart before the horse. It is a flawed process. To
give us a chance, I will urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution
so that we can get it right. Our country's security depends on it.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton) for the opportunity to be heard.
After a series of hearings and debates today, the House will vote on
H.J. Res. 65, disapproving recommendation of the Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Commission. I stand here in opposition to that
resolution and support the BRAC process.
Since the Department of Defense released those dreaded base closure
recommendations on May 13, 2005, elected officials, community leaders,
and employees have come together to make the case for keeping their
respective facilities open.
I respect the BRAC process. I understand that it is necessary for the
Department of Defense to reconfigure its infrastructure into one where
operational and support capacity is optimized for both war-fighting
capability and efficiency. I also understand that the BRAC process
assists the Department in maximizing joint utilization of defense
resources and reallocates military personnel from supporting and
operating unnecessary and underutilized infrastructure. However, I
believe that the BRAC process should remain a fair process, allowing
for every facility to be evaluated in a clear and consistent manner.
Let me state that I am extremely pleased that on August 26, 2005, the
BRAC Commission decided not only to reverse its decision to close the
Defense Finance Accounting Service in Cleveland, Ohio, but to expand
and add jobs at this facility. This facility has earned the right to
remain open and continue to provide A-plus services to its executive
clients and, most importantly, the men and women serving in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world.
DFAS Cleveland is an integral part of the nerve center that supports
our troops on the ground in Iraq and worldwide. It is the homesite of
the Reserve pay center of excellence which processes payroll for the
Army, Air Force, Naval Reserves and National Guard. It has a track
record of innovation and success that has been recognized on more than
one occasion.
I thank the entire BRAC Commission, particularly Chairman Principi
and General Lloyd Newton, for their service. In addition, I would like
to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) who is seated on the
floor and his staff for all the work they did in supporting DFAS, as
well as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for his tireless
efforts.
Through our collaboration, we were able to outline to the commission
the various discrepancies in the initial recommendation and make a good
case for reversing the recommendation for removing the Cleveland DFAS
office.
I want to thank also the Cleveland Partnership and its membership.
Thanks to Carol Caruso behind the scenes and thanks to attorney Fred
Nance, the managing partner of Squires, Sanders and Dempsey, who argued
our case before the commission. He was brilliant.
Finally, I would like to say that this process has been a grueling
process. In the city of Cleveland, we have lost so many jobs over the
past 4 years. The thought that we would lose another 1,200 jobs if DFAS
moved was just grueling, and we are thankful for the commission's
recommendation. Again, I vehemently argue in opposition to H.J. Res. 65
and thank my colleagues for their support.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Colorado for the time.
First, let me thank the BRAC Commission head Anthony Principi and all
of the panel members for their hard work for listening to all of us,
both at the regional hearings and in person, and with the staff and the
Department of Defense who worked with so many of us in these very
difficult decisions.
I rise in opposition to my colleague from Illinois's resolution, but
I share some of his concerns. I would like to talk about a few of
these.
In the State of Indiana, the previous round of BRAC, I was
legislative director for the junior Senator from Indiana when we
watched all of our active military bases get wiped out in the State of
Indiana, one of the number one recruiting States in the United States.
My hometown in Fort Wayne, Indiana, is one of the major centers of
defense electronics in the United States with ITT Aerospace, with
Raytheon, Defense Electronics based there making many highly classified
electronics, defense systems, with General Dynamics with a huge
facility there, with BAE Systems with a huge facility there, with USSI
with a huge facility there, with Northrop Grumman with a large and
expanding facility there.
We have defense electronics and a very patriotic, one of the highest,
if not the highest, congressional districts in America in military
recruiting for Army, Navy, Air Force and all of the various Guard and
Reserve groups.
We have an Air Guard base there in Fort Wayne, Indiana, that is
gaining under this process. It was a very difficult process as to how
we deal with the Guard and particularly the Air Guard, and it was a
very stiff competition with the gentleman from Illinois' air base and
the air base in Terre Haute, and we can argue the relative merits.
What I heard at the hearing is, look, I am very proud of our Air
Guard. They are way over. They have the highest percent retention,
actually overretention at 116 percent of their recruiting quota. They
have won national outstanding unit award three times by the Air Force
and recipient of the National Guard number one Air Guard unit in the
United States.
But I also heard from the people in the capital region Air Guard unit
and the people in the Terre Haute Guard unit. In fact, they were all
high in recruitment, and they were all high in national awards.
{time} 1145
The problem is the Air Force is cutting. The F-16s are aging and
declining in quality and disappearing from our defense system, and the
Air Force plans are to reduce the number of fighter planes by two-
thirds. So where is this going to leave the Air Guard and the Reserve,
and how do we work this through when we head into a BRAC process? I am
very concerned where we are headed long term with this, not just this
BRAC process but the next BRAC process.
It is clear we are leaning heavily on Guard and Reserve. Are we going
to the point where Guard and Reserve and the Air Force are only going
to be at active bases, and where does that leave the heartland of the
United States as we move everything to the coast? Where does it leave
us in homeland security?
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) raised a very difficult and
interesting question that worked through the courts in this process,
that it is pretty clear that the Department of Defense cannot close an
Air Guard base, but they can move the airplanes. So we had one court
ruling in Pennsylvania that said they could not close the base, but we
have other rulings that said they could move the airplanes. What
exactly is the role of an Air Guard base if it does not have any
[[Page 23986]]
airplanes, and how are we going to work this through?
I believe there will be other types of defense systems in homeland
security that hopefully will be located in Terre Haute and will be
located in Springfield, Illinois, very important cities to homeland
security and our national defense. We have to work this through.
I believe the BRAC Commission made the right decisions, but this does
not necessarily give us much guidance as to where we are headed and how
we are going to integrate and maintain the defense structure we have in
the United States with our Air Guard, Army Guard, and all of our
Reserve units around the country if we do not have an adequate base
structure, if we do not have adequate training places and ways to do
this.
I hope we can find, in addition to the fighter planes that are
located in Fort Wayne, and the expansion of our base, for which I am
very thankful, ways to work with Springfield, Illinois, with Terre
Haute, Indiana, and other bases around the United States because we
need all of those pilots. We need all of those Guard and Reserve people
around the United States because we are strapped very thin. I hope this
BRAC Commission report, while I strongly support it, will also be a
launching point as to how we are going to work and build and keep this
very diverse Armed Forces system in the United States.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I come here today to praise the men and
women of the 118th Air Wing who fly out of Nashville, Tennessee. They
have been mistreated by this BRAC process. I do not blame the BRAC
Commission. I think the fault lies originally with the Pentagon
recommendation because they simply did not take into account one of the
best flying units in America. They are proven, they are ready, they
have performed valiantly every time the Nation has called them to
service. They have volunteered for extra duty. They fly C-130s. We
have, and we soon will miss, those eight C-130 airplanes.
The bottom line for the Pentagon decision, did it really have
anything to do with military judgment for value or cost savings? No.
What did it have to do with? A political calculation on the part of the
Pentagon that because Tennessee had a great air unit in Memphis with C-
5s and a great air unit in Knoxville with KC-135s, that therefore,
Nashville had to lose one of the best Air Guard units in the country.
Now, they did not close down our base entirely; they did not have the
temerity to do that, but they took all our aircraft. They took the
``air'' out of the Air National Guard in Nashville, Tennessee.
Now, Members might say, well, I am just protecting a local interest.
Look at the facts. First they came at us with wrong data because the
Air Guard unit there does not own the runways; we only lease them from
a fine commercial airport. We got no credit for that. So we addressed
that problem.
Then they did not take into account the fact that we had some of the
newest and best facilities in all of our military, the number one best
hangar in America, brand new, barely opened, and it will probably never
see an airplane. It won the top Air Force award for best hangar in the
country, so why did American taxpayers pay $55 million for that hangar
never to see it used?
Guess what, almost every other facility on that base is less than 2
years old, and we are taking away all of the aircraft. How does that
make sense? It only makes sense if you look at the politics. Tennessee
had three bases; they wanted to cut us down to two and distribute it
more evenly around the country. So they can take our airplanes, are
they going to train the new air crews at these other bases? Are they
going to build them brand new and wonderful facilities and hangars?
Will that save the American taxpayer money when we already had one of
the top units in the country in Nashville performing perfectly?
If you ask Secretary Rumsfeld, he knows about the men and women from
Nashville who have flown him wherever he needed to go, in the Middle
East or other places in the world.
So I am in an ironic situation. I believe in the BRAC process. I do
think Congress needs a restraint. We cannot just all protect our local
bases, but the Pentagon's recommendation has to be based on sound
military judgment, and at least in this one small case, it was not.
Unfortunately, the BRAC commissioners did not have the temerity to
override in this case, at least, the Pentagon recommendation.
If Members talk to top folks in the Pentagon, they will tell you that
from the expected savings from the BRAC round, they are virtually gone,
because the BRAC Commission did interfere in a lot of other bases, and
some services, so 70 to 80 percent of the expected savings are not
there. I think history will chalk this up as a failed BRAC round, not
because of Nashville but because of larger issues.
So I hope and pray that when the next BRAC round comes around, we
will do a better job starting with the Pentagon and through the BRAC
Commission.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of H.J. Res. 65, which would
reject the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission.
As a member of the House Armed Services Committee I initially
supported the BRAC process. It is very important that the composition
of our bases and infrastructure support the operational needs of the
21st century--a century that is emerging to be as dangerous and
challenging as the 20th century. We must adapt to new threats and
challenges. But our decisions concerning future base structure must be
based on what best supports the national security of the United States.
The BRAC decisions regarding the Air National Guard do not meet this
test.
Consequently, I disagree with the Department of Defense's
recommendations concerning the Air National Guard. Our citizen soldiers
of the Air National Guard are a critical part of our defense structure.
They have done heroic work since 9-11. We simply would not have been
able to sustain the current pace of our operations without the Air
National Guard.
The Air Force BRAC recommendations failed to fully consider the
unique capabilities and civilian-military partnerships of many of our
Air Guard facilities and the legitimate recruiting, training and
retention concerns of the state adjutants. Moreover, the BRAC analysis
did not address the potential impact of realignments on State homeland
security missions. These ill considered recommendations generated
almost unanimous opposition from State Adjutants. Despite the efforts
of the commission, this entire process has done great harm to the vital
relationships between the Air National Guard and the Air Force. This
harms our national security.
Let me briefly discuss these flaws using the 118th Air Wing (AW)
stationed in Nashville as an example. The decision regarding the
realignment of the 118th AW, one of the premier C130H flying units in
the United States, illustrates the nature of the flawed recommendations
that grew out of a closed process.
First, the loss of aircraft from the Air National Guard and the
movement of aircraft to fewer sites will have negative impact of the
retention of our most experienced air crews and maintenance personnel.
Unlike active duty airmen and pilots, Air National Guard personnel do
not just pack up and relocate with their aircraft. It is highly
unlikely that the majority of the 118th AW's highly experienced pilots
and maintenance personnel will move with the C130H aircraft to new base
locations.
Next, consider the airmen and airwomen left behind in enclaves. The
realignment of the 118th and many similar units across the country
essentially takes the ``air'' out of Air National Guard. Attracting and
retaining highly motivated young men and women for a placeholder
organization with no real mission will be difficult, if not impossible.
Third, rebuilding the deep operational experience and cohesion of
units like the 118th AW, forged through multiple deployments and
demanding combat missions that have continued through the rescue and
recovery efforts associated with Hurricane Katrina will require many,
many years. The direct and indirect personnel costs of realigning units
like the 118th AW do not appear to have been considered in the BRAC
process. It takes time and money to recruit, train and develop
experienced pilots and co-pilots and highly skilled maintenance and
support personnel. Indeed, duplicating the skill, experience and
dedication of the 118th AW may be impossible.
Fourth, it appears that the Air Force failed to fully consider the
military value of the Air National Guard facilities under
consideration. For example, in Nashville, we have spent over $55
[[Page 23987]]
million over the last five years on military construction to include a
new state of the art hangar/maintenance complex that won an Air Force
design award. Yet it appears much of this new construction was not
considered in the evaluation of the 118th AW's ``Military Value.''
Consequently, these excellent facilities will remain in limbo--neither
closed nor fully operational. Where is the efficiency, cost savings or
operational advantage in this arrangement?
Finally, the overall BRAC savings are minimal. According to the Base
Closure and Realignment Commission, the Department of Defense claimed
that their recommendations would save $47.8 billion over twenty years.
The Commission concluded that once one time up-front costs of $21
billion are subtracted and personnel costs are accurately calculated
the total savings to the American taxpayer will only be $15 billion.
This figure is likely high because costs for the retraining of pilots,
air crews and mechanics are not factored into the up-front costs. This
is extraordinary.
Consequently, I have concluded that the marginal fiscal benefits of
these recommendations do not out-weigh the costs to our Air National
Guard flying formations and our national security. I will vote ``yes''
on H.J. Res. 65.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this resolution
because I believe the BRAC Commission has performed its job admirably.
It wisely chose to remove from the closure list the Defense Finance and
Accounting Services in Cleveland which was scheduled to lose 1,028
jobs. This came after a very strong community effort in Cleveland that
was led by the Greater Cleveland Partnership and attorney Fred Nance,
whose brilliant presentation at the BRAC Commission hearing was quite
persuasive.
It also came as a result of work that was done by our colleague from
Ohio (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Ohio has demonstrated that a
bipartisan cooperation and partnership can be quite successful in
helping to strengthen a community's economic position.
We worked together, along with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs.
Jones), other Federal officials, and local officials to ensure that we
made the best case possible as to why the people who do an admirable
service at DFAS in Cleveland should be permitted to continue doing
their work.
The 2005 Department of Defense recommendations put on the BRAC
closure list inappropriately the Cleveland area, and they targeted
Cleveland with over 1,000 job cuts. We made the case that those
potential job losses were unjust and unfair and counterproductive to
the interest of our Federal Government. The BRAC Commission reversal
wound up adding 475 jobs, in addition to saving the current jobs. This
means Cleveland will host 1,500 DFAS jobs and continue to be a major
financial center for the Department of Defense.
The BRAC Commission showed independence from the Pentagon, which is a
rare feat in Washington, D.C. and Cleveland is grateful for their
independence. This shows all of us why independence in our government's
decision-making process is a crucial ingredient to ensure that the
right decisions are made. This is another opportunity to move our great
city off the list of cities with the highest poverty rate. The
commission accepted the argument that the Pentagon should not move jobs
from Cleveland, a city with one of the highest poverty rates in the
Nation, to other cities which ranked much lower in poverty.
So in all, I believe that the BRAC recommendations represented a very
thoughtful, well-reasoned set of recommendations. I was honored to have
the opportunity to participate and actually see the process at work,
and I was also honored to work closely with my colleagues from the
House of Representatives, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
In one of the few times since 1995 when we arrived in the House
together, I am going to disagree with the gentleman from Illinois and
will vote against this resolution today.
I want to talk a little bit about the Cleveland experience and then
the process and how we moved forward, which has been addressed by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs.
Jones).
I understand why the gentleman from Illinois has brought this
resolution here today because I remember the shudder that can go
through a community when 1,200 jobs are being discussed, in some cases
more, some cases less. In Cleveland's case, they were jobs that pay an
average of $54,000 a year. You are not just talking about the loss of
the tax base. You are also talking about individuals who have made
lives, whether it be in Cleveland, Indiana, Colorado, Missouri or other
parts of the country.
I had one grandmother who came up to me in Lake County, Ohio, after
the decision was made to keep the facility open in Cleveland, and she
said I want to thank you because it means my grandchildren will not be
going to some faraway place. I can understand the shudder, and as the
gentleman from Colorado said, maybe we should reexamine how we engage
in this. But I want to talk about the process.
The process, although it was nerve-racking, was also healthy. It was
healthy because it gave me the opportunity to work together with the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich). I am Republican and they are Democrats, and we all put our
shoulders to the same wheel to get the same result. It was good to see
the labor community and the business community in Cleveland all come
together, because sometimes they have disagreements. It was encouraging
to see the leadership of the city of Cleveland come together, with
Mayor Campbell and others all working towards achieving this result.
From bad news, good news took place.
But as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) said, it was not
because the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and I are so powerful. This was a process done on
facts. Anthony Principi and the BRAC commissioners and the professional
staff, and hats off to Marilyn Wasleski in particular, they took the
time to look at the numbers and figure out that when the Pentagon came
up with its original proposal, they had the numbers wrong. Just one
small example: they overvalued the square footage that was being paid
to the General Services Administration so Cleveland did not score as
well.
It would have been easy to say we are not going to pay attention to
that, but the BRAC commissioners paid attention. They paid attention to
the arguments and observations; and at the end of the day, Cleveland
did not win because Cleveland had more political muscle, Cleveland won
on the facts and on objective standards.
Another thing that impressed me, the BRAC Commission not only looked
at the numbers, they looked at the human cost. They considered the
value of the 1,100 people that work in that building, the Celebrezze
Federal building in the city of Cleveland, and they said to those
Federal employees, you have value, you have worth. They recognized what
they have accomplished in becoming centers of excellence, and they were
rewarded for that. That is exactly what we would want to encourage.
The last thing I want to say, we have some force protection issues,
antiterrorism protection for Federal properties are coming up in 2009.
I understand that when it comes to the men and women who are serving in
the active military, but the Cleveland facility is made up primarily of
accountants. And I want to protect our men and women in uniform, but
the folks in the Cleveland building are accountants, by and large. And
I try to read all of the chatter from al Qaeda and everywhere else, and
I do not hear a lot of chatter about taking out the accountants. I
would argue that our civilian Department of Defense employees are
[[Page 23988]]
valuable, but they are no more valuable than the people who work for
the Social Security Administration or the U.S. Marshal's Office. Before
we make sure that we fortify and penetrate all of these buildings for
DOD civilian employees' work, we should look at force protection for
everybody who works for the Federal Government.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Udall).
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the
gentleman from Illinois for introducing this resolution. I will be
voting today in favor of H.J. Res. 65 because I believe the BRAC
Commission's recommendations should be overturned. I commend the
commission for their thorough and diligent work. They certainly had a
very difficult job.
{time} 1200
However, I believe that now is not the time to implement a BRAC
round, considering the number of operations our armed services are
currently engaged in around the world. I have great concern about the
Pentagon's ability to adequately assess our needs and assets while
there are so many soldiers abroad and while the Pentagon awaits the
results of the Quadrennial Review.
I am also concerned about the Commission's recommendation to place
Cannon Air Force Base in enclave status. This decision places Cannon in
enclave status until 2009, or until a new mission can be identified for
the base. I do view this recommendation as a partial victory for New
Mexico since the Department of Defense initially slated Cannon for
closure, but I firmly believe that Cannon should simply have been
removed from the list altogether.
Cannon offers the Air Force and its pilots unrestricted airspace and
training ranges just off its runways. This is a rarity in today's Air
Force, as more bases experience increasing encroachment. This
unparalleled airspace is in the process of being expanded, making the
base even more valuable. When approved, the New Mexico Training Range
Initiative would make Cannon's airspace wider and taller and allow for
training at supersonic air speed.
I strongly believe we will be able to identify appropriate missions
for Cannon Air Force Base to minimize the amount of time during which
the base will remain in enclave status. Nevertheless, Cannon is too
important to our national defense for it to be placed in enclave
status.
I urge passage of H.J. Res. 65.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy
in permitting me to speak against this resolution. I understand the
frustrations that have been expressed by some of our colleagues here on
the floor about the BRAC safety valve. I understand their frustration.
We were in the crosshairs in my community, and some of the issues that
were raised earlier about the friction within the Pentagon, the
inability to appropriately focus on the value of the Air Guard and
there were some other issues that were at work here. I think this
process is helping.
I appreciate the debate here on the floor. I hope that we are able to
further clarify the role that the Guard, especially the Air Guard and
Ready Reserve, play as opposed to the Pentagon.
The BRAC process in our case allowed us to make the case. We pulled
together as a community. We were able to document that the transfer of
the Air Guard actually would end up costing the taxpayer money, and we
were able to demonstrate that it would leave a whole sector of the
Northwest United States vulnerable, taking away critical air support
that has loomed larger as we deal with the role of homeland security in
our national defense.
I would hope that our friends on the Armed Services Committee would
focus on adjustments that may need to be made to the BRAC process to
allow a higher priority attached to homeland security in these
decisions in the future. It was not as clear when the BRAC legislation
was enacted almost 20 years ago. I think things have shifted. I think
it is time to readjust it.
I would also hope that this would be an opportunity for us to focus
on what we are leaving communities with after the bases are closed. I
have come to the floor pleading for more support from Appropriations
and more attention from the Armed Services Committee to unexploded
ordnance and military toxins.
The problem we are facing right now, after the 1988 BRAC process, we
still have a dozen communities where they have not finished cleaning up
those bases. Indeed, the Mather Air Force Base in California, in
Sacramento, closed in 1988. The cleanup is not going to be completed
until 2072. That is not fair to communities where bases are closed.
While I support the BRAC process, I oppose the resolution. I think,
in the main, BRAC has worked. I hope we are able to clarify the role of
the Guard and the Ready Reserve as it relates to national security.
I do hope this is a wake-up call to what we are leaving communities
with, and we can accelerate the cleanup process.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Evans) who represents one of the largest military
installations in our State.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.J. Res. 65. I
totally disagree with the Base Realignment and Closure Commission's
decision pertaining to Rock Island Arsenal and other key installations
across the Nation, including Springfield Air Base as well.
The BRAC process is seriously flawed. Both the Department of Defense
and the BRAC Commission failed to follow the criteria established by
Congress to base its decisions on military values and cost savings. I
expected the DOD and the Commission to follow the criteria outlined in
the BRAC legislation. It failed to do so.
The BRAC Commission stated it will actually cost the American
taxpayer with no further expectation of future savings. The government
will never receive a financial payback from this move.
The BRAC Commission recommended realignment of installations in the
17th Congressional District of Illinois, but failed to base its
decision on military value criteria. Rock Island DFAS was rated number
one in military value, but the Commission recommended consolidation at
facilities rated substantially below Rock Island: Columbus, 7;
Indianapolis, 9; Cleveland, 12; Limestone, 17; Rome 19.
The BRAC decisions regarding not only bases in Illinois, but
throughout the Nation, are extremely frustrating because the Commission
recognized the military value and cost savings provided streamlining of
bases already undertaken on a local level.
I am a former marine, and I will not surrender this fight to save
jobs at the Rock Island Arsenal. I will continue to work with the Quad
City Development Group and local officials to strengthen the arsenal
and to bring more jobs to the island.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Peoria, Illinois who
has done an outstanding job in fighting this battle. I look forward to
working with him on the cleanup of this process and hope that we do not
have to go through it again. I appreciate his leading the charge on
this bill today.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, there is no shortage of valid complaints to
be made of this round of the Defense Base Realignment and Closure
Commission's work. I generally support the BRAC process. But what is
important about the BRAC process is the process and how it is handled
by the Commission itself. I feel that insufficient attention was paid
to the role each individual base played in the United States national
security, and, more importantly, the homeland security.
The recommendations seem to be based much more on bean counting than
strategic value, nowhere more so
[[Page 23989]]
than in the case of Ellington Field in Houston, Texas. Ellington Field
is currently home to the Texas Air National Guard's 147th Fighter Wing,
who just got back from Iraq and showed themselves to be exemplary not
just in their efforts before going to Iraq, but in Iraq itself. They
were absolutely exemplary in their efforts and in their service. We
appreciate them in everything that they do.
But Ellington is also home to several other branches and resources of
our armed services, all of whom are responsible for the protection of
the entire gulf coast. Its national and homeland security facilities
should be plain to anyone as in need of more personnel, greater
maintenance and better military assets.
Yet the BRAC Commission has chosen to realign Ellington, removing its
F-16 Fighter Wing and leaving the gulf coast, to my mind, in many ways
more vulnerable than it is now. The Houston-Galveston region has all
nine of the FBI targets. It is the only region in the entire United
States that has all nine of those targets.
The Commission's Ellington decision was a bad one. I join with the
proponents of this resolution and, for that matter, the two BRAC
Commissions, including Chairman Principi who voted to save Ellington,
in their frustration. The flawed methodology and dangerous implications
of the Commission's work, particularly with regard to the Ellington
Field decision, leave me no choice but to oppose the BRAC
recommendations and support the resolution before us.
We should all support the work of the BRAC Commission to consolidate
and improve the alignment of our military assets to strengthen our
national security. This round of recommendations, in my view, does not
accomplish that goal. I will continue to work on behalf of Ellington
Field and to ensure national and homeland security interests of the
gulf coast region.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to follow my
neighbor from Texas (Mr. DeLay). Ellington is in his district, but I am
the next closest Member.
I rise to express my disapproval for the recommendations of the
Defense Base Realignment and Closure and urge my colleagues to support
the gentleman from Illinois' resolution, of which I am a proud
cosponsor. This is the most ill-advised, ill-timed round in base
closure history. We currently have men and women fighting in two
countries, and we passed three large supplemental requests, and the
fourth likely in the next few months. We are in the process of closing
bases overseas and bringing them home. Given these uncertainties, we
cannot know what our base needs or our threat needs will be for the
next 5, 10 or 20 years.
Ellington is home to the 147th Air National Guard Wing, Texas Air
National Guard Wing. Houston is the fourth largest city in our Nation.
It is our home and has a huge petrochemical complex that accounts for
nearly half of the Nation's base petrochemical production. The Houston
ship channel in the Port of Houston handled more foreign tonnage than
any other port. We have the Texas Medical Center and NASA's Johnson
Space Center. One of the most vulnerable targets in the area is the
petrochemical complex, along with these other assets. Yet the base
closure commission on a close vote decided to close Ellington.
Now, what they are doing is they are saying that we are going to
provide service from San Antonio, Texas. The problem is that is 23
minutes away. As we know, an airborne attack on a refinery complex
could seriously disrupt our Nation's energy supply, causing major
nationwide economic impacts. An attack on a chemical plant could result
in a hazardous release and thousands of casualties.
Currently our 147th Air Wing provides air security in the area, and
the solution from the Pentagon is rotating several planes to fly on
alert out of Ellington, which provides a much smaller deterrent than
having a full squadron. What would happen if we had multiple planes
that are attacking different facilities?
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my disapproval with the
recommendations made by the Defense Base Realignment and Closure
Commission, and to urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
This is the most ill-advised and ill-timed round in the history of
Base Realignments and Closures. We currently have men and women
fighting in two countries, we have passed three of the largest
supplemental requests in our Nation's history with a fourth likely in
the next several months, and we are in the process of closing bases
overseas and bringing troops home.
Given these uncertainties, we cannot begin to know what our basing
needs will be 5, 10, or 20 years down the road. However, instead of
postponing this round of closures for 2 or 3 years like many members of
the House and Senate supported, one of the most contentious rounds of
BRAC was pushed through.
Like many other communities across the country, the district I
represent was affected by the Defense Department's plan to consolidate
Air National Guard units, leaving one of the largest metropolitan areas
in the country less prepared to respond to a terrorist attack.
Houston is the fourth largest city in the Nation, and is home to a
petrochemical complex that accounts for nearly half of the Nation's
base petrochemical production capacity. The Houston shipping channel
and the Port of Houston handle more foreign tonnage than any other U.S.
port. Also, we have NASA's Johnson Space Center, and the Texas Medical
Center.
One of the most vulnerable targets in the area, and possibly the
country, is the petrochemical complex; a tremendous complex that
stretches the length of the Houston Ship Channel and continues along
the coast through Beaumont, Texas. We have seen in the aftermath of
Katrina and Rita the negative effects caused by disruptions in our oil
supply and refining capacity, and leaving this area unprotected is
leaving the door open to a terrorist attack on this critical
infrastructure.
The Port of Houston is the second largest petrochemical complex in
the world, and the largest in the Western Hemisphere, which produces
over 35 percent of the Nation's gasoline at a great many refineries.
Numerous chemical plants also line the channel, producing a number of
volatile compounds. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, 7,600 deep draft
vessels arrive each year, and 60 percent of those ships carry sensitive
oil/chemical cargos.
An airborne attack on the refinery chemical complex could seriously
disrupt the Nation's energy supply, causing major nation-wide economic
impacts. An attack on a chemical plant could result in a hazardous
release with thousands of casualties.
Currently the 147th Fighter Wing of the Texas Air National Guard
provides air security in the area and could respond to a threat on the
complex or at the port in minutes because of the close proximity.
Rotating several planes to fly on alert out of Ellington, provides a
much smaller deterrent than having a full squadron permanently
stationed there, and would not provide enough planes to respond to
multiple attacks on multiple targets in the area.
Meanwhile the closest full squadron would be in San Antonio, and
would take approximately 23 minutes longer to respond to a threat than
the F-16s at Ellington can currently provide.
In addition to providing security for the Houston area, the 147th is
capable of providing precision strikes, close air support, offensive
counter air, defensive counter air, and suppression of enemy air
defenses.
The area around Ellington also provides the 147th with excellent
training airspace, including over-water air-to-air training on the Gulf
of Mexico allowing them to perform supersonic flights and lights out
training from the surface to 50,000 feet.
Terrorists have proven their intent and capability to attack ground
targets with multiple aircraft and retiring the 147th Fighter Wing's F-
16s leaves Houston vulnerable to an attack.
The savings estimated in the DoD's BRAC report are minimal and do not
justify moving the F-16s away from Ellington; while it is estimated
that retiring the F-16s will save DoD $3.6 million over 20 years, an
attack on any of the possible targets listed above, especially the
petrochemical facilities and Port of Houston, would cost our national
economy billions of dollars.
Mr. Chairman, this round of BRAC is ill-advised and ill-timed and I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hobson).
[[Page 23990]]
{time} 1215
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in support of this
motion. I have always supported the BRAC. I have been here through
three of these, and I always thought they were well reasoned before,
win, lose or draw; and by the standards of win, lose or draw, I
probably came out okay in a lot of ways in this, because four out of
five facilities in my area did well. The Army did well in this BRAC.
But I always thought the BRAC was based upon numbers and savings and
mission, and suddenly I find out that is not true. I am going to read
something here in a minute about that. That is what troubles me in this
one, because the Air Force set out on a plan to arrive at a number, and
they destroyed, in my opinion, much of what one of their components
does best, and that is the Air National Guard.
Let me give you an example. At Mansfield, Ohio, they realigned the
base. ``Realignment'' means you do not technically get BRAC'ed, but you
get no airplanes, so you have to find something else to do. Let me tell
you, the soldiers that were in the Dome shortly after Katrina were Ohio
Army Guardsmen. They were flown there in 130s out of Mansfield. The
soldiers that were in Mississippi from Ohio were flown down by 130s
from Mansfield. The soldiers that were in Texas from Ohio were flown in
by 130s from Mansfield.
When BRAC gets done, there are not any airplanes at Mansfield. So how
many days are we going to wait to come in and pick those people up and
bring them down? Because we have still got a large Army Guard that can
perform, and they have shown they can perform; but 2 years from now,
that is not going to happen. That does not look smart to me.
If you look at the chart that shows the support in the hurricane by
the Air National Guard, it is far superior to what the Air Reserve did
or especially the active duty in response to these hurricanes. That is
not going to be there 2 years from now.
Now, closer to home, my Springfield Air National Guard Base. It is a
training base. I did not ask to do this mission. The Air Guard and the
Air Force came to me and said, We screwed up. We have closed much of
our flight training. We need another place to do this. Will your State
take this on? My State said it will.
They came to me, I was chairman of the MILCON, if you wonder how they
came to me. They said, Will you take this on at your Springfield F-16
base? We saluted and said, Yes, sir, we will do it.
We put in over $85 million to make this a first-class flight school.
We have not even opened the $8.5 million tower yet. We just finished
the fire station. We put in a $10 million pad. And what do we find out?
We are being realigned. ``Realigned'' means you lose your airplanes;
you lose your mission. What are we going to do? Now I find out there is
another mission available for flight school, but they want to take it
and possibly put it in another place, someplace else, and spend the
money again and take these airplanes.
Let me tell you what the Commission's findings were regarding
Springfield Air National Guard Base. I am upset because they always did
this by the numbers in the past. This was not done by the numbers, and
that is why I am so infuriated about what happened, because I do not
mind a fair fight.
We thought we had this won, until the Air Force went to the
commissioners at the last moment and said, Hey, you have got to change
this, because they were going in the right direction the day before.
The next day when they got up, I knew we were dead.
Let me read the commission findings: ``The commission found that the
Department of Defense recommendation to realign Springfield-Beckley
Municipal Airport Air Guard Station should be supported even though the
military value criteria were flawed and the realignment will be a cost
instead of a savings to the Department.''
I mean, give me a break. It is flawed and there is no savings; but,
by the way, the mission is going away, and we are not going to train
these pilots. This place is training pilots better than they were
expected to do and more than they were expected to do, and yet it is
being realigned. The airplanes are gone. If we are going to do this
this way, this is wrong and we have to stand up and say it is wrong.
I think this happened in more instances than just mine, and that is
why I am so upset about the way this was done. It was not done by the
numbers; it was done to drive to a number that the Air Force had to get
to to save some airplanes like the F-22 and some other things.
So I am just hoping the people will vote in support of the
resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this resolution of disapproval
on the Base Realignment and Closure Commission's (BRAC) recommendations
that are now before Congress. This is not a decision that I have come
to lightly. During this latest BRAC round, there were several
recommendations made that will benefit the State of Ohio and the 7th
Congressional District that I represent. However, I cannot in good
conscience accept a process that was fundamentally flawed and very
unfair in the decisions made with regard to our country's National
Guard and Reserve.
I represent four military bases, including the Springfield Air
National Guard Base (ANG), the Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC),
Wright Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), and Rickenbacker International
Airport. Each of these military installations has an exceptional
workforce dedicated to the military missions assigned to them, whether
it is logistical support for deployed troops, research and development,
or pilot training.
Mr. Chairman, this is the third BRAC round that I have been through,
so I understand the importance of community leaders and base officials
doing the homework necessary to define the installation's military
value, and the potential economic impact this process will have on
communities where bases are located. During this latest round, I would
argue that Ohio had some of the most hardworking and competent
individuals working on behalf of our State's installations.
We testified at hearings in Buffalo and Washington, DC, and briefed
BRAC Commissioners and staff during site visits to DSCC in Columbus and
to Wright-Patterson. We also worked together in reviewing the numbers
used by the Pentagon in making their BRAC recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, I think that I can speak for other delegations when
stating that our efforts in getting information from the Air Force
during this BRAC round did not start well. When we requested material
on how they came to their recommendations, we didn't receive it for
weeks. And when we did receive the data, it was inaccurate.
As I've already stated, I was very disappointed by the DOD and BRAC
Commission's final recommendations with regard to the Air National
Guard. This was especially true regarding their recommendations to
redistribute the 178th Fighter Wing F-16 aircraft from the Springfield
Air National Guard Base.
I have said all along that if the BRAC process had been fair and done
``by the numbers'', that I would accept the outcome, even if I didn't
like it. But unfortunately, this was not the case.
First of all, the BRAC analysis material stated there is only one F-
16 Formal Training Unit in the Air National Guard. This is wrong! There
are two Air National Guard F-16 Formal Training Units, and one of them
is at the Springfield ANG Base.
Second, I was asked several years ago if I would support Springfield
taking on this training mission that would require specialized
infrastructure to support it. I was the Chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee for Military Construction at the time, and I agreed to
support the Air Force in this effort. More than $75 million in federal
funding has been invested in the Springfield base to support its F-16
training mission. Over the years, we have put in a new ramp to
accommodate the plane, a flight simulator, a dining hall, an operations
building, and a new control tower that is still under construction.
Some of these assets are only now becoming operational.
Third, everyone agrees there are no cost savings achieved by
realigning the Springfield ANG Base. In fact, the commission actually
concluded in its report that DOD's ``recommendation to realign the
Springfield base should be supported even though the military value
criteria were flawed and the realignment will be a cost instead of
savings to the Pentagon.''
Fourth, the Air Force lacks sufficient training capacity for F-16
pilots. If we further reduce this capacity through this proposed
realignment, it even further diminishes this capability, especially
since this unit is the highest F-16
[[Page 23991]]
pilot production unit in the Guard. The BRAC analysis on Springfield
shows that operational personnel will begin to leave the base in 2007,
while there are student pilots scheduled for training in 2008.
Mr. Chairman, there is also the issue of homeland security. Like some
of my colleagues, I think it is fair for us to consider what these BRAC
recommendations will mean for the future of the National Guard in
responding to emergency situations. As we saw in the days following the
recent hurricanes in the gulf coast region and on 9/11, the Air
National Guard was a critical resource in transporting troops, supplies
and protection. For example, the Mansfield, Ohio-based 179th Airlift
Wing flew over 50 missions in support of Hurricane Katrina relief
efforts. Yet, homeland security did not appear to be a major part of
this BRAC process.
Overall, I was very disappointed in the process by which the Air
National Guard decisions were made, particularly the flaws in the Air
Force analysis. These flaws run throughout the entire BRAC process,
from the consolidation of aircraft models, and the so-called right
sizing of operations, to the poor or nonexistent analysis of the cost
to replace the people from the locations that are being set aside. This
doesn't even consider the recruiting and retention issues that we
already face. And, it doesn't speak to the cost of personnel training
to recreate this capability, and the loss of experience that will occur
by the Air Force plans.
Finally, I was dismayed that there was absolutely no discussion by
the BRAC commissioners or staff regarding the National Guard
recommendations during the final considerations on August 26th. Until
then, there was much talk about the lack of consultation and the
quality of the recommendations by the Air Force throughout this BRAC
round. There was even the suggestion that the entire set should have
been thrown out by the BRAC commission.
On the day the BRAC Commission upheld their recommendation to realign
the Springfield Air National Guard Base, I wrote a letter to each BRAC
Commissioner to express my disappointment with the way they handled
decisions regarding the National Guard. I pointed out that there was no
discussion when, by the numbers, we had demonstrated the flaws in the
Pentagon's proposal. I also asked for an explanation on how the
commissioners arrived at their decision, and I received no answer.
Finally, in early September, I wrote to the President requesting the
same information, and for his consideration to send the recommendations
impacting the Air National Guard back to the BRAC Commission with
instructions to use programmatic changes to reshape our state militia
forces. Unfortunately, for the men and women in the Guard and Reserve,
I am still waiting for a reply.
As I stated before, opposing the BRAC recommendations was not an easy
decision. Overall, Ohio faired well during the commission's final
proceedings. Wright-Patterson will keep over 2,000 information and
technology jobs that were to be transferred to Hanscom, Massachusetts,
and it will also keep a first-class post-graduate program known as the
Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT). In Columbus, the Defense
Supply Center will maintain its 6,000 jobs, and is scheduled to receive
many high-paying jobs.
But, Mr. Chairman, I think that in the years to come when the
recommendations regarding the Guard and Reserve are set in motion,
people will realize that this latest BRAC round was flawed, and
consequently the wrong thing to do. It is for these reasons that I will
stand here today and support this resolution to overturn the 2005 BRAC
recommendations.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I have come to the same
conclusion as the great gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson). I have just
probably been at it longer. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution
gives Congress the responsibility to provide for the national defense.
It does not make us generals; it does not make us admirals. We do not
tell admirals how to sink ships; we do not tell generals how to takes
hills. We do, hopefully, provide sound business decisions for them.
The whole concept of BRAC is taking that decision-making process away
from the people who begged for the job and were given the job by the
citizens and delegating it to some other people. I did not run for
Congress to delegate my responsibilities. I take them very seriously.
The service Secretaries would come before our committee, for years
they have come before our committee and said, We have too many bases.
Every single service Secretary. The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie) and I would respond to the service Secretaries, Name one
base that you want to close. Just one. The same service Secretaries who
said they wanted to cancel the Crusader, who said they wanted to cancel
the Arsenal ship, who wanted to cancel the Joint Strike Fighter, the
same guys who have no hesitation on canceling things and making tough
decisions, never named one base that they wanted to close.
We followed that up with a very simple question: In the three
previous rounds of BRAC, can you name one weapons system that you have
bought with those savings? Can you name one additional benefit that you
have given to the troops? Can you name one good thing that came out of
this? Never once could they answer that question.
You see, BRAC saves no money. What people miss in all of this is that
when a base is closed, the local communities then come to Congress, as
they should, and say, Look, you have just put all my folks out of work.
We at least want the property back. And in every instance Congress has
given that property back to the locals, so there is no savings of
selling off the property.
As a matter of fact, it gets worse, because our Nation has to live by
the same laws as everyone else. If an individual pollutes a piece of
property, they have to clean it up before they can sell it. To date,
our Nation has spent $15 billion cleaning up properties before we gave
them away.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) makes an excellent point: every
time you lose a base, you lose a capability. The worst of Hurricane
Katrina hit my congressional district. I was very fortunate to be
friends with Admiral Mullen, the Chief of Naval Operations. I was very
fortunate to be friends with General Steven Bloom, the head of the
National Guard Bureau. In my frantic calls to them in the aftermath of
the storm begging for their help, their first response was, Where can I
put my people? Name a barracks, name an airfield, name a place where I
can put my people so they can help the people of Mississippi.
Every time you lose a base, you lose a place to put those people in
the event weather, whether it is a tsunami in the Pacific, a hurricane
in Mississippi, a flood or earthquake on the west coast, a flood in the
Midwest, you lose a capability to help the American people.
We are at war. Goodness gracious, we have 140,000 Americans fighting
and dying in Iraq. We have another 20,000-plus in Afghanistan. Did
anyone see these wars coming? The truth of the matter is, in my time in
Congress we have had a war in Panama that no one saw coming, we have
had two wars in Iraq that we really did not see coming, we had a war in
Bosnia that no one saw coming. So when you close a base, you close it
forever and you lose that capability to respond to future
contingencies.
Above all, when some new weapons system comes along, you lose a place
to deploy it. Right now our Nation is buying 30,000 acres in North
Carolina, and some people in North Carolina think it is a great idea
and some people think it is a terrible idea. We are spending a heck of
a lot of your money buying land in North Carolina so we can build a
base to land F-18s, the newest version of the F-18, when they come off
the carriers.
Then we have to buy the land and build a runway. And everyone who has
served knows it does not end with the runway. You have to have a fire
station, barracks for the enlisted, barracks for the single guys,
family housing for the married folks, you have to have commissaries,
you have to have fun things for the guys to do when they are off duty,
because we are trying to attract young people like you to come serve
our country. All of these things cost money, and we are going to build
all these things in North Carolina at great expense to the public.
With you we already had all those things. We had all those things
that we are getting ready to buy and build in North Carolina in
Jacksonville, Florida. It was called Cecil Field. It had a 10,000-foot
runway and three 8,000-foot runways. It had an excellent quality of
[[Page 23992]]
life, and it was all paid for by the American taxpayer, and a previous
round of BRAC closed that.
So, please, proponents of this, tell me how we are saving the
taxpayers money, how we are making the Nation more secure, and, above
all, if the service Secretaries cannot name a single base that they
think is worthy of closing, why are we going to close so many bases in
one fell swoop?
We were elected to follow the Constitution. The Constitution clearly
gives Congress the responsibility to provide for the Army and the Navy.
Let us do our job and let us not hide behind some commission to do our
work for us. I urge Members to vote against the recommendations of this
commission.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for
his very articulate statement.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, let me say initially I do not believe in
the BRAC. I have opposed every BRAC initially from the very beginning,
and I have been here in Congress 18 years.
The reason I do not believe in BRAC was somewhat articulated by the
previous speaker. I think it is a abrogation of Congress'
responsibility. There is no reason why we cannot make these decisions,
and to give these decisions to an independent commission, I think, is
just a cop-out on our part. So I want to start out with that.
I also want to say in this particular round in 2005, I strongly
disapproved of the BRAC even more so than in the past because we are in
a war in Iraq. You do not shut down, in my opinion, military
infrastructure at a time of war. I think this BRAC in particular is
poorly timed and ill advised.
Now, the 2005 round of BRAC also was done hastily, in my opinion,
with very little regard to the actual warfighter. A number of bases
with great functional value are being shut down in the name of savings.
I do not believe anyone at the Department of Defense or any member of
the BRAC Commission actually believes that this round of BRAC will
actually save us any money, and I listened to many of the BRAC
hearings.
I am also truly disappointed because I believed that the BRAC
ultimately would try to be an independent broker and that the
commission would review each facility, analyze the data, and come to
conclusions based on facts. I do not think that was the case. The
opposite was the case. In the case of Fort Monmouth, which is the
installation near my district, a lot of the people employed there live
in my district. We successfully proved, myself, the two Senators and
several other Congressmen, including the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Holt), we successfully proved to the BRAC Commission, in my opinion,
that the Army substantially deviated from six of the eight BRAC
criteria. The BRAC actually said that, that the Pentagon deviated from
six of the eight BRAC criteria.
But, even so, even though the BRAC was supposedly an independent
commission tasked with ensuring that the DOD's recommendations would
not hurt the warfighter, even though they admitted there was a serious
concern about the warfighter and how in the days of Fort Monmouth the
communications and electronics functions crucial to Iraq might be
seriously hampered, they still decided to include it on the list.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Hawaii
(Mr. Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Look, we are down here on the floor, it is empty. Maybe some folks
are listening in their offices. I hope they are. I hope at least some
of the staff, some folks may be paying attention.
{time} 1230
Our problem here is very, very simple. Over and over again our
colleagues will say to us, well, I got out of this okay, or we have
resolved that issue. I am one of those folks. I can say that. I have
had people come up and say to me, well, why are you bothering? Pearl
Harbor made it out of there.
Why was it taken up in the first place? I will tell you why. It is
politics. This has nothing to do with whether or not there is some
rational process that has been undertaken, and everybody in here knows
it. For once, can we not come down on this floor and actually vote the
way all of us really understand where our responsibilities are?
Pearl Harbor got brought up for a very simple reason. They were going
to close a facility up in Maine, and the people in Maine in their panic
said, do not take us, take Pearl Harbor instead. They started comparing
some naval apples, some shipyard apples with some shipyard oranges, and
they came up with, well, go get Pearl Harbor. It had nothing to do with
it. I did not come back and say, no, no, no, not us; go back to Maine,
go get them. What kind of a process is that where we try to devour each
other? I said, let us keep all of them open. We need every shipyard
facility that we can get in this country.
We are going to be going back out to Guam soon because of what is
taking place in the Pacific right now, and having to recapitulate
everything that got put under the water out there in Guam, billions of
dollars is going to have to be put back into Guam in order for us to be
able to protect and project our strategic interests in the Pacific.
We are under a review right now in the Armed Services Committee, and
we do not even have the courage of our own convictions under our own
jurisdictions in our committees.
It is not that I am right or Mr. LaHood is right or Mr. Hobson is
wrong or right, or Mr. Taylor. That is not the issue. The issue is are
we meeting our responsibilities here? We are constantly admonished that
no sacrifice is too great. We are constantly admonished that we have to
honor the sacrifices that are being made by our fighting men and women
all over the world right now. Yet we cringe from our own
responsibilities as Members of Congress to meet those responsibilities
and obligations with regard to bases.
Now, I have been told over and over again, well, that is all well and
good, but people are going to come down here, and you are going to lose
anyway. It happens occasionally some people come down and say, you
know, I was going to vote the other way. Let us, for once, come down
here, and I make this appeal out there to anybody who is thinking about
coming to the floor. Vote for Mr. LaHood's recommendation.
We are not down here just to hear ourselves. When you come over here,
search your conscience, and, for once, let us live up to what people
expect of us in this Congress. For once let us not fulfill some
stereotype that we are just going to roll over because we managed to
make it out the door. That is not what we are here for.
If this is just a job to you, then do not run again. This is a
calling. This is a vocation. It is supposed to be. That is the way I
feel about it, and I know that is the way most Members feel about it.
They want to be able to look in the mirror at night and recognize
somebody with a little bit of integrity and walk into their homes
justified.
If we are going to justify our job, everybody knows in their heart
that we should not be voting for this, regardless of our good friends
being on it, like Mr. Hansen and Mr. Bilbray, for example, who are
colleagues and personal friends to many of us here. It is not a
question of whether they did their job or did not do their job; it is
whether we are doing our job, and we are meeting our obligations.
So I appeal to everybody on their way over here. Let us vote for Ray
LaHood's resolution, and let us do the right thing by ourselves and the
Nation.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong
support of the resolution and join the growing chorus of the Members of
Congress who are coming down to the floor today disappointed in the
recommendations of the Base Realignment Closure Commission.
I cannot understand why, in a time that we are fighting a global war
on
[[Page 23993]]
terror, a war where we are actively engaged on two fronts and obligated
to also increase domestic defense against terrorism here at home, the
Department of Defense has suggested, in fact recommended, that we close
bases across the Nation.
More troubling is the fact that the Department of Defense has moved
ahead in this BRAC round by applying a Cold War model to a post-Cold
War security environment. Remember, the Department of Homeland Security
has not been consulted, Mr. Chairman, on the impact these base closures
pose to our domestic security.
Mr. Chairman, the world has changed enormously since the last BRAC
round. Our threats are not static as they once were. Today we face an
asymmetric threat from an enemy that knows no borders nor rules of
warfare. The threat of international terrorism requires us to have the
best tools available to respond to threats on our allies, our
interests, and our homeland at a moment's notice, and I am afraid that
the current BRAC recommendations hamper our ability to do so.
Take, for instance, the recommendation that the largest joint reserve
base on the east coast should be closed. The Willow Grove Joint Reserve
Base directly borders my district in Pennsylvania. Hundreds of my
constituents rely on that base for their National Guard training.
Thousands of my constituents rely on the customer traffic the
servicemen and women stationed at Willow Grove provide for their local
businesses that surround the base. And, on a larger scale, both my
constituents and Americans from New York to Baltimore benefit from the
base's protection. Willow Grove's strategic position allows its air
assets to protect the ports of Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore.
It serves as a FEMA alternative site, providing a staging ground so
Federal resources can be distributed in the event of a natural disaster
or a terrorist attack.
Militarily the base has a great track record of achievement by
training combined arms jointly for over a decade, practically setting
the standard for interoperability between branches of the armed
services.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close. I have
no other speakers, and if these gentlemen are ready, when they finish,
I will close.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The Chair will recognize
for closing speeches in reverse order of opening. It will be the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
LaHood), and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself whatever time I have
remaining.
Mr. Chairman, let me just pick up on a couple of the people that have
spoken. I want to pick up on a point that Mr. DeLay made. He has an Air
Guard unit returning to Ellington Air Force Base to a slap in the face,
to essentially being told, you have done great work, thanks for what
you did in Iraq; oh, by the way, we are closing your base. Now, what
kind of a message is that? That was my point earlier on in my opening
statement. We owe it to the people.
I ask Members to consider this: To the people who are doing the hard
work in Iraq, the people that did the hard work in Afghanistan, this is
not the way to say to them, job well done. It is not the way to say to
them, you did a great job in standing up for democracy in Afghanistan
and doing the hard work in Iraq. And, oh, by the way, there is no base
to come back to, because your unit is being eliminated. Is that the
message we want to send to the people who do the hard work, to the
130,000, 140,000 people now serving in Iraq, the citizen soldiers that
have left their jobs and their families and left their communities? I
do not think so.
The point that Mr. Taylor made, why not give Congress the
responsibility, the Armed Services Committee the responsibility; why
lay it off on somebody else? We should not be doing that. This is our
responsibility. That is why we are elected, to make these decisions.
The report is flawed. You can say all you want about the great work
that was done. I know people that serve on the base closing commission,
and I know they spend a lot of time, but this work is flawed. This is a
flawed report. This is our opportunity in the House to speak up and
speak out. The Defense Department has had their say. The President had
his say. The BRAC Commission had their say. Now it is the House's turn
to say to the hard-working citizen soldiers, we appreciate your work,
we are going to stand with you, we are going to allow these bases to
remain open, we are going to vote for the resolution that says that
this BRAC should not stand, that these recommendations should not
stand. That is what the House should be saying today. I hope the
majority of Members will do that.
I mentioned earlier, there is a law on the books, passed by Congress,
that says that you cannot close air and Guard bases unless you get the
authority from the Governors. We even had a report from one of the
people that was working for BRAC that this law has standing. The BRAC
ignored this. The Defense Department has ignored us on this. We should
not be doing this. This is the wrong message. This is the wrong idea to
send to our country, to send to the people who are doing the work and
continue to do the work.
As I said earlier, I have supported the President and this
administration and the Secretary of Defense, who is a friend of mine
from Illinois, in everything they have wanted to do in Afghanistan and
Iraq. I know a lot of Members have. The majority of the membership of
this House has. Now we ought to say to them, we do not agree with your
recommendations. We do not agree that we should be realigning bases,
turning people away, turning out bases and shutting down bases where
the good work has been done.
So based on that argument, based on the flawed BRAC report, based on
a law that is on the books, a Federal law that says you cannot close
these air and Guard bases without the authority of the Governor, I ask
Members to speak up today, to be a voice for the people, to be a voice
for the military, to be a voice that says, this BRAC is not right, and
I urge Members to vote for the resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
Several Members have spoken eloquently about the fact that this is
our job. Mr. Taylor did an excellent job of that. Mr. Abercrombie did
an excellent job of that, that we ought to be making these decisions,
that we should not turn it over to a commission. I would agree with
that wholeheartedly, except this is a job that we simply cannot seem to
do.
We did not close a major base in this country from the 1970s until
the BRAC process began. I did not like supporting the BRAC process when
the BRAC process was first introduced, but I saw it as the only way
that we could ever deal with the question of excess inventory.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I might point out to the gentleman that we
in Congress did pass the basic BRAC law which we are following today.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the
gentleman that this Congress closed the naval station at Roosevelt
Roads without a BRAC.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we did, following the
introduction of the BRAC process, but we did close that. But we
basically do not have the power to do that, because if I have the power
to close Mr.
[[Page 23994]]
Skelton's base, he might vote to close my base, and we keep going
around the room like that, and we are unable to do it.
So the BRAC process has worked for better or for worse. I see both
sides of it. I chaired a committee that oversees the BRAC process. I do
not want any more BRAC processes like this. But I would remind my
colleagues again that if we vote for this resolution, and this
resolution passes today, and we turn down this BRAC process, we will be
back here in this room a year from now or 2 years from now, probably
more like a year from now, we will be back in this room dealing with
another BRAC process, and we will have the same arguments as we are
having here today.
Now, it may be different people. Maybe some of the people that are
dissatisfied today will be satisfied at the next round, but we would
all have to go through this again next year or the next. And we would,
all of our communities that have any base connected to them would have
to go through this again. I am not sure we would get any better
results, no matter what process we use, than we have today. Some would
be happy, some would be unhappy, some would complain, some would want
it to go just like it is. I think we would end up with the same kinds
of results as we have today.
So while I agree that this is not a perfect process, I do not think
we want to go through it again next year.
I would ask each of my colleagues to vote against this resolution,
and let us proceed to make the best we possibly can out of this for the
defense of this country.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Armed Services
Committee, I reluctantly support the BRAC recommendations today, and
oppose this motion of disapproval pending before the House.
I support these recommendations because I believe that the goals of
BRAC are worthy--to maximize warfighting capability and efficiency for
both traditional warfighting and counterterrorist efforts. An
integrated military force able to communicate and coordinate
effectively in response to conflict remains crucial to national
security and the war on terrorism.
I am concerned by technical errors and the overall process used by
the Pentagon and the Base Realignment and Closure--BRAC--Commission to
reach the recommendations before us this evening, and it is my hope
that in the future, significant improvements will be made on the
current model when realignment and closure decisions are made.
However, within the current model, there are some successes to which
we can point. For instance, the Pentagon and the BRAC Commission
rightly highlighted the key role that Hanscom Air Force Base, located
in my congressional district, plays in our national security efforts.
The process reaffirmed Hanscom's role as the military's pre-eminent
development center for communication and intelligence technologies.
Hanscom will clearly play a central role as we transform our military
in the coming decades.
In its decisions on Hanscom, the BRAC process recognized that the
success or failure of a base in fulfilling its mission relies on the
availability of skilled and experienced personnel and the connections
that develop in intellectual clusters.
Unfortunately, the Commission wrongly decided to move an estimated
200 jobs from Hanscom's Air Force Research Lab--AFRL--Space and Sensors
Directorates. Those functions are best left at Hanscom to maintain
existing synergies and human capital.
When the BRAC Commission held their New England Regional Hearing in
Boston on July 6, I submitted testimony to the commission arguing that
the decision to realign the AFRL at Hanscom was inconsistent with other
aspects of the Pentagon's analysis of Hanscom, and could disrupt key
programs operating there. I am deeply disappointed by the commission's
decision to move these Directorates from their home at Hanscom.
I am concerned that the recommendation to realign the AFRL did not
appropriately value the highly skilled workforce currently at these
facilities, and that the expertise of many of these employees will be
lost as the recommendations are implemented. The relocation of AFRL's
Sensors and Space Vehicles Directorates will result in significant
costs with few gains.
While I strongly protest this decision, I am pleased that overall,
the commission's recommendations on Hanscom reaffirmed the value of the
regional human capital capabilities in science and technology--and I am
encouraged by the commission's indication that the Air Force will look
to expand the mission at Hanscom outside of the BRAC process. I look
forward to working with the Air Force as this process takes shape.
With respect to the overall BRAC process, I am concerned by flaws in
the current model that led to a number of errors. For instance,
questions remain unanswered about the Pentagon's failure to consult
with State governors, State adjutants general, and the Department of
Homeland Security on decisions related to the National Guard and key
homeland security functions located outside the Pentagon's bureaucracy.
These questions resulted in lawsuits against the Pentagon and the BRAC
Commission by a number of States, including my home State of
Massachusetts.
Additionally, a lack of organization was evident during the
commission's consideration of the possible expansion of Hanscom, as
well as the commission's overall recommendations related to Otis Air
Force Base at Cape Cod.
While I support the 2005 BRAC recommendations, I am deeply concerned
that these types of errors set a bad precedent for future BRAC rounds.
The Pentagon must ensure that the Department of Homeland Security and
other relevant stakeholders are appropriately included in their
process, and that our Nation's homeland security needs are fully
evaluated.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Chairman, today, the House will likely vote not to
reject the recommendations of the Base Realignment and Closure
Commission, moving the BRAC process one step closer to an end. This has
been a very difficult BRAC round for the State of Maine. When the list
came out 5 months ago, all of Maine's three facilities were in great
jeopardy, and few believed that we had a chance of saving any of them.
But the entire delegation, the governor, and the communities came
together and presented the best possible arguments in all three cases,
and as a result, Maine did better than anyone thought we could. We
saved Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and in a victory that would have been
unthinkable only a few months before, we actually grew DFAS Limestone,
bringing jobs to an area that desperately needs them. These two actions
represent tremendous victories for the people of Maine.
I strongly disagree with the recommendation to close Naval Air
Station Brunswick. It was the wrong decision and I have fought it every
step of the way together with the whole Maine delegation.
Today's vote is difficult. I deeply believe that Naval Air Station
Brunswick should not be closed. Yet, when this process began, Maine
stood to loose everything, and now we have saved and expanded two of
the three endangered facilities. The likely alternatives for the State
were far worse. Indeed, if this resolution were to pass today and the
BRAC process were to be reopened from scratch, there would be no
guarantee of saving Brunswick, but Portsmouth could be closed and
Limestone with its planned increase in jobs could be lost. That is why
I am going to vote against the resolution to disapprove the BRAC list.
As we approach the end of this very difficult BRAC round, it is
important that we remain focused on promoting the best interests of the
entire State and that we continue to work as one Maine. I will do
whatever I can to make sure that we build upon the successes of saving
Portsmouth and growing DFAS Limestone, and that we make the best of a
difficult situation by enabling the Brunswick community to build a
bright future.
Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the base realignment
process is designed to provide a more efficient and effective military
structure. But, BRAC 2005 failed to meet these goals and that is why I
will vote against implementing the recommendations of the Department of
Defense and the Base Realignment Commission.
The base realignment recommendations fall short because they
eliminate military resources and installations without producing
meaningful cost-savings. And, the base realignment recommendations fall
short because they call for the closure of Naval Air Station Joint
Reserve Base Willow Grove, a military installation that plays a vital
role in our Nation's security.
Mr. Chairman, at a time when we are fighting a global war on terror
and facing new and very real threats, the Nation must be fully
prepared. This BRAC round does not live up to the original goals of the
process and, therefore, it should be rejected.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of House Joint Resolution
65, disapproving the recommendations of the Base Realignment and
Closure Commission.
This will be my first vote against a BRAC list, and it is not a vote
I take lightly. I support
[[Page 23995]]
the BRAC process as a whole as a reasonable and apolitical method for
evaluating our Nation's defense infrastructure needs, and recognize the
necessity of this first BRAC round in a decade. But while I salute the
hard work of the BRAC Commission members in their deliberations and
recognize the difficulty of their task, this BRAC round took place in
the context of flawed methodology as regarded Air National Guard bases.
It was my expectation that the Department of Defense would solicit
input from all relevant sources in evaluating our Air National Guard
requirements--most importantly, the adjutant general of each State. But
at no time in the Pentagon's development of its Air Force BRAC
recommendations did it ask the Adjutant General of Ohio or any of the
other 53 adjutants general for input. I find this shocking, considering
that the Army consulted the adjutants general when crafting its
recommendations--and considering that 37 of the 42 Air Force BRAC
proposals involved Air National Guard units.
For the past 24 years, I have had the privilege of representing the
guardsmen of one of those units: the 179th Airlift Wing of the Ohio Air
National Guard, located at Mansfield Lahm Airport. The 179th has been a
vital part of Mansfield and Richland County since 1948, with an annual
economic impact of roughly $70 million. Members of the airlift wing
have served more than 195,000 days just since 9/11 in support of
homeland defense and the global war on terror.
More recently, the guardsmen of the 179th have flown sorties to the
gulf coast region, delivering much-needed supplies and transporting
hundreds of troops to assist those affected by Hurricane Katrina.
Relief missions such as this are nothing new for the men and women of
the 179th, who have answered the call during past hurricane relief
missions in Florida and other States, and have assisted with vital
defense operations in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and
elsewhere.
I was disappointed, therefore, at the inclusion of the 179th on the
Pentagon's proposed closure list in May. As I said in a letter to
President Bush last month in support of the 179th, the unit has always
stood ready to accept any flying assignment, and represents a wealth of
expertise and professionalism that Ohio and the Nation can ill afford
to lose.
Contrary to national trends, the 179th has consistently excelled in
recruiting and retention, currently standing at 105 percent of assigned
strength. Mansfield draws from a rich recruiting base, boasting the
best personnel strength figures of any Air National Guard C-130 unit.
The men and women of the 179th are highly experienced, with an average
of more than 12 years of service; Mansfield's aircrews have an average
of 16 years of military aviation experience. In just the last few
years, all Mansfield aircrew members have flown combat sorties in the
Middle East and Asia, and have received 116 air medals for their
bravery, courage, and skill.
In its final deliberations, the BRAC Commission found that closing
Mansfield was ``not supportable'' and recommended instead that a
``contiguous enclave'' be established at Mansfield Lahm. The commission
further acknowledged that the Air Force did not adequately consult with
governors and State adjutants general with respect to its Air Guard
recommendations. Had there been consultation, better decisions could
have been made about Air Guard infrastructure in view of our national
defense and homeland security needs.
In short, the Air Force would have done well to follow the Army's
BRAC model, which stood as an example of good consultation among
parties. When the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center--located in Lima
in my congressional district--was placed on the BRAC list with a
recommendation to reduce manufacturing space by 27 percent, top Army
officials working on the BRAC staff made themselves available to meet
with representatives of JSMC and the community. The JSMC delegation
explained that such a reduction would impede operations at the plant,
resulting in a higher cost to the government for the weapons systems
the plant produces. As a result of these discussions, the BRAC staff
recommended that the commission remove the JSMC proposal from its final
list, which it did. The Army's deliberations on JSMC were an ideal
example of how the BRAC process works well: when information is shared
and all relevant parties are consulted.
Even with the commission's decision to reverse the JSMC proposal--and
even with the partial reversal of the Mansfield decision and the
encouraging possibilities for obtaining a new mission for the more than
1,000 guardsmen of the 179th--I will vote for this resolution of
disapproval. By statute, the purpose of BRAC is to reduce excess
infrastructure. The current BRAC round, though, is being used to
implement operational policies and transfer Mansfield's C-130s from the
Guard to the Active and Reserve Forces. Such complex issues should not
be handled within the BRAC procedure.
Although I strongly oppose the transfer of Mansfield's planes, I
welcome the opportunity to work with the Department of Defense and
State officials to obtain a new mission for Mansfield, should the BRAC
recommendations be upheld. In just the last 8 years, more than $20
million has been invested in the 179th's facilities at Mansfield Lahm.
Thanks to the efforts of Mansfield Mayor Lydia Reid and other local
officials, the city has made 163 acres adjacent to the airport
available for Guard expansion or joint service activities. This
significant investment and possibility for expansion should make
Mansfield an even more attractive site for locating a new air-based
mission.
Nonetheless, given Mansfield's solid track record as a C-130 unit and
its many contributions to our Nation and world, I oppose the transfer
of its planes. At a time when our troops are already stressed by
operational tempos, and when our national recruiting and retention
rates are reaching record lows, I fear any disruption to our well-
equipped and well-manned Guard units. Our planes are only as good as
the people who maintain and fly them, and our country cannot afford to
lose their skills.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res.
65, a resolution disapproving the recommendations of the Defense Base
Realignment and Closure Commission.
It is clear that we have too much military infrastructure in this
country, whose operations and maintenance compete for scarce resources
needed by our warfighter and modernization efforts. This BRAC process
has become the most effective way to rid the military of installations
that provide minimal military value.
I am pleased that the commission recognized the importance of keeping
the Operations and Sustainment Systems Group--OSSG--at Maxwell-Gunter
AFB in Montgomery, Alabama. After an extensive review, the BRAC
commissioners did not adopt the Department of Defense's recommendation
to realign the OSSG and its 1,251 civilian and military jobs from
Maxwell-Gunter AFB to Hanscom AFB.
The BRAC decision was due in large part to the world-class combat
operational support provided by the OSSG to Air Force bases and DOD
agencies around the world from Montgomery for more than 30 years. It
did not need to be moved in order to continue to perform this critical
national security mission. The OSSG is the only organization with
experience fielding systems across the entire Air Force and DOD.
Moreover, Gunter is home to one of four major Defense Information
Systems Agency--DISA--nodes, which provide the backbone on which Air
Force Systems run. The DISA presence, along with the OSSG, enables
testing of enterprise-wide combat support software applications in an
operational environment. With its extensive background, experience, and
expertise, this organization is truly a one of a kind national resource
and belongs in Montgomery.
While I intend to vote for the implementation of the commission's
recommendations, I remain very troubled by some of the things the
commission did not do. Specifically, I have trouble seeing the logic in
overturning DOD's recommendation to move the Aviation Logistics School
to Fort Rucker. I am disappointed that the commission failed to see the
significance of co-locating the Aviation Logistics School with the
aviation pilot training under one roof at Fort Rucker. This move would
have consolidated Army Aviation training and doctrine development at
Fort Rucker. I still hold the belief that consolidating aviation
logistics training with the Aviation Center and School will foster
consistency, standardization, and training proficiency. As the premier
rotary wing aviation training center in the United States, this move
would have completed the formation of the Army's decision to create an
aviation branch in 1983. The benefit of being able to train the entire
flight crew, from the maintainers to the pilots, is quite significant.
A flight crew who must go to war as a team, should train as a team.
A second notable absence from the BRAC recommendations is
consolidation of rotary wing pilot training at Fort Rucker. Although
DOD did not make this recommendation, I believe a thorough review of
the facts would have led the commission to include this in its final
list. Currently, both the Army and Air Force conduct their rotary wing
pilot training at Fort Rucker, which has sufficient capability to
support Navy initial rotary wing pilot training as well.
Numerous reviews conducted by DOD and the GAD dating back to 1974
have been made regarding the relocation of this Navy mission.
[[Page 23996]]
In addition, when Colin Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, he testified before the House Armed Services Committee that he
supported this consolidation at Fort Rucker. Similarly, the
overwhelming majority of the reviews have called for the Navy to move
their operation to Fort Rucker for a number of reasons. Past studies
have indicated that tens of millions of dollars per year could be saved
by going through with this consolidation. Unit costs would be reduced
for both aircraft maintenance and logistics. Additionally, both the
Army and the Navy use the same training helicopter which would allow
for further savings by using the Army's existing instructor pilots.
This consolidation will also advance a key component of DoD's way
ahead, jointness.
Finally, I was troubled to see that the commission supported the DOD
recommendation to move the Aviation Technical Test Center--ATTC--to
Redstone Arsenal. This issue is very close to me personally as I have
been intimately involved with it for over 10 years. In the mid-90s,
there was an effort made within the Pentagon to move the ATTC out of
Fort Rucker. As is the case now, I was very disturbed by this, and
began to investigate in an effort to determine if this would be best
for the Army, highlighted by a personal meeting with the then-Secretary
of the Army, Togo West. This culminated when my amendment was included
in the House version of Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization
Act--H.R. 1530--which blocked the Army's proposal to relocate the ATTC
until an outside independent study of the proposal could be completed.
After the Army reviewed this further, not only did the ATTC stay at
Fort Rucker, but the Airworthiness Qualification Test Directorate was
moved from Edwards AFB to Fort Rucker as well. I believe the arguments
presented then still have substantial merit today.
At Fort Rucker, the ATTC is able to have their fleet of approximately
40 test aircraft maintained by the large maintenance and logistics
operation that supports the training mission on post. A move to
Redstone disregards these significant costs of keeping the test fleet
flying. The vast pool of pilots and aircraft from the Aviation Center
also facilitates the ATTC's ability to realize a greater return on the
testing dollar invested.
Another problem with this recommendation revolves around airspace. As
the home of Army Aviation, Fort Rucker is blessed with over 32,000
square miles of airspace to conduct its mission. This irreplaceable
natural asset cannot be duplicated in Huntsville. A potential move also
undermines the synergies that currently exist between the schoolhouse
and the experimental pilots. Finally, with Fort Rucker being the Army
proponent for unmanned aerial vehicles--UAVs, it is crucial that the
ATTC be able to leverage the expertise associated with this proponency
to conduct its tests on UAVs.
While I do not agree with all of the recommendations included in the
commission's report, I do recognize that the BRAC process must go
forward. At present, DOD has excess infrastructure which needs to be
realigned or closed in order to achieve the billions of savings which
will result from the implementation of these recommendations. As costs
of weapons systems crucial to winning the war on terror continue to
rise, it is important that we explore all avenues in order to find the
money necessary to give the warfighter everything he or she needs to
complete their mission. In conclusion, I would like to thank all of the
commissioners and their staffs for their tireless efforts on one of the
most thankless jobs in government. I urge a no vote on the resolution
and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 65, to
disapprove the recommendations of the Base Realignment and Closure
Commission--BRAC.
Closing surplus military infrastructure makes sense, but only if it
is done in a proper strategic context and through a rational,
deliberative, and fair process. The 2005 base closure round does not
meet these tests.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld proposed this BRAC in 2001, before
September 11 and our occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. The world
changed, but the Defense Department's BRAC process did not.
I voted against this BRAC in 2001, on the grounds that it
presumptively put infrastructure decisions before force structure
decisions. At the time, I said that with ``uncertainty about our future
military needs in the new security environment, I believe that this is
not the right time to add a new layer of uncertainty to our military
communities in Maine by approving a new base closure round.''
My view has been validated by the statements of the Base Realignment
and Closure Commission itself. In its final report, the commission
faulted the Department of Defense--DOD--for making infrastructure
decisions prior to conducting a ``comprehensive review of the
underlying strategic issues that is to be set forth in the [2006]
Quadrennial Defense Review [which] may have better informed and
assisted the Commission in making its final recommendations.''
The commission also criticized DOD for failing to provide necessary
source data on its proposals for as long as a month after the DOD list
was submitted. This delay hampered the ability of the commission to do
proper analysis and hamstrung communities trying to defend their bases.
My view has been validated by the Overseas Basing Commission, which
found that the ``massive realignment of forces requires that the pace
of events be slowed and reordered.'' It faulted the administration's
plans to bring 70,000 troops home from overseas without a full analysis
of the infrastructure to accommodate them.
My view has been validated by a recent revelation by BRAC
Commissioner Phillip Coyle that information gathered to support some of
DOD's BRAC recommendations were based largely on Google searches. The
commission observed that several DOD plans to consolidate multiple
military facilities were based not on in-depth analytic work but on
Internet search engine queries used only to match facility names and
functions.
Lastly, my view has been validated by the questions my constituents
repeatedly asked me:
Why are we closing military installations when we are at war?
Why are we building new bases in Iraq while closing them in America?
Will our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have the right facilities to
come home to?
I don't have good answers to those questions, but neither does the
Pentagon.
By pushing BRAC at the wrong time, our Nation risks losing key assets
that can never be reconstituted. We jeopardize our security if we close
infrastructure before we first come to consensus on an overall defense
and homeland security strategy.
The BRAC Commission's decision to remove several major bases from
DOD's list demonstrates that the Pentagon put the cart before the
horse. For example, the commission voted to keep open the submarine
base at New London, CT, and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, in my
district. The commission expressed serious doubts about DOD's force
structure plan and the submarine force's ability to confront uncertain
future threats.
In addition, I object to this BRAC list due to the inexplicable and
unwise closure of the Brunswick Naval Air Station--NASB. This facility
is the last remaining fully operational military airfield in the
northeast. Its loss will hamper our capability to perform homeland
defense and maritime patrol missions in the region, leaving a
vulnerable flank for the entire Nation.
NASB was the only major base closed by the commission that was not
recommended for closure by DOD. I believe the commission failed to
adequately justify its decision that the base was ``not needed.'' The
commission completely ignored the combined military value judgment of
combatant commanders that Brunswick is a vital strategic asset. It
failed to explain how, or at what monetary or mission cost, the
military could perform essential maritime patrol missions in the
northeast without Brunswick.
In closing NASB, the commission appeared to deviate from its own
charter. It justified closing the base merely in order to ``reduce
excess capacity and result in significant savings,'' despite its own
directive to seek a balance between the goals of realizing savings and
rationalizing our military infrastructure to meet the needs of future
missions.
I was pleased that the commission listened to the arguments put forth
to them and voted to reject the closure of two facilities in Maine: the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service in Limestone, where the commission also agreed to double the
number of jobs. Despite these positive outcomes, however, the
unjustified closure of Brunswick affirms my opposition to this BRAC
list, as well as the underlying fact that this was the wrong time in
our Nation's history for this BRAC.
The fundamental purpose of BRAC is to save money. Let's put its
``savings'' in perspective. The 20-year savings (approximately $800
million) from the closure of Brunswick Naval Air Station is the
equivalent to half a week of operations in Iraq. The entire projected
20-year savings from the BRAC list--$36 billion--are exhausted by just
6 months in Iraq. The entire savings is also merely half that of the
President's proposed tax cuts this year--$70 billion, and minuscule
compared to the $4 trillion in Federal revenue losses from upper-income
tax breaks passed since 2001.
[[Page 23997]]
The BRAC process is also a huge unfunded mandate on communities. I
commend my congressional colleagues from Maine and New Hampshire,
Governors John Baldacci and John Lynch, the employees, unions,
management, local government officials, task force members and
volunteers for the long hours devoted to defending Maine's defense
facilities. While it was a worthy cause, I regret that we were forced
to spend so much time on BRAC, rather than on new initiatives to
improve our communities. The lost human productivity caused by BRAC,
not only for communities but on DOD personnel as well, is something we
must calculate if we ever debate a future BRAC round.
Again, I urge passage of H.J. Res. 65 to reject this BRAC list. In a
time of uncertainty, we risk losing national assets we can never
recover.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition today to H.J. Res.
65, a resolution to disapprove the recommendations of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Commission. I oppose this resolution not
because I support this BRAC round and the closure and realignment of
these bases, but because the Department of Defense should not be
authorized to execute another one anytime soon. A no vote on this
resolution will spare the Armed Forces, our defense budget and our base
communities the unnecessary stress of another BRAC round if the current
recommendations are approved.
I opposed this BRAC round from the start for several reasons.
First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, we are--and remain--a nation at
war. We have troops abroad fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and globally
as part of a broader war on terrorism. I argued that we need to focus
all of our energy on supporting those troops in the field. We should
not be distracted with the complicated burden of realigning our whole
military base structure.
In October of 2003, I went to Iraq and learned that the troops
desperately needed armor on their vehicles. In November of 2003 the
Secretary of the Army said that getting armor into the field was a
``top priority''. And yet today there are still tens of thousands of
vehicles that are still not armored.
Just last week the Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the
issue. Chairman Hunter discovered that the Army was sitting on hundreds
of armored humvees in Texas and Kuwait. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
Congress would have unearthed this hidden problem earlier had it not
been faced with the time-consuming BRAC process.
I opposed BRAC because we need to recapitalize our aging defense
platforms and our shrinking fleets. Our Armed Forces have been on a
strict diet because of a procurement holiday that has been in effect
since the end of the Cold war.
Mr. Chairman, the average age of an Air Force bombers is over 30
years old. The average pilot is younger than his aircraft. Yet there
are planned procurement cuts to the F-22 program. We have been living
on the Reagan buildup of the 1980s, but those systems are all nearing
retirement. What's left from the 80s is old and undependable. This
threatens our military readiness and the safety of our service members.
Mr. Chairman, this year the Navy planned on building only four
ships--the same as Canada and less than most of our European allies. If
we stay on this track, our fleet will shrink from a little under 300 to
just 120. China is on no such diet. Its shipbuilding rates are so high
that its fleet win overtake ours by about 2015. By that time, China
will have twice as many submarines as the U.S.
I also opposed BRAC because our strategic environment remains in
flux. The threats from North Korea, China and Iran are rising while we
are still engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. We benefited from neither
the Quadrennial Defense Review nor the report of the Overseas Basing
Commission because they were not yet delivered. How could we know, what
our Nation's future basing requirements will be? We couldn't!
I opposed BRAC because DOD still maintained dozens of bases that were
slated for closure that remain open. How could we target another 100
bases when we had a hundred waiting on death row? Closing bases costs
billions of dollars in environmental clean up costs. The Department of
Defense cannot dispose of this property until it is clean. But the
investment of these ``clean-up'' dollars takes dollars away from our
troops in the field during war.
I opposed this BRAC round because we have hundreds of thousands of
troops in the Middle East, Europe and Korea that will hopefully return
home soon.
Congress authorized the BRAC round anyway. The Department of Defense
relatively little time to develop a set of recommendations for the
President. Not surprisingly, some mistakes were made. The biggest
mistake was the recommendation to close Naval Submarine Base New
London, the world's greatest center of excellence for undersea warfare.
My good friend, the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, Ike
Skelton, noted that the BRAC round so suffered from secondary agendas
designed to achieve policy outcomes under cover of base closure and
realignment. I agree with him.
The BRAC Commission had even less time than the Pentagon, but was
ultimately able to fix the largest mistakes. Chairman Anthony
Principi's commission took New London and other bases off of the list
after looking at the big picture. They looked at the overall effects on
the Nation and the individual services. They listened to the arguments
of outside experts. They considered the advice of key defense industry
partners, senior retired officers, Members of Congress, and even a
former U.S. president. In the end the BRAC Commission gave the
President and Congress a good product given the circumstances.
So, Mr. Chairman, I will vote no on the resolution because the BRAC
solution before us is the best of a bad situation. It would have been
better never to have attempted this round of base closures. Our
military is no better for it, and our Nation is no safer. Nevertheless,
a vote for yes is a vote for another, painful and counterproductive
BRAC round that will drain resources and time from the critical tasks
at hand.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation faces great national security challenges
right now. For this reason, I will vote to put BRAC behind us today and
for the foreseeable future.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of the
resolution to reject the recommendations of the Base Closure and
Realignment Commission.
I support the BRAC process and believe that over the years it has led
to the orderly reorganization of our Nation's defense infrastructure.
I believe the Pentagon and the BRAC Commission made a good-faith
effort to carefully examine every base.
Nonetheless, I continue to believe the Commission made a terribly
shortsighted decision when it voted to uphold some of the Pentagon's
recommendations for Naval Base Ventura County.
I am particularly disappointed the Commission voted to move some of
the RDT&E missions away from the base.
In my view, the Commission ignored a number of important factors.
First, the Commission's vote went against the recommendation of its
professional staff.
The staff correctly recognized that Naval Base Ventura County has
significant military value, and its missions contribute to the
readiness of our war fighter.
Second, relocating the vital functions performed by the personnel at
the base will have lasting consequences for our national security.
The activities conducted at this site for the Navy, Air Force,
Missile Defense Agency, and others cannot be replicated anywhere else
in the Nation.
Moreover, the base's sea range is linked with other inland ranges in
California--providing an unmatched capability to the Defense
Department.
The realignment will diminish these existing operational capabilities
and efficiencies and negatively impact the ability of our fighting men
and women to get their jobs done.
The effect of this would be immediately felt in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Finally, realigning the base's missions will waste, not save,
taxpayer dollars.
We cannot afford to spend a lot of money to move missions and
personnel when there's no long-term savings involved.
Especially now that we're looking at spending more than $200 billion
to help rebuild the Gulf Coast areas devastated by Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita.
Mr. Chairman, the BRAC process must be logical and fair. I do not
believe this round of closures met those criteria.
I continue to strongly believe the missions at Naval Base Ventura
County are a critical element of our national security system and an
important asset to our local community.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the resolution of
disapproval.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill before us to
reject the BRAC recommendations; and I thank the gentleman from
Illinois for his work on this bill.
While this process has proceeded during a global war, many of us in
Congress--including me--have taken issue with the timing. Doing this
during a war and before we establish our global military footprint
through the Quadrennial Defense Review sends the wrong signal to our
allies and to the soldiers and families who may depend on services at
the bases we are closing.
[[Page 23998]]
I have fought this from the get-go. The BRAC list hit my South Texas
district hard with the closure of Naval Station Ingleside in San
Patricio County. It was a base into which the taxpayers of Nueces
County and the State of Texas plowed $50 million to assist the Navy in
bringing the base there.
The main thing that worries those of us in South Texas--and elsewhere
along the Gulf Coast--is that after BRAC the Gulf of Mexico will be a
less safe place for all of us. We have been concerned over the past
couple of years about the illegal immigrants known as OTMs--other than
Mexicans--that are routinely released by law enforcement into the U.S.
population. Many law enforcement officers believe we have--or could
be--releasing potential terrorists who will do us great harm.
Our nation's refining capability and trading lanes run through the
Gulf of Mexico. For these reasons--and many more--we must have a Navy
presence in the Gulf. After BRAC, there will not be a single surface
Navy base in the entire Gulf. The Gulf holds the nation's bread basket
and is the primary provider of petrochemicals and refined products to
power the nation's cars, heaters, and other machines we depend upon
hourly in our daily lives.
Those are my primary concerns. Now, the other concerns I have deal
primarily with how the South Texas community I represent will recover
from the economic devastation that is part of a base closure in local
communities. As BRAC Chairman Principi said in an early statement, this
will be a tsunami in South Texas.
So if the House chooses to support the BRAC list today, we will bear
no ill will . . . and we will work very hard to make the transition as
painless as possible.
While our community is less concerned about the disposition of the
property itself--it should revert to the local port--we believe the
local community should not have to pay a $200 million cost to retain
the base. We are increasingly concerned about the enormous task before
us in the coming years: how to deal with depressed property values
after the base is to close . . . how to retrain the area workforce . .
. and how our schools and housing market can recoup the losses we will
most certainly feel in the coming years.
That will be the challenge before us in South Texas for probably the
coming decade if the House today fails to adopt my colleague's bill to
disapprove the BRAC recommendations.
Mr. FRELINGHUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to House
Joint Resolution 65--a resolution disapproving the recommendations of
the Base Realignment and Closure Commission as approved by the
President of the United States.
In total, the BRAC Commission recommended, and the President
endorsed, the closure of 22 major military bases and the realignment of
33 others.
While I am deeply concerned about the recommendation to close the
Army's Fort Monmouth, I note with pride the strong vote of confidence
in the past, present, and future contributions to our warfighters of
Picatinny Arsenal in Morris County, New Jersey.
With the support of the President, the Department of Defense and the
BRAC Commission, Picatinny Arsenal will be the 'joint center of
excellence' for guns and ammunition and the military's unparalleled
leader for producing the latest and most advanced weaponry for our
warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I strongly support this recommendation. It is well-founded on the
facts and advances the DoD's ``transformation.''
Picatinny Arsenal is already home to: the ``Single Manager for
Conventional Ammunition for DoD''--PEO Ampmo; an armament engineering
organization which provides fully integrated life cycle systems
engineering for weapons and munitions; and 70 unique mission facilities
with 16 state-of-the-art laboratories staffed by an adaptable, highly
specialized workforce;
The DoD BRAC analysis found Picatinny to be the ``center-of-mass''
for DoD's guns and ammunition (research, development and acquisition.)
It has a workload in this area more than an order of magnitude greater
than any other DoD facility. It has the greatest concentration of
military value in guns and ammunition (research, development and
acquisition.)
Mr. Chairman, this BRAC Commission recommendation is
transformational. It builds on the joint single manager for
conventional ammo to create a robust guns and ammunition ``joint
center.'' It will provide for greater synergy and more efficient
operations, all to benefit the warfighter--the young men and women who
are protecting us at home and overseas. .
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record
important correspondence between the Chairman of the Base Realignment
and Closure Commission, the Honorable Anthony Principi, and the
Honorable Michael W. Wynne, Chairman of the Infrastructure Steering
Committee of the U.S. Department of Defense.
I urge defeat of the resolution.
Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Commission,
Arlington, VA, September 8, 2005.
Hon. Michael W. Wynne,
Chairman, Infrastructure Steering Group, Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Wynne: I am sending this letter for
clarification of language contained in BRAC amendments 186-4a
and 186-4d concerning DoD Tech-19, Create an Integrated
Weapons & Armaments Specialty Site for Guns and Ammunition.
The purpose of amendments 186-4a and 186-4d was to leave
existing energetics activities in place at Picatinny Arsenal,
Naval Surface Weapons Center Indian Head and Naval Air
Weapons Station China Lake. The language included in the
Commission's recommendation for Tech-19 does not intend to
consolidate these activities in anyone location, nor is it
the Commission's intent to create a separate ``Center of
Excellence'' for energetics.
Picatinny Arsenal will become the DoD Gun and Ammunition
``Center of Excellence'' as described in the Dodd Tech-19
recommendation and as modified by our recommendations.
Sincerely,
Anthony J. Principi,
Chairman.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
H.J. Res. 65, a resolution of disapproval of the 2005 base closure and
realignment recommendations.
I am proud that my state delegation--commonly referred to back home
as ``Team Connecticut''--was successful in saving Sub Base New London
from closure. Together our congressional delegation, Governor Rell,
members of the New London community and military experts put together
an airtight case for the survival of the base. As a result, the
commission realized what Connecticut knew all along: That Sub Base New
London is not only a critical asset to our State, but a vital part of
our current and future national security.
The members of the 2005 BRAC Commission were given an extraordinary
responsibility and performed their duties in a thoughtful and
responsible manner. However, they were given the job of examining a
flawed proposal based more on achieving the bottom line then ensuring
the security of our Nation. If passed, H.J. Res. 65 would put an end to
the current BRAC process--one that I have long believed to be the wrong
process at the wrong time for our Nation.
Since 2002, I have voted in the Armed Services Committee and on the
floor to either repeal or delay BRAC 2005 because I have felt all along
that the process had serious flaws. With 150,000 of our men and women
in uniform serving overseas in the Middle East, continued operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan and failures to meet recruiting goals, now is not
the time to close or realign major portions of our military
infrastructure. We should not be closing and consolidating bases and
infrastructure here in the States now, when in another two years we may
be bringing a significant amount of troops and equipment back from
Europe and other forward deployed locations and we would have to spend
more money again to reopen or recreate space for them. We should not be
closing or realigning before the completion of the Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR), which projects the threats our nation will face and
guides our force structure for the next two decades. The Commission
simply and rightly called conducting BRAC before the completion of the
QDR ``inverse'' and ``illogical.'' This is simply the wrong time for
BRAC.
The final report before us for consideration includes a wide-ranging
realignment of the Air National Guard that was completed without the
input or consultation of our State Governors and Adjutants General.
Rather than conducting an inclusive process--as in the case of the Army
National Guard recommendations--the Pentagon chose to craft their Air
Force proposal by shutting out the very people that both the law and
common sense dictate need to be included in changes to State Guard
units.
As a result the final Air Force recommendations disproportionately
impact the Air National Guard, with 37 of the final 42 Air Force
recommendations making changes to Air Guard units in States across the
Nation. Governors and Adjutants General widely opposed this plan,
citing the impact on recruiting and retention of Guard members, lack of
consultation, and reduced availability of personnel for vital State
emergency response and homeland security functions. Although the
Commission ultimately approved a scaled down version of the Pentagon's
Air National Guard plan crafted in the final days of their work, the
final BRAC report states that the lack of coordination between the
Pentagon, Governors and Adjutants
[[Page 23999]]
General ``unnecessarily cost the Commission additional time and
resources and damaged the previously exemplary relationship between the
Air National Guard and the Air Force.''
This misguided recommendation hits home in my district and State,
where the 103rd Fighter Wing at Bradley Air National Guard base is
slated to lose their A-10 Warthogs--leaving Connecticut as the only
State in the Nation without an air national guard flying mission. In
presenting our case to the Commission, our message was simple: The
Pentagon not only used flawed data that did not take into account many
of the unique capabilities of Bradley, but failed to consult our
Governor in major changes to our State's militia. While Adjutant
General Thaddeus Martin, the staff of the 103rd and the State
delegation made a strong case for Bradley, the base was unfortunately
included in the final realignment plan. The men and women of the
``Flying Yankees,'' and indeed all the members of the Air National
Guard, deserve better than an ad-hoc transformation plan that has the
potential to seriously impact the future of these citizen soldiers and
their mission.
In late August 2005, I joined Connecticut Governor Rell, Attorney
General Blumenthal and Senators Dodd and Lieberman in filing suit to
prevent the realignment of the Bradley Air National Guard base. We were
forced to take this action because the law is simple and clear: the
Bradley A-10s cannot be removed without the consent of our Governor.
Regardless of the result of today's vote, Connecticut has the law on
its side and I am confident that we will secure the future of the
``Flying Yankees.''
One of our most important duties is to provide for the defense of our
Nation. We should not be closing and realigning our bases at a time
when our nation is engaged in the Middle East and faces unprecedented
threats from abroad. Rejecting BRAC 2005 is simply the right thing to
do for our men and women in uniform, the security of our nation, and
for the future of our Air National Guard. I urge my colleagues to
support H.J. Res. 65.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
discuss this important' legislation as I make a final push to keep
Forts Gillem and McPherson open by voting in support of a joint House
resolution to reject the president's approval of the 2005 round of base
realignments and closures. I cosponsored the measure, H.J. Res. 65,
which disapproves the recommendations of the Defense Base Realignment
and Closure Commission (BRAC) as submitted by the president to Congress
on September 15, 2005. I am disappointed that H.J. Res. 65 failed to
pass the House today by a vote of 85-324. Congress had until October
30, 2005 to pass a joint resolution of disapproval of the list.
Unfortunately, this round of base closings and realignments has
failed to accomplish the military goals of shedding excess operations
and facilities without seriously weakening our national security and
homeland defense. I strongly oppose the president's recommendations to
close Ft. Gillem and Fort McPherson, and I have tried to make a strong
case in their defense at every opportunity available to me, including
directly addressing members of the BRAC Commission and urging President
Bush to consider their unmatched military value and unique strategic
readiness for homeland defense.
My efforts to remove Forts Gillem and McPherson from the BRAC list of
closings proved partly successful since I secured the extension of six
Federal functions at an enclave at Ft. Gillem, blocking a complete
closing of the military base. These functions include the U.S. Army
Criminal Investigation Laboratory, Georgia Army National Guard, 3rd
MEDCOM, SE Army Reserve Intelligence Center, FEMA, and Red Cross.
I am very disappointed by the outcome of today's vote and that Ft.
Gillem and Ft. McPherson remained on the BRAC list for closure despite
the vital role they continue to play in coordinating the deployment of
troops abroad and Federal response to national disasters like this
year's string of devastating hurricanes. Following today's vote, the
Defense Department is now charged with carrying out the recommended
closures and realignments. Therefore, I will work with defense
officials and the Local Redevelopment Authority during the upcoming
transition period for Forts Gillem and McPherson.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, the
implementation of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission
recommendations will provide badly needed cost savings to our Nation.
With the current state of our Federal budget, the enormous estimated
spending reductions of over $35 billion achieved through this new BRAC
round are necessary to help put our fiscal house in order. These
recommendations will also better enable our military services to
confront the new threats our Nation faces today--increasing efficiency
and effectiveness, and improving our national security.
That said, I still firmly disagree with some of the specific BRAC
recommendations, such as the closure of the 440th Airlift Wing at
General Mitchell Field in Milwaukee. The closure of the 440th is the
wrong decision,. and I have done everything in my power to try and
convince the BRAC Commission that keeping the 440th up and running is
an important priority. The 1,100 brave men and women of this unit have
proven themselves often in recent missions to Honduras, Haiti, Somalia,
Rwanda, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and several trips to Iraq. I
believe their continued operations would have enhanced the security of
our country.
Today, however, we were faced with an up-or-down vote on the BRAC
Commission recommendations as a whole. On balance, I found the
recommendations to be worthy of approval, and voted--with some
reservations--against the motion to disapprove the final BRAC report.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 65,
``Disapproving of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission.''
The BRAC Commission was tasked in the current round of base closures
to target and eradicate inefficiency. Unfortunately, there was a host
of friendly fire and significant collateral damage.
I strongly support our military's attempts to streamline its
infrastructure and reduce its operating budget, especially considering
the deficits this Administration is running up. However, base closures
can not impede the ability of the United States of America to protect
its people.
The Department of Defense, DOD, knows this, and rightly placed
paramount emphasis on military value in its recommendations. The
Secretary of Defense proposed to consolidate the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service, DFAS, from an unnecessarily redundant twenty-six
locations to three central sites. The DFAS center at Buckley Annex,
housed in my district in Colorado, was chosen as one of these three
sites in part due to its superlative performance on the military value
test. In fact, when the BRAC Commission considered the DFAS realignment
Denver's site ranked first in this category.
For reasons other than military value, the BRAC Commission
recommended closing DFAS Denver and moving the Air Reserve Personnel
Center to Texas.
Our city has suffered large base closures in past BRAC rounds. Now,
despite a proud history of support for our nation's armed forces,
Denver will have virtually no military presence left when these
recommendations are executed. Mr. Chairman, given the carefully
analyzed proposal submitted by the Secretary of Defense, this is a
result that I simply cannot support.
I ask my colleagues to support this Joint Resolution, and show their
disapproval of these inequitable and inefficient recommendations.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Congressional Record two
items on the Base Realignment and Closure Commission's (BRAC)
recommendations.
I am submitting pages 156-157 from the 2005 Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission Report to the President that includes a summary
of the flawed rationale used for the recommended realignment of the
Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport Air Guard Station.
Mr. Speaker, I also include a chart showing the strength and
efficiency of the response time by members of the Air National Guard in
response to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, especially relative to
the active Air Force.
SPRINGFIELD-BECKLEY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIR GUARD STATION, OH
[Recommendation #107 (Air Force 40)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-Time Cost.............................................. $30.8M
Annual Recurring Costs/(Savings)........................... ($2.5M)
20-Year Net Present Value.................................. ($5.4M)
Payback Period............................................. 14 years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE RECOMMENDATION
Realign Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport Air Guard
Station, OH. Distribute the 178th Fighter Wing's F-16
aircraft to the 132nd Fighter Wing, Des Moines International
Airport Air Guard Station, IA (nine aircraft); the 140th Wing
(ANG), Buckley Air Force Base, CO (three aircraft) and 149th
Fighter Wing (ANG), Lackland Air Force Base, TX (six
aircraft), but retain the wing's expeditionary combat support
(ECS) elements, the 251st Combat Communications Group (ANG)
and 269th Combat Communications Squadron (ANG) in place, and
relocate the wing's firefighter positions, which will move to
Rickenbacker Air Guard Station, OH.
[[Page 24000]]
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE JUSTIFICATION
The decision to realign Springfield-Beckley's F-16s and not
replace force structure at Springfield-Beckley is based on
considerations of military value and all other available
information. Buckley (64) and Lackland (47) have higher
military value than Springfield-Beckley (128), and Buckley
has a role in the homeland defense mission. This
recommendation optimizes the squadron size at Lackland, the
only ANG F-16 Flying Training Unit. While not currently
tasked with a homeland defense role, Des Moines (137) is
located within the specified response timing criteria of a
homeland security site of interest. The 132nd Fighter Wing,
Des Moines International Airport Air Guard Station, will
assume a role in the air sovereignty mission.
COMMUNITY CONCERNS
The Springfield-Beckley, OH, community criticized several
Mission Compatability Index (MCI) scores, claiming Air Force
use of a one-size-fits-all approach is inherently biased in
favor of large active-duty bases and the base's status as an
F-16 formal training unit (FTU) should have exempted it from
data calls pertaining to standard weapons storage
requirements. DoD's military value scores reflected neither
the base's mission nor mission requirements. According to the
community's analysis, accurate data reflecting pavement
quality, range space, training capacity, and maintenance and
logistics capacity would have resulted in a significantly
higher score. In addition, community representatives argued
DoD failed to account for costs associated with replacing
pilots and maintainers who would not move to the proposed
location. They contended DoD completely ignored their
proximity to Wright Patterson Air Force Base and the
possibility of a community-basing program at Beckley. They
felt that if quantitative military value analysis results did
not satisfy the Air Force, ``military judgment'' was
arbitrarily applied to justify the BRAC proposal. Last, the
community expressed concerns about the 291 direct and 149
indirect jobs that could be lost, adding that they knew the
F-16 would go away at some point but questioned if it was
prudent to retire it so soon.
COMMISSION FINDINGS
The Commission found that the Department of Defense
recommendation to realign Springfield-Beckley Municipal
Airport Air Guard Station should be supported even though the
military value criteria were flawed and the realignment will
be a cost instead of a savings to the Department. This unit
is a training squadron for the F-16. There are currently two
other Flying Training Units (FTUs) in the Total Force. The
Commission agreed that with the total number of F-16s being
reduced in the Air Force, the training requirements will be
reduced commensurately. The Commission established an F-16
wing at Buckley AFB, Colorado and at Lackland AFB, Texas.
This recommendation is consistent with the Commission's Air
National Guard Laydown plan.
This recommendation directing aircraft movement and
personnel actions in connection with Air National Guard
installations and organizations is designed to support the
Future Total Force. The Commission expects that the Air Force
will find new missions where needed, provide retraining
opportunities, and take appropriate measures to limit
possible adverse personnel impact. The Commission's intent is
that the Air Force will act to assign sufficient aircrew and
maintenance personnel to units gaining aircraft in accordance
with current, established procedures. However, the Commission
expects that all decisions with regard to manpower
authorizations will be made in consultation with the governor
of the state in which the affected Air National Guard unit is
located. Any manpower changes must be made under existing
authorities, and must be made consistent with existing
limitations. Some reclassification of existing positions may
be necessary, but should not be executed until the Air Force
and the state have determined the future mission of the unit
to preclude unnecessary personnel turbulence.
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
The Commission found that the Secretary of Defense deviated
substantially from final selection criteria 2 and 5, as well
as from the Force Structure Plan. Therefore, the Commission
recommends the following:
Realign Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport Air Guard
Station, OH. Distribute the 18 F-16 aircraft assigned to the
178th Fighter Wing (ANG) to meet the Primary Aircraft
Authorizations (PAA) requirements established by the Base
Closure and Realignment recommendations of the Secretary of
Defense, as amended by the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission.
Establish 18 PAA F-16 aircraft at the l40th Wing (ANG),
Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado.
Establish 18 PAA F-16 aircraft at the 149th Wing (ANG),
Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.
Establish a contiguous enclave for the 178th Fighter Wing
(ANG) sufficient to support operations of that unit,
including flight operations, and compatible with joint use of
the Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport as a civilian
airport.
If the State of Ohio decides to change the organization,
composition and location of the 178th Fighter Wing (ANG) to
integrate the unit into the Future Total Force, all personnel
allotted to the 178th Fighter Wing (ANG), including the
unit's Expeditionary Combat Support (ECS) elements, will
remain in place and assume a mission relevant to the security
interests of the State of Ohio and consistent with the
integration of the unit into the Future Total Force,
including but not limited to air mobility, C4ISR, Information
Operations, engineering, flight training or unmanned aerial
vehicles. Where appropriate, unit personnel will be retrained
in skills relevant to the emerging mission.
This recommendation does not effect a change to the
authorized end-strength of the Ohio Air National Guard. The
distribution of aircraft currently assigned to the 178th
Fighter Wing (ANG) is based upon a resource-constrained
determination by the Department of Defense that the aircraft
concerned will better support national security requirements
in other locations and is not conditioned upon the agreement
of the state.
The Commission found that this change and the
recommendation as amended are consistent with the final
selection criteria and the Force Structure Plan. The full
text of this and all Commission recommendations can be found
in Appendix Q.
OHIO NATIONAL GUARD--HURRICANE SUPPORT JOINT TASK FORCE BUCKEYE I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Mission Missions/Quantities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSISTANCE PROVIDED
Army Units:
JTF Buckeye I........................ Patrols.................... 363
Distribution............... 84
Outreach/Tailgate 93
Distribution.
Traffic Control Points..... 64
Static Security............ 65
MRE Distribution........... 755,600 MREs
Water Distribution......... 301,170 Gallons
Louisiana Superdome 8,000 Evacuated
Security.
Citizen Evacuation......... 52 Evacuated
Deceased Identification.... 31 Deceased Identified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cargo
Unit Missions Sorties Personnel Moved
Moved (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Units:
179th Air Lift Wing......................................... 44 116 1227 291
121st Air Refueling Wing.................................... 9 20 379 30
-----------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 53 136 1606 321
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OHIO NATIONAL GUARD--HURRICANE SUPPORT JOINT TASK FORCE BUCKEYE II
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missions/
Unit Mission Quantities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assistance Provided
Army Units:
JTF Buckeye II.............. Distribution...... 101
Meals (MREs/Box 3,725,568 Meals
Meals).
Water............. 2,862,872 Gallons
Ice............... 3,694,080 pounds
Escort Security... 80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24001]]
Cargo
Unit Missions Sorties Personnel Moved
Moved (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Units:
179th Air Lift Wing......................................... 3 8 75 31
121st Air Refueling Wing.................................... 3 6 96 11
Total..................................................... 6 14 171 42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 65
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Commission as submitted by the President on
September 15, 2005.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section 2908(d) of Public Law 101-
510, the Committee rises.
{time} 1245
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Acting Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the resolution
(H.J. Res. 65) disapproving the recommendations of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Commission, pursuant to section 2908(d) of
Public Law 101-510, he reported the joint resolution back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 2908(d) of Public Law
101-510, the question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on H.J. Res. 65 will be followed by 5-minute votes on
motions to suspend the rules on H.R. 3945 and H. Res 368.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 85,
noes 324, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 548]
AYES--85
Abercrombie
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Barrow
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Clay
Cooper
Crowley
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Evans
Fattah
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Forbes
Ford
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holt
Hostettler
Hulshof
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
LaHood
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Lynch
Manzullo
McCaul (TX)
Menendez
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pickering
Poe
Rothman
Rush
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sherman
Smith (NJ)
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Udall (NM)
Watson
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
NOES--324
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Maloney
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Oberstar
Olver
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Cuellar
NOT VOTING--23
Boswell
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cunningham
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Foley
Gohmert
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Mack
Obey
Payne
Rangel
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Simmons
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Wexler
{time} 1310
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mrs. KELLY, Ms. McKINNEY, Ms.
HART, and Messrs. CARTER, BONNER, RADANOVICH, BAIRD, WALSH, LUCAS and
SULLIVAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. EMERSON, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, and Messrs. EVANS,
FATTAH, DENT, JOHNSON of Illinois, JACKSON of Illinois and CARDOZA
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
Mr. CUELLAR changed his vote from ``no'' to ``present.''
So the joint resolution was not passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 548, I was
off the floor meeting with consitutents and unfortunately missed the
above listed rollcall vote. Had I been present I would have voted
``no.''
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 548 on H.R.
65, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted
``no.''
____________________
HURRICANE KATRINA FINANCIAL SERVICES RELIEF ACT OF 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The unfinished business is the
question of suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 3945, as
amended.
[[Page 24002]]
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3945, 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 411,
nays 0, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 549]
YEAS--411
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--22
Boswell
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cunningham
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Foley
Gohmert
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Mack
Obey
Payne
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Simmons
Tauscher
Wexler
Whitfield
{time} 1319
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.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A Bill to
facilitate recovery from the effects of Hurricane Katrina by providing
greater flexibility for, and temporary waivers of certain requirements
and fees imposed on, depository institutions, credit unions, and
Federal regulatory agencies, and for other purposes''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE STATE OF ISRAEL ON THE ELECTION OF AMBASSADOR DAN
GILLERMAN AS VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE 60TH UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The unfinished business is the
question of suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H.
Res. 368.
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. Chabot) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution, H. Res. 368, 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 407,
nays 0, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 550]
YEAS--407
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
[[Page 24003]]
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--26
Boswell
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Culberson
Cunningham
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Foley
Garrett (NJ)
Gohmert
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Mack
Neal (MA)
Obey
Payne
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Simmons
Tauscher
Wasserman Schultz
Wexler
{time} 1328
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.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. HEFLEY. 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 H.J. Res. 65.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
____________________
{time} 1330
MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 3057, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT
FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by
direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3057) making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with Senate
amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the
conference asked by the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
The motion was agreed to.
General Leave
Mr. KOLBE. 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 motion to instruct on H.R. 3057.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mrs. Lowey
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Lowey moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the bill, H.R. 3057, making appropriations for Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs for the
fiscal year 2006 be instructed to insist on the provisions of
the Senate bill providing a total of $2,971,000,000 to combat
HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, including a total of
$500,000,000 for a U.S. contribution to the Global Fund to
Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Kolbe) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct the conferees on the fiscal year
2006 foreign operations bill will ensure that the House is clearly on
record to provide the highest possible funding level for HIV-AIDS,
tuberculosis, and malaria in 2006.
The motion I offer today makes a simple point: Although other issues
have overtaken the global AIDS pandemic as front-page news, the
pandemic is still growing; and we still have a responsibility to face
the challenges it presents head-on.
I was very pleased, as always, to work with the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) to provide robust funding to fight the AIDS
pandemic, both for the Office of Global AIDS coordinator at the State
Department and for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria. With
an allocation that was more than $2.5 billion below the President's
request, we were able to provide full funding, and even a little bit
more, for this key priority.
Fortunately, the Senate had even a higher allocation with which to
work, and I am pleased that the Senate-passed bill significantly
increased funding over the President's request for HIV-AIDS, including
$500 million for the Global Fund, the premier multilateral mechanism
for fighting AIDS and other infectious diseases.
As we approach conference on the fiscal year 2006 foreign operations
appropriations bill, we must maintain our resolve to fund the fight
against the global AIDS pandemic at the highest possible levels.
When the fiscal year 2006 bill finally passes, Congress will have
provided more than $10 billion to fight AIDS since 2003. Our assistance
has saved millions of lives, offered hope for a better future to those
already infected with HIV, bolstered the institutional capacity of
developing countries to deal with serious public health challenges, and
offered comfort and safety to children orphaned by AIDS.
We have done so much. Still, the United Nations estimates indicate
that $15 billion will be needed in the upcoming year to fight the
pandemic, a need that dwarfs the approximately $6.1 billion available.
While some have benefited from our largess and that of the
international community, many millions more are being left behind.
Just yesterday, we saw reports of staggering statistics about the
effect of the AIDS pandemic on children. Only one in 20 of the HIV-
infected children worldwide who need life-prolonging drugs gets them.
Only one out of 100 gets a cheap antibiotic that can save nearly half
of the death rate from secondary infections like diarrhea and malaria.
Fewer than one in 10 mothers infected with the HIV virus are given
drugs that can stop transmission to
[[Page 24004]]
their babies. And every minute of every day a child dies of an AIDS-
related illness.
The facts speak for themselves. We can and must do better. I urge my
colleagues to support this motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for
her motion. It gives our subcommittee, and it gives me, as chairman of
the subcommittee, an opportunity to highlight once again how critical
this battle against HIV-AIDS is, and this is something that is critical
not only to this Congress but to President Bush and his administration.
Funding from these accounts in this fight against HIV-AIDS and also
tuberculosis and malaria, three of the great killers of our time, has
increased significantly in the years that I have been chairman of this
subcommittee.
In the first year we were appropriating about $615 million in the
international fight. Today, in our bill, the level is $2.7 billion.
That is four times greater in just 4 years of bills for the Foreign
Operations Subcommittee.
The Senate level, at nearly $3 billion, is almost five times greater.
Our bill that we passed in the House would provide $400 million for
the Global Fund. That is twice what the President requested. The Senate
bill has another $100 million and puts that figure at $500 million. The
emergency plan for AIDS relief has revolutionized the fight against
HIV-AIDS. We have not turned the corner in this disease. We have
certainly not reached the end nor maybe even the beginning of the end;
but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, perhaps we are at the end of the
beginning. We are clearly making great progress.
According to a number of public health experts, we are finally
reaching the point where the focus countries in the President's
emergency program, where these resources are not the limiting factor in
addressing the spread of this disease, of HIV-AIDS. More than 200,000
people now receive life-sustaining AIDS treatment in Africa, and that
is thanks to the generosity and caring of the United States taxpayers.
For the first time, there is hope for these people. Training and the
infrastructure now has to be the focus of our efforts.
It will take the concerted will of all countries and groups that are
involved with this fight to sustain and build on the progress that we
have made thus far.
So once again, I want to thank my colleague for her dedication to
this very important issue and for her work to help craft a bill that I
think is one that we can go into conference feeling very good about and
that we can defend with vigor.
So I am pleased to be able to accept the motion to instruct; and I am
committed, as the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is, to
reaching the highest possible level in the conference in the struggle
against HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from
Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the ranking member of the subcommittee,
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for the bipartisan
cooperation and collaboration that has been shown by this motion to
instruct and the acceptance of it.
The bad news as it relates to foreign operations that seems to
trickle into the American system is that we spend so much money for
foreign operations and, therefore, are not addressing the domestic
crises that we face. I think this bipartisan effort truly speaks to the
fact that what we do and how we reach out in our collaborative work
around the world, issues of democracy, issues dealing with
tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV-AIDS, issues of constructing and helping
in ways of creating a world friendship, is crucial to the domestic
tranquility of America.
As I have worked with Ambassador Holbrooke who has cited the vast
growing, although we have made strides, devastation of HIV-AIDS, the
impact on children, the number of orphans that are facing life alone
because of the loss of one or two parents, there is, I think, no level
of giving that would be too much to try and face up to this terrible
devastation. This accepting of the motion to instruct relates to that.
But I rise today to raise an additional concern, and I know this bill
is not addressing it as we speak, but because of the difficulties that
we have had with Hurricane Katrina and now Wilma and certainly Rita,
and the eyes of Americans focused, if you will, on those tragedies, the
eyes of America focused on the tragedies in Iraq and the constant
bombing and the loss of 2,000 soldiers, it sometimes steers our
attention away from the earthquake in the South Asian region, impacting
Afghanistan to some extent, India, and Pakistan.
We know there are 79,000 dead from the earthquake. I would hope we
would be able to prepare a supplemental to address those questions. We
know there are appropriations for Pakistan and the South Asian region
in this particular bill, but not enough due to the loss of life and the
complete elimination of towns and villages.
I have met with many from the Pakistan-American community, doctors
who are attempting to be of help, the Indian embassy that is helping as
well; but focused resources are going to be crucial.
We know that the world family is looking at the kinds of resources
that are needed, but we need the donor community joined with the United
States to be part of this very important effort. We know that the
United States has given $50 million. It is not enough. I have asked
that we raise this question with the donor community so those dollars
can continue to mount.
Here are the reasons why: certainly we know the medical crisis is
going to be ongoing. But as I said earlier, major cities have been
wiped out. People are living in tents, those who can get tents. There
is a lack of food, lack of water, and a lack of how the government will
rebuild the infrastructure. We realize it is in the Kashmir area, and
that is a very difficult area. It is a difficult area politically and
as it relates to the conflict, and so it is imperative that that area
be rebuilt quickly and the infrastructure be brought into that area.
I ask my colleagues to support the motion to instruct, as I do. I
want to again applaud the ranking member and the chairman of the
subcommittee. I look forward to working with both of them on ways we
can provide a more expedited and certainly a higher level of
assistance; and, of course, I ask for the Secretary of State, Secretary
Rice, and the President of the United States to consider requesting
more dollars for assistance. I ask my colleagues to support the motion
to instruct.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Democratic
motion to support the Senate funding level of $3 billion for our global
AIDS initiatives. The funding level includes $500 million for the
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.
Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee Ranking Member Nita
Lowey and Chairman Jim Kolbe are to be commended for their leadership
in the fight against the global AIDS pandemic. They are a model of
bipartisan effectiveness and are leading the way in providing needed
funding under tight budget constraints.
In 2003, President Bush and Congress took a bold step in authorizing
$15 billion over five years toward AIDS prevention and treatment. The
Senate funding levels in the Foreign Operations and Labor-HHS
Appropriations bills would put the U.S. on track to meet this
commitment in future years.
At this critical juncture in history, the U.S. has the opportunity
and the responsibility to fully fund an ambitious global effort to
combat AIDS. The statistics are staggering. Of the 40 million people
currently living with HIV, 95 percent live in the developing world.
This week, UNICEF released a report showing that 18 million children in
Africa could be orphaned by AIDS by the end of 2010.
We know how to treat this devastating disease. Success stories can be
found in every part of the world. In Uganda and Senegal, HIV rates have
been brought down through effective prevention campaigns. In the past
year
[[Page 24005]]
alone, an estimated 350,000 African AIDS patients have received access
to anti-retroviral drugs that will keep them alive to work and care for
their families. Unfortunately, only 500,000 of the 4.7 million people
in need of anti-retroviral drugs have them.
If we support what works, we can prevent nearly two-thirds of the 45
million new HIV infections projected by 2020. When we invest more
resources, more people have access to life-saving drugs, more people
learn how to protect themselves and their partners, more people have
access to voluntary testing and counseling, and more pregnant women
have services to prevent mother-to-child transmission. The longer we go
without fully investing in stopping the AIDS pandemic, the further it
will spread worldwide and the more expensive the bottom line will be.
The moral case is reason alone to fully fund our global AIDS
initiatives, but it is also in our national security interest. As we
have seen in the case of Afghanistan and Sudan, impoverished states can
become incubators for terrorism and conflict. We must address the root
causes of instability so that the ``fury of despair'' does not provoke
more violence.
It is in this global context that I support the Senate funding levels
for global AIDS. Let us all come together today to fully support our
commitments to fight the global AIDS pandemic.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Democratic
motion to instruct conferees to accept the Senate's funding level for
our global HIV/AIDS appropriations.
I want to thank my colleague, the ranking member, Ms. Lowey for
offering this motion, and I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Kolbe for
accepting it. Both of them have worked in a bipartisan spirit to
increase funding for our global AIDS programs above what the President
requested, and they should be commended for their leadership.
Earlier this month I sent a letter to Mr. Kolbe and Ms. Lowey, along
with 55 other Members of Congress, asking that they take this very
action today and approve the Senate's funding level of $2.97 billion
for global HIV/AIDS in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill--$500
million of which would go towards the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria.
By adopting the Senate's higher level of funding, we are again
asserting United States leadership in fighting this devastating
disease.
But let us be clear, much more still needs to be done.
The United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS, UNAIDS, estimates
that approximately 39.4 million people worldwide are currently living
with HIV/AIDS, including about 2.2 million children under the age of
15. Since the first cases were identified in 1981, over 20 million
people worldwide have died from AIDS.
While the United States is poised to provide about $3.6 billion to
combat the disease this year, UNAIDS estimates that more than $15
billion is necessary to fight the disease this year alone. Next year
that number is closer to $20 billion.
We know that the United States cannot fight this disease on its own.
But we have a moral duty to at least contribute our fair share of
funding to prevent the rapid spread of this disease and save the lives
of millions of people around the world.
Although we may argue about money, we must not forget about those who
are most vulnerable to this disease, the women and children throughout
the developing world whose basic rights are frequently trampled upon.
I'm proud to say that over the last 2 weeks, Congress has taken an
important step forward in trying to protect the rights of children who
are affected by HIV/AIDS by passing my bill, H.R. 1409, the Assistance
for Orphans and Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of
2005.
I hope that the President will sign this legislation quickly and
ensure a robust U.S. Government response to the needs of these
children.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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 H.R. 420.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
____________________
LAWSUIT ABUSE REDUCTION ACT OF 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam). Pursuant to House Resolution
508 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 420.
{time} 1345
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 420) to amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
improve attorney accountability, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Latham in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 420, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of
2005.
Frivolous lawsuits bankrupt individuals, ruin reputations, drive up
insurance premiums, increase health care costs, and put a drag on the
economy.
Frivolous lawsuits are brought, for example, when there is no
evidence that shows negligence on the part of the defendant. These
nuisance lawsuits make a mockery of our legal system.
Of course, many Americans have legitimate legal grievances, from
someone wrongly disfigured during an operation to a company responsible
for contaminating a community's water supply. No one who deserves
justice should be denied justice; however, gaming of the system by a
few lawyers drives up the cost of doing business and drives down the
integrity of the judicial system.
Let me give some examples. The chief executive officer of San
Antonio's Methodist Children's Hospital was sued after he stepped into
a plaintiff's hospital room and asked how the patient was doing. Of
course, a jury cleared him of any wrongdoing.
A Pennsylvania man sued the Frito-Lay Company claiming that Doritos
chips were ``inherently dangerous'' after one stuck in his throat.
After 8 years of costly litigation, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
threw out the case, writing that there is ``a commonsense notion that
it is necessary to properly chew hard foodstuffs prior to swallowing.''
But, of course, the defendants had to absorb hundreds of thousands of
dollars in legal fees.
In a New Jersey Little League game, a player lost sight of a fly ball
hit because of the sun. He was injured when the ball struck him in the
eye. The coach, who was forced to hire a lawyer after the boy's parents
sued, had to settle the case for $25,000.
Today almost any party can bring any suit in almost any jurisdiction.
That is because plaintiffs and their attorneys have nothing to lose.
All they want is for the defendant to settle. This is legalized
extortion. It is lawsuit lottery.
Defendants, on the other hand, can unfairly lose their lifetime
savings, their careers, their businesses, and their reputations. This
is simply not justice.
There is a remedy: the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. It passed the
[[Page 24006]]
House last year by a margin of almost 60 votes. The bill applies to
both plaintiffs who file frivolous lawsuits to extort financial
settlements and to defendants who unnecessarily prolong the legal
process. If a judge determines that a claim is frivolous, they can
order the plaintiff to pay the attorneys' fees of the defendant who was
victim of their frivolous claim. This will make a lawyer think twice
before filing a frivolous lawsuit.
It is a problem that even the American Trial Lawyers Association has
tried to address in its own code of conduct by declaring, ``No American
Trial Lawyers Association member shall file or maintain a frivolous
suit, issue, or position.'' However, ATLA has not disciplined a single
attorney for violation of this code of conduct in the last 2 years.
This legislation also prevents forum shopping. It requires that
personal injury claims be filed only where the plaintiff resides, where
the injury occurred, or the defendant's principal place of business is
located. This provision addresses the growing problem of attorneys who
shop around the country for judges who routinely award excessive
amounts.
One of the Nation's wealthiest trial lawyers, Dickie Scruggs, has
told us exactly how this abuse occurs. Here is what he says about forum
shopping:
``What I call the magic jurisdiction . . . is where the judiciary is
elected with verdict money. The trial lawyers have established
relationships with the judges that are elected; they're State Court
judges; they're populists. They've got large populations of voters who
are in on the deal. They're getting their piece in many cases. And so
it's a political force in their jurisdiction, and it's almost
impossible to get a fair trial if you're a defendant in some of these
places. The plaintiff lawyer walks in there and writes the number on
the blackboard, and the first juror meets the last one coming out the
door with that amount of money . . . Any lawyer fresh out of law school
can walk in there and win the case, so it doesn't matter what the
evidence or law is.''
Forum shopping is a part of lawsuit abuse, and we must pass
legislation to stop it from occurring. Even several largely recognized
Democrats have acknowledged the need to end frivolous lawsuits. For
instance, the John Kerry for President campaign endorsed national
legislation in which ``lawyers who file frivolous cases would face
tough mandatory sanctions.'' And former Vice Presidential candidate
Senator Edwards stated, ``Lawyers who bring frivolous cases should face
tough, mandatory sanctions.''
The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act is sensible reform that will help
restore confidence to America's justice system.
Mr. Chairman, the following organizations support H.R. 420: American
Tort Reform Association, National Association of Home Builders,
National Association of Manufacturers, National Restaurant Association,
American Insurance Association, and the United States Chamber of
Commerce. And this legislation is the top legislative priority of the
National Federation of Independent Businesses.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill because it will not reduce frivolous
lawsuits, but will instead increase the cost of litigation at the State
and Federal level, set back the fairness of civil rights litigation,
and favor foreign corporate defendants at the expense of their domestic
competitors. As a result of this misguided legislation, satellite
litigation, costs and delays will result, and litigation abuses will
not be reduced.
H.R. 420 makes significant changes to Rule 11 sanctions without
following the statutory rulemaking process. The Association of Chief
Justices of the States and the Federal Judicial Council have both
criticized skipping the statutory rulemaking process. This bill would
revert Rule 11 back to the 1983 version and unduly affects plaintiffs
in civil rights cases. The current Rule 11 was adopted in 1993
specifically to correct abuses by defendants in civil rights cases. By
rolling back this rule and requiring a mandatory sanctions system to
civil rights cases, H.R. 420 will chill many legitimate and important
civil rights actions.
Although the bill states that the proposed Rule 11 changes shall not
be construed to ``bar or impede the assertion or development of new
claims or remedies under Federal, State, or local civil rights law,''
the language does not clearly and simply exempt civil rights and
discrimination cases, as it should. Determining what a new claim or
remedy is will be a daunting and complex issue for most courts and
clearly does not cover all civil rights cases.
The Honorable Robert Carter, United States District Court Judge for
the Southern District of New York, who was one of the pioneers in civil
rights legislation and worked on the Brown v. Board of Education case,
stated, ``I have no doubt that the Supreme Court's opportunity to
pronounce separate schools inherently unequal in Brown v. Board of
Education would have been delayed for a decade had my colleagues and I
been required, upon pain of potential sanctions, to plead our legal
theory explicitly from the start.'' This is a good example of the
dreadfully detrimental effect of this rule on civil rights cases.
Furthermore, this bill will operate to benefit foreign corporate
defendants at the expense of their domestic counterparts. Section 4,
the ``forum shopping'' provision, would operate to provide a litigation
and financial windfall to foreign corporations at the expense of their
domestic competitors. This is because instead of permitting claims to
be filed wherever a corporation does business or has minimum contacts,
as most State long-arm statutes provide, the bill permits the suit to
be brought only where the defendant's principal place of business is
located. In the case of a foreign corporation, that does not exist in
the United States. If a U.S. citizen is harmed by a product
manufactured by a foreign competitor, under this bill the injured U.S.
citizen would have no recourse against a foreign corporation, whereas
he or she would have recourse against the comparable U.S. corporation.
This is unfair to both the U.S. citizen with no recourse and to all
U.S. companies that must compete against the foreign firm. Consequently
American employers and employees would be put at an unfair disadvantage
vis-a-vis their foreign counterparts, not exactly what we would want to
be doing not only from a standpoint of fairness, but from a standpoint
of our economy.
Mr. Chairman, this bill has another deleterious effect. Because it
provides for reasonable attorneys' fees in the case of a sanction,
because many Rule 11 sanctions are minor, and in any complex case there
are almost invariably going to be some, the current law, first of all,
permits the judge discretion whether to impose sanctions or not. This
makes it mandatory for even the most picayune infractions.
Second of all, the current law says that if it is pointed out to an
attorney that he has done something that would fall under Rule 11, he
has 21 days to correct it. If he does not correct it, he is subject to
sanctions. This would say they have no time to correct it. They get
automatic sanctions. That is unfair.
Thirdly, because under those circumstances this bill provides for
attorneys' fees, they had better have their head examined if they want
to sue a large corporation, because if they are the little guy, and
they have one attorney, and he is paid a reasonable fee, and they can
afford the litigation, they hope; but if they are suing the big
company, and General Motors has 32 attorneys lined up over there, and
they are all charging $800 an hour, then reasonable attorneys' fees are
going to be a lot of money, and they have to anticipate, if they file
that suit, that because of the mandatory nature of the Rule 11
sanctions that this bill would impose, because of the lack of an
ability to correct it, because of the automatic sanctions and mandatory
sanctions, they have to assume that they are going to have to pay those
sanctions, and they are going to have to pay the mandatory attorneys'
fees, so they had better not sue the big boys.
[[Page 24007]]
What this bill is really saying is big corporations shall be exempt
from lawsuits by people who cannot afford to pay huge attorneys' fees
of the big corporations, because we have to assume that will happen,
and because this bill leaves no discretion to the judge.
It is no surprise that the United States Judicial Conference, the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the
Alliance for Justice, Public Citizen, People for the American Way, the
American Association of People with Disabilities, the Lawyers Committee
for Civil Rights in Law, the American Bar Association, the National
Conference of State Legislatures, National Partnership for Women,
National Women's Law Center, the Center for Justice and Democracy,
Consumers Union, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, and
the NAACP Legal Defense Fund all oppose the bill.
In other words, if Members care about civil rights, if they care
about the ability of the consumer to have justice with a large
corporation, if they care about civil liberties, if they care about
people being able to use the Federal or State courts, they must vote
against this bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this poorly drafted and unfair
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Visitors in the gallery will refrain from showing
approval or disapproval of proceedings.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Keller), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a cosponsor and strong supporter of the
Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. I am going to tell the Members why I
support this legislation and what the key components of this
legislation is.
First, why do we need this legislation? We need tough mandatory
sanctions to crack down on frivolous lawsuits. We need to care about
each other more and sue each other less. We need to get back to the
old-fashioned principles of personal responsibility and get away from
this new culture where people play the victim and blame others for
their problems. Most importantly, we need to protect those small
business people who are out there creating 70 percent of all new jobs
in America. These small business people work hard and play by the
rules, but they cannot afford to defend themselves from meritless
litigation.
For example, if they have a suit brought against them, to take it to
trial to successfully win the suit, they often have to pay over
$100,000 to a defense attorney. So what do they do? They have to pay
about 10 grand to settle the case to get rid of it for strictly
business reasons even though they did nothing wrong.
This bill will help crack down on these frivolous suits by doing
three key things. First, it provides tough mandatory sanctions, not
discretionary sanctions, if a judge finds that we have a violation of
Rule 11, which may include the payment of the other side's attorneys'
fees. Second, this bill has teeth in it by having a three-strikes-and-
you're-out penalty. Three strikes and you're out means if a judge finds
that they have violated Rule 11 bringing a frivolous claim on three
separate occasions, they will be suspended from practicing law in that
particular Federal court for 1 year and will have to reapply for
practice there. That is a tough sanction. I happen to be the author of
it. But it is key for Members to know that there is a bipartisan idea,
three strikes and you're out.
{time} 1400
To my left here, you see a quote from Senator John Edwards, himself a
lifelong well-known personal injury lawyer, a former Senator from North
Carolina and former Vice Presidential candidate. He said in Newsweek
magazine, December 15, 2003, ``Frivolous lawsuits waste good people's
time and hurt the real victims. Lawyers who bring frivolous cases
should face tough mandatory sanctions with a three-strikes penalty.''
Senator Edwards is not the only one who holds that view. You will see
that Senator Edwards' running mate, Senator John Kerry, told the
Associated Press on October 10, 2004, ``Lawyers who file frivolous
cases would face tough mandatory sanctions, including a three-strikes-
and-you're-out provision that forbids lawyers who file frivolous cases
from bringing another suit for the next 10 years.''
President George W. Bush, back when he was a candidate, February 9,
2000 said, ``As President, I will bring common sense to our courts and
curb frivolous lawsuits. If a lawyer files three junk lawsuits, he will
lose the right to appear in Federal Court for 3 years. Three strikes
and you're out.''
The Austin American Statesman summarized President Bush's plan as
saying, ``Bush's plan includes stiffer penalties for lawsuits
determined by judges to be frivolous, including a three-strikes-and-
you're-out rule for lawyers who repeatedly file such claims.''
On the day before we marked up this bill in the Judiciary Committee,
May 24, 2005, I visited with President Bush in his personal residence
and asked him, Mr. President, do you still stand by this policy that we
need three strikes and you're out to crack down on frivolous lawsuits?
He said, I absolutely do. That is the policy of the White House.
So we have the Democrat Presidential candidate, Mr. Kerry; the
Democrat Vice Presidential candidate, Mr. Edwards; the President of the
United States; and the Judiciary Committee on a voice vote adopted this
three-strikes-and-you're-out provision.
The third key element of this Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act is language
to avoid forum shopping. It is the same language that we had in the
class action legislation, which was approved on a bipartisan basis by
both the House and the Senate and signed into law. Essentially, if
there is an accident, the claim will be brought where the accident is
or where the plaintiff resides or where the defendant resides.
For example, if you lived in Orlando, Florida, like I do, and you
went to your local McDonald's and you slipped on a puddle of water, you
could bring your suit in Orlando, where it should be. What you could
not do is say, well, I know that Madison County, Illinois is a judicial
hellhole, and there are lots of plaintiff-friendly judges, and
McDonald's does business up in Madison County, Illinois. We are going
to go file our suit there and do a little forum shopping. That is the
kind of thing that is not going to be allowed here.
In short, this is a commonsense bill that provides tough mandatory
sanctions to crack down on frivolous suits and includes provisions that
enjoy bipartisan support. This bill has already passed the House. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I observe the gentleman tells us that
President Bush assures us of the problem of frivolous lawsuits.
President Bush assured us there were weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq and a lot of other nonsense. So I do not give that too much
credence.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member,
and I thank my good friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Smith). There
are many opportunities that we have to agree. I believe in his
unabiding commitment to the integrity to the judicial system. That is
why I rise to quote him when he says that there is a premise that we
all deserve justice and that justice, in essence, should not be denied.
He agrees with that, and I agree with that. Frankly, however, this
legislation is not merely a denial of justice. It is an obliteration, a
complete destruction of justice.
It is interesting in the backdrop of the United States promoting
democratization in Iraq, challenging Iran, and now with the proceedings
against Saddam Hussein and the very basis of our dependence upon a fair
and impartial
[[Page 24008]]
judicial system that will allow lawyers to be able to petition for
their client or defend their client, that we would stand here on the
floor of the House today and in essence create the lawsuit elimination
legislation rather than the suggestion that we are preventing abuse.
Let me tell you what this legislation intends to do. This legislation
intends to ride roughshod over States' rights, forcing State courts to
enact burdensome procedures and even stripping their jurisdiction over
certain cases. That means that, in essence, it forces State judges
within 30 days of a case being filed to conduct an extensive and
lengthy pretrial hearing to determine whether Federal Rule 10 must be
imposed. We already know that Federal Rule 11 has given the court
system an effective tool to ensure, if you will, that if there is
frivolous activity in the courthouse, or a lawyer files a frivolous
case, that lawyer can be sanctioned.
This now protects foreign corporations at the expense of consumers.
Why? Because you may be able to sue in a State court, but the State
court may not have jurisdiction over that foreign corporation, leaving
the victim of products liability, the victim of a terrible heinous
accident left without remedy in a State court.
It makes sanctions mandatory rather than discretionary. It undermines
the Federal judiciary system and the court system. It says to our
judges that although you have gone to the highest litmus test,
confirmation on the Federal bench, elections and bar scrutiny, we are
telling you that we are going to pierce your courtroom and we are going
to take away the rights of Rule 11 where you have discretion and we are
going to simply tell you to throw a lawyer out.
Then for myself as an African American and someone whose very
existence is based upon the privileges that Thurgood Marshall had, and
many other lawyers, to go into the courthouse, and at that time and era
in the early 1940s and 1950s, speak language that could have been
considered frivolous, I would suggest that just in a general sense,
whether or not this particular legislation speaks particularly to that
issue, there are many times in our history where lawyers may be
considered frivolous because they are speaking a language that opposes
society.
The question of an equal education under Brown v. Topeka might have
been frivolous. I do not want to have a Federal law that suggests that
you cannot go into the courthouse. This bill allows judges to order
individuals to reimburse litigation costs, including attorneys' fees,
by specifically stating that reasonable attorneys' fees should be taken
into account when assessing the amount of the sanction. That means that
the poorer client is going to be thrown out.
This is supposed to help small businesses. At the same time, it may
be the small business that is a petitioner. They may think their case
is legitimate.
For example, what about this lawsuit for one business against
another. That is frivolous lawsuits, when you had Enterprise, a very
big company, filed a lawsuit against Rent-A-Wreck of America, a tiny
rental company, and Hertz Corporation and threatened to file lawsuits
against several other rental car companies that used the phrase, ``pick
you up,'' claiming that ``We'll pick you up'' is Enterprise's slogan.
Then there was a whole bunch of other lawsuits around who will pick you
up, and who is not picking you up and why you are being picked up.
We could label frivolous lawsuits across the board. It should be left
to the judges in Rule 11. This legislation removes the safe harbor
provision of the rule which allows an attorney a period of 21 days to
withdraw an objectionable pleading. That undermines justice. Maybe the
lawyer made a mistake and therefore we do not have that opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say this is a bill that has no basis in
need, and we should unanimously defeat it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the base bill before the
Committee of the Whole H.R. 4571, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of
2005 and state my support for the substitute offered by the Gentleman
from California, Mr. Schiff.
As I mentioned during the Committee on the Judiciary's oversight
hearing on this legislation during its iteration in the 108th Congress
and reiterated in my statement for the markup, one of the main
functions of the Congress before it passes legislation is to analyze
potentially negative impact against the benefits that it might have on
those affected. The base bill before the House today does not represent
the product of careful analysis.
In the case of H.R. 4571, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, the
oversight functions of the Judiciary Committee allowed us to craft a
bill that will protect those affected from negative impacts of the
shield from liability that it proposes. This legislation required an
overhaul in order to make it less of a misnomer--to reduce abuse rather
than encourage it.
The goal of the tort reform legislation is to allow businesses to
externalize, or shift, some of the cost of the injuries they cause to
others. Tort law always assigns liability to the party in the best
position to prevent an injury in the most reasonable and fair manner.
In looking at the disparate impact that the new tort reform laws will
have on ethnic minority groups, it is unconscionable that the burden
will be placed on these groups--that are in the worst position to bear
the liability costs.
When Congress considers pre-empting State laws, it must strike the
appropriate balance between two competing values--local control and
national uniformity. Local control is extremely important because we
all believe, as did the Founders two centuries ago, that state
governments are closer to the people and better able to assess local
needs and desires. National uniformity is also an important
consideration In federalism--Congress' exclusive jurisdiction over
interstate commerce has allowed our economy to grow dramatically over
the past 200 years.
This legislation would reverse the changes to Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, FRCP, that were made by the Judicial
Conference in 1993 such that (1) sanctions against an attorney whose
litigation tactics are determined to harass or cause unnecessary delay
or cost or who has been determined to have made frivolous legal
arguments or unwarranted factual assertions would become mandatory
rather than discretionary to the court, (2) discovery-related activity
would be included within the scope of the Rule, and (3) the Rule would
be extended to state cases affecting interstate commerce so that if a
state judge decides that a case affects interstate commerce, he or she
must apply Rule 11 if violations are found.
This legislation strips State and Federal judges of their discretion
in the area of applying Rule 11 sanctions. Furthermore, it infringes
States' rights by forcing state courts to apply the rule if interstate
commerce is affected. Why is the discretion of the judge not sufficient
in discerning whether Rule 11 sanctions should be assessed?
If this legislation moves forward in this body, it will be important
for us to find out its effect on indigent plaintiffs or those who must
hire an attorney strictly on a contingent-fee basis. Because the
application of Rule 11 would be mandatory, attorneys will pad their
legal fees to account for the additional risk that they will have to
incur in filing lawsuits and the fact that they will have no
opportunity to withdraw the suit due to a mistake. Overall, this
legislation will deter indigent plaintiffs from seeking counsel to file
meritorious claims given the extremely high legal fees.
Furthermore, H.R. 4571, as drafted, would allow corporations that
perform sham and non-economic transactions in order to enjoy economic
benefits in this country. Therefore, I planned to offer an amendment
that would preclude these entities from so benefiting.
The text of the amendment defined the term ``Benedict Arnold
Corporation'' and proposed to prevent such companies from benefiting
from the legal remedies that H.R. 4571 purports to offer.
The ``Benedict Arnold Corporation'' refers to a company that, in bad
faith, takes advantage loopholes in our tax code to establish bank
accounts or to ship jobs abroad for the main purpose of tax avoidance.
A tax-exempt group that monitors corporate influence called ``Citizen
Works'' has compiled a list of 25 Fortune 500 Corporations that have
the most offshore tax-haven subsidiaries. The percentage of increase in
the number of tax havens held by these corporations since between 85.7
percent and 9,650 percent.
This significant increase in the number of corporate tax havens is no
coincidence when we look at the benefits that can be fund in doing sham
business transactions. Some of
[[Page 24009]]
these corporations are ``Benedict Arnolds'' because they have given up
their American citizenship; however, they still conduct a substantial
amount of their business in the United States and enjoy tax deductions
of domestic corporations.
Such an amendment would preclude these corporations from enjoying the
benefit of mandatory attorney sanctions for a Rule 11 violation. By
forcing these corporate entities to fully litigate matters brought
helps to put their true corporate identity into light and discourages
them from performing as many domestic transactions that may be
actionable for a claimant.
In the context of the Judiciary's consideration of the Terrorist
Penalties Enhancement Act, H.R. 2934, my colleagues accepted an
amendment that I offered that ensured that corporate felons were
included in the list of individuals eligible for prosecution for
committing terrorist offenses. The amendment that I would have offered
for this bill has the same intent--to increase corporate accountability
and to encourage corporate activity with integrity.
I ask that my colleagues support the Substitute offered by Mr. Schiff
and defeat the base bill. We must carefully consider the long-term
implications that this bill, as drafted, will have on indigent
claimants, the trial attorney community, and facilitation of corporate
fraud.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Constitutional Law
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all commend the
gentleman from Texas for his leadership in this area. This is a very
important piece of legislation. I think he does us all proud by pushing
for this and ultimately, I believe, being successful in its passage.
I am pleased to be a cosponsor of H.R. 420, legislation that will
help curtail frivolous lawsuits. It is reassuring to once again see
that the Congress is taking measures to help rid our court system of
lawsuits that are costly and hurt both consumers and businesses in our
country. The legislation is aimed at enforcing the laws that govern
attorneys in relation to filing frivolous lawsuits. The actual standard
of what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit will not change. But
consequences for such actions will.
In 1993, the Civil Rules advisory committee, an unelected body,
decided that sanctions against attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits
should be optional. Justice David Brewer once wrote: ``America is the
paradise of lawyers.''
In my opinion, this ``paradise'' has resulted in increased prices for
consumer goods and higher insurance premiums and a decrease in domestic
manufacturing, which has been one of the things that we have heard more
and more discussion about in this country, the loss of manufacturing
jobs.
H.R. 420 seeks to rein in lawsuit-happy litigators by restoring
mandatory sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuits, a violation of Rule
11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This bill also prevents
forum shopping by requiring that personal injury cases be brought only
where the plaintiff resides, where the plaintiff was allegedly injured,
or where the defendant's principal place of business is located.
Finally, the bill would apply a three-strikes-and-you-are-out rule,
as we have heard, to attorneys who commit three or more Rule 11
violations in Federal district court. As a member of the House
Judiciary Committee, as well as a member of the Small Business
Committee, I have heard endless accounts of family-owned small
businesses being led to financial ruin by the exorbitant cost of
frivolous lawsuits.
According to the NFIB, the National Federation of Independent
Businesses, small business owners ranked the cost and availability of
liability insurance as the second most important problem facing small
business owners today. Small business owners know that if they are
sued, they are likely to have to choose between a long and costly trial
or an expensive settlement. Either choice significantly impacts the
operations of a business and the livelihood of its employees. This
hurts the little guy because of these lawsuits.
Most business decisions today are made with this new reality in mind.
This bill will help make American small businesses more competitive by
lowering their unnecessary legal expenses, allowing business owners to
focus on hiring new employees and expanding available products.
This bill will help make American businesses more competitive. It
will allow business owners to focus on hiring new employees, which is
really critical in this economy that we are faced with, and expanding
the availability of products and services and improving the American
economy.
Mr. Chairman, I again want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his
leadership in introducing this important piece of legislation. It is
time that we put an end to these frivolous lawsuits that are impacting
the economy, that are hurting, especially, small businesses and are
resulting in the loss of jobs of many, many Americans in this country.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from New
York for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 420, legislation that
would have a chilling effect on a plaintiff's ability to seek recourse
in court. As I have listened to my colleagues on the floor talk about
three-strikes-and-you-are-out with regard to a counsel, you would think
this was a criminal situation. They took discretion away from judges
with mandatory sentencing. They said, Judge, no matter what the facts
are of the case, if this is the penalty, then you impose such penalty.
What is very interesting is, even though my colleague cited John
Kerry, John Edwards, President Bush, and the Judiciary Committee, not
one of them have sat as a judge in a case, making decisions about Rule
11 cases.
{time} 1415
I am proud to say that I served as a judge for 10 years in the trial
court in the State of Ohio and have had the ability to review
complaints, review discovery decisions, review pleadings. And judges
should be vested with the same discretion they are vested with in other
situations and not be subjected to this Rule 11 sanctions piece that is
being proposed by this legislation.
It is unconscionable that the claim that businesses get on with more
business or they can hire more employees, to use that to play against
the ability of a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit. What is going to make
business do better in the United States of America is this country
having a policy that encourages business. What is going to make people
work better in the United States of America is having greater
opportunity for business, and you cannot blame business not doing well
on lawsuits, just as you cannot blame doctors running all over creation
because of medical malpractice.
I encourage all of my colleagues to take a close look at what this
legislation will do, to take a close look and listen to the arguments
that are being made by my colleagues with regard to this legislation,
and vote in opposition to H.R. 420.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will summarize in a few words what we are really talking about.
There are frivolous lawsuits. There are also novel legal claims which
some may consider frivolous, but which, in the fullness of time, yield
legal progress. The claims against Plessy v. Ferguson were considered
frivolous at first, but eventually the courts accepted them, and so
with many other arguments.
The courts have Rule 11 sanctions available at their discretion. Any
judge who thinks an attorney is being frivolous, is wasting the court's
time, is wasting his adversary's time, can impose the sanctions today.
The courts have not asked for further power. The courts have certainly
not asked us to tie their hands and to mandate that they impose
sanctions whenever they are requested and a technicality may have been
violated. That is not justice, to enforce technicalities against the
discretion of the judge.
The Association of State Chief Justices are not in favor of this. The
Judicial Council of the United States is not in favor of this.
[[Page 24010]]
To mandate that attorneys be sanctioned on any technicality, to say
that an attorney may not correct his own mistake, you must sanction
him; to say that three sanctions on three technicalities means he
cannot practice anymore is to tell attorneys, do not try novel legal
arguments, do not argue new claims. To say that attorneys' fees,
reasonable attorneys' fees, will be assessed mandatorily, whatever the
judge thinks, whether he thinks or she thinks it is reasonable or not,
is to say that you better not sue the big boys, that you better not sue
General Motors, and a small business, a supplier cannot sue Wal-Mart
lest the attorney violate some technicality and the attorneys' fees of
Wal-Mart, with their 45 attorneys sitting there, be assessed against
the small supplier.
This is not justice. What this bill is, Mr. Chairman, is another
attempt, another in a series of attempts, the class action bills, the
various other bills we have had here, to close the courts, to close the
courts to anyone who would try to hold giant corporations accountable.
That is what this is. This is a bill that says, do not try to use the
courts for civil rights, do not try to use the courts to sue large
corporations. We are going to make sure you do not. We are going to
punish you if you do, and we are going to make sure you cannot find an
attorney who will take the case because they are worried about
draconian imposition of draconian attorneys' fees.
So I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. It should be rejected,
because the courts ought to be opened to all people who need to use
them. Otherwise there is no justice.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I was listening to the
gentleman framing the question, and the gentleman framed the question I
think in the way that we should ask our colleagues for them to give us
an answer. I think what the gentleman has suggested in his very
detailed and eloquent presentation, there is a judicial system in place
that is functioning and functional. We should take the Boy Scouts'
oath, make your camp better than you found it. Therefore, if there are
issues that we can improve in the judiciary, let us do it.
But I am just looking at some information here that tells me that
Federal litigation is, in fact, decreasing. A 2005 report issued by the
U.S. Department of Justice says that the U.S. district courts in some
areas, of course, fell 79 percent, fell 79 percent, the cases, the tort
cases, between 1985 and 2003. According to the Administrative Office of
the U.S. Courts, tort actions in the U.S. district courts went down
from 29 percent from 2002 to 2003, so it fell 28 percent. In addition,
over the last 5 years, Federal civil filings have not only decreased 8
percent, but the prefilings that are personal injury cases has also
declined. State litigation is decreasing. The numbers show they are
decreasing. Lawsuit filings are decreasing. As I said, tort filings
have declined 5 percent since 1993. Contract filings have declined.
I do not particularly consider that a good omen. I would like people
to legitimately feel they can go into the courts for their remedies.
But the question is, it is not broken, and here we are putting heavier
burdens on the court system that literally shuts the door closed to a
number of individuals, and I think that is completely unacceptable for
the responsibility of this Congress.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentlewoman.
I think the gentlewoman has established not only that the system is
not broken, but that any claim of an avalanche of frivolous litigation
is absurd for these kinds of statistics of declining use of the courts,
of declining caseloads, of declining filings. Again, the courts have
not requested this, they have not said that there is any problem, there
is any problem existing. This is an attempt again to shut the
courthouse doors to people who need access to the courts, and on the
most fundamental grounds of justice, this bill ought to be soundly
rejected.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the scourge of frivolous litigation mars the fabric of
our legal system and undermines the vitality of our economy. As
President Bush has stated, ``We have a responsibility to confront
frivolous litigation head on.'' H.R. 420 would do exactly that.
Frivolous lawsuits have become a form of legalized extortion. Without
the serious threat of certain punishment for filing frivolous claims,
innocent people and small businesses will continue to confront the
stark economic reality that simply paying off frivolous claims through
monetary settlements is always cheaper than litigating the case until
no fault is found. Frivolous lawsuits subvert the proper role of the
tort system and affront fundamental notions of fairness that are
central to our system of justice.
The effects of frivolous litigation are both clear and widespread.
Churches are discouraging counseling by ministers. Children have
learned to threaten teachers with lawsuits. Youth sports are shutting
down in the face of lawsuits for injuries and even hurt feelings.
Common playground equipment is now an endangered species. The Girl
Scouts in the metro Detroit area alone have to sell 36,000 boxes of
cookies each year just to pay for their liability insurance. Good
Samaritans are discouraged. When one man routinely cleared a trail
after snowstorms, the county had to ask him to stop. The supervisor of
district operations wrote, ``If a person falls, you are more liable
than if you had never plowed at all.''
Unfortunately, the times we are in allow for a much more litigious
environment than common sense would dictate. A Federal lawsuit has even
been filed against U.S. weather forecasters after the South Asian
tsunami disaster.
Today results of frivolous lawsuits are written on all manner of
product warnings that aim to prevent obvious misuse. A warning label on
a baby stroller cautions, ``Remove child before folding.'' A five-inch
brass fishing lure with three hooks is labeled, ``Harmful if
swallowed.'' And household irons warn, ``Never iron clothes while they
are being worn.''
Small businesses and workers suffer the most. The Nation's oldest
ladder manufacturer, family-owned John S. Tilley Ladders Company near
Albany, New York, recently filed for bankruptcy protection and sold off
most of its assets due to litigation costs. Founded in 1855, the Tilley
firm could not handle the cost of liability insurance, which had risen
from 6 percent of sales a decade ago to 29 percent, while never losing
an actual court judgment. The workers of John S. Tilley Ladders never
faced a competitor they could not beat in the marketplace, but they
were no match for frivolous lawsuits.
When Business Week published an extensive article on what the most
effective legal reforms would be, it stated that what is needed are
``Penalties That Sting.'' As Business Week recommends, ``Give judges
stronger tools to punish renegade lawyers.''
Before 1993, it was mandatory for judges to impose sanctions such as
public censures, fines, or orders to pay for the other side's legal
expenses. Then the Civil Rules Advisory Committee, an obscure branch of
the courts, made penalties optional. This needs to be reversed by
Congress. Today, H.R. 420 would do exactly that.
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure presently does not
require sanctions against parties who bring frivolous lawsuits. Without
certain punishment for those who bring these suits and the threat of
serious monetary penalties to compensate the victims of frivolous
lawsuits, there is little incentive for lawsuit victims to spend time
and money seeking sanctions for lawsuit abuse. In fact, as currently
written, Rule 11 allows lawyers to entirely avoid sanctions for filing
frivolous claims by withdrawing them within 3 weeks. Such a rule
actually encourages frivolous claims because personal injury attorneys
can file
[[Page 24011]]
harassing pleadings secure in the knowledge that they have nothing to
lose. If someone objects, they can always retreat without penalty.
H.R. 420 would restore mandatory sanctions and monetary penalties
under Federal Rule 11 for filing frivolous lawsuits and abusing the
litigation process. It would also extend these same protections to
cover State cases that a State judge determines have interstate
implications and close the loopholes of a tort system that often
resembles a tort lottery.
The legislation applies to frivolous lawsuits brought by businesses
as well as individuals, and it expressly precludes application of the
bill to civil rights cases if applying the bill to such cases would bar
or impede the assertion or development of new claims or remedies under
Federal, State, or local civil rights law. The Class Action Fairness
Act, which was recently signed into law after receiving broad support
in both Houses, prohibits the unfair practice of forum shopping for
favorable courts when the case is styled as a class action. The same
policy should apply to individual lawsuits as well.
One of the Nation's wealthiest personal injury attorneys, Richard
``Dickie'' Scruggs, and I quoted him at length a while ago, but I will
quote him a little bit shorter right now, described what he calls
``magic jurisdictions'' as ``What I call the `magic jurisdictions' is
where it is almost impossible to get a fair trial if you are a
defendant. Any lawyer fresh out of law school can walk in there and win
the case, so it does not matter what the evidence or the law is.''
America's system of justice deserves better, much better. H.R. 420
prevents the unfair practice of forum shopping by requiring that
personal injury cases be brought only where there is some reasonable
connection to the case; namely, where the plaintiff lives or was
allegedly injured, where the defendant's principal place of business is
located, or where the defendant resides.
The time for congressional action to close the loopholes that create
incentives for frivolous lawsuits is now. Too many jobs have been lost
and more will not be created if this legislation is not enacted into
law.
I urge my colleagues to return a measure of fairness to America's
legal system by passing the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of H.R. 420, the
Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005. This legislation runs roughshod
over States' rights, forcing State courts to enact onerous procedures
and stripping States' jurisdiction in certain cases. This bill would
also force restrictive venue provisions on all State courts, which
essentially tells State courts they do not have jurisdiction over
certain claims brought by its own citizens. Let State legislatures and
State judiciaries set their own Rules. And, by the way, a frivolous,
meritless lawsuit is damaging to the system and the offending parties
should be punished.
This bill also protects foreign corporations at the expense of
consumers in that it unfairly dictates to States where their citizens
can enforce legal right against a corporation based outside of the
United States. While H.R. 420 allows a victim to file a claim in a
court in his or her home State, because of existing jurisdictional
rules that State may be unable to exercise power over the foreign
corporation.
For example, a corporation in Mexico sells cribs in the United States
and those cribs are shipped to Kansas and sold in Nebraska. The cribs
turn out to be defective and one collapses on a baby in Nebraska,
killing it. It may be impossible, under this proposed bill, for that
Nebraska family to file a lawsuit in Nebraska. The family may have to
file the suit in Kansas but would have to take the case to Mexico under
H.R. 420. I cannot in good conscience support a bill preventing a
family in this situation from filing a lawsuit in its own State.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called
Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act because it would hurt all Americans by
exposing them and their attorneys to motions intended to harass them
and slow down the legal process, a tactic often used by wealthy
defendants in civil rights trials.
Prior to 1993, defendants in civil rights cases would file a crushing
number of motions alleging frivolous actions on the part of the
plaintiff in a blatant attempt to delay the case. In 1993, the rules
were changed and judges were empowered to determine sanctions for
frivolous lawsuits on a case-by-case basis, removing this delay tactic
from wealthy defendants. However, since the Republican Party doesn't
think judges have any business deciding how to run their courts, they
want to repeal this change and revert back to the days of delayed
justice.
This is one of many reasons why the U.S. Judicial Conference, headed
by Chief Justice John Roberts, opposes this bill. Further, H.R. 420 is
unconstitutional because it forces every State court to implement new
court rules and procedures, even though Congress has no jurisdiction
over State courts.
Justice delayed is justice denied and I am proud to stand up for our
Constitution, judicial system, and all Americans by voting no on this
bill. If that makes me a friend of the trial lawyers, then I proudly
stand with the brilliant litigators Thurgood Marshall and Abraham
Lincoln in opposition to political hacks like Karl Rove and George W.
Bush.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to changing
Federal court rules to try to make it less likely that small business
owners or other Americans will be forced to defend themselves against
frivolous lawsuits. So, I could support many of the provisions of this
bill. However, the bill has such serious flaws that I cannot support it
in its current form.
Part of the bill would change Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure in ways that would basically restore that rule as it was in
1992. As a result, lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits in Federal courts
would face mandatory sanctions in the form of payments to those who
were victimized by those lawsuits. I think that could be an effective
deterrent, and can support it.
I also can support strong provisions to deter--and, if necessary
punish--repeated violations of the rules against misuse of the courts
through frivolous lawsuits. However, I am not enthusiastic about the
idea of Congress's attempting to micro-manage the State courts or to
take over the job of regulating the practice of law in State courts in
the way that this bill would do.
And I am definitely opposed to changing the rules in ways that could
make it impossible for people with valid claims to receive proper
consideration of their cases.
For that reason, I must object to the provisions of the bill which,
as the non-partisan Congressional Research Service explains, ``would
preclude litigation in United States courts that would be authorized
under current law. For instance, [under current law] . . . if a
corporation has stores, factories, offices, or property anywhere in the
United States . . . a Federal suit might be brought against it in one
of the judicial districts where . . . [an objectionable] activity
occurs or property [is located. But] . . . enactment of H.R. 420
apparently could result in a plaintiffs being left without a judicial
forum in the United States for his or her tort claim.''
Leaving some Americans with no recourse to the courts even for valid
claims would be bad enough. But I find it even more unacceptable that
prime beneficiaries of these provisions could be American companies who
have chosen to fly a foreign flag in order to escape paying their
Federal taxes.
I voted for the Schiff-Kind amendment because I favor strong measures
against frivolous lawsuits but oppose giving those fugitive
corporations such an unfair advantage over truly American companies.
Unfortunately, however, that amendment was not adopted--and as a result
I must vote against this bill as it stands.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 420, a measure
that purports to reduce frivolous lawsuits. While no one likes to see
unnecessary, merit-less lawsuits clogging our court system, this bill
only serves as an unneeded intrusion of Federal authority into State
matters.
H.R. 420 substantially changes State court procedure by forcing State
judges, within 30 days of a case being filed, to conduct an extensive
and lengthy pre-trial hearing to determine whether Federal sanctions
must be imposed in a State proceeding. This would require a judge to
examine evidence in detail and even to make a pre-trial judgment as to
what the outcome of a case might be. These requirements will only serve
to add time and expense to the proceedings. Federal judges
overwhelmingly agree that the Federal court rules operate more
efficiently and fairly when they are discretionary rather than
mandatory.
Mr. Chairman, States already have some version of the rule that is
exactly or substantially similar to the federally available sanction.
State courts should not be forced to spend scarce taxpayer money to
conduct an expensive hearing in order to apply a Federal rule that
mirrors a mechanism they already have in place.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition
to the Lawsuit Abuse
[[Page 24012]]
Reduction Act. As an advocate for reasoned and balanced reform to our
American judicial system, I am afraid that today's bill overreaches and
sets a dangerous precedent for future legislation. H.R. 420 treads
unnecessarily on judicial independence and makes litigation overly
burdensome for legitimate cases to have their fair day in court.
Primarily, this legislation encroaches on the judicial rulemaking
process by changing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, over which
Congress has no rightful jurisdiction. This rulemaking process is the
responsibility of the Judicial Conference and the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, the requirement that State courts apply these new Federal
rules is an intrusion on State judicial authority.
I strongly believe that the integrity of the judiciary is in question
if we impose our own set of rules on this independent body,
particularly as Congress continues to limit judicial discretion. This
action is wrong, and one of the reason that judges from across the
Nation overwhelmingly oppose this legislation.
Furthermore, I believe this bill inhibits legitimate cases from
having their day in court. Plaintiffs that have just cause for action,
particularly in cases dealing with civil rights, may reconsider because
of the threat of mandated sanctions and the elimination of the 21-day
``safe harbor'' rule. This chilling effect on meritorious legal claims
does not offer honest Americans justice.
I also have concern that this bill will not deter frivolous lawsuits.
Despite the anecdotes my colleagues have offered, there is no empirical
evidence that Rule 11, which this bill seeks to change, is not working.
In fact, recent studies indicate that frivolous litigation is
declining.
Mr. Chairman, I will continue to approach tort reform with the
objective of ensuring that any legitimate cases have their day in
court. I don't believe the bill before us today meets this standard.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 420, the Lawsuit
Abuse Reduction Act.
The simple fact is, we have too many junk lawsuits being filed. It is
imperative we reform our tort system, and it seems to me this
legislation is an important step in this direction.
The House has passed several common sense bills that will help make
our court system less prone to abuse and more fair for victims, such as
medical malpractice reform and class action reform.
Today's legislation would restore mandatory sanctions on lawyers and
law firms filing frivolous lawsuits and eliminate the current safe
harbor provision that allows lawyers to avoid sanctions by quickly
withdrawing meritless claims. The legislation also prevents forum
shopping by requiring suits to be filed where a plaintiff resides,
where an injury occurred, or where the defendant's principal place of
business is located.
Tort reform will make American businesses more competitive and lower
costs to consumers while ensuring true victims' rights to sue for
damages. Frivolous lawsuits have discouraged product development,
stifled innovative research and cost millions in insurance and legal
fees--costs that often get passed on to consumers. Making the system
less costly will increase job creation, benefiting businesses and
consumers alike.
I support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do so as
well.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to
H.R. 420, the so- called Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. The legislation
will have a significant, adverse impact on the ability of civil rights
plaintiffs to seek recourse in our courts.
This bill would remove a court's discretion to impose sanctions on
attorneys for frivolous lawsuits under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. By removing a court's discretion to impose sanctions,
this bill would make Rule 11 sanctions mandatory.
Mandatory Rule 11 sanctions are a failed experiment. When they were
mandatory--between 1983 until they were repealed in 1993--they were
disproportionately used to harass civil rights plaintiffs bringing
claims to enforce civil rights laws. It would be a mistake to turn back
the clock on civil rights.
If such mandatory sanctions are reinstated, what can we expect? The
movie, based on the first sexual harassment class action, North
Country, perfectly illustrates the problem. North Country is based on
the real life case of Lois Jensen, who in 1975 was a single mother on
welfare and took a job working in the taconite mines of northern
Minnesota. In that male-dominated work force, she endured extreme
sexual harassment and her employer refused to do something about it.
After 25 years and three trials, Jensen finally prevailed in 1998.
Landmark litigation takes time. And landmark causes of action, often
referred to as novel, should not be confused with frivolous claims.
If H.R. 420 passes, motions for Rule 11 sanctions will be
disproportionately brought by big corporations against individual
plaintiffs to harass, drag-out, and make the costs of their litigation
more expensive.
It's important not to make landmark civil rights cases more
difficult. Mandatory Rule 11 sanctions would make such compelling cases
more difficult by allowing big companies even more opportunities to
out-litigate the individual. H.R. 420 will require a mandatory
sanctions regime that would apply to civil rights cases and massively
skew the playing field against injured victims. I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on H.R. 420, and support the Democratic alternative.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
{time} 1430
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 420
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 ``Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act
of 2005''.
SEC. 2. ATTORNEY ACCOUNTABILITY.
Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is
amended--
(1) by amending the first sentence to read as follows: ``If
a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of
this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative,
shall impose upon the attorney, law firm, or parties that
have violated this subdivision or are responsible for the
violation, an appropriate sanction, which may include an
order to pay the other party or parties for the reasonable
expenses incurred as a direct result of the filing of the
pleading, motion, or other paper, that is the subject of the
violation, including a reasonable attorney's fee.'';
(2) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) by striking ``Rule 5'' and all that follows through
``corrected.'' and inserting ``Rule 5.''; and
(B) by striking ``the court may award'' and inserting ``the
court shall award''; and
(3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``shall be limited to
what is sufficient'' and all that follows through the end of
the paragraph (including subparagraphs (A) and (B)) and
inserting ``shall be sufficient to deter repetition of such
conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated,
and to compensate the parties that were injured by such
conduct. The sanction may consist of an order to pay to the
party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses
incurred as a direct result of the filing of the pleading,
motion, or other paper that is the subject of the violation,
including a reasonable attorney's fee.''.
SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF RULE 11 TO STATE CASES AFFECTING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
In any civil action in State court, the court, upon motion,
shall determine within 30 days after the filing of such
motion whether the action substantially affects interstate
commerce. Such court shall make such determination based on
an assessment of the costs to the interstate economy,
including the loss of jobs, were the relief requested
granted. If the court determines such action substantially
affects interstate commerce, the provisions of Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to such action.
SEC. 4. PREVENTION OF FORUM-SHOPPING.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), a personal
injury claim filed in State or Federal court may be filed
only in the State and, within that State, in the county (or
Federal district) in which--
(1) the person bringing the claim, including an estate in
the case of a decedent and a parent or guardian in the case
of a minor or incompetent--
(A) resides at the time of filing; or
(B) resided at the time of the alleged injury;
(2) the alleged injury or circumstances giving rise to the
personal injury claim allegedly occurred;
(3) the defendant's principal place of business is located,
if the defendant is a corporation; or
(4) the defendant resides, if the defendant is an
individual.
(b) Determination of Most Appropriate Forum.--If a person
alleges that the injury or circumstances giving rise to the
personal injury claim occurred in more than one county (or
Federal district), the trial court shall determine which
State and county (or Federal district) is the most
appropriate forum for the claim. If the court determines that
another forum would be the most appropriate forum for a
claim, the court shall dismiss the claim. Any otherwise
applicable statute of limitations shall be tolled beginning
on the date the claim was filed and ending on the date the
claim is dismissed under this subsection.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``personal injury claim''--
(A) means a civil action brought under State law by any
person to recover for a person's personal injury, illness,
disease, death, mental or
[[Page 24013]]
emotional injury, risk of disease, or other injury, or the
costs of medical monitoring or surveillance (to the extent
such claims are recognized under State law), including any
derivative action brought on behalf of any person on whose
injury or risk of injury the action is based by any
representative party, including a spouse, parent, child, or
other relative of such person, a guardian, or an estate; and
(B) does not include a claim brought as a class action.
(2) The term ``person'' means any individual, corporation,
company, association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock
company, or any other entity, but not any governmental
entity.
(3) The term ``State'' includes the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin
Islands, Guam, and any other territory or possession of the
United States.
(d) Applicability.--This section applies to any personal
injury claim filed in Federal or State court on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in section 3 or in the amendments made by section 2
shall be construed to bar or impede the assertion or
development of new claims or remedies under Federal, State,
or local civil rights law.
SEC. 6. THREE-STRIKES RULE FOR SUSPENDING ATTORNEYS WHO
COMMIT MULTIPLE RULE 11 VIOLATIONS.
(a) Mandatory Suspension.--Whenever a Federal district
court determines that an attorney has violated Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court shall determine
the number of times that the attorney has violated that rule
in that Federal district court during that attorney's career.
If the court determines that the number is 3 or more, the
Federal district court--
(1) shall suspend that attorney from the practice of law in
that Federal district court for 1 year; and
(2) may suspend that attorney from the practice of law in
that Federal district court for any additional period that
the court considers appropriate.
(b) Appeal; Stay.--An attorney has the right to appeal a
suspension under subsection (a). While such an appeal is
pending, the suspension shall be stayed.
(c) Reinstatement.--To be reinstated to the practice of law
in a Federal district court after completion of a suspension
under subsection (a), the attorney must first petition the
court for reinstatement under such procedures and conditions
as the court may prescribe.
SEC. 7. PRESUMPTION OF RULE 11 VIOLATION FOR REPEATEDLY
RELITIGATING SAME ISSUE.
Whenever a party attempts to litigate, in any forum, an
issue that the party has already litigated and lost on the
merits on 3 consecutive prior occasions, there shall be a
rebuttable presumption that the attempt is in violation of
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SEC. 8. ENHANCED SANCTIONS FOR DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION.
(a) In General.--Whoever influences, obstructs, or impedes,
or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, a pending
court proceeding through the intentional destruction of
documents sought in, and highly relevant to, that
proceeding--
(1) shall be punished with mandatory civil sanctions of a
degree commensurate with the civil sanctions available under
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in addition
to any other civil sanctions that otherwise apply; and
(2) shall be held in contempt of court and, if an attorney,
referred to one or more appropriate State bar associations
for disciplinary proceedings.
(b) Applicability.--This section applies to any court
proceeding in any Federal or State court that substantially
affects interstate commerce.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order
except those printed in House Report 109-253. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 109-253 offered by
Mr. Smith of Texas:
Page 4, strike lines 8 through 11 and insert the following:
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), a personal
injury claim filed in State or Federal court may be filed
only in the State and, within that State, in the county (or
if there is no State court in the county, the nearest county
where a court of general jurisdiction is located) or Federal
district in which--
Page 5, line 23, strike ``and''.
Page 5, line 25, strike the period at the end and insert
``; and''.
Page 5, after line 25, insert the following:
(C) does not include a claim against a debtor in a case
pending under title 11 of the United States Code that is a
personal injury tort or wrongful death claim within the
meaning of section 157(b)(5) of title 28, United States Code.
Page, 7, strike line 16 and all that follows through the
end of the bill and insert the following new sections:
SEC. 7. PRESUMPTION OF RULE 11 VIOLATION FOR REPEATEDLY
RELITIGATING SAME ISSUE.
Whenever a party presents to a Federal court a pleading,
written motion, or other paper, that includes a claim or
defense that the party has already litigated and lost on the
merits in any forum in final decisions not subject to appeal
on 3 consecutive occasions, and the claim or defense involves
the same plaintiff and the same defendant, there shall be a
rebuttable presumption that the presentation of such paper is
in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
SEC. 8. ENHANCED SANCTIONS FOR DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION IN
PENDING FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDINGS.
Whoever willfully and intentionally influences, obstructs,
or impedes, or attempts to influence, or obstruct, or impede,
a pending Federal court proceeding through the willful and
intentional destruction of documents sought pursuant to the
rules of such Federal court proceeding and highly relevant to
that proceeding--
(1) shall be punished with mandatory civil sanctions of a
degree commensurate with the civil sanctions available under
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in addition
to any other civil sanctions that otherwise apply; and
(2) shall be held in contempt of court and, if an attorney,
referred to one or more appropriate State bar associations
for disciplinary proceedings.
SEC. 9. BAN ON CONCEALMENT OF UNLAWFUL CONDUCT.
(a) In General.--In any Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure proceeding, a court may not order that a
court record not be disclosed unless the court makes a
finding of fact that identifies the interest that justifies
the order and determines that that interest outweighs any
interest in the public health and safety that the court
determines would be served by disclosing the court record.
(b) Applicability.--This section applies to any record
formally filed with the court, but shall not include any
records subject to--
(1) the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege
recognized under Federal or State law that grants the right
to prevent disclosure of certain information unless the
privilege has been waived; or
(2) applicable State or Federal laws that protect the
confidentiality of crime victims, including victims of sexual
abuse.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the bipartisan manager's amendment I am offering today
reflects the important contributions of the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). It
incorporates into the base bill provisions imposing sanctions for the
destruction of relevant documents in a pending Federal court
proceeding, an amendment setting standards for a court's determination
that certain court records should be sealed, and an amendment providing
for a presumption on a Rule 11 violation when the same issue is
repeatedly relitigated.
This manager's amendment also makes clear that in the antiforum-
shopping provisions, if there is no State court in the county in which
the injury occurred, the case can be brought in the nearest adjacent
county where a court of general jurisdiction is located.
Finally, the manager's amendment makes clear that the legislation
does not affect personal injury claims that Federal bankruptcy law
requires to be heard in a Federal bankruptcy court. This reasonable
request was made by the National Bankruptcy Conference Committee on
Legislation.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan
manager's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek recognition in opposition?
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I do not seek recognition in opposition to
the amendment.
[[Page 24014]]
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New York is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that Chairman Sensenbrenner
has included in the manager's amendment two provisions that I offered
in the Judiciary Committee markup of the bill, and I thank the chairman
for his support.
The first amendment included in the manager's amendment provides for
mandatory sanctions for destroying documents relating to a court
proceeding. Delays during litigation provide ample opportunities for
wrongdoers to destroy incriminating documents. Because this can result
in the complete inability to hold these defendants accountable for
their wrongful acts, parties who knowingly destroy relevant and
incriminating documents should be severely sanctioned.
Secondly, the second amendment bans the concealment of unlawful
conduct when the interests of public health and safety outweigh the
interest of litigating parties in concealment. Very often in civil
litigation, a company producing an unsafe product or an unsafe
procedure will settle with the plaintiff.
The settlement will include a payment of a sum to the defendant, but
will also often include an agreement that the records will be sealed
and no one will ever talk about it. That is the condition that the
defendant company puts on it.
So the defendant pays the money, the plaintiff gets the settlement,
everybody keeps quiet. But meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people
may continue to be injured by that product in the future.
The defendant company forces the plaintiffs never to discuss the
problems with anyone else, no one knows about it, and more people keep
getting hurt because the product remains on the market.
When it comes to public health and safety, people must have access to
information about an unsafe product, not only to protect themselves but
also to serve as a deterrent against companies that may continue to
place the public in harm's way.
Secrecy agreements should not be enforced unless they meet stringent
standards to protect the public interest and the public health. This
amendment prevents this harmful practice. The amendment says that an
agreement to keep a settlement secret, the terms and conditions of
settlement secret, cannot be approved by the court unless the court
determines that the interests of the parties in secrecy, perhaps
legitimate interests outweigh the interests of the public in knowledge
of whatever it is.
If the court so determines, the court can order the secrecy upheld.
But if the court determines that the interest and the public knowledge
outweigh the secrecy, then the court must say that and disapprove the
concealment agreement.
I support the manager's amendment because it includes these two
amendments and other good ideas. But these changes are not enough for
me to support final passage of what is still an egregious bill.
Again, I would like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for working
together in addressing these issues. I believe the manager's amendment
provides some positive changes in what is otherwise an egregious bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the manager's amendment, but against
the final bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 2 Offered by Mr. Schiff
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 2 printed in
House Report 109-253 offered by Mr. Schiff:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. ``THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT'' FOR ATTORNEYS WHO
FILE FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS.
(a) Signature Required.--Every pleading, written motion,
and other paper in any action shall be signed by at least 1
attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if
the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed
by the party. Each paper shall state the signer's address and
telephone number, if any. An unsigned paper shall be stricken
unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after
being called to the attention of the attorney or party.
(b) Certificate of Merit.--By presenting to the court
(whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating)
a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or
unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the
person's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an
inquiry reasonable under the circumstances--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose,
such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless
increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions
therein are warranted by existing law or by a non frivolous
argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of
existing law or the establishment of new law; and
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have
evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are
reasonable based on a lack of information or belief.
(c) Mandatory Sanctions.--
(1) First violation.--If, after notice and a reasonable
opportunity to respond, a court, upon motion or upon its own
initiative, determines that subsection (b) has been violated,
the court shall find each attorney or party in violation in
contempt of court and shall require the payment of costs and
attorneys fees. The court may also impose additional
appropriate sanctions, such as striking the pleadings,
dismissing the suit, and sanctions plus interest, upon the
person in violation, or upon both such person and such
person's attorney or client (as the case may be).
(2) Second violation.--If, after notice and a reasonable
opportunity to respond, a court, upon motion or upon its own
initiative, determines that subsection (b) has been violated
and that the attorney or party with respect to which the
determination was made has committed one previous violation
of subsection (b) before this or any other court, the court
shall find each such attorney or party in contempt of court
and shall require the payment of costs and attorneys fees,
and require such person in violation (or both such person and
such person's attorney or client (as the case may be)) to pay
a monetary fine. The court may also impose additional
appropriate sanctions, such as striking the pleadings,
dismissing the suit and sanctions plus interest, upon such
person in violation, or upon both such person and such
person's attorney or client (as the case may be).
(3) Third and subsequent violations.--If, after notice and
a reasonable opportunity to respond, a court, upon motion or
upon its own initiative, determines that subsection (b) has
been violated and that the attorney or party with respect to
which the determination was made has committed more than one
previous violation of subsection (b) before this or any other
court, the court shall find each such attorney or party in
contempt of court, refer each such attorney to one or more
appropriate State bar associations for disciplinary
proceedings (including suspension of that attorney from the
practice of law for one year or disbarment), require the
payment of costs and attorneys fees, and require such person
in violation (or both such person and such person's attorney,
or client (as the case may be)) to pay a monetary fine. The
court may also impose additional appropriate sanctions, such
as striking the pleadings, dismissing the suit, and sanctions
plus interest, upon such person in violation, or upon both
such person and such person's attorney or client (as the case
may be).
(4) Appeal; stay.--An attorney has the right to appeal a
sanction under this subsection. While such an appeal is
pending, the sanction shall be stayed.
(5) Not applicable to civil rights claims.--Notwithstanding
subsection (d), this subsection does not apply to an action
or claim arising out of Federal, State, or local civil rights
law or any other Federal, State, or local law providing
protection from discrimination.
(d) Applicability.--Except as provided in subsection
(c)(5), this section applies to any paper filed on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act in--
(1) any action in Federal court; and
(2) any action in State court, if the court, upon motion or
upon its own initiative, determines that the action affects
interstate commerce.
SEC. 2. ``THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT'' FOR ATTORNEYS WHO
ENGAGE IN FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT DURING DISCOVERY.
(a) Signatures Required on Disclosures.--Every disclosure
made pursuant to subdivision (a)(1) or subdivision (a)(3) of
Rule
[[Page 24015]]
26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any comparable
State rule shall be signed by at least one attorney of record
in the attorney's individual name, whose address shall be
stated. An unrepresented party shall sign the disclosure and
state the party's address. The signature of the attorney or
party constitutes a certification that to the best of the
signer's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a
reasonable inquiry, the disclosure is complete and correct as
of the time it is made.
(b) Signatures Required on Discovery.--
(1) In general.--Every discovery request, response, or
objection made by a party represented by an attorney shall be
signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's
individual name, whose address shall be stated. An
unrepresented party shall sign the request, response, or
objection and state the party's address. The signature of the
attorney or party constitutes a certification that to the
best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief,
formed after a reasonable inquiry, the request, response, or
objection is:
(A) consistent with the applicable rules of civil procedure
and warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for
the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;
(B) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to
harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in
the cost of litigation; and
(C) not unreasonable or unduly burdensome or expensive,
given the needs of the case, the discovery already had in the
case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the
issues at stake in the litigation.
(2) Stricken.--If a request, response, or objection is not
signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly
after the omission is called to the attention of the party
making the request, response, or objection, and a party shall
not be obligated to take any action with respect to it until
it is signed.
(c) Mandatory Sanctions.--
(1) First violation.--If without substantial justification
a certification is made in violation of this section, the
court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall find
each attorney or party in contempt of court and shall require
the payment of costs and attorneys fees. The court may also
impose additional sanctions, such as imposing sanctions plus
interest or imposing a fine upon the person in violation, or
upon such person and such person's attorney or client (as the
case may be).
(2) Second violation.--If without substantial justification
a certification is made in violation of this section and that
the attorney or party with respect to which the determination
is made has committed one previous violation of this section
before this or any other court, the court, upon motion or
upon its own initiative, shall find each attorney or party in
contempt of court and shall require the payment of costs and
attorneys fees, and require such person in violation (or both
such person and such person's attorney or client (as the case
may be)) to pay a monetary fine. The court may also impose
additional sanctions upon such person in violation, or upon
both such person and such person's attorney or client (as the
case may be).
(3) Third and subsequent violations.--If without
substantial justification a certification is made in
violation of this section and that the attorney or party with
respect to which the determination is made has committed more
than one previous violation of this section before this or
any other court, the court, upon motion or upon its own
initiative, shall find each attorney or party in contempt of
court, shall require the payment of costs and attorneys fees,
require such person in violation (or both such person and
such person's attorney or client (as the case may be)) to pay
a monetary fine, and refer such attorney to one or more
appropriate State bar associations for disciplinary
proceedings (including the suspension of that attorney from
the practice of law for one year or disbarment). The court
may also impose additional sanctions upon such person in
violation, or upon both such person and such person's
attorney or client (as the case may be).
(4) Appeal; stay.--An attorney has the right to appeal a
sanction under this subsection. While such an appeal is
pending, the sanction shall be stayed.
(d) Applicability.--This section applies to any paper filed
on or after the date of the enactment of this Act in--
(1) any action in Federal court; and
(2) any action in State court, if the court, upon motion or
upon its own initiative, determines that the action affects
interstate commerce.
SEC. 3. BAN ON CONCEALMENT OF UNLAWFUL CONDUCT.
(a) In General.--In any Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure proceeding, a court may not order that a
court record not be disclosed unless the court makes a
finding of fact that identifies the interest that justifies
the order and determines that the interest outweighs any
interest in the public health and safety that the court
determines would be served by disclosing the court record.
(b) Applicability.--This section applies to any record
formally filed with the court, but shall not include any
records subject to--
(1) the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege
recognized under Federal or State law that grants the right
to prevent disclosure of certain information unless the
privilege has been waived; or
(2) applicable State or Federal laws that protect the
confidentiality of crime victims, including victims of sexual
abuse.
SEC. 4. ENHANCED SANCTIONS FOR DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION.
Whoever willfully and intentionally influences, obstructs,
or impedes, or attempts to influence, or obstruct, or impede,
a pending Federal court proceeding through the willful and
intentional destruction of documents sought pursuant to the
rules of such Federal court proceeding and highly relevant to
that proceeding--
(1) shall be punished with mandatory civil sanctions of a
degree commensurate with the civil sanctions available under
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in addition
to any other civil sanctions that otherwise apply; and
(2) shall be held in contempt of court and, if an attorney,
referred to one or more appropriate State bar associations
for disciplinary proceedings.
SEC. 5. ABILITY TO SUE CORPORATE FINANCIAL TRAITORS AND
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.
(a) General Rule.--In any civil action for injury that was
sustained in the United States and that relates to the acts
of a foreign business, the Federal court or State court in
which such action is brought shall have jurisdiction over the
foreign business if--
(1) the business purposefully availed itself of the
privilege of doing business in the United States or that
State;
(2) the cause of action arises from the business's
activities in the United States or that State; and
(3) the exercise of jurisdiction would be fair and
reasonable.
(b) Admission.--If in any civil action a foreign business
involved in such action fails to furnish any testimony,
document, or other thing upon a duly issued discovery order
by the court in such action, such failure shall be deemed an
admission of any fact with respect to which the discovery
order relates.
(c) Process.--Process in an action described in subsection
(a) may be served wherever the foreign business is located,
has an agent, or transacts business.
(d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``foreign
business'' means a business that has its principal place of
business, and substantial business operations, outside the
United States and its Territories.
SEC. 6. PRESUMPTION OF RULE 11 VIOLATION FOR REPEATEDLY
RELITIGATING SAME ISSUE.
(a) In General.--Whenever a party presents to a Federal
court a pleading, written motion, or other paper, that
includes a claim or defense that the party has already
litigated and lost on the merits in any forum in final
decisions not subject to appeal on 3 consecutive occasions,
and the claim or defense involves the same plaintiff and the
same defendant, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that
the presentation of such paper is in violation of Rule 11 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a claim
arising under the Constitution of the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 420, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005, with the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
I thank the Rules Committee for affording us this opportunity to
offer and debate our substitute amendment on the floor today.
Mr. Chairman, the base bill certainly has an important and worthy
stated goal of cracking down on the filing of frivolous lawsuits. As a
former Federal prosecutor and a member of the bar, I strongly support
this meritorious goal, as any responsible attorney should.
However, I am forced to oppose the legislation in its current form as
it contains a number of serious deficiencies which I believe the
substitute amendment will remedy. First, the legislation would revert
to a failed regime that has been soundly criticized by those best
equipped to comment on the proposed changes, the Federal judiciary.
Second, the legislation would inappropriately involve the States in
the application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. And, third,
the legislation's forum-shopping provisions drastically change State
venue laws to benefit foreign corporations over domestic
[[Page 24016]]
corporations and victims, to say nothing of doing a great deal to
damage States' rights.
Finally, the legislation would harm those seeking relief from civil
rights violations. Instead, I ask my colleagues to support the Schiff-
Kind substitute amendment, a proposal that would crack down vigorously
on frivolous lawsuits. Members on both sides of the aisle agree that
our laws and rules of procedure must prohibit frivolous litigation.
Our substitute amendment has a strong three-strikes-and-you-are-out
provision for attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits. Unlike the base
bill, these frivolous proceedings and pleadings could have been filed
in any court. The mandatory sanctions begin after the very first
violation; but after the third, the attorney shall be found in contempt
of court and referred to the appropriate State bar associations for
disciplinary proceedings, including suspension.
Unlike the base bill, the third sanction can also include disbarment.
Our substitute amendment also has strong three-strikes-and-you-are-
out provisions for attorneys who engage in frivolous conduct during
discovery, including causing unnecessary delay or needless increases in
the costs of litigation. Again, mandatory sanctions begin after the
first violation, and a third violation in any Federal court can include
suspension and even disbarment.
Our substitute also limits the ability of wrongdoers to conceal any
conduct harmful to the public welfare by requiring that such court
records not be sealed unless the court finds that a sealing is
justified. This important provision will help ensure that information
on dangerous products and actions is made available to the public.
The Schiff-Kind substitute also includes tough enhanced sanctions for
document destruction by parties punishable by mandatory sanctions under
Rule 11 and referral to the appropriate State bars for disciplinary
proceedings, including disbarment. We also include strong language to
provide a presumption of a Rule 11 violation for repeatedly
relitigating the same issue.
I am pleased that some of these important provisions have recently
been added to the base bill. The venue provisions, however, in section
4 of the base bill would recast State and Federal court jurisdiction
and venue in personal injury cases.
This section would actually operate to provide a litigation and
financial windfall to foreign corporations at the expense of their
domestic competitors. Instead of permitting claims to be filed wherever
a corporation does business or has minimum contacts, as most State
long-arm jurisdiction statutes provide, section 4 only permits the suit
to be brought where the defendant's principal place of business is
located.
This means that it would be far more difficult to pursue a personal
injury or product liability action against a foreign corporation in the
United States. In fact, this section could operate to make it
impossible to sue a foreign corporation in this country, only further
promoting the disturbing process of corporations in our country
relocating their headquarters overseas to avoid U.S. taxes.
This is bad policy. And our substitute amendment includes language to
ensure that jurisdiction for such legal actions is not limited in this
manner.
Finally, by requiring a mandatory sanctions regime that would apply
to civil rights cases, the base bill will chill many legitimate and
important civil rights actions. This is due to the fact that much, if
not most, of the impetus for the 1993 changes stemmed from abuses by
defendants in civil rights cases, namely, the civil rights defendants
were choosing to harass civil rights plaintiffs by filing a series of
Rule 11 motions intended to slow down and impede meritorious civil
rights cases.
A 1991 Federal judicial study found that the incidence of Rule 11
sanctions or sua sponte orders is higher in civil rights cases than in
some other types of cases. Another study found that there is ample
evidence to suggest that plaintiffs in civil rights cases, plaintiffs
in particular, were far more likely than defendants to be the target of
Rule 11 motions and the recipient of sanctions.
While the base bill purports to encourage that the provisions not be
applied to civil rights cases, the fact of the matter is it does not
explicitly exempt civil rights cases as our substitute does.
Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense substitute. It cracks down on
frivolous lawsuits in a tough fashion, but without jeopardizing civil
rights claims or providing unnecessary shields to foreign corporations.
It is a better bill, and I urge the House to adopt the substitute
rather than the base proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this substitute amendment. And
I have to point out that this same substitute amendment was defeated in
the last Congress. Mr. Chairman, where to begin. I will begin with the
title of the first section of the substitute. It is entitled, ``Three
Strikes and You're Out.'' But the title of section 1 does not reflect
the text it contains.
In fact, the substitute provides that following three violations of
its provisions: ``The court shall refer each such attorney to one or
more appropriate State bar associations for disciplinary proceedings.''
The substitute does not say the attorney shall be suspended from the
practice of law. However, the base bill explicitly provides for such a
sanction. Specifically, the base bill states that after three strikes:
``The Federal district court shall suspend that attorney from the
practice of law in that Federal district court.''
The base bill contains a substantive three-strikes-and-you-are-out
provision that will prevent attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits from
getting into the courtroom. The substitute merely requires that repeat
offenders be reported to State bar associations.
But it gets worse. Not only are filers of frivolous lawsuits not out
after three strikes under the substitute, but the substitute even
changes what constitutes a strike under existing law. Currently, Rule
11 contains four criteria that can lead to a Rule 11 violation.
The substitute references only three. Currently, Rule 11 allows
sanctions against frivolous filers whose denials of factual contentions
are not warranted on the evidence or are not reasonably based on a lack
of information or belief.
The substitute removes this protection for victims of frivolous
pleadings under existing law. In addition, the substitute for the first
time without penalty allows defendants to file papers with the court
that include factual denials of the allegations against them that are
not warranted by the evidence and not reasonably based.
Instead, the substitute provides additional protection for defendants
filing frivolous defenses that are not warranted by the evidence and
not reasonably based.
{time} 1445
This is a step backward for victims of frivolous lawsuits under both
State and Federal law. So the substitute not only undermines the
clarity of the three strikes and you're out rule, it purports to
establish, it dramatically expands the potential for even more
frivolous lawsuits.
Furthermore, the base bill provides that those who file frivolous
lawsuits can be made to pay all costs and attorneys' fees that are
``incurred as a direct result of the filing of the pleading, motion, or
other paper that is the subject of the violation.'' The substitute does
not include that critical language which is necessary to make clear
that those filing frivolous lawsuits must be made to pay the full costs
imposed on their victim by the frivolous lawsuit.
The proponent of this amendment claims that the anti-forum shopping
standards in H.R. 420 regarding where a personal injury lawsuit can be
brought are somehow unfair, even though they are the very same
standards contained in the vast majority of State venue laws. In fact,
the gentleman from California's own State venue law provides
[[Page 24017]]
as follows: ``If the action is for injury to person or personal
property or for death from wrongful act or negligence, the superior
court in either the county where the injury occurs or the injury
causing death occurs or the county where the defendants, or some of
them reside at the commencement of the action, is the proper court for
the trial of the action.''
Insofar as foreign corporations cannot be sued in some limited
circumstances in this country, that is not the fault of H.R. 420, nor
is it the fault of California's venue law. It is a result of the
Supreme Court's interpretation of the Due Process Clause.
Mr. Chairman, the substitute does not provide for three strikes and
you're out. It provides for three strikes and you get referred to a
State bar association that can continue to let the offending attorney
practice law.
The Democratic substitute weakens existing law that protects
plaintiffs from defendants that file frivolous denials that are not
warranted by the evidence and not reasonably based. This substitute
amendment includes provisions that are unconstitutional and penalizes
those who would challenge those unconstitutional rules. That is more
than three strikes against the substitute, Mr. Chairman, and I urge my
colleagues to return it to the bench and vote yes for the job-
protecting and job-creating Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act when it gets to
final passage.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me this time and for the leadership that he has shown on the
issue. I also commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for the
important issues that he has raised in regards to this important
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I think we can all concede or stipulate that no one is
in favor of frivolous lawsuits in this country. As a former special
prosecutor, State prosecutor in Wisconsin, and as a young lawyer who
used to handle corporate litigation in a large law firm, I saw
firsthand some of the abuses that take place in the judicial process.
But I believe that there is a right and a wrong way of moving forward
in dealing with the frivolous lawsuit situation in the country.
Unfortunately, the majority base bill today, I think, is the wrong
approach, whereas the substitute that we are offering here cures a lot
of defects that the majority is offering and would put some substance
behind cracking down on the filing of frivolous lawsuits. But first let
us correct some of the facts.
There has been a lot of rhetoric from some of our colleagues here
claiming that the real bane of the judicial system today are a bunch of
trial attorneys running around chasing ambulances, filing needless
personal injury cases, clogging the court system, driving up litigation
costs, increasing the expenses of corporations, and that is what is to
be blamed in regards to dealing with frivolous lawsuits, when, in fact,
the facts indicate just the opposite.
A recent comprehensive study by Public Citizen has shown that the
explosion in the filing of lawsuits has really rested with the
corporations of this country, who have been filing four to five times
more claims and lawsuits than individual plaintiffs in this country.
Furthermore, when Rule 11 sanctions have been applied, they have been
applied in 69 percent of the cases against corporations that are
abusing the discovery process or filing needless lawsuits. So it is not
these money-grubbing trial attorneys that so many want to believe that
exist out there that are causing a lot of the problem in the judicial
system; it is rather corporations that are increasing it. It is those
who are most eager to support the majority base bill who are most
likely to take advantages of the opportunities of filing lawsuits in
our country. I find that a bit ironic.
But we are also today, and both of us, the majority and the
substitute, is really usurping the Rules Enabling Act. When Congress
passed that, it was a recognition that we here really do not have a lot
of good expertise, and we are not in the trenches dealing with these
rules every day. That is why the Judicial Conference looks at rules
changes. They submit it to the Supreme Court for approval, who then
finally submits it to Congress for our consideration to adopt or to
revise at the end of the day. That whole process is being usurped.
Finally, and as the gentleman from California indicated, we have a
short-term memory problem in this Congress. This has been tried between
1983 and 1993, and the rules were changed because it was not working,
because we were taking away too much discretion from the judges in the
application of Rule 11. It had a disproportionate impact on the filing
of civil rights actions in this country. Our substitute bill cures that
by exempting the filing of civil rights under this legislation.
This is significant, because as the gentleman from California pointed
out that when there were attempts to stifle meritorious claims from
going forward or increasing the litigation costs in lawsuits, it was
usually in the civil rights actions that were taken during this period
which led to the change and the reform of mandatory sanctions back to a
discretionary system, allowing the judges to decide the application of
the appropriate penalties based on the facts and circumstances of the
case.
What is this debate about today? I would commend a recently released
movie called ``North Country'' to all of my colleagues before they
consider the final passage of this legislation. It is about a young
mother of two who took a job in the Taconite Mining Company in northern
Minnesota and entered an atmosphere and environment of pervasive sexual
harassment that not only applied to her, but all the women that were
working in that company. She was the first to file a class action suit
on behalf of herself and the other women in the country and the Nation.
Because she was meritorious, she prevailed in that lawsuit that lead to
incredible changes in regards to the treatment of women in the modern
workplace.
That is what is at stake in allowing the civil rights actions to at
least go through. We allow that in the substitute, and I ask adoption
of the substitute.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the gentleman from Wisconsin who
just spoke that I could have saved him a lot of time. And I would like
to remind him that he might want to take a look at the language of H.R.
420, that it applies just as much to businesses as it does individuals,
despite statements to the contrary.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Cannon), the chairman of the Administrative Law Subcommittee of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 420, the Lawsuit
Abuse and Reduction Act, LARA, and I oppose the substitute amendment.
This bill, the underlying bill, continues the commitment of the House
Republicans to grow our economy, help small businesses, and put a stop
to abusive lawsuits. This bill does that and will help millions of
small businesses combat some of the worst abuses by frivolous lawsuits.
In particular, LARA would make mandatory the sanctions and monetary
penalties under Federal Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
for filing frivolous lawsuits and abusing the litigation process. Or it
would also abolish the free pass provisions that allow parties and
their attorneys to avoid sanctions by withdrawing a suit within 21 days
after a motion for sanctions has been filed.
It would also permit monetary sanctions including reimbursement of
reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs in connection with
frivolous lawsuits.
It would extends Rule 11's provisions to include State cases in which
the State judge finds the case substantially affects interstate
commerce.
Frivolous lawsuits have discouraged and stifled American businesses
long
[[Page 24018]]
enough. The more we control lawsuit abuse, the stronger our businesses
will be, and the more jobs will be created.
This legislation protects the integrity of the judicial system by
penalizing the bad actors in litigation, both plaintiffs and
defendants, I might say.
Civil litigation was once a last-resort remedy to settle limited
disputes and quarrels, but recent years have brought a litigation
explosion. The number of civil lawsuits has tripled since the 1960s and
has gripped the American citizens and small businesses with a fear of
costly and unwarranted lawsuits.
The threat of abusive litigation forces businesses to settle
frivolous claims, rather than to go through the expensive and time-
consuming process of defending lawsuits from the discovery process all
the way to trial. This is, in essence, legal blackmail and needs to be
ended.
While it costs the plaintiff only a little more than a small filing
fee to begin a lawsuit, it costs much more for a small business to
defend against it, jeopardizing its ability to survive. LARA tells
those attorneys who are intent on filing a lawsuit to take the
responsibility to review the case and make sure it is legitimate before
filing, or be ready for sanctions.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, for
having prepared this legislation and moved it forward as he has. I urge
my colleagues to support this legislation and oppose the substitute
amendment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, before I recognize my colleague from Texas,
I want to respond to a couple of points made by my other colleague from
Texas; that is, comparing the strength of the three strikes and you're
out provisions in the substitute and base bill. The three strikes
language in the Democratic substitute would apply to frivolous
proceedings that are filed in any court. The base bill, on the other
hand, would apply the three strikes provision only to the specific
court in which the violation occurred. That is a narrower provision of
the base bill.
Similarly, my substitute provides for the referral to the appropriate
State bars for disciplinary proceedings, including disbarment after the
third strike. With the first violation there is the required payment of
costs and attorneys' fees. With the second, the attorney is held in
contempt with a monetary fine. And then the third provision of referral
to the State bar for possible disbarment, compared to the base bill
which calls for a 1-year suspension only in the specific court where
the three violations occurred. The violations have to occur in the same
court. If you move from one court where you are sanctioned to another
to another, the base bill seems to have far less strength and
applicability than the substitute.
Second, I wanted to rebut the claim that the substitute will somehow
promote litigation more than the base bill. In fact, when you ask the
judges who have operated under both systems, the one that is proposed
by the base bill and the one that is proposed by the substitute, the
courts were quite clear that the earlier form of Rule 11, which we
would go back to in the base bill, spawned a cottage industry where
someone would file a Rule 11 motion, the opposing counsel would file a
Rule 11 motion on the Rule 11 motion, and then you would have
litigation over whose Rule 11 motion should succeed.
In fact, in 1993, the Judicial Conference remarked that the
experience with the amended rule since 1993, since we got away from
what the base bill would take us back to, has demonstrated a marked
decline to Rule 11 satellite litigation without any noticeable increase
in the number of frivolous filings.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene
Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from
California for yielding me time.
I rise in opposition of H.R. 420 and in support of the substitute.
This bill would not do anything to reduce frivolous lawsuits. In
fact, my concern about it is it is unnecessary, and it will infringe on
States being able to manage their own court systems.
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was amended in 1993
to its current state because it was being abused by defendants in civil
rights cases who filed a series of Rule 11 motions to harass the men
and women who challenged discrimination.
Until now there has been no demonstrated problems with the current
version of the rule. Usually this type of change in civil procedure
goes through a process of the Rules Enabling Act. But in this instance
we have decided to circumvent the United States Judicial Conference and
the United States Supreme Court. We have taken it upon ourselves to
decide what is best for the judicial system.
The Lawsuit Reduction Act would amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and revert back to that pre-1993 status. By doing this,
again, we take away States' discretion to impose sanctions on improper
and frivolous pleadings.
This would eliminate the current safe harbor provision, permitting
the attorneys to withdraw improper frivolous motions within 21 days
after they have been challenged by an opposing counsel. Additionally,
this bill dictates where plaintiffs can file a personal injury lawsuit
against a corporation in a State court. Do we really want to get into
the jurisdictional battles in our States?
Reverting back to the previous Rule 11 would make people less likely
to challenge unjust laws because they are putting themselves at risk
for being harassed. At the time some people thought Brown v. Board of
Education was a frivolous lawsuit, but it did not look like it had a
chance until the Supreme Court recognized that separate was not equal.
{time} 1500
If we had this strict version of Rule 11 back then, maybe Brown v.
Board of Education would have never made it to the Supreme Court.
This bill is another example of Congress intruding on States' rights.
Our system of government is designed to keep our judicial system
separate, particularly our State judicial system.
We simply do not have the right to tell State and county courthouses
across the Nation how to enforce sanctions in their courtrooms or where
the plaintiff may file a lawsuit in the State courts.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to yield such
time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), our minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,
and I congratulate him and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for
their leadership in proposing this good Democratic substitute.
Mr. Chairman, here we go again. The madness continues. Once again,
the Republicans must prove that they are the handmaidens of the special
interests by putting this bill on the floor today. Just when we should
be talking about creating good jobs for the American people, expanding
access to quality health care, broadening opportunity in education,
having a strong national defense and doing it all in a fiscally sound
way, the Republicans are wasting the time of this Congress and testing
the patience of the American people with legislation that is frivolous.
It is something that is, again, another reflection of the culture of
cronyism that exists under the Republican leadership in Washington, DC.
This legislation before us again seeks to protect their friends. The
outrageous venue provisions in the Republican bill give defendant
corporations special advantages by overriding State minimum-contact
provisions and limiting the locations in which a suit can be brought
and could render foreign corporations out of reach of the American
justice system.
Today, we will take the opportunity to address the Republican culture
of cronyism. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) will be offering a
motion to recommit to make sure that politically connected cronies and
no-bid contractors that defraud and cheat the
[[Page 24019]]
government in providing goods and service after a natural disaster will
never again be able to use these special bids. They should never be
used by government contractors that specifically intend to profit
excessively from the disaster.
Mr. Chairman, I really want to congratulate the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for
putting together a really excellent substitute to get rid of loopholes
in the Republican bill that favors big corporate interests and foreign
corporations and to protect civil rights claims.
We all agree that if there are frivolous lawsuits, those who bring
them should pay a price. That we will have three-strikes-you-are-out
for doing that is a very important provision in the substitute. The
substitute seeks to stop the madness that exists on the floor of this
House when it is used as a venue to promote the special interests in
our country.
We must stand up for the American people, not for the politically
connected cronies who are getting a no-bid contract. Let us take a
stand to end this culture of cronyism and corruption. Let us get back
to the real issues that are affecting the American people.
We must vote for this substitute and send this bill back to ensure
that no one who defrauds the American people during natural disasters
is ever permitted to take undue advantage of our legal system.
We must, again, stop the madness by voting for the substitute that
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff) have proposed. It has very excellent provisions
and is worthy of the support of our colleagues.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to
close, and I am the remaining speaker on this side, so I will reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I just have a parliamentary inquiry. Does
my colleague have the opportunity to close or does the offerer of the
amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) has the right to
close the debate.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I know my colleague will close very well.
How much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) has 3
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) has 12
minutes remaining.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In my concluding comments I want to reiterate some of the points that
have been made with respect to the civil rights provisions and quote
from the testimony of Professor Theodore Eisenberg, who testified
before the House Committee on the Judiciary in the 108th Congress and
said: ``A Congress considering reinstating the fee-shifting aspect of
Rule 11 in the name of tort reform should understand what it will be
doing. It will be discouraging the civil rights cases
disproportionately affected by the old Rule 11 in the name of
addressing purported abuse in an area of law, personal injury tort,
found to have less abuse than other areas.''
I would also like to cite the testimony of the Honorable Robert L.
Carter, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York when
he stated: ``I have no doubt that the Supreme Court's opportunity to
pronounce separate schools inherently unequal in Brown v. Board of
Education would have been delayed for a decade had my colleagues and I
been required, upon pain of potential sanctions, to plead our legal
theory explicitly from the start.''
We do not want to put off a Brown v. Board of Education civil rights
case like that for a decade because of a Rule 11 that has been rejected
by the Federal courts already.
The language in the substitute makes it clear that neither the
sanctions approach we have taken in the substitute nor the sanctions
approach taken in the base bill would apply in civil rights cases; and
while there is some language of suggestion in the base bill, it is not
definitive.
In fact, the NAACP wrote in respect to the language in the base bill:
``While language nominally intended to mitigate the damage that this
bill will cause to civil rights cases has been added, it is vague and
simply insufficient in addressing our concerns.''
So on the basis of a need not to chill civil rights legislation,
which I think we have only seen the greater importance with, as Katrina
ripped off the veneer of poverty and inequality in the country once
again for all to see, as we consider that the base bill would implement
a change that the courts themselves have rejected and found spawned a
cottage industry in meritless Rule 11 litigation, and as the base bill
has a stronger and I think more sensible three-strikes-and-you-are-out
provision, I would urge my colleagues to support the Democratic
substitute in preference to the flawed base bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California who spoke previously to
the gentleman from California who just finished used a couple of words
that I would like to return to and clarify. She used the word
``madness,'' but anyone listening to this debate or anyone having a
firsthand knowledge of frivolous lawsuits knows that the real madness
is the filing of thousands of frivolous lawsuits across this country
that unfairly tarnish the reputations of innocent citizens, that
unfairly destroy the businesses of small business owners across the
country. That is the type of madness that this bill addresses.
She also used the phrase ``special interests,'' but again, I think
anyone listening to this debate today and anyone knowing firsthand the
agony and the losses and the destruction caused by frivolous lawsuits
realizes that the special interests that this bill hopes to protect are
really the special interests of the American people who have stuttered
and staggered and been burdened by frivolous lawsuits too many times
and much too often in our history.
The special interests, if there are any, involved in this legislation
again are obvious to those who listened to the debate, the trial
lawyers of America; and, Mr. Chairman, let me take a minute here just
to dwell on that subject because I happen to believe the vast majority
of trial lawyers or personal injury lawyers are honorable people and
they are members of an honorable profession.
I think one of the aspects of the debate that most troubles me is, in
fact, the lack of sanctioning lawyers who engage in frivolous lawsuits
by the Trial Lawyers of America. Their own code of conduct reads as
follows: ``No ATLA member shall file or maintain a frivolous suit,
issue or position.'' We checked and not a single member of the Trial
Lawyers Association, not a single lawyer, had been sanctioned in the
last 2 years; and, in fact, no one can even tell us when the last time
any attorney was sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
I think the trial lawyers would have a lot more credibility on this
subject if, in fact, they had monitored their own ranks and, in fact,
had sanctioned just a single trial lawyer for filing one of those tens
of thousands of frivolous lawsuits that have been filed.
That, as I say, is discouraging; and I hope the Trial Lawyers of
America will see fit in the future to sanction some attorney somewhere,
somehow who has filed a frivolous lawsuit.
Mr. Chairman, anyone who is worried about what frivolous lawsuits
will do to them, their family, their friends or their businesses ought
to oppose this substitute amendment. It is an amendment that would do
very little to prevent frivolous lawsuits. The underlying bill,
however, will deter lawyers from filing those frivolous lawsuits.
Let me give some examples of actual suits that are frivolous, but
that would be allowed under the Democratic substitute amendment.
A New Jersey man filed suit against Galloway Township School District
[[Page 24020]]
claiming that assigned seating in a school lunchroom violated his 12-
year-old daughter's right to free speech.
A Florida high school senior filed suit after her picture was left
out of the school's yearbook.
An Arizona man filed suit against his hometown after he broke his leg
sliding into third base during a softball tournament.
An Alabama person sued the school district after his daughter did not
make the cheerleading squad, claiming that the rejection caused her
humiliation and mental anguish.
The families of two North Haven, Connecticut, sophomores filed suit
because of the school's decision to drop the students from the drum
majorette squad.
A Pennsylvania teenager sued her former softball coach, claiming that
the coach's incorrect teaching style ruined her chances for an athletic
scholarship.
After a wreck in which an Indiana man collided with a woman who was
talking on her cell phone, the man sued the cell phone manufacturer.
A Knoxville, Tennessee, woman sued McDonald's, alleging that a hot
pickle dropped from a hamburger burned her chin and caused her mental
injury.
A Michigan man filed suit claiming that television ads that showed
Bud Light as the source of fantasies involving tropical settings and
beautiful women misled him and caused him physical and mental injury,
emotional distress, and financial loss.
A woman sued Universal Studios trying to get damages because the
theme park's haunted house was too scary.
In every one of these instances and in thousands of others, the
individuals sued were forced to spend considerable amounts of money,
time and effort to defend themselves. This is a travesty of justice,
and it is simply wrong.
H.R. 420 will end the filing of frivolous lawsuits. Unfortunately,
the substitute amendment will still allow small businesses, churches,
schools, hospitals, sports leagues, cities and others to be burdened
with these meritless and frivolous claims.
This substitute amendment provides no disincentive to file a
frivolous lawsuit. It would still subject small business owners to the
cost of frivolous lawsuits and subject individuals to the cost of
rising insurance premiums and health care costs that result from
frivolous lawsuits.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, this substitute amendment does not
provide any relief to those who would be unfairly targeted by frivolous
lawsuits. The underlying bill would.
The substitute includes no real consequences for the attorney who
repeatedly files frivolous lawsuits. The underlying bill does.
The substitute includes nothing to address the problem of forum
shopping which is also a large part of the problem. The underlying bill
does.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the substitute amendment
and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill, which, in fact, would deter
lawsuit abuse.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of
substitute offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184,
noes 226, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 551]
AYES--184
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--226
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
DeLay
Dent
Doggett
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--23
Blunt
Boswell
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Clyburn
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Foley
Gingrey
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Mack
Marchant
Meeks (NY)
Obey
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Simmons
Tauscher
Wexler
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
[[Page 24021]]
{time} 1536
Mr. SOUDER, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Ms. DeGETTE, and Mr.
NUSSLE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. MURTHA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. Latham, Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 420)
to amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve
attorney accountability, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 508, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Barrow
Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BARROW. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Barrow moves to recommit the bill H.R. 420 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. __. NOT APPLICABLE TO CLAIMS AGAINST DISASTER
PROFITEERING BUSINESSES.
(a) In General.--A claim against a disaster profiteering
business may be filed in any court that has jurisdiction over
the corporation, notwithstanding section 4.
(b) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``business'' includes a corporation, company,
association, firm, partnership, society, and joint stock
company, as well as an individual; and
(2) the term ``disaster profiteering business'' means any
business engaged in a contract with the Federal Government
for the provision of goods or services, directly or
indirectly, in connection with relief or reconstruction
efforts provided in response to a presidentially declared
major disaster or emergency that, knowingly and willfully--
(A) executes or attempts to execute a scheme or artifice to
defraud the United States;
(B) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme,
or device a material fact;
(C) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statements or representations, or makes or uses any
materially false writing or document knowing the same to
contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry; or
(D) materially overvalues any good or service with the
specific intent to excessively profit from the disaster or
emergency.
Mr. BARROW (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) is
recognized for 5 minutes on his motion.
Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, if bills in this Chamber required names that
accurately describe their consequences, this bill would best be called
the Frivolous Litigation Proliferation Act and not the Lawsuit Abuse
Reduction Act.
Many of us who oppose the underlying bill do so because it will
actually increase the volume of frivolous litigation. For example, some
sort of Rule 11 procedure exists in virtually every State in the
country. To impose a new Federal law in every State court action will
make State courts conduct a minilawsuit on Federal validity before
conducting a minilawsuit on State law validity, before they ever get to
the merits of the case. A lawsuit within a lawsuit within a lawsuit.
Mr. Speaker, that is as absurd as it sounds.
If Members think that there are too many frivolous lawsuits against
good, honest corporations, and the only way to fix this is to make it
harder for everyone to sue anyone, and that this bill is the only way
to do it, then vote for the bill.
But if there is one area where we do not have a problem with too many
frivolous lawsuits, it is with lawsuits against price gougers. And if
there is any area where we want to make it easier to get to the merits
of the underlying claim, not harder, it is an area of lawsuits against
Federal contractors who are engaged in defrauding the public.
Right now the government is awash in government contracts awarded on
a no-bid basis. Whether it is disaster relief or the war on terror, we
have never done so much of the public's business on a no-bid basis.
There has never been more opportunity for waste, fraud, and abuse in
the conduct of the public's business than right now.
This motion to recommit gives us one opportunity to protect our
constituents from price gougers. The motion to recommit is simple. It
says that Federal contractors, engaged in price gouging in disaster
relief work can still be sued anyplace where they can be sued now, in
any State where both the laws of the State and the U.S. Constitution
says it is okay to sue them.
The underlying bill gives price gougers extra protections, the same
benefits that we are extending to honest corporations. One such
protection, the only one addressed by this motion to recommit, is the
right to avoid lawsuits in States where the Constitution says it is
okay to seek justice. Since price gougers do not deserve this
protection, and since they do not need this protection, they should not
get this protection.
This House has voted time and again to protect companies that are
gouging consumers in the wake of natural disasters and national
tragedies. If Members vote against this motion to recommit, they are
voting to give the same special protections that we give to honest
corporations to Federal contractors who are engaged in price gouging in
public relief work.
Mr. Speaker, the folks I represent back home in Georgia want relief
from price gougers, not relief for price gougers. For that reason I
urge my colleagues to support this commonsense and limited motion to
recommit.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this completely irrelevant
motion to recommit. First, nothing in H.R. 420, the Lawsuit Abuse
Reduction Act, prohibits anyone from being sued for fraud to the full
extent of Federal law. Second, the motion to recommit relates to
contract claims when the section of the bill that it modifies relates
only to personal injury claims.
There is no flaw in the bill that needs to be corrected, but even if
there were, the motion to recommit fails to correct it because it
relates to contract claims rather than personal injury claims.
{time} 1545
Mr. Speaker, I just received a statement of administration policy
from the executive office of the President which I would like to read,
because it provides a good summary of H.R. 420, the Lawsuit Abuse
Reduction Act of 2005. This statement reads as follows:
[[Page 24022]]
``The administration supports House passage of H.R. 420 in order to
address the growing problem of frivolous litigation. H.R. 420 would
rein in the negative impact of frivolous lawsuits on the Nation's
economy by establishing a strong disincentive to file such suits in
Federal and State courts. Junk lawsuits are expensive to fight and
often force innocent small businesses to pay exorbitant costs to make
these claims go away. These costs hurt the economy, clog our courts,
and are burdening the American businesses of America. The
administration believes the bill is a step in the right direction
toward the goal of ending lawsuit abuse.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this absolutely
irrelevant motion to recommit and support the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without
objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 420, if ordered, and the motion to
instruct on H.R. 3057.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196,
noes 217, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 552]
AYES--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--217
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary G.
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--20
Blunt
Boswell
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Clyburn
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Foley
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Mack
Obey
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Simmons
Tauscher
Wexler
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the
vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1605
Mr. LINDER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228,
noes 184, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 553]
AYES--228
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
[[Page 24023]]
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--184
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--21
Blunt
Boswell
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Clyburn
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Foley
Graves
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Mack
Obey
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Simmons
Tauscher
Wexler
{time} 1615
Mrs. LOWEY and Mr. DAVIS of Illinois changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 553 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, announced
that the Senate has passed without amendment bills of the House of the
following titles:
H. Con. Res. 276. Concurrent Resolution requesting the
President to return to the House of Representatives the
enrollment of H.R. 3765 so that the Clerk of the House may
reenroll the bill in accordance with the action of the two
Houses.
The message also announced that the Senate has passed a bill of the
following title in which the concurrence of the House is requested:
S. 939. An act to expedite payments of certain Federal
emergency assistance authorized pursuant to the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, to
authorize the reimbursement under that Act of certain
expenditures, and for other purposes.
____________________
MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 3057, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT
FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
motion to instruct offered by mrs. lowey
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The pending
business is the vote on the motion to instruct on H.R. 3057 offered by
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) on which the yeas and nays
are ordered.
The Clerk will redesignate the motion.
The Clerk redesignated the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 259,
nays 147, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 554]
YEAS--259
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
[[Page 24024]]
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--147
Akin
Alexander
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Nunes
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rehberg
Renzi
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Schmidt
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--27
Blunt
Boswell
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Castle
Clyburn
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Foley
Ford
Gallegly
Granger
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Lynch
Mack
Obey
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Simmons
Smith (NJ)
Tauscher
Velazquez
Wexler
Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1625
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Appointment of Conferees
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the
following conferees: Messrs. Kolbe, Knollenberg, Kirk, Crenshaw,
Sherwood, Sweeney, Rehberg, Carter, Lewis of California, Mrs. Lowey,
Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, Messrs. Rothman,
Fattah, and Obey.
There was no objection.
____________________
EXTENDING SPECIAL POSTAGE STAMP FOR BREAST CANCER RESEARCH
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
Government Reform, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the
Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further consideration of
the Senate bill (S. 37) to extend the special postage stamp for breast
cancer research for 2 years, and ask for its immediate consideration in
the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill as follows:
S. 37
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. 2-YEAR EXTENSION OF POSTAGE STAMP FOR BREAST
CANCER RESEARCH.
Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2007''.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, S. 37, authored by Senator
Feinstein of California, extends the special postage stamp for breast
cancer research for 2 years.
Eight years ago, the Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act established the
Breast Cancer Research Stamp Program and directed the U.S. Postal
Service to issue a new breast cancer stamp with proceeds benefiting
breast cancer research at the National Institutes of Health and the
Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Programs. The first semi
postal stamp in U.S. history, it has raised nearly 44 million dollars
for biomedical breast cancer research.
The legislation we are considering today reauthorizes the breast
cancer research stamp program through the year 2007. The stamp marks
the first time that a portion of the proceeds of stamp sales have gone
to fund research. Funding is directed to prevention, detection,
diagnosis arid treatment research projects.
A National Cancer Institute report estimates that about one in eight
women in the United States will develop breast cancer during her
lifetime. It is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women, accounting
for 30 percent of all cancers in women. When people choose to purchase
the Breast Cancer Stamp, they turn that simple little act into a
meaningful and effective way to participate in the fight against breast
cancer.
Finally Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Committee on Government Reform,
I would like to thank Chairman Joe Barton of the Commerce Committee and
Chairman Duncan Hunter of the Armed Services Committee, whose
committees' share jurisdiction with the Government Reform Committee
over this program for their support and for agreeing to expedite the
consideration of this bill.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House
Government Reform Committee, I am pleased to join my colleague in the
consideration of S. 37, legislation extending the special postage stamp
for breast cancer research for 2 years. This measure, which was
sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein, was introduced on January 24,
2005, and unanimously passed by the Senate on September 27, 2005. On
October 20, 2005, the Government Reform Committee unanimously reported
S. 37.
The Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act, (Public Law 105-41) authorized a
special Semi-postal stamp for first-class mail. The price of this class
stamp is 45 cents, 8 cents above the regular rate of 37 cents. The
authority to issue this stamp expires on December 31, 2005. S. 37,
which was cosponsored by 69 members of the U.S. Senate would extend the
program until December 31, 2007.
Sale of the Breast Cancer Semi-Postal stamp, first issued in 1998,
has raised more than $44 million for breast cancer research from more
than 650.5 million stamps. By law, 70 percent of the net amount raised
is given to the National Institutes of Health, and 30 percent to the
Medical Research Program at the Department of Defense.
We owe our interest in semipostal stamps to Dr. Ernie Bodhai, chief
of surgery at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in Sacramento,
California, and former Representative Vic Fazio. Dr. Bodhai took his
idea for a special breast cancer research fundraising stamp to Rep.
Fazio, and in 1996, Rep. Fazio introduced the first semipostal bill,
H.R. 3401, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act. He was subsequently
joined in this effort by Senator Feinstein when she introduced
identical legislation in the Senate the same year.
The following year, Representative Fazio and former Representative
Susan Molinari sponsored H.R. 1585, Stamp Out Breast Cancer. This bill,
which was subsequently enacted into law, authorized a breast cancer
research stamp for two years and required the General Accountability
Office (GAO) to evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of this
method of raising funds. In 2000, GAO determined that the semipostal
stamp was indeed successful and an effective and appropriate way to
fundraise. The GAO also determined that the Postal Service do more to
recover its costs associated with the breast cancer research stamp
program.
To address health issues raised by semipostal legislation pending in
Congress, Representatives John McHugh and Chaka Fattah, introduced H.R.
4437, the Semipostal Authorization Act. This act, which became law (PL
106-253) provided the Postal Service with discretionary authority to
issue semipostal stamps, provided the revenue raised goes to federal
agencies and is for medical research. This authority is similar to the
discretion the Postal Service currently has in determining which
commemorative stamps to approve and issue.
Mr. Speaker, every two minutes, a woman in the U.S. is diagnosed with
breast cancer. And, excluding cancers of the skin, breast cancer is the
most common cancer among women. This year, it is estimated that about
212,000 new cases of invasive breast cancer
[[Page 24025]]
will be diagnosed, along with 58,000 new cases of non-invasive breast
dancer. And, 40,000 women are expected to die from this disease.
It must be noted, that men get breast cancer too. According to the
American Cancer Society, about 1200 new cases of breast cancer are
diagnosed in American men each year.
Breast cancer is the leading cancer among white and African-American
women. However, African-American women are more likely to die from this
disease. And the incidence of breast cancer in women has increased from
1 in 20 in 1960 to 1 in 7 today.
Annually, nearly $7 billion is spent on the treatment of breast
cancer. All the more reason to support the Breast Cancer Semipostal
Stamp. Through the sale of this stamp, we are able to raise awareness
of this disease and participate directly in raising money for needed
research.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Tom Davis and Ranking
Member Henry Waxman, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of the
House Energy and Commerce and Armed Services Committees for moving
quickly to get S. 37 to the House floor. It is wonderful to be able to
approve this bill now, given that October is designated as ``Breast
Cancer Awareness Month.''
I urge the swift passage of this bill.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 37, Senator
Feinstein's companion bill to my H.R. 312. This bill authorities the
Breast Cancer Research Stamp through 2007. Without this legislation,
this successful program would end this year.
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. As it comes to a close it
is important to reflect on what is being done in the way of prevention
and treatment of breast cancer.
Senator Feinstein and I have proposed to extend the deadline of the
Breast Cancer Research Stamp, so that it will be available for purchase
for two more years.
Senator Feinstein and I have been collaborating to bring awareness to
this ever-present disease and to help doctors and scientists fighting
against it. I want to thank her for her unwavering dedication.
I also want to thank Dr. Ernie Bodhai, who developed the idea of the
Breast Cancer Research Stamp and who has brought national awareness to
the measure.
Dr. Bodhai inspired me to help support the Breast Cancer Research
Stamp back when I served in the California State Assembly.
Senator Feinstein and I introduced this bill for one reason: to save
lives.
We have worked together to pass this important bill so researchers
can gain more insight on the disease and in turn, prevent tragedies.
This year more than 200,000 women and men will be diagnosed with
breast cancer. More than 40,000 Americans will die from the disease
this year.
Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women in
every major ethnic group in the United States.
It does not discriminate. Whether you are white, black, Hispanic or
whatever your race or ethnicity. Everyone is at risk.
More than two million women are living with breast cancer in America
today, yet one million of them have not been diagnosed.
Breast cancer is a leading killer of American women. The disease
claims another woman's life every 13 minutes in the United States.
That is why it is so important to increase funding for breast cancer
research--and why we must continue sales of the stamp.
The Breast Cancer Research Stamp is among the most successful
commemorative stamps of all time with 637 million stamps sold.
The stamp program has generated over 47 million dollars for breast
cancer research. It has been a critical ally in generating the
resources necessary to wage war on this terrible disease.
The stamp is a ``semi-postal'' stamp that can be voluntarily
purchased by the public for 45 cents.
For each stamp sold, 8 cents goes to the National Institutes of
Health and the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program.
Working with Dr. Bodhai, Senator Feinstein introduced the Breast
Cancer Research Stamp bill In 1998 to help support the fight against
breast cancer.
I am proud that Californians continue to lead the way in stamp
purchases, providing roughly 21 percent of the money raised nationwide.
I ask my colleagues to support the Breast Cancer Research Stamp and
all the women and men who will benefit from the money the stamp raises.
Senator Feinstein and I have the support of 153 Members of Congress
and 69 Senators who cosponsored the bills and of countless
organizations like the American Cancer Society, the American Medical
Association, the Breast Cancer Fund, WIN Against Breast Cancer, and the
Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation.
By supporting reauthorization of this stamp, you are not only helping
research but you are also helping to raise awareness.
Think about it! A customer purchases the stamp, a carrier delivers
it, and a person receives it. That is three people who have seen the
message saying: ``breast cancer needs to be stamped out!''
Each time we use the stamp we raise additional funds for research and
we send a message of hope that we will find a cure.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Ms. FOXX. 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 S. 37.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
____________________
PRAISING THE HOUSE LEADERSHIP
(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 rise tonight to say thank you to our
leadership, to Speaker Hastert, to Mr. Blunt, to Ms. Pryce, to commend
them for working through fiscal responsibility, budget control, for
making it a priority and for standing firm as we move forward to
reconciliation on the budget for this next fiscal year.
I also want to commend our committee chairmen who are working hard to
find the savings that are necessary to reduce what the Federal
Government spends. They are holding markups, hearings, working through
this process; and they are focused. Our membership is focused.
The committee chairmen are to be commended for that work, and through
this process the winners are going to be the American people. We are
doing what they want, reining in government spending, being better
stewards of their tax dollars. We have got a long way to go in the
process. They are the winners. We are cutting back and terminating over
98 programs. These are first steps to economic stability and fiscal
responsibility.
____________________
{time} 1630
NATIONAL LEAGUE CHAMPION HOUSTON ASTROS
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Houston Astros gave the
State of Texas and the city of Houston one heck of a good ride. I just
want to hold a little red card in my hand for lack of anything red this
afternoon to be able to thank the Astros family, Drayton McLane, all of
the players, the management, all the staff at Minute Maid Park, to be
able to say a big thank you for a long, tedious season, but a hard-
fought season. My hat is off.
Congratulations to the Chicago White Sox. But our little team of 42
years for the first time in the history of the State of Texas took
Texas to the World Series. Not only did we take Texas to the World
Series, but being in my congressional district, the Minute Maid Park,
the Astros are my constituents, among many others. We gave our
community just a heck of a lot of joy, as you heard the buzz going
around the children, the young people, the elderly, season ticket
holders and others. I cannot thank the Astros enough.
We still believe. We may not have made it this time around, but we
still believe in the Houston Astros.
____________________
UNIFORM BUILDING CODES
(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
[[Page 24026]]
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that is
of great concern to me, the prudent spending of our precious Federal
tax dollars. In an ever-difficult budget environment, we need to be
more vigilant in determining how these funds are spent.
So far Congress has provided $61 billion in Federal funds for the
recovery of the gulf coast. As we turn our attention to helping rebuild
this area, any Federal funds for rebuilding should be spent according
to a modern, uniform statewide building code. Did you know that
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama do not have statewide building
codes?
Today I will introduce a sense of Congress resolution that Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama should adopt modern, uniform statewide
building codes so that their rebuilding is, quite frankly, up to code.
Every other State on the eastern seaboard already has similar codes.
The Gulf Coast States should, too.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Quite frankly, it is
a must.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Under the
Speaker's announced policy of January 4, 2005, and under a previous
order of the House, the following Members will be recognized for 5
minutes each.
____________________
PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have taken the floor previously to talk
about the shortcomings of the administration's efforts in the area of
homeland security.
As an expert in aviation security, I have criticized the fact that
the Republican majority and the White House have seen fit to
arbitrarily cut the number of screeners, which not only causes obvious
inconvenience for passengers, but it creates the potential for security
threats as the smaller number of screeners are under tremendous
pressure to process a large number of people in a short period of time.
And they are being asked to do it with 1980s equipment.
Now, you can do it one of two ways. You can have a lot of people with
crummy equipment or a few people with state-of-the-art equipment. This
administration is trying to do it on the cheap without enough people
and with obsolete equipment that cannot detect plastic explosives at
passenger checkpoints and often in carry-on bags or checked baggage or
cargo.
Our ports, I have talked about that, a tremendous vulnerability, not
doing radiological detection. Nobody is going to shoot a missile at us,
the failed Stars Wars system notwithstanding, but they may well try and
smuggle in a nuclear device in a container. Our ports and our borders
are wide open to such smuggling with just a very few deployed
radiological devices.
But Katrina brought home another lesson, which is we need to be ready
both for unnatural disasters, terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
And there is a looming natural disaster that this administration has
ignored, and that is the potential of H5N1 flu, the bird flu, so-
called, should it become easily transmissible between bird species and
humans, and then human-to-human contact could perhaps spread the
disease widely.
The numbers are absolutely shocking regarding the potential for loss
of life because of this. The administration, the President apparently
read a book, that is great, and the book was about the great pandemic,
and suddenly he got excited about it. Except experts in his
administration and worldwide have known since before he became
President that there was a potential for species crossover with this
flu, and a tremendous loss of life is potential from this.
This administration last year in preparation for this looming
disaster, and it already infected and killed a number of humans at a
rate of better than 50 percent in Asia last year, so last year in
preparation for this they took some steps. They put more money in the
budget for vaccines, antiviral drugs and basic research. Woo, yea for
them.
But guess what? The total spending was $110 million, approximately
half of what they spent on chastity education in America. That is how
high this ideological administration put on the idea of protecting
America against an influenza outbreak. They could spend almost as much
money as they put together for abstinence-only education.
Now, that seems to be kind of a misplaced priority. Belatedly now
they are talking about billions and accelerated research and
stockpiling antiviral drugs. I gave a floor speech last summer calling
upon the administration to begin to stockpile the drugs. Unfortunately,
virtually every other country in the world is in line ahead of the
United States of America, and the drugs are not manufactured here to
buy those drugs, because those other countries have chosen to stockpile
them to protect their people. Even though they do not work very well,
they are the only thing we have now.
Now the administration is talking belatedly about a crash program to
try to develop vaccines 2 or 3 or 4 years down the road in the hope
that this crossover will not take place before then. This is yet
another example of poor planning by this administration; the fact that
they created this huge new bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland
Security, that failed so miserably when Katrina occurred.
And, oh, by the way, Brownie, you did a heck of a job. That hack who
failed so miserably is still on the Federal payroll. Can you believe
that? The guy is pulling down over $100,000 a year sitting over there
having failed so miserably. The President cannot even get rid of him,
let alone other political cronies in this administration.
And they are failing us in other areas of security that I referenced
earlier, and they are failing the American people in this critical
health care component.
Much more robust steps must be taken quickly. The clock is ticking.
It is already perhaps very, very late. We can only hope that this virus
does not evolve too quickly through nature, and I know this
administration does not believe in evolution, but that is how viruses
happen. They do evolve. All it needs is a couple of small changes, and
it will be transmissible. It will be a pandemic. We need to do more to
protect the American people.
____________________
EXCHANGE OF SPECIAL ORDER TIME
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
____________________
EMINENT DOMAIN DISASTERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, you can never satisfy government's appetite
for land or money. They always want more.
Today the Federal Government has taken and controls over 30 percent
of the land in this Nation. States and local governments and quasi-
governmental units have taken and control another 20 percent.
Tremendous amounts of land in my home area of east Tennessee have been
taken by numerous Federal agencies and departments. Not all of this is
bad, but people in government have never been sensitive enough about
taking other people's property. They just do not seem to realize how
much this can hurt a person or a family. In fact, very few people get
concerned about this until it is their land or their home that is being
taken.
Fortunately, this has not happened to me or my family, and I am not
on some personal vendetta, but many people in east Tennessee have had
this
[[Page 24027]]
heartbreaking experience happen to them. These people were for the most
part people like many of my ancestors, good, intelligent, hard-working
people, often poor, often with not a lot of education, but people with
common sense, and often smarter in reality than the elitist do-gooders
who came in and used the power of the Federal Government to take their
homes.
To show how much this can hurt, I would like to read a letter that
was published in the Knoxville News this past Sunday from a man who no
longer lives in my district, but whose family home was in my district.
This is the letter from John Webb of Gainesville, Georgia, a man whom I
have never met.
He wrote, ``In the spring of 1964, there was a storm that hit Marion
County, Tennessee, that resembled the recent storms of Katrina. It left
behind people who were devastated and lives that were changed
forever.'' He says, ``I was only 12 years old at the time and was on a
camping trip with the Boy Scouts when I was told that I had to go to
the hospital to see my father. There was a good possibility that he
would not live through the night.
``The name of the storm was the Tennessee Valley Authority; my father
had a stroke during a battle with the government agency which had
condemned his farm of 110 acres on the Tennessee River.
``A panel of judges decided during the next 12 months of deliberation
that the offer made by TVA to purchase my father's farm for $240 per
acre was indeed too low and that it should pay the outrageous sum of
$400 per acre.
``Court records show that the TVA experts stated under oath that this
property had no present or future value as anything but farmland.''
Mr. Webb continues, ``Even as my father lay in bed completely
paralyzed on his left side from the stroke, unable to be present at
proceedings, the court system granted TVA its wish, using the power of
eminent domain.
``With the simple stroke of a pen, my father's farm was gone,
completely against his will.
``Left behind was a woman with two teenagers to raise, a husband who
required 24-hour medical care at home, and a future that looked as
bleak as those victims of the hurricanes.''
``For the next 3 years,'' Mr. Webb writes, ``we learned a lot about
bed sores, bed pans, and what it was like for a once proud man to lose
his health and his humility.
``My father finally succumbed to pneumonia, and my mother lived for
another 20 years with the aid of family, friends and Social Security.
``I still wonder about how all of our lives would have been different
if it had not been for the power of politics and money. John E. Webb of
Gainesville, Georgia.''
Mr. Speaker, if we do not wake up and realize how important private
property is both to our freedom and our prosperity, we are going to
destroy our Nation. Politicians love to create parks, and this sounds
so good, but when we continue to take more and more private property,
we have to continually raise taxes on the property that remains in
private hands, and we drive up prices on that remaining land. More and
more young people cannot then afford homes, or they have to be jammed
together in high-rises, condos or homes on postage-stamp-sized lots. In
addition, the government cannot and does not take as good of care of
land as private owners do.
We need to put more people in office who understand how hurtful it is
when government takes property and takes people's homes and farms, and
we need to put more people in office who will pledge to take better
care of the land government already has and stop government land grants
and give poor and lower-income people a chance to own property and
appreciate this very important part of the American dream.
____________________
{time} 1645
REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT
ON H.R. 2744, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION,ANDRELATED AGEN-
CIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
Mr. PUTNAM, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 109-257) on the resolution (H. Res. 520) waiving
points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill
(H.R. 2744) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, which was referred
to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the
House for 5 minutes at this time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
____________________
URGING CONGRESS TO MAKE WISE BUDGET CHOICES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, since 2000 this Congress has racked up more
than $3 trillion in additional new debt, and by the year 2008, we will
cross the $4 trillion mark. Why? It is trying to do something that no
other Congress and no other President has ever tried in American
history. It is trying to fight two wars with four tax cuts. This
Congress has served as an ATM machine to the special interests,
showering them with billions of tax breaks and tax shelters and
handouts of the hard-working tax dollars of the American people.
Yet suddenly our Republican friends are finding themselves as fiscal
hawks. In fact, right now the House is working to slash more than $50
billion from education, health care, environmental programs, all that
are important investments for the American people. Why? So they can do
another $70 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent in
America.
At the same time that these so-called fiscal conservatives are
complaining about the deficit, they are trying to add a total of
another $100 billion in tax cuts to the special interests.
I ask my colleagues, are these the right choices for the American
people? We are now paying $445 billion to date for the war in Iraq, $20
billion to rebuild Iraq. We just have a spanking new dam in Mosul,
Iraq, with all of the levees, yet we cut the Corps of Engineers here in
the United States, which affected the levee in New Orleans.
In fact, we built 110 primary health care centers in Iraq, vaccinated
3.2 million children in Iraq. This Congress cut $10 billion from
Medicaid, cutting Medicare programs, cutting back community health care
clinics in the United States and training of doctors.
In Iraq, we have rehabilitated 2,700 schools, trained 36,000
secondary teachers. What do they do in America? They cut $806 million
from our schools and education programs, $6 billion from our Pell
grants and other higher education programs.
We funded 3,100 community development projects in Iraq; yet the
community development project investment fund here in the United
States, cut by $250 million.
We are investing in Iraq and trying to provide Iraq a future that we
are denying the American people. I have no problem. We made a decision
on Iraq. We have an obligation, but we do not have an obligation to cut
back on America's future. There is no choice in the sense of American
children and their future playing second fiddle to those who are in
Iraq.
If you go through American history, every President in the middle of
a war has thought about how do I make sure America is stronger when we
come back from that war and it ends? Abraham Lincoln, in the middle of
the Civil War, thought of the land grant college systems. President
Roosevelt during the middle of World War II thought of the GI bill and
passed it 11 months before the war came to an end. President
[[Page 24028]]
Eisenhower, on the heels of Korea, funded the Interstate Highway System
that built America and made it what it is today. President Kennedy,
during the struggles of the Cold War and Vietnam, envisioned a man on
the moon.
What does this President and what does this Congress offer America
during the middle of the war on terrorism? Cuts in education, cuts in
health care, cuts in our Corps of Engineers, cuts in our development
and investments here in America.
Every President, every Congress thought about America after the war,
thought about how we built a brighter future. They thought about not
only what we did overseas, but how we were going to do it here at home
and make sure that every American had a brighter future. Only this
President and this Congress, because of their careless and reckless
policy of trying to fight two wars and fund it with two cuts that has
added $4 trillion to the Nation's budget.
Today we are thinking about cutting $806 million from our education
investments, cutting $6 billion from our investments in higher
education, eliminating investments in America's Amtrak system, cutting
back our investments in the Corps of Engineers' program which invests
in all of our infrastructure projects like what happened in New
Orleans. No other President and no other Congress has thought of a
future in which America is less after the war than it was before the
war.
What is going on now? Families are facing an energy crisis where
energy is now running about $3 a gallon. Home heating costs are going
to go up 50 percent this winter. Inflation has increased at its fastest
rate in 15 years. Hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens have lost
everything in the gulf coast. Health care costs are running up at close
to 15 percent, nearly four times inflation. Educational costs and
higher educational costs are running at about a 10 percent annualized
increase over inflation.
These are difficult times, and these times are when people look to
their fellow citizens and their community and their government. What is
this Congress doing? Rather than building up America, this Congress is
cutting back on the investments we need to make America a stronger
place tomorrow.
We can do better than we are doing today. We can make a change in the
right choices for America. We should find ways to balance the budget
without doing it on the backs of our children.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to change its tune. It is time
for Congress to begin to represent the people's interests and the
people's House rather than the special interests.
____________________
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special
Order at this time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
____________________
HONORING THE MEMORY OF CINCINNATI, OHIO, NATIVE MARINE CAPTAIN TYLER
SWISHER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a
brave soldier who died in Iraq nobly defending our freedom and in the
service of our country. Marine Captain Tyler Swisher was killed in a
roadside bomb attack near Al Amariyah in Iraq on Friday, October 21,
2005.
Tyler is remembered as someone who overcame so many obstacles in his
life. He was a small child, and as a child he struggled with a learning
disability, but he would take on his school work with a gritty style of
persistence, and he succeeded. He devoted himself to his work. Tyler's
tough and determined style was something that he exhibited throughout
his life.
In high school his small frame just hovering over 100 pounds did not
keep him from doing what he loved, playing football, and while he spent
much of his time at Mariemont High School on the sideline, he was still
in the game.
He joined the Marines because he loved his country. He soon loved the
Marines and chose to make it his career. He loved his country so much,
he chose to serve not one, but three tours of duty in Iraq, just as in
his youth he would not quit. He was so proud to be a Marine, but more
proud to be an American. He really loved his country.
My community continues to be blessed with people like Tyler who
unselfishly give their time and, in some cases, their life so that we
may continue to enjoy the freedoms we hold so dear.
He loved his family. Tyler is survived by his wife Stephanie; his
daughters Ashleigh and Madison; and a son Jacob; and his parents, who
live in Pierce Township. All of us mourn Tyler's loss, and we are
grateful, eternally grateful, for his braveness and his valor and his
valiant service to our country.
I ask my colleagues to join me tonight and each and every night to
pray for his family in their time of need. May Tyler rest in peace.
____________________
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim my time
out of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
____________________
IRAQ AND THE REPUBLICAN DISSENTERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned that Harriet Miers
has withdrawn her nomination to the United States Supreme Court. The
stated reason had to do with executive privilege for legal advice she
had given to the President that she did not want to reveal, but I do
not think you need to be an expert tea leaf reader to see that public
support for Ms. Miers' appointment, particularly among conservatives,
was scarce, actually absent. As a result, Ms. Miers decided to step
aside.
Perhaps there is a lesson here that we can apply to another
initiative, an initiative of the White House that is rapidly losing
public confidence. Two-and-a-half years into the Iraq War, it could not
be clearer that the President's policy is one with tragic consequences.
It is time for the President to admit his mistake and change his
course. Over 2,000 of our brave soldiers are dead. That is 2,000 too
many.
The threat of terrorism has not diminished at all. We have lost
respect and credibility with allies around the world. The insurgency
remains as strong as ever and is further animated with every day that
the American occupation continues.
We are pouring about $1 billion a week into this fiasco, and, by the
way, the original rationale for fighting this war, weapons of mass
destruction, turns out to be based on fabrications and deceptions.
What is the President waiting for? How much worse does it need to
get? How many more casualties must we endure?
Look, you do not have to take my word for it. The White House would
like you to believe that opposition to the war exists on the fringes
only, but the fact is that 66 percent of our people, two out of every
three Americans, has a negative opinion of the way the President has
handled Iraq. Apparently included in that two out of every three are
former members of the administration and Bush family loyalists.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Colin Powell's Chief of
Staff at the State Department, recently went public with his
misgivings. He talks about a dysfunctional national security
policymaking process, with decisions made secretively by a Cheney-
Rumsfeld cabal that was given free rein by a President who, as
Wilkerson put it, ``is not versed in international
[[Page 24029]]
relations and not too much interested in them either.''
The latest issue of The New Yorker magazine features a profile of
Brent Scowcroft, a close friend and adviser to the President's father
and mentor to Condoleezza Rice. Scowcroft was considered the hawk of
the first President Bush's national security team, but in this article
he is frank about his disillusionment with the current Iraq policy. He
notes that you cannot impose democracy by force, that the Iraq War is
breeding terrorism, and that Saddam did not represent a threat to the
United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to bring the troops home, and I feel even
more strongly on this point after traveling to Iraq a few weeks ago.
There is no shortage of ideas for possible exit strategies. For
example, there are at least four good proposals right here on the floor
of the House of Representatives, and on the other side of the Capitol,
Senator Kerry and Senator Feingold have offered specific plans.
I held a hearing just last month where a broad range of experts
discussed ways we could end the occupation while keeping Iraq secure
and helping its people rebuild their country.
There is an important conversation going on about these issues. It
would be nice if the President joined in, but to immediately insist
that we stay the course is at this point irresponsible, insulting and
demeaning to the American people.
I know this President does not like to admit his mistakes, but maybe
it is time to eat a little crow. I think a little bruised pride is a
small price to pay if it means more Americans will not have to die.
Mr. Speaker, let us return Iraq to the Iraqi people and our soldiers
home to their families.
____________________
LIMITING THE GULF REGION REDEVELOPMENT TAX BENEFITS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, every American was touched by stories of the
people of the gulf region who lost so much as a result of the recent
hurricanes. The American people have responded with overwhelming
compassion with record donations of cash, food and clothing, and
Congress, too, has a role in helping the people and the region to
rebuild.
However, as Congress begins its work on the hurricane tax incentive
package to help the gulf region rebuild, it needs to recall its long
history of limiting the benefits of redevelopment tax breaks to certain
businesses.
Regardless what section of the Tax Code is used to spur reinvestment
and revitalization in the gulf region, Congress has limited the
businesses that receive certain tax benefits. The history of targeting
Federal tax breaks to certain businesses ought to continue.
{time} 1700
This limitation makes sense, particularly in light of the tight
budgets facing our Nation today. Congress's history of limiting Federal
redevelopment tax benefits goes back more than 20 years.
Federal law pertaining to tax exempt benefits of small bonds
prohibits tax benefits from being extended to ``any private or
commercial golf course, country club, massage parlor, tennis club,
skating facility, including roller skating, skateboard, and ice
skating, racquet sports facility, including any handball or racquetball
court, hot tub facility, suntan facility or racetrack.'' Congress does
not want to give money to the gambling industry to rebuild when we
should be doing it to help the poor and the needy.
In the accompanying Senate committee report, the committee expressed
concern with ``the use of small issue industrial development bonds,
IDBs, to finance a variety of types of facilities, from private
recreational facilities to fast food restaurants, that generally may be
less deserving of a Federal credit subsidy than other types of
facilities.''
A few years later, in Public Law 99-514, Congress qualified
redevelopment bonds and expanded the list of businesses that would be
prohibited from receiving tax benefits to include any private or
commercial golf course, country club, massage parlor, hot tub facility,
suntan facility, racetrack or other facility used for gambling, or any
store the principal business of which is the sale of alcoholic
beverages for consumption off premises.
When the Enterprise Zone tax structure was enacted, Congress once
again prohibited the benefits from being extended to certain businesses
following the limits laid out in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 144, which I will
include for the Record.
Just as Congress expressed concern about allowing Federal tax
benefits to flow to less deserving businesses more than 20 years ago,
Congress today should again be concerned about the same issue as it
works to assemble the Gulf Opportunity Zone tax package.
As Congress considers cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, the student loan
program, foster care, child support, and other programs to offset the
cost of hurricane recovery, we must be sure that tax incentives only go
to worthy businesses. Federal tax dollars need to be focused on those
who truly need the government's help like the poor, vulnerable, and
elderly.
I believe fair-minded Americans would support tax incentives to spur
business reinvestment along the hurricane-ravaged gulf coast to help
victims there rebuild their lives; but I also believe the American
people would draw the line, as Congress has historically done, in using
taxpayer dollars to assist businesses such massage parlors, casinos,
golf courses, and liquor stores.
Allowing gambling conglomerates, for example, which are reporting
billion-dollar record profits to take advantage of tax breaks does not
make sense. Gambling operators do not need any incentive to rebuild and
according to press reports, have already vowed to come back ``bigger
and better'' than before the hurricane.
Particularly when faced with tough budget choices, Congress ought not
abandon its history of limiting tax benefits to more deserving
businesses. Regardless of what section of the Tax Code is used to spur
business investment in the region, bonds, Enterprise Zone tax credit
zone, expensing and depreciation or any other tax incentive, Congress
should target the limited Federal resources available to more deserving
businesses.
Mr. Speaker, giving tax breaks to massage parlors, casinos, liquor
stores and golf courses while we cut Federal programs for the less
fortunate cannot be explained to the American people. Congress must be
sure these tax benefits of the gulf rebuilding package do not go to
massage parlors, casinos, liquor stores, and golf courses.
Every American was touched by stories of the people of the Gulf
region who lost so much as a result of the recent hurricanes. The
American people have responded with overwhelming compassion with record
donations of cash, food and clothing. Congress, too, has a role in
helping the people and region rebuild.
However, as Congress begins its work on the hurricane tax incentive
package to help the Gulf region rebuild, it needs to recall its long
history of limiting the benefits of redevelopment tax breaks to certain
businesses. Regardless what section of the tax code is used to spur
reinvestment and revitalization in the Gulf region, Congress has
limited the businesses that receive certain tax benefits. This history
of targeting federal tax breaks to certain businesses ought to
continue. This limitation makes sense, particularly in light of the
tight budgets facing our nation today.
Congress's history of limiting federal redevelopment tax benefits
goes back more than 20 years. Federal law pertaining to tax exempt
benefits of small bonds prohibits tax benefits from being extended to
any private or commercial golf course, country club, massage parlor,
tennis club, skating facility (including roller skating, skateboard,
and ice skating), racquet sports facility (including any handball or
racquetball court), hot tub facility, suntan facility, or racetrack.
(26 USC Sec. 144(a)(8)(B))
In the accompanying Senate committee report, the committee expressed
concern with ``the use of small issue industrial development bonds
(IDBs) to finance a variety of types of facilities, from private
recreational facilities to fast food restaurants, that generally may be
less deserving of a federal credit subsidy than
[[Page 24030]]
other types of facilities.'' (Page 169 of Senate Report No. 97-494 for
P.L. 97-248)
A few years later, in P.L. 99-514 Congress created qualified
redevelopment bonds and expanded the list of businesses that would be
prohibited from receiving tax benefits to include any private or
commercial golf course, country club, massage parlor, hot tub facility,
suntan facility, racetrack or other facility used for gambling, or any
store the principal business of which is the sale of alcoholic
beverages for consumption off premises. (26 USC Sec. 144( c)( 6)(B))
When the Enterprise Zone tax structure was enacted, Congress once again
prohibited the benefits from being extended to certain businesses
following the limits laid out in 26 USC Sec. 144(c)(6)(B). (26 USC Sec.
1397C)
Just as Congress expressed concern about allowing federal tax
benefits to flow to less deserving businesses more than 20 years ago,
Congress today should again be concerned about the same issue as it
works to assemble the Gulf Opportunity Zone tax package. As Congress
considers cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, the student loan program,
foster care, child support, and other social programs to offset the
costs of hurricane recovery, we must be sure that tax incentives only
go to worthy businesses. Federal tax dollars need to be focused on
those who truly need the government's help, like the poor, vulnerable
and elderly.
I believe fair-minded Americans would support tax incentives to spur
business reinvestment along the hurricane-ravaged Gulf coast to help
victims there rebuild their lives. But I also believe they would draw
the line--as Congress has historically done--in using taxpayer dollars
to assist businesses such as massage parlors, casinos, golf courses and
liquor stores. Allowing gambling conglomerates, for example,--which are
reporting billion dollar profits--to take advantage of tax breaks
doesn't make sense. Gambling operators don't need any incentive to
rebuild and, according to press reports, have already vowed to come
back ``bigger and better'' than before the hurricanes struck.
Particularly while faced with tough budget choices, Congress ought
not abandon its history of limiting tax benefits to more deserving
businesses. Regardless of what section of the tax code is used to spur
business investment in the region--bonds, enterprise zone tax credits,
expensing and depreciation or any other tax incentive--Congress should
target the limited federal resources available to more deserving
businesses. Giving tax breaks to massage parlors, casinos, liquor
stores and golf courses while we cut federal programs for the less
fortunate cannot be explained to the American people.
Congress must be sure these tax benefits of the Gulf rebuilding
package do not go to the massage parlors, casinos, liquor stores and
golf courses.
____________________
EXCHANGE OF SPECIAL ORDER TIME
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
____________________
OVER 2,000 FALLEN HEROES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it has been a long, long, long slog,
whether measured in lives or limbs lost.
So many days with no real plan for peace, no real plan for security
for our families, so many tears shed by too many families. Too little
armor and too little equipment for those who were too quickly placed in
harm's way.
Over 2,000 fallen American heroes. Over 15,000 wounded Americans, and
tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have died in this conflict.
The administration is attempting to relieve itself from the duty to
offer any strategy at all, even as it constantly recasts the purpose of
its tragic go-it-alone invasion.
Like the President's wishful, staged declaration of ``Mission
Accomplished'' on that aircraft carrier 2\1/2\ years ago, the Vice
President blithely states that the insurgency is in its ``final
throes.'' Well, each day's news shows how out of touch he continues to
be.
But for this administration, any sense of genuine accountability is
certainly in it final throes. Its credibility is certainly in its final
throes, and the patience of the American people with an administration
that lacks any plans for success in Iraq is in its final throes.
And with each wasted week, other families with a son or daughter,
with a husband or a wife in Iraq, who are seeing their first or second
or maybe even their third tour of duty, they wait, they hope, they
pray, and some toss and turn in the middle of the night fearing that
knock on the door will ultimately come.
All who have fallen are heroes, and all who have lost their limbs,
their lives, their sight, or their way of life because of this very
unnecessary conflict are heroes to whom our Nation owes an enormous
debt.
But we do not honor the memory of these fallen by building permanent
bases in Iraq, by licensing the CIA or others to torture in the name of
the United States, or by calling on the same military families to again
and again send their loved ones into danger, even while the richest
corporations and the wealthiest Americans are not asked to sacrifice a
dime, but are rewarded with tax breaks and no-bid contracts and crony
appointments in this administration.
More than any grim statistics can reveal, each of these unique losses
is measured by the milestones of life missed by loved ones: births and
baptisms, ball games and holidays, graduations, weddings,
grandchildren, the natural journey of life, cut short or completely
sacrificed in this administration's war of choice.
And even as this morass in Iraq worsens, more than 90 percent of the
American deaths have come about since President Bush declared an end to
major combat operations. The administration's plan, if it ever even had
one, has simply failed to evolve. So the budget deficit soars, gas
prices rocket, billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars that are
needed here are sent there, and the numbing count of dead and wounded
continues to soar.
Beyond the power of any prosecutor, it is history that will indict
this administration.
____________________
EXCHANGE OF SPECIAL ORDER TIME
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
____________________
EXXON'S EXTRAORDINARY PROFITS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to place on the Record
the extraordinary profits of one corporation registered with the New
York Stock Exchange by the name of Exxon.
Today, news reports indicate that Exxon, the world's largest publicly
traded company, has posted the largest U.S. corporate profit in world
history: nearly $10 billion. That is $10 billion in just 3 months.
We know where that money came from. It came from all of us. It came
from the American people. Quarterly profits for Exxon are up 75 percent
since last year. The revenue of this company alone will ring in at over
$100 billion this year.
Now how big is $100 billion? Well, $100 billion is about one-quarter
of what the U.S. Department of Defense spends in 1 year. But $100
billion is more than all of the following U.S. Departments spend in a
year combined. The whole U.S. Department of Education, all of the
student loans, all of the help for our school children around the
country, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the profits of Exxon.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, that is small potatoes
compared to what Exxon earns.
The Department of Transportation, with all of those bridges across
the United States that have to be fixed,
[[Page 24031]]
some in rural areas, certainly in the big cities, crumbling
infrastructure, well, Exxon's profits are a lot larger than the
Department of Transportation spends in a year.
NASA, poor NASA, they only have about $16 billion a year to explore
outerspace and the heavens beyond us.
If you add them all up: Department of Education, Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of Transportation, and NASA, they do not
equal the revenues of Exxon.
Now the interesting thing about Exxon, it is the world's largest
publicly traded company, but it has a special deal. Guess where most of
its oil comes from? Saudi Arabia. Have no doubt, with the special
licensing agreement signed with that company, a lot of that money drawn
off of this marketplace will not go to education of our children, it
will not go to fix up our roads, it is not going to help clean up our
environment, and it certainly will not take us as far as Saturn.
No, a lot of those dollars will be used to hire mercenaries to
protect the Saudi oil interests, which is one of the major places this
country imports petroleum from because we cannot figure out how to get
it right here at home.
Mr. Speaker, $9.9 billion in one quarter. Think of what those funds
could do if you did not put them in Exxon's pockets. Think what they
could do in your community. Take a program, a teeny program like the
Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, which spends not $9.9
billion, but $15 million a year. That is pocket change to Exxon. It
gives little coupons to senior citizens across our country who cannot
afford to pay these rising gas prices and cannot afford to pay for
their heating bills this winter. It gives them $20 a month in the
summer to go to farmers' markets in their communities to purchase fresh
fruits and vegetables. We cannot put it in all of the States. Only 28
States even have this program, and not in every county.
But if you ever watch one of these senior citizens take one of those
farmers' market coupons and stand in front of fresh fruits and
vegetables and struggle with the decision of whether they are going to
buy raspberries for the first time in 25 years, what is more important,
Mr. Speaker, more profits for Exxon or a little bit to help the senior
citizens of America who want to buy fresh fruits and vegetables?
Seniors need that food so much that they literally buy it at the end
of the day when the farmers reduce their price, and they turn it into
soups and stews and put it in their freezers or their friends' freezers
so they can have soups during the winter time made out of fresh
vegetables that have been frozen.
Mr. Speaker, $9.9 billion. I am going to write a letter to the
president of Exxon. I do not even know who the person is. I am going to
ask if they would take $15 million out of the $9.9 billion in profits
they just made to double the senior farmers' market nutrition program
in our country. Would they even really miss it? How does Saudi Arabia
use all of that money? And why do they need all of those mercenaries to
protect their oil wells? Why is that country so unstable? Why do they
have to take money out of our pockets through Exxon every single day?
It is really unbelievable that one corporation could make that much
money off this marketplace in one quarter and this Congress does
nothing.
____________________
{time} 1715
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP: CALLING FOR AN INDEPENDENT KATRINA
COMMISSION
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honor to come
before the House. As the Members know, the 30-Something Working Group,
we come to the floor to bring about not only good change for the
Congress, but also for the country. And we try to promote legislation
that the Democratic side is offering towards some of the issues that
are facing the country, but at the same time talk about the
responsibilities of the majority that are unmet.
Mr. Speaker, as the Members know, Hurricane Wilma hit not only my
district, but many of the Florida delegation in southeast and southwest
Florida, and we are constantly struggling with trying to make sure that
we can provide for our constituents. And we come to the floor week
after week, especially the 30-Something Working Group, talking about
what happened in Hurricane Katrina, the lack of response in Hurricane
Katrina and Rita by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and also
calling up House Resolution 3764, which has over 190 Democratic
cosponsors. Unfortunately, last I checked, there are not any
Republicans who have signed on to it, and that is very unfortunate
because it is an identical commission to the 9/11 Commission that
brought about great recommendations, some that have been met, others
that we still have to make sure that we implement to secure our
country. It was about not making the same mistake again, again, and
again. And that is the reason why we are calling for an independent
Katrina Commission.
And that is a piece of legislation that is not a Democratic plan, but
it is an American plan. Eighty-one percent of Americans support it, and
I think it is very important that we do not allow partisan committees
that have been established here in the House to dictate the response to
natural disasters and a possible terrorist attack.
We have to make things better to protect Americans. It is almost like
I feel like an insurance salesman saying that we have to have insurance
not after the fact, but before the fact. And if we know we have
shortcomings, then we need to deal with that in a very effective way.
Being an ``evacuee'' of Hurricane Wilma due to the fact that there is
very little power in south Florida, there are gas lines, Mr. Speaker, I
hold up here the front page of the Washington Post that has many people
here in south Florida, as a matter of fact in West Palm Beach, standing
for hours for gas because we could not get the generators running at
Port Everglades to be able to pump the gas to allow many of the
stations to have gas and power. These are things that we need to work
on.
Governor Bush jumped in front of the train because folks were getting
upset with the Federal response once again as it relates to getting the
simple things like ice, water, and food down to the affected area.
There was a lot of chest-beating prior to the storm, saying, we have
2,000 FEMA personnel in place; we have a set number of trucks that are
lined up in Florida, pre-positioned, to go in and provide ice water and
food. And in many cases the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman
Schultz) showed that either there were very few, trucks were extremely
late like 8, 7 hours. People there just went through a major hurricane
waiting 8, 7 hours just for 1 bag of ice and 3 jugs of water, and in
some cases nothing showed up, and folks had to go back home.
That is why we need an independent commission. We do not need
officials that have relationships with the President to say, blame me,
I am the State of Florida, blame me for the shortcomings of the
response. We know in hurricanes, natural disasters, that there are
going to be shortcomings. But as it relates to the very simple things
that have to be provided, they must be provided. And the reason why
they were not provided is that the supplies were not there, period,
dot.
FEMA was in charge of making sure that those supplies made it to said
location. The truck drivers were not hired by the State of Florida, but
were hired by FEMA. And I think it is important that we look at it for
what it is.
We do not have to have a commission for every natural disaster or
event that takes place here in the United States, but we have a House
resolution that, Mr. Speaker, will be part of a discharge petition here
in the House, and I want to break that down so that everyone
[[Page 24032]]
understands what a discharge petition is.
Basically, we are using the rules of the House to call this
resolution up to the floor to discharge it, and we need a said number
of signatures to be able to pull it up on the floor so that the House
can take a vote. And if we do not have some Members of the majority
side to see fit to have an independent Katrina Commission that 81
percent of Americans are in approval of, then we are failing to meet
our obligations.
We know that we have problems. The Department of Homeland Security
telling people in my district to be patient 72 hours after the storm,
saying, we will get it right. Well, that is the reason why we have it.
We are supposed to be prepared for these events, but we are not, and we
are not even willing to correct ourselves. So that is in place as it
relates to the Democratic response.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate his yielding to me. Just
so that we can go back, and, obviously, he has outlined why we have a
need for this independent commission. I think it is important that we
go back and we explain what is actually happening here right now. We
have been asking for this thing for how long now, months? Almost 2
months we have been asking for an independent commission. We want to go
back, Democrats and Republicans, and look at what happened with Katrina
so that we can stop and prevent these things from happening.
We are not doing a good job in this country of administering
emergency services. And we have the Republicans in charge of the House
and in charge of the Senate, in charge of the White House, in charge of
FEMA, in charge of the whole executive branch, and we keep having these
missteps and these failures, and no one is figuring out what in the
heck we are doing wrong because the committee down here that the
Republicans have appointed only gives subpoena power to the
Republicans. So we have the Republicans overseeing the Republicans. And
I think we might as well put Ed Gillespie in charge of the committee
down here to oversee what is happening, the head of the RNC, because
this has become political.
And what we want to say to the American people, Mr. Speaker, is that
Democrats want an opportunity to govern this place because our friends
on the other side do not know how to govern. They have been in charge
now in the House since 1994. They have control of the Senate, they have
control of the White House, and they do not know how to govern. And we
need to be prepared for not only natural disasters, but potential
terrorist attacks to the United States of America.
And we need to do what we did with the 9/11 Commission, an
independent commission, independent of all of the nonsense that happens
in this body that has gotten us to a point where the Republican
majority does not know how to govern. Get an independent commission
with an outside Democrat and an outside Republican, bipartisan, where
they can subpoena people, oversee what happened for Katrina, oversee
Wilma, oversee Rita, and figure out what we need to do, because at some
point, at some point, something is going to happen in America that is
going to be more tragic than these natural disasters, and we are not
going to know how to respond. And our kids and our grandkids are going
to look back and the American people are going to look to this body and
say, What have you done to prevent this? What have you done to improve
the emergency management execution in the United States of America? And
we are saying on record here five times a week sometimes with the 30-
something Group we want an independent commission. We do not want
politics involved. Do the right thing.
And we are asking people at home to contact us, housedemocrats.gov/
katrina, and become a citizen cosponsor of H.R. 3764, become a citizen
cosponsor, and I think we have over 40,000 citizen cosponsors for this.
Get on this Website, housedemocrats.gov/katrina, become a citizen
cosponsor so that we can become prepared for a possible terrorist
attack that may happen in the United States, another natural disaster
that may happen in the United States. We will be ready, and then down
the line we will be able to look back, and there is always room for
improvement. We watch the game film the next day, and we see what we
did right and what we did wrong, but at the end of the day, we can say
we have done our job. We have put the microscope up to the problem. We
have looked at it, put the sunshine on it, and figured out what we did
wrong.
And it takes courage. I mean, it is not easy to be self-reflective.
It is not easy to critique oneself. And that is what we are asking this
Congress to do, have the courage to do the right thing: Get an
independent commission here.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is not like
we are by ourselves as it relates to calling for this independent
commission. And the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz)
and I were talking about an independent commission, and we have been
going week after week here on this floor saying it is the responsible
thing to do not only in natural disasters, but also in the aftermath of
a terrorist attack. An independent commission will be able to look at
the Federal response, the State response, and the local response and
learn from either what was good or bad that took place in those events.
If we are not going to have an independent review of our
capabilities, then something is wrong. If we are not going to have
that, that means that without having it, people will lose their lives
possibly because of the lack of response, because they definitely did
in Katrina. We had people that were running out of medical supplies. We
had people that needed insulin, could not get it because they were
stranded and that we were not able to reach them. So I think that is
very important.
There are a number of papers that have come out for an independent
commission on Katrina: The USA Today; the Tennessean from Nashville,
Tennessee; the News & Observer from Raleigh, North Carolina; also
Capital Times, Madison, Wisconsin; the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in
Georgia; the Courier-Journal in Louisville, Kentucky; the St.
Petersburg Times in Florida; the Salt Lake Tribune in Utah; also the
Denver Post in Colorado; and the San Antonio Express, obviously in
Texas; and the Houston Chronicle of Texas.
There are a number of papers, and those are just the major ones, that
have come out for an independent Katrina Commission.
We have talked about House Resolution 3764, but also as it relates to
contracting fraud that may very well happen in Wilma because of a lack
of oversight. We have called for House bill H.R. 3838, a bill to create
an antifraud commission to prevent waste and fraud and abuse of Federal
contractors as it relates to these emergency declarations or what have
you. This is about saving money and making sure that we do not make the
victims of a natural disaster or a potential terrorist attack victims
all over again because we failed to have the proper oversight.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to add the fact that we have to continue to
push. Once again I give the report. Every day I go on the White House
Website. I have the Website page here. No mention of an independent or
any evaluation of what the failures were during Hurricane Katrina, and
we also have the Website that has not changed on the partisan committee
that is here in the House. And I think it is important for us to
identify that so that we do not have to continue to have Ground Hog Day
all over again.
One last point, Mr. Speaker, while we are on this issue here. The
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and I talked last
night about the fact that we were here pushing for this commission week
after week. I mentioned that. And we shared with not only the Members,
but also Americans, Mr. Speaker, the fact that it could be them next,
victims of a poor, short response or an inadequate response.
[[Page 24033]]
{time} 1730
Little did we know at that time that we would be victims of the
shortcomings of the fact that we say we are ready, but we are not
really ready or really prepared; and in some cases some people question
are we saying we have trucks in certain locations and they are not
there, do we need to get prima facia proof that they were there? These
are the questions that my constituents are asking.
So I want to share with Members that this independent commission is
very important, to make sure that one day it may be you and your
constituents going through this and you are going to say, Gee, you
know, it is amazing that we cannot even get a truck to come in here
with water.
We talked about last night the fact that the terrorists are not going
to call up and say, Hey, I want you guys to get prepared. I am going to
carry out an attack in another month or so, so you need to get together
and pre-position.
That is the reason why the 9/11 recommendations need to be fully
implemented. That is the reason why we need a Katrina Commission to
look at the lack of response we had on the biggest natural disaster
that took place on U.S. soil and the Federal, State and local response
to that. That is very, very important. It is not an indictment
document; it is a document to make sure that we prevent loss of life in
the future.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, he is
absolutely right. I think the gentleman makes a great point. This is
important. This goes beyond Katrina. The independent commission that we
want goes beyond Katrina.
We had a situation in Ohio a year or so ago where a potential
terrorist was planning an attack in Columbus. You are in the middle of
Ohio, it was something about a shopping mall. The gentleman was stopped
and held, and I do not even know what the status is right now. But this
was in Ohio. It is not just the gulf States or Florida.
Katrina and the independent commission, these are all the editorials
that have been written in support all over the country. I think a lot
of the editorial boards understand what we are trying to say here, and
they are being very supportive.
We talk about an independent commission. I want to read a little bit
from the Houston Chronicle in Texas, a little bit of what they say
about trying to fix the problem: ``The most promising option is an
independent commission along the lines of the September 11 problem.
This is great, because this puts a little meat on the bone. It should
be headed by national figures of unassailable independence and
credibility such as former President Jimmy Carter, former Secretary of
State Colin Powell and retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor.''
We are talking about Republicans, but just to be independent of the
day-to-day politics that go on in this Chamber. This is not something
that needs to be compromised. This is an issue that has long-term
ramifications, and we have an obligation.
We come here early in January every other year and we put our hand on
the Bible and one up in the air. We have an obligation to make this
government run effectively and efficiently. A lot of hard-working
people pay a lot of tax dollars that come to us, and then we invest it
to improve the quality of their lives.
Part of that is to make sure they are safe. So when we had all these
problems with body armor, where their kids, their sons and daughters
were going over, we wanted to make sure they have the proper body armor
and the up-armored Humvees; and we fought through the 30-something
Group and the Democrats and put enough pressure on where we finally got
that problem fixed. It is a whole other issue why we went to war
without the proper equipment.
But we have a responsibility here to make sure that this government
runs efficiently. A component of that is emergency management services,
which, as we found, became very apparent in the past few months. So we
have this obligation; and we are trying, the 30-something Group, the
Democratic Party, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), we are
trying to move this committee out of politics into an independent
commission, get Sandra Day O'Connor, get Colin Powell, get some good,
solid Republicans who are going to be independent and do what is best
for the country, because time and time again, unfortunately, my friend,
the Republicans continue to prove their ineptness, their inability to
govern; and we have a responsibility as the minority party, as the
opposition party, to provide alternative views, and we want an
opportunity to run the government.
We proved in 1993 with not one Republican vote that we could balance
the budget and handle those difficult decisions, and that vote in
particular led to the greatest economic expansion in the history of the
United States of America.
Our friends on the other side are not only inept in trying to
administer emergency services, because they appoint all their cronies
to the top positions in FEMA, all friends of friends of a college
roommate who gives a lot to the Republican Party, which led to poor
execution of emergency services. Their party, the Republican Party,
takes higher precedence for the people who govern this Chamber than the
country, and they have proved that time and time again. Party over
country. What the Democrats are trying to say is pick the country over
the party.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman
is 110 percent right. I think every day Republicans want to see, and
Democrats and Independents and even folks that are not voting in
America, they want to see leadership. They want to see leadership on
behalf of the country. Veterans want to see the flag that they fought
for and that some of their friends and comrades died for, that it is
not caught up in what we call this culture of corruption and cronyism.
We want to talk about cronyism for a minute, Mr. Michael ``Brownie,''
I am not one to say it is his fault as it relates to staying on with
FEMA for 60 days, and then the Secretary of Homeland Security extends
his contract at the salary he was making as director of FEMA for
another 30 days.
The reason given for doing that is that we need to learn from
Director Brown, or Brownie, the President calls him Brownie, we need to
learn from him so that we can know more about what happened in Katrina.
Now, if you could not get it in the first 60 days, he was only in
charge for about maybe 5 or 7 days, thanks to the fact that we were
raising the question. The Democratic Leader first called for his
resignation because we saw that we had someone that did not have the
experience.
The fact he is on for 60 days, the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security, I am waiting to have a conversation with him on why
he would extend it for 30 more days at taxpayers' expense.
Now, folks went into their pockets and said, Well, we are going to
help you out for another whole month. That is on them. I do not have a
problem with that. I do have a problem with the fact that we are
rewarding him in confidence and cronyism with the taxpayer dollar.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Speaker,
Brownie is still on the payroll, $100,000.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. $148,000.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. $148,000. Talk about rewarding negative behavior.
Do you do that with your kids? Your kids come home, they took a
spelling test, got a D, do you throw them $20? Good job, Kendrick. Go
out and get another one. That is what we are doing. We are reinforcing
bad behavior.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time once again,
well, I can tell you, the part that I am more concerned about is the
fact that this is a high-profile individual within FEMA. What is
happening on an everyday basis with someone that really is not
competent in Federal Government and is known to the managers? I guess
it is okay, because when you think about the culture of corruption and
cronyism, if it comes from the top, then it must be okay. If it is all
right with the Vice President, then it is okay. That
[[Page 24034]]
means it is okay with the Department Secretaries and Under Secretaries
and the regional directors. So that is the reason why we have to cut it
off.
Mr. Speaker, do you know something? Not a mumbling word from the
majority on this. Not a mumbling word. Better yet, we have folks coming
to the floor, and we started talking about responding to the needs of
Americans saying we have to have offsets in Medicaid, we have got to
have offsets in possible Medicare, that is not off the table.
What I mean by ``offsets'' is the fact we have to take money from
those programs to respond to the Katrina-Rita issue. We have to do
that. But, better yet, we have an example of an individual that I think
pretty much all Americans, and I am pretty sure that almost close to
every Member of the House, agree with the fact that he did not know
exactly what he was doing.
I do not blame Mr. Brown. I do not blame him. I blame the individuals
that placed him in that position. I blame the managers that saw that he
was not up to par and endorsed lackluster, leave-alone performance,
lack of competence in doing that particular job. He is probably good
somewhere else.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. ``You are doing a good job, Brownie.''
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Yes, ``You are doing a good job, Brownie,'' on
national television, broad daylight. The world is watching.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The world is watching. You are not doing a good
job. You are doing a bad job. In fact, you are fired. Get out. What do
you mean, you are doing a good job.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. And we are going to give you a 60-day extension
and have you on as a consultant, have you on so we can learn from your
bad job. Maybe we can learn more. No, as a fat matter of fact, hey, you
know, 60 days is not enough. Let us extend it 30 more days.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Maybe their plan was this: they said we will keep
Brownie on, pay him $148,000, and when there is a situation, we will go
to Brownie and ask, what do you think we should do? He will tell you.
Then they do the complete opposite. Maybe that you is how they are
using him, do you think?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. There are too many people around here paying
taxes, folks running around here trying to put fiscal responsibility in
the backdrop, saying we are conservatives. Meanwhile, the Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security is defending and extending
contracts of a person that the front-page national publications say is
incompetent and not in any way knowing what to do in a natural
disaster. So this is beyond comprehension. And not a mumbling word.
I would say this: I do not blame him. I am not running around here
saying I am disappointed in Michael Brown for accepting a 30-day
extension on a $140,000 salary. I am not blaming him. He could not do
that on his own.
No one from the White House called and said, You know something? Over
at the Department of Homeland Security, I think you all are probably
not playing with a full deck if you think it is okay to do this. Not a
mumbling word. So I am concerned, leave alone as a Congressman, as a
taxpayer, that this is okay.
Now, this is just a high-profile case. We talk about corruption and
cronyism, a culture. People think, well, wow, they are just saying that
because they can say it. No, this is a shining example, and we have
been talking about this, and it has been in all of these publications,
and they are still doing it, like it is okay.
The only people that can put this administration and set us on a new
course and put this majority in check are the American people. But,
unfortunately, they will not have an opportunity until late 2006, and
on behalf of the country we cannot continue to sit idly by and watch
this kind of activity take place.
I would feel a little uncomfortable saying that my colleagues on the
majority side are not standing up to their responsibilities in
oversight. The Secretary, as soon as he leaves from down in south
Florida from Wilma, should be called on the carpet in some committee
room saying please let us know what we can learn from Mr. Brown. Please
let us know what we can learn from the Director of FEMA. Why do we have
to continue to pay him and use the taxpayers' dollars? Someone needs to
ask that question. It should be not only the Committee on Homeland
Security; it should be congressional leaders calling and saying you
need to reverse that.
So I do not even feel half uncomfortable about me being upset about
this thing, because I can tell you right now, there are a number of
people out there that are very upset; and it is time, it is time, that
we cut out this culture of corruption and cronyism, because it is
weakening this country. I am going to tell you that right now.
Folks might see little events, but I can tell you right now, I am
concerned about clandestine operations that we have going on,
especially in this culture of corruption and cronyism. I am concerned
about taking people for face value when they say, well, this is what we
have in place, and we find out later that it is really not.
I am concerned when we come to this floor and the clock opens up for
15-minute votes, and because the majority side is not prevailing or
winning, they decide to hold the vote clock open for 90 minutes. I am
concerned about these events taking place under lights, cameras, and
action.
{time} 1745
I am concerned about those events that are taking place in the back
halls of Congress, in the White House, and in other Federal agencies
that are not under lights and camera.
So this is the kind of boldness, cronyism, boldness and possible
corruption in many places that takes place. And do not take it from me,
just pick up your local paper or turn on the news. It is full of it. So
if we do not hold ourselves in check, and if the majority is not
willing to rise up and police this corruption and cronyism; because,
Mr. Speaker, I used to be a State trooper, and we had what they call a
game warden, and I always used to say, the game warden cannot be the
lead poacher. You cannot be leading off the poacher saying that I am in
charge of policing the poachers. So I think it is important that we
have folks that will leader up and say, you know something, I know I
have been told to be quiet on this, but I have a constitutional
responsibility to make sure that we have oversight.
These are not personal decisions, Mr. Ryan; these are decisions that
are affecting the governance of this country. So when we allow this
kind of stuff to go on, it is making the country weaker versus
stronger, because the Federal tax dollars are being spent in ways that
they should not be spent, and we are not saving any money by allowing
this kind of culture to continue.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I think it really comes down to the
fact that every decision that is made by this Congress, by the
Republican-controlled Congress, by the Republican-controlled Senate,
and by our Republican President is based on supporting and lifting up
the Republican Party. I hate to break it to them, but this is not about
the Republican Party; this is about America. This is about what is best
for America.
You talk about violating basic House rules, and every time they have
done that, every time they have kept the roll call open at 2:00 or 3:00
or 4:00 in the morning; I mean, last year, I cannot remember what vote
it was, but we were here until 4:00 or 5:00 in the morning. It was on
the prescription drug bill, because we had to kick over $700 billion to
the pharmaceutical industry, one of the most profitable industries in
the whole entire world, them and oil, and the reason is they put the
Republican Party before the country.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, I am sorry to cut in, sir, but I am
going to tell you this: I know a lot of Republicans. A lot of
Republicans are supporters of me. They vote for me, and some of them
say, great job. I have some great friends on the other side of the
aisle, I mean great friends. We do a lot together. We talk about things
that are common interests. We are friends. My mother was here before
me, and
[[Page 24035]]
some of them are great friends of my mother, and, because of that
relationship, we have a great bond.
But I can tell you this: I think this goes far beyond building up or
doing something on behalf of the Republican Party, because some of
these decisions that are made, it will turn the stomach of Republicans
that I know. It would turn their stomachs. I know on the majority side,
I know that there are some Republicans that go home, and they are sick.
They are sick of what is going on here in this House. But you know
something? If they were to stand up, unfortunately they would be
knocked down politically. They will find themselves fighting the whole
reason why we are here on this floor, fighting against them doing their
jobs.
So I kind of feel that there is a purpose for what we are doing here,
because as far as I am concerned, we could sit back and just say, well,
let them do it, or let them look the other way, because the American
people are going to see that they are not governing. But you know
something? We are Americans, and we have an obligation to not only our
constituents. When our constituents voted for us, they federalized us.
So that means that we have to care about the entire country and what
happens to the Federal dollar, which is the taxpayers' dollar. It is
very unfortunate.
So, Mr. Ryan, I know that it is an influence of the special
interests. Their pockets are full because of the relationships here on
Capitol Hill that they have and in the White House. Guess what? The
average Republican is paying more at the pump, the average Republican
does not have health care; just like many of our constituents, there is
no health care plan. The average Republican is going to have to bear
the brunt, Mr. Ryan, and I am sorry for taking a little of your time
here, but bear the brunt of taking away from Medicare, Medicaid, free
and reduced lunches for poor people; taking away from projects that
would go to local government to build communities; and all of these
faith-based groups that are out there trying to bring about some
change, it is going to take away from them.
But, meanwhile, when it comes down to saying to a billionaire that we
probably cannot give you hundreds of thousands in tax cuts that we have
given you over the last number of years, and I am going to reference a
report here, a third-party validator, a little later on, to say that it
is not working, they say, no, no, no, do not worry about it, do not say
anything, millionaire. We have you. We have your back. We are going to
protect you, but we are going to make sure that the average Republican,
the average Democrat, the average Independent, that they bear the
burden, that they send their children into conflict and war, that they
pay higher gas prices; not you, special interest. No, no, we are here
for you.
But see, the problem here, and we talked about it last night, Mr.
Ryan, about the fact that this is the only legislative body on the
other side of the aisle in the Senate, where you can be appointed by a
Governor to the Senate if someone leaves office. But when someone
leaves office here in the middle of a term, you have to be elected. You
cannot be appointed to the House of Representatives. So that means that
we are representatives of the people, not representatives of the
special interests, not representatives of the billionaires of the
world; we are representatives of everyday folk.
So I think this is important, because Democrats, we have budget
alternatives like pay-as-you-go, saying that if you are going to do it,
you are going to show how you are going to pay for it, okay? We have
alternatives as it relates to dealing with Hurricane Katrina so that we
do not continue to waste the taxpayers' dollars and also make the
victims of the event victims all over again. So, Mr. Ryan, we have the
alternatives.
I believe that this goes higher than the party. I believe that it
goes right to this culture of corruption and cronyism, and I will tell
you one thing: The American people will see us bring about great change
if just one of the Chambers of the legislative body was to turn
Democrat, because what you see right now, based on law enforcement
agencies saying, listen, we need to have some level of oversight, this
country is going down the drain, because they are dragging it down the
drain, and we have to do this. Imagine if we had an oversight committee
that would call some of these things into question before they get to
the level to where they are now, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Yes, no doubt about it. We maybe could have
prevented, if we had been really on the stick and really open, we maybe
could have prevented some of the things that are happening.
I think this really goes to the fact that the Republican majority
believe that the government and the taxpayer dollars that we have here
are just for them. It is for them to build their party up. It is for
them to use it to build up the Republican Party.
I am sorry, but my citizens in my district do not pay taxes so that
the leaders of the House, the Republican leaders of the House, can go
out to Shake Down Street out there on K Street, just a cab ride away
where all the lobbyists are, and go and shake down the lobbyists. I
mean, when a Democrat applies for a job, and the leaders on the
Republican majority say to the lobbyists, you cannot give that job to a
Democrat because we will not do business with you then.
And when you come to the American people and you try to say with a
straight face about fiscal discipline, but when we are here at 3:00 in
the morning, and arms are getting twisted to pass a Medicare
prescription drug bill, and the Republican majority does not have the
courage to go to the pharmaceutical industry and say, listen, we want
to pass a Medicare prescription drug bill, but we want to give the
Secretary of Health and Human Services the opportunity, the power to
negotiate on behalf of the Medicare recipients to get the costs under
control. The Republicans put a provision in the Medicare bill that
explicitly said the Secretary of Health and Human Services is not
allowed to negotiate down the drug prices. Can you imagine that? Can
you believe that? And then only 25 Republican Members voted against it.
Then you come to the energy bill, and with the energy bill, you have
billions of dollars in there to subsidize the oil companies, and a
major oil company comes out today and talks about 89 percent profits in
the last quarter, $10 billion, and you are getting public tax dollars
from middle-class Americans who live in Youngstown, Ohio, one of the
poorest areas in the country, you are taking their tax dollars and you
are giving it to the oil companies.
Now, a third-party validator, right here, Cal Thomas, one of the most
conservative Republican columnists in the country right now, suggests
to our friends on the other side, to the Republican majority, he is
commenting on the offsets to pay for Katrina, and the Republican
majority is taking the money from Medicaid, free and reduced lunch, and
college students. Cal Thomas says, here is a suggestion: Do not start
with the poor, start with the rich. That is Cal Thomas. That is not
Kendrick Meek, that is not Tim Ryan, that is not Debbie Wasserman
Schultz, that is one of the most conservative Republican columnists in
the country.
He also goes on to say, talking about using government as their own
little sandbox that they can play in and as a welfare state for
corporations, because this is corporate welfare. Cal Thomas,
conservative Republican. Did I mention he is a conservative Republican?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. You mentioned it.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate that.
Quote: Seventy-two percent of farm subsidy money goes to 10 percent
of recipients, the richest farmers, partnerships, corporations,
estates, and other entities. Corporate welfare, my friend, to the oil
companies, to the pharmaceutical companies, and to the big
agribusinesses, and the Republican leadership in this Chamber goes out
to Shake Down Street and tells all the lobbyists on K Street that they
have to hire Republicans or they are not going to do business with the
Republican majority.
[[Page 24036]]
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let us just make sure that we are
crystal clear so that everyone understands. Not just saying, well, let
me check, let us see. Let us look at the people that apply for the job.
Oh, there is a Republican. No. I want you to hire my right-hand
staffer. I want you to hire him or her, put them in the position, okay,
and so I can deal directly with them so that we can have a line of
communications and we are not confused, because this person has my cell
number, okay, and I want to make sure that that happens.
Now, we are not talking about something that the House Ethics
Committee has not already dealt with, because of the fact that this
issue was brought up and it was very public. It was not any kind of
clandestine operation that was going on. You just pick up the paper.
Yes, that is what we are doing. What is the problem? If they are going
to do business up here, they are going to hire the people that they
want hired, period, dot, with a straight face, under the lights with
the cameras on and the press running.
That is a problem, Mr. Ryan, and I believe that when you start
looking at the whole culture of corruption and cronyism, you have to
look at these activities that are taking place under lights, camera,
and on the front pages of newspapers. And you know something? The
American people, Mr. Speaker, may feel, well, it is okay, because
Congress is not calling any of these people in. Once again, you cannot
be the game warden and the lead poacher at the same time. You just
cannot do it. It is not physically possible. You cannot have a problem
and be over the very thing that is the problem.
Once again, I said it last night, I will say it again. These are not
personal decisions, Mr. Ryan. These are decisions that are affecting
the policy of the country and the Treasury of the country. This is not
someone that went off and made an individual bad decision and said, you
know, I made a bad decision, it only really affected me, okay, and I am
sorry. It will not happen again. No, it is not that; it is a whole
Medicare program. It is an entire industry: Energy, we are going to
give you what you want.
{time} 1800
That is what is going on, and it is affecting the U.S. taxpayers.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We are going to give you public tax dollars for the
energy companies, public, through subsidies, billions of dollars in the
energy bill. You are going to raise money for Republican candidates. It
is that simple. Go out and shake down K Street. That should be called
not Operation K Street; it should be Operation Shakedown.
So the American people should be outraged at this, corporate welfare
to the most profitable industries in the country with your tax dollars,
and the Republican majority uses it to raise money for the Republican
Party. They are putting their party, the Republican Party, before the
country.
And that is when it has got to stop. You did not come to Congress to
rubber-stamp this stuff. The people in my district did not send me here
to rubber-stamp this stuff. They sent us here to end it, because the
average worker, the average small business person in every single
instance, health care, energy, gas prices, natural gas,
pharmaceuticals, wages, on every single count they are forgotten.
They are forgotten because we spent so much, the Republicans spent so
much time giving out public tax dollars, corporate welfare so that they
can increase their campaign coffers and run 30-second ads. And they go
out and shake down K Street. It is ridiculous.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. If you want to call it an energy bill, I will
not, because it did nothing about true conservation. It did nothing
about true price gouging. I mean, there was some language in there; but
it was not there. We had, on this side of the aisle, a Democratic
alternative that stopped price gouging, that put us on a track of
alternative fuel and also protected the environment at the same time.
We offered that.
That is the reason why the board, the voting board was open for 90
minutes, because it did something. Now, it did not do what the special
interests wanted us to do. And you know many of them, I see them. It is
not personal; it is just business. I see them. Hey, how are you doing?
I am fine. Are you okay? I am doing just fine. Nice day out today.
Okay.
But the bottom line is when it comes down to my constituents and it
comes down to Exxon-Mobil coming out today saying, hey, guess what,
wow, 75 percent up in profits, give me a high-five. What is
unfortunate, I think some of the folks in this Congress are actually
giving these special interest groups a high-five, and it is unfortunate
because it is on the backs of Americans.
We are running around here paying more for gas than we have ever paid
before, and there are record profits for the industry. I think there is
something wrong there, and I think it is something that is clear as
day. And guess what? It is happening under the lights. It is happening
in front of the cameras. It is on the front page of the paper in print
for historical preservation to the next election.
And what is unfortunate is that we could stand by and allow this to
happen and say nothing and say, you know, the American people will
respond in an appropriate way of making sure that we have the kind of
leadership that is willing to lead. We are trying to lead. Guess what?
We cannot prevail, because they are in the majority, and they have the
majority of the Members in this House.
If given the opportunity, Americans will see a different kind of
policy that is for the people and not for the special interests, not
only in that case. You go back to no longer making mistakes in the
Federal and State and local response after natural disaster/terrorist
attacks.
Not only that, looking at House Resolution 3838, dealing with the
issue on contractor fraud, why do we have to read it in the paper? Why
do we have to watch television to see that we have not provided the
kind of oversight so that contractors do not have cost overruns up to
millions of dollars, in some cases billions?
Then we turn around, you want to talk about rewarding a culture of
corruption and cronyism? Over in Iraq we have contractors that are
under investigation by our government, and the very same Departments of
Defense and Homeland Security investigating them, Katrina goes down,
hey, guess what? Come on over here. We have a multimillion-dollar no-
bid contract for you. Sign right here. We ask no questions. There is no
ceiling. There is very little oversight. And we will get around to that
thing of oversight. But we are in an emergency so we know that you
messed up before.
It is almost like someone going in a convenience store, taking out a
gun, taking a couple of hundred dollars out of the cash register,
unfortunately it is in the millions as it relates to the Federal
taxpayer dollar, they run out of the store, the police catch them, they
say, well, you know, not only do you not have to give me the money, but
you do not even have to turn over your gun. Go back out there and rob
another store. That is what is happening right now.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Well, let us look. My friend brings up Iraq, which
is a perfect example. We just talked about corporate welfare to the oil
companies; corporate welfare to pharmaceutical companies; tax cuts that
go primarily to those people who make over a million dollars a year.
And this President does not have the guts, and the Republican Congress,
they do not have the guts to ask the wealthiest people in the country
to contribute. Two wars and major natural disasters, poverty is
increasing, the tuition cost has doubled over the last 4 or 5 years,
and this Republican Congress, they do not have the guts to go ask the
billionaires in the country to contribute.
But we are going to give them public tax dollars to support their
corporations. But there is more welfare going on. Iraq has become a
United States welfare state. Look what is going on here. 110 primary
care centers built in Iraq with American tax dollars. Okay. 2,000
health educators trained with the American tax dollar.
[[Page 24037]]
3.2 million children vaccinated in Iraq with the American tax dollar.
Great. Super. We went in there, we broke Iraq, we buy it. That is our
responsibility. But back at the ranch, $10 billion-plus, as I have
talked to a few of our friends on the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
$10 billion-plus cuts in Medicaid for American kids. American citizens.
$252 million cut for health care professionals; $94 million cut for
community health centers in the United States of America.
Student loans. We are building 2,700 schools that have been rehabbed
in Iraq; 36,000 teachers and administrators trained in Iraq. We are
cutting student loans in the United States. Iraq is a welfare state. So
if you are sitting on the couch listening to the 30-something Group
right now, and these are all third-party validators, this is not us
making this stuff up.
Cal Thomas, the conservative Republican columnist, agrees with us.
You see a Republican-controlled government, one-party government
spending your tax dollars, giving your tax dollars to the oil
companies, to the pharmaceutical companies, to the billionaires in the
world, and/or in the United States, and creating a welfare state in
Iraq while you are cutting health care in education and research and
development. Even the Centers for Disease Control, our conservative
friends on the other side want to cut the Centers for Disease Control
at a time when we have this bird flu epidemic waiting in the wings.
We can do a better job. The Democratic Party has proposals. We want
to create a million new engineers and scientists in the next 10 years.
We want to build magnetic levitation trains in the United States and
connect the United States of America. We want to invest in the research
and development and create alternative energy sources so we no longer
have to worry about being dependent on foreign oil.
And that is part of the magnetic lev trains. We want arts and sports
in all of our schools for all of our kids because we recognize in the
21st century that learning a musical instrument helps you with math.
And when you are good at math, you become an engineer or a scientist,
and you will go out and generate wealth. We make good investments. The
Democratic Party makes good investments.
We balanced the budget in 1993 with not one Republican vote. And
President Clinton made a lot of tough decisions, and the Democratic
Congress made a lot of tough decisions. And, quite frankly, some
Members lost their seat over it. But it led to the greatest economic
expansion in the history of this country. And I do not think there is
an American out there that would not say, boy, I would love to go back
to the late 1990s. Boy would that not be great. Portfolio was up.
Everything was up that should have been up. Everything was down that
should have been down.
But meanwhile, our Republican friends keep this culture of corporate
welfare and corruption and keep propping up the Republican Party,
instead of propping up the United States of America, and being more
concerned about shaking down the lobbyists on K Street, instead of
propping up the United States.
The Democrats want to take this country in a new direction. We want
to provide new leadership. We want to change the direction of the
country, and we want to get rid of this culture of corruption and
cronyism, and we want to prop up the country, not any one political
party, and use the government to enhance opportunity for people in the
United States of America.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. With that, there is nothing more that I can
possibly say about where we stand, what we are trying to do in the
minority right now, what we would like to do if we had the majority. So
with that, sir, will you give the closing.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Our Web site is www.housedemocrats.gov/katrina.
Become a citizen cosponsor to the independent commission so we can
reform government the way it needs to be done.
And30-somethingdems@
mail.house.gov. We have been getting a ton of e-mails lately and a lot
of support, over 40,000 citizen cosponsors for the independent
commission for Katrina.
Help us change this government. Help us help the Democratic Party
take this country in a new direction, a better direction, and help us
get rid of this Republican-controlled government that does nothing but
corporate welfare and create a welfare state in Iraq at the expense of
the American worker and the American taxpayer.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. With that, Mr. Speaker, we would like to thank
the Democratic leadership for allowing us to come here in the first
Democratic hour. And like I say, it was an honor to address the House.
____________________
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentlewoman from Tennessee
(Mrs. Blackburn) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the
majority leader.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come
before the body and also to talk with the American people a little bit
this evening about what we as a House majority are doing.
You know, I have been sitting here for the last few minutes listening
to my colleagues talk about their plan and talk about what they were
doing. And one of my colleagues was talking about we want this, we want
that. I was beginning to think I was listening to one of my children
name the Christmas list, got the we-wants.
And I will remind the American people that the we-wants are going to
take a lot of your money. And I did not hear one single word mentioned
about fiscal responsibility and spending less.
And I would encourage my colleagues to come and work with us, really
to work with us on this issue, because we would appreciate having them
choose to propose some spending cuts. They have been going through this
process of trying to come up with a slogan for 2006.
And it has been interesting to watch them talk about this slogan. I
think they are going with something like We Can Do Better, Together We
Can Do Better, or something of that nature.
There again, we are not hearing anything about controlling spending
and reining in government. I did a cable news show last week with a
Member of the Democratic Party. He said, well, you know, they had not
been invited to join in working on submitting spending reductions.
Mr. Speaker, if they are waiting for an invitation, I hope they
consider this the invitation. It is in that spirit that I wanted to
come down to the floor tonight and talk a little bit about the
Republican security agenda and invite the Democrats to join us, because
we are living in uncertain times. We are facing significant challenges,
and the Republican majority has a clear plan on how we move forward on
this.
We are focused on our national security, our economic security, our
moral security, our retirement security. And we are going to talk a
lot. We have been working already, the 108th, 109th Congress, and
putting quite a bit of time and energy into continued tax relief,
lowering energy costs, working toward affordable health care, and
talking about preserving access to health care for all Americans.
You know, I am just going to have to correct one of things that one
of my colleagues said. They were talking about Medicaid spending and
how we were going to cut Medicaid spending. And I was kind of
scratching my head. We have been sitting in the Committee on Energy and
Commerce since 3 o'clock on Tuesday afternoon now working on many of
these issues.
And all we are talking about doing is slowing the rate of growth of
Medicaid from 7.3 percent a year to 7 percent a year.
{time} 1815
I think a lot of my constituents in Tennessee have, they have kind of
wised up to a lot of this Washington talk, and they know that any time
you
[[Page 24038]]
talk about reining in growth, any time you talk about bureaucrats and
having to learn to live with less so that families in houses in
communities can keep their money, that you are going to hear talk of a
cut. You are going to hear talk of a cut. My people know and understand
that.
They also were saying a little bit about energy over there. I have
got to make a comment there, too, and they were talking about how
glorious the `90s were. We probably would not be talking so much about
energy right now if President Clinton had not vetoed drilling in ANWR
in 1995. He had the opportunity to do something bold and visionary, and
he chose not to. Democrats chose not to. And I think we need to
remember that as we talk about energy costs.
When we talk about economic policies and the economic expansion, I
think that my young colleague over there might do well to realize
Ronald Reagan and his economic policies led to that economic expansion,
and we fondly remember that President.
As I said, we are talking about the security agenda. We are focused
tonight on the economic security agenda and some of the things that we
have been able to accomplish. As I said, spending reductions, we are
working on across-the-board cuts, tax relief and tax reform, it has
been a big, big part of that. The death tax repeal, marriage penalty
relief, reducing marginal rates, all of those things; the child tax
credit, marriage penalty relief, our colleagues want to talk all of the
time and just say, oh, corporations are not paying their fair share. We
need to tax corporations more. And that is all Republicans talk about
in tax reform and tax relief. And they are just so wrong.
They are just so wrong on that because thousands of families in my
district appreciate having sales tax deductibility. They appreciate
having the child tax credit. They appreciate having marriage penalty
relief. And so many who have, they are trying to save family farms and
small business that they have started, they want to make the death tax
repeal permanent.
We are going to continue talking about these as we move forward, and
we are going to be continuing to work on these spending issues, because
when government is taxing too much and spending too much, you stifle
economic activity, and that does affect economic security of this
Nation. Republicans are not willing to let government stifle economic
activities.
Jobs growth and jobs creation is something that needs to be
happening. We have seen 3 million new jobs created. That has happened
because of the correct economic steps. It has happened because of a
push to reform government. We have 98 programs that are targeted for
potential elimination, a good first step there.
Our leadership is to be commended by taking these steps, and this is
going to yield $4.3 billion in savings, the budget that we passed. And
I will remind my colleagues across the aisle did not get a single
Democratic vote on this budget. It reduced $35 billion in savings; $35
billion dollars in that fiscal year 2006 budget, and now we are working
to expand that. Not a single Democrat wanted to vote for that, but they
wanted to spend more. And when they spend more, that is more money
coming out of our taxpayers' pockets.
And, Mr. Speaker, our majority believes that we can do better, and I
would certainly hope that our colleagues across the aisle will start to
work with us on these spending reductions. We have got a great group of
Members who are sick of having the liberals in this body tell us that
there is no room to cut, and not a single Democrat has agreed to
support even a 1 percent reduction. And they do not believe there is 1
percent of waste, fraud and abuse in government.
In fact, they have opposed our effort to get to that $35 billion in
savings. And I think that the people in my district know that you can
find 1 percent of waste, fraud and abuse; and they are encouraging us
to move forward and go maybe even more, find even greater savings.
I have said many times that I think that government needs to be
streamlined, and that it could stop behaving and spending like the
overgrown, unproductive behemoth that it has become over 40 years of
Democrat control with growing program after program after program, and
it could start functioning a lot more like some of our Tennessee
companies, maybe FedEx or Comdata or the Tractor Supply Company or any
of the hundreds and thousands of small businesses and small business
manufacturers that are located across our wonderful Seventh
Congressional District.
We have got agencies that spend without results and then do not want
to tell us how they spend. We have got program after program that was
created during the Great Society, and those programs put very little
stock in achieving results. The Republicans in this House are working
to reshape that, and we are going to continue putting our focus on
spending reduction, reducing a little bit more and a little bit more
every single year. And we hope that our Democrat colleagues across the
aisle are going to join us and assist us with this.
I am pleased to note also, Mr. Speaker, I will have to note this even
though the Democrats do not want to join us with across-the-board
spending and reducing even 1 percent out of spending, I am pleased to
note that today the President expressed support for taking a look at
across-the-board cuts.
I was joined by two of my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Cantor) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), in filing
three bills, a 1 percent, a 2 percent, and a 5 percent across-the-board
cuts. And also I will have to note that in our work to reduce what the
Federal Government spends, Citizens Against Government Waste has sent a
letter encouraging Members of Congress to support our across-the-board
cuts because they know that as we work toward fiscal responsibility, as
we work to achieve and continue economic security in this Nation, a big
important part of this is looking at what the Federal Government
spends.
Mr. Speaker, I am joined by some of my colleagues tonight. And at
this time I would like to recognize one of our colleagues from Texas
who is our vice chairman of the Republican Study Committee and has been
a leader in looking at the fiscal responsibility of this body and of
the Federal Government. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) has
taken a lead on this. He helped with our freshman class as waste, fraud
and abuse became our class project. He came forward and helped found
the Washington Waste Watchers so that we could begin to get inside
these programs to target and look at specifically what was going on in
these Federal programs, where the Federal Government spends its money,
how it achieves its results.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) has worked on this issue
for 3 years. And at this time I would like to yield to him for his
comment about spending control and budget control and operations
offset, having the Federal Government be accountable to the
constituents.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, well, I certainly thank the gentlewoman
for yielding, and I certainly appreciate her leadership in this body
and truly being one of the great leaders in trying to reform
government, bring about accountability, and to help protect the family
budget from the Federal budget.
Obviously, many good points were made about fiscal responsibility and
the fact that somehow the Democrats, those on the other side of the
aisle that we tried to work with, tell us there is no room for reform
in the Federal budget, no room whatsoever; that somehow we have to
spend even more and more money. Mr. Speaker, it begs the question how
much is enough?
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I mentioned
that we were working on finding some appropriate levels of spending
reduction in our Committee on Energy and Commerce, and I have been
called back to this committee.
So at this point I am going to briefly yield the time to the Chair,
who will yield it to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) to
control our hour of time.
[[Page 24039]]
____________________
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). Under the Speaker's
announced policy, the balance of the majority leader's hour is
reallocated to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, again it is obvious that those on the
other side of the aisle, the Democrats that we are trying to work with,
somehow believe that we do not have enough government, that somehow
there is no room for reform in the Federal budget.
Again, this chart shows that beginning in 1990 up to the present,
that Washington is now spending over $22,000 per household. This is for
only the fourth time in the entire history of the United States of
America that the Federal Government has spent this much money. It is
the first time since World War II, yet the Democrats say there is no
room for reform in the Federal budget; that instead we need to increase
taxes on hard-working American families, or, even worse, that we
somehow have to pass on more debt to our children.
Mr. Speaker, we can do better. And, Mr. Speaker, this simply
amplifies the point, when you think about families, and I think about
them in my district back in Dallas and in east Texas, who work hard for
a living, some small businesspeople who have gone out to risk capital
and start a new business and maybe employ three or four people, look at
what has happened in the last 10 years.
You see the family budget, median family income for a family of four
has risen from roughly $45,000 to $62,000. That is this line here, Mr.
Speaker. But look at the same time what has happened to the Federal
budget? We have gone from about $1.6 trillion in 10 years to almost
$2.5 trillion.
In other words, the Federal budget is growing at least a third faster
than the family budget in just the last 10 years. And yet our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, say, no,
there is no place for reform. There is just no place for reform in the
Federal budget, that somehow it is going to have to come out of the
family budget instead.
But we reject this, Mr. Speaker, and I guess because it is getting
close to Halloween, all of the sudden people are thinking about what
costumes are they going to go wear for Halloween. I have got a 3\1/2\-
year-old daughter who has decided to be Snow White. My 2-year-old son
is going to become Superman. And now I have noticed that the Democrats
want to don a mask called ``fiscal responsibility.'' The American
people are not going to buy into that costume, because their plans are
simply to spend more and more money because they do not believe in
reform.
Every time that we have passed a budget in the last 10 years, Mr.
Speaker, they have gone back and offered an alternative budget that
spends even more, yet they call that fiscal responsibility? Let us just
look in the past several years; for example, let us look at the budget
for fiscal year 2004. On June 25 they offered an amendment to add a
half a billion dollars to the Interior bill. On the same day they
offered an amendment to add $8 billion to our Labor-HHS appropriations
bill; on July 16 an amendment for almost half a billion dollars to the
Commerce bill.
Let us look at what happened last year. Well, on June 9, an amendment
to increase subcommittee allocations by $14 billion; on June 23, an
amendment to increase subsidies to businesses by $79 billion; and now
for our physical fiscal 2006 appropriations process, an amendment to
increase foreign aid by almost a half a billion dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are seeing a pattern here.
It is a pattern of increased spending.
{time} 1830
Again, as all this spending is done, sooner or later, somebody has to
pay the piper.
Mr. Speaker, right now, as the Democrats have tried to fight every
reform that we have brought forth, we know what is happening to our
budget. We know that it is spiraling out of control, growing at a huge
multiple over the family budget that one day is going to cause a day of
reckoning.
This chart, for example, shows what is going to happen over the next
generation when we look at Medicare growing at 9 percent a year,
Medicaid at 7.8 percent a year, when we look at Social Security growing
5.5 percent a year. We know when the economy grows at a pretty good
pace, that might be 3.5 percent.
Look at this chart here. Right now, the amount of money that we are
spending, roughly 20 percent of the economy on government, in just one
generation, if we do not engage in this process of reform, using the
Washington term ``reconciliation,'' which is a process we started
today, if we do not engage in this reform process, this is the future
that the Democrat Party wants to provide us. That is a doubling of the
size of government in one generation, and that is if they do not come
up with anything new. That is just on the programs that we have today,
Mr. Speaker. I believe that is simply going to be unconscionable.
Now, again, the Democrats tell us that there is simply no place that
we can reform and that somehow reforms lead to massive budget cuts for
the poor. Well, we think there is another way that we can help poor
people in America, and we believe it has a lot more to do with a
paycheck than a welfare check. We want to ensure that the social safety
net is there; but, Mr. Speaker, there is something better, and that is
a paycheck.
Under the economic policies of this administration and this
Republican Congress, all of the sudden we have created now 4 million
new jobs. Four million new jobs have been created. People have hope.
They have opportunity. They can put food on the table. They can put a
roof over their head, and that had everything to do with the policies
of this administration and this Republican Congress.
So in many respects, Mr. Speaker, it is not a debate about how much
money we are going to spend on housing, how much money we are going to
spend on education and on nutrition; but it is a debate about who is
going to do the spending.
The Democrat Party can only measure compassion in the number of
welfare checks. We measure compassion in the number of paychecks. We
are helping empower the American people to have their nutritional
program, to have their educational program, to have their housing
program.
Mr. Speaker, I am very honored that we have been joined by a couple
of other colleagues here tonight who I know have a great insight into
our programs for fiscal responsibility, into our programs to try to
bring some accountability to the Federal Government, to engage in
reforms that could help the American people and actually deliver better
health care at a cheaper cost, better housing at a cheaper cost.
One of these Members that we have been joined by, who is a great
leader in the freshman class and who is no stranger here to the floor
of the House, is the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), my colleague;
and I would be very happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I just want to say how honored I am to join you this
evening for what is such a contrast to what is being offered on the
other side of the aisle. The calm and reasoned and logical and
thoughtful approach that you and others have taken I think is just so
wonderful and heartwarming, frankly, to all Americans to know that
there are individuals that are as thoughtful and logical in their
approach to, truly, the challenges that we have.
Before I begin, I do want to make a comment about what has seemed to
become a nightly ritual, which is a level of personal attacks from the
other side that frankly does a disservice to the discussion and the
debate, and it really is a shame to see.
We have really a once-proud party on the other side of the aisle that
has degraded into what may be known as the ABC game, which is accuse
and blame and criticize, really with no positive outlook and no
positive proposals for the future.
When they do offer alternatives, as my colleague from Texas just
mentioned, what their alternatives do is
[[Page 24040]]
significantly increase the tax burden on Americans, significantly
increase the size of government and the scope of government; and as was
mentioned, they have offered some significant increases just of late.
So I would like to share with the Members, Mr. Speaker, a couple of
graphics that will demonstrate that.
This demonstrates if the other side had their way, just so far this
year in their proposals, for the next 5 years the amendments that they
have offered would have added an increase in the amount of spending of
over $67 billion. This is actually out of date a little bit because we
have not got another bit to share with the Members something that
happened today in committee, but $67 billion of increased spending.
What about the increase in taxes that they have proposed? As was
mentioned, the only alternatives that they truly put on the table are
an increase in the amount of spending and an increase in taxes, which
certainly increases the size and scope of government. The amount of
increased tax revenue that they have recommended to date, $392 billion.
Even in Washington, that is a lot of money, and many of these taxes
obviously come out of small business and other business, which means
jobs.
I think it is important that people recognize and remember what
happens daily here and what has happened during this session alone.
We had a really very lean budget that was adopted by Congress,
without a single vote, without a single Member of the other side, the
Democrat Party, voting in favor of that budget. In fact, they were
instructed by their leadership not to support it, and one of the
members of their leadership bragged, I guess in essence, quote, they
will not get a single vote on this budget. Now that is the kind of
leadership that they are offering.
The level of change that we have to fight for here, although it is
significant because it is moving in the correct direction, is really
not huge, and there is a great graph that I have. This graph I think
says so much. Pictures really can say so much more than just words.
This is the proposal for Medicaid changes that we have recommended,
the savings in Medicaid, frankly, that increase and empower
individuals; but you see the blue line here is without reform. The
reform measures that we adopted and recommended you see are the red
line. That is the difference over a 5-year period. That is what their
screaming is all about. That is the hyperbole that they refer to when
they talk about the kind of reform that we offer.
Today, in the Committee on Education and the Workforce, we were
struggling with how to provide appropriate moneys to allow the 300,000
students who have been displaced by hurricanes Katrina and Rita the
opportunity to go to school wherever they may now find themselves. The
proposal that we put on the table had about 7 to $9,000 per student,
which is relatively consistent with the kinds of moneys being spent
around the Nation. The Democrat proposal that they put on the table in
our committee, and it was defeated, but the Democrat proposal was to
spend over $26,000 per student, adding literally billions to the cost
of government. I do not know anybody that believes that that is a
reasonable amount to spend on something that is as needed; but
certainly, we do not need to increase the size and scope of government
to do so.
The record of fiscal responsibility of the Republican Caucus and this
Republican government really is very, very strong. What that fiscal
responsibility has done is cut the budget significantly.
This year alone, the fiscal year 2005, which is already done, this is
not projection, this is already done, cut the budget by nearly $100
billion, cut the deficit by nearly $100 billion, from $412 billion to
$319 billion. So it is a remarkable demonstration of the resolve that
we have.
When we have the challenges that we have had with the hurricanes and
the like, I think it is important for people to appreciate that the
Republicans always return to principle. Always, and first and foremost
in the area of government spending for our side, as a principle, is
that the taxes that Washington collects are not government money. They
are the people's money. So we need to be absolutely as responsible as
we can be with that.
As I mentioned, we decreased in 2005 the deficit by nearly $100
billion. What other results are there that we can point to that
demonstrate that fiscal responsibility? Nondefense, nonhomeland
domestic discretionary spending this year in the House is on track to
be below last year's level, and that is for the first time since the
Reagan administration. That is true fiscal responsibility.
House Republicans have passed legislation trying to find 35, and
hopefully 50, billion dollars in savings in the mandatory programs.
This is the first time since 1997. House Republicans have recommended
zeroing out the budget, the funding, for 98 Federal programs that are
wasteful, that duplicate services, and that are out of date. Anybody in
America, if they were to look at the kinds of programs that are
offered, I am certain would agree that there are government programs
that are certainly wasteful, that there are government programs that
offer the same thing that another program does, and many, many programs
are out of date.
We have identified 98 of those Federal programs, and we are trying to
make it so that we zero the funding for that so those programs are no
longer on the books and no longer have that government waste. These
savings themselves would save about $4.3 billion.
For the first time since 1994, Congress has temporarily funded the
government at the lowest level that is possible by law as we complete
our work on the budget process; and last year we held the growth in
nonsecurity discretionary spending to 1.4 percent, less than inflation.
So that is true, I believe, fiscal responsibility; and the record is
clear. The record shows that the party of fiscal discipline is the
Republican Party.
You say, well, what kind of results are we seeing in the economy with
those kinds of policies? The gentleman from Texas alluded to many of
the positive items that we are seeing in the economy.
Real GDP grew by 3.8 percent in the first quarter of this year, but
what we are seeing is the strongest growth performance and one of the
strongest growth performances in the past 20 years.
Payroll employment, that was mentioned, is up by nearly 3.7 million
jobs in the past months. That is 3.7 million people that have
employment that did not have it before.
The unemployment rate is down to 4.9 or 5.1, depending on the month,
over the last quarter. We used to learn in economics that an
unemployment rate of between 5 and 6 percent was full employment
because you have got folks that are either moving or they are changing
jobs or the like, make it so that 5 percent unemployment is essentially
full employment. That 5 percent is less than the average for the decade
of the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. Again, fiscal responsibility
and true results from that kind of responsibility.
Manufacturing industrial production is up 3.4 percent over the past
year and by 9.5 percent in the last 2 years.
Real business equipment investment has increased by 13.5 percent at
an annualized rate over the past 2 years. That is the best sustained
growth in over 6 years, truly a remarkable performance, and the economy
is the beneficiary of the programs that have been put in place by this
Republican Congress and this Republican administration.
{time} 1845
One of the things that I think is so incredibly important, when we
look at how does it get down to the community and down to those people
on the street, what we are seeing in terms of personal homeownership,
it is at an all-time record rate, 70 percent or thereabouts. That
record rate stretches across all demographic categories of our society.
So the results of this fiscal responsibility are very clear.
[[Page 24041]]
The results of the policies that have been put in place by this
Republican Party, this Republican Congress, and this Republican
administration have demonstrated clearly there is greater success for
greater numbers of people.
So I am proud to stand before my colleagues tonight and to
participate in this discussion of what is truly fiscal responsibility
in a thoughtful and a reasoned and calm manner, and I commend the
gentleman from Texas for organizing this hour. I look forward to being
back to talk about these issues and more.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's leadership
and sharing his insights with us. I would like to try to amplify a
couple of his points.
Again, there is a big debate and all of a sudden the Democrats are
claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility. They are claiming
something that they have claimed for 50 years, that somehow the
Republicans when we try to reform government, that we are engaging in
massive budget cuts that will hurt the poor.
Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in this process in Washington known as
reconciliation, which is really a Washington term that means that we go
back to our committees and say find a way to do it better. Let us be
more accountable. Let us be more respectful of the family budget and
figure out a way to do things better in the Federal budget. So we have
something that is known as mandatory spending, which includes a lot of
the welfare programs.
Mr. Speaker, as we attempt to reform a number of these programs, as
we attempt to get better health care and better housing at a lower
cost, look at what we are trying to do. In the next 5 years, if we are
successful in this plan, and so far our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle, the Democrats, have said that none of them are going to help
us, at the end of the day what we call mandatory spending is going to
grow at 6.3 percent a year instead of 6.4 percent a year. That is the
massive budget cut?
First, there is no cut. Only a liberal Democrat or an accountant for
Enron would call 6.3 percent increase in the growth of mandatory
spending a cut. All we are trying to do is reform programs, make them
more accountable to the American people, and slow the rate of growth.
People are entitled to their own opinions, but they should not be
entitled to their own facts. Even after we do this, we will end up
spending more of the people's money next year than we did last year.
When you think about the charges that our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle are lodging, we should also remember that these were
the very same people who said that welfare reform would be horrible,
that it would be the end of the world as we know it. We had such quotes
like from the Democrat leader in the House at the time that a million
children would be forced into poverty. One of the Democrat leaders in
the Senate said that if we have welfare reform, we will have trauma
that we have not known since the cholera epidemics, and the rhetoric
went on and on and on.
Mr. Speaker, what happened? I can tell Members what happened. Case
loads fell in half and millions and millions and millions found jobs,
hope, and opportunity. The poorest 20 percent of single-mother families
had a 67 percent increase in their earnings once we had welfare reform.
Millions were able to leave the rolls. Child poverty fell when we
reformed the welfare programs, and 1.4 million children have been
lifted out of poverty due to welfare reform.
So we kind of have to check the source. Reforms can work, and they
must work for the American people. There are so many different ways
that we can improve health care and housing and do it in a way that
saves American families money. Right now we could save $1.5 million a
year in Medicaid if we just based drug payments on actual acquisition
costs. We could save 2 to 3 billion a year if we would stop improper
payments for States that do not qualify for the payments.
Mr. Speaker, if we would pass a simple, meaningful medical liability
reform bill, we could save 5 to 10 percent on the cost of health care
in America.
In 2003, the Federal Government can now not account for $24 billion
that was spent, and yet the Democrats say we cannot reform government.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2001 in the last
year of the Clinton administration spent $3.3 billion paying out money
to people who did not qualify for the program. That was 10 percent of
their entire budget, yet the Democrats tell us there is no room for
reform in the Federal budget.
The Advance Technology Program spends $150 million annually
subsidizing private businesses, 40 percent of which goes to Fortune 500
companies. Yet the Democrats tell us there is no room for reform in the
Federal budget.
There was a time quite recently when Medicare would spend five times
as much on a wheelchair as the Veterans Administration. Same model and
manufacturer. Why? Because one would competitively bid and the other
would not, and so they just wasted that money. Yet the Democrats would
tell us that somehow we are hurting Medicare recipients when we cease
to pay five times as much for a wheelchair as we should have.
Fortunately, we have caught that one, and we have remedied that; but we
have 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 agencies. There is so
much room for reform.
When families are working hard to make ends meet, we need to be
leaders in finding reforms in the Federal budget. I am very happy that
tonight we are joined by one of the great deficit hawks and fiscal
hawks that we have in the United States Congress, a real leader in
helping root out a lot of the duplication and waste and fraud, a lot of
the abuse that we find in the Federal budget.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I want to salute the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hensarling), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), and the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black-
burn) for their being here tonight and focusing on the need to reduce
spending.
I have heard from a number of citizens as we are discussing our
budgetary situation facing this Congress, this Nation, and our country.
Many have said, please, the problem is not taxes too low; the problem
is spending too high.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) is vice chairman of the
Republican Study Committee. The Chair is the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Pence). These gentlemen and others, the men and women that make up
the RSC, were leaders in focusing on Operation Offset. Our Nation has
faced expenditures this year that 6 months ago, 8 months ago were not
expected. I believe that their focus on Operation Offset is a correct
approach.
The first thing we need to do in looking at the aftermath of
hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma and the other hurricanes that have
hit the United States this year is do not spend unnecessarily in
dealing with these tragedies.
After that, we need to focus on savings in any way we can to deal
with those problems and to manage our fiscal affairs as best as
possible.
One area that I think needs to be trimmed is foreign aid. Foreign aid
for the last 3 fiscal years has hovered around $20 billion. In fiscal
year 2005, it was between 19 and $20 billion. But that does not include
the hundreds of millions that were in the supplementals that were
passed in fiscal year 2005. We can look at across-the-board cuts in
that area of appropriations and I think have very little negative
impact on American citizens.
Another area that we need to focus on is stopping illegal
immigration. This costs the United States taxpayers billions of dollars
every year. Now, I have seen wide estimates on how much the cost is to
the Federal Treasury each year because of illegal immigration. The
Center for Immigration Studies has estimated $10 billion. The
Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform estimates $45 billion. A
few months ago, I heard Bill O'Reilly on Fox News state that the figure
was $68 billion. There may be disagreement as to the exact figure, but
there can be no
[[Page 24042]]
disagreement that the cost is billions upon billions of dollars to the
American taxpayer.
This Congress and the Republican conference have been very supportive
of community health centers. They have gotten significant increases in
their budgets each of the last several fiscal years. But they have a
situation that confronts many other health care providers. When persons
come in the door, they have to treat those persons. I believe that some
of the governments of those countries south of us have steered their
citizens to those entities and to our hospitals, and they know the
ropes. Emergency care cannot be denied anyone, whether they are legally
or illegally in the United States, particularly emergency room service.
A person has to be served.
One way we can stop the influx of those who are not supposed to be in
this country to our health centers, to our emergency rooms, to other
health care providers is to stop them before they get here. I and
others are working on legislation. Some would focus on a fence. I have
a bill that would provide for a fence along the southern boundary.
Other have suggested much tighter border enforcement, increased border
patrol, while others say we need greater enforcement in the interior.
We need to have the local sheriff and local chief of police, municipal
officers, all have the authority to deal with this situation and have a
partner with immigration services if they are detained or held at the
local level, that they would be assured of cooperation and removal from
the locality back to their home countries.
We also have an impact on social services, and that is billions of
dollars. So one area where we could save a lot of money would be to
simply enforce our laws against illegal immigration, stop it at the
border and in the interior, remove those that are not here legally with
a proper visa or proper green card or other proper work permit.
Another area of concern to me is the overuse of government credit
cards. Another member of the RSC has proposed the Government Credit
Card Sunshine Act. Following Hurricane Katrina, we had to raise the
limit on credit card maximums. Now, I understand the need for our FEMA
officials to have the use of credit cards, but in the Federal
Government I believe we have overused credit cards. I know in my
office, I do not use credit cards. Our congressional office is
certainly not like FEMA, it is not like law enforcement, and it is not
like the DEA. I know you have to have them in some situations, but I
support the Government Credit Card Sunshine Act, which would require
the posting, except in classified situations and certain law
enforcement situations, of expenditures by government credit cards
within 15 business days after the expenditure goes through.
{time} 1900
A check of some of the credit card abuses involve payment for Ozzie
Osborne concert tickets, tattoos, gambling, cruises, exotic dance
clubs, car payments, and the like. This is an example of waste in the
Federal Government that needs to be stopped, and I think this act would
go a long way to stop that.
This evening I have covered areas where we can focus on that will
reduce the amount of Federal expenditures. But I want to close by
emphasizing something that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling),
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), and the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) emphasized. We are focusing on the savings
by curtailing the rate of growth. We are not even saying there shall be
no growth. We are saying we just do not want the rate of growth to
continue at such a rapid and accelerated pace. By curtailing the rate
of growth, we can do a tremendous benefit for all of the taxpayers of
the United States of America.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman for his comments, and I certainly thank him for his
leadership.
Madam Speaker, we have now heard just example after example of waste
that is in the Federal budget, fraud that is in the Federal budget, not
to mention the duplication which is in the Federal budget.
We need to remember, Madam Speaker, that when it comes to paying for
government, there are really only three different places where we can
find money as we go forward and try to balance this budget.
Number one, we are either going to increase taxes on the American
people, or we are going to continue to pass even more debt on to our
children because we care more about the next election as opposed to the
next generation, or we will engage in this process that we are engaged
in today to find reforms in the government. And we have heard example
after example after example.
Madam Speaker, I now would like to talk about really the tax side of
the equation, because so many of our friends and colleagues from the
other side of the aisle say the root cause of all of America's fiscal
problems lie in tax relief, that tax relief somehow has caused and
fueled all these deficits. We hear it speaker after speaker after
speaker.
Well, Madam Speaker, first let me say this: If tax relief is the
source of all of our problems, as we can see by this chart, let us
assume for a moment that tax relief does absolutely no good, that all
we are doing is wasting money when we allow small businesses and the
American family to keep more of their hard-earned money. Even if that
was true, Madam Speaker, we can see by this chart here that out of the
budget we have passed, tax relief is less than 1 percent. Less than 1
percent. So even if Members accept the fact that all we are doing is
taking this tax relief money and throwing it away, 99 percent of our
challenges in fiscal responsibility actually sit on the spending side.
And this, Madam Speaker, is a very important chart because, again, we
will hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle speech after
speech about how tax relief is driving the deficit. Well, since we
passed tax relief under President Bush and a Republican Congress, Madam
Speaker, look at what has happened. Tax revenue has gone from $1.7
trillion in 2003 to $1.8 trillion in 2004, to $2.1 trillion in 2005.
And, Madam Speaker, if people do not want to believe me, they should go
to the United States Treasury report. Look it up. Individual tax
revenues are up 15 percent. Corporate tax revenues are up almost 50
percent.
How is this happening? How do we cut tax rates and somehow get more
tax revenue? It is pretty obvious to me, Madam Speaker. For example, I
look at people in my district back in Texas, east Texas. I went to
visit an industry called Jacksonville Industries. It is aluminum and
dye cast business in Jacksonville, Texas. They employ 20 people. Prior
to having the tax relief, due to competitive pressures they were on the
verge of having to lay off two people, which in their case, a small
business, was 10 percent of their workforce. But because of tax relief,
Madam Speaker, they were able to go out and buy a huge new machine, and
I do not remember what it is called. I could not even tell the Members
what it does. But it is big, it is noisy, and it made them more
competitive. And instead of having to lay off two people, they hired
three new people.
Think about it, Madam Speaker. Listening to our friends on the other
side of the aisle, they would say, wait a second, that is five people
who could have been on welfare, and that is five people who could have,
those are five people who could have been on food stamps, those are
five people who could have been on a government housing program, and
that is how they measure compassion: How many government checks do we
write?
But, Madam Speaker, under our program, under the tax relief, not only
do we have more tax revenue, but guess what? We have created jobs. Four
million jobs across America. Got a few more in Jacksonville, Texas, at
Jacksonville Industries. So instead of having five people on
unemployment, five people on welfare, we have five people who have good
jobs. They are able to put a roof over their head. They are able to put
food on their table for their children.
Madam Speaker, that is what compassion is. Compassion is not measured
[[Page 24043]]
by the number of welfare checks we write. It is measured by the number
of paychecks we create.
So I just cannot believe how we continually hear this argument that
somehow tax relief is driving the deficit, and somehow tax relief is
causing all of America's fiscal woes. Madam Speaker, it is simply not
true.
But, Madam Speaker, what is true, again, even if all of the big
spending plans of the Democrats, if we are able to fight them back,
even with the programs that we have on the books today, unless we
reform, unless they will work with us in this reconciliation process,
again look at what is going to happen. In just one generation,
government is going to grow from 20 percent of our economy to almost 40
percent of our economy, in just one generation. We are on the verge of
being perhaps the first generation in America to leave our children a
lower standard of living because we cannot work together and reform
some of these out-of-control programs that are growing way beyond our
ability to pay for them.
Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle want to rail against
our tax relief, but what they will not own up to are their own tax
increases. In order to pay for all of this government, all of this out-
of-control, growing government, this is what is going to have to
happen: And that is these are tax increases needed to fund all of our
current projected spending without deficits. They say they want to
balance the budget, but they refuse to reform any government program,
notwithstanding all the waste and fraud and abuse and duplication that
we have pointed out this evening. They just refuse to join with us in
that process.
So what is the consequence of their unwillingness to help reform
government? Taxes are going to go up, on a family of four in just one
generation, $10,000. We are going to have to double taxes on the
American people just to balance the budget in 30 years, and it is going
to go up and up and up.
And, Madam Speaker, that is why it is so critical that we come
together, Democrat, Republican, Independent. This is the future we are
looking at. It is like the Dickens of ``Christmas Carol.'' This is the
ghost of Christmas yet to come. There is still time to do something
about this. Again, there are so many ways that we can get better health
care, better housing, better nutrition at a lower cost. But we are
going to have to come together as a Congress, as the American people,
and find smarter, better ways to run a number of these programs.
We cannot simply measure compassion by the number of government
checks that are written. True compassion is empowering people. True
compassion is creating new jobs so that the American people can fund
their housing program, their nutritional program, their education
program.
Madam Speaker, it is not a debate, again, about how much money we are
going to spend on these worthy goals, but it is a debate about who is
going to do the spending. Democrats clearly want the government and
government bureaucrats to do the spending. We want American families to
do the spending, and that is the difference. It is really two different
visions about the future of America. One wants more government and less
freedom. Our vision is one of less government and more freedom and
greater opportunity throughout this land, Madam Speaker.
So I think it is going to be a very important debate that takes place
in the weeks to come. But, again, in order to avoid the future of
either passing debt on to our children or doubling taxes on the
American people, there is only one alternative, and that is to come
together and reform these out-of-control programs before we leave the
next generation a lower standard of living than we enjoy. That is
unconscionable, Madam Speaker, and there can be a better, better future
for all of our children if we will work together and reform out-of-
control spending.
____________________
THE POOR, THE MIDDLE CLASS, AND THE WEALTHY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Miss McMorris). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, let me begin by suggesting that as the
only Independent in the House of Representatives, my view of things is
a little bit different than my Republican friend; in fact, some of my
Democrat colleagues.
When I look out in America today, what I see that is important are
not just statistics, but what is going on in the real lives of real
people, of what is going on in the middle class in America, the vast
majority of our people, what is going on in our communities. And in a
broad sense, when I look at America today, I see an economic reality
which includes the shrinking of the middle class, the reality that
ordinary people in my State of Vermont and all over this country are
working longer hours for lower wages. I look out at a time when in
family after family it is absolutely necessary for two breadwinners to
be working in order to pay the bills and often at the end of the week
have less disposable income than a one-income family had 30 years ago.
So I look out and I see that despite a huge increase in worker
productivity, a huge explosion in technology, which makes us a much
more productive society, that at the end of the day, despite all of
that, the middle class is shrinking.
And when I look out in my State and I look throughout this country, I
see another phenomenon, and that is that poverty is increasing; that in
the last 5 years alone, since George W. Bush has been President, over 5
million more Americans have entered the ranks of the poor. And when I
look at what is happening in America today with the middle class
shrinking, with poverty increasing, I see another reality, a reality,
in fact, that is not talked about terribly much on the floor of this
House or, in fact, in the corporate-owned media, and that is that the
wealthiest people in America today have never had it so good. Poverty
increasing, the middle class shrinking, and people on the top doing
phenomenally well.
{time} 1915
That is the economic reality of America today.
Madam Speaker, since President Bush took office, the average annual
household family income has declined by $2,500, approximately 4.8
percent. Furthermore, earnings also declined last year. This decrease
in earnings was the largest 1-year decline in 14 years for men, but
women also saw a decline in income. So what we are seeing in America,
despite all of the rhetoric, all of the statistics being thrown around,
is that people are not keeping up with inflation.
Madam Speaker, a recent income analysis by the IRS showed that in
2003, the last year that they studied, only those Americans in the top
1 percent saw an increase in their income above inflation; and
amazingly enough, it was not just the top 1 percent that did well. It
was the top one-tenth of 1 percent that really made the increased
income. Meanwhile, while the top 1 percent in 2003 was the only group
to earn more money above inflation, 99 percent of the American people
were unable to earn enough income to keep up with inflation. In fact,
the IRS data shows us that the wealthiest one-tenth of 1 percent earned
more income than the bottom one-third of American taxpayers.
So what we are seeing in our country today is a decline of the middle
class, an increase in poverty, and a growing gap between the rich and
the poor. In fact, with the exception of Russia and Mexico, the United
States today has the greatest gap between the rich and the poor of any
major country on Earth, and that gap today is substantially wider than
it was at any time since the 1920s in this country.
When we talk about the growing gap between the rich and the poor,
when we talk about increase in wealth among the very wealthiest people
in our country, it is rather incredible to understand that the richest
400 Americans, the wealthiest 400 Americans, are now worth $1.1
trillion. Madam Speaker, that incredible amount of money among 400
families equals the annual
[[Page 24044]]
income of over 45 percent of the entire world's population, or 2.5
billion people. On the one hand, 400 families have more wealth than is
the income of 2.5 billion people in this world.
In 2004, when we talk about the growing gap between the rich and the
poor, what we see is that in 2004 the President of the United States
said, yes, we have a serious problem here. What is the answer?
Well, the answer is that in 2004, American families making more than
$1 million a year received tax cuts averaging $123,000 a year. So we
have a situation where the gap between the rich and the poor is growing
wider, where the wealth of the upper-income people, the wealthiest
people in this country, is getting bigger; and this White House and
Republican leadership responds by giving those particular people huge
tax breaks.
Madam Speaker, when we talk about what is going on in America, it is
important to recognize that in 1980, the average pay of the CEOs of the
largest corporations in America was 41 times larger than that of what
blue collar workers then earned. By 2004, the average pay of those CEOs
increased to 431 times larger. So in 2004 we have a situation where the
CEOs of the largest corporations in America are now earning over 400
times what blue collar workers in this country are earning.
Is that what America is supposed to be about? Are we supposed to be a
country in which the wealthiest 1 percent own more wealth than the
bottom 90 percent, where the richest 13,000 families earn more income
than the bottom 20 million families, where the people on top are able
to use their wealth to make enormous political contributions that shape
policy that benefits them, that the wealthiest people are able to own
the media which describes reality for ordinary people in a way that
benefits them? Is that what America is supposed to be about? I think
not.
Madam Speaker, I am delighted that I have been joined by a very good
friend of mine, in my view one of the outstanding Members of the United
States Congress, a leader, fighting for the middle class, fighting for
our environment, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and
appreciate being here tonight to talk about this important topic.
It was interesting, I watched a little bit of the hour before with
the gentleman from Texas and others, and they were prattling on about
the reckless spending of the Democrats. What they forget is that the
last time the budget was balanced, there was a Democrat sitting in the
White House. The last time we began to tax the rich fairly, to bring
about a balanced budget, there was a Democrat in the White House and
the Democrats controlled Congress. Yet they talk about the reckless
spending of the Democrats.
The debt when George Bush took office was about $18,000 per American,
the tiniest baby, oldest senior citizen, $5.6 trillion. In 5 short
years, he has run the debt up to over $8 trillion, almost $27,000 per
person on the President's watch. Yet they prattled on about the
Democrats' reckless spending.
But what they are really trying to cover up here is their favoritism
for a very small percentage of society, and the gentleman from Vermont
was just talking about it. This is IRS data. Under the Bush
administration, the IRS being steadily politicized by this President,
still, the data shows that one-tenth of 1 percent of the people in this
country, those who earn over $1.3 million a year, got an average income
increase last year of $130,000, a dream to most of my constituents, to
earn $130,000, principally due to tax cuts.
Here is what we are doing: collecting from working people, only
people who earn salaries and wages who earn less than $94,000 a year
paying Social Security taxes. They are paying on every dollar they
earn, up to $94,000. Social Security will have a $180 billion surplus
this year. The Republicans and the Republican President are borrowing
every penny of that $180 billion surplus that is supposed to go to fund
future retirement benefits for those Americans. They are borrowing it
and they are spending it and they are replacing it with IOUs.
In part, and this is the ironic thing, in part, as the gentleman
knows, that is going to finance tax cuts for the wealthiest among us,
people who do not pay Social Security taxes, or pay at a tiny fraction
of the rate. A person who earns, let us say $940,000 a year, their
Social Security tax rate is one-tenth of that of someone who earns
$30,000 a year. And many of them, since this administration values
wealth over work, many people do not pay any Social Security tax,
because they just live off their investments. Yet this administration
says they need relief from taxes.
When they talk about the working people, they are not talking about
giving tax relief to working families or help to working families. They
today, and for the last week, have been talking about cutting student
loans by $15 billion, cutting Medicare for senior citizens, Medicaid
for senior citizens and the poorest of Americans, cutting food
security, cutting foster care from the Federal Government, cutting all
those programs under the guise of new-found fiscal responsibility on
the part of the Congress, which is spending us into bankruptcy. And
what are they going to do with it? They are going to finance more tax
cuts for the wealthy, because they think what America needs is more
trickle-down economics: give the money to the wealthiest among us and
they will spend it in ways that will put other Americans to work.
Well, what if they spend it overseas? What if they invest it
overseas, as more and more companies flee overseas? That does not put
any Americans to work. The guy who runs Delphi auto parts has an answer
for that. People are just going to have to take a little pay cut. He
says Americans who work in these industries who are earning now good
family wages should work for $10 an hour. I do not know what Mr. CEO of
Delphi earnings; I bet it is a little more. The average CEO earns in
the first 12 hours of the year what working people under their tutelage
and in their industries earn in 365 days of hard labor.
But this administration values wealth over work, trickle-down
economics over investments in our future, in education, in our kids, in
health care and infrastructure above all. They are hollowing out
America, and we should get to trade policy a little later to talk about
that, they are hollowing out America, looting the Treasury, and they
are getting ready to hand our kids and our grandkids the bill, a bill
that they will have to pay on $10 an hour in wages. Now, this is not
all going to hold together.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his comments. My
friend mentioned the Delphi Corporation, which is in Michigan, I
believe. I want to say a word about that. It is not in my district. Why
is it important, what is happening there?
In general, and we will get to the whole trade issue, the whole
globali-
zation that has been pushed on this country by corporate America in
order to make the wealthiest people and the large corporations richer
while working people see a decline in their standard of living, we will
get to that in a moment. But what this attack on the workers, unionized
workers, UAW workers at the Delphi Corporation is about is something of
huge national significance.
As the middle class declines, it is absolutely not uncommon, from
Maine to California, that workers see some decline in their wages;
workers are forced to pay more for their health care; workers are
losing some or all of their pensions. That is going on all over this
country as we move in a race to the bottom.
But what this Delphi Corporation business is about is something more.
That is not a slow decline in our standard of living; that is a
precipitous collapse in the standard of living of working people. What
I fear very much is that what happened at Delphi, that particular
concept can spread all over this country.
What happened at Delphi, which recently filed for bankruptcy, is that
the
[[Page 24045]]
workers there had solid, middle-class incomes. They were doing well.
They could send their kids to college; they had decent homes. They were
making $25 or $30 an hour, solid, middle-class income.
The company files for bankruptcy, and what the CEO there says is you
are not going to make $25 an hour anymore; you are going to make $10.
You are going to go from the middle class to poverty, like that.
Then a fellow named Jerry Jasinowski, who is the president of the
Manufacturing Institute at the National Association of Manufacturers,
which, by the way, has been one of the leading forces in this country
in pushing unfettered free trade and unfettered globalization on
America, they push it on America, and then in responding to the attack
on the workers at Delphi, this is what he says:
``From airline pilots to auto assembly workers, employees need to
help reduce their costs. We can't afford to live with the very generous
benefits we provided 10-15 years ago.''
What he is saying in English is, if you are a working person, what is
happening to the Delphi employees could happen to you, should happen to
you. The rich get richer.
Last year the CEOs of major corporations earned a 54 percent increase
in their compensation. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing
wider, and what these people at the National Association of
Manufacturers say is, hey, working people all over this country,
tighten your belt.
{time} 1930
We are taking it away from you. You thought you were in the middle
class. You thought you could provide an education to your kids, have
decent health care, have some security. Forget it. We are in a race to
the bottom, and there are workers in China who are making 30 cents an
hour. How dare you think you could earn $50,000 or $60,000 a year? Not
anymore.
I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, the gentleman raises an excellent point.
The other technique that Delphi and other major corporations are
employing is they are also sticking it to the U.S. taxpayer, because
Delphi also is going to walk away from its pension obligations.
Now, we have a pension insurance fund backed by the Federal
Government called the PBGC. Under George Bush's watch, it has gone from
having an $8 billion surplus to an estimated $200 billion deficit in 5
short years of George Bush's watch. That is the future obligations of
pension plans they have assumed. United Airlines pension plan and now
Delphi is going to try to dump theirs on them, and other airlines.
So these major U.S. corporations declare bankruptcy and dump the
pension plans on the taxpayers. Workers see a major reduction in
pension, because they will not give you your promised pension;
depending upon your age and what you were promised, you might get 30,
40 percent of what your pension was going to be. Ultimately the
taxpayers are going to pick up the bill for this little maneuver as
they take this company through.
Now, there are no future claims. This company goes through
bankruptcy, reemerges and is sold for a huge profit, but the Federal
taxpayers have no recourse. They cannot reclaim any of that money.
I asked a fellow from the PBGC about this, about the airlines. I
said, so, you have taken an equity position in United Airlines as part
of this deal of assuming their pensions. Could you not have a claim
against future profitability of the airline or against future stock
value to make the taxpayers and the PBGC whole? And he got really
puzzled for a moment and he looked and said, well, I guess we could do
that. Never thought of doing that.
So this has become the new technique: dump the obligations, dump the
health care plans, dump the pension plans, the health care plans of
people who either fall into the cracks; or, if they are old enough,
they can get into Medicare, which this administration is also driving
toward bankruptcy. And I do not know if we will have a chance to get to
that tonight, but that is another topic of extraordinary concern. And
then they become, you know, recovery champions when they turn Delphi
around and when the company becomes worth a whole heck of a lot more
money, and some turnover specialists capitalize it to come out of
bankruptcy and make a fortune on the company. That is the way it works
now. That is not a long-term, sustainable plan for this country.
I think now, if we could, we might move a little bit into trade now.
Tax policies are a huge portion of this. We already talked about that
to some extent. The other thing that is driving down wages and benefits
and the working standards, the living standards in this country, is
trade. As the gentleman said, it is a race to the bottom. We are saying
to the American workers, well, you have to live at the standard of a
Chinese worker.
Well, I do not think that that is going to work real well in the
system. I mean, we are a consumer-based society. Housing is pretty
expensive, cars, fuel, all of these sorts of things. How are you going
to live on 3 bucks an hour or a buck an hour, raise a family, have a
home, have a place to live and do those sorts of things? It will not
work. This model will not work.
But we are also losing our entire manufacturing base. The first
automobiles manufactured in China are going to be reimported next
January. So goodbye, auto industry, it is gone. And they were pretty
honest about that. There was actually an article, 1 day before we voted
on special trade status for China, on the front page of the Wall Street
Journal which said, this is the end of the manufacturing in America. It
is all going to China. And Boeing, of course, wants to go, too. Then we
will not make anything anymore. We will try and borrow money to buy
things we used to make, but at some point they will probably stop
lending us the money, or they will start demanding something in return
that we are not going to want to pay.
Mr. SANDERS. If I might, let me just pick up on that point, because
you are absolutely right. Let us be clear about what has happened here
in the last 20 years.
Corporate America woke up one day and they said, hmm, why do we have
to pay American workers American wages, provide health insurance,
negotiate on occasion with unions, obey environmental laws, pay taxes
in the United States of America? Why do we have to do that when you
have billions of people in China, desperately poor people in Latin
America, in other countries, who will work for us for almost nothing?
Now, just because we, who are the heads of major corporations that grew
grapes here in the United States because of American workers, who
became profitable giants because of American consumers, well, we do not
have to respect that. We do not owe any allegiance, in fact, to the
United States of America. In fact, they say, we are not American
corporations. Oh, yes, we are American corporations when we come to
D.C. in order to get billions of dollars in corporate welfare from the
American taxpayers. Oh, yes, we speak English well, and we are American
corporations on those days. But on every other day, if we can throw
American workers out on the street, move to China, hire desperate
people there at 30 cents an hour, who go to jail if they try to form an
independent union, who are breathing air that is highly polluted
because the environmental standards are virtually nonexistent, we are
international corporations. We are off and running.
And that was clearly what they had in mind at the very beginning of
this whole debate on free trade, and that is, in fact, what they have
done, and that is, in fact, what they are doing.
From their perspective, what globalization is about is telling an
American worker, hey, shape up, fellow, because there are people over
there who can work for 10 percent of what you are working for. And if
you are not prepared to take cutbacks in health care, cutbacks in
wages, give up your pension, we are picking up, we are
[[Page 24046]]
going to China, and guess what? Because of permanent normal trade
relations, which Congress passed, my goodness, they could bring those
products back into this country without any tariff whatsoever. We do
not need you anymore. So industry after industry, whether it is steel,
whether it is furniture, whether it is textiles, whether it is
footwear.
In fact, one of the interesting things, Christmas is coming soon, and
during Christmastime people do an enormous amount of shopping, and they
go to the stores and they look and they try to find products made in
the United States of America, and they look and they look and they
look. And as Mr. DeFazio mentioned, it is harder and harder to find
products manufactured in America, because our corporations have
essentially taken our manufacturing base and sent it to China.
As Mr. DeFazio indicated, this is really bad not just for the
standard of living for American workers, it is very dangerous for the
future of our country in a dozen different respects. How do you defend
yourself as a nation in terms of national defense if you are not making
products in this country anymore to be used by the military? How are
you a great country when you are no longer producing real products, but
are now engaged only in service industry-type work?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I guess this is a little bit of a
digression, but it is a case in point. I mean, there is this whole
bizarre concept of free trade based on an economist who has been dead
over 200 years that only the United States Government, under the
tutelage of these multinational corporations is following, much to our
detriment.
Our trade deficit this year is headed towards $700 billion. That
means we are borrowing almost $2 billion a day from overseas, 40
percent of that from the Chinese, to buy things made in China and other
countries that used to be made here. That is not a sustainable model.
That ultimately undermines our standard of living. We are piling up
huge overseas debts.
But even worse than that, and that is just all under these bizarre
theories of free trade, the race to the bottom and all things are a
result from that; we are not even really practicing what President
Clinton and President Bush are so fond of calling rules-based trade. We
are going to have rules. Well, there are rules. The rules say that the
Chinese cannot pirate things. Guess what? The Chinese pirate millions
of dollars a year worth of U.S. dollars.
The gentleman mentioned furniture. I have a little furniture
manufacturer, a high-end furniture manufacturer, in my district. He
called me up and said, I have a little trade problem. I thought, that
is a little weird, but okay, and I went to visit. Well, it turns out
the Chinese delegation came over to look at his plant, they liked his
stuff, they offered him more money than he could ever imagine he would
ever have to buy his company. The only condition was he had to unbolt
all the machines and all the production lines, send 3 managers to China
for 6 months, and then they would send him a 20 percent cut for the
future. Of course, he would not have workers or a company anymore. He
agonized, and he said no.
Well, the Chinese said, okay, fine. They went to Seattle and, from a
furniture store there, bought a copy of everything he made, and the
next year a Chinese Communist Government-subsidized company produced a
clone of everything this company in Oregon makes and were selling it
for 40 percent less at the furniture show. That has also happened to a
high-tech company in my district.
My staff was in an extraordinary phone call with the Bush
administration, the Commerce Department, saying, will you not help
these companies fight the piracy? And they said, no, we will not do
that. We are not interested. These are the people who cloak themselves
with small business, except if the Chinese want to steal the small
businesses, that is okay with us. We are not going to do anything about
it, because it might upset some of the big deals going on between GM to
move all of their manufacturing to China, or Boeing to move all of
their manufacturing to China, or IBM; you know, the big companies. So
small business gets written off.
So not only are we losing the big manufacturing firms; our small
firms, our innovators, are being pirated by the Chinese. The
administration will do nothing about it. We are borrowing almost $2
billion a day. This is a crazy thing we are doing to the future of our
Nation, and they want to tell us how great it is.
Remember, it was the President's own economic advisor who, in the
President's economic report a year ago January, said that outsourcing,
that is, exporting U.S. jobs overseas like Delphi or GM or others, is
yet just the latest and greatest new manifestation of the advantages of
free trade.
Mr. SANDERS. I believe, roughly speaking, although I do not have the
exact words in front of me, but what he said is something like, if a
product can be made less expensively abroad than in the United States,
it makes sense to do that. So essentially what he is telling us, and
this is the President of the United States' economic adviser, what he
is saying to every corporation in America is, hey, dummy, they pay 50
cents an hour there, $15 an hour here, where are you going to go? Go.
So what you have is the Bush administration essentially telling
corporate America that they should throw American workers out on the
street and move abroad.
I remember a couple of years ago, one of the largest corporations in
America is, of course, General Electric. The fellow who is head of that
corporation is a guy named Jeff Immelt. Mr. Immelt spoke to some GE
investors and he said, and I roughly quote here, not the exact quote,
he said, when I look at the future of General Electric, I see China,
China, China, China, and China. Why not? Why would you want to pay an
American worker a decent wage? Why would you want to reinvest in Oregon
or in the State of Vermont when you can hire people abroad for 50 cents
an hour or $1 an hour, and they go to jail if they stand up for their
political rights? It sounds like a great place to do business to me.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Remember how they have sold this, how they sold CAFTA,
NAFTA? It was, we are opening up markets for U.S. workers and U.S.
products. We want to put Americans to work. We want to create wealth in
this country. NAFTA, Bill Clinton said, was going to bring 400,000 jobs
to America. He was off by a few. It actually exported 1.2 million jobs
from America to Mexico, so he was off by a little bit there.
Bill Clinton talked about how all the Mexicans were going to buy our
goods. The total buying power of Mexico is less than the purchasing
power of the people of New Jersey. If they spent every peso they earned
on U.S. goods, which, of course, they have to eat and provide housing,
they could not do that. The same thing with CAFTA and the same thing
with China. These workers who work in the plants that are producing
these products, they cannot afford to buy them.
Mr. SANDERS. Let me interrupt my friend and tell you, I do not know
if you have been to Mexico to view this.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Yes, Machiadora.
Mr. SANDERS. I have been on several occasions to Machiadora, and what
a sad sight it is. When you go there you see these modern factories,
and then a mile away from these modern factories, not only by American
interests, but European interests, Japanese interests, a mile away from
those modern factories you see people literally living in cardboard
shacks because their income is so low, their wages are so low that they
cannot afford decent housing, even by Mexican standards, being
exploited terribly.
But that is what we are seeing, a huge shift in manufacturing from
the United States to China and to Mexico. And do you want to hear one
of the ironies is that many of these corporations who have gone to
Mexico are now leaving Mexico in order to go to China, because they do
not want to pay Mexican workers $1 an hour. Go to China. You can pay
people there 50 cents an hour.
[[Page 24047]]
It is a very serious problem currently existing in Mexico, and it is
part of that whole race to the bottom.
{time} 1945
American workers, that is where our competition is. That is what this
President, this Congress has said. Your competition are desperate
people earning pennies an hour and if you don't lower your standard of
living, they are going there.
Is that a sensible policy for the middle class of this country?
Obviously it is not. Nobody here is not concerned about the poor people
in the world. We want to see those people being able to feed their
kids, have decent jobs, have health care, have education. But you don't
have to destroy the middle class of this country in order to improve
the standard of living of poor people around the world. We can do both.
We can raise the standard of living of American workers and improve the
lives of poor people around the world rather than engage in this race
to the bottom.
I would like to mention to my friend, we can stay on the trade issue,
but I know he has been very involved and we have worked together on
this issue of the greed and the rip-offs being perpetrated literally
today by ExxonMobil and the other large oil companies. I think just
today, if my memory is correct, ExxonMobil announced that in the last
quarter, the last 3 months, they earned $10 billion in profits which as
I understand it is more than any corporation in the history of the
United States of America; $10 billion. They are not the only large oil
company to be earning record-breaking profits. In my State of Vermont,
which obviously gets very cold in the wintertime, we are seeing a lot
of senior citizens, lower income people, middle-income people, who are
going to be having a very, very difficult time heating their homes this
winter because the price of home heating oil is soaring. What I see in
my State, a very rural State, where it is not uncommon for workers to
travel 100 miles to and from their jobs, paying now $2.60, $2.70 for a
gallon of gas, that is what I see. Meanwhile, ExxonMobil has just
earned more profits than any other corporation in the history of the
United States and every other major oil company is also earning record-
breaking profits.
I wonder why the President of the United States has not said to the
CEOs of the major oil companies: Come on into my office. Let's go into
the Oval Office and let's talk about how you're going to lower gas
prices, lower home heating oil prices so the American people don't have
to take their paychecks or their limited incomes and give it to the
large corporations.
I know my friend has done a lot of work on this issue.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I have got to correct the gentleman. He exaggerated.
Their profit was only $9.8 billion for the quarter because they had
some markdowns. That is the largest corporate quarterly profit in the
history of the world, not just the United States of America. Some would
say, well, you know, it has to do with supply and demand and all that.
The biggest increase in profits for ExxonMobil, whose profits are up 75
percent on the quarter, BP's profits up 34 percent on the quarter. I
think their stockholders should be talking to them. How come they only
went up 34 percent on the quarter? ConocoPhillips 89 percent on the
quarter--that CEO is going to be getting a nice little bonus--is in
their refining areas.
The Republican chairman, from Texas, stood up on the floor of the
House and said, ``We have closed 300 refineries in America in the last
10 years.'' If he is talking about ``we,'' that is, if he identifies
himself as an oil company executive, that is true. If he is talking
about the government of the United States of America, the laws of the
United States of America, environmental laws, tax laws, other things,
no. The 300 refineries that were closed were closed because of hundreds
of oil company acquisitions and mergers and a deliberate policy.
There has been uncovered a memo from Conoco to other major oil
companies back in the mid nineties that said: We have a great idea.
We're all only getting 27, 22 cents a gallon on refining. If we close
down a bunch of refineries, we can drive up those margins. They have
succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Oregonians were paying three
bucks a gallon on Labor Day weekend. We are not in the east coast
supply train so it is a little hard to say it had something to do with
Katrina. But we were paying three bucks, $3.05 a gallon for regular, I
remember paying. That was because the refiners cut went from 22.7 cents
a gallon to $1.11 a gallon, a 500 percent increase in profits for the
refiners. In fact, there is a new company, a new kid on the block, the
largest refiner in America now called Valero whose CEO when George Bush
offered to let him build new refineries on closed military bases with
no environmental restrictions, he basically said, why would I want to
do that? It's working just great the way it is. They are making
unbelievable profits price gouging. It is exactly the same thing that
Enron did in California. Enron in California got ahold of a bunch of
generating plants and then they would shut them down and they would
say, oh my god, we've got to charge you 10 times as much for your
electricity today because there's a shortage. They are doing the same
thing with refineries. They shut them down and they say, Oh, there's a
refinery shortage. Americans are just going to have to pay more. Those
darn environmentalists. None of them were closed because of
environmental reasons, and they haven't applied to build any new ones.
Yesterday the Republican leaders of Congress held a press conference,
which was kind of pathetic, where they said, Pretty please. We don't
care about your really high profits, but we've heard there might be
some gouging going on and you better stop that. And pretty please use
some of your profits to build refineries.
No. It doesn't fit their business model. They are making money hand
over fist. Their production end where they pump the stuff out of the
ground, their profits are only up a measly 50 percent. On the
distribution end they are only up 5 percent. The retailers are up 2
percent. The Republicans the week before last did adopt some price
gouging legislation. Who did they target? The refiners, whose profits
are up 500 percent? No. The companies who are pulling it out of the
ground, whose profits are up 50 percent? No. Even the distributors who
are up 5 percent, not a big deal? No, they targeted the retailers whose
profits are up 2 percent because it's those mom-and-pops who are
responsible for those high prices, let me tell you. But the friends of
small business target the retailers and let the price gougers, the
refiners, off the hook. Then they say, oh, we need to open up more
land, we have to do this, we have to do that. No. Plain and simple this
business model is immensely profitable in the industry and until we go
after them has no incentive to change that business model.
The gentleman is right. The target is now fixed on your people. They
have turned it from price gouging my people on gasoline to price
gouging your people on home heating oil. But next spring they will turn
their sights back to gasoline. They cannot extort as high, economists
call it rent or price for their excess products in gasoline in the
wintertime because people don't drive as much. In the summer they can
do that.
Mr. SANDERS. Just so that everyone remembers, one of the points that
the President made during his campaign, he comes from an oil
background. The Vice President comes from an oil background. They know
about these things. So for all folks in America who are paying
outrageously high prices for gas at the pump, outrageously high prices
for home heating oil, well, we have a President and a Vice President
who are very chummy with the oil industry which maybe helps explain why
the oil industry is enjoying the highest profits they have ever seen
while people all over this country are absolutely getting ripped off.
While we talk about oil, I want to divert just a little bit and go back
to the trade issue because I know you and I have worked on this one
together as well. I always find it so amusing for folks who say, We're
great free traders. We believe that competition is where it is.
[[Page 24048]]
As everybody in Congress and everybody in America knows, there is an
organization called OPEC, Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries. OPEC's very reason for existence, the reason they came
together, was to be a cartel which could limit production and raise
profits. That is what they are. They acknowledge it. This is a self-
acknowledged cartel. So I find it just so curious that for an
administration, for leaders here in Congress who tell us how much they
believe in competition and the free market, I find it quite amazing
that I have not heard one word from the White House about the need to
take action at the World Trade Organization to break up OPEC so that we
can see honest competition from different countries and companies in
terms of the oil they are producing.
Have you heard the President, the great exponent of free enterprise
and competition, raise that issue?
Mr. DeFAZIO. To be totally fair, the last administration was pathetic
on this issue, too. I first uncovered this issue during the Clinton
administration. I thought they would be happy to hear it. They could
help American consumers. They were big rules-based trade guys. They
said, no, no, they didn't believe it. I had further legal analysis done
and the legal analysis said, Yes, you can clearly file a claim. They
are clearly violating the rules of OPEC. You can't constrain supply of
a commodity in international trade if you are in the World Trade
Organization to drive up the price, only for conservation purposes.
They certainly can't make that case.
But the Clinton administration would not do it. I have heard, well,
maybe the Bush people, he understands oil, the Vice President
understands oil, they will get tough and take on OPEC. They are tough
guys. And so I contacted them. I have gotten a form response from the
Trade Representative and the Commerce Department. I have introduced
legislation here in the House which the Republican leaders refuse to
schedule which would mandate the President file a complaint against
OPEC.
Free trade, you have got to realize, only works one way. It only
works to stick it to American workers. It doesn't work for American
consumers. They are not going to use free trade rules to go after OPEC.
They are not going to use free trade rules to go after the company in
China that cloned my furniture company. They are make a little feint at
it. They are saying, Oh, we're going to go to the WTO and ask them to
look at whether the Chinese are pirating things. All they have to do is
pick up the Trade Representative's report or Pat Choate's book and they
can read page after page after page of documentation of the Chinese
stealing American products and goods and jobs. But they have only filed
one complaint. This administration, 5 years in office, has filed one
trade complaint against China, to be totally fair, on behalf of a
pharmaceutical company. That is the only one they have filed. The
thousands of small businesses and big businesses are being ripped off,
OPEC who is ripping off everybody and driving businesses out of the
United States of America, they won't take them on, but they did file a
complaint on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry in China.
Mr. SANDERS. The reason for all of that is obviously very clear.
Virtually every piece of legislation that comes to this floor of the
House is frankly bought and paid for. Why would you stand up to our
China policy, which has now a $160 billion trade deficit, the loss of
millions of jobs, the lowering of wages throughout this country, why
would you stand up and try to fight that when you have corporate
America investing tens of billions in China, donating huge amounts of
money to the President and other political people, why would you stand
up for American workers in the middle class when you could defend China
and the large corporations that go to China?
When we speak about our trade policy, I don't want anybody to think
that we are just talking about blue collar jobs. One of the major
economic crises facing our country today is not just the loss of
manufacturing jobs in the auto industry, the steel industry, textiles,
furniture, et cetera, et cetera. That is hugely important. But what is
happening now, in addition to the loss of manufacturing jobs, we are
beginning to see the hemorrhaging of white collar information
technology jobs. For many years, the rhetoric here in Washington was,
well, don't worry too much if you're going to lose the blue collar jobs
in your community because that's kind of old-fashioned economics. We're
not into that anymore. The real trick is to make sure your kids get a
college education and they can go out and get white collar, computer,
information technology jobs, make 50, 60, $70,000 a year, good, clean,
solid income. That's the future of America.
But what is happening there? What is happening now is corporations
are beginning to understand the same thing. Information technology
companies are understanding what manufacturing companies are
understanding. And, that is, why do you want to hire American workers
at 40 or $50,000 a year when there are people in India, China, Russia
and elsewhere who can do information technology jobs very, very well
for 10 percent of the wages paid in the United States? So what you are
beginning to see now is a hemorrhaging of white collar information
technology jobs which are impacting people who have college degrees,
people who have graduate degrees. We are seeing this taking place at an
increasing level. The answer is if we lose blue collar jobs that paid
middle-class wages, if we lose white collar jobs that paid middle-class
wages, what is left?
{time} 2000
Well, I guess it is Wal-Mart time. We have a situation now, in a
company like Wal-Mart, which is far and away the largest employer in
America today, a company which pays low wages, minimal benefits,
virtually no pension plan, that is the future of America, lose good-
paying blue-collar jobs, lose good-paying white-collar jobs and move
towards the Wal-Mart-type job in which our standard of living becomes
less and less.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Just to make a link there, remember, during the
discussions here on this floor, and during the formulation of the China
trade policy here, there were the special Wal-Mart provisions that were
added to that legislation, China being the largest producer of products
for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has been driving manufacturers out of America.
There was a fan company driven out of Ohio. Finally, they did not
want to go. They wanted to keep making them here, but Wal-Mart said we
can get them cheaper. You make them cheaper. The guy said, I can't make
them any cheaper. This is really efficient. We are making great
products here in the United States of America. I am paying these people
a decent wage. They said, no, we know you can do it better. No more
contract unless you go cheaper. We know where you can go, China.
They are doing that to business after business after business,
driving them out of America, driving them to China. Yes, you can say
short run, that is good. The products are cheaper. Well, the profit
margins are a lot cheaper. The products are maybe a little cheaper, but
people do not have jobs any more. People are buying things on credit.
Not only are we borrowing $675 billion this year, projected, to buy
products made overseas, Americans are borrowing money to buy the
products that we borrowed money to import from overseas that we used to
make here, because they have lost their jobs, and they are living off
the equity in their homes or other things. We have record levels of
debt in this country. So there are a host of cascading problems that
are falling out of this unsustainable rush toward the bottom.
Mr. SANDERS. My friend mentioned the argument in favor of the
permanent normal trade relations agreement was this. China is a huge
country, with enormous numbers of consumers. Think about the potential
market that we are going to have by selling product to China, all the
jobs that we are going to be creating. That was the argument.
Well, it turns out I was in China a couple of years ago. We actually
met
[[Page 24049]]
with, I believe the gentleman was the head of Wal-Mart China. We went
to Wal-Marts, and we talked to a number of their executives including,
I think, the head of Wal-Mart China. Somebody asked a question of them.
They said, will you please tell us, we are in your store here, it is a
huge store, and in many respects it looks like an American Wal-Mart
store.
Somebody asked them, tell me, I am looking around, and I see all of
these American products from soaps to basketballs to whatever it is.
What percentage of the products here in Wal-Mart China are made in the
United States of America and brought to China?
The guy was a little bit sheepish. He really did not want to hear
that question. He said 1 percent. Now obviously why would anybody, any
large corporation, make a product in the United States and send it to
China when you can produce it in China with wages substantially less
than they are here.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Let me tell you, I had a container board company in my
district, major corporation. They closed it down. They had one candid
executive who told the truth. He said, why would anybody make container
board in the United States of America any more? The container board is
made to package products. The products are all made in China. The
container board industry is moving to China so they can make the
container board in China for the products made in China to ship back to
the United States of America, even basic industries like that.
I mean, it is extraordinary the breadth and the depth of the
undermining that is going on here. When you ask them what is your long-
term vision, Alan Greenspan, the chief economist hack of the country,
likes to say, oh, this shows how much people have faith in us. They
will lend us all this money. But then when you say is it sustainable to
borrow $600 or $700 billion a year forever.
Well, no, no, no. This is a temporary situation that will be
corrected. How is it going to be corrected? If the dollar went to
Arrupe, how would it be corrected? It is not going to be corrected
through the typical currencies. We are buying everything overseas. The
Chinese have basically pegged their currency to ours. No matter how
much the dollar goes down the products cost the same. Oil costs more
because we are paying for it, and they are raising the price.
The old models of trade do not work any more. But this
administration, because it is working well for a very few, for the
corporate CEOs and for a few investors, are perpetuating the model to
the point where they push America over the final edge. You talked about
the CEO of General Electric. The former CEO of Boeing gave a speech
where he said he could not wait until Boeing was not referred to as an
American company anymore.
Think about it. If our Republican colleagues do not care about the
middle class and small business, which they pretty clearly do not by
perpetuating these policies, they at least ought to care about their
number one thing they are supposedly tough on, national security. So,
in 30 years, when we are in confrontation with China, we have no
manufacturing base at all left in this country, we do not make
airplanes any more. Like the year before, we predicted we would get
into a potential conflict with China, say, over Taiwan. We will call
them up and ask them to sell us weapons so we can defend ourselves
against them.
How is this going to work? They won't need weapons. They have so many
of our assets in their bank as of now. When George Bush took the
presidency they had $60 billion in U.S. assets. As of the end of last
year they had $242 billion of Treasury bonds. They are headed from
being number 2 toward being number 1. They will eclipse Japan in a few
years as the largest holder of our debt.
All they have to do is threaten to dump our debt on the market and
crash the dollar, and they can control the United States of America.
They are putting us so much at jeopardy. If they do not care so much
about the middle class, if they do not care about small business, they
have to care about the national security implications of this, and the
economic security implications of this. But they do not seem to. A few
people are doing really well, and they consider themselves sort of
stateless people, like the guy who owns a cruise line, who gave up his
U.S. citizenship, lives in the U.S. but he took Bahamian citizenship so
he would not have to pay taxes any more. He just lives here and all his
customers are here. I mean, that is great. What a great model for the
American people.
Mr. SANDERS. I think we are running out of time. Maybe we can just
kind of wrap this up by saying this. This is a great, great country,
and the concern that many of us have is that despite people working
harder and harder, despite new technology being there that makes us
more productive, for some of the reasons that we have discussed
tonight, and many of the others that we have not discussed, what we are
seeing in America is that the middle class is becoming poorer. Millions
of American families today desperately want to be able to send their
kids to college so that their kids will have a better income and
standard of living than they do. They cannot afford to do that. What we
are seeing is families being stressed out, because both husbands and
wives are working incredible hours in my State in Vermont. It is not
uncommon for people to be working two or three jobs trying to cobble
together an income.
We did not touch on health care, and the disintegration of our health
care system, 46 million Americans without any health insurance
whatsoever, tens of millions more who are underinsured, people who are
dying because they cannot accord to go to a doctor, and their illnesses
become so severe that they are incurable by the time they walk into the
doctor's office.
We did not touch on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry, which
makes huge contributions to the political profession, mostly to the
Republicans, and the result being that we end up paying by far the
highest prices in the world for prescription drugs; and the passage of
a Medicare prescription drug bill, which does not allow Medicare and 43
million recipients to negotiate with the drug company, so drug prices
will go up and up.
The bottom line here is, in my view, that unless ordinary Americans,
middle-class, working people, begin to stand up and fight back to
reclaim this country from a handful of wealthy and powerful interests,
who are using their power to make themselves wealthier at the expense
of almost everybody else, unless we turn that around, the future of
this country is not great for our kids and our grandchildren,
everything being equal. Our kids will have a lower standard of living
than we will.
I would like to let my friend from Oregon conclude.
Mr. DeFAZIO. The new CEO of Delphi said that very plainly. He said 10
bucks an hour. That is the future for manufacturing workers in America.
As you mentioned, it will not be very long until they try to put the
same squeeze on knowledge-based workers. They have done it to other
skilled workers.
Just yesterday Northwest Airlines announced, or was it Continental,
whichever one of those is currently in bankruptcy, they are both in
bankruptcy. Anyway, one of those two airlines announced that they were
going to outsource their flight attendant jobs because they can get
cheaper jobs overseas. They want to do the same thing with pilots.
We are outsourcing the maintenance of our airplanes. More than half
the heavy maintenance on our airplanes is now done overseas with very
little supervision from the FAA. We are losing those jobs, too, because
they can get a mechanic for $2 an hour in El Salvador, where they would
have to pay a skilled mechanic in the United States of America maybe
$25, $30 an hour. They do not want to pay those wages. The race to the
bottom is going to end very, very poorly for most Americans. We have
got to stop it.
Mr. SANDERS. We have got to stop it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. We have got to stop the trade policies, tax policies,
the fiscal bankruptcy policies that we are doing. I don't mean by the
bankruptcy
[[Page 24050]]
bill, that was bad enough, written by the credit card companies, but
the bankrupting, the looting of America that is going on with this
administration.
It is just laughable when the Republicans parade down here and talk
about the spending of the Democrats when they control everything and
they have increased the debt by 62 percent in 5 years. How do you blame
the Democrats for that when they are in charge of every branch of
government?
Mr. SANDERS. The House and the Senate and the White House. They have
it all.
Let me just conclude by thanking my friend from Oregon for being with
me today.
____________________
THE PRICE OF ENERGY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Conaway). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Peterson) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk
about an issue that is the most important and pressing issue facing the
country today. That is number 1, the price of energy, and, number 2, in
particular, natural gas.
I was not going to talk about what we just heard here, but I feel
little bit compelled to talk from the last two previous speakers. They
talked a lot about energy company profits, which are unfortunate, I
think. But how can energy companies benefit from us in such a great way
when things are so difficult for the users of energy in this country?
When you allow the marketplace to be short of gas or natural gas or
oil, then you allow the traders in New York to bid up the price. When
there is a shortage, the price goes up. The big companies that own
millions of acres, great reserves and own it in the ground, when they
produce it at $65 a barrel, they are going to make a lot more money
than when they produce it at $35 a barrel. So if you want to beat them,
you want to make sure that we have ample supply, that there is lots of
gas, natural gas, that there is lots of oil to produce, that there is
lots of coal. There is lots of all the energy portfolios.
Then they cannot make excessive profits because the oil they own, or
the natural gas they own in the ground, is not two and three times more
valuable than it really ought to be. Those are basic economics.
The one comment that I found interesting is this current
administration has not worked to break up OPEC. I never heard anybody
say that before. OPEC is a group of countries who have for years played
a big influence in oil prices, because they sort of combine their
resources, and decided how much oil they were going to put in the
marketplace. At one time, they did have the ability to lower it by
dumping millions more per day on the market or raising it by taking 1
million or 2 million a day off the market.
When the shortage started to show, the Wall Street traders could run
the price up. They could get the high price for a while. When there was
resistance from America, then they would bring it back down. In the
meantime, they made a lot of money. The riches did not go to American
companies, they went overseas.
Now, how government can break up organizations of governments that
are sovereign countries, I mean, I do not understand how we have any
role to play. Now, today, they do not have the same monopoly they did.
With China and India becoming huge energy consumers, along with us, the
marketplace is short. All the oil that can be pumped is being utilized.
So there is no slack. I am told that they do not really have the
ability to dump an extra 1 or 2 million barrels on the marketplace
today that they used to have.
{time} 2015
So they can take oil away and force the price up, but they cannot add
extra oil and bring the price back down. I wished I knew how we could
beat OPEC. I do know how we can beat OPEC.
But it is interesting, one of the Members that was here just speaking
to us was in a committee meeting markup that I was in the other day. I
will not mention any names but we had a debate on opening up Tar Sands
in the West. My memory is he was opposed to it. We had an argument
opening up ANWR. My memory was he voted against it. We had a discussion
about opening up the OCS, that is, the Outer Continental Shelf. He was
opposed to it.
Well, if those are the three ways that you bring energy to the
marketplace, then we do not have to import as much energy, and we
hopefully can get the price down. It is interesting the lack of
understanding in this country who sets the oil prices, who sets the
natural gas prices.
The issue I really wanted to talk about tonight is natural gas, and
that is the clean fuel, the almost perfect fuel. There is almost no
contaminants. When you burn it, it is a clean, blue flame. There is
very little pollution, I think a fourth of the CO2 if you
consider that pollution, of fossil fuels, but today, it is $14.00 per
1,000. Yesterday, it was almost $15 all day long, and I guess that was
the highest it stayed for one day in the history of this country. Five
years ago, natural gas was a little over $3. Fifteen years ago, it was
under $2.
Gasoline prices have dominated our news, and we have seen more
newscasts about people at the pump and the price of gasoline because
right after Katrina it did get up to $3, and most of us are not used to
paying $3. Europe's been paying that for a long time, even more than
that. We were not used to paying that. I know I shuddered at how much
it cost me to fill up my wife's Cherokee, 6-cylinder engine, but it was
close to $50, and that was sticker shock to fill up one vehicle and
spend $50.
Natural gas, though, is the one that I believe has this country in
serious potential economic trouble, and why do I say natural gas?
Number 1, while gasoline prices almost doubled when they were at $3
there at about 155 or 160 percent of where they were 5 years ago now as
they have come back down, but natural gas prices are 700 percent more
than they were 5 years ago and maybe even a little higher percentage
than that.
When this country buys $65 oil and produces it into products, the
whole world does, but when we pay $14 per 1,000 for natural gas, we are
all by ourselves. Natural gas is a product that I do not think a lot of
people understand how we use it.
We heat our homes and cook our meals in not all households but many
of them. We heat the majority of our schools and the hospitals and the
YWCAs and YMCAs. Most of our small businesses use it to heat their
places.
Then, in the industrial side, we melt steel with it. We melt aluminum
with it. We bend steel and aluminum by heating it. The industry that
has been hit the worst is fertilizer. Our farmers have really been
hammered with fertilizer costs. Why would you need natural gas for
that? Well, when you produce nitrogen fertilizer, that is the one that
really makes plants grow fast, 71 percent of that cost is natural gas.
When you can buy gas in every country in the world cheaper than here,
where do you think the fertilizer companies are going to make
fertilizer? In the last 2 years, 44 percent of our fertilizer factories
have left the States because of natural gas prices.
Going on down the list, petrochemicals, every chemical we buy at the
hardware store and grocery store that we use to clean products with,
they are all made from a natural gas base. Often half the cost of
making petrochemicals is natural gas because it is an ingredient, and
it is also fuel used to heat it and make the product.
Polymers and plastics, what do we have that does not have polymers
and plastics in it? Almost nothing. Everything has polymers and
plastics. Most of that has been made in this country, but polymers and
plastics, when they are produced, they have both oil and a lot of
natural gas in the production process and as an ingredient. So 40 to 45
percent of the cost of polymers and plastics come back to natural gas.
[[Page 24051]]
I was at a company in my district last week who makes the basic
products for skin softeners, face creams and hand creams, and you know
what one of the basic products is? A derivative of natural gas. Another
company there made the mucilage for labels, largest company in the
world making labels. What was the base product for making the glue that
goes on labels? Natural gas.
I do not think a lot of Americans realize that, but from face creams
to fertilizers to all kinds of chemicals and polymers and plastics,
natural gas is the major ingredient, and the price of that natural gas
has made us uncompetitive.
While we are at $14, Europe has been at $6 or $6.50. China, Taiwan,
South Korea and Japan have been between $4.50 and $5. Those are our
economic competitors making products, competing against us, and some of
those countries have cheap labor. Now they have an energy that is used
so extensively in the manufacturing process where they have almost a
three-to-one advantage.
Then you go to the rest of the world, and most of the world's less
than $2. So, if you are going to make petrochemicals and make a profit,
you are going to make polymers and plastics, if you are going to melt
steel and iron ore or make fertilizer, where are you going to do it?
You are going to do it in a country where it is $14 or are you going to
go do it where it is $6 or are you going to go to South America where
it is $1.60?
At the current time, 120 chemical plants are being built in the
world. One of them is in the States. 119 of them, many of that 119 are
being built to displace American jobs because they can produce their
products far more competitively in foreign countries.
How do we change this? We have to open up supply. It is interesting,
about 10 years ago, this country, this Congress, made a decision that
we would remove the prohibition of using natural gas to generate
electricity. We used to only allow natural gas to be used as electric
generation early in the morning when we had peak power needs and in the
early evening when we went home and were eating our meals and the
factories were still running and the lights were coming on and we used
more power right then than at any other time of the day. At that time
of the day, the electric companies have to produce more power than they
do during the middle of the day or during the night when we are all
sleeping.
So peak plants were allowed to use natural gas because it is cheaper
to build them, and you can turn them off and on. It is hard to turn a
nuclear plant off and on. It is hard to turn a coal plant off and on,
but you can turn a natural gas plant off and on and you can use it for
peak power needs.
When we changed that law and allowed natural gas to be used, 98
percent of all power generation in this country that is new and was
built in the last decade is all natural gas. We now consume one-fourth
of the natural gas that this country has to consume to make power, to
make electricity. So that has made the marketplace very, very short.
The other problem is we have not opened up supply. I remember a
number of years ago when I was attending breakfast as a new Member of
Congress that the Edison Electric Institute was putting on, they showed
this 12 or 15 years of time that we would use a lot of natural gas to
make electricity, and then other sources would come back in line and
take up the slack.
At the same time, I went over to a breakfast in the Senate with
Daniel Yergin, who wrote the book on oil, a Pulitzer Prize book, and he
talked about the oil industry. He stated that if we go down this road,
as was being proposed, and we did not open up supply, it would cause
severe economic problems in this country because natural gas prices
would become unafford-
able.
That is exactly what has happened. In my view, it is Congress and the
last three administrations who are all equally at fault. Twenty-some
years ago, a prohibition was placed in law by Congress and a moratorium
was placed by the President at that time that you could not produce oil
and gas on 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf, and the Outer
Continental Shelf is the land offshore for the first 200 miles. The
first three miles are controlled by the States. The next 197 miles are
controlled by the Federal Government, the Federal waters. Then you go
into international waters.
Why would we do that? I am not quite sure why they did it at that
time. I was told it was done temporarily by the President, that we were
going to have an inventory and find out where our best reserves were,
and then we would know where to produce. That never happened.
The next President came in and he made it last to 2012, and the
current administration has not dealt with it. So we have a presidential
moratorium from producing there and we have a legislative moratorium.
I was here a number of years and voting on Interior appropriations
bills unaware that every one of those bills I passed said you cannot
spend a dime to lease land on the Outer Continental Shelf so it can be
produced.
Why would this country do that? The argument is that you cannot do it
and have clean beaches, that you cannot do it and have nice shorelines.
Let me see what the rest of the world does.
We can go north to a country that is considered very environmentally
sensitive, Canada. They produce oil both oil and gas right off of the
main coastline in Canada and right above Washington, off that
coastline, and they drill in our Great Lakes every day, and produce gas
only, not oil, and sell it to us. In fact, we get 14 percent of our
natural gas from Canada. We produce 84 percent of our own, and we get 2
percent from LNG, that is liquefied natural gas, and I will talk about
that later. That is another issue.
So, Canada produces there. The United Kingdom, are they not a pretty
environmentally sensitive country? I think so. How about Denmark,
Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Australia? They all produce on their Outer
Continental Shelf. You go past 12-miles, you cannot see it, you do not
know it is there. It is interesting, in the gulf, when the storms hit
so hard there this year, the fishermen were saying to the oil companies
now, if you are not going to produce here any longer, we want you to
leave the rigs and the platforms because that is where the good fishing
is. Every study has shown where we are producing oil and gas in the
Outer Continental Shelf, there is a lot more aquatic life because they
like the shade, they like the cover, and that is just where the good
fishing is.
I want to read you an interesting article to prove that I think with
today's technology oil and gas production both are not an environmental
threat.
It says here: ``The most cited reason is to protect `the State's
tourism dependent economy and environmentally sensitive shoreline.'''
That is what States like Florida and California have been telling us.
``Objections which are based more on fear than fact. Of the hundreds
of thousands of gas wells drilled in the U.S., not one has ever been
declared or caused an environmental hazard,'' not one.
A natural gas well is a 6-inch hole in the ground. You put a steel
casing down it, you cement the bottom and cement the top, and you let
gas out.
``As for oil, the last environmental hazard was a spill in California
over 36 years ago.'' Technology has really improved since then. ``Light
years away when you could consider the advances made in advanced
drilling technology.
``To demonstrate how safe offshore energy production is today: there
were 113 production platforms destroyed, 52 damaged, 8 drilling
platforms destroyed and 19 damaged by Katrina and Rita. Yet there were
no significant spills and no spills of any kind which resulted in
contact with sensitive habitat.''
We just know that this storm was one of the hardest to hit the gulf.
``Simply put, there is no basis in science or recent history to the
claim that offshore energy production presents a real or potential
environmental hazard to any State's shoreline. A fact accepted by
countries such as Norway,
[[Page 24052]]
Sweden, Denmark, Australia, United Kingdom and Canada noted `green
countries' which willingly drill off their coastlines.
``As for the problem of aesthetics, all production platforms can
easily be placed away out of sight of even the tallest tourist by
placing them no closer than 20 miles off shore.''
In my view, this argument just does not cut water. Anyway, I have
been one who has been proposing that we open up the Outer Continental
Shelf. I have been involved in this natural gas issue for the last 5
years. For a number of years, I stood right back here in this aisle and
argued with Members of Congress who are no longer here but who were in
powerful positions, trying to convince them that all the charts and
graphs put out by the Energy Department showed me that we were
approaching a very big shortfall on natural gas in the future, and
because it is so involved in our whole economic basis, it is so
involved in heating our homes and running our businesses and making so
many different products, that we could not afford to let natural gas
prices excel to the point of where it would make this country
noncompetitive.
{time} 2030
Today it is at $14. Earlier I was talking on the phone to a gentleman
who is the head of the Christian Youth Center in a community in my
district. He said he just signed a contract. Last year they bought
their gas for $7. He just signed a contract for $14. That means that
organization is paying twice as much for heat this year. I have talked
to all kinds of companies, and most are signing contracts for $14 and
$15. They never dreamed they would pay that much. A couple short years
ago, they were at $3 and $4.
When you are a company that bakes things, a company that heat treats
metal, a company that uses huge amounts of natural gas, you are
suddenly placed in a noncompetitive position with the rest of the
world. That is where this country is at.
This is a government-caused shortage. We have decided to expand use
of clean natural gas, but at the same time we have refused to produce
it, and you cannot import it like you can oil, thank God. There are
those who think importation is the answer. I do not think so. I think
it can be helpful, but I hope it does not become our long-term policy.
Liquefied natural gas, you liquefy it at very low temperatures. You
place it in the most expensive ships known to man, and then bring it
into ports. Then you have to warm it back up, turn it back to a gas and
have it injected into our system. The part I have not been able to get
an answer on, we have four such ports that can receive liquefied
natural gas and regassify it and put it into the system. The one I know
about is Baltimore, and I was told they are at 63 percent capacity.
When you can buy natural gas in foreign countries for $2, $3 and $4, I
do not know why the ships are not lined up. There is something flat
about this system because it is not being utilized to the capacity this
country has.
Big oil would like us to go down that road. They would like to build
the ships. They would like to build the ports and they have the money
to do that. I think that is a flawed philosophy because who do we buy
it from? We buy it from Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, and Russia, not
exactly our friends, and unstable countries, countries that do not
always treat us very fairly. For the short term, I think we should take
all we can get, but I do not think we should build our long-term
natural gas supply system that way. The chart that I saw recently
showed by the year 2020, 38 percent of our natural gas would come from
LNG. I do not think that we can make that happen. I hope we do not make
that happen because we have trillions of cubic feet off our shores, all
up and down our coastlines.
I have a map, and it shows 85 percent of our coastline, California
coastline, and from Maine to Florida all locked up. The outer
continental shelf is from 2 miles to 3 miles loaded with natural gas.
My proposal is we open it up for natural gas. We give the shorelines 20
miles of protection so you would never see it, and then the States have
the right to open it up for oil. We cannot drill our way out of our oil
problem, but this country can be self-sufficient on natural gas. We can
produce enough natural gas so our price is half of what it is today,
maybe even lower than that, where our industries are competitive, where
our seniors can afford to heat their homes, and where our YMCAs and
churches and our schools can afford to pay their energy bills. This is
going to hit education. Their energy bills this winter are going to
double.
And at the same time I was talking to the refinery in my district who
is very concerned about where the price of home heating oil is going to
be this year because he has never been in the position where at this
time of the year they did not have any in storage because they cannot
produce enough home heating oil. Some schools and hospitals have dual
tanks because if one is not available, they have the other. It is very
important that you never lose heat in a hospital.
But home heating oil, this refinery said they did not have any in
storage tanks. They have been making more gasoline because of the
gasoline shortage, and home heating oil has been selling so fast they
cannot produce enough to have any in storage. It will hit the fan on
that issue in January and February. When cold weather is here and has a
grip on us and there is a short supply, we will see prices for home
heating oil that will make natural gas look like a bargain, if you can
even buy it.
Mr. Speaker, this country is facing, I believe, the greatest pressure
on our economy because of the price of energy and specifically natural
gas. It is one we do not have to have. This has been by choice, and
then by willingness of no one to face up to where we are at today and
change it.
I propose to this Congress, and I have been promised we will have a
discussion, I have a proposal that would open up the outer continental
shelf all of the way around this country. We would open it up for
natural gas. We would give the 20-mile cushion so it is out of sight,
and we would allow the States the rights, and we would reward the
States for those who produce and provide the energy this country needs.
I have asked our leadership, and I have been told it will happen,
that we will have a debate in the Committee on Resources. And if I can
get my bill out of there, and I am hopeful because we passed an
amendment similar to that a few weeeks ago, and that bill got stalled
because of great opposition from the Florida State government and the
Florida delegation. So we did not deal with the issue on the floor. But
I have asked that we have a clean up or down vote, that we have lengthy
debate, that we tell the American people about how natural gas, and I
believe natural gas, if we had ample supply, the use of it could be
expanded.
We passed a bill last week to incentivize the expansion of
refineries. Natural gas could be utilized in all of our school buses
because a gasoline engine with a slight adjustment can burn natural
gas. Our construction vehicles, city transit vehicles, we could have a
large number of vehicles in this country that do not have to travel
long distances and can be refueled every night use natural gas. Swan
Delivery Company that sells ice cream and frozen products, they have
advertised for years that they are the company that is green, they burn
natural gas and not gasoline. Now they are paying a huge premium for
that. That shows us it can be done.
I have a bus system at State College in my district, they are all
natural gas. Today they are paying a premium for being good stewards of
the environment burning the clean fuel.
And the West is full of natural gas, but that is not as obtainable
because we have inadequate pipeline systems to get it out to the
States. The outer continental where we have, I am told, over 400
trillion cubic feet, and many think it may be double that, that is a
50- to 70-year supply. We would not need to import any from Canada. We
could use it for transportation. The first hydrogen cars would really
be run on natural
[[Page 24053]]
gas because that is how we can make hydrogen today most efficiently. So
it can be the bridge to the future as we bring on renewables.
Mr. Speaker, $60 oil is going to make a lot of things work. We are
working now on making fuels out of coal. We are making fuels out of
grain. I have a company in my district that just bought a landfill, and
they are going to make ethanol out of garbage. All kinds of things are
going to work, but it is not quick. It is going to take time.
So an ample supply of the clean fuel that has no contaminants, that
we can use in so many ways and is so much a part of our economy
already, natural gas can be our bridge, but $14 natural gas has been
the wall that this country is going to hit at a high rate of speed.
I was a retailer for 26 years. I vividly remember the late 1970s and
early 1980s when we had very high natural gas prices, and we had
extremely cold winters. I remember as a retailer it was always
difficult to make a profit in January and February. You were lucky if
you did not lose money, and then you started making profit in the
spring and summer. But during those years, people were so far behind in
their spending because they had spent so much money to heat their
homes, and petroleum prices were up, too. Sometimes it was clear into
May before business became normal again because people were spending so
much.
This winter people are going to spend twice as much to drive their
car, and almost twice as much to heat their homes. They are going to
have a whole lot less money for spending, and 70 percent of Americans
spend all of the money they earn every paycheck, so the marketplace is
going to be very soft for retail business and commerce, in my view. It
is all going to be caused because this country has been unwilling to
realize that energy prices are a direct correlation of supply. And we
are much more dependent on foreign oil. ANWR could be helpful, and
other drilling would be helpful, but on natural gas, there is no valid
reason that we have the highest natural gas prices in the world that
makes our petrochemical companies uncompetitive, that makes our plastic
companies and polymer companies uncompetitive.
Several weeks ago Alcoa Aluminum Company in Pittsburgh ran a release,
and the headline did not say this, I had to read the whole article to
pick it up, and I read it twice to make sure I was correct. It said in
the article if energy prices persist to be consistently high as they
are today in America, Alcoa Aluminum will have to, and it said
especially natural gas, we will have to reconsider whether we can
produce here.
Now, I thought that was a message that should have been the headline.
I thought it should have read, ``Alcoa said current natural gas prices
may prevent us from doing business here.'' That was not the headline. I
forgot what the headline was, but it was sort of an innocuous headline.
Nobody read that and seemed to understand what it said. It said we have
to reconsider whether we can produce here.
Mr. Speaker, I have had chemical companies and fertilizer companies
tell me how it is almost impossible for them to continue being here,
and they have told that to the leaders of Congress and I am sure they
have told it to the administration. But for some reason we are here
tonight and today and yesterday, and we have no real plan of action to
bring on natural gas supplies that can allow Americans to heat their
homes cost effectively or small businesses to operate efficiently. Or
for the major companies, which are the best blue collar jobs that we
have left in this country, to stay here and prosper here and be
competitive in a global marketplace.
This is an issue that I do not think is complicated. I think it is
quite simple. I have been concerned about it for 5 years.
Unfortunately, all of my predictions have come true, and it is even
worse than I expected. Tonight I urge my colleagues, I urge the people
in this country, we have to open up the supply of energy in general but
natural gas in particular. It is the fuel that can give us a strong
economy, that can help us affordably live in our homes, small
businesses stay profitable, and allow the large production companies
that make all of the products that I have mentioned, whether it is
bending, melting, smelting, cooking, you name it, if it uses natural
gas, today they cannot do it competitively.
If we do what we should do and open up supply, America will continue
to be the land of opportunity and we can compete with anybody because
we have the best workforce.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Obey (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today on account of an
important matter in the district.
Mr. Reyes (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today on account of
official business.
Mr. Mack (at the request of Mr. Blunt) for today on account of
traveling with the President of the United States to survey damage
caused by Hurricane Wilma.
Mr. Sensenbrenner (at the request of Mr. Blunt) for today and October
28 on account of family business.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. DeFazio) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Schiff, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Brown of Ohio, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. George Miller of California, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Emanuel, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Doggett, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. McCotter) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. McHenry, for 5 minutes, November 3.
Mr. Wolf, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. Schmidt, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Member (at her own request) to revise and extend her
remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
SENATE BILL REFERRED
A bill of the Senate of the following title was taken from the
Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:
S. 939. An act to expedite payments of certain Federal
emergency assistance authorized pursuant to the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, to
authorize the reimbursement under that Act of certain
expenditures, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
____________________
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
Mr. Trandahl, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly enrolled a
bill of the House of the following title, which was thereupon signed by
the Speaker:
H.R. 1409. An act to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 to provide assistance for orphans and other vulnerable
children in developing countries, and for other purposes.
____________________
SENATE ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
The SPEAKER announced his signature to an enrolled bill of the Senate
of the following title:
S. 172. An act to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to provide for the regulation of all contact
lenses as medical devices, and for other purposes.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do
now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 43 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, October 28, 2005, at
9 a.m.
[[Page 24054]]
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
4807. A letter from the Congressioanl Review Coordinator,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Stall Reservations at Import Quarantine
Facilities [Docket No. 02-024-2] received October 7, 2005,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
4808. A letter from the Congressioanl Review Coordinator,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- 2004 Dairy Disaster Assistance Payment Program
(RIN: 0560-AH28) received October 7, 2005, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
4809. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Special
Eductaion and Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Education, transmitting the Department's final rule --
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
-- Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and
Centers Program -- Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Projects -- received October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
4810. A letter from the Attorney, Office of Assistant
General Counsel for Legislation and Regulatory Review,
Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final
rule -- Energy Conservation Standards for Certain Consumer
Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment (RIN: 1904-
AB54) received October 19, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4811. A letter from the Attorney, Office of Assistant
General Counsel for Legislation and Regulatory Law,
Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final
rule -- Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products;
Test Procedure for Residential Central Air Conditioners and
Heat Pumps [Docket No. EE-RM/TP-97-440] (RIN: 1904-AA46)
received October 19, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4812. A letter from the Attorney, Office of Assistant
General Counsel for Legislation and Regulatory Law,
Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final
rule -- Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products;
Test Procedure for Residential Central Air Conditioners and
Heat Pumps [Docket No. EE-RM/TP-97-440] (RIN: 1904-AA46)
received October 13, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4813. A letter from the Acting Divison Chief, WCB, Federal
Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's
final rule -- Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to
the Internet over Wireline Facilities [CC Dkt 02-33];
Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating
Company Provision of Enhanced Services; 1998 Biennial
Regulatory Review -- Review of Computer III and ONA
Safeguards and Requirements [CC Dkt 95-20, 98-10] ;
Conditional Petition of the Verizon Telephone Companies for
Forbearance with Regard to Broadband Services Provided Via
Fiber to the Premises; Petition of the Verizon Telephone
Companies for Declaratory Ruling or, Alternatively, for
Interim Waiver with Regard to Broadband Services Provided Via
Fiber to the Premises to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
4814. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, Food and
Drug Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule -- Registration of Food Facilities Under the Public
Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response
Act of 2002 [Docket No. 2002N-0276] (formerly Docket No. 02N-
0276) (RIN: 0910-AC40) received October 6, 2005, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
4815. A letter from the General Counsel, Office of Federal
Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget,
transmitting the Office's final rule -- Capitalization of
Tangible Assets; Correction--received July 12, 2005, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Government
Reform.
4816. A letter from the Director, Office of Surface Mining,
Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Revisions to the State Program Amendment
Process (RIN: 1029-AC06) Recieved October 17, 2005, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
4817. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
the Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the
Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover (RIN:
1018-AT89) received October 19, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
4818. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
the Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the
Bull Trout (RIN: 1018-AJ12; 1018-AU31) received October 19,
2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
4819. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
the Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat
for the Arkansas River Basin Population of the Arkansas River
Shiner (Notropis girardi) (RIN: 1018-AT84) received October
19, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Resources.
4820. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
the Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)
(RIN: 1018-AT88) received October 19, 2005, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
4821. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Atka
Mackeral in the Central Aleutian District of the Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands Management Area [Docket No. 041126332-
5039-02; I.D. 092105D] received October 7, 2005, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
4822. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pollock in Statistical Areas 620 and 630 of the Gulf of
Alaska [Docket No. 041126333-5040-02; I.D. 092105A] received
October 7, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Resources.
4823. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Yellowfin Sole in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area [Docket No. 041126332-5039-02; I.D. 091205A]
received October 19, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Resources.
4824. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Yellowfin Sole in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area [Docket No. 041126332-5039-02; I.D. 091605F]
received October 19, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Resources.
4825. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the Gulf of Alaska [Docket
No. 041126333-5040-02; I.D. 091505A] received October 19,
2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
4826. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Hana, HI [Docket No. FAA-
2005-21166; Airspace Docket No. 05-AWP-4] received October 6,
2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4827. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Modification of Class E Airspace; Sheldon Municipal Airport,
IA [Docket No. FAA-2005-22006; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-30]
received October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4828. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Modification of Class E Airspace; Wellington Municipal
Airport, KS [Docket No. FAA-2005-22005; Airspace Docket No.
05-ACE-29] received October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4829. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Modification of Restricted Area R-3004; Fort Gordon, GA
[Docket No. FAA-2005-22397; Airspace Docket No. 05-ASO-9]
(RIN: 2120-AA66) received October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4830. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Modification of Legal Desription of Class E Airspace;
Lincoln, NE [Docket No. FAA-2005-21707; Airspace Docket No.
05-ACE-22] received October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4831. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Modification of Class E Airspace; Norfolk, NE [Docket No.
FAA-2005-21872; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-26] received
October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
[[Page 24055]]
4832. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Modification of Legal Description of the Class D and Class E
Airspace; Salina Municipal Airport, KS [Docket No. FAA-2005-
21873; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-27] received October 6,
2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4833. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class D Airspace; and Revision of Class E
Airspace; Big Delta, Allen Army Airfield, Fort Greely, AK
[Docket No. FAA-2005-20643; Airspace Docket No. 05-AAL-13]
received October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4834. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Golovin, AK [Docket No.
FAA-2005-21448; Airspace Docket No. 05-AAL-16] received
October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4835. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318-100, A319-100,
A320-200, A321-100, and A321-200 Series Airplanes; and Model
A320-111 Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2005-21189; Directorate
Identifier 2005-NM-055-AD; Amendment 39-14279; AD 2005-19-14]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4836. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -400, -500, -
600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 Series Airplanes [Docket No.
FAA-2005-20347; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-226-AD;
Amendment 39-14284; AD 2005-19-10] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4837. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
(Jetstream) Model 4101 Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2005-21087;
Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-019-AD; Amendment 39-14280; AD
2005-19-15] received October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4838. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A320-111 Airplanes and
Model A320-200 Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2005-21861;
Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-093-AD; Amendment 39-14281; AD
2005-19-16] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received October 6, 2005,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4839. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace Model HS 748
Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2005-22453; Directorate Identifier
2002-NM-139-AD; Amendment 39-14278; AD 2005-19-13] (RIN:
2120-AA64) received October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4840. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-301, -321, -322,
-341, and -342 Airplanes; and Model A340-200 and A340-300
Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2005-22452; Directorate
Identifier 2001-NM-336-AD; Amendment 39-14277; AD 2005-19-12]
(RIN: 2120-AA4) received October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4841. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Short Brothers Model SD3 Airplanes
[Docket No. FAA-2005-21344; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-
190-AD; Amendment 39-14283; AD 2005-19-18] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4842. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; The New Piper Aircraft, Inc.,
Models PA-28-160, PA-28-161, PA-28-180, and PA-28-181
Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2005-21174; Directorate Identifier
2005-CE-23-AD; Amendment 39-14285; AD 2005-19-20] (RIN: 2120-
AA64) received October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4843. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Lycoming Engines (Formerly Textron
Lycoming) AEIO-360, IO-360, O-360, LIO-360, LO-360, AEIO-540,
IO-540, O-540, and TIO-540 Series Reciprocating Engines
[Docket No. FAA-2005-21864; Directorate Identifier 2005-NE-
29-AD; Amendment 39-14276; AD 2005-19-11] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4844. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca Arrius 2 F Turboshaft
Engines [Docket No. FAA-2005-22430; Directorate Identifier
2005-NE-34-AD; Amendment 39-14275; AD 2005-19-10] (RIN: 2120-
AA64) received October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
4845. A letter from the Department of Transportation,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; PZL-Swidnik S.A.
Models PW-5 ``Smyk'' and PW-6U Gliders [Docket No. FAA-2005-
20802; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-18-AD; Amendment 39-
14282; AD 2005-19-17] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received October 6,
2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
4846. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, OFM,
Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Medicaid Program and State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Payment Error
Rate Measurement [CMS-6026-IFC] (RIN: 0938-AN77) received
October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); jointly
to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means.
4847. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, CMS,
Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Medicare and Medicaid Programs;
Condition of Participation: Immunization Standard for Long
Term Care Facilities [CMS-3198-F] (RIN: 0938-AN95) received
October 6, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); jointly
to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. BUYER: Committee on Veterans' Affairs. H.R. 4061. A
bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the
management of information technology within the Department of
Veterans Affairs by providing for the Chief Information
Officer of that Department to have authority over resources,
budget, and personnel related to the support function of
information technology, and for other purposes (Rept. 109-
256). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union.
Mr. PUTNAM: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 520.
Resolution waiving points of order against the conference
report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2744) making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes (Rept. 109-
257). Referred to the House Calendar.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. McCRERY (for himself, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Brady
of Texas, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Lewis of
Kentucky, Mr. Baker, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Jindal, Mr.
Melancon, and Mr. Pickering):
H.R. 4155. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide tax benefits for the Gulf Opportunity Zone
and certain areas affected by Hurricane Rita, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. SMITH of Washington (for himself, Mr. Rangel,
Mr. Cardin, Mr. Stark, Mr. Levin, Mr. McDermott, Mr.
McNulty, Mr. Jefferson, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr.
Emanuel, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Kind, Mr. Davis of
Alabama, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Allen, Mr. Baird, Ms.
Baldwin, Ms. Bean, Mr. Berman, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr.
Boren, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Carnahan, Mr.
Case, Mr. Costello, Mr. Crowley, Ms. DeLauro, Mr.
Dicks, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Engel, Mr. Etheridge, Ms.
Eshoo, Mr. Ford, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Al Green of Texas,
Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Harman,
Ms. Herseth, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Holden,
Ms. Hooley, Mr. Holt, Mr. Inslee, Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Kilpatrick of
Michigan, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Ms. Lee, Mr.
Lynch, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Matheson, Ms. Matsui, Mrs.
McCarthy, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. McIntyre,
Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Michaud, Ms. Millender-
McDonald, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr. George
Miller of California, Mr.
[[Page 24056]]
Nadler, Mr. Owens, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr.
Ryan of Ohio, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr.
Sanders, Mr. Snyder, Ms. Solis, Mr. Strickland, Mr.
Van Hollen, Mr. Wexler, Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania,
and Mr. Ross):
H.R. 4156. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to extend
the trade adjustment assistance program to the service
sector, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and
Means, and in addition to the Committees on Education and the
Workforce, Energy and Commerce, and Government Reform, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (for herself, Mr. Deal
of Georgia, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Cantor, Mr. McCrery, Mr.
Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Camp, Mr. Ramstad, Mr.
English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Hul-
shof, Mr. Herger, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Weller,
Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Beauprez, Mr. Upton, Mrs.
Wilson of New Mexico, Mr. Bass, Mr. Terry, Mr.
Murphy, Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire, Mr. Boehlert,
Mr. Castle, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Hobson,
Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Jindal, Mr. Schwarz of Michigan, Mr.
Shays, and Mr. Simmons):
H.R. 4157. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to
encourage the dissemination, security, confidentiality, and
usefulness of health information technology; to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on
Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. BACA (for himself, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Costa, Mr.
Gonzalez, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Ortiz, Mr.
Salazar, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Ms.
Solis, Mr. Israel, Mr. Ford, Mr. Cardoza, Mr.
Cuellar, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Hinojosa, Mrs. Napolitano,
Mr. Reyes, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr.
Serrano, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Owens, Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Higgins,
and Mrs. Jones of Ohio):
H.R. 4158. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Energy to
establish a program of energy assistance grants to local
educational agencies; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida (for herself, Mr.
Neal of Massachusetts, and Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas):
H.R. 4159. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
establish licensure requirements for employees and contractor
personnel of the Department of Veterans Affairs performing
orthotics services, pedorthics services, or prosthetics
services in any State in which there is a State licensure
requirement for persons performing those services in private
practice; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. CASTLE (for himself and Mr. Gilchrest):
H.R. 4160. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Army to
evaluate, construct, operate, and maintain capital
improvements to the Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to
Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland (Chesapeake and
Delaware Canal) for public recreation; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 4161. A bill to reiterate the responsibilities of FEMA
with regard to the creation of an appeals process and the
establishment of minimum training and education requirements
under the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform
Act of 2004; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. GALLEGLY:
H.R. 4162. A bill to provide for an exchange of lands
between the Secretary of Agriculture and the United Water
Conservation District of California to eliminate certain
private inholdings in the Los Padres National Forest, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. JINDAL (for himself, Mr. McCrery, and Mr.
Melancon):
H.R. 4163. A bill to expedite payments of certain Federal
emergency assistance authorized pursuant to the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and to
direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to exercise certain
authority provided under that Act; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. LYNCH:
H.R. 4164. A bill to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United
States Code, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 and the Public Health Service Act to require coverage
of hearing aids under the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program and private group and individual insurance; to the
Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the
Committees on Education and the Workforce, and Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. MACK:
H.R. 4165. A bill to clarify the boundaries of Coastal
Barrier Resources System Clam Pass Unit FL-64P; to the
Committee on Resources.
By Mrs. McCARTHY (for herself and Mr. Schwarz of
Michigan):
H.R. 4166. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act
with regard to research on asthma, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. ROGERS of Michigan (for himself, Mr. Towns, Mr.
Aderholt, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Barrow, Mr.
Bass, Mr. Beauprez, Mr. Berry, Mrs. Biggert, Mr.
Bishop of Georgia, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Blunt, Mr.
Boehlert, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Bonner, Mr.
Boren, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Boyd, Mr.
Bradley of New Hampshire, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Calvert,
Mr. Camp, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Cantor, Mrs. Capito, Mr.
Cardoza, Mr. Carter, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Chocola, Mr.
Coble, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr.
Crowley, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Davis
of Kentucky, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. Davis
of Tennessee, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Doyle,
Mrs. Drake, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Emanuel, Mrs.
Emerson, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Etheridge,
Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Foley, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Gerlach,
Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Goode, Mr. Goodlatte,
Mr. Gordon, Ms. Granger, Mr. Graves, Mr. Green of
Wisconsin, Mr. Hall, Ms. Hart, Mr. Hayes, Mr.
Hensarling, Mr. Herger, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Hoekstra,
Mr. Hulshof, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas,
Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Mr. Jones of North Carolina,
Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, Mr. Kingston,
Mr. Kirk, Mr. Kline, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Kuhl of New York,
Mr. LaHood, Mr. Latham, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Linder, Mr.
Lucas, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Matheson, Mr.
McCotter, Mr. McIntyre, Miss McMorris, Mr. Meeks of
New York, Mr. Michaud, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr.
Moore of Kansas, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Moran of
Virginia, Mrs. Musgrave, Mrs. Northup, Mr. Norwood,
Mr. Nunes, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Otter, Mr.
Oxley, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Pence, Mr. Peterson of
Minnesota, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Pombo, Mr.
Porter, Mr. Price of Georgia, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr.
Radanovich, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Regula, Mr. Rehberg, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Mr. Ross, Mr. Royce, Mr. Ruppersberger,
Mr. Rush, Mr. Schwarz of Michigan, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Shadegg, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Simpson, Mr.
Skelton, Mr. Sodrel, Mr. Souder, Mr. Strickland, Mr.
Sullivan, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Terry, Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. Upton, Mr.
Wamp, Mr. Weller, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Wicker, Mrs.
Wilson of New Mexico, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina,
Mr. Wynn, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Sherwood, Mr. Jefferson,
Mr. Davis of Alabama, and Mr. Manzullo):
H.R. 4167. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to provide for uniform food safety warning
notification requirements, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. RYUN of Kansas (for himself, Mr. Wilson of South
Carolina, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Daniel E.
Lungren of California, and Mr. Forbes):
H.R. 4168. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to prescribe the binding oath or affirmation of
renunciation and allegiance required to be naturalized as a
citizen of the United States, to encourage and support the
efforts of prospective citizens of the United States to
become citizens, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Financial
Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. SCOTT of Virginia (for himself, Mr. Rangel, Mr.
Conyers, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Jefferson,
Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas,
Mr. Paul, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms.
Lee, Mr. Hastings of Florida, and Mr. Al Green of
Texas):
H.R. 4169. A bill to suspend temporarily the application of
laws which would deny certain federal benefits, entitlements,
grants, and licenses to victims of Hurricane Katrina or
[[Page 24057]]
Hurricane Rita due to convictions for certain drug crimes; to
the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the
Committees on Ways and Means, Education and the Workforce,
and Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Kuhl of
New York, and Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California):
H.R. 4170. A bill to provide administrative subpoena
authority to apprehend fugitives; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. Jones
of North Carolina, Mr. McHenry, Ms. Foxx, and Mrs.
Myrick):
H.R. 4171. A bill to provide for the consideration of a
petition for Federal Recognition of the Lumbee Indians of
Robeson and adjoining counties, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana (for himself, Mr. Lantos, Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Lee,
Mr. Wexler, Mr. Weller, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Mack, Ms.
Harris, and Mr. Fortuno):
H. Con. Res. 280. Concurrent resolution mourning the
horrific loss of life caused by the floods and mudslides that
occurred in October 2005 in Central America and Mexico and
expressing the sense of Congress that the United States
should do everything possible to assist the affected people
and communities; to the Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. DAVIS of Illinois (for himself, Mr. Shimkus, Mr.
Hastert, Mr. Rush, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Emanuel, Mr.
Weller, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Lipinski, Mr.
Johnson of Illinois, Mr. Costello, Ms. Schakow-
sky, Mr. Evans, Mr. Manzullo, Ms. Bean, Mr. LaHood,
Mr. Jackson of Illinois, and Mr. Hyde):
H. Con. Res. 281. Concurrent resolution congratulating the
Chicago White Sox on winning the 2005 World Series; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
By Ms. LEE:
H. Con. Res. 282. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress that the tax give away since 2001 to
the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans should be repealed and
those monies instead invested in vital programs to relieve
the growing burden on the working poor and to alleviate
poverty in America; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. McCARTHY (for herself and Mr. Turner):
H. Con. Res. 283. Concurrent resolution honoring the heroic
service and sacrifice of the 6,500 glider pilots of the
United States Army Air Forces during World War II; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN (for herself and Mr. Ackerman):
H. Con. Res. 284. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress with respect to the 2005 presidential and
parliamentary elections in Egypt; to the Committee on
International Relations.
By Mrs. SCHMIDT:
H. Con. Res. 285. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress that the States of Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama should adopt comprehensive, modern,
and uniform statewide building codes; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. WILSON of South Carolina:
H. Res. 519. A resolution recognizing and saluting the
Carolinas Independent Automobile Dealers Association; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mrs. MALONEY (for herself and Mr. Bilirakis):
H. Res. 521. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia (FYROM) should cease its distribution of negative
and nationalist propaganda and should work with the United
Nations and Greece to find a mutually acceptable official
name for the FYROM; to the Committee on International
Relations.
By Mr. ROHRABACHER (for himself and Mr. Lantos):
H. Res. 522. A resolution honoring the 600th anniversary of
the birth of Gjergj Castrioti (Scanderbeg), statesman,
diplomat, and military genius, for his role in saving Western
Europe from Ottoman occupation; to the Committee on
International Relations.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 25: Mr. Poe.
H.R. 65: Mr. Miller of Florida.
H.R. 398: Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Etheridge, Ms.
Loretta Sanchez of California, and Mr. Dicks.
H.R. 445: Mr. Hayes.
H.R. 586: Mr. McKeon and Mr. Rogers of Kentucky.
H.R. 690: Mr. Ruppersberger.
H.R. 735: Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 752: Mr. Berman.
H.R. 791: Ms. Berkley and Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 910: Mr. Scott of Virginia and Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania.
H.R. 949: Mrs. Davis of California and Mrs. McCarthy.
H.R. 986: Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 1002: Mr. Meek of Florida, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson
of Texas, Mr. Brown of Ohio, and Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
H.R. 1108: Mr. Engel, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Baca,
and Mr. Gordon.
H.R. 1153: Mr. Meehan.
H.R. 1155: Mr. Cleaver.
H.R. 1288: Mr. Rohrabacher and Mr. Latham.
H.R. 1306: Miss McMorris and Mrs. Kelly.
H.R. 1322: Mr. Israel and Mr. Lantos.
H.R. 1415: Mr. Serrano and Mrs. Tauscher.
H.R. 1508: Ms. Bean.
H.R. 1514: Mr. Walsh.
H.R. 1534: Mr. Deal of Georgia.
H.R. 1535: Mr. Deal of Georgia.
H.R. 1536: Mr. Deal of Georgia.
H.R. 1565: Mr. Sanders.
H.R. 1578: Mr. Marchant, Ms. Hart, and Ms. Bean.
H.R. 1602: Ms. Kaptur.
H.R. 1603: Mr. Paul.
H.R. 1691: Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 1736: Mr. Gingrey.
H.R. 1823: Mr. Lantos.
H.R. 1849: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 1951: Mr. Bishop of Utah and Mrs. Emerson.
H.R. 1973: Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Wu, Mrs. Capps, Mr.
Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Shays,
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr.
Thornberry, Mr. Turner, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Kingston,
Mr. Kirk, Mr. Dent, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Petri, Mr. Walden of
Oregon, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Ramstad, Mrs.
Emerson, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Watt, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Hooley, Mr.
Ehlers, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Upton, Mr. Boozman, Mr. McHugh, Mr.
Visclosky, and Mr. Moran of Kansas.
H.R. 2014: Mr. Berry.
H.R. 2134: Mr. Schiff.
H.R. 2218: Mr. Abercrombie.
H.R. 2669: Mr. Waxman, Mr. Crowley, and Mr. Ferguson.
H.R. 2682: Mr. Van Hollen.
H.R. 2803: Mr. Udall of New Mexico.
H.R. 2808: Mr. McDermott, Mr. Ney, Mr. Kanjorski, Ms.
Wasserman Schultz, and Mr. Clay.
H.R. 2822: Mr. Miller of Florida.
H.R. 2828: Mr. Evans.
H.R. 3042: Mr. Strickland.
H.R. 3049: Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota.
H.R. 3142: Mr. Pastor.
H.R. 3147: Mr. Neugebauer.
H.R. 3267: Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 3301: Mr. Chocola and Mr. Dent.
H.R. 3449: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 3505: Mr. Weller and Mr. Sodrel.
H.R. 3506: Mr. Sanders.
H.R. 3630: Mr. Shimkus.
H.R. 3698: Mr. Hoyer.
H.R. 3702: Mr. Clay and Mr. Peterson of Minnesota.
H.R. 3721: Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 3743: Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 3804: Mr. Lantos.
H.R. 3852: Mr. Gonzalez, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Case, Mr.
Baird, and Mr. Moore of Kansas.
H.R. 3857: Mr. Brown of South Carolina.
H.R. 3861: Mr. Jones of North Carolina.
H.R. 3889: Mr. Gibbons.
H.R. 3909: Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
H.R. 3953: Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart
of Florida, Mr. Stearns, and Mr. Putnam.
H.R. 3957: Mr. McHugh.
H.R. 4009: Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California.
H.R. 4025: Mr. Schiff, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Salazar, Mr.
Holden, Mr. Case, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Kennedy
of Rhode Island, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. McCotter, Mr.
Gutierrez, Ms. Bean, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, and Mr. Ruppers-
berger.
H.R. 4042: Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Lewis of Georgia,
Mr. Filner, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, and Mr. Souder.
H.R. 4045: Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 4061: Ms. Berkley, Mr. Michaud, and Ms. Hooley.
H.R. 4079: Mr. Bartlett of Maryland.
H.R. 4093: Mr. Feeney, Mr. Otter, Mr. Keller, Mr. Coble,
and Mr. Bachus.
H.R. 4098: Mr. Ford, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Taylor of North
Carolina, and Mr. Boren.
H.R. 4145: Mr. Serrano, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Lewis of California,
Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Snyder.
H.R. 4146: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H. Con. Res. 90: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms. McCollum of
Minnesota, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Burton of Indiana.
H. Con. Res. 234: Mr. Crowley.
H. Con. Res. 235: Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida and Ms.
Herseth.
H. Con. Res. 251: Ms. Woolsey.
H. Con. Res. 260: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Ms. Schwartz
of Pennsylvania, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Kennedy of
Rhode Island, Mr. Evans, and Mr. McGovern.
H. Res. 302: Mr. Franks of Arizona.
H. Res. 335: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania and Mr. Peterson of
Minnesota.
[[Page 24058]]
H. Res. 415: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California.
H. Res. 458: Ms. Berkley and Mr. Honda.
H. Res. 466: Mr. Butterfield.
H. Res. 483: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Israel, Mr. Ruppersberger,
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Larsen of Washington, and Mr.
Shays.
H. Res. 515: Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Al Green of Texas.
H. Res. 517: Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Fossella, Mr. King
of New York, and Mr. Rothman.
[[Page 24059]]
SENATE--Thursday, October 27, 2005
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the President
pro tempore (Mr. Stevens).
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Today's prayer will be offered by our
guest Chaplain, Dr. Alan Keiran, chief of staff of the Senate
Chaplain's Office.
______
prayer
The guest Chaplain offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
O God of might and power, give our Senators today Your passion. Give
them a passion for people that will bring liberty and hope. Give them a
passion for justice that will empower them to become our Nation's
conscience. Give them a passion for unity that will break down the
barriers that divide us. Give them a passion for action that they may
not shrink from the new or be satisfied with the comfortable inertia.
Give us all a passion for progress that will enable us to see what is
not and dream what can be.
We pray in Your precious Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The PRESIDENT pro tempore led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the leadership
time is reserved.
____________________
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 3010, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3010) making appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Sununu amendment No. 2214, to provide for the funding of
the Low-Vision Rehabilitation Services Demonstration Project.
Sununu modified amendment No. 2215, to increase funding for
community health centers.
Thune further modified amendment No. 2193, to provide
funding for telehealth programs.
Murray amendment No. 2220, to provide stop gap coverage for
low-income Seniors and disabled individuals who may lose
benefits or suffer a gap in coverage due to the
implementation of the Medicare part D prescription drug
benefit.
Harkin modified amendment No. 2283, to make available funds
for pandemic flu preparedness.
Clinton/Schumer amendment No. 2313, to provide for payments
to the New York State Uninsured Employers Fund for
reimbursement of claims related to the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, and payments to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention for treatment for emergency services
personnel and rescue and recovery personnel.
Coburn amendment No. 2233, to prohibit the use of funds for
HIV Vaccine Awareness Day activities.
Coburn amendment No. 2230, to limit funding for
conferences.
Dayton amendment No. 2245, to fully fund the Federal
Government's share of the costs under part B of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Dayton amendment No. 2289, to increase funding for disabled
voter access services under the Help America Vote Act of
2002.
Santorum amendment No. 2241, to establish a Congressional
Commission on Expanding Social Service Delivery Options.
Santorum amendment No. 2237, to provide grants to promote
healthy marriages.
Durbin (for Boxer/Ensign) amendment No. 2287, to increase
appropriations for after-school programs through 21st century
community learning centers.
Bingaman (for Smith/Bingaman) amendment No. 2259, to
provide funding for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program within
the Health Resources and Services Administration.
Bingaman amendment No. 2218, to increase funding for
advanced placement programs.
Bingaman amendment No. 2219, to increase funding for school
dropout prevention.
Bingaman/Salazar amendment No. 2262, to increase funding
for education programs serving Hispanic students.
Harkin amendment No. 2322, to prohibit payments for
administrative expenses under the Medicaid program if more
than 15 percent of applications for medical assistance,
eligibility redeterminations, and change reports are
processed by individuals who are not State employees meeting
certain personnel standards.
Cornyn amendment No. 2277, to increase the amount of
appropriated funds available for Community-Based Job Training
Grants.
Landrieu amendment No. 2248, to increase appropriations for
the Federal TRIO programs for students affected by Hurricanes
Katrina or Rita.
Landrieu amendment No. 2250, to provide funding to carry
out the Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act.
Landrieu amendment No. 2249, to require that any additional
community health center funding be directed, in part, to
centers in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane
Rita.
Collins/Feingold modified amendment No. 2265, to fund
grants for innovative programs to address dental workforce
needs.
Murray amendment No. 2285, to insert provisions related to
an investigation by the Inspector General.
Ensign amendment No. 2300, to prohibit funding for the
support, development, or distribution of the Department of
Education's e-Language Learning System (ELLS).
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time until
10 a.m. shall be equally divided between the majority and the minority.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Schedule
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning the time until 10 a.m. will be
equally divided for debate prior to the cloture vote. That cloture vote
is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. promptly. We will be on the Labor-HHS
appropriations bill. We started that bill now 6 days ago, last Friday.
Senators have had ample opportunity to debate and offer amendments.
Therefore, I expect that we will invoke cloture this morning. Once
cloture is invoked, the chairman can begin the process of bringing that
bill to a close. If we work together and Members are reasonable with
their requests for amendments, we will be able to finish the bill
tonight. If we are unable to get passage of the bill tonight, then we
would return to session tomorrow and stay on the bill with votes until
completion. That gives added incentive for people to finish it today,
but we will be here tomorrow to vote if we do not finish it tonight.
Today we may also receive the Agriculture appropriations conference
report from the House, and I will be talking to the Democratic leader
about the scheduling for consideration.
Finally, we have some Executive Calendar nominations ready for Senate
action, including a couple of judges. We need to dispose of those
nominations as soon as possible.
Withdrawal of Nomination of Harriet Miers
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, over the last several minutes, Harriet
Miers has formally requested to withdraw as a nominee to serve as
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I had a conversation with Ms.
Miers early this morning, and she told me that it was last evening that
she spoke to the President and formally requested her nomination to be
withdrawn. She stated clearly to me this morning and in a letter, which
I will refer to shortly, that she felt that withdrawal was in the best
interest of the United States. She came to this decision on her own,
based on what she has experienced and witnessed and with the requests
that
[[Page 24060]]
are currently being made and as she projected forward to the hearings,
again, in the best interests of the country. This morning she was
gracious and forthcoming, confident, expressed appreciation for all of
the work that has been done to date in the Senate and asked me to
express that to each of the Senators, asking me to say thank you for
their individual courtesy over the past several days and weeks. As one
may expect, she was disappointed but confident and upbeat.
Earlier this morning, following that, I did talk to the President. It
is appropriate, because things are moving so quickly for me, to quote
from her letter, again, to use Harriet Miers' own words. As this is
addressed by the political pundits and the commentators over the course
of today, I think it would be helpful for our colleagues to hear
directly what Ms. Miers sent to the President.
October 27, 2005.
Dear Mr. President: I write to withdraw as a nominee to
serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the
United States. I have been greatly honored and humbled by the
confidence that you have shown in me, and have appreciated
immensely your support and the support of many others.
However, I am concerned that the confirmation process
presents a burden for the White House and our staff that is
not in the best interest of the country.
As you know, members of the Senate have indicated their
intention to seek documents about my service in the White
House in order to judge whether to support me. I have been
informed repeatedly that in lieu of records, I would be
expected to testify about my service in the White House to
demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy. While I
believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence
for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the
efforts to obtain Executive Branch materials and information
will continue.
As I stated in my acceptance remarks in the Oval Office,
the strength and independence of our three branches of
government are critical to the continued success of this
great Nation. Repeatedly in the course of the process of
confirmation for nominees for other positions, I have
steadfastly maintained that the independence of the Executive
Branch be reserved and its confidential documents and
information not be released to further a confirmation
process. I feel compelled to adhere to this position,
especially related to my own nomination. Protection of the
prerogatives of the Executive Branch and continued pursuit of
my confirmation are in tension. I have decided that seeking
my confirmation should yield.
I share your commitment to appointing judges with a
conservative judicial philosophy, and I look forward to
continuing to support your efforts to provide the American
people judges who will interpret the law, not make it. I am
most grateful for the opportunity to have served your
Administration and this country.
Most respectfully,
Harriet Ellan Miers.
Those are her words, and I think they are very direct. I did have a
chance to talk to the President moments ago. He says that he accepted
this withdrawal. Harriet Miers will continue as White House counsel, of
course. And I believe that we can expect another nomination in the very
near future. I will be talking to Chairman Specter a little bit later
this morning.
I yield the floor.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Harriet Miers
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have heard, since I have been in
Washington these many years, about what a tough town it is. I rarely
have felt that in my work here. But today I feel what some have said.
For Harriet Miers, this is a tough town.
Here is a fine woman, gentle and kind, has a lengthy career. Her
record: First woman to become a member of a large law firm in Texas;
first woman to be president of the Dallas Bar Association. The Dallas
Bar Association is larger than most State bar associations. She
followed that with being the president of the Texas Bar Association,
one of the three or four largest bar associations in the United States.
She has served in elective office for a short period. She has had
extensive experience in the courts.
I was in Texas this past weekend with a bunch of Democratic lawyers,
members of the Democratic Party. They all said the nicest things about
Harriet Miers. She was a fine litigator.
It is no secret I thought she would be an appropriate nomination for
the President. I suggested that to the President in a meeting that was
attended by the distinguished majority leader. I believe the 35 to 40
percent of the people who have served on the Supreme Court with no
judicial experience before getting there have been equally as good as
those people who have come to the Court with judicial experience. I
believe those Justices with whom I had lunch a few months ago, who
said, we would like to have people with no judicial experience come to
the Supreme Court--that is what they said--were right. I believe they
are still right.
I have talked a little bit about Harriet Miers. She called me this
morning. I agree with the distinguished Republican leader that she was
upbeat, but she wasn't happy. She was very disappointed. It was obvious
she was very disappointed. Who wouldn't be? In her experience as a
lawyer, elected city councilperson, in her whole career she has shown
that she has been a strong supporter for law firm diversity policies, a
leader in promoting legal services for the poor. She made statements,
written and otherwise, where she spoke her beliefs on basic fairness.
I believe, without any question, that when the history books are
written about all this, it will show that the radical rightwing of the
Republican Party drove this woman's nomination right out of town.
Apparently, Ms. Miers didn't satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme
Court with rigid ideologists. The only voices heard in this process
were the far right. She wasn't even given a chance to speak for herself
before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her credentials, which are
excellent, weren't good enough for the rightwing. They wanted a nominee
with a proven record of supporting their skewed goals.
I hope our President, in choosing a replacement for his lawyer--and
that is what she is--will not reward the bad behavior of his rightwing
base. President Bush should reject the demands of these extremists and
choose a Justice who will protect the constitutional rights of all
Americans. The President should listen to all Americans, not just
extreme elements of his own party.
I repeat what the distinguished Senator from Maryland said, Ms.
Mikulski, that she sensed a whiff--I think that is a direct quote--of
sexism in all of the attacks on this nominee.
Mr. President, it is over with. She has given her withdrawal to the
President. I don't think it is a good day for our country.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. REID. I yield to the distinguished Senator from New York.
How much time do we have, Mr. President?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Eight minutes 11 seconds.
Mr. REID. And that is equally divided; is that right?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority has 7 minutes 42 seconds.
Mr. REID. While the distinguished majority leader is here, Mr.
President, through you to the distinguished Republican leader, we had a
half hour set aside and I took more than my share. You didn't take much
time. I ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes for morning
business and the vote at 10 o'clock be scheduled at 10:15.
I understand the Senator from New York is not talking in morning
business. I withdraw my request. I yield to her whatever time she may
consume.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Amendment No. 2313
Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that at the
conclusion of my brief remarks my colleague, Senator Schumer, be
recognized.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Subject to the control of the time, yes.
Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I believe amendment 2313 is pending before the Senate;
is that correct?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pending before the Senate is H.R. 3010.
Mrs. CLINTON. Is amendment 2313 at the desk?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is the pending amendment,
the one we go on in regular business.
[[Page 24061]]
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Will we be going
to regular business before the cloture vote?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are on the bill at this time.
Mrs. CLINTON. Then if we are on the bill at this time, I wish to
speak briefly about amendment 2313 and ask that it be pending before
the Senate.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has the right to make that
amendment the regular order if she desires.
Mrs. CLINTON. I do desire, Mr. President, to make amendment 2313 the
regular order.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, this amendment addresses a problem that is quite
unprecedented with respect to the funds that were appropriated
originally from this body following the attacks of September 11. The
funds were part of the original emergency appropriation passed by the
Congress and signed by the President. The money addressed in this
amendment is intended for use for medical services and related matters
on behalf of first responders, construction workers, and others who
worked at Ground Zero, who were in a variety of ways injured, whose
health was impacted, often leading to employment-ending disabilities.
The people who gave so much in the immediate aftermath of those attacks
include, of course, those who lost their lives and also those who as
part of the rescue and recovery operations suffered long-lasting
physical and mental damage.
A number of those people have not been able to return to work. They
are suffering from ailments ranging from physical disability, loss of
limbs, loss of the use of limbs. They have suffered an incredible range
of lung-related and breathing diseases--asthma, respiratory
dysfunction. Others have suffered greatly from the stresses they
confronted, particularly working on what was called ``the pile'' day
after day after day; some who worked out at Freshkills, the formerly
very large landfill on Staten Island where the remains of so many who
lost their lives, including the debris from the cleanup, were taken and
deposited. Detectives worked there hour after hour after hour
recovering evidence, and often that evidence included, tragically, body
parts. Many of these people who were directly impacted continued to
work as long as they could. They tried to return to some semblance of
normalcy. Unfortunately, they often could not continue.
The money that was directed to be used for their medical and
employment-related needs was caught up in some of the efforts to deal
with the budget currently, and an unprecedented rescission of these
funds previously appropriated was called for.
On both sides of the aisle, in the Senate as well as the House, we
have a number of our colleagues who understand completely the need for
these funds to be reinstated and available for the purposes they were
intended. Certainly, the Governor of our State, the mayor of our city,
along with representatives of many of the workers, the police officers,
detectives, the firefighters, the construction workers, and others who
were adversely impacted because they responded to the need for their
services and their heroic efforts, are all united in our effort on both
sides of the aisle at all levels of Government to make sure that what
was promised is fulfilled.
I greatly appreciate the chairman of the committee and the ranking
member working with us over the last weeks to make sure we correct this
unprecedented rescission. I believe the amendment has been agreed to by
the chairman and ranking member. I hope we are able to move forward
with that expeditiously today.
This is a righting of an inadvertent wrong. I don't think the full
intent and understanding of what these funds were for was perhaps
appreciated, but there seems to be a great willingness, which I greatly
appreciate, on behalf of the majority----
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. CLINTON. And so, Mr. President, let me, if I could----
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no further time for the minority
to yield.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, may we have unanimous consent to use the
leader time?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The leadership time is reserved. The
leadership is to use that time.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 2
minutes. It can be deducted from the Republican time.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, that request can be
agreed to.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair. I want to add my voice in support of
this amendment on behalf of Senator Clinton and myself.
We all know the help this country has generously offered those who
put their lives on the line--some survived, some did not--after 9/11.
Many emerged wounded. I want to add one other element here. When we
negotiated with the President for the $20 billion, there was a great
moment of unity. When this Congress stood up, it was a great moment of
unity. I have to say the President has never wavered in his commitment
of the $20 billion. In fact, the White House has been generous in
granting us flexibility--seeking to take $2 billion of the tax dollars
and move them to transportation.
This one rescission is the only mark where there has been a wavering
in the commitment made to New York in those bleak weeks right after 9/
11. We don't know how it came about. I doubt it came from the
President--maybe somebody in OMB. But removing this rescission rights
that wrong and keeps the ledger unblemished about this Nation's
commitment to $20 billion to New York.
I thank Senator Specter and Senator Cochran for understanding that
need, and Senator Clinton and I look forward to the fact that this
amendment, which will now be in the Senate bill, will prevail in the
House and that the White House will help us make that happen.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
remainder of the time be allocated to Senator Schumer and myself.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. There
is 5 minutes 44 seconds remaining.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, as you can tell from both Senator
Schumer and myself, we are very grateful for this understanding and
pending action that will give us a chance to right this wrong. Again I
think it is difficult to trace how it happened. I believe it is in the
rush of trying to figure out how to maybe make things balance a little
bit more that this was seized upon.
I ask unanimous consent that letters from Governor Pataki and Mayor
Bloomberg be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Executive Chamber,
State Capitol,
Albany, NY, October 21, 2005.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chair, Appropriations Committee, Senate Dirksen Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
Ranking Member, Appropriations Committee, Senate Hart Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Cochran and Byrd: I would like to voice my
strong concerns over a provision in the House Labor-HHS
Appropriations bill which would rescind $125 million from the
New York State Workers' Compensation Board sent to New York
as part of the response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks. As the Senate considers its own Labor-HHS
appropriations bill, I would ask that this rescission not be
included. If it is not feasible to reverse the rescission,
then I would respectfully ask that you support passage of a
new emergency appropriation.
Under P.L. 107-117, Congress provided New York a total of
$175 million for the Workers' Compensation Board. The funding
was for paying benefits to the volunteers who responded to
Ground Zero or the Staten Island Landfill and to pay claims
to the employees of uninsured employers. These funds were
made available ``until expended.''
Consistent with Congressional intent, I am requesting that
all funds from the initial appropriation remain available to
ensure that the continuing needs of affected individuals are
met.
I appreciate that you have incredibly difficult decisions
to make given the funding
[[Page 24062]]
constraints under which you must pass the Labor-HHS bill.
However, the aftermath of 9/11 continues to manifest itself
with responders' illnesses emerging late and lasting longer
than expected. To rescind the funding provided to deal with
these needs would be turning our back on the very people who
stepped up to the plate in the wake of a national emergency.
Thank you for your attention to this critical issue.
Very truly yours,
George E. Pataki.
____
The City of New York,
Office of the Mayor,
New York, NY, October 24, 2005.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee,
Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Committee,
Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education and Related
Agencies, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairmen Cochran and Specter and Ranking Members Byrd
and Harkin: In the aftermath of the attacks on the World
Trade Center (WTC), the Federal Government promised to
appropriate $20 billion to help New York City in its recovery
efforts. As you are aware, $125 million of that Federal
funding has been rescinded. I am asking your support for an
amendment to be offered by Senators Clinton and Schumer to
restore these funds to meet the ongoing needs of those harmed
by the September 11th attacks and (their aftermath. The funds
in question were originally to be used to process workers'
compensation claims, but have not proven necessary for that
purpose.
It is impossible to predict exactly the needs of the
governments, businesses and individuals hurt by such a
crisis. Jurisdictions affected by major disasters, be they
man-made or from natural causes, should get the benefit of
hindsight to make full and proper use of allocated funds.
Thus it is important that the Congress allow these
jurisdictions to come back to Congress to make revisions in
the federal assistance provided.
In New York, there is still a need for New York State to
retain $50 million of the aforementioned $125 million, but we
are writing you about the remaining $75 million. New York has
significant, ongoing needs for continued monitoring and
possible medical treatment as a result of the September 11th
attacks.
It is our understanding that Senators Clinton and Schumer
will be offering an amendment to restore this $75 million so
it can be used to administer baseline and follow-up screening
and clinical examinations and long-term medical health
monitoring, analysis, and treatment for emergency services
personnel and rescue and recovery personnel through the FDNY
Bureau of Health Services and Counseling Services Unit, the
NYPD, Project Cope, the Police Organization Providing Peer
Assistance (POPPA), the World Trade Center Health Registry
and the Mount Sinai Center for Occupational and Environmental
Medicine working with the State and City of New York.
The New York City Fire Department (FDNY) estimates that
this funding would enable the World Trade Center (WTC)
Medical Monitoring Program, that the Department's Bureau of
Health Services runs in partnership with Mt. Sinai Medical
Center, and the FDNY Medical Treatment Program to continue
for several more years, although additional funds would be
needed beyond that time period. The WTC Medical Monitoring
Program monitors and treats the WTC rescue and recovery
workers and volunteers affected by environmental contaminants
and other exposures at the WTC site. It is the only long-
term, national program that provides periodic medical
monitoring exams, as well as short- and long-term medical
treatment, for the approximately 12,000 FDNY rescue workers
and 12,000 other responders who could be at risk for WTC-
related illnesses as a result of their efforts in rescue and
recovery, service restoration or debris removal and clean up
at the WTC site. Federal and private funding is due to expire
in 2009 for the monitoring program and 2007 for the treatment
program. This is a much-needed amendment that would continue
this federal partnership for several more years.
The FDNY's workforce was the most severely affected by
September 11, 2001. On that day alone, the Department
suffered 343 fatalities, and 200 of our responders needed
medical treatment--some for life-threatening injuries. In
all, more than 12,000 FDNY rescue workers performed rescue
and recovery efforts from September 11, 2001 through July
2002. Since then, nearly 4,000 have developed respiratory
and/or mental health-related illnesses. Potentially disabling
conditions that our rescue workers face include asthma,
chronic bronchitis, chronic sinusitis, gastroesophageal
reflux disorders and psychological distress as a result of
their repeated exposures to the injured, the dying, the dead,
human remains, potentially life-threatening situations for
themselves and other traumatic events. Our FDNY rescue
workers are also concerned about other potential exposures to
environmental toxins. More than 500 firefighters have
qualified for early retirement disability.
This funding would also provide critical support for the
New York City WTC Health Registry. The WTC Health Registry,
operated by the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene,
tracks many highly affected subgroups present on 9/11,
including Lower Manhattan residents, children, building
survivors and visitors, as well as rescue workers and rescue/
clean-up volunteers. The Registry has enrolled 71,000
persons, including those who were contacted from known
employer and building listings, as well as eligible
individuals who voluntarily enrolled. The Registry is
designed to maintain contact with and systematically document
potential health effects related to 9/11 through periodic
monitoring of mental and physical health conditions over the
course of the next 20 years. To benefit participants and
others affected by the disaster, the Registry provides
immediate information on health and mental health outcomes,
as well as available resources and treatment options. It is a
unique resource open to health experts around the country
conducting more in-depth health investigations. Special
studies by a number of academic institutions have already
begun, with the Registry providing a means to contact
interested participants. The findings of these studies will
benefit individuals affected by 9/11 and physicians concerned
with their care.
The Registry provides one of the few opportunities to
conduct future population-based assessments of WTC health
effects on different affected populations. It was established
with funding provided through the federal Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The cost of this
program is modest and provides a platform to monitor the
public health consequences of the WTC attacks and develops
essential health and emergency preparedness information. This
amendment will ensure that the Registry receives funding for
several more years. It is also essential that the federal
government keep faith with the 71,000 WTC survivors who
enrolled by ensuring the stability and long-term survival of
this crucial project.
Thank you for all you have done to help us on behalf of
those affected by September 11.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Bloomberg,
Mayor.
Nicholas Scoppetta,
Commissioner, Fire Department of the
City of New York.
Thomas R. Frieden,
M.D., M.P.H., Commissioner,
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
____
Fire Department of New York--Mt. Sinai Partnership
To continue the existing medical monitoring and treatment
program, the FDNY needs federal assistance for a 30-year
medical monitoring program that to date has been funded by
the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
This would allow the FDNY Bureau of Health Services to
continue to provide comprehensive periodic follow-up
monitoring exams to FDNY WTC rescue workers (active and
retired) at periodic (e.g., 18-month) intervals, thereby
maintaining needed services and medical continuity for this
group.
Based on current patient enrollment and the anticipated
health/economic needs of this population, the FDNY needs
federal assistance to support the medical treatment for the
FDNY WTC rescue workers (active and retired). This funding
would support necessary medical and mental health treatment
programs already in place for what we estimate to be,
conservatively, 30 percent of the FDNY WTC responder
population. Funding for these monitoring and treatment
programs would allow the FDNY to provide to our WTC rescue
workers the same level and number of medical and mental
health services as Mount Sinai plans for the non-FDNY WTC
responders.
The FDNY treatment program, treating an estimated 3,000
patients, has a current budget of $15 million annually. The
Mt. Sinai portion of this program has a similar budget.
Funding for these programs is uncertain after 2007. The FDNY
monitoring and evaluations program, treating an estimated
12,000 patients, has a current budget of $5 million per year.
Funding for this program is uncertain after 2009.
World Trade Center Registry (WTCHR)
The WorId Trade Center Health Registry is designed to
monitor the physical and mental health of the 71,000
enrollees for 20 years. The Registry is the only systematic
way to document and verify the possible long-term
consequences of the WTC disaster in groups most directly
affected by the attacks, such as residents, children,
building survivors, visitors, and rescue/recovery workers and
volunteers. This is the largest effort ever in the U.S. to
systemically monitor the health of persons exposed to a
large-scale disaster.
[[Page 24063]]
The Registry has developed a comprehensive resource guide,
which is updated regularly, to help WTC-affected persons find
physical or mental health services and other 9/11-related
assistance. It is the only comprehensive and updated resource
directory for people affected by the attack. To accompany
this, the Department is collaborating with Mt. Sinai Medical
Center to develop a set of clinical guidelines for physicians
treating patients affected by 9/11.
An average cost of $46 per enrollee per year is required to
support the registry for its 20 year life span--a modest cost
to monitor the health consequences of this major disaster and
to develop essential health and emergency preparedness
information. Average annual and recurring support of $3.31
million is needed to support the registry. A cooperative
agreement between ATSDR and the New York City Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) provides partial and
declining support only through 2007, leaving a shortfall
averaging $2.2 million through that date. After 2007, no
funding has been committed to support the $3.31 million need.
New York City is working with our federal partners and
representatives to secure long-term funding for WTCHR.
Mrs. CLINTON. This money has been counted on to meet the needs of so
many of these workers, through the workers comp system, through the
health care system. We fought very hard to make sure there was a
sufficient amount of money for the diagnosis of the various physical
and mental ills that people suffered after 9/11. I was very grateful we
were able to do that. People are being diagnosed. They are being given
some help. Unfortunately, without this money, that help cannot
continue. After 9/11, we learned that many of the people who were
involved in the horrible bombing in Oklahoma City years before were
finally coming to ask for help, that they had been suffering in
silence. Often there had been terrible memories that interfered with
their ability to continue working. This is something that we know from
experts is, unfortunately, a very long-term, slow-moving problem, that
not everybody suffers the same way immediately. There are those for
whom it takes longer to come to grips with what has happened. We are
seeing that. We are seeing still people who for the first time go to a
physician, for the first time ask for help. I have worked closely with
the fire department over the last 4 years and they have been absolutely
superb in trying to make sure that help was available, people knew
about it, but they are the first to tell you not every one of the
firefighters was ready to ask for it. They had to be convinced it was
OK to do.
So having this money reinstated will fulfill the promise we have made
to all of these men and women that we are not going to forget them, we
are going to take care of them; that when they are ready to ask for
help, they will get help, and that the resources will be available for
them to get that help.
It is very heartening, and I obviously understand we are going to
have a challenge in the conference committee, but all of our colleagues
on both sides of the aisle in the House, particularly those who serve
on the Appropriations Committee, are part of this team and are working
hard to make sure their leadership understands what our leadership
does, which is that this is keeping faith with the people who kept
faith with America, a lot of brave and heroic and very extraordinary
human beings who ran toward danger instead of away from it. I am very
grateful that this will be in the Senate bill and we will be able to go
with a united front on behalf of the Senate joining with those in the
majority and minority in the House to make sure we provide this funding
as soon as possible.
I appreciate all the hard work we have seen from the chairman and the
chairman's staff, from the ranking member and the ranking member's
staff. This was a challenge they undertook because they supported what
we were trying to do and understood how significant it was to correct
this situation.
I also appreciate the chairman of the full committee and the ranking
member of the full committee who have similarly been very supportive in
helping us work out a solution to this issue.
I can only hope that when we get to conference the House will
understand and accept how we have worked this out and give us a chance
to make our case. I believe it is a worthy case. It has bipartisan
support. I think the House will see that and understand it.
I am grateful to everyone who has helped us get to this point.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of the chairman of the
subcommittee, Senator Specter, I want to state that this amendment
restores $125 million previously appropriated to New York as part of
the emergency supplemental bill under chapter 11, relief and recovery,
passed by the Congress and signed into law by President Bush on January
10, 2002.
The funds would be used for such purposes as mental health treatment
and long-term health monitoring of rescue and recovery personnel.
The amendment is fully offset.
I ask for a voice vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2313.
The amendment (No. 2313) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. CLINTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I call for the regular order.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10 a.m.
having arrived, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate
the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will report.
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 H.R. 3010: The
Labor-HHS appropriate bill.
Bill Frist, Arlen Specter, Thad Cochran, Michael Enzi,
Wayne Allard, Jon Kyl, Rick Santorum, Richard Lugar,
Mike DeWine, Craig Thomas, Mel Martinez, Sam Brownback,
Kay Bailey Hutchison, John Thune, Orrin Hatch, Robert
Bennett, Mike Crapo.
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 H.R.
3010, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006, 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. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine,
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily
absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 275 Leg.]
YEAS--97
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
[[Page 24064]]
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Corzine
Lott
Rockefeller
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 97, the nays are 0.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly sworn and chosen, having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Obama and Mr. Durbin are printed in today's
Record under ``Morning Business.'')
Amendment No. 2193
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before moving ahead to the amendments on
the flu pandemic, there are some amendments which have been cleared and
which have been accepted on both sides.
I call up Thune amendment No. 2193.
This amendment provides $10 million for the telehealth programs
within the Department of Education. The amendment is fully offset. I
believe it has been agreed to by my distinguished ranking member,
Senator Harkin.
Mr. HARKIN. We have no objections on this side.
Mr. SPECTER. I urge its agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2193), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2265
Mr. SPECTER. Amendment No. 2265, the Collins dental health workforce
needs amendment, provides funding which will grant innovative programs
an opportunity to move forward to address the dental workforce needs.
The amendment has been cleared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2265) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2269
Mr. SPECTER. Amendment No. 2269, the Lautenberg amendment, provides
for a prohibition for the use of funds for abstinence education
information that has proved medically inaccurate. Again, it has been
cleared on both sides of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr.
Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 2269.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to provide abstinence education
that includes information that is medically inaccurate)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to provide abstinence education that includes
information that is medically inaccurate. For purposes of
this section, the term ``medically inaccurate'' means
information that is unsupported or contradicted by peer-
reviewed research by leading medical, psychological,
psychiatric, and public health publications, organizations
and agencies.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2269) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2214, as Modified
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up the Sununu amendment numbered
2214, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 2214), as modified, is as follows:
After section 221, insert the following:
Sec. 222. For carrying out the Low-Vision Rehabilitation
Services Demonstration Project by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, an additional $5,000,000: Provided, That both
accounts made available on page 137, line 9 are reduced by
$5,000,000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2214), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2308, as Modified
Mr. SPECTER. Now the Alexander amendment 2308, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr.
Alexander, proposes an amendment numbered 2308, as modified.
The amendment (No. 2308), as modified, is as follows:
At the end of title III (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. __. (a) There are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $7,000,000 to the
National Assessment Governing Board for the purposes of
implementing a National Assessment of Educational Progress
test in United States history.
(b) On page 192, line 20, strike $418,992,000 and insert
$411,992,000 in lieu thereof.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2308), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2219, as Modified
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up the Bingaman amendment numbered
2219, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr.
Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 2219, as modified.
The amendment (No. 2219), as modified, is as follows:
At the end of title III (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. (a) In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated
under this Act, there is appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an additional
$4,900,000 to carry out part H of title I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6551 et seq.).
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
amount made available under the heading Health Resources and
Services Administration for construction and renovation is
further reduced by $4,900,000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
as modified.
The amendment (No. 2219), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 2220, 2241, 2237, and 2249, en bloc
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order to
make a germaneness point of order against the following amendments en
bloc: Senator Murray, 2220; Senator Santorum, 2241; Senator Santorum,
2237; Senator Landrieu, 2249. I now raise a point of order that the
amendments are nongermane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate may make a point
of order, en bloc.
Mr. SPECTER. Technically, I raise a point of order that the
amendments are nongermane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The
amendments fall.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment or business
before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Ensign amendment
No. 2300.
Amendment No. 2283
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment
aside and return to amendment No. 2283.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the matter before the
Senate is amendment 2283.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, before I talk about this amendment that
has to do with avian flu, I add my congratulations to the Chicago White
Sox for a sterling performance--four straight games in the World
Series--to congratulate the team, and to congratulate their owner,
Jerry Reinsdorf. The last time the Chicago White Sox won the World
Series was 1917. Of course, they were the Black Sox at that time. And
the outstanding performer during that 1917 classic was a guy by the
name of Joseph Jefferson Jackson from Greenville, SC. Baseball fans and
aficionados perhaps may not recognize his real name, but they will
recognize the name Shoeless Joe Jackson.
[[Page 24065]]
In 1999, along with Senator Thurmond and Senator Hollings, we
introduced a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It was accepted by the
Senate. Commissioner Selig agreed to review the Shoeless Joe Jackson
case to reinstate him to baseball. However, 6 years have passed and Mr.
Selig has done nothing.
With the winning of the World Series by the Chicago White Sox, it is
time to revisit this issue. In that regard, Senator DeMint from South
Carolina and I have submitted a resolution. We will be talking about it
later today at an appropriate time when Senator DeMint and I can both
be on the Senate floor. I want Senators to know we have a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution that Senator DeMint and I will be submitting similar
to the one we offered in 1999 once again trying to honor one of
baseball's all-time great players who suffered a great injustice at the
hands of the then Commissioner Landis, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, who was
a commissioner of baseball for almost 40 years. It was Commissioner
Landis who banned Shoeless Joe Jackson from baseball, and robbed him of
his rightful place in the Baseball Hall of Fame. We will have more to
say about that later today.
I congratulate the Chicago White Sox on a great victory and thank my
colleague and my friend from South Carolina for working to get this new
resolution. Hopefully, we will take it up in the Senate this afternoon
and pass it sometime this afternoon.
Mr. President, we have an amendment before the Senate that is crucial
to maybe even our most basic survival as a nation, perhaps crucial to
the survival of our economy and the future. I know that sounds like
overblown rhetoric, but everyone has probably been reading lately about
the threat of an avian flu pandemic. It has been on all the news
magazines and all the news shows. Newsweek magazine last week had a
very comprehensive expose or at least a delineation of the flu, how it
is spread, how virulent it is, and what it can do to us. So I don't
think it is overblown to say this perhaps could be the biggest threat
our country has faced in the last 100 years.
As has been pointed out in numerous articles and I think elsewhere in
the Newsweek article I referred to earlier, what this pandemic could do
to us as a people is even more threatening than what a few terrorists
could do and, as they point out, even a few terrorists with a nuclear-
type device. This pandemic could literally--estimated by the experts,
not by me--cause the death of anywhere from 200,000 to 2 million
Americans, with tens of millions of Americans hospitalized without any
capacity to take care of them. This would cause a disruption in our
economy the likes of which we have probably never seen.
I have been involved in looking at avian flu for the last several
years, tracking it and keeping in close contact with the National
Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
in Atlanta. I always try to be careful we do not unduly alarm people. I
don't want to put myself nor do I think we should put ourselves in the
position of unduly alarming or generating a phobia that paralyzes our
country, but alarm bells must be rung. The warning signs are there. We
have to start preparing. The time for planning and thinking about it
has passed. We have to do something immediately.
The amendment we are debating allows the United States to
dramatically step up emergency preparations for an avian flu pandemic.
Last month, I offered on the Defense appropriations bill a similar
amendment that provided $3.9 billion to prepare for such a pandemic. At
that time, we did not know when or if the Labor-HHS bill would ever
come to the Senate. Obviously, this is the appropriate place for it
since this appropriations subcommittee under the leadership of Senator
Specter has jurisdiction over both the Department of Health and Human
Services and also the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and
also the National Institutes of Health.
Between last month when this amendment was adopted on the Defense
appropriations bill and now, I have gone back to NIH, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, and a number of drug companies involved
in either vaccine production or the production of antivirals to get a
better handle on what it is we need to do. Just what is it?
I will admit that in the first amendment, which I offered on the
Defense appropriations bill, we were missing some information. But now
we have that information. So the amendment we have before us today is a
more robust version of that earlier amendment we had on the Defense
appropriations bill which was adopted by the Senate. This version is
based on more and better information.
There is a broad consensus in the scientific community as to the
steps we need to take to get ready for a potential pandemic. Reflecting
that scientific consensus, this amendment will do four broad things.
One, as our first line of defense, it will dramatically step up
international surveillance of avian flu outbreaks overseas.
Two, it will ramp up our vaccine production infrastructure here in
the United States.
Three, it will give us resources to build up both stockpiles of
vaccines currently believed to be effective against avian flu as well
as stockpiling antiviral medications that you take if, in fact, you get
infected.
Fourth, this amendment will strengthen our public health
infrastructure at the Federal, State, and local levels, which today is
simply not equipped to cope with a major pandemic.
Some have suggested that we be patient and we wait for the
administration to put forward a plan to fight avian flu. We have
already waited too long. I am not saying we don't need a plan. We do
need an action plan. But we have been warned for years. The first
warning came in 1997 that an avian flu pandemic was not just possible
but likely, just as we were warned for years that the levees in New
Orleans would fail in the case of a major hurricane. Yet the Federal
Government did not come forward with any plan of action. I am not
saying this Government under President Bush. It was previous Federal
Governments. We did not heed the warnings. As I might even say, we were
warned in 1997 about a coming avian flu pandemic. Well, nothing was
done then either. There is a lot of blame to go around. I am not
blaming anyone. I am saying, look, we have turned a blind eye and a
deaf ear to our warnings. Now we have to take action.
Within the last year, the threat of a pandemic has become even more
urgent and immediate. The alarm bells are ringing at full volume, and
we in Congress cannot in good conscience wait any longer. We need to
act. If the administration offers a plan at a later date, that is fine.
It will almost certainly have to include the elements we have in our
amendment. We are all talking to the same people, after all.
But here is the thing. I do not know when they are going to come up
with their plan. I do know at least there is talk around here that we
are going to adjourn by Thanksgiving, finish our business, be out of
here by Thanksgiving. Well, if the administration comes up with a plan
next week, or the week after, and we are out of here, what happens in
terms of needing the resources, the money? That is what we have.
Our responsibility as appropriators is to come up with the money.
That is what this amendment does, so that if the administration does
come up with a good action plan, we will not have lost any time. The
money will be there, and we can move ahead as rapidly as possible.
There is no question the United States is woefully unprepared for a
major outbreak of human-to-human transmitted avian flu. We have had
clear warnings, as we did prior to 9/11, prior to Katrina, but, again,
the Federal Government did not do anything. Now we have been warned in
no uncertain terms about avian flu, but, again, under two
administrations, nothing has happened.
As many of my colleagues know, avian flu--or H5N1, as it is called in
the scientific community--has passed from bird to bird and from birds
to humans.
[[Page 24066]]
We know of one specific case--we know of one specific case--where it
went from human to human. Now, there may be others, but we do know of
them. And we do know that 50 percent of the humans who have been
infected with avian flu have died--50 percent. It has a 50-percent
mortality rate. We also know another thing: Every chicken, every member
of the poultry family that has been infected with avian flu dies--100
percent. This is a very virulent strain.
Experts in virology at the Department of Health and Human Services
say it is only a matter of time before the virus mutates and human-to-
human transmission becomes both widespread and sustained. That has not
happened yet. We have had some cases of the avian flu jumping from a
bird to a human. As I said, we have had one known case of it going from
one human to another; and, I might add, both died. We have had no cases
where the transmission is both sustained and pervasive, widespread, but
the virologists say it is only a matter of time before that happens.
An outbreak in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, or anywhere such as that,
could trigger within weeks a worldwide outbreak, facilitated by air
travel, the mass movement of people across borders. As I said, 50
percent of the individuals who have been infected have died. You can
envision a nightmare scenario, a kind of 21st century ``Black Death''
that is not difficult to picture. Indeed, most experts say it is not a
matter of if but when.
Let me quote from an article that was in the recent Newsweek magazine
of October 31, an article by Fareed Zakaria, entitled ``A Threat Worse
Than Terror'':
``A flu pandemic is the most dangerous threat the United
States faces today,'' says Richard Falkenrath, who until
recently served in the Bush administration as deputy Homeland
Security adviser. ``It's a bigger threat than terrorism. In
fact it's bigger than anything I dealt with when I was in
government.''
One makes a threat assessment on the basis of two factors:
the probability of the event, and the loss of life if it
happened. On both counts, a pandemic ranks higher than a
major terror attack, even one involving weapons of mass
destruction. A crude nuclear device would probably kill
hundreds of thousands. A flu pandemic could easily kill
millions.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Newsweek article be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Newsweek]
A Threat Worse Than Terror
(By Fareed Zakaria)
``A flu pandemic is the most dangerous threat the United
States faces today,'' says Richard Falkenrath, who until
recently served in the Bush administration as deputy Homeland
Security adviser. ``It's a bigger threat than terrorism. In
fact it's bigger than anything I dealt with when I was in
government.'' One makes a threat assessment on the basis of
two factors: the probability of the event, and the loss of
life if it happened. On both counts, a pandemic ranks higher
than a major terror attack, even one involving weapons of
mass destruction. A crude nuclear device would probably kill
hundreds of thousands. A flu pandemic could easily kill
millions.
Whether this particular virus makes the final, fatal
mutation that allows it to move from human to human, one day
some virus will. The basic factor that is fueling this surge
of viruses is China's growth. (China is the natural habitat
of the influenza virus.) As China develops, it urbanizes, and
its forests and wetlands shrink. That forces migratory birds
to gather closer together--and closer to human habitation--
which increases the chances of a virus spreading from one
species to the next. Also, growth means a huge rise in
chicken consumption. Across thousands of homes in China every
day, chickens are slaughtered in highly unhygienic ways.
``Every day the chances that this virus or another such virus
will move from one species to another grow,'' says Laurie
Garrett, author of ``The Coming Plague,'' who has been
writing brilliantly on this topic for years.
Nobody really disputes that we are badly unprepared for
this threat. ``If something like this pandemic were to happen
today,'' says Falkenrath, ``the government would be mostly an
observer, not a manager.'' The government can't even give
intelligent advice to its citizens because it doesn't
actually know what to say. We don't know whether people
should stay put, leave cities, stay home or go to the nearest
hospital. During the cold war, hundreds of people in
government participated in dozens of crisis simulations of
nuclear wars, accidents and incidents. These ``tabletop
exercises'' were conducted so that if and when a real crisis
hit, policymakers would not be confronting critical decisions
for the first time. No such expertise exists for today's
deadliest threat.
Beyond short-term measures for this virus--mainly stocking
up on Tamiflu--the only credible response to the development
of countermeasures. The best response would be a general
vaccine that would work against all strains of the flu.
That's a tall order, but it could be achieved. The model of
the Manhattan Project is often bandied about loosely, but
this is a case in which it makes sense. We need a massive
biomedical project aimed at tackling these kinds of diseases,
whether they're natural or engineered by terrorists.
The total funding request for influenza-related research
this year is about $119 million. To put this in perspective,
we are spending well over $10 billion to research and develop
ballistic-missile defenses, which protect us against an
unlikely threat (even if they worked). We are spending $4.5
billion a year on R&D--drawings!--for the Pentagon's new
joint strike fighter. Do we have our priorities right?
The final sense in which we are unprepared is that we have
weak global organizations to deal with pandemics. The bird
flu is a problem that began in Guangdong, China, and spread
to Indonesia, Russia, Turkey, Romania and now possibly Iran.
It may move next into Africa. Some of these governments are
competent; others are not. Some hide information from
everyone; others simply refuse to share it with the United
States. We need a system that everyone will follow. The World
Health Organization should become the global body that
analyzes samples, monitors viruses, evaluates cures and keeps
track of the best practices. Yet the WHO leads a hand-to-
mouth existence, relying on the whims and grants of
governments. A year ago its flu branch had five people. Now
it has 12. It needs a much, much larger staff and its own set
of laboratories around the world that would allow it to
fulfill this clearinghouse function. Countries have finally
agreed to a new set of conventions that give the U.N. and the
WHO some of the authority they need. And Kofi Annan has
appointed one person to coordinate the global efforts to
fight pandemics.
Many people believed that globalization meant that
government would become less important. But as we see,
today's world has actually made government more crucial. Only
government can tackle a problem like this one, not by being
big but by being smart and effective. And we need good
governance not just at home but beyond. Without effective
international coordination, we are doomed to failure. John
Bolton once said that you could chop off 10 floors of the
United Nations and we'd all be better off. Let's hope that
the scientists fighting global diseases aren't on any of
those floors.
Mr. HARKIN. We have to ask some very tough questions now. Where do
our preparedness efforts stand? What can we do better? We are facing a
threat, a huge threat. We are doing nothing. We can do better. We must
do better for the American people to prepare for an avian flu pandemic.
First, let's look at the issue of global surveillance, which is No. 1
in terms of the first part of our amendment that we have addressed.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is doing a great job
working in cooperation with the World Health Organization and
governments in affected regions to detect the disease and to help stop
its spread. Dr. Gerberding, the head of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention in Atlanta--I don't know if she is getting any sleep now
because this is topmost on their agenda. They are on the case.
Surveillance can alert us to an outbreak, and governments can then
take measures to isolate the disease. This is our first line of
defense. The sooner we identify and contain an outbreak of human-to-
human transmitted avian flu virus, the better off we will be. To coin a
well-worn phrase: It is better to fight them over there than to fight
them here. It is better to stop H5N1, isolate it, contain it where it
might break out, rather than having it transmitted and brought to other
countries and brought to America.
Again, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention know how to do
this. We had success with surveillance during the SARS outbreak a
couple years ago. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
managed to control its spread. It never got to America. I think the
closest it got, if I am not mistaken, was Toronto. But we also learned
some invaluable lessons from the SARS episode. We learned we have
[[Page 24067]]
to be prepared, that our surveillance efforts have to be more than they
have been in the past.
Secretary Leavitt, who I know has also been on top of this, recently
took a tour of Southeast Asia. He took Dr. Fauci, the Director of the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Gerberding,
and others. I know they met with people in various parts of the
governments of several countries in Southeast Asia.
What I heard back from that is, while the governments are willing to
work with us, and to report and survey, a lot of times they do not have
the capacity, they do not have the knowledge, they do not have the
wherewithal of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They
could use our help. Many of these outbreaks of avian flu in those
countries are in remote locations, and the central government may not
have a lot of control over that.
If you take a small village where they have a lot of poultry, and
maybe that is one of their major sources of livelihood, and where they
do not understand the dimensions of avian flu and what it means, well,
maybe they do not report it, or it may be reported in a minor way. We
need people there on the ground who can move rapidly to the sites to
see whether a case of avian flu has broken out.
As I understand it, the governments of these countries are willing to
work with us to allow us to do that, but we do not have the resources
to do that right now because the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention simply does not have the money. That is what is in our
amendment: to give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the money
to be able to respond and get CDCP action prone, right now, in those
countries.
Secondly, what is the status of our capacity to produce vaccines here
in the United States? Unfortunately, the news is almost all bad. It is
astonishing that the United States has one plant--one plant--capable of
manufacturing flu vaccines. That plant happens to be in the State of
our distinguished chairman, Pennsylvania. It is a great company. They
do great work. I have met with them. They use one technology. It is
egg-based technology. That is basically the technology we have been
using for a long time in which to grow vaccines from a virus strain.
So since we only have that one plant right now, in the event of a
worldwide pandemic, the U.S. would have to rely on imported vaccines,
vaccines other countries may not be willing to ship to us. In other
words, the first responsibility of any government is to protect its own
people. If this pandemic ever breaks out, I doubt any other government
is going to be willing to ship us vaccines. They are going to want it
for their own people.
We are very vulnerable. We need to play some catch-up ball. The
Federal Government needs to help private industry develop more vaccine
manufacturing capacity. These should be next-generation cell-based
facilities, which would then be capable of producing vaccines at twice
the rate of egg-based facilities.
This is the only way we are going to be able to produce enough
vaccine rapidly enough to deal with a major outbreak. Right now it is
all egg-based. As I understand it, the manufacturing plant I mentioned
is in the process of enlarging its capacity for egg-based vaccines.
That is all well and good, but that still will not be enough to protect
us in the future. It will not be sufficient to take a strain of the
virus and develop a vaccine specifically for that virus in a short
period of time. Some say it would take 2 to 3 years to produce a
nonegg-based production capacity. I don't accept that. This is a matter
of incredible urgency. We have already given one grant to a company--it
is public, I can mention it--Sanofi Pasteur, which is the company based
in Pennsylvania that already has a cell-based vaccine manufacturing
plant which they are increasing. The Government has already given them
a grant--it was under a competitive bid situation--to build a cell-
based plant. That is all well and good. But we have to do a lot more
than that. We need two or three on line being built now, not just one.
Our goal should be to have the research and production capacity to
isolate a virus, convert it to a vaccine, produce enough vaccine for
the American populace, all within a timeframe of 3 to 6, maybe 9 months
at the most. We can do that. That can be done. We don't have the
capacity to do it right now, and we are a long way from reaching that
goal.
Again, keep in mind that H5N1, the strain of the virus that is there
now, we have a vaccine for that. The National Institutes of Health,
under the great leadership of Dr. Zerhouni and Dr. Fauci at the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases--Dr. Fauci got a
strain of the virus earlier this year. They then began a crash program
to develop a vaccine. They have. That vaccine is now in clinical
trials. It looks as though it is going to be pretty good against H5N1.
But we have been warned by experts that H5N1 may not be the strain that
comes here. It could be H5N2, N3, N4, N5, something else just as
virulent. Experts believe the vaccine being developed will have some
effect, perhaps, on different strains, but they can't be sure.
What we need is a vaccine manufacturing capacity, cell-based, so you
can manufacture a vaccine in a hurry, so if a different strain were to
hit here, we could again isolate the virus, develop the vaccine, and
have a vaccine within 6 to 9 months, not just developed but also
manufactured in sufficient capacity to vaccinate our people. That is
also in our amendment.
I hasten to add that in our amendment, we don't specify exactly how
this is to be done. We will leave that up to the Secretary--hopefully,
working with us in a collaborative effort--to figure out the best way
of doing it. The point is to get the money out there now, to know it is
there, that we can move ahead with contractual relationships, cost-
share agreements, guaranteed purchases, whatever it takes to get these
facilities constructed in the shortest possible timeframe.
The third part of our amendment, we need an aggressive program of
purchasing and stockpiling vaccines and antivirals. I just talked about
vaccines. Vaccines are what you take to prevent getting the illness.
Antivirals are what would you take if you get the illness so you don't
get very sick. The World Health Organization a few years ago
recommended that nations stockpile enough antiviral medication to cover
at least 25 percent of the population. Guess where we are right now.
One percent. We have enough antiviral medication to cover 1 percent of
our people. Again, we have to play catch-up ball. Antivirals are the
medications one would take if they get sick. It will prevent a lot of
people from dying, help them get through the illness.
I had Senator Kennedy prepare this chart, which illustrates how
unprepared we are. These are the stockpiles of antiviral medicine.
Australia has enough for 20 percent of the population; Great Britain
has enough for 25 percent, the World Health Organization
recommendation; France has 25 percent; Japan is rapidly building up,
they are at 17 percent. The U.S.A. is at 1 percent stockpile of
medications. Again, if the pandemic hits here, are we going to go to
Britain and say: Send us some of yours, or Japan or France or some
other place? No. They are going to keep their antivirals for their own
people. That is why we need to put the money out right now to begin the
purchase of antivirals and to stockpile them. It has a long shelf life
so we don't have to worry about it. That is the antivirals.
As for vaccines, we are facing a catch-22 situation. We won't be able
to produce a vaccine until we actually see what the variant is, H5N1,
H5N3, whatever it might be that causes the outbreak. Scientists at NIH
have developed a vaccine for H5N1. They believe it will be effective
against some of the future variants, but we don't know exactly how
effective. It is the best we have. It will at least provide some
protection. We should be stockpiling it now.
The fourth part of our amendment is the public health infrastructure.
Right now our public health infrastructure is simply not capable of
dealing either with an avian flu pandemic or even a
[[Page 24068]]
major act of bioterrorism. Let's assume we build up adequate stocks of
the vaccine. Let's say we are able to get a crash course and we can get
up to 25 percent, like Great Britain, in our antivirals. Let's say we
can do that in a short period of time. I believe we can, if we put the
funds out there. Let's say we have all that. It is going to go for
naught if we don't have a public health infrastructure to deliver it,
to identify the people who need it, to make sure these drugs and
antivirals and vaccines get out there.
One thing I am upset about--the President's budget for fiscal year
2006 proposed to cut $120 million from State public health agencies.
That is the wrong way to go. Our amendment doesn't just restore that;
it goes a lot further. It is not enough just to restore the funding.
That funding would basically take care of ``normal'' illnesses people
get around the country. It wouldn't even come close if we had an
outbreak of avian flu. We need to hire more public health
professionals, epidemiologists, physicians, lab technicians, others. We
need people who are trained and educated to recognize, to know how to
isolate, to know how to put the rings around populations if avian flu
breaks out, and how to distribute it, who gets these, who is the first
line of individuals.
Someone is detected having avian flu; let's say they do get H5N1. How
do we find out who that person came in contact with in the last 48
hours, track them down, get them the vaccines immediately, or the
antivirals? Did the person work in a building that had central air-
conditioning that could have taken the virus and spread it around? Who
works there? Get them the antivirals and the vaccines immediately. This
takes expertise. This takes people. This takes a knowledge base and
education.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention know how to do it.
They can do it for minor outbreaks now. But something this big, we need
to do more to build up that public health infrastructure. In consonance
with the public health infrastructure, we need to dramatically increase
the surge capacity of hospitals all across the country. Most hospitals
right now have trouble coping if we have a bad flu season with what we
call ordinary flu. They would be overwhelmed by an avian flu pandemic.
Dr. Rick Blum, president of the American College of Emergency Room
Physicians, recently said:
We have pumped billions of dollars into preparedness since
9/11, but virtually none of that has gone to the one place
where we know 80 percent of patients go first, [the emergency
room].
For example, most victims of avian flu would need ventilators to help
them breathe. Right now there are only 105,000 ventilators in the
entire United States, three-quarters of them in use on any given
typical day. So we have to prepare for surge capacity. Where do the
tens of millions of Americans go? Don't take my word. Ask the experts.
That is what they are saying: a million to as high as maybe 10 million
hospitalizations.
We have our work cut out for us. We face enormous technical and
logistical challenges. We have no time to waste. This amendment would
provide for nearly $8 billion for a comprehensive national effort to
prepare in the ways I have outlined. More specifically, the total is
divided up as follows: $3.080 billion would be allocated for
stockpiling antivirals and the necessary medical supplies to deal with
a pandemic once it has broken out; $3.3 billion would go to stockpiling
flu vaccines, expanding the U.S. flu vaccine manufacturing capacity and
for vaccine-related research; $600 million in additional grants to
State and public health agencies for their own emergency preparedness;
$750 million to improve hospital preparedness and surge capacity--where
is the overflow going to go--and for health technology information
networks; $60 million for stepped-up global surveillance--this would
quadruple the current level of surveillance we have right now, our
first line of defense--$75 million allocated for communication and
outreach to the public in case of an avian flu pandemic.
Again, this is where you have to tread lightly. You want to get
people informed. People should be understanding of this. If a case of
avian flu were to break out in this country, we don't want panic to
ensue. People need to be adequately informed and advised. This has to
do with communications and outreach.
Lastly, $100 million will be channeled into research and CDC lab
capacity related to an avian flu pandemic.
Now, this is about double what we had in the Defense appropriations
bill almost a month ago. And the reason for that is simply because in
the meetings we have had with Government officials, with drug
companies, and others, it has become clear that the big gap in the
amendment we offered earlier was the $3.3 billion in stockpiling flu
vaccine and getting money out there to rapidly build cell-based
technology through vaccine-manufacturing plants. We have to do that
right away.
I know the analogy may not be correct, but when people say you can't
do that in a big hurry, I say just think about the Pentagon over here,
how big it is. Have you ever seen the Pentagon? We built the Pentagon
in 9 months during World War II, by the way. Now, I know that vaccine
manufacturing is not the same but, come on, we can do it. We can build
the facilities. A lot of it is in equipment. But if the money is there,
we know we can get the equipment built. Maybe we can't do it in 9
months, but don't tell me we can't do it within a year and a half, or
at least have a couple on line within a year. That is really the big
difference between this amendment and the one that was offered a month
ago on the Defense appropriations bill.
Let me again sum up by saying this is the proper bill for it to be
on. If we had had Labor-HHS earlier, we would have offered the
amendment to that. This is the proper place for it. We do have the
jurisdiction. It ought to be here. And, again, we are not tying the
hands of the Secretary or anyone else. We are not being absolutely
specific on how you do things in the amendment. We want the money to be
there. When the administration comes up with their plan and they want
to move ahead, it is there. We have 3 more weeks--I don't know how many
weeks. Everybody tells us 3 more weeks. Let's face it, there are a lot
of things happening in the administration--Supreme Court Justices,
other things that are bouncing around here that divert attention. We
cannot divert our attention. We cannot. We have to get this money out
there and get it appropriated.
I will have more to say perhaps later on. I know there are other
Senators who wish to speak on this amendment and about the threat of an
avian flu pandemic. So I will yield the floor at this time and just say
I hope we can have a strong vote or have this amendment accepted as we
did under the Defense appropriations bill that was taken up earlier.
And, again, this is emergency funding--emergency funding. It ought to
be emergency funding. It is something we have to do. We just cannot
wait any longer.
So I will yield the floor and ask any Senators who want to speak on
this amendment to come over and speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleague from
Iowa for his leadership on this very important issue. I spoke briefly
yesterday about the matter and expressed my agreement with the basic
thrust of what the Senator from Iowa is seeking to accomplish. There is
no doubt that we face a tremendous potential problem with the impact,
which could be devastating, as Senator Harkin has outlined.
We have been awaiting a plan from the administration because in the
normal course of events, with the expertise at the Department of Health
and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control, we would look
to the administration to give us an appraisal as to what their plans
are, what their evaluation has been, and how much money they think they
need.
Senator Harkin has gone over a number of facts and factors, but the
executive branch has more at its disposal than does the Congress, at
least at this
[[Page 24069]]
stage. Our subcommittee has scheduled a hearing on this issue. It is
fair to say that we have been under a heavy workload in preparing this
bill, and we have had other very heavy commitments, most notably in the
confirmation proceedings which were recently concluded for Chief
Justice Roberts, and the confirmation hearings which have been intense
for Ms. Harriet Miers until her withdrawal this morning.
We have been in touch with the executive branch and have sought to
get information from them as to what they would like to have done. And
I have a call in to Secretary Leavitt at the moment, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, to get as much information as we can from
the executive branch.
We have been exploring an alternative and are in the process of
modifying the amendment from the Senator from Iowa to call for the
disbursement of these funds at the discretion of the President after
consultation with certain designated Members of the Congress. We are
now talking about the breadth of what we have in mind: The chairmen and
ranking members of the Appropriations committees of both Houses,
perhaps adding the chairmen and ranking members of the Appropriations
subcommittees on labor, health and human services and education. Also,
the suggestion has been made about having the chairmen and ranking
members of the committees on health, education, labor, and pensions. We
are trying to sort through that now to have a workable consultation but
leaving the judgment to the President.
We are well aware of the very substantial sum of money which is in
this amendment, in the range of $8 billion. We are also well aware of
the scope and magnitude of the problem. It would have to receive 60
votes to have an emergency designation but, again, with the
expenditures in the hands of the President, there is about as good an
assurance as you can have it would be wisely disbursed.
At any rate, we are in the midst of trying to work this through. If
the Congress does not act--we are not too far away from adjournment--
the funding will not be present. The President can't spend money
without the appropriation coming from the Congress. If there is to be
an emergency supplemental, all of that takes time. And once you go
through a supplemental, then there is the risk of it becoming a
Christmas tree with many other items being included.
So when we have the appropriations for the Department of Health and
Human Services and this subcommittee working with that Department and
with the Centers for Disease Control, we are the logical subcommittee
to take up the issue and to grapple with it. We, obviously, are very
concerned about the responsibility for appropriating this kind of
funding.
So that is where we stand. I note the senior Senator from Illinois
has come to the floor, and Senator Harkin and I would urge anyone else
who wants to speak to come to the floor now because we are going to be
moving for a vote on this subject in the immediate short timespan.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator just yield for a minute?
Mr. SPECTER. I do.
Mr. HARKIN. I want to respond by thanking the chairman and my good
friend from Pennsylvania for his great leadership on this issue. You
said it about me, but you have been the chairman. You have led this
subcommittee. You know what is needed. You have been first and foremost
in insisting that we get the funds necessary for both CDC and for NIH
for this research.
I might just say again for public knowledge, obviously our chairman,
the Senator from Pennsylvania, has to wear other hats. As chairman of
the Judiciary Committee he has been tied up a lot on Supreme Court
nominees, and I recognize he has had to deal with that on his side, in
chairing that committee. It is an awesome responsibility, and I commend
him for the work he has done, by the way. I thought the hearings on
Judge Roberts were superb, and I commend my friend for his leadership
in chairing that committee.
So we find ourselves in the situation now where we have asked for
information in the past, but things happen around here and we move on
and our focus gets diverted a little bit on this and that. That is
human nature. I understand that. I hope we can hear back from the
administration.
I say to my friend from Pennsylvania that I have no problem in
modifying the amendment or whatever it might be that would say that the
money is there. In fact, the amendment does not say how they would
spend it. It would be there for them. If there is any way we can modify
that, if they have some other ways on what to do, that is fine with me.
I do not mind that at all. I am just concerned that we have it there so
that we don't have to come back at some point and they can't say, well,
we would do it, but Congress didn't appropriate the money.
I sure do not want to have that sitting on our plate, I say to
chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment being
offered by the Senator from Iowa. It might not be this winter, it might
not be next winter, but it is going to happen. The virtual certainty of
a pandemic flu is what public health leaders are telling us we as a
country need to be prepared for. So are we prepared? The obvious answer
is no.
Last week, HCD Research polled 846 doctors from across the country
about their sense of how well prepared America is to face a pandemic
flu. Four out of five of the doctors surveyed said America is not
prepared for a public health crisis that we have been told is virtually
certain to occur.
When it comes to public health challenges, America can do better.
What is our national leadership on this issue? We still do not have a
national pandemic preparedness plan. The administration has been
working on a plan, literally, for years.
As we head into this flu season, still there is no plan coming from
this administration. Communities need Federal guidance. This is not an
issue where every village, every town, every State can make its own
policy.
California's State health officer said:
While state and local officials have been taking what steps
they can to prepare for avian flu, they've been eagerly
anticipating a national preparedness plan to tell them how to
seal up those gaps. And where is that plan? The
administration tells us to expect one sometime soon but it is
long, long overdue.
Japan has had its national pandemic preparedness plan in place since
1997. Canada, Austria, Great Britain, all have a national preparedness
plan in place. We look forward to seeing this plan from this
administration.
In the meantime, I am joining Senators Harkin, Obama, and Kennedy to
offer this pandemic flu amendment. Senator Harkin has been our voice
and our leader on this issue. Senator Kennedy has made a lifetime of
public service devoted to public health issues. Senator Obama, my new
colleague from the State of Illinois, was one of the first to speak out
in our State and bring this to my attention and the attention of so
many Members. I salute all three of them for their extraordinary
leadership.
This proposal would make $8 billion available to immediately ramp up
preparation for the flu pandemic, whether it is the H5N1 strain now
rampant in birds or another virulent strain that might threaten us. We
know this pandemic is virtually inevitable, in the words of Dr.
Gerberding of the Centers for Disease Control.
What does this amendment do? It gives the Federal health agencies
what they need to move immediately and aggressively to get this country
ready for a global pandemic flu.
Let's start with hospitals. That is an important line of defense for
people sick with flu. Communities and hospitals need to develop surge
capacity to figure out how to take care of people when the beds are
filled and the emergency room is overwhelmed and the neighboring
counties face similar situations. The Trust for America's Health
anticipates U.S. hospitals will swell by more than 2 million people if
we face this flu pandemic. But Health and Human Services Secretary
Leavitt has worried aloud that communities haven't even prepared for
this surge in hospital admissions.
[[Page 24070]]
The American College of Emergency Physicians President Rick Blum
says:
We've pumped billions of dollars into preparedness since 9/
11 but virtually none of that has gone to the one place where
we know that 80 percent of the patients go first.
Whether it is a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, or a public
health disaster, hospitals are stretched now to have staff to handle
the daily flow of patients. They are already operating with a real
shortage of nurses and other health professionals.
Realistically, aren't a significant percentage of those health care
workers going to get sick themselves if we have a new pandemic or stay
away from the clinical setting once the pandemic hits?
These are serious and important questions we need to ask, answer, and
be prepared to face.
The Harkin amendment provides $750 million for communities to prepare
for additional hospital beds and working with shortages of doctors,
nurses, and other health professionals.
The amendment also provides $3 billion so the Federal Government can
get in line to buy antiviral medicines to have on hand for an outbreak
of flu. Until there is cash in hand to purchase the drugs, the
Government cannot contractually commit to buy them; they cannot even
get in line to buy them.
The United States has about 2.3 million courses of antiviral
medications stockpiled--2.3 million for a nation of our size. We expect
another 2 million by the end of next month. That is enough to treat
about 2 percent of the U.S. population, far short of the international
standard of 20 to 25 percent.
Senator Frist has asked the Secretary to try to increase that
stockpile to ensure treatment so that we could treat 50 percent of
America. Our amendment would provide Secretary Leavitt with the
resources he needs to make it happen. We go beyond political rhetoric
to political reality.
Our amendment also provides $3.3 billion so we can intensify our
search for a vaccine that could protect Americans from contracting flu
in the first case. If we can develop and manufacture a vaccine that is
effective against the pandemic flu, we might be able to stop this flu
epidemic in its tracks. Testing drugs is expensive. It is time
consuming. We have to invest in it and invest in it now.
The amendment also adds $60 million for global surveillance. I heard
one public health official describe this as ``situational awareness.''
Margaret Chan, who leads the pandemic flu planning efforts for the
World Health Organization, estimates there is a window of only ``20 to
21 days'' in which a local outbreak could be controlled before it is
turned loose on the world.
Fareed Zakaria, in the recent issue of Newsweek on this particular
issue of the flu pandemic, wrote as follows:
Many people believed that globalization meant that
government would become less important. But as we see,
today's world has actually made government more crucial. Only
government can tackle a problem like this one, not by being
big but by being smart and effective. And we need good
governance not just at home but beyond. Without effective
international coordination, we are doomed to failure.
If we hope to contain this flu, we have to know where and when the
first outbreak occurs, and we can only do that if we step up the work
we are doing with other countries to monitor contagious diseases.
Karen Hughes, a confidante of President Bush, now with the State
Department, recently spoke about the $5.5 million the United States has
spent on technical assistance to other countries--$5.5 million. That is
not enough, and we know it.
Secretary Leavitt concluded his trip to seven Asian countries with
this observation:
Right now, the world's surveillance is not adequate to
protect us.
Many people in the Bush administration are acknowledging the problem.
What we want them to do is acknowledge the solution, the Harkin-
Kennedy-Obama amendment. We need this money. Americans deserve Federal
leadership. We need leadership that prepares us for a disaster, not
just telling us it is coming but doing something. America can do better
to make our individuals and families safe from these public health
threats.
A few weeks ago, President Bush praised John Barry's book, ``The
Great Influenza,'' a historical account of the 1918 pandemic flu. If
you read the book, you will find John Barry was critical of the role of
Government in that influenza outbreak. He blamed lack of preparation in
this country on Congress. Here is what he said:
They cut every budget request in half.
Are we facing the same thing today? Are we doomed to repeat that same
mistake when it comes to this avian influenza? We will not be if we
take the leadership initiative of Senator Harkin. We are not seeing the
leadership from the White House at this moment that the country needs.
It is time for Congress to move decisively, to enact this amendment, to
provide direction in funding and progress to prepare the United States
for the virtual certainty of a pandemic flu outbreak.
Senator Frist has made it clear he wants the Senate to finish its
business and go home by Thanksgiving, but unless and until we address
the avian flu pandemic, we should not go home. We should go home to an
America that gives thanks that its leaders in Congress--in the House
and the Senate--had the vision and determination to deal with this
public health challenge. Our work will not be completed until we do.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
withdrawal of the nomination of harriet miers
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Harriet Miers confirmation process
has been one of the most unusual and troubling Supreme Court
nominations in our modern history.
The loudest voices heard in this process were the voices of the
extreme factions of the President's own political party.
They had a litmus test, and they decided Harriet Miers didn't meet
that test even before giving her a fair chance to have her own voice
heard. That is not what the confirmation process is about, and their
litmus test is not what the Supreme Court is about.
The more Ms. Miers's record indicated that she might in fact be
personally committed to the basic constitutional rights and liberties
that make our country what it is for all Americans, the more committed
those extreme groups and their partisan voices in the media became to
prevent her nomination from being confirmed by the Senate.
Most of us in the Senate were ready to give Harriet Miers a fair
chance and a fair hearing. We wanted to have a dignified process in
which the evidence would come first, and then the decision, and Harriet
Miers deserved that chance.
It is disingenuous for the President to suggest that Senators'
insistence on White House records was somehow responsible for the
withdrawal of the Miers' nomination. If the President were willing to
stand up to the extremists in his party, a realistic compromise could
easily have been found on this issue.
The fact that the White House and Senate Republicans were not willing
to stand up for principle and fairness against the extremists in their
midst should be disturbing to all Americans. But now we have all seen
that fringe of our society at its worst, and we know that their agenda
is not the Nation's agenda.
President Bush has an opportunity now to unite the country. In
choosing the next nominee, he should listen to all Americans, not just
the far right.
If he does, we can have a smooth and dignified confirmation process
and avoid the kind of harsh battle that the extremists on the right
seem bent on provoking.
President Bush should take whatever time is necessary to find a
consensus nominee to fill Justice O'Connor's seat on the Court.
Justice O'Connor is willing to serve the Court and the Nation for as
long as it takes, so there is no need to rush to send a new nominee to
the Senate. Hopefully, the next selection will share
[[Page 24071]]
Justice O'Connor's values and her commitment to the Nation's progress
in achieving equal rights for all.
We are reminded that the nomination of Justice O'Connor was sent to
the Senate by President Reagan and had a unanimous vote in the Senate.
She has served with great distinction and eloquence and is a beloved
figure in the United States.
That kind of nomination brought the country together. It certainly is
an opportunity now for the President to follow what President Ronald
Reagan did in bringing the country together on a Supreme Court nominee.
It seems to me that would best serve the country, best serve the
Constitution, and best serve the Supreme Court.
Amendment No. 2283, as Modified
Mr. President, I thank my friend from Iowa, Senator Harkin, for his
extraordinary leadership on the issue of avian flu. I thank my other
colleagues in the Senate--Senator Reid, Senator Barack Obama, Senator
Durbin, and others--who have been important voices in helping us focus
the attention of this body on the issue of avian flu.
I also acknowledge the support that has been given to the Harkin
proposal by the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee dealing
with health, Senator Specter. I also acknowledge and commend the work
of my colleagues and friends, the chairman of our Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Enzi, and Senator Burr, the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health
Preparedness. He has spent a great portion of his time in the Senate,
working on biodefense and related public health threats, and the
challenges in developing countermeasures, vaccines and antivirals to
deal with new public health challenges.
We are at a very important step. We are on an issue which is of such
central importance to health care that we have seen the Senate come
together. There are a lot of issues that are divisive, but it seems
that we are making remarkable progress in this area.
Our legislation is timely. I remind the Senate that this issue,
pandemic flu, has been a concern of the world community for some time.
This chart says, ``The U.S. Missed the Warning Signs of the Flu
Pandemic.'' The Institute of Medicine warned us about this in 1992;
then we had the General Accounting Office warning us in November of
2000. This is what the General Accounting Office had stated:
Influenza pandemic. Plan Needed for Federal and State
Response, November 2000.
Despite these warnings, we still do not have a plan.
The warnings continue: In the year 2001, we had the warning of the
European Commission, and in 2002 the World Health Organization. And
then we have had recent outbreaks take place in South Korea and
Vietnam.
The current avian flu strain poses a deadly threat. If you have this
virus, this chart displays the chances of survival. One can see from
this chart that there is only a 50-percent chance of survival. Granted,
there have only been several dozen cases in each of these countries,
but nonetheless, this figure, of 50 percent, does show that we are in
great danger if there is a pandemic.
We have seen other countries move ahead: Japan released its pandemic
plan in October 1997; Canada, February 2004; the Czech Republic, April
2004; Hong Kong, February 2005; Britain, March 2005; and the United
States, we're still waiting.
What is important here is the fact that we are taking three major
approaches to preparing for a pandemic.
One, we are going to have an important commitment to stockpiling
antivirals and vaccines. That is going to be enormously important,
particularly given the fact that we have such an inadequate stockpile
today. We've stockpiled antivirals for only 1 percent of the
population. This is incredibly low in comparison to other countries.
With this amendment, we will have the opportunity to stockpile what is
needed.
Secondly, we will be supporting efforts to detect the potential
spread of the virus globally and in the United States, and we provide
resources to contain it and improve our surge capacity, which is
enormously important.
I know there are some differences with our friends and colleagues on
the other side about the public health aspects of this. And I know
Senator Burr is strongly committed to doing a review of the entire
public health system and making a series of recommendations--which I
think are going to be enormously important, and I look forward to
joining him--but this is a small downpayment to ensure we begin making
progress in the area of pandemic preparedness and public health.
A review of any other country's pandemic preparedness plan will show
that it is not only the stockpiling of the vaccines and antivirals
that's needed, but also the public health component. So this has that
dimension, which is very important: improving the public health system,
and stockpiling antivirals and vaccines.
The third aspect, which will be included in the proposal by Senator
Enzi and Senator Burr and others, will deal with the incentives that
will be made available to industry to develop countermeasures and
vaccines, and also, hopefully, some compensation, for example, for
first responders who might take a particular vaccine or antiviral that
might not have gone through the complete safety process at the FDA and
still, as a first responder, be committed and dedicated to protecting
the public. We want to make sure that if those individuals, who are
committed to protecting the public, suffer from an adverse reaction to
the vaccine or antiviral, they won't be left high and dry. They deserve
protection for themselves and for their families.
This is a complex issue, but I think the Senate has come together and
will come together with the succeeding legislation in a very important
way.
The final dimension is where the administration, HHS, will be in
terms of their plan. We eagerly await its release. We understand it
will be forthcoming in a very short period of time, but we don't have
it yet.
We have seen examples of national pandemic plans, for example, the
Canadian plan which was issued in 2004, that talks about what does this
plan address? Who is responsible for pandemic planning? It goes into
the roles and responsibilities of all of the different governmental
agencies.
Why is this an important health issue? It goes into great detail
about what is going to be communicated to the public, the legal
considerations, the ethical considerations, and then it goes into what
preparations are being made. It addresses specific components of the
preparation: surveillance, vaccine, antivirals, health service,
emergency planning, emergency service, public health interests,
communications, and then what needs to happen to ensure a comprehensive
response. It goes into a whole series of recommendations and details
what will be involved in the recovery.
This plan is very thorough. I think the American people are entitled
to that kind of plan in order to protect their health and safety.
I thank Senator Harkin, Senator Specter, my friend and colleague
Senator Enzi, Senator Burr, and others who have been involved. I think
this is going to be an enormously important and historic action by the
Senate when it is completed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I express my appreciation for the comments
of Senator Kennedy, Senator Harkin, and others on the floor, discussing
the importance of this biodefense legislation in the overall response
to bird flu and other potential infectious diseases.
I express special thanks to Senator Burr and Senator Kennedy for
their help on the subcommittee that has been in charge of this, for the
extensive hearings they have had, which have included a number of
meetings many of us attended with experts from around the world who
deal with these problems, and for coming up with a comprehensive
solution that will address whatever happens to come up, whether it is
avian flu, SARS, or some other pandemic we have not envisioned yet.
We have a bill that was reported out of the committee a little over a
week ago that deals with that comprehensive
[[Page 24072]]
response. I am hoping everybody will take a look at the work we did on
that. Again, I want to express my thanks to Senator Burr for his work
and the leadership he has provided.
One of the key principles of that legislation is that our response
activities must be more broadly focused, not focused solely on the
latest, newly emerging disease. So that, even if bird flu never becomes
a pandemic, we will be prepared for the next infectious disease, as I
mentioned, perhaps even a new SARS outbreak. The money spent will not
be wasted because the process that will be set up will be able to
handle a wide range of things.
Given that, I believe the additional funding for a potential flu
pandemic should be focused on broader response activities. In examining
the initial amendment proposed by Senator Harkin, and as Senator
Kennedy discussed on the floor yesterday, the overall funding was
intended for stockpiling antivirals, strengthening public health
responses, increasing global health surveillance, dramatically
increasing the vaccine infrastructure, improving hospital preparedness,
including surge capacity and health information technology systems, and
other key elements.
These elements are broader than bird flu. If targeted appropriately
and implemented properly, it will mean that we Americans will be better
prepared for whatever new infectious disease comes our way, not just
bird flu. That is why I have worked with Senator Harkin to come up with
an amendment that clarifies we are going for the broader picture that
all of us worked on in committee.
I was pleased with the unanimous response we had for getting it out
of committee. So rather than the funding provided in the Labor, HHS
bill being for a very limited thing, we want to focus on the broader
context we have all worked on and agreed on, for the most part. We will
be bringing a bill to the floor, I hope, to cover this in great detail
and then a second bill that will deal with public health.
I appreciate the work Senator Harkin has done on this and the way he
has brought it to the attention of the American public. I appreciate
the work of Senator Burr on this to have a bill that actually does this
comprehensively. I also appreciate the way people are working together
to come up with a safe, secure United States.
I particularly thank the Senator from Texas for her indulgence, and I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I do thank the Senator from Wyoming
for the great leadership he is providing for our Nation to start
preparing us for the different types of flu viruses that might come our
way. I know he has worked very hard on this in his chairmanship of the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I certainly was
pleased to hear his comments on this very important issue. It is one
that is important for all of us to assure that our country is ready if
we have the kind of pandemic that could happen. It reminds me of Y2K
when many were concerned that computers would crash all over America
when we turned into the next century, and because we were prepared,
there was no crisis. That is what I hope is the result of our
addressing the potential flu strains that may be making their way
across the world and could affect Americans in the future.
Harriet Miers
Mr. President, I particularly will talk today about my friend Harriet
Miers. All of us were stunned this morning--I certainly was--when I
heard she had submitted her resignation as a nominee to the Supreme
Court because I have total confidence in her. I have total confidence
she would have been a superb Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States. I have that confidence because I know her.
Many people were making judgments before they knew her. They were not
giving her the benefit of the opportunity to come into an open forum
and talk about her views.
She wrote today to the President: As you know, Members of the Senate
have indicated their intention to seek documents about my service in
the White House in order to judge whether to support me. I have been
informed repeatedly that in lieu of records I would be expected to
testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my
experience and judicial philosophy. While I believe that my lengthy
career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination,
I am convinced the efforts to obtain executive branch materials and
information will continue.
This is a letter that was written by a woman who cares more about our
country, more about our President and his role and the respect for his
role under the separation of powers in the Constitution, than she cares
about a wonderful cap for a wonderful career, and that is her career. I
admire her even more, if that is possible, for the decision she has
made. I have to say I am disappointed in that decision because I know
she would have been a superb Justice. She would have been a strict
constructionist. She would have been a judge who knew the place of a
judge, not to make law, which is a requirement and responsibility for
those elected for that purpose. She would have been a Justice who
looked at and interpreted the law.
I will tell my colleagues what else Harriet Miers would have done
that I think is very important. She would have known what it was she
could do on the Supreme Court to give guidance to legislatures, to
Members of Congress, to clients who are being represented by lawyers
throughout the country, about how the law should be interpreted. She
would have given the guidance to legislatures about what the
constitutional requirement would be.
When one is giving tests for discrimination, for instance, the
Supreme Court has said there are varying tests for discrimination.
There are rigid tests in some circumstances, there are more moderate
tests in other circumstances. I would like to have had someone on the
Court with real-world experience to more clearly define those tests so
that Congress, so that legislatures, would know when they pass a law
more how the Court would interpret that law in light of a more clear
path to the right result.
I would have liked someone who has had the experience of living in a
part of the country that is different from other members of the Court.
I think we need diversity of geography. I think there are different
issues in eminent domain, in business and commerce, in regard for
private property rights, in States that have a lot of Federal lands
versus States that do not have a lot of Federal lands. There are
different approaches to these issues by people who live in different
parts of the country and I think that kind of diversity is important.
This is a woman who has been a leader in the legal field. She worked
her way through SMU Law School. She was also case notes editor of the
Southwestern Law Journal, which is now the SMU Law Review. She became
one of the first women to be hired by a major Dallas law firm as an
associate. She then rose to lead that law firm, to be the managing
partner, the first woman to do so in the State of Texas. She worked in
the leadership of the bar association, which is the legal organization
that sets the standards of ethics, propriety, and practice for our
lawyers in this country. She rose to be the first woman president of
the Dallas Bar Association and later the first woman president of the
State Bar Association.
I graduated from law school about the same time she did. I graduated
from the University of Texas. She graduated from SMU. I know how hard
it was to get a job. I know the obstacles she faced. I know she did not
have the door opened for her with her outstanding record at SMU that
many of our male colleagues in law school had. Yet, she attacked those
barriers with a positive attitude and spirit. She knew if she proved
herself, she would be rewarded as anyone else. She never gave up.
She caught the eye of a Governor of Texas, and she had been a
Democrat. I think everyone knows she was a Democrat in the early years.
Most people in
[[Page 24073]]
Texas were. In 1989, she made a decision that she wanted to support a
Republican, George W. Bush. That changed her views in many things. I
think some of the things that were being brought up from before she
changed her views and her support have been used to indicate she is not
firm in her views. Well, I think she is firm in her views. I think she
is firmly a strict constructionist, a person who has proven herself
intellectually in business, in experience, and in leadership. She would
have been a terrific Justice. I do not think she was given her due.
I am disappointed, but I do not question her decision because I know
she made the decision on the right points and for the right reasons.
She wanted to protect the Presidency from invasion of the rights of the
President.
Can you imagine if a President had to stop and think--before asking
advice from his legal counsel or his top staff as he is trying to make
an important decision for our country: If I ask this question in
writing, is that going to be recoverable in the public arena? Do I then
have to temper what I say?
A President cannot talk to each of his staff members all day. He has
many other responsibilities, so he has to communicate in writing. I
think he should be able to communicate with his key staff people as he
is in the decision making process, and I think he should not have to
worry that it is going to, all of a sudden, be misconstrued in the
public arena when it was part of his decision making process.
That is what Harriet Miers is also trying to protect. She is giving
up probably something she never dreamed she would be, because it is the
pinnacle of a legal career to be a Justice on the Supreme Court. She is
giving that up because she believes that right of the President would
either be invaded or it would be made a cause celebre, and that would
not be healthy for our country or for the President. So she gave up
what could have been a dream of hers, to do what is right for our
country.
I want to reaffirm my view that she would have been an excellent
Supreme Court Justice, that she had the right background and
experience, that she would have brought a viewpoint that is a very
important viewpoint to the Court. You know, if we didn't want diversity
of experience in making these important decisions, we would have one
Justice of the Supreme Court; we wouldn't have to have nine. Our
Founding Fathers decided to have nine. I think they were right, as they
are in so many parts of the Constitution that they thought would be
important for the Constitution to last over 200 years. I think
diversity of experience and background is very helpful for a Court of
nine Justices.
I am disappointed today, but I am very supportive of her decision
because it was her decision and because she made it for the right
reasons. I wish her well and I am very pleased she is going to stay as
White House Counsel, one of the most important jobs in the White House.
She will continue serving our country. When I talked to her this
morning she was upbeat, she was positive, she was strong, and I know
she will be a great contributor to the United States of America and to
the President she serves. I commend her today, with all that she has
gone through, for the grace with which she has gone through it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. I understand there are other speakers who wish to be
heard on the pandemic amendment. I urge them to come to the floor now.
We still have quite a list of amendments to deal with. It is Thursday
afternoon. I know that is a signal of Members' special interest.
To those who have amendments they want to have heard and disposed of
before we go to third reading and final passage, I urge them to come to
the floor at this time.
In the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to address the issue which is being
debated here relative to the amendment by Senator Harkin regarding the
avian flu and how we are going to address this very serious potential
pandemic. We all recognize this is a threat of dramatic proportions,
not only to our society but to the world generally. As a Congress, we
have tried to begin to address this matter relative to other issues
that could have an equal impact, involving biologics that could be used
against our society in a terrorist attack.
Three years ago I authored a bill called the BioShield bill. Along
with a number of Members of this Senate, including Senator Kennedy, who
was the ranking member of the committee I chaired at that time, the
HELP Committee, we put together a package which basically created a
structure which we hoped would lead to development of vaccines to
address the threat which was posed by the use of biological weapons
against our country, specifically things such as smallpox, anthrax,
botulism, and plague.
That proposal, the BioShield bill, was funded at $5.6 billion, which
is a lot of money. The reason we put that much money in the pipeline
was because we wanted to create an incentive for the pharmaceutical
industry and for startup biological companies to begin to develop
vaccines.
Our country, regrettably, has seen basically a devastation of the
vaccine industry. We used to have 30 to 40 companies that were involved
in the production of vaccines. Regrettably, that number is down to
three or four. The reason we have seen this dramatic reduction in
companies that are willing to invest in research and then develop
vaccines is pretty simple. The return on investing in a vaccine is
significantly less than the cost of investing in that vaccine as looked
at through the eyes of a pharmaceutical company or those of a
biological company, because of the threat of lawsuit.
The fact is, the potential liabilities created by doing a vaccine are
so huge that no amount of projected return on investment, from an
investment standpoint, ever justifies creating a vaccine. So the
vaccine companies have essentially contracted in this country and the
assets which were being used to develop vaccines historically are now
being used to develop other types of pharmaceuticals.
The second reason there has been a contraction, at least in these
areas, is there is no use for these vaccines unless an event occurs
because there is no smallpox in this world right now, thank goodness,
and vaccines against smallpox would not be necessary unless there were
a smallpox outbreak. And there could not be a smallpox outbreak unless
there were a terrorist event that uses smallpox as a weapon. It is a
fact that you cannot have a smallpox outbreak in this world today
unless there were an intentional decision to spread the smallpox by
somebody who had a terrorist intent. So for a company to go in and
develop a vaccine for that means they would be developing a vaccine
which has no market.
The BioShield theory was: Put a lot of money in the pipeline to
create an economic incentive for companies and researchers and
biological groups to pursue creation of vaccines only in those areas
where there is no vaccine today or there is limited vaccine
availability today and where the threat is not a common threat that
would be spread in a way other than through terrorism.
We listed the top six threats, No. 1 being smallpox, No. 2 anthrax,
followed by things such as botulism and plague spread by a terrorist
event, and said we
[[Page 24074]]
would use this $5.6 billion to try to develop these vaccines.
We thought we had therefore moved the issue along and started to
resolve the issue. It turns out we did not. It turns out the BioShield
bill, even though it had $5.6 billion behind it, has not energized the
market or research atmosphere we hoped for. It turns out that only $1
billion has been spent on purchasing smallpox capability, the known
manufacturing process for which had already existed. So we have learned
a fairly significant lesson here which needs to be applied to the avian
flu issue, and that is why it is important. The lesson is this: Even
though you put a lot of money in the pipeline, you are not going to
resolve the problem--the problem being resolved, of course, by having
scientists being willing to develop ways to address these types of
disease threats--unless you also put in place the mechanisms to create
the atmosphere for the production of the vaccine.
So last week or 2 weeks ago the HELP Committee passed a creative and
strong bill, which was authored primarily by the Senator from North
Carolina, Mr. Burr, which attempted to address the entire issue in a
packaged way of how you energize the American creative spirit to
produce responses and vaccines which will protect us from not only
terrorist threats but things such as avian flu.
One of the key elements of that is money. But another key element of
that is the liability protection. So I came to the floor today to make
it clear that even though it is correct that we need to put a
significant amount of money in place, and put it in place soon--the
amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa relative to the Defense
bill, I think is the right approach. This amendment as an emergency
supplemental, if it is put in place with the defense money being
considered and in the context of what the administration is going to
send up here as a proposal, probably within the next week, also may
well be the right course. But all this money that is going to be put on
the table is not going to solve the problem unless we are also
sensitive to the fact that there are other forces out there that are
limiting the willingness of the research community and the vaccine
development community to pursue solutions. We have to take all those
hurdles out of the way, not just one of them out of the way.
It is critical that we do a comprehensive approach to this. I
understand within a week or so the White House is going to send us a
comprehensive approach. It is critical that we get that type of
leadership on this. But we, as a Senate, at least, have already
proposed a comprehensive approach through the proposal of Senator Burr,
and we should make sure any movement in this area be tied to the
proposal of Senator Burr and the HELP Committee, which was reported
out, and the much more comprehensive amendment of Senator Enzi.
This is a much more complex problem than putting money into it. We
already know from our personal experience through the BioShield that
putting money into it is not going to get the type of response we need.
It has to be more than dollars; it has to be policy.
Some of the specific things we need to do, beyond reforming the
liability structure so we have people willing to participate in the
vaccines, is to purchase a vaccine where it is available. Some
obviously are available now, but the vaccine for avian flu is limited.
Tamiflu has some serious limitations in its applicability, although
there are other things in development which may work a lot better.
We also have to have research capacity to handle an event like this
in basic things such as surgical masks and hypodermic needles and bed
capacity.
All this has to be put together in a comprehensive structure, and
there has to be a clearer form of how we would execute were we to be
hit with a pandemic, with the responsibility being allocated and people
knowing who they would be reporting to and how we would get action
taken.
There are a lot of things in play here to effectively address the
avian flu issue, much of which is being addressed as a Congress, but
much of which has to be addressed also by the administration and which
we expect to see in the next few weeks from the administration--and
dollars are only part of it.
I wanted to put that caveat on the table. If we were to simply vote
for the proposal from Senator Harkin and say we have done our job, we
need to pass the Burr language. And we need to make sure the
administration is aggressively pursuing a comprehensive and orderly
approach to how they will deal with it, should an outbreak occur. I
know they are. Every State is. My own State has already set up a very
sophisticated approach of how they are going to deal with the necessity
of potentially isolating people, and with the potential of having to
ration the vaccine. These are going to be very difficult questions of
how you deal with bed capacity and things such as that. There is a lot
more to do. I wanted to discuss this in the context of the BioShield
bill and what we need to do. This is more than a dollars issue.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is a quote:
A flu pandemic is the most dangerous threat the United
States of America faces. It's a bigger threat than terrorism.
In fact, it's bigger than anything I dealt with when I was in
government.
This is not a quote from me or from the Presiding Officer. These are
the words of Richard Falkenrath, who until very recently served as
President Bush's Deputy Homeland Security Adviser. He is not alone in
this assessment. Administration officials and public health experts
have warned the next flu pandemic is not a question of if but a matter
of when. If we don't take action now, the consequences of a global flu
pandemic could be devastating. And perhaps that is even an
understatement.
A respected U.S. health expert has concluded that 1.7 million
Americans could die in the first year alone of an outbreak. Remember,
in 1918, the last flu pandemic, as many as 60 million people died in
the world. The world's population was one-third of what it is now.
In addition to the 1.7 million Americans who could die during the
first year, according to health experts, the economic costs would be
enormous.
Every week, the possibility of this threat grows closer. It is now in
Croatia. Anyone who watches the news knows that the bird flu is
sweeping much of the globe.
When we started debating a possible flu pandemic here in the Senate,
the bird flu was contained in parts of Asia. Now it has moved into
Turkey, and even as far west as Great Britain. Anyone who watches the
news knows scientists recently determined that the last flu pandemic
outbreak in 1918 started in birds, and it made its way into humans.
It has not been shown without any fault, any degree of being wrong,
because it could be wrong--because the birds are dying from avian flu
doesn't mean it will get to us, but it did in 1918. Will the virus jump
to humans? That is the question. Shouldn't we be prepared if in fact
that is the case?
I read one news account of a friend in Congress who said we don't
want to spend a lot of money for something that might not happen. We
have to be prepared. We have to be prepared. We should do everything we
can to make sure Americans are prepared and protected--and we are not
prepared.
Despite repeated promises, this administration has yet to release the
President's Pandemic Influenza Response and Preparedness Plan. We have
written letters; no response. I don't know why.
The World Health Organization deems such a plan essential to proper
readiness. A draft of this plan was
[[Page 24075]]
ready months ago, but no final plan has been released. At least we were
told it wasn't.
As a result, preparations for a pandemic have been needlessly delayed
and the Federal Government is ill prepared to handle such a pandemic.
We don't have the capacity to rapidly manufacture vaccines in mass
quantities. We lack an adequate stockpile in antiviral medications, and
our health care infrastructure is woefully unprepared.
We are already behind nations such as Canada, Britain, and Australia,
and we are falling further behind these nations each day we fail to
act. Some nations finalized their avian flu plans months ago. They are
implementing the protections, and we are still waiting for this
administration to give us something as basic as a plan. America can do
better. In fact, America must do better.
Senate Democrats have provided leadership on this issue. We have
added much needed resources for pandemic preparedness in the Senate
appropriations bill we passed nearly a month ago. We have offered
legislation, the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act. That would
build on our commitment to preparing our Nation for the possibility of
a pandemic. Unfortunately, the funding remains tied up in a conference
with the House and the Senate, and we haven't acted on this
comprehensive legislation.
The recent spread of bird flu to Europe proves we can't afford to
drag our feet. The Senate must act immediately so we can limit the
human and economic costs of a potential avian flu pandemic. That is why
I am cosponsoring Senator Harkin's amendment to provide $7.9 billion
for a comprehensive national effort to prepare for an avian flu
pandemic. The amendment will allow us to take the following steps to
prepare our Nation for a potential pandemic:
No. 1, quadruple our funding for global surveillance relating to
avian flu so we may rapidly detect the emergence of a new strain of
flu; dedicate more than $3 billion to vaccine research and improving
our domestic infrastructure.
We are woefully unprepared to do this.
We must increase our hospital surge capacity and funding for State
and local health agencies so the American people can be assured there
will be an adequate supply of health care providers and institutions to
care for them in the event of a pandemic.
The legislation calls for conducting an outreach program to health
care providers and to the American public.
With this legislation, we must stockpile effective antivirals
adequate to treat at least 50 percent of the population and other
medical supplies.
Finally, it calls for improving research and lab capacity related to
an avian flu pandemic. This, to me, is the most important.
I congratulate the ranking member of this subcommittee, Senator
Harkin of Iowa, for this legislation. It is badly needed. I hope there
will be a bipartisan vote to support this amendment.
I understand there are efforts being made to weaken this so-called
second-degree amendment to give the President the authority to do all
of this, and he would be obligated to do it only if he saw it was
necessary. We are looking at that second-degree amendment now to see if
there is any way we can work with the majority, who are offering this
amendment.
The avian flu pandemic may be inevitable, but the devastating
consequences are not. We need to heed warnings and take action now. I
hope my colleagues will join in supporting us by making the investments
necessary to make sure this Nation does everything possible to protect
Americans from the threat of the global flu pandemic.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Harriet Miers
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I respect Ms. Harriet Miers' decision to
withdraw from consideration for the Supreme Court. At the same time, I
do regret our constitutional process was not complete. Instead of a
hearing before the Judiciary Committee and a debate on the Senate
floor, Ms. Miers' qualifications were subject to a one-sided debate in
news releases, press conferences, radio and TV talk shows, and the
editorial pages.
I acknowledge the rights of everyone to express themselves as they
see fit, but that should not have precluded Ms. Miers from getting
basic due process. There was a decisive imbalance in the public forum,
with the case for Ms. Miers not heard because of the heavy decibel
level against her.
I have repeatedly noted her excellent work in handling complex civil
cases. Had the constitutional process been followed with a hearing, she
would have had an opportunity to establish that her intellect and
capabilities demonstrated in her 35-year professional career could be
carried over in the field of constitutional law and the work of the
Court. Whether she would have been confirmed remains an open question,
but at least she would have had the major voice in determining her own
fate.
Ms. Miers did deliver late yesterday evening, on time, her responses
to the committee request for supplemental information on her
questionnaire. Eight large boxes are in the committee's possession, but
now there is no reason to read or analyze those responses.
The Judiciary Committee carefully did not intrude on the President's
executive privilege. The committee studiously avoided asking what
advice Ms. Miers gave to the President, and that limitation would have
been continued in any hearing, with an adequate range of questions
available to enable the committee to decide on her qualifications for
the Court.
We must guard against having the Miers proceedings become a precedent
for the future.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of an op-ed piece which I had
submitted to the Washington Post yesterday and the Washington Post
agreed to publish be printed in the Record at the conclusion of these
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
I note Senator Byrd is here.
Exhibit 1
Washington Post-Accepted Op-Ed Referenced on the Floor
Just over three weeks ago, President Bush nominated White
House Counsel Harriet Miers to fill retiring Justice Sandra
Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. Since then,
political pundits and outside groups have loudly expressed
their opinions, one way or the other, on the nomination.
There has been a great eagerness in some quarters, outside
the Senate, to prejudge the nomination.
Fortunately, the Constitution does not leave the
disposition of Presidential nominations to pundits or outside
groups. The question whether to confirm a President's nominee
is left to the careful consideration of the Senate, where we
have an established process for examining a nominee's fitness
for the bench. That process will begin on November 7, when
the Judiciary Committee begins its hearings on Ms. Miers.
Confirmation hearings offer a nominee the opportunity to
introduce herself to the Senate and the American people. The
hearings allow Committee members to ask questions of the
nominee, to develop a record, and to present an informed
recommendation to the full Senate. In order to receive a
favorable vote in the Committee, Ms. Miers will have to
demonstrate her qualifications to serve on the bench. A
crucial qualification to serve on the Supreme Court is the
aptitude to decide difficult legal issues, including
important Constitutional questions, and to explain those
decisions in opinions.
It is true that Ms. Miers has not had deep experience in
Constitutional law, but that is far from a disqualification
for the bench. Few lawyers, aside from sitting federal judges
or a few Constitutional law practitioners, have such
experience.
Thus, while Ms. Miers needs a crash course in
constitutional law to prepare for the hearings, the same
could be said for virtually any nominee to come before the
Senate Judiciary as a Supreme Court nominee. In the past
century, we have had many justices without constitutional law
experience, who never the less brought the legal acumen and
intellectual abilities to tackle the vital and challenging
work of the Supreme Court. These include, for example, Sandra
Day O'Connor, who had never served on a federal court or
practiced Constitutional law. Similarly, Justice Hugo Black,
before his election to the
[[Page 24076]]
Senate, specialized in labor and personal injury law. Yet, he
is regarded as one of the greatest justices of the 20th
century.
Moreover, the Supreme Court's docket is not limited
exclusively to Constitutional law issues. Roughly 40% of the
Court's docket tends to involve constitutional issues.
Business and commercial law issues, with which Ms. Miers is
well acquainted, make up another 20% of the Court's docket.
As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have known and
worked with Ms. Miers closely. As White House Counsel, she
plays an important role in advising the President on
complicated legal and policy issues.
Consequently, I work with Ms. Miers on nearly all the
matters that come through our committee, from nominations to
legislation, from the USA PATRIOT Act to asbestos liability
reform.
Based on my personal experience, there is much to recommend
her.
She is, as all acknowledge, a good and decent woman with
whom it is a pleasure to work. She has a logical,
disciplined, and sharp mind. She will bring to the bench, if
confirmed, the knowledge of a practicing trial attorney--a
perspective sorely lacking among the current Justices. As the
President has observed, Ms. Miers had a wealth of practical
experience as a lawyer in private practice. I have reviewed
her record and found that she has handled a wide range of
complex cases.
She is also a woman who fought up through the ranks. She
went to law school at a time when women were discouraged from
joining the field, yet she rose to manage a 450-person firm
and became head of the Texas Bar Association. Ms. Miers comes
to the Committee with many strengths and an accomplished
record.
This is not to say that it is all easy sailing for Ms.
Miers. I have not made up my mind. Nor have most of my
colleagues. Like every Supreme Court nominee in recent times,
Ms. Miers still has the burden of demonstrating the depth of
her substantive knowledge on constitutional issues, issues
such as the intersection of the First Amendment's guarantees
of free speech and freedom of religion, the scope of
Congress's powers to legislate under the Commerce Clause and
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the scope of executive
power, and the criminal defendant's protections found in the
Bill of Rights.
Like every Supreme Court nominee in recent times, Ms. Miers
bears burden of proving she has the aptitude to address the
complex issues that will come before the Court. She deserves,
and she will receive, a full and fair hearing at which she
will have the opportunity to demonstrate her fitness for the
bench.
Until then, I hope that the American people and my
colleagues will keep an open mind.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Sense of Foreboding
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the American people enter this fall season
with apprehension, trepidation, and a somber sense of foreboding.
Gasoline prices, which peaked above $3 per gallon in September, now
seem stuck at levels once thought absurd. Gas prices in West Virginia
hover around $2.57 per gallon and can vary significantly in some areas,
rising precipitously at times.
Heating costs are projected to soar this winter, with many households
expected to pay an additional $350 to heat their homes with natural gas
and heating oil. It makes one shiver, thinking of winter in those
mountains of Appalachia.
People are already struggling with inadequate wages, are being forced
to curtail everyday expenses simply to buy gasoline, to fill up their
tanks. Senior citizens on fixed incomes are already forced to choose
between prescription drugs and food. That is a tough choice. They must
now confront life-threatening heating costs. This winter is coming. I
can feel it in the air.
This winter, with energy costs rising, the Federal safety net will be
needed to provide essential support for countless Americans. Many are
watching with incredulity the fraying of that safety net.
On the farms and in the cities, in rural and urban neighborhoods,
Americans have been shaken by the Government's inability to respond
effectively to Hurricane Katrina while the Government focused on tax
cuts for the wealthy and massive spending requests to rebuild Iraq--
what a shame; we should never have gone there, no; it was no threat to
our national security, and I said so at the time--massive spending
requests to rebuild Iraq. Our Nation's infrastructure was weakening
from neglect at home while all this was happening. Katrina highlighted
that erosion, focused our attention on that erosion and the high cost
of forgoing critical infrastructure repairs.
Just a few days ago, that erosion was further highlighted as
Americans watched the wooden 173-year-old Whittenton Dam threaten to
give way in Taunton, MA, forcing the evacuation of yet another American
city.
This winter, the country must confront the threat of an avian flu
pandemic as public health officials warn that our Nation's health
infrastructure remains woefully inadequate. Remember the influenza?
Remember the flu of 1917 and 1918? I don't remember it exactly, but I
had it. My mother died in that pandemic. I was less than a year old.
She said to my father: Give ``the baby'' to the Byrds. One of my
father's sisters had married a Byrd, Titus Dalton Byrd. They did not
have any children. They had a child prior to my birth, but their child
had died--his name was Robert Madison--so they had no children left. My
mother's wish that my father give me, the ``baby,'' to Mr. and Mrs.
Titus Dalton Byrd, the ``Mrs.'' being my father's sister. Yes, that is
why I am here today. It was their wish that my father give me, the
baby--there were three older brothers and a sister--give them all to
somebody, but give the baby to the Byrds. They took me in, changed my
name, and brought me to West Virginia, away from North Carolina. And
here I am.
Earlier this week, Hurricane Wilma pummeled southern Florida, causing
heavy flooding and power outages. The cleanup costs could be enormous.
Rather than addressing these weaknesses and providing the American
people with some reassurance, the Congress incredibly and inconceivably
is looking for ways to further siphon funds away from our safety net
and domestic investments. It is as if we have learned nothing--
absolutely nothing--from Hurricane Katrina.
A hope and belief seem to exist, and fingers are crossed all across
this town, that no one will connect how the budget cuts being
considered will affect those hurting from high energy prices.
Eight Senate committees--eight Senate committees--have drafted
reconciliation legislation to cut domestic investments in order to
prefund $70 billion in additional tax cuts, many of which will not take
effect for several years. They are backloaded. Now, get that: tax cuts.
Oh, it is so easy. Ah, how I love to vote for tax cuts. That is easy.
It does not take any courage to do that. Tax cuts. I have been in
politics now 60 years next year, in various and sundry legislative
branches, and the easiest vote I ever cast was for tax cuts.
Some of these spending cuts are coming from the very same programs
that are providing essential disaster relief to the victims of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, such as those used to provide temporary
health services. They comprise much of the safety net for our Nation's
most vulnerable, as well as for Americans afflicted by disaster.
The reconciliation process has been touted as a means to contain the
budgetary costs of Katrina, but that is a specious, spurious argument.
The reconciliation process would worsen--worsen now; not improve--our
fiscal position. With $70 billion in new tax cuts and an estimated $39
billion in spending cuts, the result is a deficit that increases by $31
billion--$31 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born; $31 for
every minute--oh, the clock is ticking; that clock is ticking--$31 for
every minute since Our Lord Jesus Christ was born. Under the process
being considered, Katrina costs would continue to mount, without
offsets, while the safety net is further worn away.
The argument for reconciliation makes even less sense when you
consider that Katrina costs are one-time, unforeseen emergency
expenditures. Meanwhile, no action, none, no action has been taken to
pay for trillions of dollars--trillions. How long would it take to
count a trillion dollars at the rate of $1 per second? How long would
it take to count a trillion dollars at the rate of $1 per second? Man,
can you imagine that? How long would it take? Thirty-two thousand
years? These young pages who have quick minds can figure that out.
Thirty-two thousand, I am not sure about that figure. If it is
[[Page 24077]]
not 32,000, it is 34,000 or 36,000. Thirty-two thousand years--I will
stick with that figure for now--at a minimum, at the rate of a dollar
per second. Can you believe it?
There are trillions of dollars of tax cuts. No action has been taken
to pay for those trillions of dollars of tax cuts or the hundreds of
billions of dollars of costs for Iraq--a war that we should have never
been in. We should never have gone. And they are still struggling to
find a reason why we went. Too late now. I said then I don't believe
there are weapons of mass destruction. I think there have been in some
years gone by but not now. And have they been found? No. And I and 22
others--yes, 22 others; one Republican among the 23; one Senator who is
now dead and gone; he died in a plane crash--23 souls, including my
own, said: No. No, we won't go. We are not going to vote to give this
power to declare war to this President or any President. We are not
going to do it. Twenty-three of us. But there we are. We are there.
So with the hundreds of billions of dollars of costs for Iraq, no
action has been taken to pay for that, even though these costs are as
plain and obvious as any in the Federal budget. I simply cannot fathom
why the administration believes that reconstructing Baghdad does not
have to be paid for, while reconstructing Mississippi and Louisiana and
Alabama requires offsets.
Can you imagine that? Reconstructing Baghdad does not have to be paid
for, while reconstructing Mississippi and Louisiana and Alabama
requires offsets. It does not make sense. It does not make good sense.
It does not make common sense.
Nor has any action been taken to find savings elsewhere in the
bloated--bloated--Federal budget. The Defense Department's budget
comprises one-sixth of the Federal budget and surpasses the total
discretionary budgets of every other agency and office of the Federal
Government combined. The Pentagon is not even able to pass a standard
audit. How about that. The Pentagon is not even able to pass a standard
audit, and it has not been able to for some years. I will say that
again. The Pentagon is not even able to pass a standard audit or to
conduct effective oversight of military expenditures in Iraq. May God
help us.
Government auditors have found substantial sums of defense contractor
waste and fraud. Astonishingly, the Department of Defense pulled its
inspector general out of Iraq last fall. Yet the Defense Department has
not been asked to examine its $450 billion annual budget.
All of the savings, all of the deficit reduction is supposed to come
from the safety net for working families--people who work with their
hands or at their desks--and from essential domestic investments that
have been dangerously--dangerously, dangerously--foolishly neglected
for too long. The sacrifice, too often, is being asked of working
families, while others remain blissfully exempt.
The budget reconciliation process at this point in the year and under
these circumstances is ill-conceived. We are missing an opportunity to
ferret out real waste in the Federal budget and to reform programs that
could yield real budgetary savings. And worse, we are opening the door
to a dangerous process.
Yesterday, the House Ways and Means Committee--I believe it was
yesterday--included in its reconciliation package language that would
repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act. This is a
critically important law. It allows Customs to distribute to American
companies and their workers the duties that it collects on unfairly
traded, meaning ``dumped,'' imports. Yes. I am the daddy of that. Yes.
I am the daddy of that child. It is called the Byrd Rule. There are
several things that are called the Byrd Rule, but that is the one we
are talking about.
It allows Customs to distribute to American companies and their
workers the duties that it collects on unfairly traded, meaning
``dumped,'' imports. The funds go only to those--now listen; the
funds--I say the fines for these violations go only to those who have
been injured by foreign producers who violate our trade laws.
The funds go to crawfish producers in Louisiana. Hear me now. They go
to shrimp producers throughout the Gulf States. Hear me. They go to our
lumber industry. That is a big industry. They go to raspberry growers.
They go to honey producers and beekeepers. They go to garlic growers in
California, to makers of pasta, to makers of steel, to makers of steel
bearings and other products manufactured all across our Nation.
Companies in nearly every State of the Union receive funds under this
law, and the funds are essential. They enable our industries to invest
in their facilities and in their workers, to upgrade their equipment
and technology. What could be wrong with that? That is a good law. The
World Trade Organization doesn't like this law, but the WTO is wrong.
The WTO doesn't like this law, but the WTO is wrong, wrong, wrong, I
say to the four corners, the four winds of the Earth--wrong. The WTO
ruling in this case was created out of whole cloth. Nothing in the WTO
agreements prohibits us from reimbursing U.S. industry with duties
collected--how and from what--on unfairly traded imports. If the
trading partners didn't violate the law, they wouldn't have to pay
these fines. They violate the law, yes.
The administration was directed by Congress in both the fiscal year
2004 and 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Acts to negotiate a solution to
this WTO dispute in ongoing trade talks. The Appropriations Acts
explicitly--plainly, clearly--state that U.S. negotiations shall be
conducted within the World Trade Organization to recognize the right of
WTO members to distribute moneys collected from antidumping and
countervailing duties as they deem appropriate. The WTO cannot infringe
on the sovereign right of the Congress to legislate. They can't do
that. The United States needs to keep this important trade law on the
books. Keep it on the books.
I have talked to the President. I have talked with the administration
about that. I have talked with our Trade Representative. Keep it on the
books. They first said they would fight for it. After Katrina, we send
a terrible message by continuing with this flawed reconciliation
process. You watch how it works. I helped to write that law. The
reconciliation process was never intended by those of us on both sides
of the aisle--we are about all gone now, who created that process--to
be used as it is being used. We send a terrible message when the
American people call for deficit reduction and instead we lead them
erroneously into more debt.
I hope the Congress will take the time to reconsider the flawed
assumptions underlying this reconciliation process. It needs to do so
before the process gets even further out of hand.
I thank all Senators. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Harriet Miers
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the administration searches for a new
nominee for the Supreme Court, I hope the White House will not retreat
to a political corner and choose a nominee who will only serve to
divide the Nation and divide this Senate. I urge the President--hear me
now--to select a nominee cut from the same cloth as the new Chief
Justice of the United States--moderate in approach, steeped in thought
and experience, and committed to the protection of the U.S.
Constitution, which I hold in my hand. In partnership, the President
and the Senate must do all that they can to avoid rancor and extreme
partisanship. That begins with real consultation and a nominee who can
bridge the gap between political philosophies.
[[Page 24078]]
I found it noteworthy--I did--that questions about Harriet Miers'
nomination came from Senators, organizations, and individuals from
diverse political philosophies. It does not matter who is asking the
questions about a nomination; these questions serve the long-term
interest of the Nation, those people out there, the American people who
are watching us through those lenses.
Unfortunately, in this age of partisan politics dominating all else,
questions too often are labeled as obstructionism. You remember that?
Obstructionism. If you ask questions, you are an obstructionist. Get
that, I say to these fine young pages. Nothing could be further from
the truth. No.
Republican Senators--yes, the Senators who sit over on that side of
the aisle--and Democratic Senators, who sit over here, had serious
questions concerning the judicial philosophy of this nominee. Asking
questions and insisting upon answers from judicial nominees helps to
make certain that the American people have faith in their courts.
Asking questions is not something to be labeled as obstructionist. How
many times have I said that? Rather, it is patriotic to ask questions.
Asking questions is part of my duty, part of your duty, Mr. President,
part of each Senator's duty as citizens.
I think now would be a good time for the Senate to consider a
proposal first put forward by Senator Specter in which I joined in the
105th Congress. We introduced legislation to establish a formal
advisory mechanism for the Senate in the selection of Supreme Court
Justices. Under that proposal, the Senate Judiciary Committee would
establish a pool of possible Supreme Court nominees for the President
to consider based on suggestions from Federal and State judges,
distinguished lawyers, law professors, and others with a similar level
of insight into the suitability of individuals for appointment to the
Supreme Court. The President would, of course, be free to ignore the
pool if he chose to do so, but the advice required by the Constitution
would be formally available and the President would know that the
individuals in the pool had received a bipartisan nod from the Senate
committee required to do the vetting.
Senator Specter and I have talked about reintroducing this
legislation in the coming days in an effort to guarantee that a broad
spectrum of individuals are nominated for the Supreme Court and that
the Senate is able, more fully, to fulfill its constitutional role. I
am glad there are 14 Senators, ladies and gentlemen, Republican and
Democrat, evenly divided, who joined together and who saved the Senate
from a terrible blunder called the nuclear option. Some call it the
constitutional option. There is nothing constitutional about it. It is
unconstitutional on its face, the so-called nuclear option. What a
shame that would have been. But the 14 Senators, Republican and
Democrat, saved the Senate. That was a historic moment.
I say the President was right when he called Senators, when he sought
the advice of Senators, when he sent Judge Roberts' name up here. Yes,
for once he called me and asked what I thought. I complimented him on
calling Senators, seeking their advice. The phrase is advice and
consent, not just the word ``consent.'' It also has the word
``advice.'' So I said, and the 14 said, we want to be in on the takeoff
as well as on the landing. So seek our advice. Yes.
Mr. President, seek our advice. Say to us, Lend me your ears, and I
will lend you mine. He did that. The President did that. I complimented
him on it. I hope he will do that now. I hope he will not send up a
lightning rod, somebody who will just polarize the country and attract
bows and arrows.
Mr. President, listen to the advice and consent clause in this
hallowed document, the Constitution of the United States. Read it. It
says ``advice.'' Hear me, Mr. President. Call Senators again. Don't
send up someone who will divide the Senate, who will cause a
filibuster, and then some would seek to cut off the freedom of Senators
to speak. Be careful. Mr. President, please call. Please call me. If
you don't call me, call somebody else. Call Senators. Ask them what
they think. You can discard our viewpoint if you wish. You don't have
to accept our advice. I don't have anybody particularly in mind, but
call me. Will you do it, Mr. President? I hope you will.
Mr. President, 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. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Defense Authorization
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate the words of the
Senator from West Virginia. In that light, let me point out that last
night the Senate adopted a unanimous consent agreement to resume
consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. Under
the agreement, each side would be allowed to offer 12 amendments to the
bill, all of which must relate to the bill or the jurisdiction of the
Armed Services Committee.
Let me start by congratulating the Democratic leader for working
tirelessly to bring this bill back before the Senate. Senator Reid
recognizes that Congress has a responsibility to the American people
and to our brave men and women in uniform to debate and pass a
responsible Department of Defense authorization bill. I thank him for
his efforts.
Congress has an additional responsibility, and that is to put our
Iraq policy right and return the focus of our country to our top
national security goals. That policy, and particularly the failure of
the administration to offer a reasonable, flexible timetable for
bringing home our troops, is making us weaker. It is making us less
safe, and it is making our enemies stronger. The perception of a
massive, indefinite American troop presence in Iraq is feeding the very
insurgency that we are trying to defeat. That is why I now call upon
the majority and minority leaders to agree that they will allow the
Senate to debate and vote upon an amendment calling for a flexible
timetable for returning our troops home. This doesn't have to be
exactly the resolution I introduced in June, or it doesn't have to
include the December 31, 2006, target date for completion of the
primary military mission that I proposed back in August.
There are plenty of Members deeply concerned about Iraq whose
leadership has been and will continue to be crucial, people such as
Senators Levin, Kerry, and Dodd. Senators Byrd and Kennedy have also
been vocal about their concerns. There are plenty of Members on the
other side, also, with whom I have spoken and shared some of my
concerns about our Iraq policy. I welcome the opportunity to work with
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come up with a reasonable
amendment that will finally start the process of getting our Iraq
policy and our broader national security strategy on track.
Obviously, I do not have to remind anyone here that the United States
suffered its 2,000th casualty in Iraq this week, and there have been
more since then. Every one of our servicemembers in Iraq and their
families deserve clarity about the mission they are serving and the
timeframe for that mission. And the American people and the Iraqi
people, too, need to know that we have a plan to complete our military
mission and draw down our troops in Iraq.
Mr. President, the Senate needs to do its job. When the Senate
finally resumes consideration of the Defense authorization bill, and I
hope that will be very soon, we need to finally address and put our
Iraq policy right. The Senate will consider up to 24 amendments at that
time. Clearly, this should be one of them. I hope my colleagues agree
with me and that we can work together to ensure that we live up to our
responsibilities.
Mr. President, 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.
[[Page 24079]]
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No 2279, as Modified
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from
Maine, Senator Collins, to offer an amendment to fund the Automatic
Defibrilla-
tion in Adam's Memory, the ADAM Act. But first I would like to thank
the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa and their
staffs for the hard work that obviously went into drafting this bill in
the face of tight budget restraints.
Mr. President, in 2001, I learned about Adam Lemel, a 17-year-old
high school student and a star athlete in southeastern Wisconsin.
Tragically, during a timeout while playing basketball at a neighboring
Milwaukee high school, Adam suffered sudden cardiac arrest and died
before the paramedics were able to arrive.
After his death, his friend, David Ellis, joined forces with the
Children's Hospital of Wisconsin to initiate Project ADAM to bring CPR
training and public access defibrillation into schools, to educate
communities about preventing sudden cardiac deaths, and to save lives.
The ADAM Act called for the establishment of a national Project ADAM
clearinghouse. Such a clearinghouse would provide schools with the
``how to'' and technical advice to set up public access defibrillation
programs. This clearinghouse responds to a growing number of schools
that have the desire to set up such a defib-
rillation program but often do not know where to start.
The ADAM Act was signed into law in 2003--and we are very pleased
with that--but it has yet to be funded. The amendment Senator Collins
and I offered would simply fund the ADAM Act clearinghouse with
$800,000 for fiscal year 2006.
Mr. President, at this time, I would like to call up my amendment and
ask that it be modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2279), as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place in title II, insert the
following:
Sec. __. In addition to amounts appropriated under this
Act, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated an additional $800,000 to carry out section 312
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 244). The amounts
on page 137, line 9 shall be further reduced by $800,000.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I understand that the amendment will be accepted, and I
want to thank the managers in advance for that as well.
Mr. President, 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. OBAMA. 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.
Amendment No. 2283
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise first to commend Senators Specter
and Harkin for their diligence and hard work on what is an enormous
bill, particularly given the tight budget they had to work with. I also
personally thank Senators Specter and Harkin for adopting an amendment
into the managers' bill relating to scholarships for low-income and
minority students and for expansion of positive behavioral
interventions and support within schools to encourage better
discipline. I thank them and their staffs for working with us on this
amendment.
In addition, it is my understanding that there has been a meeting of
the minds between the two sides of the aisle around what may end up
being the most significant aspect of the Labor H appropriations bill.
Yesterday, I joined Senators Harkin, Kennedy, and a number of my
colleagues in introducing an avian flu amendment. I know we had been
able to attach an amendment to the DOD appropriations bill that made
significant headway in funding the work that needs to be done to
prepare this nation for pandemic flu. Obviously, this Labor H bill was
the more appropriate vehicle to fund preparedness activities. The fact
that Senator Specter and Senator Harkin have agreed to work something
out on this issue is extremely important.
I will mention a couple of things that I believe make this avian flu
amendment so significant. A number of Senators have talked on the
Senate floor very eloquently about the threat of avian flu and the lack
of preparedness and relative inactivity in the United States compared
to our European and Asian allies. In the United States, we do not have
a national preparedness plan for a pandemic. We do not have a stockpile
of antivirals. Our public health system is weak, and the vaccine
infrastructure is fragile. All of these areas desperately need
attention, and the amendment that I hope will be adopted unanimously
will provide the funding to do just that.
I am not going to rehash what was discussed earlier, but instead I
wanted to spend a few minutes on the non-health aspects of avian flu,
because it is important to fully understand the scope of the potential
problems that a pandemic might cause. Obviously, the health concerns
should be our immediate focus, and the Harkin amendment and the avian
flu bill I introduced back in April do just that. However, we cannot
ignore the economic and social implications of the pandemic flu. They
deserve our urgent attention.
As Dr. Michael Osterholm has warned us, the arrival of a pandemic flu
would trigger a reaction that would change the world overnight. We know
that a vaccine would not be available for at least 6 months after the
pandemic started. We also know that we only have enough antivirals in
our stockpile to treat 1 percent of the Nation's population. As such,
if an avian flu pandemic hits, foreign trade and travel would be
reduced or even suspended in a desperate but fruitless attempt to stop
the virus from entering new countries. This is not speculation. Some
will recall that Hong Kong's Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food has
already threatened to close the border with the Chinese mainland if the
H5N1 strain of avian influenza moves into the human population.
Domestically, transportation would also be significantly curtailed as
States or communities seek to keep the disease contained, and
unaffected areas try to keep infection out. Such efforts at self-
protection would have a devastating effect on the world economy, which
relies on the speedy distribution of products. There would be major
shortages of food, medicines, light bulbs, gasoline, and spare parts
for military equipment. Potentially, we would have shutdowns in the
production of microchips that fuel so much of our technology.
To use just one example, currently, two U.S.-based companies supply
most of the protective face masks for health care workers around the
world. Neither company would be able to meet increased demand during a
pandemic, in part because the companies depend on multiple suppliers in
multiple countries for the parts to make the masks.
Businesses today rely on the world's real time economy, and have not
established alternative supply chains nor emergency plans for
production and distribution. In a time of pandemic, the labor source
could be severely affected as well, compounding the supply chain
problem.
Our Government officials also have not yet addressed the social
implications of a pandemic. We had a taste of that in what tragically
happened with Hurricane Katrina. We witnessed desperation and confusion
as people scrambled to survive and to find their loved ones. We are
going to have to develop protocols and plans now so we can prepare the
public for whatever public health measures may be needed, including
possible quarantine or isolation.
The closest the world has come to this scenario in modern times was
the SARS epidemic in 2003. Over a period of 5 months, about 8,000
people were infected and about 10 percent of those infected died. Once
SARS emerged in China, it spread to 5 countries within
[[Page 24080]]
24 hours, and to 30 countries on 6 continents within several months.
The economic consequences of SARS were staggering. The 6-month epidemic
costs to the Asian-Pacific region alone were estimated at over $40
billion.
As avian flu is significantly more contagious and more deadly, you
can only imagine the potential scope of economic devastation that we
might face. Senator Harkin has mentioned that the warning bell is
ringing and we need to heed its urgent call to action. Time is running
out and this administration must act now if it is to prevent the severe
economic, security, and health consequences from pandemic flu.
Let me close with one last comment. I heard some colleagues in
discussions, both in the media and on the floor of the Senate, suggest
that we should not succumb to panic. I know at one point an analogy was
drawn between what we are calling for with respect to investments in
pandemic flu preparedness and Y2K.
Let me just make two points. No. 1, we are absolutely certain that
some form of pandemic will occur in our lifetime. We do not know if it
will be caused by a H5N1 virus that mutates and spreads by human-to-
human contact, similar to the 1918 pandemic. But unless history has
completely taught us the wrong lessons, we can expect some form of
pandemic that has severe consequences, and right now, we do not have
the infrastructure to deal with it.
What that means is whatever investment we make now--for example, in
developing a cell-based technology rather than an egg-based technology
to develop vaccines--that is a sound investment even if we are lucky
and this H5N1 virus does not end up mutating in such a way that it can
cause a pandemic, because we will now be prepared for whatever pandemic
occurs. We will have the infrastructure to rapidly produce the sort of
vaccines that are necessary. This is a smart investment for us to make
on the front end. The second point is one that, again, I think has been
highlighted by what happened in New Orleans and the gulf coast.
Sometimes the costs of doing nothing are so high that in the same way
that you or I buy catastrophic health insurance hoping that we never
have to use it, this is one of those situations where we have to devote
the dollars to prepare and develop a plan, hoping that we never have to
use it.
I am extraordinarily grateful that Senator Harkin, Senator Specter,
and other leaders on this committee have been able to come to an
agreement that should allow us to finally fund the preparedness and
readiness activities that are going to be necessary for us to meet the
challenge of avian flu.
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. BINGAMAN. 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.
Amendment No. 2218, As Modified
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of
amendment 2218, and ask unanimous consent that it be so modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2218), as modified, is as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 2218, As Modified
(Purpose: To increase funding for advanced placement programs)
At the end of title III (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. (a) In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated
under this Act, there is appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an additional
$7,000,000 to carry out part G of title I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6531 et seq.).
(b) On page 183, line 15, strike ``$1,057,385,000'' and
insert ``$1,050,385,000'' and on line 21 strike
``$417,924,000'' and insert ``$410,924,000''.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that the Senator
from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and myself are offering to add an
additional $7 million to the funding for advanced placement instruction
in our schools. This is an issue she and I have pursued for many years.
It is my strong belief one of the clearest ways we can improve the
quality of education in our school system is to encourage more students
to take advanced placement courses, to encourage more teachers to get
the training necessary to teach those advanced placement courses. Those
are courses the college board has identified as specified standards
nationwide.
It is clear to anybody who is involved in secondary education in this
country that a student is advantaged in their later education and in
their career if they have the opportunity and take advantage of the
opportunity to take these advanced placement courses in high school.
There are many high schools in my State of New Mexico that do not offer
advanced placement courses to their students. I think that is a shame
in this day and time. I think it is very unfortunate we do not make
this opportunity available nationwide to more students and encourage
it.
A recent report which the Presiding Officer and I have requested from
the National Academy of Sciences talks very extensively about the
importance of developing the scientific and technical building blocks
we need for this country to strengthen our economy. They recommend in
that National Academy of Sciences report that we can do a variety of
things to improve the quality of education from kindergarten through
the 12th grade, in addition to doing various things at the university
level and, of course, doing a variety of things with research and
development as well.
One of their recommendations is directly applicable to this amendment
which we sent to the desk. The recommendation is that we set out to
quadruple the number of students in advanced placement math and science
courses by the year 2010. There are approximately 1.2 million students
who take those courses today. The suggestion is that in the next 4 or 5
years we should increase that to 4.5 million students. That is an
enormous undertaking. That is an easy thing to say but a very hard
thing to do.
The recommendation in the appendix attached to the National Academy
of Sciences report indicates that the estimate they have would cost
something in the range of an additional $350 million per year for us to
be able to achieve this kind of improvement. We are not asking for that
$350 million in this amendment. We are asking for $7 million. We are
asking to get closer to what the President requested in the budget he
sent to the Congress earlier this year. We are asking to go up to $40
million for advanced placement instruction.
That is a very modest request, but we are informed it is all that is
possible, given the budgetary constraints under which this bill is
operating.
I think it is an extremely good amendment. It is a very important
focus for us to have as we try to begin to focus on an agenda that will
make this country more competitive in world markets. I know the
Presiding Officer feels this needs to be a very high priority for this
country. I certainly do, as well as the Senator from Texas.
I hope our colleagues will support this amendment.
I yield the floor so Senator Hutchison can explain her views on the
issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator
Bingaman. We have been working on increasing the amount put in the
advanced placement program for years. Together, we actually started the
Federal funding for this program. It has been a phenomenal success.
In fact, in a recent study on the lack of emphasis in science in our
country in high schools and colleges, one of the recommendations made
by the commission, which I think the Presiding Officer of the Senate
sitting in the chair today is familiar with, * * *
One of the recommendations is increasing the Advanced Placement
Program. That is exactly what we are doing with this amendment.
The Advanced Placement Program allows students to pursue college-
level
[[Page 24081]]
studies while still in high school. It is celebrating its 50th
anniversary and it is now in 15,000 schools around the world, including
60 percent of high schools in America. Through these programs, students
experience a rigorous college level curriculum and have the chance to
earn college credit, advanced placement, or both.
According to a U.S. Department of Education study, participation in
advanced placement courses is a stronger predictor of success in
college than test scores or grade point averages. A 2002 study by the
University of Texas at Austin showed that among students with the same
SAT scores and class rank, advanced placement students scoring three or
higher on the exams performed better in advanced college courses than
students who participated in concurrent enrollment or who did not skip
any college courses at all.
Research has also shown that 61 percent of students who take two or
more advanced placement exams graduate from college on time. By
contrast, only 29 percent of other college students earn a degree
within 4 years.
When you consider the average total charges at a 4-year public
institution in the 2005 school year were more than $12,000 per year and
$29,000 per year for private colleges, graduating within 4 years
becomes a very important objective.
While much growth has occurred in advanced placement participation, a
vast gap still exists between the 57 percent of the class of 2004 who
embarked on higher education last fall and the 13 percent of the class
of 2004 who were prepared to succeed in college by having mastered an
AP course in high school. Currently, 40 percent of students entering 4-
year colleges and universities are requiring some remedial education
while 63 percent of students at 2-year institutions do. This is a
significant concern. One or more remedial courses, particularly in math
or reading, negatively influence the likelihood that a student will
obtain that bachelor's degree.
Last year, a fellow Texan and current Assistant Secretary of
Education, Tom Luce, wrote a book entitled ``Do What Works: How Proven
Practices Can Improve America's Public Schools.'' Among other programs,
the book highlighted the importance of advanced placement courses in
educating today's students. In his book, Secretary Luce states:
Advanced Placement courses are increasingly viewed as a key
to driving higher educational achievement by all students,
particularly economically disadvantaged and minority
students.
Secretary Luce dedicated his book to Edith and Peter O'Donnell, two
great Americans who know and understand the importance of educating our
youngsters. Peter O'Donnell recently sat on the Commission of National
Academies which published a report entitled ``Rising Above The
Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter
Economic Future.''
The report outlined a number of recommendations to strengthen
America's competitiveness with the ultimate goal of creating new, high-
quality jobs. One of the recommendations was to train additional
advanced placement instructors to teach advanced courses in mathematics
and science. Some ways we can do this are by subsidizing test fees for
low-income students who are enrolled in AP classes and plan to take an
AP test, and by expanding teacher training and participation in online
courses.
President Bush requested $51 million in his budget for this program.
That would be an increase of $22 million from last year.
This amendment I am cosponsoring with Senator Bingaman would
accomplish the President's funding goal by adding an additional $7
million. It is very important we do this. It does have offsets.
I particularly thank Senator Specter and Senator Harkin and their
staffs for helping find the offsets, realizing the importance of this
program.
My friend Peter O'Donnell was certainly on the mark when he suggested
advanced placement would start our students in a higher echelon of
academic programs to better prepare them for college. These programs
will also help them get through college within a 4-year period, which
is becoming more and more of an issue in public and private
universities around our country.
I thank Senator Bingaman for being a partner with me on this. Since
1998 we have worked on this together. If we can continue to increase
the program and, therefore, increase the number of participants, we
will see the college students who perform better having more
opportunities for science and math careers, which is very important for
the future of our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague very much for her
strong advocacy for this amendment and this program. I also say a word
of commendation about Peter O'Donnell and the work he has done in this
area. He was very generous in giving of his time to brief me and my
staff on progress that has been made in the State of Texas in expanding
advanced placement through the private foundation he has established
there. It is a very impressive model the whole country needs to
emulate. This modest amendment will be a step toward helping more to
happen around the country.
I ask unanimous consent Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Boxer, and
Senator Feinstein be added as original cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. As I understand it, we are ready for a vote on this
amendment at this time unless the managers would like to postpone it.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. A voice vote would be fine with us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no debate, the question is on
agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2218) was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent at 3 o'clock today the Senate
proceed to executive session and to consecutive votes on the following
nominations: No. 386, John Smoak, to be United States District Judge
for the Northern District of Florida; and No. 384, Susan Neilson, to be
United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit.
I further ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to each vote; further, that following those votes 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 Senator from Iowa.
Amendment No. 2244 Withdrawn
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask consent to withdraw amendment
numbered 2244.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2262
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last evening I called up for
consideration amendment 2262 and then had it laid aside. I call it up
again.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that is very
important. I hope we can get a vote before the afternoon is over. The
amendment would invest an additional $60 million in our Nation's future
by strengthening 8 programs: the Migrant Education Program, the English
Language Acquisition Program, the High School Equivalency Program, the
College Assistance Migrant Program, the Dropout Prevention Program, the
English as a Second Language Program, the local family information
centers, and also the Hispanic-serving institutions.
The funding additions this amendment calls for add up to the total
$60 million. This is an amendment that is
[[Page 24082]]
strongly supported by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, by the
National PTA, and by the Hispanic Education Coalition, which is an ad
hoc coalition of national organizations dedicated to improving
educational opportunities for the more than 40 million Hispanics who
live in this country today.
The Migrant Education Program is the first item. The title I Migrant
Education Program was established to provide a compensatory education
program designed to deal with the difficulties encountered by children
of migrant families. Some of the children attend three or four schools
in a single school year.
They have a great need for coordination of educational services among
the States and local districts where they live, often for short periods
of time. The MEP builds the support structures for migrant students so
that they can achieve high levels of success both in and outside of
school.
The U.S. Department of Education reports that more than 750,000
students were identified as eligible for the program in Fiscal Year
2001. Additional funds are necessary to ensure that these children are
able to meet the challenges mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act.
This amendment will provide an additional $9.6 million in needed
funding.
This amendment would also increase funding to States and local school
districts in order to ensure that as many of the 5.5 million children
with limited English skills as possible learn English, develop high
levels of academic attainment, and meet the same challenging State
academic standards as all children.
Title III is a formula grant program that distributes funding to all
50 States based on the number of limited English proficient LEP and
recent immigrant students. The funds are used for developing effective
language acquisition programs; training for bilingual/ESL teachers and
regular teachers and educational personnel; parent involvement; and
providing services for recently arrived immigrant students. This
amendment requests an additional $10.3 million for Language Acquisition
Grants, which restores the program's funding to its Fiscal Year 2003
level.
This amendment would provide modest increases for the High School
Equivalency Program HEP and the College Assistance Migrant Program
CAMP. The HEP helps migrant students who have dropped out of high
school earn a GED. The CAMP assists migrant students in their first
year of college with both counseling and stipends. These programs
provide farmworker migrant students with education opportunities and
support that will help them to become productive members of society.
Migrant students are among the most disadvantaged youth in this
Nation. Current estimates place the dropout rate for migrant youth at
between 50 and 60 percent. Before CAMP, there was no record of a child
of migrant farm workers ever having attended college. Both programs
have been very successful in helping migrant students become productive
members of society.
According to the Department of Education, in 2003-2004, almost 10,000
students were served by HEP CAMP, and 63 percent of the HEP
participants received a GED, and 84 percent of CAMP students completed
their first year of college in good standing. This amendment provides
an additional $5.7 million for these programs.
The Dropout Prevention program help States and school districts to
implement research-based, sustainable, and coordinated school dropout
prevention and re-entry programs in order to raise student achievement.
At a time when schools are focused on narrowing achievement gaps
between differing subgroups of students, it seems that Congress would
want to retain Dropout Prevention, a program specifically aimed at
providing schools with the tools to help students achieve a high school
degree.
Support for dropout prevention is even more significant when
considering that the primary source of Federal funding for public
schools, authorized through the No Child Left Behind Act NCLB, focuses
mainly on elementary schools. More than 90 percent of title I funds--
the principal NCLB program--are directed to elementary schools. Such an
emphasis on elementary education is necessary and appropriate, but
equally important is continuing an investment of resources throughout
the education continum in order to meet the needs of middle level and
high school students.
The Dropout Prevention Program is the only Federal program actively
working to reduce the Nation's dropout rates, and, as recent headlines
tell us, it is a problem that is far more severe than previous data
indicated.
A report by the Urban Institute finds that only 68 percent of all
students in the public high school class of 2001 graduated.
Furthermore, it states that only 5 of all black students and 50 percent
of all Hispanic students grate. Nearly half of all black and Hispanic
students do not graduate from high school. This is a problem that has
reached enormous proportions. The Dropout Prevention Program was
eliminated in this legislation. This amendment restores $5 million to
this program.
The Local Family Information Centers Program was authorized under the
No Child Left Behind Act to provide parents of title I students,
including English language learners, with information about their
children's schools so that they can help their children to meet the
high standards we have set under NCLB.
The Local Family Information Centers also help parents to hold their
local and State school officials accountable and become more involved
in their children's education. This amendment would increase funding
for these centers by $13 million.
The need for increased funding for English as a Second Language ESL
is evident by the growing demand for services and the lack of resources
to meet that need.
Enrollment in Adult ESL has increased 105 percent over the past 10
years, yet there is a lack of programs and funding to ensure that all
who desire to learn English have access to appropriate services.
Currently, community-based organizations must piece programs together
with volunteer labor and facilities. The need for more targeted
services is overwhelming. Demand for English-language instruction far
outweighs supply, waiting lists for classes typically range from
several months to years, and many States do not have the capacity to
meet the demand.
The current $70 million in funding is insufficient to meet the
enormous demand for ESL services. As the labor market continues to
require English-proficient labor, investing in ESL programs will
strengthen the labor pool and return a more versatile productive
workforce. This amendment provides an additional $6.5 million for ESL
programs.
Currently, 35 percent of Hispanics are under the age of 18. The
Educational Testing Service has projected the U.S. higher education
system will grow by 3.5 million additional students by 2015 and that
nearly 40 percent of these new students will be Hispanic. HSIs serve
the largest concentrations of the Nation's youngest and largest ethnic
population.
The impending emergence of more than 100 new HSIs mostly in CA, TX,
FL, NM, IL, in the next few years and the rapid growth of the Hispanic
college-age population underscore urgency for immediate, major, and
sustained increases in title V funding.
At a time when the current labor force is reaching retirement age in
substantial numbers, Hispanics already represent one of every three new
workers joining the U.S. labor force, according to the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics. By 2025, the Bureau projects that one of two new
workers joining the U.S. labor force will be Hispanic. This amendment
would provide an additional $9.9 million in assistance to these great
institutions.
We must do everything possible to provide every child with the best
education we can. This amendment would provide small but much-needed
increases to programs that can make a difference in the lives of
millions of children. I urge my fellow Senators to support these
greatly needed programs
[[Page 24083]]
by providing them with the proper resources.
This is a very worthwhile amendment. It puts resources to use where
they are most needed--not just in my State but throughout this country.
The fastest growing minority population in our country is the
Hispanic community. We need to ensure these young people growing up are
well educated, are prepared for the challenges for the 21st century.
This legislation helps greatly with that effort.
Amendment No. 2259
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me briefly describe one other
amendment at this point. I called this amendment up yesterday, as well,
amendment 2259, dealing with the Drug Assistance Program, an amendment
Senator Smith and I have worked together on to add additional funding
for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, or ADAP.
We had an amendment voted on last night by Senator Coburn to shift
funding to this function by taking funding from the Centers for Disease
Control. Our amendment does not do that. Our amendment provides $74
million in much-needed funding. It would be emergency funding for the
AIDS Drug Assistance Program.
This is a very meritorious amendment. It is an amendment I hope all
colleagues will support. Some Members of this body voted against the
amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma in anticipation of supporting
this very important amendment I am talking about now.
The AIDS Drug Assistance Program provide life-saving assistance to
over 136,000 uninsured or underinsured HIV-infected individuals each
year. As the number of people living with HIV/AIDS has increased,
largely due to advances in HIV treatment, the importance of and demand
for ADAP has grown so that, as of September 2005, a total of 2,187
individuals were on ADAP waiting lists in nine States.
As the National ADAP Monitoring Project says:
When an individual is on a waiting list, they may not have
access to HIV-related medications.
We are talking about life-extending and life-saving medications. In
fact, it has been reported that patients on ADAP waiting lists in West
Virginia and Kentucky have passed away.
Furthermore, as of March 2005, due to funding shortfalls, 21 States
have some sort of cost containment measures in place, including waiting
lists, that often impede access to care. This includes increased cost-
sharing, reductions in eligibility income limits, and limitations on
covered treatments.
We as a Nation, are rightfully committed to providing billions of
dollars of support for HIV/AIDS care and treatment services to those
living with HIV in nations across the world and we should be. However,
here at home, it is unforgivable that there are Americans with HIV
dying because they are on waiting lists for life-saving drugs or having
life-saving medications rationed to them in various forms.
A story entitled ``Dying for AIDS Drugs'' documents some of the
stories of those who have lost ADAP coverage or are on waiting lists.
As the story reads:
Margaret Nicholson, a Springfield, Oregon, homecare
attendant who survives with her mother and husband on less
than $20,000 a year, lost her ADAP coverage because she
couldn't afford the new co-pays; she has now gone 4 months
without seeing a doctor and is scraping by on pill samples.
In North Carolina, HIV doctor Aimee Wilkin says some of her
waiting list patients, forced to seek medicines through drug
company charity programs, have faced multiple treatment
interruptions, the result of bureaucratic delays, exposing
them to the risk of HIV drug resistance. In Kentucky,
caseworkers are so desperate they're asking churches to pass
the hat to sponsor someone's pills for a few weeks at a time.
In our great Nation, this is unacceptable and should end. This
amendment, sponsored by Senator Smith and myself, would go a long way
to address the ADAP shortfall and I urge its passage.
I hope we can also have a rollcall vote on this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays on Senate amendment 2262 at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I also ask for a rollcall vote on Senate
amendment 2259.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is in order to request
that at this time.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF JOHN RICHARD SMOAK TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3
o'clock having arrived, the Senate will go into executive session to
consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of John Richard Smoak, of
Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District
of Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized
for 2 minutes to speak on behalf of the nominee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of Richard
Smoak, who has been nominated by President Bush to fill a vacancy in
the Northern District of Florida as a Federal district court judge.
I would like to have the record reflect Mr. Smoak is a man of great
integrity, a person who will distinguish himself on the bench, as he
has in every other aspect of his life.
He is from Panama City, FL, where he has practiced law in a very
distinguished fashion for quite a number of years. He is one of those
people who folks speak about in superlative terms. And one can
understand why.
Mr. Smoak graduated from the University of Florida in 1972, with a
law degree; after having gone to the U.S. Military Academy at West
Point, graduating in 1965. From 1965 to 1970, Mr. Smoak was an infantry
officer, serving extensively in Vietnam, where he distinguished himself
by receiving a Silver Star medal and a Bronze Star medal, among other
military awards he received for his distinguished service to his
Nation.
Mr. President, better than I, I think I should quote from among those
who have known him and have practiced law with him, and those who have
been in the community with him.
I will quote from Mr. Paul Anderson of Panama City, who speaks of Mr.
Smoak in this fashion:
Dick Smoak is simply one of the finest lawyers and finest
men I have ever had the privilege of knowing. Describing Dick
requires the use of words such as integrity, character and
professionalism. As a legal practitioner, Dick knows the law
and applies it logically to each case he handles.
Mr. President, in addition to that, one of those things I believe I
like about Mr. Smoak that speaks so highly of him is that Mr. Anderson
speaks about the fact that he does not compromise his principles.
With that, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote favorably on
this nomination of Mr. Richard Smoak to serve as a Federal district
court judge for the Northern District of Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of John Richard Smoak for appointment to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Mr. Smoak has long
served his Nation, from his highly decorated service in Vietnam to his
efforts to improve the judiciary system in Florida.
He has resided and has practiced civil law for over the last 30 years
in Panama City, FL. During that time, he represented a wide variety of
clients
[[Page 24084]]
from doctors to small business owners to truckdrivers to national
corporations in many areas of the law. This broad experience will serve
him well as a Federal judge.
Mr. Smoak is a well-regarded and highly qualified attorney. I, along
with Senator Martinez, believe he will make a great addition to the
Federal bench and urge our colleagues to vote in support of his
nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Is all time yielded back?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of John Richard Smoak, of Florida, to be United States District Judge
for the Northern District of Florida? The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Corzine), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from
West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 276 Leg.]
YEAS--97
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Corzine
Inouye
Rockefeller
The nomination was confirmed.
____________________
NOMINATION OF SUSAN BIEKE NEILSON TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the next nomination.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Susan Bieke Neilson, of
Michigan, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this vote be
10 minutes, with a 5-minute extra.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not yet been ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this next vote
be taken on a voice vote.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Senator Leahy
is not on the floor; therefore, we would have to object.
Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is time yielded back? If so, the question is,
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Susan Bieke
Neilson to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit? The
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Corzine), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from
West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 277 Ex.]
YEAS--97
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Corzine
Inouye
Rockefeller
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President is notified of the Senate's
action.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate returns to legislative session.
____________________
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--Continued
Amendment No. 2283, as further Modified
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up
amendment No. 2283.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send to the
desk a modification of that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask that the amendment be so modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
The amendment (No. 2283), as further modified, is as follows:
On page 169, line 18, strike ``$183,589,000: Provided, That
$120,000,000 of amounts available for influenza
preparedness'' and replace with ``$8,158,589,000: Provided,
That these funds shall be distributed at the discretion of
the President, after consultation with the Chairmen and
Ranking Members of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House
and Senate Subcommittees on Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education Appropriations, the Chairmen and Ranking Member
of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee, and the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders.
Provided further, That $8,095,000,000 of amounts available
for influenza and other potential pandemics preparedness is
designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 and''
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I also would ask that Senator Specter be
made a cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is the amendment that a lot of us
talked about earlier that provides funding for a possible avian flu
pandemic. We have worked a lot on both sides of the aisle. I especially
thank our chairman, Senator Specter, for his guidance and leadership on
this amendment, for working this out and, again, ensuring that we can
move ahead to make sure
[[Page 24085]]
this country is ready with the funds we need to provide for better
global surveillance, to provide for stockpiling of antivirals and
vaccines, for money that is going to be needed for building flu vaccine
manufacturing plants and for making sure our public health
infrastructure is adequate and that we have the surge capacity in
hospitals. That is all in this amendment.
Again, I thank Senator Specter for his leadership on this amendment
in working it out so that we can move to a voice vote on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, very briefly, Senator Harkin is due great
credit for this very important amendment, having taken the lead in
establishing the fund. We have structured it, after consultation with a
number of our colleagues, so that funds will be expended at the
discretion of the President, after consultation with certain named
Members of both the House and the Senate. This is in anticipation of
the administration sending over a proposal in which we should have
ample time to give due consideration before the conference.
This is a very significant step forward so that we do not face a
crisis where the administration wants something done, but only the
Congress, under the Constitution, has the authority to appropriate the
funds.
I salute my colleague, Senator Harkin, and all those who worked on
the amendment.
We jointly urge its adoption.
Amendment No. 2283, As Further Modified
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity
to congratulate Senator Specter and Senator Harkin and their staff on
moving the avian influenza amendment forward in a bipartisan manner.
They have done a tremendous job on coming to an agreement.
Senator Harkin and Senator Specter's amendment includes my proposal
for funding for migratory wild bird surveillance which I would like to
take a moment to outline more thoroughly.
As we all know, the potential for an influenza pandemic is increasing
as the H5N1 virus has now moved swiftly across Asia, Russia, Turkey and
now the EU, killing millions of domesticated poultry and over 60 humans
to date. History and science tell us that wild birds are the ones that
spread deadly avian influenza viruses. It happened before during the
1918 influenza epidemic that killed an estimated 40 million people
worldwide. We must act now to ensure that this does not happen again.
We have the tools. We just need to increase and strengthen them.
My proposal seeks to provide funds supporting an early warning system
for global influenza that starts with wild birds. This is a major gap
in our flu tracking system. The proposed warning system would track and
monitor avian viruses and their mutations carried by wild birds by
expanding the Centers of Disease Control's wild bird surveillance
efforts which are currently not extensive. The CDC's efforts must be
tied together with the network of global organizations, including
nongovernmental organizations that have the capacity to expand and
comprehensively collect and disseminate these tracking data from around
the world.
Just as we track hurricanes as they begin as a tropical storm, we
must track wild birds and the viral storms they carry over oceans and
continents and share that data with the world.
The purposes of my proposal are to support efforts: to more rapidly
and efficiently detect, verify, and report on the presence of H5N1 and
other highly pathogenic avian influenzas and infectious diseases in
migratory wild birds and waterfowl; to use information on viral strains
found in wild birds to better delineate any mutations in the virus; to
use information on when and where highly pathogenic avian influenza
viruses and other infectious diseases are identified in migratory birds
to better guide preparedness in the U.S. and around the world, to carry
out a comprehensive migratory bird surveillance program that will
provide early warning to specific areas to enhance poultry biosecurity
and surveillance, and other human protective measures as necessary; to
create an open access database where information on highly pathogenic
avian influenza viruses and other infectious diseases identified in
migratory birds are shared in as close to real time as possible; to
protect the health and safety of U.S. citizens and officials traveling
and living abroad; and to protect the economic interests of the U.S.
and its partners from threats to health, agriculture, and natural
resources.
It is the intent of my proposal that within 90 days of the
appropriation, the Centers for Disease Control's influenza branch enter
into a contract with one or more nongovernmental organizations
chartered in the U.S. with extensive global wildlife health experience
in tracking disease in wild birds, including free-ranging, captive, and
wild bird species, with a proven ability in identifying avian influenza
in birds, and with accredited zoological facilities in the U.S.
The influenza branch and the contracting nongovernmental
organization(s) will collaborate with appropriate Federal and State
agency partners, including the Department of Agriculture acting through
the Agricultural Research Service and the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; various U.S. State wildlife agencies, multilateral
agency partners, including the Food and Agriculture Organization, the
World Health Organization, the Office International des Epizooties, and
the World Conservation Union; conservation organizations with expertise
in international and domestic bird monitoring surveillance; accredited
colleges of veterinary medicine; and other national and international
partners, as necessary.
The contracting nongovernmental organization, in coordination with
the influenza branch of the CDC, shall manage an international
surveillance program in which all partners named above are encouraged:
to monitor and test for the presence or arrival of avian influenza and
other significant avian pathogens at important bird areas around the
world and in marketplaces with intense trade in wild birds; to use
trained professionals to collect samples and other data and send
samples to appropriate diagnostic centers; to use the international
surveillance network to conduct disease surveillance activities on
migratory birds worldwide, domestic and international field
investigations on migratory birds, training and capacity-building
activities related to the relationships between human health, domestic
and animal health, and wildlife health, and research on methods and
approaches for the detection and enhanced surveillance of highly
pathogenic avian influenza and other infectious diseases in migratory
birds; and to send samples for avian influenza testing to certified
laboratories that meet internationally established methods standards.
These certified laboratories are located at the influenza branch of the
CDC, the Office International des Epizooties, the Food and Agriculture
Organization, the National Veterinary Services Laboratory of the
Department of Agriculture, and the Agricultural Research Service. These
findings should be reported back to the contracting nongovernmental
organization and the international surveillance network partners.
The CDC's influenza branch and the eligible organization, in
coordination with the partners of the international surveillance
network, will use surveillance reports and other formal and informal
sources of information to identify and investigate local disease
outbreaks of avian influenza; will develop a long-term baseline of
regional data related to highly pathogenic avian influenza and
pathogens in migratory birds for analysis between and across sites to
create a system to identify when and where outbreaks might occur and
paths of dispersal; will provide technical assistance for disease
prevention and control programs based on a scientific understanding of
the relationships between wildlife health, animal health, and human
health; will provide analytic disease findings regularly to the
influenza branch of the CDC and other international network
surveillance partners to prevent and
[[Page 24086]]
combat diseases; and will conduct other activities as necessary to
support the international network and its partners. The surveillance
network will be coordinated from the headquarters of the contracting
nongovernmental organization.
The CDC's influenza branch and the contracting nongovernmental
organization, manage, map, and make available an online database
containing all the results and information gathered through the
international surveillance network. The database shall provide
geographic data on wild bird populations and the movements of the
populations. The laboratory test results will be available for viewing
by any Federal agency, foreign country, multilateral institution,
organization, or individual.
The CDC's influenza branch and the contracting nongovernmental
organization, will request accredited colleges of veterinary medicine
and other partners of the international surveillance network to monitor
important bird areas around the world and to test for the presence or
arrival of avian influenza and other significant avian pathogens of
zoonotic concern.
Expanding the CDC's efforts by supporting an international
surveillance network, allows us to focus limited resources and prepare
communities in the infected wild birds' flight path. If we have this
information, our menu of interventions can include: providing available
antivirals or vaccines to those at-risk, protecting poultry farms,
preparing hospitals to take on thousands of patients, and even keeping
people indoors. By tracking wild birds we may even be able to produce
an avian flu vaccine faster by understanding which influenza virus is
the killer. The current H5N1 virus is not the one that could cause
widespread devastation to humans because it hasn't led to sustained
human to human transfer, yet.
This amendment provides $10,000,000 in 2006 to the CDC to work with
U.S. and international partners to strengthen a global wild bird
surveillance system. Ten million dollars is a small sum in comparison
to the tens of billions of dollars for vaccine research and antiviral
stockpiling. Vaccines and stockpiling are our current focus and we
should be thinking about them, but it is equally important to think
about being prepared for outbreaks and trying to keep a pandemic from
ever hitting. This funding would enable the CDC's influenza branch to
contract with one or more expert organizations with the capacity to
quickly put into place the tracking and analytical systems we need.
As we speak, some countries and organizations have started to collect
information in the U.S. and the world. But while we are collecting
data, they are not being stored in any kind of organized manner to make
it available for easy study and response.
To summarize, we have a major gap now in avian flu preparedness. We
are not adequately tracking the wild birds that will be the flu
transfer agents. We need to have a stronger and much better tracking
system right now. Second, we have to do a much better job collecting
and analyzing the information we have and will get so we can prepare
our communities.
I thank Senators Harkin and Specter and their staff for their work
preparing our Nation for a possible pandemic. My proposal, which they
have incorporated into their amendment, is relatively small but
addresses a big gap that no one is thinking about. It's the big bird in
the room.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss an important flu
amendment that Senator Harkin and I and several of our colleagues are
offering to increase the amount of funding for the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and their efforts to help our Nation prepare for
both pandemic and seasonal influenza.
Since December 2004, 77 cases of avian influenza have been confirmed
in Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia, and 30 of these cases
have been fatal. In countries across Asia and Europe, farmers have been
culling their poultry stocks because of fears of infection.
We need to prepare for the moment when--not if, but when--avian
influenza hits our shores.
What is particularly worrisome to me, when thinking about our
Nation's ability to face the threat posed by pandemic or avian
influenza, is the fact that we aren't even prepared to deal with the
seasonal influenza epidemic that we face every year. Our efforts to
prepare for pandemic influenza should be linked to efforts to reform
and rebuild our Nation's seasonal flu vaccine infrastructure.
Approximately 36,000 Americans die of the flu each year, with another
200,000 people requiring hospitalization because of the flu. These
deaths are largely preventable. We could stop them if we had a secure
vaccine market, if we could improve our communications between the
Government and our State and local public health partners, if we could
better distribute and track vaccines, and if we made sure that everyone
understood the importance of getting their annual flu shot.
Since 2000, our Nation has had three shortages of flu vaccine, which
resulted in senior citizens lining up for hours to obtain flu vaccine,
unscrupulous distributors attempting to sell scarce vaccine to the
highest bidder, and millions of Americans delaying or deferring
necessary flu shots.
In order to address these issues, we need to increase the resources
that we are committing to our public health infrastructure.
The amendment Senator Harkin is proposing will provide nearly $8
billion to the CDC, allowing us to respond to the threat posed by avian
influenza and our seasonal flu outbreaks.
It will increase funding for stockpiling of vaccine and antivirals,
and improve our domestic production capacity to produce these items.
It will allow us to upgrade our public health infrastructure with
additional funding for hospital surge capacity and grants enabling
State and local health departments to prepare for public health
emergencies like vaccine shortages and pandemic outbreaks.
And it will provide funding so that we can increase our global and
domestic surveillance around pandemic and seasonal flu, including
improvements to our health information technology infrastructure.
Yet while this amendment provides the CDC with much needed resources
for our public health infrastructure, it does not diminish the need for
legislation to reform our Nation's vaccine production and delivery
infrastructure.
In response to the delays in distribution of this year's vaccine, CDC
director Julie Gerberding has indicated that the agency is unable to
obtain real-time data on vaccine shipments and delivery, citing
concerns over disclosure of proprietary information.
Having an adequate supply of vaccine does us no good if it can't get
to the people who need it. In last season's epidemic, we had problems
matching existing stocks of vaccine to the high priority populations,
like senior citizens, who were in need of vaccine. It took weeks before
we could determine how much vaccine was actually in communities, and
where it was needed. We wasted lots of time and resources, valuable
public health resources, in trying to track this vaccine.
Earlier this month, Senator Roberts and I introduced the Influenza
Vaccine Security Act, legislation that contains many of the provisions
that would be funded through the Harkin amendment.
Complementing this amendment, the Influenza Vaccine Security Act
would further give the Department of Health and Human Services the
authority to track vaccine distribution in a manner that addresses
concerns about the protection of proprietary information, allowing
providers to vaccinate patients without the current uncertainties over
supply.
While there is no vaccine shortage expected this year, delays in
production have resulted in diminished supplies for many providers, who
are unable to carry out full vaccination of their high priority
populations, let alone any other patients who are in the habit of
seeking an annual flu shot.
Because we have no tracking system, we can't tell the providers and
patients who are looking for flu shots when vaccines might be available
in their local area.
[[Page 24087]]
So it is clear that we need not only increased funding, provided
through this amendment, for our public health infrastructure, but
increased authority for our public health officials to ensure that our
system of vaccine outreach, delivery and distribution for both
pandemics and seasonal flu can operate as smoothly as possible.
There is a clear need to implement legislation like the Influenza
Vaccine Security Act that will allow our Government to plan for flu
outbreaks, instead of scrambling to address shortages and epidemics
once they have already occurred. We have done too much of that already,
in the three shortages we have faced since 2000.
I would urge my colleagues to not only pass the Harkin amendment
today, but to work to bring legislation on seasonal and pandemic flu to
the floor as quickly as possible, so that we can make needed reforms
before our next vaccine shortage.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the pandemic
flu preparedness amendment that my colleague from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, has
offered to the fiscal year 2006 Labor/Health and Human Services/
Education appropriation bill.
I thank Senator Harkin for taking the lead in addressing the
important issue of pandemic flu on the floor of the Senate. Over the
past few months, we have heard from leading public health experts such
as Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases, at the National Institutes of Health, and Dr.
Julie Gerberding, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention that it is no longer a question of if a pandemic flu will
occur, but instead when the threat does occur will we be prepared as a
nation. Public health experts have warned that an avian influenza
outbreak could ignite a worldwide pandemic that would threaten the
lives of millions of Americans. The consequences of a pandemic could be
far reaching, impacting every sector of our society and our economy.
Past influenza pandemics have led to high levels of illness, death,
social disruption, and devastating economic losses; the 1918 ``Spanish
Flu'', took the lives of more than 500,000 Americans, the 1957 ``Asian
Flu'' caused more than 70,000 American deaths and the 1968 ``Hong Kong
Flu'' is attributed to more than 34,000 American deaths.
Our Nation is facing a major health threat. Experts have told us that
the next pandemic has the potential to be every bit as devastating as
what the world witnessed over 100 years ago. With the rapid travel
around the globe compared to 1918, and the interdependence of our
economic markets compared to 1918, the potential human and economic
costs of the next pandemic are unimaginable.
We must take the necessary steps to adequately prepare for a
potential pandemic. We must heed the warning we have been given. That
is why I support Senator Harkin's pandemic flu amendment. Senator
Harkin's amendment provides necessary funding that would be used to
expand and strengthen efforts at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, as well as at the State and local level related to pandemic
flu and public health preparedness. The amendment would provide
additional funding to expand CDC's global disease surveillance
capabilities, provide additional support for State and local public
health facilities, increase hospital surge capacity and scale up
vaccine manufacturing to make sure the American people are protected
against pandemic threats.
First, the amendment provides additional funding to expand and
support the strategic national stockpile to ensure antivirals, as well
as necessary drugs, vaccines and other supplies are secured to respond
to a pandemic flu and/or other pandemic threats.
Second, this amendment provides additional funding to build up and
support one of the most important components to public health and
threat assessments, which is global disease surveillance. One of the
best first defenses to limiting the scope and consequences of any
outbreak within a short turn around is to rapidly detect and contain
the spread of a new influenza strain.
Third, this amendment funds research efforts to discover new vaccine
treatments to deal with pandemic flu infections. Currently, there is no
vaccine available to protect humans against a pandemic influenza. There
is some vaccine development underway, but these efforts need to be
strengthened, sustained, and tested to protect our Nation against
pandemic flu.
Lastly, this amendment provides additional funding for State and
local public health preparedness initiatives. If a pandemic were to
spread in the United States, State and local health departments would
be on the front lines. However, State and local entities are woefully
unprepared. Additional funds are needed for terrorism response
planning, training, strengthening epidemiology, and surveillance,
upgrading lab capacity and communications systems and other related
activities. They must be given adequate resources. We must take the
lessons learned from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It was evident that
our country's public health infrastructure was not adequately prepared
to address the needs of the people affected by Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita. We cannot let that happen again. We can do better, and we must do
better.
Our Nation's public health experts have done their jobs--they have
told us what needs to be done. We must heed their warning. Again, I
thank Senator Harkin for his work on this important issue, and I
support the amendment as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to amendment No. 2283, as further modified.
The amendment (No. 2283), as further modified, was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are now in a position to move to a
number of amendments on which there is agreement. As we review the
bidding here, there are prospects for several more rollcall votes. It
is, as usual, impossible to tell whether we will need the rollcall
votes. We are calling the Senators rather than identifying them on the
floor--identifying them on the floor is the next step--but Senators
know who they are, where they are on the prospect of rollcall votes,
and they ought to come to the Chamber because we have had many
inquiries as to when we are going to conclude this bill. We are getting
very close.
Amendment No. 2324
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2324 on behalf of
Senators Warner and Allen. This amendment expresses the sense of the
Senate that the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services work with the Commonwealth of Virginia to resolve their
Medicaid issues.
I urge adoption of the amendment. It has been cleared with Senator
Harkin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr. Allen,
for himself, and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment numbered
2324.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate concerning the treatment
of physician costs in the calculation of the Medicaid disproportionate
share hospital uncompensated cost limit by the State of Virginia)
On page 178, after line 25, add the following:
Sec. 222. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following
findings:
(1) Hospitals cannot provide patient care without
physicians.
(2) It is particularly difficult for hospitals to provide
patient care to uninsured patients.
(3) Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments
provide payments to hospitals to provide care to uninsured
patients.
(4) Hospitals that provide a large volume of care to
uninsured patients incur significant costs.
(5) Since there is no other source of reimbursement for
hospitals related to these costs, some States have permitted
reimbursement of these physician costs through Medicaid DSH.
(6) The State of Virginia has approved the inclusion of
physician services costs as hospital costs for Medicaid DSH
purposes.
[[Page 24088]]
(7) Fifty percent of all indigent care in the State of
Virginia is provided by its 2 academic medical centers.
(8) The financial viability of these academic medical
centers is threatened if these costs cannot be included in
Medicaid DSH reimbursement.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the Senate is aware of an issue regarding the definition
of ``hospital costs'' incurred by the State of Virginia for
purposes of Medicaid reimbursement to that State and urges
the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services to work with the State to resolve the pending issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2324.
The amendment (No. 2324) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2279, as Modified
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up Senator Feingold's
amendment No. 2279, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2279, as modified.
The amendment (No. 2279), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2299
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2299,
proposed by Senator Cochran, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr.
Cochran, proposes an amendment numbered 2299.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide additional public health funding)
At the end of title II (before the short title), add the
following:
SEC. __. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH FUNDING.
(a) Minority Public Health.--In addition to amounts
otherwise appropriated under this Act, there are
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, $10,000,000 for the Office of Minority Health.
(b) Sickle Cell Disease.--From amounts appropriated under
the title for the Office of the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, such Secretary shall make available and amount not
to exceed $2,000,000 of such amounts to provide funding for
grants under paragraph (1) of section 712(c) of Public Law
108-357 (42 U.S.C. 300b-1 note).
(c) Offset.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, amounts made available under this Act under the heading
Program Management for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services shall be reduced, on a pro rata basis, by an
additional $12,000,000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
No. 2299.
The amendment (No. 2299) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2301
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2301,
proposed by Senator Obama, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Obama, for
himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dodd, and
Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 2301.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To increase funds to the Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational
Opportunity Program and the Office of Special Education Programs of the
Department of Education for the purpose of expanding positive
behavioral interventions and supports)
At the end of title III (before the short title), insert
the following:
SEC. ___. THURGOOD MARSHALL LEGAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
PROGRAM AND POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS
AND SUPPORTS.
(a) Increases.--In addition to amounts otherwise
appropriated under this Act, there is appropriated, out of
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an
additional $3,500,000 for subpart 3 of part A of title VII of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1136 et seq.),
and an additional $1,000,000 to the Office of Special
Education Programs of the Department of Education for the
expansion of positive behavioral interventions and supports.
(b) Offset From Consulting Expenses.--
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, each
amount provided by this Act for consulting expenses for the
Department of Health and Human Services shall be reduced by
the pro rata percentage required to reduce the total amount
provided by this Act for such expenses by $4,500,000.
(2) Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate a listing of the amounts by account of the reductions
made pursuant to paragraph (1).
(c) Report on Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational
Opportunity Program.--Not later than September 30, 2006, the
Secretary of Education shall prepare and submit to Congress a
report on the evaluation data regarding the educational and
professional performance of individuals who have
participated, during fiscal year 2006 or any preceding year,
in the program under subpart 3 of part A of title VII of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1136 et seq.).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
No. 2301.
The amendment (No. 2301) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2327
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2327,
proposed by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman, and
the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr.
Coleman, for himself, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment
numbered 2327.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To develop a strategic plan for increasing the number of
foreign students attending institutions of higher education in the
United States)
On page 191, line 2, strike ``may be used'' and all that
follows through ``dissemination activities:'' on line 4 of
such page and insert ``may be used for program evaluation,
national outreach, and information dissemination activities,
and shall be used by the Secretary of Education to develop,
through consultation with the Secretaries of State, Commerce,
Homeland Security, and Energy, institutions of higher
education in the United States, organizations that
participate in international exchange programs, and other
appropriate groups, a strategic plan for enhancing the access
of foreign students, scholars, scientists, and exchange
visitors to institutions of higher education of the United
States for study and exchange activities: Provided further,
That the strategic plan described in the preceding proviso
shall make use of the Internet and other media resources,
establish a clear division of responsibility and a mechanism
of institutionalized cooperation between the Departments of
Education, State, Commerce, Homeland Security, and Energy,
and include streamlined procedures to facilitate
international exchanges of foreign students, scholars,
scientists, and exchange visitors:''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
No. 2327.
The amendment (No. 2327) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2248, as Modified
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2248, as
modified, for Senator Landrieu.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2248, as modified.
The amendment (No. 2248), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:
(Purpose: To increase appropriations for the Federal TRIO programs)
At the end of title III (before the short title), add the
following:
(a) In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated under
this Act, there are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $5,000,000 to carry out
the Federal TRIO programs under chapter 1 of subpart 2 of
part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1070a-11 et seq.).
(b) On page 190, line 3 strike ``$2,104,508,000'' and
insert ``$2,099,508,000''.
Amendment No. 2250, as Modified
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2250, as
modified, proposed by Senator Landrieu.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2250, as modified.
The amendment (No. 2250), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:
(Purpose: To provide funding to carry out the Mosquito Abatement for
Safety and Health Act)
At the end of title II (before the short title), add the
following:
[[Page 24089]]
SEC. __. MOSQUITO ABATEMENT FOR SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT.
From amounts appropriated under this Act for the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention for infectious diseases-
West Nile Virus, there shall be transferred $5,000,000 to
carry out section 317S of the Public Health Service Act
(relating to mosquito abatement for safety and health).
Amendment No. 2215, as Further Modified
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2215, as further
modified, proposed by Senator Sununu.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 2215, as
further modified, is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2215), as further modified, was agreed to, as
follows:
(Purpose: To increase funding for community health centers)
At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
Sec. __. Amounts appropriated in this title for community
health center programs under section 330 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b) shall be increased by
$50,000,000. The amount appropriated for Facilities
Construction funded by the Health Resources and Services
Administration is further reduced by $50,000,000.
Amendment No. 2276, as Modified
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2276, as
modified, proposed by Senator Domenici.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr.
Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 2276, as modified.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide appropriations for the National Youth Sports
Program, a private, nonprofit organization to provide recreational
activities for low-income youth, primarily in the summer months, which
employs college and university athletic facilities)
On page 165, strike line 2 and insert the following:
for a study of the system's effectiveness: Provided further,
That the total amount made available under this heading shall
be increased by $10,000,000, which shall be for carrying out
the National Youth Sports Program under the Community
Services Block Grant Act.
On page 137, line 9, both of the amounts are further
reduced by $10,000,000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if my colleagues will withhold for just a
second, I do not seem to have that amendment in front of me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HARKIN. I do not have any objection to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
No. 2276, as modified.
The amendment (No. 2276), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2262, as Modified
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2262, as
modified, proposed by Senator Bingaman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
The yeas and nays have been ordered on this amendment, so it cannot
be adopted by a voice vote.
Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Is that on amendment No. 2262?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. I believe in my conversations with both Senator Bingaman
and Senator Hutchison that they agreed to a voice vote on this
amendment. So I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays on
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to lend my support to amendment
No. 2262 to the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006. I am proud to be cosponsor of
this amendment, which was introduced by Senator Bingaman. The amendment
adds $60 million to key education programs that are critical to
improving Hispanic educational opportunities. If approved, the money
will be put to good use by State and local entities to invest in our
country's most precious resource: Our youth.
The Hispanic community is an integral component of our American
workforce. By ensuring that the 8.7 million Hispanic youth enrolled in
our Nation's schools succeed in education, we make a down payment on
our Nation's future economic security.
I note that the Hispanic Education Coalition, a group of diverse
national education, civil rights, and Hispanic organizations, supports
amendment No. 2262.
The amendment will restore $5 million in funding to the School
Dropout Prevention Program that was authorized by the No Child Left
Behind Act, and long championed by my colleague Senator Bingaman. It
increases funding for civics and English as a Second Language, ESL,
programs by $6.5 million for parents, workers and citizens who want to
learn more about our country's history and enhance their language
skills in English, the language of opportunity in America and
throughout the world.
In addition, funding for two small but incredibly effective programs,
the High School Equivalency Program, HEP, and the College Assistance
Migrant Program, CAMP, would be reinstated to their Fiscal Year 2004
levels. As a product of rural America, I have known and met many
migrant worker families. They work hard to provide the wonderful
grains, vegetables, and fruits we eat at our dinner table. In Colorado
and other parts of the country, HEP-CAMP works to keep migrant students
in high school through graduation, with the ultimate goal of sending
them off to college.
This amendment also provides an additional $13 million in funding for
Parent Assistance and Local Family Information Centers. The Colorado
Parent Information and Resource Center in Denver uses this funding to
help low income parents understand and navigate the school system and
encourages their involvement in the school community. Parental
involvement is critical to children's success and I strongly support
efforts that engage parents in their children's education.
Finally, there are modest increases for our Nation's Hispanic-Serving
Institutions and for bilingual and migrant education.
I urge the Senate's support of amendment No. 2262 because I believe
we will all reap the benefits of increasing Hispanic educational
achievement.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to support an amendment
introduced by Senator Bingaman to increase funding for education
programs for Hispanic students. This important group of Americans has
long been underserved by our public schools, and the actions proposed
in this amendment are an important remedy.
In America, the promise of a good education for all makes it possible
for any child to rise above the barriers of race or class or background
and achieve his or her potential. We live in a world where the most
valuable skill you can sell is knowledge. Yet we are denying this skill
to too many of our children.
This denial has grave consequences, with those consequences falling
inequitably on children of color. Of every 100 white kindergartners, 93
graduate from high school, and 33 earn at least a bachelor's degree.
But for every 100 Hispanic kindergartners, only 63 graduate from high
school, and only 11 obtain that college degree. The school age
population of Hispanic students is growing five times faster than the
student population at large. If we fail to do better in educating
deserving Hispanic youth, this failure will have grave consequences for
us all, not just with increased unemployment but in missed
opportunities for innovation and competitiveness.
This failure of our education system is not easy to address. There is
no single, simple solution. This amendment recognizes this fact by
proposing a variety of programs to help Hispanic students. Among these
programs, Support for Hispanic Serving Institutions will help those
colleges that now grant diplomas to over 50 percent of all Hispanic
graduates. Language Acquisition Grants address those students who
struggle to learn because they do not yet have full fluency in English,
a number which includes nearly half of the Hispanic students in our
public schools. The School Dropout Prevention Program addresses one of
the most significant problems for children of
[[Page 24090]]
color. In Illinois, only 53 percent of Hispanics graduate from high
school, compared with 83 percent of whites.
We must do better. We must not lower our standards. Instead, we must
increase our support for those students who are eager to succeed. In
many situations, it is clear that children of color, when provided
appropriate support and effective teachers, can rise to meet our
expectations and fulfill their hopes and the dreams of their families.
I am proud to support Senator Bingaman in this effort.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2262, as modified.
The amendment (No. 2262), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:
(Purpose: To increase funding for education programs serving Hispanic
students)
At the end of title III (before the short title), insert
the following:
SEC. __. INCREASED FUNDING FOR EDUCATION PROGRAMS SERVING
HISPANIC STUDENTS.
(a) Migrant Education.--In addition to amounts otherwise
appropriated under this Act, there are appropriated, out of
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an
additional $4,800,000 for the education of migratory children
under part C of title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6391 et seq.).
(b) English Language Acquisition.--In addition to amounts
otherwise appropriated under this Act, there are
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, an additional $7,650,000 for English language
acquisition programs under part A of title III of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6811 et seq.).
(c) HEP/CAMP.--In addition to amounts otherwise
appropriated under this Act, there are appropriated, out of
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an
additional $2,850,000 for the High School Equivalency Program
and the College Assistance Migrant Program under section 418A
of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070d-2).
(d) ESL/CIVICS Programs.--In addition to amounts otherwise
appropriated under this Act, there are appropriated, out of
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an
additional $3,250,000 for English as a second language
programs and civics education programs under the Adult
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 9201 et seq.).
(e) Parent Assistance and Local Family Information
Centers.--In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated under
this Act, there are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an additional $6,500,000
for the Parent Assistance and Local Family Information
Centers under subpart 16 of part D of title V of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7273 et seq.).
(f) Hispanic-Serving Institutions.--In addition to amounts
otherwise appropriated under this Act, there are
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, $4,950,000 for Hispanic-serving institutions
under title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1101 et seq.).
(g) Offset.--The first amount on page 123, line 15 and the
amount on line 21 are further reduced by $30,000,000.
Amendment No. 2259
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to bring up
amendment No. 2259.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, amendment No. 2259 is an amendment that
was offered by Senator Bingaman and Senator Smith. This amendment funds
money for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. It was mentioned earlier. I
know that Senator Bingaman and others wanted a rollcall vote on
amendment No. 2259. I believe all debate has transpired. I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have already been ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment provides for an additional
$75 million from the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. The bill currently
contains $797,521,000. It has an increase of $10 million over last
year. As is the case with so many of the items, it is a very good
program. We would like to have more money, but we simply do not have an
offset.
If the sponsors of the amendment have some offset and want to talk
about priorities, we will be glad to listen, but on this state of the
record, we are constrained to oppose the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to amendment No. 2259. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered
by Senator Bingaman to provide $60 million to strengthen programs
critical to the success of Hispanic children and youth in our schools,
community colleges, and universities.
The No Child Left Behind Act laid a new foundation for our commitment
to a quality education for all children. That landmark legislation,
enacted 3 years ago, contained the formula for success for all
students: well-qualified teachers, effective instruction, especially
for children with limited English skills, additional assistance for
students who fall behind in school, and the accountability essential to
ensure that no child is in fact left behind. But none of those reforms
can succeed without the resources necessary to make them possible.
The bill before us falls far too short of delivering the educational
opportunity promised to Hispanic students in the No Child Left Behind
Act. We can clearly do more to enable Hispanic children to have access
to the best possible education. The Bingaman amendment before us will
add urgently needed funds and restore the integrity of key Hispanic
programs that have been eliminated or underfunded in the bill.
Hispanic children are the Nation's fastest growing student
population. The number of Hispanic students in America's classrooms has
grown by 61 percent since 1990. Despite this growth, too many of these
children are being denied the support they need to succeed in school.
In fact, Hispanic students drop out of high school at an unacceptable
rate of 52 percent.
The Bingaman amendment restores funding for the School Dropout
Prevention Program, which helps States and school districts implement
research-based, sustainable dropout prevention programs and re-entry
programs to help students who fall behind academically. At a time when
we are working to narrow achievement gaps, this important program is
more essential than ever, and is geared to ensure that all children
graduate with a high school diploma. By contrast, the underlying bill
eliminates this program entirely and is an insult to every Hispanic
child in America.
The amendment also invests an additional $10 million to restore title
III and expand its services to an additional 16,000 English-language-
learners throughout the Nation. This year, we are adequately serving
only 1 in every 5 of these students under title III. All English
language-learners deserve access to good bilingual programs, with well-
qualified teachers to help them learn English and meet high academic
standards.
The Bingaman amendment also provides funds for another provision in
the No Child Left Behind Act, the Parent Information Resource Centers
and Local Family Information Centers programs. The amendment adds $13
million for Parent Information Resource Centers, bringing total funding
to $55 million. Because Local Family Information Centers can be funded
only if funds for the parent centers are over $50 million, the Bingaman
amendment enables the local centers to receive funding for the first
time ever. The $5 million that the amendment provides for the Local
Family Information Centers is an important step in involving parents in
their children's education, and is especially important for parents of
English-language-learners who may need more assistance in navigating
the school system.
The amendment also benefits the 750,000 children of migrant
farmworkers, by providing an additional $9 million for the Migrant
Education Program. These children face many obstacles to their
education, including dire poverty, geographic and cultural isolation,
and outright bigotry. The Migrant Education Program was created
[[Page 24091]]
in 1966 to reduce these obstacles, coordinate educational services to
migrant children, and lay the foundation for them to succeed in school
and in life. This amendment will provide a range of supplemental
support services to migrant students, including the assurance that
their school records will follow them from school to school as their
families relocate to new areas of the region of the Nation.
The Bingaman amendment will also help migrant students go to college
and complete college, by investing an additional $5 million in the High
School Equivalency Program and the College Assistance Migrant Program.
These two programs are lifelines of college opportunity for migrant
students. They use proven strategies to help migrant students complete
high school and graduate from college. They provide instruction and
counseling for those who have dropped out of school to get back on
track, and they provide valuable guidance to migrant high school
graduates in their first year of college.
By contrast, the bill before us freezes funding for these two
programs at this year's levels of $18.7 million for the high school
program and $15.5 million for the freshman college program. It carries
forward a cut of $4.4 million from last year, which resulted in the
elimination of five parts of the high school program. We need to do
more, not less, to help migrant students succeed in school and college.
Reductions in these valuable programs should be unacceptable to us all.
Finally, the Bingaman amendment provides an additional $9.9 million
to support the nearly 250 colleges and universities across the country
designated as Hispanic Serving Institutions. Over half of all Hispanic
students enrolled in higher education are served by these colleges and
universities. They enable tens of thousands of Hispanic students every
year to continue their education and obtain a college degree.
Investing in the education of Hispanic children is a vital part of
assuring the future strength and well-being of our Nation. I strongly
urge the Senate to support the Bingaman amendment.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
Bingaman amendment. This amendment provides $74 million in much needed
additional support for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program.
Yesterday, the Senate overwhelmingly defeated an amendment by Senator
Coburn that would have increased ADAP funding at the expense of the
Centers for Disease Control construction and renovations account. CDC
buildings and labs haven't been updated in years, and in some cases
decades. Today, we are asking CDC to do more to protect public health
than ever before, especially in light of important priorities like
avian flu preparedness and combating bioterrorism. It doesn't make
sense to cut the funds that would help them build the facilities to do
it, which is why I could not support the Coburn amendment.
The Bingaman amendment will help provide additional funding for
lifesaving medications to nearly 150,000 low-income, uninsured or
underinsured people in the United States. And it does not cut other
important public health programs to do it. The CDC estimates that over
212,000 people in the U.S. who have been diagnosed with HIV are not
receiving treatment, making this additional ADAP funding a critical
priority. I urge my colleagues to help those not receiving treatment by
supporting this important amendment.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would like to talk briefly about the
importance of the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, or ADAP. ADAP is a
vital resource for low-income individuals who are living with HIV/AIDS.
It helps get medications to those who most need them so that they can
stay healthy and avoid more costly health care treatments that are
required if their condition worsens. To date, ADAP has been a
successful partnership between Federal and State governments, but it is
rapidly buckling under the strain of budget shortfalls and rising
demand for services.
Currently, there are over one million individuals living with HIV in
the United States, many of whom rely upon expensive medications to stay
alive. While we have made significant strides in stabilizing the spread
of HIV in recent years, it is the most vulnerable individuals who are
unable to afford medications to treat their condition. These are the
people that ADAP helps. They are not eligible for Medicaid--as most
State programs only cover those individuals who have been disabled by
full-blown AIDS. They are individuals who simply cannot afford to
purchase all the medications required to keep them healthy and active
members of the community and the workforce.
Each year, ADAP caseloads increase by 7,000 to 8,000 people. Yet
funding has not kept pace with that growth. It has been estimated that
ADAP would need an additional $100 million each year to keep pace with
increased demand. While increases in drug rebates or State funding
could contribute to part of that need, they will by no means cover the
entire amount. The Federal Government must also step up its financial
commitment to ensure that all individuals, including those new to the
program, get the care they need.
Unfortunately, we have not met the new demand. In the budget we are
debating today, ADAP has only received a $10 million increase over
amounts appropriated in 2005, the same amoun recommended by the House.
In 2004, funding for ADAP only increased by $34 million. Year after
year, ADAP goes underfunded, which means more and more low-income
individuals are unable to access medications that may keep them alive.
In my opinion, that is simply wrong.
In response to funding shortfalls, many states, struggling with their
own budgetary difficulties, have been forced to create waiting lists,
implement additional cost sharing requirements or create restrictive
formularies that create barriers for many individuals to access
treatment. Other states with lower than average eligibility guidelines
have been unable to extend coverage to individuals who live in poverty
because they do not meet restrictive income and asset tests.
The State of Oregon has done its best to keep ADAP service levels
constant, with the support of organizations like Cascade AIDS. But it
is becoming increasingly more difficult to meet the rowing need for
assistance. Oregon's ADAP has been forced to implement priority service
ran kings and may have to consider additional cost-sharing requirements
next year. Our income eligibility guidelines have also been lowered, a
change which means more individuals are going to go without the
medications they need. Oregon is not alone.
Currently, 2,185 low-income individuals are on waiting lists for ADAP
nationwide. Some of these individuals have been fortunate enough to
receive temporary assistance through an emergency initiative launched
last year by the President. However, that program expired in September
and will be entirely phased out by the end of the year. Individuals on
waiting lists are sick and in most cases they only get sicker while
they wait for treatment.
Sadly, individuals on waiting lists in Kentucky and West Virginia
died while waiting for acceptance into their States drug assistance
programs. In a nation with wealth such as ours, it is unacceptable that
individuals face the threat of dying from AIDS because we do not
adequately fund the programs such as ADAP. Now is the time for Congress
to act so further tragedies like these do not occur again.
Apart from these unfortunate examples, others who are on waiting
lists are only likely to see their conditions worsen, which means they
may one day require more costly health care treatment. It is not good
fiscal policy to continually fail to invest in medical treatments that
could prevent HIV cases from progressing to full-blown AIDS. It is a
fact that treating AIDS is much more expensive than treating HIV. The
more we can do to keep individuals healthier, longer, the better, not
only in terms of cost savings for the government, but in extending the
chance that those living with HIV/AIDS can live to see a cure for their
illness.
[[Page 24092]]
As a matter of fiscal and moral responsibility, Senator Bingaman and
I are offering an amendment today that would increase funding to ADAP
programs by $74 million in the 2006 budget. That amount, combined with
the new funding already in the bill, should just barely cover the costs
associated with new caseload growth in the coming year. I know it will
not be enough to address past funding inequities, but it is a start. We
have to act now to do something to address ADAP waiting lists and
support those States--like Oregon--that have fought to keep their
programs whole, but often at the expense of imposing increased cost-
sharing and additional access barriers.
I understand there are enormous demands on the Federal budget, but
this isn't an issue of increased spending, but of priorities. ADAP has
the potential to save lives and must be a priority of this Congress.
For too many years, appropriations have not kept pace with new case
growth, and the situation is becoming unsustainable. We must act now to
better support some of our most vulnerable citizens who live with HIV
and that is why I am asking you to support my amendment.
I realize I do not have an offset for my request and I respect
Chairman Specter's position to keep the pending bill in balance. But at
the same time, there are some issues that are of such great importance
that they require us to commit new funding, regardless of whether it
was accounted for in our original spending plan. ADAP is one of them.
In a bill that appropriates almost $150 billion, I don't believe $74
million is too much to ask, especially if it could save someone's life.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I make a point of order under section
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides
spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation under the
fiscal year 2005 concurrent resolution on the budget.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable
sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Corzine), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from
West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 278 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Chafee
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith
Stabenow
Talent
Wyden
NAYS--50
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Carper
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--4
Burr
Corzine
Inouye
Rockefeller
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are
50. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts has an
amendment which Senator Harkin and I have discussed with him. I believe
it is acceptable. I yield now to Senator Kerry so he can state his
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 2216
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside
and amendment No. 2216 be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] proposes an
amendment numbered 2216.
Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for a limitation on funds)
At the end of title II (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement any strategic plan under section 3 of
Executive Order 13335 (regarding interoperable health
information technology) that lacks a provision that requires
the Department of Health and Human Services to give notice to
any patient whose information maintained by the Department
under the strategic plan is lost, stolen, or used for a
purpose other than the purpose for which the information was
collected.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, very quickly, this is an amendment that
makes clear as we gather this gigantic database of information, medical
information, that we apply the same privacy rights to that information
we have applied with respect to banking information, so if indeed it
were either hacked or there were a theft or loss of that information,
any individual whose information is contained therein would be notified
so they would be aware of it and able to take any steps necessary to
protect themselves.
I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member for being
willing to accept this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2216) was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again we are very close to finishing up
this appropriations bill. There may be one or two other amendments. I
am hopeful. Please come. I have been deceived by people saying they
have a plane to catch, they have this or that. But those who have any
amendments, if they haven't been over here--otherwise, I defer to my
distinguished chairman.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HARKIN. I will.
Mr. SPECTER. We have an amendment by the Senator from California,
Mrs. Boxer, who is on the floor and ready to go with her amendment. My
suggestion would be--we have culled the list, we have called everyone,
we know of no other rollcall votes--that we move to third reading when
we conclude the Boxer amendment.
We have had continuous requests, multiple requests. Senators want to
know when we are going to conclude. We are very close to concluding.
Let us, if it is agreeable to my ranking member, take up the Boxer
amendment, and then have an interlude for
[[Page 24093]]
anybody else who has an amendment. Then we will go to third reading and
final passage.
As previously announced, Senator Boxer is next. Then we have the
amendment of the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign. We will have two
back-to-back rollcall votes on Senator Boxer's amendment and Senator
Ensign's amendment. Then we will be in a position to have some
additional voice votes on about half a dozen amendments. Then we are in
a position to go to final passage. Our colleagues can be informed that
we are moving right along. That should conclude the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania and my
friend from Iowa for being courteous as we tried to work something out.
It appears we are going to have to vote on this amendment. I urge my
colleagues to support afterschool programs.
I send a modification to amendment No. 2287 to the desk and ask for
immediate consideration of the modified amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 2287), as modified, is as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 2287, as modified
(Purpose: To increase appropriations for after-school programs through
21st century community learning centers)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. 21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS.
(a) Funding Increase.--In addition to amounts otherwise
appropriated under this Act, there is appropriated
$51,900,000 for 21st century community learning centers under
part B of title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7171 et seq.).
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will use a very short amount of time,
knowing colleagues are anxious to get moving on this bill.
I feel heavy in my heart because this Senate is such a wonderful
institution when we authorize afterschool programs in the United States
of America. We did that, and we have had a very sad response in terms
of the funding that does not match the authorization.
I think my colleagues know full well the FBI says there is no program
that does more to keep our kids out of trouble than afterschool
programs. That is why Senator Ensign and I teamed up originally to get
the first of afterschool programs authorized by this Congress. But it
has been very sad.
I know the Senator from Pennsylvania supports this program. I know
the Senator from Iowa, who heads this important subcommittee, supports
these programs. Most Senators support these programs. But right now is
a moment when we have to stand up for our kids.
Look at what has happened. Despite the fact we are supposed to be
going toward $2.25 billion, we are actually now funding afterschool at
less than $1 billion--less than we were in 2002 because the afterschool
programs have not been exempted from across-the-board cuts.
What we will do today with this amendment is add back--this is very
important--$51.9 million, which will get it back to the $1 billion
area. At least we will take it back to where it was in 2002.
This is a very sad day.
I want to say something to my friend from Pennsylvania, the chairman
of the subcommittee and someone whom I admire greatly, Senator Specter.
What we have here is a real sadness for our children. We have a
situation where we are actually cutting the funding of afterschool
programs year after year after year while our children cry out for
attention after school. The FBI tells us this is the best.
The Bush administration's Drug Enforcement Agency takes taxpayer
money and places ads all over America's televisions that say, It is 4
o'clock in the afternoon. Do you know where your children are? It is 3
o'clock, 5 o'clock. Make sure you know where your children are. They
spend taxpayer dollars with one hand warning our families to take care
of their kids after school and with the other hand we and they are
complicit in cutting the afterschool programs.
We are covering 1.3 million children. There is another couple million
to 3 million who need afterschool care. The least we can do is add
roughly $51 million to protect this program from inflationary costs and
at least get it back to where it was in 2002.
For the sake of our children, for the sake of our families--I am
talking here about our poor families, our working poor families, our
middle-class families, and our upper middle-class families, and, yes,
frankly, even our wealthier families who also support these programs, I
urge you to please vote aye on this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from California for
offering this amendment on afterschool funding. I agree with her about
the importance of the program. It is a line of community support which
I have recognized for several decades since I was district attorney for
Philadelphia, since I saw firsthand the high incidence of crime
committed during the hours between the time students leave school and
the time they see their parents. Senator Harkin and I have been very
solicitous about this program and have made very substantial increases
going back to 1998 when we added $39 million; in 1999, we added $160
million; in 2000, we added $253 million; in 2001, we added $392
million; in 2002, we added $154 million. We took a program which was
funded at $40 million in 1998 and we brought it right up to the billion
dollar mark. It is a tremendous program.
One of the grave difficulties of managing this bill is to oppose so
many amendments which are good. We had to oppose Senator Byrd's $5
billion for title II, Senator Kennedy's addition to Pell grants,
Senator Dodd on daycare, Senator Clinton on special education, and so
it goes. If you want to amass a terrible voting record, be chairman of
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and
Education. It is a great place to do it.
I wish we had more of an allocation. I know how sincere the Senator
from California is about this program. I very much regret being
constrained to oppose it.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield briefly?
Mr. SPECTER. I do.
Mrs. BOXER. I know the Senator is a big supporter of the afterschool
program because I remember when the President was looking to cut it in
half. He and I were looking at this together, and we spoke. I think it
was teaming up with Members on both sides of the aisle to help. I want
to point out to my dear friend that when Senator Ensign and I got
together and wrote the authorization part which you have been so
wonderful to fund, we were very clear in our authorization--and
everyone supported it--that, my God, to actually reduce the funding of
this program is a big mistake.
I say to my friend, getting this program to $1 billion occurred
because we all worked together on the authorization, and we were
fortunate to have appropriators who agreed with us.
But in 2002, even with the best efforts of my friend, we haven't even
protected this program from inflation from 2002 to today and to 2006.
We actually have a cut in real dollars to the program below inflation.
It is tragic that we will lose children from this program which the FBI
says is so important.
I want to make one more plea to my friend. I am not asking for $1
billion, which in fact we should have if we follow the authorization.
All I am asking for is enough funding--such a small sum that it is an
asterisk in this budget--to please add $51.9 million. That is all. We
will at least bring it back up to $1 billion, because we haven't been
protected from across-the-board cuts.
I make a plea to my friend. I know everything around here is
precedent setting, to do this or that or the other. These are real
kids. There is real stuff going on out there, and they need these
afterschool programs.
I yield the floor and thank my friend very much for yielding to me.
Mr. SPECTER. We will keep a sharp eye on this program in conference.
If
[[Page 24094]]
there is any way to increase the funding to any extent, Senator Harkin
and I will be very sympathetic.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for
offering this amendment and for being, if she doesn't mind my term, the
watchdog. We all get wrapped up in a lot of things here. But I can't
think of anything more important than what Senator Boxer is talking
about right now. We know what is happening in this country. We know
more and more people are being squeezed by the fact that we can't raise
the minimum wage. They are being squeezed by the lack of adequate
housing. They are being squeezed by entry-level jobs that they cannot
get. There are all kinds of pressures on families.
We passed a law 10 years ago, Welfare to Work, to get people off of
welfare to go to work. We always knew that the one big component we
never answered was, what do you do with the kids? It is both daycare
and afterschool funding because these parents get home right away--
usually single parents. We need the funding for the afterschool
programs. If we want to cut down on teen crime and teen drugs, teen
pregnancies, this is the way to do it. Senator Boxer is absolutely
right. It is a shame we do not have the money for it. We should have.
I thank the Senator for offering this amendment. I hope, with the
concurrence of our chairman, we can somehow find the money for this. I
don't know where. It is tight. I know we have a tight situation. I
cannot think of anything more worthy than this program.
I thank the Senator from California.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, with reluctance, I have to raise a point
of order. This will push us over the brink. Under section 302(f) of the
Budget Act, this amendment would create a situation where the authority
and outlays would be in excess of the subcommittee 302(b) allocation
for the fiscal year 2006. I expect the Senator from California to move
to waive.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appreciate that my friend is reluctant
to raise this. I look forward to the conference, where perhaps we can
find enough money to protect some of these kids.
Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I
move to waive the applicable sections of the act for purposes of the
pending amendment.
I ask again for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we will now proceed to the amendment of
the Senator from Nevada. It is the anticipation of the managers
following that amendment that we will have two rollcall votes.
I ask unanimous consent that after the yeas and nays have been
ordered, the first rollcall vote be 15 minutes plus 5 and the second a
10-minute rollcall vote, 10 minutes plus 5.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Amendment No. 2300
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2300.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, before I speak on my amendment, briefly I
will comment about Senator Boxer's amendment.
Senator Boxer and I have worked long and hard on afterschool
programs, something in which I passionately believe. We worked to try
to have this program increased without adding to the deficit, so we had
an offset. It was unfortunate the offset was not accepted. I will
continue to work with Senator Boxer because it is a program in which I
believe. However, I also believe in staying within the budget. So
reluctantly, I will have to vote against Senator Boxer's amendment. I
say reluctantly. It pains me to do so. To be consistent with my voting
record this year, I have voted consistently to stay within the budget.
I will reluctantly oppose that amendment.
Getting to my amendment, this is a very simple amendment, and I will
not speak long because I know everyone needs to get home. I will keep
it as simple as possible.
My amendment will stop the Department of Education from competing
against private companies in the United States that are developing
software to teach Chinese students to speak the English language.
Normally, one would think that would be a good thing, for the
Department of Education to be able to help the Chinese students learn
English--English is an international language--that would be a good
thing, and we all applaud those efforts. The problem is, there are at
least five companies in the United States and probably many more that
already have invested their research dollars and created jobs in the
United States to produce this very same software. This software exists
today and these companies in the United States would like to sell to
the Chinese market.
I don't think our Government should be in the business of competing
with the private sector. We are all worried about jobs in the United
States, and here we have the Department of Education contracting to
develop software that they can give to the Chinese so they can teach
their kids English.
There are very effective programs out there that have been developed.
We have letter after letter after letter from these companies opposing
what the Department of Education is doing. They have asked for help.
What this amendment is about is protecting jobs in the United States,
protecting those software engineers, those high-value, high-quality
jobs in the United States, and to help them be able to sell to other
countries--in this case, especially to the Chinese.
The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is supporting my
amendment and is going to consider this vote in their ratings. If you
believe in fiscally conservative principles, we hope you vote for the
Ensign amendment.
I don't want to take up more time other than to reemphasize this
point: Protect jobs in America. We have all voted on trade issues here.
With trade issues, the premise behind those is we open markets in both
places. We all know that the Chinese and low-cost labor have brought a
lot of products into the United States. Here we have products that have
been developed in the United States that could be sold in China. That
is how trade is supposed to work. While we are doing free-trade
agreements, we should not cut off the very jobs created in America to
sell to the people in China.
I urge passage of our amendment and encourage all of my colleagues to
protect jobs in America and vote for this valuable amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from
Nevada is seeking to do, but let me see if I can put his amendment in a
broader perspective.
I agree, as a general rule, we ought to prevent the Government from
directly competing with the private sector for a variety of reasons,
but the E-Language Learning System is a unique case, and we ought to
treat it as such. There are three reasons.
This is not just some program somebody cooked up and put in the
budget; this is a program that was initiated directly by President Bush
as a result of a summit meeting with President Jiang Zemin in China in
October of 2001. This was a President Bush and Jiang Zemin summit
proposal from 2001.
The President announced the intent of our Government to implement
this program at the APEC summit in Shanghai after meeting with
President Jiang. Secretary Powell reiterated the importance of the
program at the APEC summit 1 year later.
We do a lot of talking around here about the importance of public
diplomacy, how do we do a better job getting the American image, the
American voice, the American culture and values seen around the world.
This is an important part of our public diplomacy since it will help
Chinese children learn English and learn more about the United States
of America.
[[Page 24095]]
Of all of the foreign ``aid'' we have ever promoted since World War
II, the most effective has been in education where their students study
here or our students study there. This can be utilized to help American
children learn Chinese and other critical foreign languages in the
future, something that is important to our national security, according
to the Hart-Rudman Report and the 9/11 Commission Report.
This is the first and most important point, this agreement between
the President of the United States, George W. Bush, and the President
of China. It is in our national interests.
The other two points, quickly. There has been some argument that the
contract awarded to implement this program that was agreed upon by the
Presidents of our two nations is somehow unfair. It is important for my
colleagues to know that this contract was openly competed and conforms
to the research and development requirement of the STAR schools
legislation following the same rules followed on similar programs for
the last 17 years. It was awarded in open competition to Northrop
Grumman and subcontracted to a company called Little Planet, a company
in Nashville, TN. That is how I happened to know about it.
Some of the unhappy companies, I am told, met with the Department of
Education to talk about how to cooperate with the program and are now
complaining. Mr. President, $2.5 million of the taxpayers' dollars have
already been spent in this program, more than one-third of the total
contract. So we will be pulling the plug and wasting $2.5 million of
taxpayers' dollars a third of the way through a program that was agreed
to by the President of the United States and President Jiang Zemin of
China and flushing the money right down the drain.
Finally, this fairly awarded contract was the result of the agreement
between the leaders of our country and China and is being managed so it
will help, not hurt, the private sector. In an effort to prevent unfair
competition with the private sector, the Department of Education tells
me it has agreed to share the results of its research to promote
further development of the language software. In fact, the Department
hopes the private sector will ``adopt [the program's] unique and
advanced feature that [the Department is] researching and carefully
testing, including authentic voice recognition, gaming, and research-
based learning environments delivered through low-cost web-based
technology.'' So the goal is, in the long run, to help the private
sector.
In conclusion, while the amendment is well-intentioned, and I
understand the Senator's point, it is the wrong approach. It is wrong
because it stops a program agreed to by the leaders of two countries, a
commitment that is in our national security interest, a commitment that
is part of our public diplomacy. It was arrived at fairly. It was
competed. A third of the money has already been spent. And the
Department of Education has agreed to share the results of its research
with the private sector.
I hope my colleagues will oppose this amendment and support it
because it is in the national security interest of our country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Very briefly, I will clarify a couple of points.
One, that this was a bid process.
To use an example, say, for instance, that the Government, the
Department of Education, wanted to give away printers to China, so they
sent out several bids. They had an open bidding process and selected
one company. Even though it was fairly bid, would we want the Federal
Government using taxpayer dollars to buy from one company so they could
give that product to the Chinese? I think not because that would be a
disadvantage for other companies in the United States who should be
able to compete to sell their products in China.
On the second point the Senator from Tennessee raised, he said the
Department of Education is willing to share research on some of the
innovations that are trying to develop. Looking through the details of
what the Department of Education has asked for the software companies
to develop, there are at least five software companies that already
meet those specifications. They already have developed the features the
Department of Education is attempting to develop.
Once again, I urge agreement of the amendment.
Mr. ALEXANDER. China is a pretty big country. There are several
hundred million children there who might have an opportunity to learn
English.
If our President, George W. Bush, in a meeting with the leader of
China, thinks it is a good idea to bid out a $9 million contract to
improve the ways we help Chinese children learn English, if he believes
that is in our national security, I don't think we ought to pull the
plug on it a third of the way through it. There is plenty of
opportunity for the private sector in the United States to help
hundreds of millions of Chinese children learn English, and I hope they
will do that.
I hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the request of Senator Ensign, I ask
unanimous consent that his name be taken off as a cosponsor of the
Boxer amendment because there was a change in the modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my comments will be very limited as to
the pending amendment.
Last year, in the conference report, there was a direction that the
Department not fund any grant that will compete directly with the
private sector, and further that the Department report to the
Committees on Appropriation of the House and the Senate on the
activities undertaken on this project. It is my understanding that no
funds were used on this project last year.
It is a little hard to evaluate the factual basis as I listen to the
arguments of the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Nevada.
However, my own judgment in looking at the record is that it is
unlikely any funds are going to be spent which would--we will include
the same kind of conference language next year, this year, that we had,
which should maintain and should respond to the concerns about any
grant which will compete with the private sector, and it leaves the
Department of Education at their discretion to use this system if they
conclude it will help Chinese students of any age to learn English.
On the basis of a very limited record, my vote will be cast with the
Senator from Tennessee.
In the absence of further debate, can we proceed to two amendments?
Mr. ENSIGN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the plan at this point, under the
unanimous consent agreement already reached, is to have a 15-minute
plus 5 rollcall vote on the Boxer amendment, a 10-minute rollcall vote
plus 5 on the Ensign amendment, and then we will be very close to final
passage.
The concern has been to submit the colloquies and have a few voice
votes now, but I want to be sure when our colleagues come to vote on
these two amendments we know the lay of the land, in case anybody has
not been notified and wants to have a further consideration. But it
would be the anticipation of the managers, following these two votes,
there would be a very brief period of time, and then we would go to
final passage and conclude the bill.
I yield the floor.
Vote on Amendment No. 2287, as Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Budget Act with respect to the Boxer amendment. The yeas and
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Corzine), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from
West
[[Page 24096]]
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 279 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden
NAYS--56
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--3
Corzine
Inouye
Rockefeller
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are
56. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained, and the amendment falls.
Mr. SPECTER. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Amendment No. 2299
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of an amendment
that the Senate has agreed to, the amendment offered by Senator Cochran
adding $12 million for health care for historically underserved
communities, including $2 million to help fund the Sickle Cell
Treatment Act that was passed last year.
I thank Senator Cochran for his concern and sensitivity on the issue
of funding the Sickle Cell Treatment Act. I thank Senators Specter and
Harkin for similarly showing sensitivity to the importance of funding
this bill and funding health care in historically underserved areas.
With this additional $2 million, we will be able to get the program off
the ground, begin designating sickle cell disease outreach centers, and
provide additional grants for medical treatment, education, and other
health care services for sickle cell patients.
I can't emphasize enough how much the leadership of these Senators
means to the community of people who are affected by this disease, not
just the 70,000 Americans who have it, not just the 2.5 million
Americans who have the trait, but their families and friends who
struggle every day with this disease. I thank the bill managers for
accepting the amendment and thank Senator Cochran for offering it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 2300
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to move to the
vote on the Ensign amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Ensign amendment
No. 2300.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2300.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Corzine), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from
West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:
The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 280 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Brownback
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Martinez
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Vitter
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--56
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Hagel
Harkin
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--3
Corzine
Inouye
Rockefeller
The amendment (No. 2300) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. That last 15-
minute vote was 14 minutes. We now have a very brief period for
colloquies and some agreed-to amendments. Senator Harkin and I wanted
to be sure that we hadn't missed anybody, so we did not do this in
advance of the last two votes, but we will take only a few minutes and
I anticipate that we will start this vote before 6 o'clock, which is
not too bad for Labor-HHS on a Thursday afternoon.
Amendment Nos. 2322, 2285, 2277, and 2233, Withdrawn
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment
Nos. 2322, 2285, 2277, and 2233 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2230, as Modified
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the Coburn amendment
No. 2230, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator send the modification to the
desk?
Without objection, the amendment is modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place insert the following:
SEC.__ LIMITATION ON TRAVEL AND CONFERENCES.
The appropriations for travel, conference programs and
related expenses for the Department of Health and Human
Services are reduced by $15,000,000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment, as modified,
is agreed to.
Amendment No. 2282
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Levin's amendment No. 2282
provides for the Secretary to undertake a family unification effort. No
funding is involved. It is language only. It has been cleared by
Senator Harkin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr. Levin,
proposes an amendment numbered 2282.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To create a national family reunification initiative)
On Page 165, before the period on line 5, insert the
following:
: Provided, That the Secretary shall undertake a family
reunification effort in concert with national non-profit
organizations engaged in similar efforts.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
program has successfully carried out activities and services that
support family reunification, family preservation,
[[Page 24097]]
community-based family support, and other services for children in
need.
My amendment builds upon the success of this program, through an
enhanced, coordinated effort to reunite children with their families,
by directing the Secretary to undertake a family reunification
initiative in concert with national non-profit organizations engaged in
similar efforts. The goal is to ensure that the most effective methods
are utilized to achieve family reunification expeditiously. This can be
achieved by collecting, tracking and coordinating information
maintained by national non-profit organizations that are also engaged
in family reunification efforts.
It is quite evident why such a coordinated effort is needed. Over the
past several months, we learned a lot about displacement. After nearly
2 months have passed since Hurricane Katrina, thousands are still
seeking family members. Of the 2,000 foster children who fled New
Orleans due to Hurricane Katrina, 37 are still unaccounted for.
Overall, there have been 4,878 reports of missing children and over
1,600 not yet resolved. There have been 12,754 adults reported as
missing. Of these cases, 6,562 remain unresolved. We have all witnessed
rescues from the rooftops in New Orleans. It was the norm rather than
the exception in many instances for intact families to be separately
rescued and subsequently sent to many different places, all across the
country.
Some have miraculously reconnected with one another. Far too few. We
cannot depend on miracles; we need a coordinated system that will help
unite family members who seek one another. It is for the social good to
bring families together, when possible. Family matters. The strength of
the family is greater than its parts. The stress of losing your home,
your job, your community, does not compare to losing your family.
I am pleased that the managers of the bill have agreed to support
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry. The amendment is No. 2282 or No.
2280?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2282.
Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to
amendment No. 2282.
The amendment (No. 2282) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2289, as Modified
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2289, as
modified, proposed by Senator Dayton.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 178, after line 25, insert the following:
Sec. ___. (a) In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated
under this Act, there are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $15,121,000 for
activities authorized by the Help America Vote Act of 2002,
of which $13,500,000 shall be for payments to States to
promote access for voters with disabilities, and of which
$8,621,000 shall be for payments to States for protection and
advocacy systems for voters with disabilities.
On page 137, line 9, both amounts should be further reduced
by $7,000,000.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I Support Senator Dayton's amendment to
increase the funding for disability access grants mandated under the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA).
Senator Dayton's amendment to H.R. 3010, the fiscal year 06 Labor-HHS
Appropriation bill, provides a $7 million dollar increase to the HHS
provisions. Specifically, Senator Dayton's amendment would increase the
HHS appropriations by $7 million for disability access grants and
protection and advocacy services for voting purposes and ensuring full
participation in the elections process by individuals with
disabilities.
I support the outstanding work of Senator Dayton. Congress has failed
to fully fund HAVA disability grants. To date, with respect to the
disability access grants, Congress authorized a total of $100 million
but has appropriated only $33 million, roughly a third of the funding
required to ensure our Americans with disabilities have equal access to
the franchise for voting purposes in the upcoming Federal elections in
2006, a few months away. With respect to the protection and Advocacy
grants, Congress authorized a total of $40 million but has appropriated
only $12 million, roughly a fourth of the funding required to ensure
our Americans with disability have equal access to voter registration
and polling places in the 2006 Federal elections. As a result, the
disability grant programs have a combined total HAVA funding shortfall
of $95 million in Federal funds for election administration
requirements.
Senator Dayton's amendment for $7 million is offset by administrative
expenses under ``other services'' which received a $599 million
increase over the fiscal year 05 level.
January 1, 2006 is the effective date for two of the most important
Federal requirements mandated by HAVA: The voluntary voting system
standards and the state-wide computerized voter registration list. Both
requirements are designed to ensure that individuals with disabilities
can exercise their right to an accessible ballot.
In light of the above, it is essential that Congress does not fail to
honor our commitment to the disability communities. If we fail to
provide adequate funding, we may jeopardize the opportunity of States
to implement the most historic election reforms in America and the
opportunity to voters, including the disability communities, to fully
exercise their franchise in the upcoming 2006 Federal elections. It is
time to fulfill our promise to the disabilities communities.
I thank Senator Dayton for his leadership on this HAVA issue and I
commend the Chairman, Senator Specter, and the ranking member, Senator
Harkin, for accommodating this increase.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2289, as modified.
The amendment (No. 2289), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2295, as Modified
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up Senator Enzi's amendment No.
2295, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr. Enzi,
proposes an amendment numbered 2295, as modified.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 115, strike lines 15 and 16, and insert the
following:
under title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, or to
modify, through regulatory or administrative action, the
procedure for redesignation of local areas as specified in
subtitle B of title I of that Act (including applying the
standards specified in section 116(a)(3)(B) of that Act, but
notwithstanding the time limits specified in section
116(a)(3)(B) of that Act), until such time as legislation
reauthorizing the Act is enacted. Nothing in the preceding
sentence shall permit or require the Secretary of Labor to
withdraw approval for such redesignation from a State that
received the approval not later than October 12, 2005 or to
revise action taken or modify the redesignation procedure
being used by the Secretary in order to complete such
redesignation for a State that initiated the process of such
redesignation by submitting any request for such
redesignation not later than October 26, 2005.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2295, as modified.
The amendment (No. 2295), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2234, as Modified
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up Senator Coburn's amendment No.
2234, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr.
Coburn, proposes an amendment numbered 2234, as modified.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 222, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
SEC. __. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RISK ASSESSMENT.
(a) Estimate.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
and the Secretary of
[[Page 24098]]
Education shall estimate improper payments pursuant to
section 2 of the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002
(31 U.S.C. 3321 note, Public Law 107-300) under--
(1) in the case of the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program
under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
Program under part E of title IV of such Act (42 U.S.C. 670
et seq,), the Medicaid program under title XIX of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), the State Children's Health
Insurance Program under title XXI of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1397aa et seq.), and the Child Care and Development Block
Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.); and
(2) in the case of the Secretary of Education, title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6301 et seq.).
(b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in the case of the programs specified in subsection
(a)(1), and the Secretary of Education, in the case of the
program specified in subsection (a)(2), shall report to
Congress on the specific actions taken under each such
program to comply with section 2 of the Improper Payments
Information Act of 2002, including a schedule for full
compliance with such Act within fiscal year 2006.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2234, as modified.
The amendment (No. 2234), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2280, as Modified
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up Senator Harkin's amendment No.
2280.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a modification to 2280, which I
send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment
numbered 2280, as modified.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 178, after line 25, insert the following:
Sec. 222. (a) Section 1310.12(a) of the Code of Federal
Regulations shall not apply before June 30, 2006, to any
agency or its designee that provides transportation services
for children enrolled in a Head Start program or an Early
Head Start program if such agency or designee places such
children in child restraint systems (as defined in section
571.213 of the Code of Federal Regulations).
(b) Section 640(i) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C.
9835(i)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(i) The'' and inserting the following:
``(i) Transportation Safety.--
``(1) Regulations.--The''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Waiver authority.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may waive, for a period of
up to one year, the requirements of regulations promulgated
under paragraph (1) of this subsection and section 1310.12(a)
of the Code of Federal Regulations for one or more vehicles
used by the agency or its designee in transporting children
enrolled in a Head Start program or an Early Head Start
program if--
``(i) such requirements pertain to child restraint systems
and bus monitors;
``(ii) the agency demonstrates that compliance with such
requirements will result in a significant disruption to the
Head Start program or the Early Head Start program; and
``(iii) the waiver is in the best interest of the child.
``(B) Renewal.--The Secretary may renew a waiver under
subparagraph (A).''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2280, as modified.
The amendment (No. 2280), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2272
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2272, proposed by
Senator Nelson of Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for Mr. Nelson
of Nebraska, proposes an amendment numbered 2272.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of the
Treasury should ensure that existing Federal employment preferences for
disabled veterans and Federal policies promoting opportunities for
other disabled persons are carried forward as a part of any tax
collection contract program)
On page 222, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
Sec. ___. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 permitted the
outsourcing or privatization by the Internal Revenue Service
of collection of unpaid and past due federal income taxes.
(2) The Internal Revenue Service is about to issue to
private-sector debt collection companies tax collection
contracts that will create up to 4,000 well paying private-
sector jobs.
(3) If the same tax collection activities were conducted by
Federal employees, Federal law would give preferences in
employment to disabled veterans in filling those federal
jobs.
(4) By enacting legislation to improve the Internal Revenue
Service's tax collection efforts and outsourcing or
privatizing those efforts, Congress did not intend to curtail
the Nation's long-standing commitment to creating meaningful
job opportunities for disabled veterans and other persons
with severe disabilities.
(5) The contracts the Internal Revenue Service will execute
with private-sector debt collection companies provide a
unique opportunity for the Federal government to stimulate
the creation of well paying jobs for disabled veterans and
other persons with disabilities.
(b) It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the Secretary of the Treasury should, to the maximum
extent practicable, ensure that existing Federal employment
preferences for disabled veterans and Federal policies
promoting opportunities for other disabled persons are
carried forward as a part of any tax collection contract
program carried out under section 6306 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as added by the American Jobs Creation
Act of 2004, and
(2) the criteria applied by the Internal Revenue Service in
awarding contracts to private-sector tax collection companies
under such program should incorporate a preference for
companies hiring disabled veterans and other disabled
persons.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2272.
The amendment (No. 2272) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
Senators be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 2283: Senator Reed,
Senator Corzine, and Senator Conrad.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if no other Senator has any amendment to
offer, we are now ready for final passage.
I yield to Senator Frist.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I congratulate both the chairman and
ranking member for a tremendous job. This next vote is on passage of
the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, the very last of our series of
appropriations bills that have come before the Senate. Again,
congratulations to Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd and again the
chairman and ranking member on this bill.
We will be in session tomorrow. However, we will have no rollcall
votes. On Monday, we will begin consideration of the deficit reduction
bill, and we are working on a schedule of debate for that measure. I do
not expect to have votes on Monday. We will not have votes on Monday,
but Senators should be aware that next week will be a busy week on the
deficit reduction bill.
Senator Specter has set a high mark with rollcall votes, and people
have come to the floor on time. We are going to continue to encourage--
in fact, require--that. I encourage Senators to be ready for quick
rollcall votes throughout next week.
This is the last vote tonight. There are no votes tomorrow and no
votes on Monday.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as a final word, Senator Harkin and I
thank our very devoted staff: Bettilou Taylor, Ellen Murray, Jim
Sourwine, Mark Laisch, Sudip Parikh, Lisa Bernhardt, Candice Rogers,
Rachel Jones, Erik Fatemi, and Adrienne Hallett.
I notice Senator Grassley is waving his arm. He is here 6 minutes
early. Let the record show it is 5:53.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, very quickly, this is a very big bill. It is
very important for millions of people in this country. The management
of this bill has been spectacular. Senator Specter
[[Page 24099]]
and Senator Harkin should be congratulated. They did a very good job in
a short timeframe. We should all recognize the outstanding job the two
of them did.
mathematics and science education
Mr. VOINOVICH. I rise today to discuss and bring to my colleague's
attention an issue that I believe must become one of our Nation's top
education priorities. As the world's economy becomes more
interconnected, our Nation's economic edge will continue to depend on
our ability to innovate. We cannot remain competitive without a
workforce full of educated and motivated young Americans.
We must invest in our children and enable them to fully develop their
God-given talents in order to compete in a knowledge-based, global
economy. This means we have to place more emphasis on careers in
science, engineering and math. Right now, we are not getting the job
done.
Globally, the United States ranks 17th in the proportion of the
college-age population earning science and engineering degrees, down
from 3rd place several decades ago.
While China graduated 600,000 engineers and India graduated 350,000
last year, only 70,000 students earned degrees in engineering here in
the United States.
In fact, the percentage of 24-year-olds with science or engineering
degrees is now higher in many industrialized nations. Countries
including England, South Korea, Germany, Australia, Singapore, Japan
and Canada all produce a higher percentage of science and engineering
graduates than the United States.
Is the chairman aware of these startling statistics?
Mr. SPECTER. I say to my colleague that I am aware of these examples
and I share his concern.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the chairman for his attention to the issue
and the opportunity to briefly discuss the importance of science and
math education today. I know there are other Senators, especially
Senators Alexander and Bingaman, who care a great deal about this
issue. In fact, as many of my colleagues know, Senator Alexander and
Bingaman asked the National Academy of Science to compile a report on
the top 10 actions the Federal Government can take to enhance our
ability to compete in our global economy. And while the academy
provided a variety of recommendations, from the crucial need for energy
independence and investment in research infrastructure--which are in
their own right extremely important--a great deal of their
recommendations focus on the need to improve our Nation's math and
science coursework and establish a workforce of qualified teachers who
will prepare our students for futures in highly innovative careers.
Has the chairman seen this report?
Mr. SPECTER. I have. And I say to the Senator that the bill before us
provides funding for a number of programs that are consistent with the
academy's report. One such program I know my colleague is familiar with
is the Mathematics and Science Partnership, MSP, program that provides
grants to improve basic student performance in math and science through
a variety of programs and activities. Many of the program's allowable
activities, like summer institutes for teacher training, are specific
activities the National Academy recommends we pursue in order to
enhance our children's development in science and math. The committee
has provided a total of $178.5 million for mathematics and science
programs in fiscal year 2006. The House-passed bill includes $190
million for this program.
We are, of course, working under a tight budget with this bill, but I
want my colleague to know that as we move to conference, I will work to
ensure this program, and other similar math and science programs
receive the highest possible amount of funding.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the chairman. I have heard from my State's
superintendent that MSP grants have gone a long way in Ohio to support
programs the Ohio Science Institute, which is a statewide professional
development opportunity for science teachers of grades 3-10, and the
Ohio Mathematics Academy Program, which is a statewide professional
development opportunity for mathematics teachers in similar grades.
As the chairman and many of my colleagues are aware, I am a fiscal
conservative and understand the deficit and funding constraints we
face.
Yet, in light of the National Academy's report and other studies that
point to our Nation's declining rank in science and math students, I
don't know of too many other programs that deserve our focus and
investment more than those that will prepare our children to compete in
the global marketplace.
I thank the chairman for his commitment to science and math education
programs as we move to conference on this appropriations bill. I hope
his commitment to quality science and math education will extend even
further down the road, as we prepare our budgets for the next fiscal
year.
cdc's arthritis program
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman and Senator
Harkin for all of their work on this bill. Mr. President, as you know,
arthritis is the Nation's leading cause of disability, and it impacts
the lives of 44 million Americans including 300,000 children. Very few
people know, however, that people with rheumatoid arthritis die 5 to 10
years earlier than those without arthritis. In 2003, arthritis claimed
the lives of 9,500 Americans.
In response to this national epidemic, the CDC, and over 90 national
organizations developed the Nation's first ever public health blueprint
to fight arthritis--the National Arthritis Action Plan. Following
release of the plan in 1998, the committee, under your leadership,
established an arthritis program at the CDC and supported a cooperative
relationship between the agency and its partners. This partnership has
supported several significant elements of the NAAP and continues to
play an instrumental part in reducing the pain and disability of
arthritis for millions of Americans. It is my understanding that the
committee has included sufficient funds in the fiscal year 2006
appropriation for the CDC to sustain this collaboration with its
partners at the same level.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank my good friend from Georgia for his remarks. I
am very proud of the role the committee has played in establishing and
expanding the arthritis program at CDC. I believe deeply in the vital
role of the CDC and its partners in this important battle and, yes, the
committee has provided funds to sustain this cooperative relationship.
Mr. HARKIN. I want to thank my friends, the distinguished Senator
from Georgia and the chairman, for their words and just take a moment
to add my endorsement for this important program I am very proud of the
role this subcommittee has played in the reduction of the arthritic
pain and suffering experienced by so many Americans.
Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the chairman.
COMMUNITY-BASED JOB TRAINING GRANTS
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I first want to thank Chairman Specter and
Ranking Member Harkin for their diligent work on the Labor-HHS
Appropriations bill. Budgets are very tight these days and I appreciate
how well the chairman and the ranking member were able to address so
many of the important issues in this bill. With all of this in mind, I
want to enter into a colloquy to clarify a key issue concerning this
measure.
Our Nation's community colleges are critical to our economy. So many
men and women across our country have lost their jobs, and our
traditional manufacturing industries have been hit especially hard. In
the midst of this economic transition, community colleges have been a
real beacon of hope. In North Carolina, for example, workforce
development programs at Piedmont Tech and Forsyth Community College,
are training former tobacco and textile workers for new, well-paying
jobs in health care and biotechnology. Community colleges are leading
the way training workers for the high growth, high demand jobs of the
21st century.
[[Page 24100]]
I am so grateful, as I know the community colleges across the Nation
are as well, for Chairman Specter's efforts to fully fund the
President's request for Community-Based Job Training Grants in last
year's appropriations process. Unfortunately, having reviewed the
provisions contained in the House-passed Labor-HHS Appropriations bill,
the Department of Labor and I are very concerned about the future of
this program.
The House bill designates $125 million in funding for fiscal year
2006 while at the same time rescinding $125 million of fiscal year 2005
funding for the program. This cuts the program in half for both fiscal
years and dramatically reduces the number of dislocated workers our
community colleges can train. Achieving the greatest possible funding
amount for this program must be a top priority. I know that Senator
Cornyn is strongly supporting increased funding for this program and I
thank him for his efforts to help community colleges.
The Community-Based Job Training Grant Program is providing much-
needed funding for community colleges across our country and in my home
State of North Carolina. Just last week, the Labor Department announced
grants for 70 community colleges in 40 States, exhausting the $125
million pot of available money allocated for this program. Nationwide,
388 colleges applied for this funding, and in North Carolina, just one
of the 16 applicants, Haywood Community College, was selected to
receive this funding. We all know that grant programs are very
competitive; still, this funding is clearly not coming close to meeting
the needs of our community colleges. They are on the front lines,
training workers and helping grow our economy, and we can and should do
better to assist them in this endeavor.
Can the chairman assure me of his commitment to the funding of this
program for fiscal year 2006?
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the senior Senator from North Carolina for her
continued interest in this critical program. I want to assure her that
the Senate Appropriations Committee strongly opposes the House
rescission to the Community-Based Job Training Grants, and we are
committed to funding the program at the highest level possible within
the existing budgetary constraints. I thank the senior Senator from
North Carolina.
Mrs. DOLE. I thank the chairman for his work on this critical issue.
office of men's health
Mr. CRAPO. I want to express my appreciation for the chairman's
efforts, and those of the subcommittee ranking member, Senator Harkin,
in working to ensure the health and well-being of Americans everywhere.
As you know, a silent health crisis is currently affecting America's
men. On average, American men live shorter and less healthy lives than
American women. Men lead in each of the 15 major of death in America
except Alzheimer's and have a life span of almost 6 years shorter than
their female counterparts. While this health crisis is of particular
concern to men, it is also a concern for women whose fathers, husbands,
sons and brothers feel the physical, financial and emotional effects of
poor health. Men's health is also a concern for employers who pay the
costs of medical care, and lose productive employees. In addition
Federal, State and local governments must often absorb the enormous
costs of premature death and disability, including the costs of caring
for dependents left behind.
There are a number of ailments of particular concern to men. Prostate
cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in the United States
among men, accounting for 33 percent of all cancer cases. An estimated
230,000 men will be newly diagnosed with prostate cancer this year
alone, and approximately 30,000 will die. Prostate cancer,
unfortunately, is not the only health threat facing men. Over 8,000
men, ages 15 to 40, will be diagnosed this year with testicular cancer,
and 390 of these men will die of this disease in 2005.
Fortunately, many of these conditions are treatable if detected early
enough. I was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2001 and thanks to
early detection and treatment was able to beat the disease. I had
prostate specific antigen, PSA, tests and other recommended tests every
3 to 6 months after my surgery. Last year, my doctors detected a slight
rise in PSA, and I underwent successful radiation treatment. Because I
caught and treated the onset of this disease early on, I was able to
beat it, again. Appropriate use of tests such as PSA exams and blood
pressure, blood sugar, and cholesterol screens, in conjunction with
clinical exams and self-testing, can result in the early detection of
many problems and in increased survival rates.
Unfortunately, many men are not taking the steps necessary to protect
themselves and their families from these devastating conditions.
Statistically, women visit the doctor far more often than men. Too
often, men fail to get routine checkups or health counseling, and they
often ignore symptoms or delay seeking medical attention when sick or
in pain. In addition, when men do seek care, embarrassment can often
prevent them from openly discussing health concerns with their
physicians.
To increase men's health awareness I have introduced legislation to
establish an Office of Men's Health under the Department of Health and
Human Services. This office would be based on the Office of Women's
Health, currently operating within HHS, which has done a fantastic job
of assisting women in identifying and battling many conditions common
to women. Educating men, their families, and health care providers
about the importance of early detection of male health problems can
result in reducing rates of mortality for male-specific diseases, as
well as improve the health of America's men and its overall economic
well-being. While an Office of Men's Health is not a cure-all, it will
assist men to focus on many health problems that can be treated
successfully if diagnosed early. Prevention and early detection can
only happen with increased public awareness, something the proposed
office hopes to provide. I yield to the distinguished chairman to
elaborate on this point.
Mr. SPECTER. I, too, recognize the importance of correct information,
prevention, and early detection in health care. Clearly, efforts must
be made to encourage men to address their health problems in a
confident, timely, and meaningful manner. I encourage the
administration to work with my distinguished colleague to establish an
Office of Men's Health within the Department of Health and Human
Services.
Mr. CRAPO. I thank the Senator.
Mr. INHOFE. I have filed an amendment at the desk which I had hoped
the Senate would vote on prior to passage of this bill. Unfortunately
given the current parliamentary situation, the only way for a vote to
occur on the important issue of fiscal responsibility is by suspending
the rules. My amendment would not be in order at this time and
therefore my option is to move to suspend rules XVI and XXII. Although
clearly that motion is within my rights as an individual Senator, I do
not believe that is the best way for this body to proceed. Our rules
and precedents govern how we operate on these appropriations, bills and
I think that we should work within that framework. Therefore, I am not
going to make that motion because it is not an appropriate way for the
Senate to address this amendment. I will say, however, that the Senate
will vote on this issue. I will be back on this floor at the first
opportunity available to this Senator and the Senate will work its will
on this language.
Mr. FRIST. I greatly appreciate the Senator's commitment to this
issue. It is imperative that this Congress exercise fiscal discipline
and I concur that an important step must be to control spending, while
securing our Nation's defense. Next week, the Senate will do just that
as we act on the first deficit reduction package in a decade. I am
certain that the Senator from Oklahoma will continue to pursue his
efforts. There will be ample opportunities, including the deficit
reduction bill, for him to exercise his rights to do so, in a manner
that does not violate the spirit of the Senate rules. I look
[[Page 24101]]
forward to him bringing this important issue before the Senate in the
future.
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss with the
distinguished subcommittee chairman the need to amend the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act, RECA.
Mr. SPECTER. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. CRAPO. As my colleagues are aware, the National Academy of
Sciences, NAS, released a report on April 28 of this year calling on
Congress to establish new scientific criteria for decisions about
awarding Federal compensation to people who have developed specific
diseases, including certain cancers, as a result of exposure to
radioactive fallout from U.S. nuclear weapons tests. I wholeheartedly
agree with them.
When Congress passed RECA 15 years ago, an important first step was
taken to provide compassionate assistance to those directly affected by
nuclear testing conducted by the United States. However, it soon became
clear that a legislative remedy which was bound by geographic
restrictions, and not scientific evidence, was not sufficient to fully
rectify the problem at hand. This was confirmed in 1999, when Senator
Hatch introduced his amendments to expand RECA and include affected
counties in Arizona.
Today, the NAS has determined that residents in counties and States
far from the original Nevada Test Site were not only exposed to
radiation, but may even have been exposed to much higher levels than
those in currently eligible areas. In fact, there are areas in my
native Idaho that have demonstrably higher incidence of thyroid dosage
of radiation than any other county currently covered by RECA. It seems
unconscionable to me that people living in these areas are not
currently eligible for compensation.
Those affected are not asking for special treatment, they are simply
asking for fairness. As R. Julian Preston, director of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Carcinogenesis
Division, stated, ``To be equitable, any compensation program needs to
be based on scientific criteria and similar cases must be treated
alike. The current geographic limitations are not based on the latest
science.''
To rectify this inequity, I think it is of utmost importance that
Congress take up my legislation, S. 998 to include the State of Idaho
as an affected area under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.
Additionally, it is incumbent upon Congress to address the long-term
challenges faced by the RECA program. The NAS report makes several
specific recommendations, chief among them that Congress should
establish a new process for reviewing individual claims, based on
probability of causation, or ``assigned share,'' a method which is used
in the courts and other radiation compensation programs. It also
recommends that the RECA program be expanded to include workers
involved in uranium milling and ore transportation. I urge you to join
me in implementing these suggestions of the NAS into legislation.
Mr. SPECTER. I appreciate the Senator's interest in this issue and
recognize that he has legislation pending in Congress to address the
needs of affected Idahoans. I say to my friend and colleague that I
will work with him to identify necessary improvements and to respond to
findings contained in the NAS report. I also urge the administration to
work diligently to help those still in need.
Mr. CRAPO. I thank the distinguished chairman.
THIMEROSAL
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Addressing my distinguished colleagues from
Pennsylvania and Iowa, the subcommittee Chairman and ranking member, I
wanted to talk with you about the need to study further the issue of
thimerosal in vaccines and whether there is any association with autism
and other autism spectrum disorders. As you know, autism is a neuro-
developmental disorder characterized by severe impairments in language
development and socialization. The American Academy of Pediatrics, AAP,
says that currently 1 in 166 children has autism or an autism spectrum
disorder. Some in the autism community attribute this rise to changes
in the vaccine schedule which began in 1990. Three of the four vaccines
between 1990 and 2000 given to American children at the 2,4, and 6
month doctor visit contained thimerosal which is a vaccine preservative
that is 50 percent mercury by weight. Mercury of course is a known
neurotoxin.
Mr. HARKIN. I am aware of this issue.
Mr. SPECTER. I am aware of this issue too. I note that thimerosal has
been out of childhood vaccines since 2001. I understand that the AAP
doesn't think there is a link between thimerosal and autism and that an
Institute of Medicine, IOM, report indicated that the committee didn't
believe thimerosal caused autism. Of course, this does not mean there
isn't an association. We should recognize that few diseases have direct
causes attributed to them.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I believe that we must at least consider an
association between thimerosal exposure and autism. I understand the
rate of autism has risen perhaps 800 percent since 1990 and although
there could be a number of reasons including better diagnostics, this
coincided with an increased exposure to thimerosal in vaccines, which
again is 50 percent mercury by weight.
I have talked to Director Gerberding at the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, CDC, which is our Nation's premier public
health organization. She said that there is room for further study. I
note that thimerosal is still in our influenza vaccine. And we want
people to get that vaccine.
Mr. HARKIN. What does the Senator propose?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Under the Senator's distinguished leadership, the
committee has increased the NIH budget to 29.4 billion dollars, an
increase of over $1 billion from last year. I applaud those efforts.
Accordingly, under his leadership the budget of the National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, has increased from $644 to
$667 million.
I would ask that the NIEHS lend its expertise in heavy metal toxicity
and to work in cooperation with the CDC to study, using respected
expert independent researchers, whether there is any association
between thimerosal and autism.
I note that we now have a Vaccine Safety Datalink, VSD, a
computerized CDC database that has followed 7 million vaccinated
children in 7 managed care organizations throughout the United States
from 1990 on to see if they develop diseases of any type, including
neuro-developmental disorders. Some experts suggest this database could
provide answers regarding the thimerosal-autism link. The Institute of
Medicine, IOM, regards the VSD as a unique data base with which the
public should become familiar. I would expect that the VSD would be
used in further studies.
My staff and I have talked with two former NIEHS directors. They
support additional effort to study the association between thimerosal
and autism. They assure me that NIEHS would be able to administer a
grant for carefully selected expert independent researchers to join in
the study of the VSD with the CDC. And because transparency of research
has been an issue in this debate, NIEHS cooperating with CDC would be
able to put together a panel of toxicologists, doctors, expert
representatives from the autism community, and public health advocates
to advise the study. They did this with the NIEHS' Breast Cancer
Research Centers Program. That is, they involved the affected
community.
Mr. SPECTER. I agree we should make an additional effort to resolve
this issue.
Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I also agree we need to make progress through a
study on this issue. It certainly is not going away.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. If this issue is resolved it will be because all sides
are comfortable with the science and epidemiology of thimerosal and
autism. The science and epidemiology of thimerosal and autism is not
clear up to this point.
Can I have assurance that the chairman and ranking member will work
to
[[Page 24102]]
insert report language in conference that urges NIEHS to fund
collaborative studies on the VSD between outside researchers and the
CDC?
Mr. SPECTER. I will work hard to make this happen.
Mr. HARKIN. I too will work hard to make this happen since this is an
issue important to the Senator and the Nation.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senators.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of final passage of
the Senate version of the fiscal year 2006 Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education appropriations bill. This legislation is an
improvement over the House-passed bill and over the President's request
in many areas. However, it still vastly underfunds a number of crucial
programs. I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the
subcommittee for their work to produce this bill under tight fiscal
constraints. However, we can and should do better for the many
Americans who depend on the programs that are funded by this important
appropriations bill.
I am pleased that the Senate adopted two amendments I worked on. One
was an amendment I cosponsored that the Senator from Maine, Ms.
Collins, offered, to provide much-needed funding to improve access to
dental health in rural and underserved areas, and the other was an
amendment I offered to increase public access to automatic external
defibrillators in schools. I have worked with my colleague from Maine,
Ms. Collins, for a number of years to secure funding for these
important programs, and I hope to see these provisions carry through to
the conference report.
I regret that the Senate missed a number of opportunities to improve
this bill, including by rejecting amendments that would have increased
funding for a number of elementary and secondary education programs,
including title I, after-school programs, and special education. Year
after year, Congress and the President fail to provide the promised
funding for these and other education programs as local school
districts continue to struggle to make ends meet under shrinking State
and local education budgets. The President's budget requests for each
of the fiscal years since the No Child Left Behind Act was enacted have
fallen far short of what was authorized by this law. And while Congress
has improved upon these budget requests and provided funding for a
number of the programs that the President proposed to cut, NCLB
programs are still funded at far less than their authorized levels.
Yet despite our broken promises to these school districts, we still
require them to comply with a variety of Federal mandates. And during
this school year, the stakes have been raised even further because the
2005-2006 school year is the first under which schools are required to
implement the NCLB mandate to test students in grades three through
eight in reading and math. It is past time that we hold up our end of
the equation and give States and school districts the resources they
need to ensure that every child has the opportunity to succeed.
With regard to higher education, I was proud to support the amendment
offered by Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts that would have increased
the Pell Grant maximum by $200 to $4,250 per year. This would have been
a good down payment on the ultimate goal of increasing the maximum to
$9,000 by the 2010-2011 school year, as I proposed with Senator Collins
earlier this year. While Senator Kennedy's amendment was not
successful, I will continue to work toward this goal of increasing
grant aid and reducing the burden of debt to keep the doors of higher
education open to as many Americans as possible.
While funding for other higher education programs were not as
generous as I would have hoped, I was encouraged that the
Appropriations Committee rejected the harmful cuts proposed in the
President's budget. The President had proposed eliminating or cutting
important programs that prepare disadvantaged students for college,
support their successful completion of college, and provide financial
assistance to help them afford higher education, such as the Leveraging
Educational Assistance Partnership, LEAP, program; TRIO programs; the
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, GEAR
UP; the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education program; and
Perkins loans. I consistently opposed these reductions during both the
budget and appropriations processes, and I am pleased that this bill
preserves funding for all of these programs.
Another reservation I have about this bill is its failure to
adequately provide a much needed increase in funding for the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP--an increase that would simply
bring the funding level up to the fully authorized amount. Despite
predictions that home energy costs this winter will increase between 30
and almost 70 percent, for the third time in a month, the Senate failed
to help working families and seniors afford skyrocketing home energy
costs when it defeated Senator Reed's efforts to increase LIHEAP
funding. The lack of higher LIHEAP funding is greatly troubling and I
will continue pursuing opportunities to help people in Wisconsin and
across the country receive the assistance they need to stay safe and
warm this winter.
While this bill is far from perfect, I will support it, and I very
much hope that the final version of this bill will provide adequate
funding for the many important programs contained in it.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, today the Senate accepted two modified
amendments that I authored.
Amendment 2230, as modified, will reduce the amount appropriated for
travel, conference programs and related expenses at the Department of
Health and Human Services, HHS, by $15 million. Currently $68 million
is available for these activities.
The $15 million saved by this revised amendment would ensure
sufficient funding for travel and conference expenses that may be
necessary while recognizing that the current amount spent on these
activities by HHS is excessive and can be reduced.
In 2005 alone, HHS spent $68.5 million on conferences. This is a 50
percent increase in conference spending during a 5-year period. At a
time when our Nation is fighting a global war against terrorism,
recovering from the most expensive natural disaster in our history, and
facing an ever growing debt that now surpasses $8 trillion, we must be
more frugal with the taxpayers' dollars we have been entrusted and
prioritize how they are spent.
This amendment ensures that a greater amount of Federal health
dollars will actually be spent on health care, which should be the goal
of HHS.
In the context of the $2.5 trillion Federal budget, $15 million may
not seem like much until you put it into a real world perspective.
According to the American Institute of Preventative Medicine, the
average doctor visit costs $55. The $15 million saved by this amendment
could be made available to pay for nearly 273,000 doctors visits in the
next year.
The 2004 Census Bureau report on Income, Poverty, and Health
Insurance in the United States shows that 45 million Americans are
without health insurance.
The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a
health plan covering a family of four averaged $9,950 in 2004. For
single coverage is $3,695 annual average premium.
The $15 million saved by this amendment could provide 1,500 American
families of four or 4,060 single Americans with health insurance for a
year.
HHS spends significantly more on conferences than any other Federal
department. In fact, the total spent on conferences by HHS in 2005 is
comparable to the amount spent by the Energy Department, Education
Department, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Labor Department and Transportation Department
combined.
In 2002, HHS spent $3.6 million on a single conference, the
International AIDS Conference, held in Barcelona, Spain, to which 236
HHS employees traveled to attend. Then-Secretary
[[Page 24103]]
Tommy Thompson was among the HHS employees who traveled across the
globe for this conference and was scheduled to speak. Yet he was
prevented from doing so by activists that turned what was intended to
be a scientific gathering into a political statement.
Members of Congress rightfully were outraged that the Secretary was
treated so rudely at a conference that cost the U.S. taxpayer millions
of dollars.
In a May, 2003, letter to members of Congress, Secretary Thompson
reassured that HHS ``will work to further reduce our costs associated
with that event, while continuing to assure essential scientific
personnel can attend this meeting.'' He went on to note that ``the
Department is currently revising the HHS travel manual, which will
formalize international and domestic travel policies to ensure frugal
use of taxpayer money. My staff is taking unprecedented steps to ensure
American taxpayers will no longer be asked to foot the bill for
wasteful HHS spending, including in the area of travel. . . . Every
trip proposal is . . . evaluated on an individual basis by a member of
my staff to guarantee that taxpayer money is not wasted.''
Despite this pledge, HHS has continued to spend more and more on
conferences and to send hundreds of employees to participate in the
same conferences.
In 2004, HHS sent 100 or more employees to at least 59 conferences,
including 1,036 to a conference in Orlando, Florida.
Just this past August, HHS was listed as a primary sponsor of the
2005 conference of the Harm Reduction Project, an organization that
supports tacit legalization of drugs. Among the sessions at this
federally supported conference was ``We Don't Need a `War' on
Methamphetamine'' and the discussion groups include ``Tweaking Tips for
Party Boys.'' ``Tweaking'' is the most dangerous stage of meth abuse. A
tweaker is a meth addict who probably has not slept in days, or weeks,
and is irritable and paranoid.
HHS officials later denied ``sponsoring'' the conference, although
the Department provided taxpayer dollars for it and sent six employees
to participate.
As a practicing physician, I believe that Federal funds expended to
support this conference would have been far better spent providing
treatment to those suffering from addiction.
This is just one example of taxpayer dollars that have been misspent
on conferences.
The bottom line remains that at a time when important health care
programs are faced with financial difficulties, we do not have the
luxury for excessive spending on conferences. While Congress is trying
to control the growth of spending on important health programs like
Medicaid and Medicare, we should first impose restraints on
nonessential spending at HHS including conferences.
Conferences may provide interesting opportunities for bureaucrats and
others to network and exchange information in person, but they do not
make people well or provide life saving health care.
Furthermore, in the modern telecommunications era, it is unnecessary
to spend time and resources to finance so many conferences.
Teleconferences and video conferencing, for example, can save money
while allowing the same type of interaction and information sharing at
a mere fraction of the cost.
The second amendment, No. 2336 as modified, directs the Secretary of
HHS and the Secretary of Education to estimate improper payments as
required by the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 and report to
Congress on specific actions taken to estimate improper payments within
60 days of this bill being signed into law.
The Improper Payment Information Act was enacted in November 2002 for
the purpose of finding and eliminating payments that should not have
been made, or were made for incorrect amounts, by government agencies.
This law requires that all agencies, at the very least, perform a
risk assessment of all programs and activities to determine whether or
not a program is at risk of making ``significant'' improper payments.
``Significant'' as defined by the Office of Management and Budget
means at least 2.5 percent of all payments made are improper, and the
absolute dollar figure associated with that 2.5 percent or more, totals
at least $10 million.
Federal programs and activities deemed to be at ``significant'' risk
of making improper payments their respective agencies are required
under the Improper Payments Information Act to first, develop a
statistically valid estimate of improper payments; and second, develop
a corrective action plan for all programs where the improper payment
estimate exceeds $10 million annually. This corrective action plan must
also contain annual targets for reducing improper payment levels.
At the end of each fiscal year, agencies are to report the results of
the Improper Payments Information Act activities in their Performance
and Accountability Report PAR; and submit them to Congress. The
Improper Payments Information Act exempts no agency from compliance.
Improper payments--which include inadvertent, fraudulent, and
irresponsible payments--are costing the taxpayers at the very least,
over $45 billion each year. Even worse, this $45 billion represents
only 17 of 70 agencies that are currently reporting improper payment
information as required under law.
The Medicare program, which is already reporting, makes up nearly
half--$21.7 billion--of the government's $45.4 billion reported
improper payments for fiscal year 2004.
The magnitude of the Government's improper payment problem is not yet
known because some of the largest programs are not reporting, as
required by law.
Medicaid, with outlays that exceed $175 billion annually, is one of
the programs that is not reporting. The Medicaid program has been
required to report improper payments under the Office of Management and
Budgets, OMB, A-11 Circular requirements since 2001; and under the
Improper Payments Information Act since 2002, yet it still has made no
estimate of its improper payments.
In its November 2002 Performance and Accountability Report, Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported that it would be able to
report improper payments for the Medicaid program by 2006; however,
they have pushed that date back to 2008--six years after the date by
which they were to have begun reporting improper payments.
Similarly, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, program
has not even been able to estimate when it will be able to report
improper payments for a law that has existed since 2002.
TANF spent over $17 billion in fiscal year 2005 ($18.6 in outlays).
Foster Care spent $6.4 billion in fiscal year 2005.
State Children's Insurance Program spent $5.129 billion in fiscal
year 2005.
Child Care Development Fund spent $4.9 billion in fiscal year 2005.
Title I, within the Department of Education, spent $22.916 billion in
fiscal year 2005, fiscal year 2005 outlays: $21.18 billion.
This amendment does not debate the merits of any of these programs,
it simply demands compliance with transparency and accountability
measurements for expenditures already in existing law.
After all, eliminating improper payments ensures more funds actually
reach those who are intended to benefit from these programs while
protecting the taxpayer. However, we must first understand the
magnitude and source of the problem to correct it. We can only do this
if all agencies are monitoring and reporting their improper payment
information.
Together these amendments make small, yet important steps, towards
making federal agencies more fiscally responsible and accountable.
I thank Chairman Specter for accepting these amendments and his
commitment to fight for inclusion of these provisions in conference
with the House of Representatives.
[[Page 24104]]
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my extreme
disappointment at the acceptance of amendment 2315 to the Labor and HHS
Appropriation yesterday. My disappointment stems from the fact that I
objected to considering amendment 2315 both verbally and by letter. And
my objection was ignored.
Senator Specter, the manager of the bill, acknowledged the mistake
and promised to respect the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. However,
a Member on the other side refused to allow the mistake to be
rectified, an unfortunate and unfair action.
For the past several Congresses, I attempted to work with the
appropriators and other Senators to ensure that they do not encroach
upon the jurisdiction of the Finance committee.
Unfortunately, the practice continues as it did yesterday.
These provisions are not without consequence. They are often written
without clear knowledge of all the relevant facts. As a result,
problems often occur as they are implemented.
I really appreciate the fact that Senator Specter is willing to work
with me on this issue and I fully expect that the provision will be
taken out during conference.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, yesterday, a majority of Senators, 54 in
fact, voted for an increase in funding for the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, to bring the funding to the authorized
level of $5.1 billion we approved in the 2005 Energy bill. But because
it was a procedural vote requiring 60 votes, this very important
amendment failed.
I want to thank my colleagues who voted with me as the days are
relentlessly marching toward winter . . . the clock is ticking as the
thermometer edges ever downward . . . snow and cold have already come
to my State or Maine, raising the stakes for those who may have to
choose between heating their homes and the other necessities of life.
It would be unconscionable for Congress to adjourn for the year without
providing critical, additional assistance for LIHEAP at a time of
skyrocketing fuel because of the disruption of a vast amount of our
energy infrastructure caused by disastrous hurricanes in the Gulf. I
will continue to work with the White House to secure funding in the
next supplemental appropriations bill.
There should be no mistake--this is an emergency and a crisis we know
is coming, and it would be an abrogation of our responsibility to stand
by and allow it to occur. It does not take a crystal ball to predict
the dire consequences when home heating oil in Maine is $2.52 per
gallon, up 59 cents from a year ago . . . and kerosene prices average
$2.95 a gallon, 75 cents higher than this time last year. Some
projections have a gallon of heating oil reaching $3.00! And we are now
informed that even rolling blackouts on very cold days this winter may
be a possibility because of a high demand for electricity.
So, understandably, we are already hearing the mounting concern--
``how will I pay for home heating oil when it's 30 percent more than
last year, and I struggled to make ends meet then?'' ``How will I
afford to pay half again as much for natural gas?'' People need to know
now that they can count on us for assistance.
This is a necessity of life--so much so that 73 percent of households
in a recent survey reported they would cut back on, and even go
without, other necessities such as food, prescription drugs, and
mortgage and rent payments. Churches, food pantries, local service
organizations--they are all hearing the cry, and the leaves have barely
fallen from the trees. The fact is, countless Americans, many on fixed
incomes, don't have room in their budget for this sudden surge in home
heating oil and natural gas prices but, surely, in looking at our
national priorities, we can find room in our budget to help Americans
stay warm this winter.
Because of the supply disruptions caused by the hurricanes at a time
when prices were already spiraling up, prices have been driven even
higher and are directly affecting low income Mainers and how they will
be able to pay for their home heating oil, natural gas, propane and
kerosene this winter. A recent Wall Street Journal quoted Jo-Ann
Choate, who heads up Maine's LIHEAP program. Ms. Choate said, ``This
year we've got a very good chance of running out.''
Mr. President, 84 percent of the applicants for the LIHEAP program in
my State use oil heat. Over 46,000 applied for and received State
LIHEAP funds last winter. Each household received $480, which covered
the cost of 275 gallons of heating oil. The problem this winter is that
the same $480 will buy only 172 gallons, which a household will use up
in the first 3 to 4 weeks. What will these people do to stay warm for
the 4 or 5 months left of winter? The water pipes will freeze and then
break, damaging homes. People will start using their stoves to get
heat. The Mortgage Bankers Association e1ects that the steep energy
costs could increase the number of missed payments and lost homes
beginning later this winter. My State is expecting at least 48,000
applicants this winter season, so there will be less money distributed
to each household unless we can obtain higher funding for the LIHEAP
program.
Ms. Choate says that Maine plans to focus on the elderly, disabled,
and families with small children, and is studying how to move others to
heated shelters. This is why our efforts are so very important. And it
isn't just Maine, it is going to happen in all of the Nation's cold
weather States. Quite simply, without increased funding, we are forcing
the managers of State LIHEAP programs to make a Solomon's choice.
The Federal Department of Energy has predicted that homeowners who
use oil for heat and propane will spend 30 percent more this year than
last, and natural gas users will spend 48 percent more. According to
the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, heating costs for
the average family using heating oil are projected to hit $1,666 for
the upcoming winter. This represents an increase of $403 over last
winter's prices and $714 over the winter heating season of 2003-2004.
For families using natural gas, prices are projected to hit $1,568,
which is an increase of $611 over last year's price and $643 over 2003-
2004. This is the largest increase in home heating prices in over 30
years. This is why passing our amendment was so very important.
Congress recently passed an Energy bill which is now law. In that
bill, we authorized $5.1 billion for the LIHEAP program. My goal is to
see that this is totally funded. We simply have to show that we meant
what we asked for--and totally fund the LIHEAP program.
The facts are that LIHEAP is projected to help 5 million households
nationwide this winter. But that's only about one-sixth of households
across the country that qualify for the assistance. So this is a
perennial fight we wage even when prices aren't as high as today. And
now, that battle becomes all the more pivotal. The cold weather won't
wait--and neither should we when it comes to helping citizens survive
through the winter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Appropriations bill is the last of the regular fiscal year
2006 appropriations bills to come before the Senate for consideration.
Last year, seven of the regular appropriations bills, including the
Labor, Health and Human Services bill, were not debated individually by
this body but rather they were inserted into one large, unamendable
omnibus package. As I have said on many occasions, the processing of
regular appropriations bills in such a manner is not the way the Senate
is supposed to operate. I am always very disappointed when the Senate
resorts to appropriating by omnibus bills. We are the Senate. This is
the Senate. A deliberative body it is supposed to be.
Last year, the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill was
included in the omnibus package. This is a different year now. This
year, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations bill was fully debated here on the floor and amended as
a stand-alone bill. What a difference.
[[Page 24105]]
This bill has been on the floor all week, and Senators have enjoyed
their right to debate and amend such important language.
I thank the distinguished manager of the bill, and the distinguished
Senator who acts on this side of the aisle to help manage this bill,
Senator Specter and the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator
Harkin.
This is such a comprehensive bill. It covers a lot of programs and
activities of the Government--three Departments, and the Social
Security Administration. When you include mandatory spending, this bill
funds nearly 25 percent of the Federal budget. This bill impacts every
citizen in this country in one way or another. Just think about it:
labor issues, health issues, human services issues that provides basic
humanitarian services for the neediest of our citizens, as well as
education issues.
As we complete our debate on the Labor, HHS, and Education
Appropriations bill, I want to extend my appreciation to the
subcommittee chairman, Senator Specter, and the ranking member, Senator
Harkin. They are a good team on this bill. They have been working
together on this subcommittee for so long that they seem to sometimes
complete each other's sentences. They hold numerous hearings throughout
the year. They gather knowledge from a wide array of experts throughout
the country. That is what they do. This subcommittee pours over the
testimony, over the reports, the studies, and other related data
throughout the year, and its recommendations are reflective of that
careful and thorough review.
I have never seen a chairman of a committee more fair than Senator
Specter has been. Every Senator who wanted to call up an amendment had
an opportunity to do so. Senator Specter did not seek to cut off any
amendments. No. He was very fair, very considerate, very courteous. And
look what a wonderful job he and Senator Harkin have done on this
committee. My thanks, my congratulations to both of them.
I also extend my thanks to their fine staff. Those staffers worked
hard. I appreciate their dedicated service to the Appropriations
Committee and to the Senate.
I will take 1 minute, or maybe a little longer, to comment briefly
about the upcoming supplemental request which I understand the White
House will be transmitting to the Congress tomorrow. This will be the
third disaster relief supplemental related to Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita. This request is expected to include $17 billion for various
programs and agencies on top of the $62 billion Congress has already
approved.
In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Congress
approved both of the President's supplemental requests. In each case,
Congress approved the bill within 1 day of receiving the request, with
no debate and no amendment. Of course, disastrous emergency situations
such as that which occurred in the gulf coast region require immediate
action by the Congress. However, the White House has waited 7 weeks to
send up its third request. The White House should not assume that the
Congress will simply rubberstamp their request.
I hope the Senate leadership will commit to the Senate that we will
have an opportunity to debate and amend the third disaster relief
supplemental bill. A $17 billion supplemental should not simply be
shoved into an unamendable conference report. There should be an
opportunity to debate such issues as whether low-income energy
assistance should be provided to all States impacted by increased fuel
prices, prices that continue to grow as a result of Hurricane Katrina.
The Senate should also have an opportunity to debate how the Katrina
supplemental will be paid for. I hope Senators will be afforded this
opportunity.
I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my very good
friend from the State of Mississippi, Thad Cochran. What a decent man,
what a decent chairman he is. What a good job he has done this year
processing these appropriations bills. All 11 of the fiscal year 2006
appropriations bills have been debated individually and separately by
the Senate. Why is this? This is due in large part to the steadfast
determination of the chairman, Senator Cochran. He is a very determined
man. He did not give up. He did not give in. He kept on pushing ahead.
That reminds me of two frogs that fell over the rim of the crock in
which there was milk. The milk was in the crock. Two frogs fell off
into that. One immediately kicked a couple of times, turned over on his
back with his belly up, gave up, that was all. That frog was gone. But
the other, what did it do? It began kicking, kicking, and he kicked and
kicked and kicked until there was a little ball of butter. And he
kicked a little more, and the ball grew bigger, larger. So the frog
then climbed upon the ball of butter and jumped out. It jumped out.
That goes to show that if you keep on kicking, you will churn the
butter. How about that?
Chairman Cochran didn't give up. He just kept on kicking, and he
churned the butter. He just kept on pushing forward.
That determination of his paid off. I congratulate Senator Cochran
for his success in getting all of the regular appropriations bills
processed through to the floor, individually and separately.
So let me say it again.
What a job Chairman Cochran has done this year.
I also thank the joint leadership of the Senate, Senator Frist and
Senator Reid, for working with Chairman Cochran and with me in
scheduling the necessary floor time which enabled us to get on with
these bills and debate them.
Chairman Cochran has worked with the House Appropriations Committee
chairman in determining a schedule for completion of all the
conferences on our regular appropriations bills by November 18. I think
that is a realistic schedule. I am encouraged that we will be able to
reach that goal.
While I am not pleased that the appropriations bills significantly
underfund critical domestic programs for education, for homeland
security, for health care, and for our crumbling infrastructure, I am
pleased that the Senate at least had the opportunity to fully debate
these issues.
I thank the distinguished Senator who sits in the Chair this evening,
presiding over the Senate with a degree of dignity and aplomb that is
so reminiscent of a day in June when the distinguished Senator's father
sat in this Chamber also. I liked him. I like him, too.
So I say to the Senator from Rhode Island who presides over the
Senate this evening, keep on doing good work, Excelsior, ever up. I
thank the Senator. He is a good Presiding Officer. He is a good
Senator. He used to be my neighbor. He is a good neighbor, too.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Corzine), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from
West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 3, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 281 Leg.]
YEAS--94
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
[[Page 24106]]
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--3
Conrad
Ensign
Inhofe
NOT VOTING--3
Corzine
Inouye
Rockefeller
The bill (H.R. 3010), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator Byrd
wants to speak for a while. I want to take a couple of minutes again to
thank the staff, both Senator Specter's staff and my staff. They have
worked together. I know Senator Specter mentioned them earlier, but I
will mention them by name again because they should be mentioned:
Bettilou Taylor, Jim Sourwine, Sudip Parikh, Mark Laiseh, Lisa
Bernhardt, Candice Rogers, and Rachel Jones on the minority side. On
the majority side: Ellen Murray, Erik Fatemi, and Adrienne Hallett.
They do a wonderful job, and they have done so this year, putting
this bill together, I know staying up long nights and weekends, working
this out.
Someone once remarked that Senators were a constitutional impediment
to the smooth functioning of staff. Our staffs function very smoothly.
They do a great job, and I hope we have not impeded them too much.
Last, I want, again, to pay my respects to our chairman, Senator
Specter, who has done a magnificent job of putting a lot of competing
interests together. This is a big bill. This covers the Department of
Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of
Education, and a lot of independent agencies--the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health.
By the way, I especially want to thank Senator Specter for bringing
us up on the National Institutes of Health by $1 billion more than what
was in the President's budget. I think we met our obligations there.
I say to my friend and my chairman, it has been an honor and
privilege to work with him all these years. We go back, I think, about
15 years now, working together. I could not ask for a better chairman
of this committee. I could not ask for a better working relationship.
Senator Specter has always been open and aboveboard to make sure we all
know what is going on. It has been a real pleasure, a real joy to work
with Senator Specter. I thank him for that and look forward to many
more fruitful years of working together on issues that really matter.
Someone once said the Defense Appropriations Committee is the
committee that defends America. The committee that funds Health and
Human Services and Education and Labor is the committee that defines
America. I happen to believe that this committee does define America,
defines who we are, and what we are about as a people.
Mr. BYRD. Yes. The Senator is right about that.
Mr. HARKIN. Under the able chairmanship of the Senator from
Pennsylvania, we have defined, once again, that we are going to meet
our obligations in those areas that make us a caring and compassionate
and decent people. That is what is in this bill. Again, I thank Senator
Specter for his great leadership.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I very much appreciate those very
generous remarks by Senator Harkin, and I appreciate even more his
cooperation and leadership on this important subcommittee, working with
health and education, the two major capital assets of Americans, and
labor and related agencies. It is an important bill, and I think we
have crafted it about as well as you can, given the limitations of the
resources.
There is a lot more I could say, but Senator Byrd is waiting to
speak, so I will just reference the appointment of conferees.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its amendments to
H.R. 3010, request a conference with the House of Representatives on
the disagreeing votes thereon, and that the Chair be authorized to
appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
There being no objection, the Presiding Officer appointed Mr.
Specter, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr.
Stevens, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye,
Mr. Reid, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Byrd
conferees on the part of the Senate.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague, and I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Does the distinguished Senator from Michigan wish to speak?
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might ask, before my very
distinguished colleague and friend from West Virginia speaks, I wonder
if I might simply make a statement for just a moment about a unanimous
consent request that I had intended to offer. I understand there will
be an objection to it, but with my colleague's consent, I appreciate
having 2 minutes to be able to make a comment.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator, if I
may, for up to 5 minutes, if she so desires, without losing my right to
the floor.
Rosa Parks Federal Office Building
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wish to go on record this evening with
my great disappointment at not being able to bring up under unanimous
consent a version of the bill that would name a Federal office building
in Detroit for Rosa Parks. This had originally been offered by my
colleague, Congresswoman Carolyn C. Kilpatrick of Detroit, a longtime
friend and colleague of Rosa Parks.
Originally, last evening, we passed my version of the bill along with
an amendment, agreed to, of Senator Warner. This evening it is my
desire to pass the House version of that with Senator Warner's
amendment, the very same amendment that we have already passed last
evening, but to place it into the House bill so we could then send it
back to the House. It would be like the Senate bill that we passed.
To my understanding, there is an objection on the other side of the
aisle to doing that. If not, I would proceed to do that. It is the very
same thing we did last evening, but it would put it into the House
bill.
My House colleague, who is the originator of the proposal on the
Federal office building, would like very much to have us pass the House
bill and have that be the bill that is sent on to the President. That
is the bill that I was hoping we would pass here in the same form with
the Warner amendment that we passed last evening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am not fully conversant with all of the
details on the issues raised by the Senator from Michigan. I have been
asked by staff to lodge an objection.
I was present yesterday when we took up that issue. I have not seen
the level of confusion in this Chamber in the 25 years I have been here
that was present when the Senator from Michigan asked unanimous
consent, the Senator from Virginia asked to add on, and then the
Senator from New Mexico ultimately spoke about holds. It was utter
confusion in the midst of rollcall votes, trying to move this bill
along.
I respect the standing of the Senator from Michigan to make this
unanimous consent request, but I suggest she defer it until next week
when the Senators
[[Page 24107]]
are on the floor who understand what the issues are. You have
jurisdiction on the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I
believe, and Senator Inhofe and I were talking about it today. I do not
want to stop whatever the Senator from Michigan wants to accomplish,
but the proper Senators ought to be here to address the issue.
I am the last Mohican around here for Republicans, although they
could have gotten the Chair, Senator Chafee, to raise an objection. The
Presiding Officer could suggest the absence of a quorum and raise the
objection. In fact, I might just refer to him to raise the objection.
However, having said what I said, I do object, and it is my hope the
Senator from Michigan will give notice to the Senators who are involved
and know what is going on, give them notice and a chance to hear what
you have to say and then the matter can be resolved.
But I do object.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might just respond to my
distinguished colleague, notice was given. That is how I know there is
an objection. So I am not rising to make the unanimous consent request.
I understand there is an objection on the other side of the aisle. I am
simply standing this evening to indicate my disappointment that we have
not been able to resolve this here and be able to, in fact, include
Senator Warner's amendment and be able to send it back to the House of
Representatives.
Hopefully, we are going to be able to resolve it another way and be
able to accomplish what we all wish to accomplish.
I support Senator Warner's desire and the gentleman he is wishing to
honor with the naming of a building. Also, certainly it is my goal and
the goal of my colleague in the House to be able, in fact, to pass a
bill to send to the President, giving the great civil rights champion
of our country and the world, Rosa Parks, the respect and honor she
deserves. It is our hope to have that done prior to her funeral.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am somewhat troubled. Not more than 10
minutes ago, I say to my colleague, you sat right here and I sat right
there. We struck an understanding that tomorrow we would rejoin on the
floor to explain the situation. I said, by that time, as it was my
understanding that the House would likely have acted upon the measure
which was passed by the Senate last night, sponsored by the
distinguished Senator from Michigan, who accepted my amendment. I am
not sure why we are here at this time discussing this matter. My
understanding was very clearly we would take it up tomorrow morning.
Just by chance I caught the screen when I walked back to my office.
Would you kindly advise the Senator from Virginia what took place in
the 10-minute interval since we left here?
Ms. STABENOW. I will be happy to. This has been a confusing
situation, I say through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from
Virginia. After speaking with you, I spoke with the Congresswoman who
was concerned about which bill would be going to the President's desk.
So I was simply rising, not to offer a motion but just to express my
concern about the dilemma that we are in at the moment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, but we solved, basically, the procedure.
What troubles me is that the Senate took considerable time last night
to resolve this issue--in favor of the Senator from Michigan and in
favor of the Senator from Virginia.
Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. There is a perfectly adequate bill sitting on the desk at
the House of Representatives. It can be passed in 5 minutes if not
less.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time that the Senator from West Virginia
has allotted has expired.
Mr. WARNER. If my distinguished colleague will kindly grant me a few
more minutes?
Mr. BYRD. I yield, without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. WARNER. I repeat, there is a bill that has been acted upon
unanimously by the Senate. It is at the House desk.
This morning was the first time I ever heard that the Congresswoman,
in whose district this courthouse is, desires to have her bill--not
your bill. Is that my understanding?
Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. Why can't the Congressional Record of the debate, the
traditional report language that accompanies the bill, explain, give
her full credit or whatever she desires? But to continually come back
and forth and raise the specter that people are trying to interfere
with this important legislation in this Chamber, it seems to me, is not
fair.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might, in no way was this meant to
show disrespect for the Senator from Virginia. We have worked very
properly together. I was simply rising this evening to indicate that
the original way to resolve this by including the Senator's amendment
in the House bill is not something that is acceptable to other
colleagues. That was the desire of the Congresswoman whose idea it was
to name the building in her district. She feels very strongly about
this, and I was indicating that for the Record. I don't wish to have
more confusion.
I very much appreciate the Senator from West Virginia allowing me a
moment. But in no way was this meant to show disrespect for my
colleague. We have worked very well together.
Mr. WARNER. This is a matter that is being followed with great
interest because of the magnificent Rosa Parks, and the outpouring of
empathy and sympathy, and so forth. I don't wish to have the
institution of the Senate appear that it has not acted promptly. It did
so last night. There is a perfectly legitimate bill at the House desk
which could be passed in a matter of 5 minutes and be sent to the
President for signature to honor both Mrs. Parks and Judge Bryant. In
report language the Senator from Michigan and the good Congresswoman
can solve it in any way they may wish as to allocate the credit.
I think to keep coming back to the Senate implying that we can't use
the bill this body passed yesterday evening is, in a way, diminishing
the previous action of this institution. It is my understanding that
tomorrow the House of Representatives will take up and pass the Senator
from Michigan's bill, as passed by the Senate, to name a federal
building in Michigan for Rosa Parks and name the new courthouse annex
here in Washington for Judge William Bryant.
I must tell you, I have been very patient about this matter. But I
hope that we understand the agreement between the two bodies to proceed
in this manner. It has been cleared by both the House and the Senate
and, as such, is the appropriate course of action.
For the past three years I have been working with my colleagues,
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and Senator Leahy to name the new
annex to the Prettyman Courthouse here in Washington, DC for Judge
William Bryant. As I have stated numerous times before, there are rules
in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that prohibit
moving through that Committee naming bills for individuals that are
still living. Prior to the current Chairman of the Committee, the rule
was waived in certain instances and I certainly feel that the case of
Judge Bryant warrants such discretion. The Senate spoke yesterday that
both Rosa Parks and William Bryant are deserving of this great honor.
I wish to share with the Senate again the story of this distinguished
jurist, Judge William Bryant.
A product of Washington, DC public schools, William B. Bryant
graduated from Howard University in 1936, a classmate of Thurgood
Marshall and Appellate Judge Spotswood Robinson. He graduated from
Howard Law School first in his class and then, with no real
opportunities for African-American attorneys in the District of
Columbia, served as chief research assistant to Ralph Bunche, who later
won the Nobel Prize. From 1943 to 1947, he was in the Army and rose to
the rank of lieutenant colonel during World War II. He was a criminal
defense attorney, Assistant U.S. Attorney, the first African American
ever to be an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Nation's Capital. I was
[[Page 24108]]
privileged to be in the U.S. Attorney's Office during some of his
tenure there and worked with him. He was a teacher to me and many
others. He was appointed to the U.S. District Court in 1965. In 1977,
he was appointed the first African American to be chief judge of the
U.S. District Court.
Now at the age of 94, Judge Bryant is serving as a Senior Judge on
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This
man, like Rosa Parks, suffered from discriminatory practices and
persevered, therefore breaking new ground for African-Americans to
come. When he first began trying cases as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in
1951, the Bar Association of D.C. did not allow African-American
members. William Bryant, while trying cases in District Court was
unable to access the law library at the Courthouse like his white
colleagues. Despite the obstacles, William Bryant succeeded.
Over the years this man has been a fixture at that courthouse, first
trying cases, and for the past 40 years, hearing them as a judge. The
D.C. Bar and his colleagues have unanimously endorsed the legislation I
offer today as a tribute to this man's truly extraordinary life,
legendary career, and service to this nation's judicial system. I wish
at this point to print into the Record a September 2004 article from
the Washington Post about Judge Bryant and our efforts to name this new
annex in his honor:
A Lifetime of Faith in the Law; At 93, Senior Judge William
Bryant Still Wins Plaudits for Dedication to Justice, Carol
Leonnig, Washington Post Staff Writer--September 16, 2004
A few days after the new U.S. District Courthouse opened on
Constitution Avenue in the fall of 1952, Bill Bryant walked
in to start work as a recently hired federal prosecutor.
More than a half-century has passed, and Bryant's life
remains centered on that stately granite building in the
shadow of the U.S. Capitol. It's in those halls that he
became a groundbreaking criminal defense attorney, a federal
judge, and then the court's chief judge--the first African
American in that position.
Today, at the age of 93, U.S. District Court Senior Judge
William Bryant still drives himself to work at the courthouse
four days a week and pushes his walker to his courtroom.
At a recent birthday party for Bryant hosted by Vernon
Jordan, fellow Senior U.S. District Court Judge Louis
Oberdorfer remarked that there were ``only two people in the
world who really understood the Constitution'' and how it
touched the lives of real people.
``That's Hugo Black and Bill Bryant,'' said Oberdorfer. He
had clerked for Justice Hugo L. Black, who retired as an
associate justice in 1971 after serving on the Supreme Court
for 34 years.
To honor Bryant's life's work, his fellow judges this past
spring unanimously recommended that a nearly completed
courthouse annex be named for him. The $110 million, 351,000-
square-foot addition will add nine state-of-the-art
courtrooms and judges' offices to the courthouse and is
designed to meet the court's expansion needs for the next 30
years. It is slated to open next spring.
In urging that the building be named for Bryant, his
supporters cite his devotion to the Constitution and his
belief that the law will produce a just result.
During a rare interview in his sixth-floor office in the
federal courthouse, Bryant reached out for a pocket version
of the Constitution covered in torn green plastic lying on
the top of his desk. Holding it aloft in his right hand, he
told stories of his struggling former clients and made legal
phrases--``due process'' and ``equal protection''--seem like
life-saving staples.
Though he needs his law clerk's arm to get up the steps to
the bench, he is a fairly busy senior jurist. He handled more
criminal trials than any other senior judge last year and
still surprises new lawyers with his sharp retorts.
``I feel like I'm part of the woodwork,'' Bryant said. ``I
have to think hard to think of a time when I wasn't in this
courthouse.''
He started down his career path inspired by a Howard
University law professor who believed that lawyers could make
a difference in that time of racial segregation and
discrimination. Bryant said he remains convinced today that
lawyers can stop injustice whenever it arises.
``Without lawyers, this is just a piece of paper,'' Judge
Bryant said, gesturing with the well-worn Constitution. ``If
it weren't for lawyers, I'd still be three-fifths of a man.
If it weren't for lawyers, we'd still have signs directing
people this way and that, based on the color of their skin.
If it weren't for lawyers, you still wouldn't be able to
vote.
The most important professions are lawyer and teacher, in
my opinion,'' he said.
Some lawyers complain that Bryant is so rooted in his
criminal defense training that he shows some distrust of the
prosecution. And his practice of presiding over trials, but
asking other judges to sentence the people convicted, has
spurred some curiosity. He won't elaborate on the reason, but
his friends say he found the new federal sentencing
guidelines inflexible and harsh.
A 1993 study found Bryant was reversed 17 percent of the
time by appellate judges--the average reversal rate for the
trial court.
Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan presented the proposal to name
the annex after Bryant to Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton and Sen.
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) earlier this year, and they are now
trying to get Congress to approve the naming this fall. One
member, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), has tried to block
it, with his staff pointing to a D.C. policy that buildings
not be named after living people.
Norton said numerous courts around the country have been
named in honor of living judges, and she said she looks
forward to meeting with Inhofe in person to convince him of
the wisdom of naming this building, designed by renowned
architect Michael Graves, after a barrier-breaking judge.
``This is no ordinary naming,'' she said. ``This is a truly
great African American judge whose accomplishments are
singular. First African American assistant U.S. attorney.
First African American chief judge.''
E. Barrett Prettyman Jr., the son of the jurist for whom
the federal courthouse in Washington is named, also applauds
the proposed annex naming. He said his father ``admired Judge
Bryant tremendously'' and would have endorsed it, too.
``Whenever it's discussed, people brighten right up and
think it's a great idea,'' said Prettyman, himself a former
president of the D.C. Bar Association. ``I'm sorry it's hit
this snag. . . . If you were going to have an exception, my
personal opinion is you could not have a better exception
than for Judge Bryant.''
William Benson Bryant is hailed as a true product of
Washington. Though he was born in a rural town in Alabama, he
moved to the city soon after turning 1. His grandfather,
fleeing a white lynch mob, relocated the extended family
here, including Bryant's father, a railroad porter, and his
mother, a housewife. They all made their first home on
Benning Road, which was then a dirt path hugging the eastern
shore of the Anacostia River.
Bryant attended D.C. public schools when the city's black
children were taught in separate and grossly substandard
facilities. Still he flourished, studying politics at the
city's premier black high school, Dunbar, then going on to
Howard University. While working at night as an elevator
operator, he studied law and met his future wife, Astaire.
They were married for 60 years, until her death in 1997.
He and his law classmates--the future civil rights
movement's intellectual warriors--worked at their dreams in
the basement office of their law professor, Charles Houston.
Houston promised the group, which included the future Supreme
Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and appellate judge
Spottswood Robinson, that lawyers armed with quick minds and
the Constitution could end segregated schools and unjust
convictions of innocent black men.
``I kind of got fascinated by that,'' he said. ``We all
did.''
But when Bryant graduated first in his class from Howard's
law school, there were no jobs for a black lawyer. He became
a chief research assistant to Ralph Bunche, an African
American diplomat who later was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize, on a landmark study of American race relations; he
then fought in World War II and was discharged from the Army
as a lieutenant colonel in 1947.
His first step was to take the bar exam, then hang out a
shingle as a criminal defense lawyer in 1948. His skills soon
drew the attention of prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's
Office, who liked him even though they kept losing cases to
him, and they recommended that their boss hire him. During a
job interview, Bryant made a request of George Fay, then the
U.S. attorney: ``Mr. Fay, if I cut the mustard in municipal
court, can I go over to the big court like the other guys?''
No black prosecutor had ever practiced in the federal
court--or ``big court,'' as it was called--but Fay agreed.
Bryant signed on in 1951 and was handling grand jury
indictments in the new federal courthouse the next year.
Bryant vividly recalls a case from that time involving an
apartment building caretaker who was on trial on charges of
raping the babysitter of one tenant's family.
``I went for him as hard as I could,'' Bryant said,
squaring his shoulders. ``I didn't like him, and I didn't
like what he did to that girl.''
So the young prosecutor sought the death penalty, an option
then for first-degree murder and rape. He left the courtroom
after closing arguments ``feeling pretty good about my case''
and awaited the jury's verdict in his third-floor court
office. But when a marshal later called out, ``Bryant, jury's
[[Page 24109]]
back,'' the judge said, ``I broke out in a sweat.''
He peeked anxiously into the court, saw the jury foreman
mouth only the word ``guilty.'' Bryant learned seconds later
that the jurors had spared the man's life.
``I was so relieved,'' he said. ``When you're young, you
don't know anything. . . . Now I think, murder is murder, no
matter who is doing it.''
He left the prosecutor's office in 1954 and returned to
criminal defense with fellow classmate William Gardner in an
F Street law office later bulldozed for the MCI Center. They
were partners in Houston, Bryant and Gardner, a legendarily
powerful African American firm. Ten judges would eventually
come from its ranks.
In those days, Bryant chuckled, he didn't feel so powerful.
Judges who remembered his prosecution work kept appointing
him to represent defendants who had no money. That was before
the 1963 Supreme Court's Gideon decision requiring that
indigent defendants be represented by a lawyer--at public
expense, if necessary.
The judge would say, ``Mr. So and So, you say you don't
have any money to hire an attorney?'' Bryant recalled.
``Well, then, the court appoints Mr. Bryant to represent
you.''
Some paid $25 or $50. Some paid nothing.
``There were weeks we paid the help and split the little
bit left over for our groceries,'' he said.
Bill Schultz, Bryant's former law clerk, said Bryant took
the cases ``out of this sense of obligation to the court and
legal system. He was very aware of discrimination, and he
always fought for the criminal defendants.''
At the time, blacks were barred from the D.C. Bar
Association and its law library. Bryant went in anyway, and
the black librarian let him.
One of his pro bono clients was Andrew Roosevelt Mallory, a
19-year-old who confessed to a rape after an eight-hour
interrogation in a police station. Mallory was convicted and
sent to death row. Defending Mallory's rights, a case Bryant
took all the way to the Supreme Court in 1957, made him both
nervous and famous.
He said he fretted constantly about his client facing the
electric chair during the two years the case dragged on.
``You talk about worried,'' he said. ``It's something I can't
forget.''
But the Supreme Court agreed with Bryant that a man accused
of a crime is entitled to be taken promptly before a
magistrate to hear the charges against him. The court
overturned Mallory's conviction and handed down a landmark
decision on defendants' rights.
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman, a longtime fan of
Bryant's, said Bryant's legal talents are on display every
day in his courtroom, but lawyers are still taken aback by
his factual resolve and clear logic when hearing an audiotape
recording of his Supreme Court argument in the Mallory case.
``He's clearly a terrific lawyer, but he's mostly a
terrific human being,'' Friedman said. ``He sees the best in
people, and he really cares about what happens to people.''
Bryant remembers that when President Lyndon B. Johnson
nominated him to be a judge, he felt elated, confident he had
earned his opportunity. But Bryant said a different feeling
came over him the day he donned the robes.
``I was sworn in in the morning that day, and Oliver Gasch
was sworn in that afternoon,'' Bryant recalled. ``I told
Oliver, `You know, I've been a lawyer for many years, but
putting on this robe, I don't feel so sure. This is a serious
responsibility.'''
Gasch smiled: ``Bill, I don't think it's going to be that
hard for you. You know right from wrong.''
Bryant oversaw some famous cases, and he freely shared his
thoughts when he thought something was wrong.
After presiding over the 1981 trial of Richard Kelly, a
Republican congressman caught on videotape taking money from
federal agents in a sting operation, Bryant complained that
the FBI had set an ``outrageous'' trap for the Florida
representative by stuffing cash in his pocket after he'd
refused the bribe several times. He set aside Kelly's
conviction.
``The investigation . . . has an odor to it that is
absolutely repulsive,'' Bryant said then. ``It stinks.''
In handling the longest-running case in the court's
history, a 25-year-old case about inhumane and filthy
conditions in the D.C. jail, the judge chastised city leaders
in 1995. He said he had been listening to their broken
promises to fix the problems ``since the Big Dipper was a
thimble.''
In weighing the case of a group of black farmers with
similar discrimination complaints against the U.S. Department
of Agriculture in 2000, Bryant warned a government lawyer
that his argument against a class-action discrimination suit
wasn't working: ``Either you're dense or I'm dense,'' he
said.
Schultz said the judge simply trusted the combination of
facts and the law.
``He always said, `Don't fight the facts,''' Schultz said.
``He thought most of the time the law would end up in the
right place.''
Bryant acknowledges it's hard sometimes to see lawyers
struggle to make their arguments when they have the law and
the facts on their side.
``A judge has a stationary gun, and he's looking through
the sights,'' he said. ``Unless the lawyer brings the case
into the bull's-eye, the judge can't pull the trigger. Good
lawyers bring the case into the sights.''
Bryant said he was preceded by many great lawyers, which is
why the new plan to put his name on a piece of the courthouse
gives him conflicting feelings.
``I was flattered, but I thought they shouldn't have done
it,'' Bryant said. ``There are so many people who were really
giants. I stand on their shoulders.''
I hope that henceforth there is senatorial courtesy--when we decide
to proceed in a specific manner as we discussed, we would do it in the
morning, I relied on that, and was about to go handle another matter
when I noticed that the Senator was on the floor. I am somewhat
concerned about that.
I wish to thank the Senator from Michigan for her courtesy in
combining these two tributes and look forward to the action of the
House tomorrow. It is truly a wonderful opportunity for the Congress to
honor two American pioneers. Rosa Parks and Judge William Bryant both
deserve to be recognized for their lives and contributions our nation's
heritage. I have no objection to this bill moving forward as amended
and look forward with great pride to both buildings being named shortly
for these two pillars of the civil rights movement that brought so much
to our country.
I yield the floor.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, thank you for the courtesy. I am sure we
will be able to move forward in a prompt way.
Mr. BYRD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now
be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for
up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
BREAST CANCER AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ACT OF 2005
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 757, the
Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2005.
This month marks the 21st year of National Breast Cancer Awareness
Month, a campaign that provides a special opportunity to offer
education about the important association between early detection and
survival. National Breast Cancer Awareness month also salutes the more
than 2,000,000 breast cancer survivors in the United States and the
efforts of victims, volunteers, and professionals who combat breast
cancer each day.
According to the American Cancer Society, breast cancer is the
leading cause of death among women between the ages of 40 and 55; and
one out of every eight women who live to the age of 85 will develop
breast cancer in her lifetime. But the disease is not limited by
gender. In 2005, approximately 1,700 new cases of invasive breast
cancer will be diagnosed among men in the United States. In my home
State of Utah, as indicated by the Utah Cancer Registry, breast cancer
has the highest incidence rate of the ten leading cancer types. This
disease has an impact on nearly every American's life.
Breast cancer death rates have been dropping steadily since 1991;
however, challenges still remain. The bottom line is that we still do
not know what causes this disease, or how to prevent it. Less than 30
percent of breast cancers are explained by known risk factors. There is
general belief within the scientific community that the environment
plays a role in the development of breast cancer, but the extent of
that role has been less-examined.
Research has investigated the effect of isolated environmental
factors such
[[Page 24110]]
as diet, pesticides, and electromagnetic fields; but, in most cases,
there has been no conclusive evidence. In-depth study of these
potential risks could provide invaluable information in understanding
the causes of breast cancer, and could lead to new prevention
strategies. Clearly, more research needs to be done to determine the
impact of environmental factors on breast cancer.
Along with Senators Chafee, Reid, Clinton, and Talent, I have
introduced S. 757, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of
2005, to address this palpable need for research. Specifically, the
bill would authorize the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, NIEHS, to award grants for the development and operation of
up to eight centers for the purpose of conducting research on
environmental factors that may be related to breast cancer. This
legislation is modeled after the highly successful and promising
Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program, DOD BCRP, which
operates under a competitive, peer-reviewed grant-making process that
involves consumers.
Isolated studies have been conducted to look at suspected
environmental links to breast cancer; but these studies are only a
small step toward the broad strategic research that is required. What
is needed is a collaborative, comprehensive, nationally focused
strategy to address this oversight, a strategy like the one outlined in
S. 757.
As this year's National Breast Cancer Awareness Month comes to a
close, I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. This
Federal commitment is critical for the overall, national strategy and
the long-term investments required to discover the environmental causes
of breast cancer so that we can prevent it, treat it more effectively,
and, ultimately, cure it.
____________________
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate passed S. Res. 282,
which recognizes October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month and
establishes a sense of the Senate that the Congress should raise
awareness of domestic violence in the United States and its impact on
our Nation's families. I am thankful to the 32 co-sponsors of this
resolution and to my colleagues for its unanimous passage.
We have made substantial progress in combating domestic violence
since 1994 when we passed the Violence Against Women Act. Since the
Act's passage, domestic violence has dropped by almost 50 percent.
Incidents of rape are down by 60 percent. The number of women killed by
an abusive husband or boyfriend is down by 22 percent and more than
half of all rape victims are stepping forward to report the crime.
Despite this record of success, we still have so much more to do.
According to the Department of Justice, more than three women are
murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day. More than 2.5
million women are victims of violence each year and nearly one in three
women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during
adulthood. Reports also indicate that up to ten million children
experience domestic violence in their homes each year, and nearly
8,800,000 children in the United States witness domestic violence each
year.
This is unacceptable. The impact this has on our Nation's families
and on the fabric of our society as a whole is clear. What is lesser
known is the impact that domestic violence has on our Nation's
pocketbook. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently
found that violence against women costs our country in excess of $5.8
billion each year; $4.1 billion of this is spent on direct medical and
mental health care services. Since 1994, we have invested $15.50 per
woman to implement the Violence Against Women Act, but it is estimated
that this investment has saved $159 per woman, with a net overall
savings of $14.8 billion. I bring this up to remind my colleagues that
even in this time of budget deficits, investing in programs to halt
domestic violence is not only the right thing to do, but it ultimately
saves money.
It is fitting that this year's National Domestic Violence Awareness
Month is the month that the Senate passed the Violence Against Women
Act of 2005. This bill will reauthorize critical components of the
original act, and it will establish further protections for battered
immigrants and victims of human trafficking in order to additionally
combat domestic violence and sexual assault. The legislation takes the
critical next steps to helping victims become safe, secure, and self-
sufficient. I would like to point out that this bill had 57 co-sponsors
and passed unanimously. This is in stark contrast to the original Act,
which took many, many years to get passed. We have changed the paradigm
on this issue and we have come a long way. But, we need to do more. The
Violence Against Women Act of 2005 will help do this, and I look
forward to the House-Senate conference on this bill and getting the
bill passed into law.
In addition to the work that we are doing in the Senate, National
Domestic Violence Awareness Month gives us a chance to acknowledge the
hard work of so many individuals and groups that have tackled this
issue head-on. These advocates talk the talk and they walk the walk.
They help ensure a better life for so many battered women and children,
and they remind Congress what is at stake and what remains to be done.
We all owe a debt of gratitude to the advocates, lawyers, service
providers, judges, police, nurses, shelter directors, and the many
others who have dedicated their lives to this cause.
Again, I thank my colleagues for acting on this important resolution,
and I look forward to working with them in the coming months and years
to address the problem of domestic violence in our Nation.
____________________
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for
hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce
hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate
crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable
in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to
highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country.
On July, 17, 2004, a 32-year-old gay man left a local Austin, TX, bar
with two men, and walked home. The two men, Donald Bockman and Darren
Gay, returned to the victim's home later that evening where they
proceed to beat him and sexually assault him. Police say the two men
dragged, tied-up, beat, cut, then sexually assaulted the victim.
According to police, this attack was motivated by the victim's sexual
orientation.
I believe that our Government's first duty is to defend its citizens,
in all circumstances, from threats to them at home. The Local Law
Enforcement Enhancement Act is a major step forward in achieving that
goal. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current
law, we can change hearts and minds as well.
____________________
YOUNG PEOPLE AND GUN VIOLENCE
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last Thursday, in the midst of National
Safe Schools Week, a student was nearly shot to death inside a Michigan
high school. This tragic incident further underscores the need to do
more to combat youth violence, especially gun violence.
According to published newspaper reports of the shooting, around noon
last Thursday, a tenth grade student fired as many as three shots at
another student in a crowded high school hallway. The 15-year-old
victim was struck once in the chest by a .380 caliber bullet, which
missed his heart by less than an inch. Fortunately, he is expected to
live.
The suspect, who is also 15 years old, allegedly used a stolen .380
caliber pistol in the shooting and now faces life in prison after being
charged as an adult. Reportedly, the suspect also has a previous
conviction involving a firearm
[[Page 24111]]
violation. The shooting last Thursday came less than a month after two
other students were injured in a drive-by shooting outside the same
high school. Unfortunately, youth gun violence continues to threaten
communities, destroy families, and change the lives of too many young
people forever.
Only a day before last Thursday's shooting, thousands of young people
across the country observed a Day of National Concern About Young
People and Gun Violence, which was designed to empower children and
teenagers to do what they can to eliminate gun violence in their
communities. In many communities, students were given the opportunity
to sign a voluntary pledge against gun violence. Since the first Day of
National Concern About Young People and Gun Violence in 1996, more than
7 million students have signed the pledge. Here is what the pledge
says:
I will never bring a gun to school; I will never use a gun
to settle a dispute; I will use my influence with my friends
to keep them from using guns to settle disputes. My
individual choices and actions, when multiplied by those of
young people throughout the country, will make a difference.
Together, by honoring this pledge, we can reverse the
violence and grow up in safety.
I applaud the organizers and students who participated in this year's
Day of National Concern About Young People and Gun Violence for their
efforts to reduce gun violence. The thousands of students who signed
the pledge this year, and the millions before them, have promised to do
what they can to prevent tragedies like last week's school shooting in
Michigan. Congress should do its part by adequately funding important
law enforcement programs and by passing commonsense gun safety
legislation.
____________________
BREAST CANCER ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ACT
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, October is National Breast Cancer Awareness
Month and 2005 marks more than 20 years that National Breast Cancer
Awareness Month has educated women about early breast cancer detection,
diagnosis, and treatment.
Yet, more than three million women currently live with breast cancer
and the causes of this disease are still mostly unknown. While we have
made significant advances in treatment, so much more needs to be done
when it comes to prevention of this often fatal disease.
The Breast Cancer Environmental Research Act, S. 757, would enhance
breast cancer environmental research across the country. This bill
which is modeled after the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research
Program, would over 5 years, invest $30 million through a peer-reviewed
grant process to establish a multi-disciplinary approach.
At this time, four research centers study prenatal-adult
environmental exposures that may cause breast cancer. And while this is
a good start, we need a nationally focused, collaborative and
comprehensive strategy to approach this and the Breast Cancer
Environmental Research Act would do just that.
This country has great resources when it comes to medical and
scientific research. I believe this bill would provide an efficient and
effective strategy for developing research in the environmental causes
of this tragic disease.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
RECOGNIZING SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF FACTS ON FILE
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it doesn't seem all that long ago
that one of our most popular television shows featured a detective with
a catch phrase that soon became part of our national vocabulary. When
questioning someone who was offering more opinions than observations he
would often interrupt and say, ``Just the facts.'' Those few words sum
up the history of a publication that has grown from an in-depth look at
World War II to an incredible collection of all forms of data that
covers just about everything from the beginnings of recorded history to
the exploration of the furthest ranges of our universe.
Sixty-five years ago, Facts on File World News Digest was founded in
1940 by three emigrants from Hitler's Europe who knew there would be a
need for a publication devoted to the issues of World War II. They had
witnessed the rise of Nazism in the 1930s and recognized the need for a
U.S.-based publication that focused on both world and domestic news
events in the years leading up to World War II. Their first issue dealt
with the presidential race between Roosevelt and Wilkie and their first
bound volume of the events of the day was written, as described in the
forward, as an effort to provide a clear and concise guide to help the
reader navigate through a ``hopeless maze of thousands of facts.''
Nowadays, by comparison, we are deluged by tens of millions of facts
and other pieces of data from around the world almost every day.
Through it all, Facts on File has continued to sift the trivial from
the significant and put together volume after volume of written
information placing the facts about a myriad of subjects online and at
our fingertips.
Facts on File World News Digest was originally conceived as a source
of information for radio and news journalists. Today, it serves an ever
widening group of people who need quick and easy access to the basic
facts about an endless list of items. Teachers rely on the publications
for their lesson plans. Students rely on the easy access their database
provides them for help with their homework, background for their
papers, or just to encourage a genuine curiosity about the history of
the world around them and how things work.
Weekly Reader, which is now a part of the Facts on File family, took
a poll of its readers recently. They discovered that almost 70 percent
of today's students reported that they look for and find most of the
facts they need for their homework on the Internet. Their use of the
latest technology was the good news. The bad news was they often do not
question the material they find or use another source to double check
it. They just assume what they have found is correct.
That is why it is so vitally important that we make sure our
children, students and researchers have access to online materials on
the web that put a premium on facts--not opinions. For that reason and
so many more, Facts on File World News Digest will continue to be a
priceless treasure trove of information, providing access to its
databases and the wealth of knowledge they store with students,
teachers, and government entities across the country.
As the old adage says so well, we're entitled to our own opinions,
we're just not entitled to our own facts. Facts on File has been
working for 65 years to make sure the record is clear so that those who
use their publications as a source get it right the first time.
As the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor
and Pensions, I like to say that education is our middle name. Facts on
File, and the family of publications it includes, has been a very
valuable component of our education system for some time. I appreciate
and congratulate them on a remarkable record of success. It's good to
know that a resource exists that can provide our children with the data
they need to supplement their studies, a resource that does its best,
like the detective I referred to earlier, to provide ``just the
facts.''
(At the request of Mr. Sarbanes, the following statement was ordered
to be printed in the Record.)
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, in Greek communities around the
world, Oxi Day celebrates the fateful day, October 28, 1940, when
Greece said ``NO'' to Mussolini's demand for immediate free passage of
Italian army troops through Greece, and thereby changed the course of
World War II. When Greece refused, Mussolini invaded, expecting no
serious resistance to his much larger and better-equipped army. In
fact, the outnumbered Greek forces offered such stiff resistance that
Mussolini was soon thrown on the defensive and the Italians retreated
into Albania.
[[Page 24112]]
The Greeks held the Axis forces at bay for months, forcing Hitler to
divert to Greece, forces that had been intended for the invasion of the
Soviet Union, which in turn caused a delay in the invasion. Within
months, the German armies were bogged down in the harsh winter
conditions from which they were never able to recover.
In the brutal campaign that Hitler's armies waged in Greece, nearly
16,000 Greeks were killed and more than 300,000 taken prisoner, but
from that campaign emerged the determined and courageous Greek
resistance. In World War II, Greece and the United States were partners
in the struggle against fascism as today they are partners in the
effort to build a free, democratic and prosperous world.
In Greek communities everywhere, Oxi Day is a time to celebrate
Greece's stunning defeat of Mussolini's armies and the Greek role in
assuring the Allied victory in World War II. It is also a time to
reflect on the democratic spirit that inspired that victory, a spirit
Greece gave to the world more than two millennia ago. Today, I join our
Greek American friends in recognizing a momentous day in which we are
reminded that tyranny will always be defeated by the enduring light of
freedom.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
A message from the President of the United States was communicated to
the Senate by Mr. Williams, one of his secretaries.
____________________
EXECUTIVE MESSAGE REFERRED
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
a message from the President of the United States submitting a
nomination and two treaties which were referred to the appropriate
committees.
(The nomination received today is printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
At 9:48 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Croatt, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, without amendment:
S. 172. An act to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to provide for the regulation of all contact
lenses as medical devices, and for other purposes.
The message also announced that the House has passed the following
bill, with amendments:
S. 1713. An act to make amendments to the Iran
Nonproliferation Act of 2000 related to International Space
Station payments.
____________________
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
At 12:08 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 bill:
H.R. 1409. An act to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 to provide assistance for orphans and other vulnerable
children in developing countries, and for other purposes.
The enrolled bill was signed subsequently by the President pro
tempore (Mr. Stevens).
____
At 12:29 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. 2967. An act to designate the Federal building located
at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Rosa
Parks Federal Building''.
The message further announced that the House has agreed to the
following concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence
of the Senate:
H. Con. Res. 276. Concurrent resolution requesting the
President to return to the House of Representatives the
enrollment of H.R. 3765 so that the Clerk of the House may
reenroll the bill in accordance with the action of the two
Houses.
____
At 2:40 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. 3945. An act to facilitate recovery from the effects
of Hurricane Katrina by providing greater flexibility for,
and temporary waivers of certain requirements and fees
imposed on, depository institutions, credit unions, and
Federal regulatory agencies, and for other purposes.
____
At 6:26 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, without amendment:
S. 37. An act to extend the special postage stamp for
breast cancer research for 2 years.
The message also announced that the House disagree to the amendments
of the Senate to the bill H.R. 3057 making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, and agree to the
conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing vote of the two
Houses thereon; and appoints the following Members as the managers of
the conference on the part of the House: Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Knollenberg,
Mr. Kirk, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Sherwood, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Rehberg, Mr.
Carter, Mr. Lewis of California, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Jackson of Illinois,
Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Fattah, and Mr. Obey.
____________________
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-4433. A communication from the Chairman, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
monthly report on the status of the Commission's licensing
activities and regulatory duties for August 2005; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-4434. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Migratory Bird Hunting: Late
Seasons and Bag and Possession Limits for Certain Migratory
Game Birds'' (RIN1018-AT76) received on October 21, 2005; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-4435. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; VOC RACT Orders for Hitchcock Chair Co., Ltd.;
Kimberly Clark Corp.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.; and Ross and
Roberts, Inc.'' (FRL7967-2) received on October 21, 2005; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-4436. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana''
(FRL7981-8) received on October 21, 2005; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-4437. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maine;
Consumer Products Regulation'' (FRL7982-4) received on
October 21, 2005; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
EC-4438. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of State Plans For Designated Facilities and
Pollutants: Massachusetts; Negative Declaration;'' (FRL7986-
6) received on October 21, 2005; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-4439. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Guidance on
Fees Charged By States to Recipients of Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Program Assistance'' (FRL7983-7) received on
October 21, 2005; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
EC-4440. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Miscellaneous Revisions to EPAAR Clauses'' (FRL7986-2)
received on October 21, 2005; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
EC-4441. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled
[[Page 24113]]
``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation
of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout'' (RIN1018-AU31) received
on October 21, 2005; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
EC-4442. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for
Arkansas River Basin Population of the Arkansas River
Shiner'' (RIN1018-AT84) received on October 21, 2005; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-4443. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the
Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover''
(RIN1018-AT89) received on October 21, 2005; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
EC-4444. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat
for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii
extimus)'' (RIN1018-AI49) received on October 21, 2005; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-4445. A communication from the Assistant Administrator
for Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Announcement of Contract Awards'' (RIN2700-
AD18) received on October 21, 2005; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4446. A communication from the Secretary of
Transportation transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Department's Fiscal Year 2004 Annual Report on the
Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and
Retaliation Act of 2002; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4447. A communication from the Legal Advisor to the
Bureau Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Rule, Texas)'' (MM Docket
No. 01-219) received on October 21, 2005; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4448. A communication from the Legal Advisor to the
Bureau Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.622(b), Table of
Allotments, DTV Broadcast Stations (Laredo, Texas)'' (MB
Docket No. 03-156, RM-10721) received on October 21, 2005; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4449. A communication from the Legal Advisor to the
Bureau Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Hutchinson and Haven,
Kansas)'' (MB Docket No. 04-376) received on October 21,
2005; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4450. A communication from the Acting Division Chief,
Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement
Act and Broadband Access and Services'' (FCC 05-153) received
on October 21, 2005; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-4451. A communication from the Acting Division Chief,
Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to
the Internet over Wireline Facilities; Universal Service
Obligations of Broadband Providers'' (FCC 05-150) received on
October 21, 2005; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4452. A communication from the Director, Office of
Protected Resources, Department of Commerce, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Sea Turtle
Conservation: Exceptions to Taking Prohibitions for
Endangered Sea Turtles'' (RIN0648-AS57) received on October
21, 2005; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-4453. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pollock in Statistical Areas 620 and 630 of the Gulf of
Alaska'' (I.D. No. 092105A) received on October 21, 2005; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4454. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Atka
Mackerel in the Central Aleutian District of the Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands Management Area'' (I.D. No. 092105D)
received on October 21, 2005; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-4455. A communication from the Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
Fisheries; Temporary Rule; Inseason Retention Limit
Adjustment'' (I.D. No. 091405F) received on October 21, 2005;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. McCAIN, from the Committee on Indian Affairs,
without amendment:
H.R. 797. A bill to amend the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 and other Acts
to improve housing programs for Indians (Rept. No. 109-160).
By Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, without amendment:
S. 485. A bill to reauthorize and amend the National
Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (Rept. No. 109-161).
S. 761. A bill to rename the Snake River Birds of Prey
National Conservation Area in the State of Idaho as the
Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation
Area in honor of the late Morley Nelson, an international
authority on birds of prey, who was instrumental in the
establishment of this National Conservation Area, and for
other purposes (Rept. No. 109-162).
By Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
S. 1170. A bill to establish the Fort Stanton-Snowy River
National Cave Conservation Area (Rept. No. 109-163).
By Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, without amendment:
S. 166. A bill to amend the Oregon Resource Conservation
Act of 1996 to reauthorize the participation of the Bureau of
Reclamation in the Deschutes River Conservancy, and for other
purposes (Rept. No. 109-164).
By Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, with amendments:
S. 251. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior,
acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a water
resource feasibility study for the Little Butte/Bear Creek
Sub-basins in Oregon (Rept. No. 109-165).
By Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
S. 213. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
convey certain Federal land to Rio Arriba County, New Mexico
(Rept. No. 109-166).
By Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, without amendment and an amendment to the title:
S. 592. A bill to extend the contract for the Glendo Unit
of the Missouri River Basin Project in the State of Wyoming
(Rept. No. 109-167).
By Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, without amendment:
S. 819. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to reallocate costs of the Pactola Dam and Reservoir, South
Dakota, to reflect increased demands for municipal,
industrial, and fish and wildlife purposes (Rept. No. 109-
168).
S. 891. A bill to extend the water service contract for the
Ainsworth Unit, Sandhills Division, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin
Program, Nebraska (Rept. No. 109-169).
By Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, with an amendment:
S. 1338. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior,
acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and the United
States Geological Survey, to conduct a study on groundwater
resources in the State of Alaska, and for other purposes
(Rept. No. 109-170).
By Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, with amendments:
S. 777. A bill to designate Catoctin Mountain Park in the
State of Maryland as the ``Catoctin Mountain National
Recreation Area'', and for other purposes (Rept. No. 109-
171).
By Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, without amendment:
H.R. 1101. A bill to revoke a Public Land Order with
respect to certain lands erroneously included in the Cibola
National Wildlife Refuge, California (Rept. No. 109-172).
By Mr. WARNER, from the Committee on Armed Services, with
amendments:
S. 1803. An original bill to authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2006 for intelligence
[[Page 24114]]
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 (Rept. No. 109-173).
By Mr. GREGG, from the Committee on the Budget, without
amendment:
S. 1932. An original bill to provide for reconciliation
pursuant to section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95).
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following executive reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. WARNER for the Committee on Armed Services.
William Anderson, of Connecticut, to be an Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force.
John G. Grimes, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary
of Defense.
A. J. Eggenberger, of Montana, to be a Member of the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for a term expiring
October 18, 2008.
John J. Young, Jr., of Virginia, to be Director of Defense
Research and Engineering.
Michael W. Wynne, of Florida, to be Secretary of the Air
Force.
Donald C. Winter, of Virginia, to be Secretary of the Navy.
Delores M. Etter, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary
of the Navy.
Air Force nomination of Lt. Gen. William T. Hobbins to be
General.
Air Force nomination of Lt. Gen. Lance L. Smith to be
General.
Air Force nomination of Maj. Gen. Michael W. Peterson to be
Lieutenant General.
Air Force nominations beginning with Brigadier General
Eugene R. Chojnacki and ending with Colonel Robert J. Yaple,
which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in
the Congressional Record on October 6, 2005.
Army nomination of Gen. Burwell B. Bell III to be General.
Army nomination of Maj. Gen. Michael D. Maples to be
Lieutenant General.
Army nominations beginning with Colonel Daniel B. Allyn and
ending with Colonel Terry A. Wolff, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on September 6, 2005.
Army nominations beginning with Brig. Gen. Thomas D.
Robinson and ending with Col. Luis R. Visot, which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record on October 6, 2005.
Army nomination of Brig. Gen. Michael J. Diamond to be
Major General.
Navy nomination of Rear Adm. Patrick M. Walsh to be Vice
Admiral.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I
report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in
the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save
the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these
nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of
Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Air Force nomination of John S. Baxter to be Colonel.
Army nomination of Jose R. Rael to be Colonel.
Army nominations beginning with Suzanne R. Avery and ending
with James Fikes, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on October 6,
2005.
Army nominations beginning with Donna J. Dolan and ending
with Deborah F. Simpson, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
October 6, 2005.
Army nominations beginning with Paul F. Abbey and ending
with Warren A. Williams, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
October 6, 2005.
Army nominations beginning with Paul S. Astphan and ending
with Brinda F. Williamsmorgan, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on October 6, 2005.
Army nominations beginning with Lynn S. Alsup and ending
with Carol L. Zieres, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on October 6,
2005.
Army nominations beginning with James W. Agnew and ending
with David A. Yeropoli, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
October 6, 2005.
Marine Corps nomination of Darren W. Milton to be Major.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Christopher J. Aaby
and ending with Richard B. Young II, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on October 6, 2005.
Navy nomination of William D. Fuson to be Captain.
Navy nominations beginning with Daniel Albrecht and ending
with Johnny Won, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on October 6,
2005.
(Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the
recommendation that they be confirmed.)
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 1926. A bill to provide the Department of Justice the
necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict
individuals committing animal enterprise terror; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 1927. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to make the Federal income tax system simpler, fairer, and
more fiscally responsible, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Coburn,
Mr. DeMint, Mr. Graham, Mr. McCain, Mr. Sununu, and
Mr. Cornyn):
S. 1928. A bill to reduce mandatory and discretionary
spending in order to offset the cost of rebuilding the Gulf
Region in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr.
Cochran):
S. 1929. A bill to reduce health care disparities and
improve health care quality, to improve the collection of
racial, ethnic, primary language, and socio-economic
determination data for use by healthcare researchers and
policymakers, to provide performance incentives for high
performing hospitals and community health centers, and to
expand current Federal programs seeking to eliminate health
disparities; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Cochran):
S. 1930. A bill to expand the research, prevention, and
awareness activities of the National Institute of Diabetes
and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention with respect to inflammatory bowel
disease; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Burns, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Thomas):
S. 1931. A bill to state the policy of the United States on
the intercontinental ballistic missile force; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. GREGG:
S. 1932. An original bill to provide for reconciliation
pursuant to section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95); from the
Committee on the Budget; placed on the calendar.
By Mr. MARTINEZ:
S. 1933. A bill to provide for the inclusion of Department
of Defense property on Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Island,
Florida, in the Gulf Islands National Seashore if the
property is ever excess to the needs of the Armed Forces; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Brownback,
Mr. Talent, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Bingaman,
Mr. Kyl, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Obama):
S. 1934. A bill to reauthorize the grant program of the
Department of Justice for reentry of offenders into the
community, to establish a task force on Federal programs and
activities relating to the reentry of offenders into the
community, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. SANTORUM:
S. 1935. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 2006 and 2007 for United States contributions to the
International Fund for Ireland, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. LOTT:
S. 1936. A bill to strengthen the national flood insurance
program, encourage participation in the program, and provide
owners of properties not located in flood hazard zones a one-
time opportunity to purchase flood insurance coverage for a
period covering such hurricane; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr.
Lugar, Mr. Biden, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Hagel,
Mr. Durbin, Mr. McCain, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Martinez,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr.
Smith):
S. 1937. A bill to expand certain preferential trade
treatment for Haiti; to the Committee on Finance.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
[[Page 24115]]
By Mr. DeMINT (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Graham, and
Mr. Feingold):
S. Res. 289. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate that Joseph Jefferson ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson should
be appropriately honored for his outstanding baseball
accomplishments; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs.
Clinton, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lieberman,
Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Pryor, Mr.
Durbin, and Mr. Reed):
S. Res. 290. A resolution honoring the life and expressing
the deepest condolences of Congress on the passing of Edward
Roybal, former United States Congressman; considered and
agreed to.
By Mr. OBAMA (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
S. Res. 291. A resolution to congratulate the Chicago White
Sox on winning the 2005 World Series Championship; considered
and agreed to.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Dodd,
Mrs. Dole, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Corzine, Mr.
Salazar, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Levin, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Coleman, and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. Res. 292. A resolution calling on the President to
condemn the anti-Israel sentiments expressed by the President
of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on October 26, 2005; considered
and agreed to.
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Sununu, Mr.
Bayh, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Graham, and Mr.
Lieberman):
S. Res. 293. A resolution calling for a free and fair
presidential election in the Republic of Kazakhstan; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
DeWine, Mr. Levin, Mr. Brownback, Ms. Stabenow, Mr.
Santorum, Mr. Obama, Mr. Talent, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Allen, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Biden, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Feingold, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Dorgan, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Durbin, and Mr. Akaka):
S. Con. Res. 61. A concurrent resolution authorizing the
remains of Rosa Parks to lie in honor in the rotunda of the
Capitol; considered and agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 113
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 113, a bill to
modify the date as of which certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria
of California is deemed to be held in trust.
S. 380
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 380, a bill to
amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a State family support
grant program to end the practice of parents giving legal custody of
their seriously emotionally disturbed children to State agencies for
the purpose of obtaining mental health services for those children.
S. 408
At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from Texas
(Mrs. Hutchison) was added as a cosponsor of S. 408, a bill to provide
for programs and activities with respect to the prevention of underage
drinking.
S. 417
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 417, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a refundable
wage differential credit for activated military reservists.
S. 438
At the request of Mr. Ensign, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Biden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 438, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the medicare outpatient
rehabilitation therapy caps.
S. 484
At the request of Mr. Warner, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 484, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Federal civilian and
military retirees to pay health insurance premiums on a pretax basis
and to allow a deduction for TRICARE supplemental premiums.
S. 632
At the request of Mr. Lugar, the names of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) were
added as cosponsors of S. 632, a bill to authorize the extension of
unconditional and permanent nondiscriminatory treatment (permanent
normal trade relations treatment) to the products of Ukraine, and for
other purposes.
S. 633
At the request of Mr. Johnson, the names of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Nelson) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) were added
as cosponsors of S. 633, a bill to require the Secretary of the
Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of veterans who became disabled
for life while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States.
S. 801
At the request of Mr. Martinez, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 801, a bill to designate the United States courthouse located at 300
North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida, as the ``John Milton Bryan
Simpson United States Courthouse''.
S. 1172
At the request of Mr. Specter, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1172, a bill
to provide for programs to increase the awareness and knowledge of
women and health care providers with respect to gynecologic cancers.
S. 1191
At the request of Mr. Salazar, the names of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Burns) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1191, a bill to establish a grant program to provide
innovative transportation options to veterans in remote rural areas.
S. 1215
At the request of Mr. Gregg, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Warner) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1215, a bill to authorize
the acquisition of interests in underdeveloped coastal areas in order
better to ensure their protection from development.
S. 1264
At the request of Mr. Chafee, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1264, a bill to provide for the provision by hospitals of emergency
contraceptives to women, and post-exposure prophylaxis for sexually
transmitted disease to individuals, who are survivors of sexual
assault.
S. 1272
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, the name of the Senator
from Maine (Ms. Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1272, a bill to
amend title 46, United States Code, and title II of the Social Security
Act to provide benefits to certain individuals who served in the United
States merchant marine (including the Army Transport Service and the
Naval Transport Service) during World War II.
S. 1462
At the request of Mr. Harkin, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1462, a bill to promote peace and accountability in Sudan, and for
other purposes.
At the request of Mr. Brownback, the names of the Senator from
Florida (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the
Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Rhode Island
(Mr. Reed) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1462, supra.
S. 1571
At the request of Mr. Durbin, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1571, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a
comprehensive program for testing and treatment of veterans for the
Hepatitis C virus.
S. 1587
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Sarbanes) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1587, a bill to amend
title XXI of the Social Security Act to permit qualifying States to use
a portion of their allotments under the State children's health
insurance program for any fiscal year for certain medicaid
expenditures.
S. 1800
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from California
[[Page 24116]]
(Mrs. Boxer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1800, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the new markets tax credit.
S. 1808
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the names of the Senator from
Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) and
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) were added as cosponsors of S.
1808, a bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to improve
the qualified medicare beneficiary (QMB) and specified low-income
medicare beneficiary (SLMB) programs within the medicaid program.
S. 1824
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1824, a bill to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to strengthen the earned income tax
credit.
S. 1860
At the request of Mr. Domenici, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Salazar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1860, a bill to amend the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 to improve energy production and reduce
energy demand through improved use of reclaimed waters, and for other
purposes.
S. 1922
At the request of Mr. Conrad, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Dayton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1922, a bill to authorize
appropriate action if negotiations with Japan to allow the resumption
of United States beef exports are not successful, and for other
purposes.
S. 1925
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Obama) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1925, a bill to provide for
workers and businesses during the response to Hurricane Katrina and
Hurricane Rita, and for other purposes.
S.J. RES. 1
At the request of Mr. Allard, the name of the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. Brownback) was added as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 1, a joint
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States relating to marriage.
S. CON. RES. 46
At the request of Mr. Brownback, the name of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Martinez) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 46, a
concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the
Russian Federation should fully protect the freedoms of all religious
communities without distinction, whether registered and unregistered,
as stipulated by the Russian Constitution and international standards.
S. RES. 219
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Biden) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 219, a
resolution designating March 8, 2006, as ``Endangered Species Day'',
and encouraging the people of the United States to become educated
about, and aware of, threats to species, success stories in species
recovery, and the opportunity to promote species conservation
worldwide.
AMENDMENT NO. 2070
At the request of Ms. Snowe, her name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 2070 proposed to H.R. 3058, a bill making appropriations
for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 2193
At the request of Mr. Thune, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mr.
Cornyn) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2193 proposed to H.R.
3010, a bill making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 2218
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the names of the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Reid), the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator
from California (Mrs. Feinstein) were added as cosponsors of amendment
No. 2218 proposed to H.R. 3010, a bill making appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for
other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 2219
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the names of the Senator from
Washington (Mrs. Murray) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 2219 proposed to H.R. 3010, a
bill making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 2249
At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the name of the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2249
proposed to H.R. 3010, a bill making appropriations for the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 2250
At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 2250 proposed to H.R. 3010, a
bill making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 2255
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator
from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from
New York (Mr. Schumer) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 2255 intended to be proposed
to H.R. 3010, a bill making appropriations for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 2257
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2257
intended to be proposed to H.R. 3010, a bill making appropriations for
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for
other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 2258
At the request of Mr. Domenici, the name of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Conrad) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2258
intended to be proposed to H.R. 3010, a bill making appropriations for
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for
other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 2259
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the names of the Senator from New
York (Mr. Schumer) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 2259 proposed to H.R. 3010, a
bill making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 2262
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Obama) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2262 proposed to
H.R. 3010, a bill making appropriations for the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 2276
At the request of Mr. Domenici, the name of the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. Bayh) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2276 proposed to
H.R. 3010, a bill making appropriations for
[[Page 24117]]
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for
other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 2283
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the names of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) and the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Conrad) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 2283
proposed to H.R. 3010, a bill making appropriations for the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 2287
At the request of Mr. Specter, the name of the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Ensign) was withdrawn as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2287
proposed to H.R. 3010, a bill making appropriations for the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other
purposes.
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 2287 proposed to H.R. 3010, supra.
AMENDMENT NO. 2289
At the request of Mr. Dayton, the name of the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Ensign) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2289 proposed to
H.R. 3010, a bill making appropriations for the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 2299
At the request of Mr. Talent, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 2299 proposed to H.R. 3010, a bill making appropriations
for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education,
and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and
for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 2301
At the request of Mr. Obama, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No.
2301 proposed to H.R. 3010, a bill making appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for
other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 2308
At the request of Mr. Specter, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No.
2308 proposed to H.R. 3010, a bill making appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for
other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 2327
At the request of Mr. Coleman, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2327 proposed to
H.R. 3010, a bill making appropriations for the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 1927. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make
the Federal income tax system simpler, fairer, and more fiscally
responsible, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am proposing a Fair Flat Tax Act
that will finally provide real tax relief to America's hurting middle
class. It will do so by making the tax system simpler, flatter and
fairer. And at the same time, it will begin to reduce the deficit that
is destabilizing our economy, our security and our future.
This tax reform proposal is simpler because it's easier to understand
and use. My legislation will include a new, simplified 1040 form that
is one page, 30 lines, for every individual taxpayer.
This plan is flatter because it collapses the current system of six
individual tax brackets down to three--15, 25 and 35 percent--and
creates a flat corporate rate of 35 percent.
Ultimately, this plan is fairer because it changes the laws that
disproportionately favor the most affluent Americans and corporations
at the expense of the middle class. Instead, it provides a major
middle-class tax cut--paid for by the elimination of scores of tax
breaks in the individual and corporate income tax breaks, and by
repealing the Bush tax cuts that favored the most fortunate few at the
expense of the many.
This plan is fairer for American taxpayers because it treats work and
wealth equally.
This is a radical statement about tax law: America can do better than
a two-tier system which forces a policeman to pay a higher effective
tax rate than an investor who makes his income on capital gains and
dividends.
Under the current Federal Tax Code, all income is not created equal
in this country. Americans who work for wages, in effect, subsidize the
tax cuts and credits and deferrals of those who make money through
unearned income--the dividends from investments. It's time to treat all
taxpayers the same.
Let me be clear: I am not interested in soaking investors. I am a
Democrat who believes in markets, and creating wealth. But what our
country is all about is equality, and our Tax Code should treat
everyone's income more equally too.
My legislation, The Fair Flat Tax Act of 2005, adapts the flat tax
idea to help reduce the deficit instead, through fewer exclusions,
exemptions, deductions, deferrals, credits and special rates for
certain businesses and activities, and through the setting of a single,
flat corporate rate of 35 percent. On the individual side, it ends
favoritism for itemizers while improving deductions across the board:
The standard deduction would be tripled for single filers from $5,000
to $15,000 and raised from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples. Six
individual rates are collapsed into three progressive rates of 15
percent, 25 percent and 35 percent, and income from all sources is
taxed the same.
Several deductions used most frequently by individuals, those for
home mortgage interest and charitable contributions, and the credits
for children, education and earned income are retained. No one would
have to calculate their taxes twice: this proposal eliminates the
individual Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which could snare as many as
21 million American taxpayers in 2006.
This proposal would eliminate an estimated $20 billion each year in
special breaks for corporations, and direct the Treasury Secretary to
identify and report to Congress an additional $10 billion in savings
from tax expenditures that subsidize inefficiencies in the health care
system. Eliminating these breaks would sustain current benefits for our
men and women in uniform, our veterans and the elderly and disabled--as
well as breaks that promote savings and help families pay for health
care and education.
What makes the Fair Flat Tax Act truly unique is that it corrects one
of the most glaring inequities in the current tax system: regressive
State and local taxes. Under current law, low and middle income
taxpayers get hit with a double whammy: compared to wealthy Americans,
they pay more of their income in State and local taxes. Poor families
pay more than 11 percent and middle income families pay about 10
percent of their income in State and local taxes, while wealthier
taxpayers only pay five percent. And because many low and middle income
taxpayers don't itemize, they get no credit on their Federal form for
paying State and local taxes. In fact, two-thirds of the Federal
deduction for State and local taxes goes to those with incomes above
$100,000. Under the Fair Flat Tax Act for the first time the Federal
code would look at the entire picture, at an individual's combined
Federal, State
[[Page 24118]]
and local tax burden, and give credit to low and middle income
individuals to correct for regressive State and local taxes.
Repealing some individual tax credits, deductions and exclusions from
income--along with some serious changes to the corporate Tax Code--
enables larger standard deductions and broader middle-class tax relief.
The deductions most important to most Americans remain in place: the
home mortgage deduction stays, as do child credits and charitable
contributions, higher education and health savings.
What all this means for American taxpayers is--the vast majority of
taxpayers will see a cut, particularly the middle class. Congressional
Research Service experts tell us that middle class families and
families with wage and salary incomes up to $150,000 will see tax
relief.
On the corporate side--this plan does something that may not be
popular, but it's right.
Each of us, including America's corporations, need to pay our fair
share. Corporations that have used tax loopholes to avoid paying their
fair share of taxes are going to see those loopholes close and they're
going to contribute.
This legislation makes concrete progress toward deficit reduction.
There's a long way to go to stop the hemorrhaging in the Federal
budget, but this legislation makes a real start by whittling the
deficit down approximately $100 billion over five years.
Some may wonder if what I am proposing today is a response to the
President's Tax Reform Advisory Panel. To date, the Panel hasn't
officially released its recommendations. I can't respond to something
that hasn't been introduced yet. But I am troubled by the fact that the
recommendations trickling out from the Panel would continue to twist
the Tax Code away from equal treatment of all income, widening the
chasm between people who get wages and people who collect dividends.
I am introducing The Fair Flat Tax Act of 2005 today to provide
Americans a plan based on common-sense principles that can make the Tax
Code work better.
Making the Tax Code simpler and flatter is going to make it fairer.
My legislation is going to provide real relief to the middle class. It
will treat work and wealth equally. It will make a start at reducing
the deficit. I am ready to get to work with my colleagues and move it
forward.
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. 1927
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE; TABLE OF
CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Flat
Tax Act of 2005''.
(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, 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 Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; amendment of 1986 Code; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purpose.
TITLE I--INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX REFORMS
Sec. 101. 3 progressive individual income tax rates for all forms of
income.
Sec. 102. Increase in basic standard deduction.
Sec. 103. Refundable credit for State and local income, sales, and real
and personal property taxes.
Sec. 104. Earned income child credit and earned income credit for
childless taxpayers.
Sec. 105. Repeal of individual alternative minimum tax.
Sec. 106. Termination of various exclusions, exemptions, deductions,
and credits.
TITLE II--CORPORATE AND BUSINESS INCOME TAX REFORMS
Sec. 201. Corporate flat tax.
Sec. 202. Treatment of travel on corporate aircraft.
Sec. 203. Termination of various preferential treatments.
Sec. 204. Elimination of tax expenditures that subsidize inefficiencies
in the health care system.
Sec. 205. Pass-through business entity transparency.
TITLE III--TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS; SUNSET
Sec. 301. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 302. Sunset.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986--
(1) to make the Federal individual income tax system
simpler, fairer, and more transparent by--
(A) recognizing the overall Federal, State, and local tax
burden on individual Americans, especially the regressive
nature of State and local taxes, and providing a Federal
income tax credit for State and local income, sales, and
property taxes,
(B) providing for an earned income tax credit for childless
taxpayers and a new earned income child credit,
(C) repealing the individual alternative minimum tax,
(D) increasing the basic standard deduction and maintaining
itemized deductions for principal residence mortgage interest
and charitable contributions,
(E) reducing the number of exclusions, exemptions,
deductions, and credits, and
(F) treating all income equally,
(2) to make the Federal corporate income tax rate a flat 35
percent and eliminate special tax preferences that favor
particular types of businesses or activities, and
(3) to partially offset the Federal budget deficit through
the increased revenues resulting from these reforms.
TITLE I--INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX REFORMS
SEC. 101. 3 PROGRESSIVE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATES FOR ALL
FORMS OF INCOME.
(a) Married Individuals Filing Joint Returns and Surviving
Spouses.--The table contained in section 1(a) is amended to
read as follows:
The tax is:e income is:
15% of taxable income. ................................................
$3,750, plus 25% of the excess over $25,000 ...........................
$27,500, plus 35% of the excess over $120,000''........................
(b) Heads of Households.--The table contained in section
1(b) is amended to read as follows:
The tax is:e income is:
15% of taxable income. ................................................
$2,400, plus 25% of the excess over $16,000 ...........................
$24,650, plus 35% of the excess over $105,000''........................
(c) Unmarried Individuals (Other Than Surviving Spouses and
Heads of Households.--The table contained in section 1(c) is
amended to read as follows:
The tax is:e income is:
15% of taxable income. ................................................
$2,250, plus 25% of the excess over $15,000 ...........................
$16,000, plus 35% of the excess over $70,000''.........................
(d) Married Individuals Filing Separate Returns.--The table
contained in section 1(d) is amended to read as follows:
The tax is:e income is:
15% of taxable income. ................................................
$1,875, plus 25% of the excess over $12,500 ...........................
$13,750, plus 35% of the excess over $60,000''.........................
(e) Conforming Amendments to Inflation Adjustment.--Section
1(f) is amended--
(1) by striking ``1993''in paragraph (1) and inserting
``2006'',
(2) by striking ``except as provided in paragraph (8)'' in
paragraph (2)(A),
(3) by striking ``1992'' in paragraph (3)(B) and inserting
``2005'',
(4) by striking paragraphs (7) and (8), and
(5) by striking ``Phaseout of Marriage Penalty in 15-
Percent Bracket;'' in the heading thereof.
(f) Repeal of Rate Differential for Capital Gains and
Dividends.--
(1) Repeal of 2003 rate reduction.--Section 303 of the Jobs
and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 is amended
by striking ``December 3, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31,
2005''.
(2) Termination of pre-2003 capital gain rate
differential.--Section 1(h) is amended (after the application
of paragraph (1)) by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(13) Termination.--This section shall not apply to
taxable years beginning after December 31, 2005.''.
(g) Additional Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1 is amended by striking subsection (i).
(2) The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
striking ``calendar year 1992'' each place it appears and
inserting ``calendar year 2005''.
(3) Section 1445(e)(1) (after the application of subsection
(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``(or, to the extent provided
in regulations, 20 percent)''.
(h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2005.
[[Page 24119]]
SEC. 102. INCREASE IN BASIC STANDARD DEDUCTION.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) (defining
standard deduction) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Basic standard deduction.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the basic standard deduction is--
``(A) 200 percent of the dollar amount in effect under
subparagraph (C) for the taxable year in the case of--
``(i) a joint return, or
``(ii) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
``(B) $26,250 in the case of a head of household (as
defined in section 2(b)), or
``(C) $15,000 in any other case.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment to Inflation Adjustment.--Section
63(c)(4)(B)(i) is amended by striking ``(2)(B), (2)(C), or''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2005.
SEC. 103. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR STATE AND LOCAL INCOME,
SALES, AND REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES.
(a) General Rule.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to refundable credits) is amended by
redesignating section 36 as section 37 and by inserting after
section 35 the following new section:
``SEC. 36. CREDIT FOR STATE AND LOCAL INCOME, SALES, AND REAL
AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this subtitle for the taxable year an amount equal to 10
percent of the qualified State and local taxes paid by the
taxpayer for such year.
``(b) Qualified State and Local Taxes.--For purposes of
this section, the term `qualified State and local taxes'
means--
``(1) State and local income taxes,
``(2) State and local general sales taxes,
``(3) State and local real property taxes, and
``(4) State and local personal property taxes.
``(c) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) State or local taxes.--A State or local tax includes
only a tax imposed by a State, a possession of the United
States, or a political subdivision of any of the foregoing,
or by the District of Columbia.
``(2) General sales taxes.--
``(A) In general.--The term `general sales tax' means a tax
imposed at one rate with respect to the sale at retail of a
broad range of classes of items.
``(B) Application of rules.--Rules similar to the rules
under subparagraphs (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), and (H) of
section 164(b)(5) shall apply.
``(3) Personal property taxes.--The term `personal property
tax' means an ad valorem tax which is imposed on an annual
basis in respect of personal property.
``(4) Application of rules to property taxes.--Rules
similar to the rules of subsections (c) and (d) of section
164 shall apply.
``(5) No credit for married individuals filing separate
returns.--If the taxpayer is a married individual (within the
meaning of section 7703), this section shall apply only if
the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse file a joint return
for the taxable year.
``(6) Denial of credit to dependents.--No credit shall be
allowed under this section to any individual with respect to
whom a deduction under section 151 is allowable to another
taxpayer for a taxable year beginning in the calendar year in
which such individual's taxable year begins.
``(7) Denial of double benefit.--Any amount taken into
account in determining the credit allowable under this
section may not be taken into account in determining any
credit or deduction under any other provision of this
chapter.''.
(b) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``or from section 36 of
such Code'' before the period at the end.
(2) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by striking the item
relating to section 36 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 36. Credit for state and local income, sales, and real and
personal property taxes.
``Sec. 37. Overpayments of tax.''.
(c) Report Regarding Use of Credit by Renters.--Not later
than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the Committee
on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means
of the House of Representatives recommendations regarding the
treatment of a portion of rental payments in a manner similar
to real property taxes under section 36 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section).
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2005.
SEC. 104. EARNED INCOME CHILD CREDIT AND EARNED INCOME CREDIT
FOR CHILDLESS TAXPAYERS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 32 (relating to
earned income) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Allowance of Earned Income Child Credit and Earned
Income Credit.--
``(1) In general.--There shall be allowed as a credit
against the tax imposed by this subtitle for the taxable
year--
``(A) in the case of any eligible individual with 1 or more
qualifying children, an amount equal to the earned income
child credit amount, and
``(B) in the case of any eligible individual with no
qualifying children, an amount equal to the earned income
credit amount.
``(2) Earned income child credit amount.--For purposes of
this section, the earned income child credit amount is equal
to the sum of--
``(A) the credit percentage of so much of the taxpayer's
earned income for the taxable year as does not exceed the
earned income limit amount, plus
``(B) the supplemental child credit amount determined under
subsection (n) for such taxable year.
``(3) Earned income credit amount.--For purposes of this
section, the earned income credit amount is equal to the
credit percentage of so much of the taxpayer's earned income
for the taxable year as does not exceed the earned income
limit amount.
``(4) Limitation.--The amount of the credit allowable to a
taxpayer under paragraph (2)(A) or (3) for any taxable year
shall not exceed the excess (if any) of--
``(A) the credit percentage of the earned income amount,
over
``(B) the phaseout percentage of so much of the adjusted
gross income (or, if greater, the earned income) of the
taxpayer for the taxable year as exceeds the phaseout
amount.''.
(b) Supplemental Child Credit Amount.--Section 32 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(n) Supplemental Child Credit Amount.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(2)(B),
the supplemental child credit amount for any taxable year is
equal to the lesser of--
``(A) the credit which would be allowed under section 24
for such taxable year without regard to the limitation under
section 24(b)(3) with respect to any qualifying child as
defined under subsection (c)(3), or
``(B) the amount by which the aggregate amount of credits
allowed by subpart A for such taxable year would increase if
the limitation imposed by section 24(b)(3) were increased by
the excess (if any) of--
``(i) 15 percent of so much of the taxpayer's earned income
which is taken into account in computing taxable income for
the taxable year as exceeds $10,000, or
``(ii) in the case of a taxpayer with 3 or more qualifying
children (as so defined), the excess (if any) of--
``(I) the taxpayer's social security taxes for the taxable
year, over
``(II) the credit allowed under this section for the
taxable year.
The amount of the credit allowed under this subsection shall
not be treated as a credit allowed under subpart A and shall
reduce the amount of credit otherwise allowable under section
24(a) without regard to section 24(b)(3).
``(2) Social security taxes.--For purposes of paragraph
(1)--
``(A) In general.--The term `social security taxes' means,
with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year--
``(i) the amount of the taxes imposed by section 3101 and
3201(a) on amounts received by the taxpayer during the
calendar year in which the taxable year begins,
``(ii) 50 percent of the taxes imposed by section 1401 on
the self-employment income of the taxpayer for the taxable
year, and
``(iii) 50 percent of the taxes imposed by section
3211(a)(1) on amounts received by the taxpayer during the
calendar year in which the taxable year begins.
``(B) Coordination with special refund of social security
taxes.--The term `social security taxes' shall not include
any taxes to the extent the taxpayer is entitled to a special
refund of such taxes under section 6413(c).
``(C) Special rule.--Any amounts paid pursuant to an
agreement under section 3121(l) (relating to agreements
entered into by American employers with respect to foreign
affiliates) which are equivalent to the taxes referred to in
subparagraph (A)(i) shall be treated as taxes referred to in
such paragraph.
``(3) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable
year beginning in a calendar year after 2005, the $10,000
amount contained in paragraph (1)(B) shall be increased by an
amount equal to--
``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2000'
for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
Any increase determined under the preceding sentence shall be
rounded to the nearest multiple of $50.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 24(d) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Termination.--This subsection shall not apply with
respect to any taxable year beginning after December 31,
2005.''.
(d) Certain Treatment of Earned Income Made Permanent.--
Clause (vi) of section 32(c)(2)(B) is amended to read as
follows:
[[Page 24120]]
``(vi) a taxpayer may elect to treat amounts excluded from
gross income by reason of section 112 as earned income.''.
(e) Repeal of Disqualified Investment Income Test.--
Subsection (i) of section 32 is repealed.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2005.
SEC. 105. REPEAL OF INDIVIDUAL ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.
(a) In General.--Section 55(a) (relating to alternative
minimum tax imposed) is amended by adding at the end the
following new flush sentence:
``For purposes of this title, the tentative minimum tax on
any taxpayer other than a corporation for any taxable year
beginning after December 31, 2005, shall be zero.''.
(b) Modification of Limitation on Use of Credit for Prior
Year Minimum Tax Liability.--Subsection (c) of section 53
(relating to credit for prior year minimum tax liability) is
amended to read as follows:
``(c) Limitation.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
credit allowable under subsection (a) for any taxable year
shall not exceed the excess (if any) of --
``(A) the regular tax liability of the taxpayer for such
taxable year reduced by the sum of the credits allowable
under subparts A, B, D, E, and F of this part, over
``(B) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year.
``(2) Taxable years beginning after 2005.--In the case of
any taxable year beginning after 2005, the credit allowable
under subsection (a) to a taxpayer other than a corporation
for any taxable year shall not exceed 90 percent of the
regular tax liability of the taxpayer for such taxable year
reduced by the sum of the credits allowable under subparts A,
B, D, E, and F of this part.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2005.
SEC. 106. TERMINATION OF VARIOUS EXCLUSIONS, EXEMPTIONS,
DEDUCTIONS, AND CREDITS.
(a) In General.--Subchapter C of chapter 90 (relating to
provisions affecting more than one subtitle) is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 7875. TERMINATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.
``The following provisions shall not apply to taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2005:
``(1) Section 44 (relating to credit for expenditures to
provide access to disabled individuals).
``(2) Section 62(a)(2)(D) (relating to deduction for
certain expenses of elementary and secondary school
teachers).
``(3) Section 67 (relating to 2-percent floor on
miscellaneous itemized deductions).
``(4) Section 74(c) (relating to exclusion of certain
employee achievement awards).
``(5) Section 79 (relating to exclusion of group-term life
insurance purchased for employees).
``(6) Section 104(a)(1) (relating to exclusion of workmen's
compensation).
``(7) Section 104(a)(2) (relating to exclusion of damages
for physical injuries and sickness).
``(8) Section 107 (relating to exclusion of rental value of
parsonages).
``(9) Section 119 (relating to exclusion of meals or
lodging furnished for the convenience of the employer).
``(10) Section 125 (relating to exclusion of cafeteria plan
benefits).
``(11) Section 132 (relating to certain fringe benefits),
except with respect to subsection (a)(5) thereof (relating to
exclusion of qualified transportation fringe).
``(12) Section 163(h)(4)(A)(i)(II) (relating to definition
of qualified residence).
``(13) Section 165(d) (relating to deduction for wagering
losses).
``(14) Section 217 (relating to deduction for moving
expenses).
``(15) Section 454 (relating to deferral of tax on
obligations issued at discount).
``(16) Section 501(c)(9) (relating to tax-exempt status of
voluntary employees' beneficiary associations).
``(17) Section 911 (relating to exclusion of earned income
of citizens or residents of the United States living abroad).
``(18) Section 912 (relating to exemption for certain
allowances).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter C of chapter 90 is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:
``Sec. 7875. Termination of certain provisions.''.
TITLE II--CORPORATE AND BUSINESS INCOME TAX REFORMS
SEC. 201. CORPORATE FLAT TAX.
(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 11 (relating to
tax imposed) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Amount of Tax.--The amount of tax imposed by
subsection (a) shall be equal to 35 percent of the taxable
income.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 280C(c)(3)(B)(ii)(II) is amended by striking
``maximum rate of tax under section 11(b)(1)'' and inserting
``rate of tax under section 11(b)''.
(2) Sections 860E(e)(2)(B), 860E(e)(6)(A)(ii),
860K(d)(2)(A)(ii), 860K(e)(1)(B)(ii), 1446(b)(2)(B), and
7874(e)(1)(B) are each amended by striking ``highest rate of
tax specified in section 11(b)(1)'' and inserting ``rate of
tax specified in section 11(b)''.
(3) Section 904(b)(3)(D)(ii) is amended by striking
``(determined without regard to the last sentence of section
11(b)(1))''.
(4) Section 962 is amended by striking subsection (c) and
by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).
(5) Section 1201(a) is amended by striking ``(determined
without regard to the last 2 sentences of section
11(b)(1))''.
(6) Section 1561(a) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (1) and by redesignating
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3),
respectively,
(B) by striking ``The amounts specified in paragraph (1),
the'' and inserting ``The'',
(C) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph
(1)'',
(D) by striking ``paragraph (3)'' both places it appears
and inserting ``paragraph (2)'',
(E) by striking ``paragraph (4)'' and inserting ``paragraph
(3)'', and
(F) by striking the fourth sentence.
(7) Subsection (b) of section 1561 is amended to read as
follows:
``(b) Certain Short Taxable Years.--If a corporation has a
short taxable year which does not include a December 31 and
is a component member of a controlled group of corporations
with respect to such taxable year, then for purposes of this
subtitle, the amount to be used in computing the accumulated
earnings credit under section 535(c)(2) and (3) of such
corporation for such taxable year shall be the amount
specified in subsection (a)(1) divided by the number of
corporations which are component members of such group on the
last day of such taxable year. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, section 1563(b) shall be applied as if such last
day were substituted for December 31.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2005.
SEC. 202. TREATMENT OF TRAVEL ON CORPORATE AIRCRAFT.
(a) In General.--Section 162 (relating to trade or business
expenses) is amended by redesignating subsection (q) as
subsection (r) and b inserting after subsection (p) the
following new subsection:
``(q) Treatment of Travel on Corporate Aircraft.--The rate
at which an amount allowable as a deduction under this
chapter for the use of an aircraft owned by the taxpayer is
determined shall not exceed the rate at which an amount paid
or included in income by an employee of such taxpayer for the
personal use of such aircraft is determined.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2005.
SEC. 203. TERMINATION OF VARIOUS PREFERENTIAL TREATMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 7875, as added by section 106, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(or transactions in the case of sections
referred to in paragraphs (21), (22), (23), (24), and (27))''
after ``taxable years beginning'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(19) Section 43 (relating to enhanced oil recovery
credit).
``(20) Section 263(c) (relating to intangible drilling and
development costs in the case of oil and gas wells and
geothermal wells).
``(21) Section 382(l)(5) (relating to exception from net
operating loss limitations for corporations in bankruptcy
proceeding).
``(22) Section 451(i) (relating to special rules for sales
or dispositions to implement Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission or State electric restructuring policy).
``(23) Section 453A (relating to special rules for
nondealers), but only with respect to the dollar limitation
under subsection (b)(1) thereof and subsection (b)(3) thereof
(relating to exception for personal use and farm property).
``(24) Section 460(e)(1) (relating to special rules for
long-term home construction contracts or other short-term
construction contracts).
``(25) Section 613A (relating to percentage depletion in
case of oil and gas wells).
``(26) Section 616 (relating to development costs).
``(27) Sections 861(a)(6), 862(a)(6), 863(b)(2), 863(b)(3),
and 865(b) (relating to inventory property sales source rule
exception).''.
(b) Full Tax Rate on Nuclear Decommissioning Reserve
Fund.--Subparagraph (B) of section 468A(e)(2) is amended to
read as follows:
``(B) Rate of tax.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the
rate set forth in this subparagraph is 35 percent.''.
(c) Deferral of Active Income of Controlled Foreign
Corporations.--Section 952 (relating to subpart F income
defined) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(e) Special Application of Subpart.--
``(1) In general.--For taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2005, notwithstanding any other provision of
this subpart, the term `subpart F income' means, in the case
of any controlled foreign corporation, the income of such
corporation derived from any foreign country.
[[Page 24121]]
``(2) Applicable rules.--Rules similar to the rules under
the last sentence of subsection (a) and subsection (d) shall
apply to this subsection.''.
(d) Deferral of Active Financing Income.--Section
953(e)(10) is amended--
(1) by striking ``2006'' and inserting ``2005'', and
(2) by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2006''.
(e) Depreciation on Equipment in Excess of Alternative
Depreciation System.--Section 168(g)(1) (relating to
alternative depreciation system) is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D), by adding ``and'' at
the end of subparagraph (E), and by inserting after
subparagraph (E) the following new subparagraph:
``(F) notwithstanding subsection (a), any tangible property
placed in service after December 31, 2005,''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections
(b), (c), and (d) shall apply to taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2005.
SEC. 204. ELIMINATION OF TAX EXPENDITURES THAT SUBSIDIZE
INEFFICIENCIES IN THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways
and Means of the House of Representatives recommendations
regarding the elimination of Federal tax incentives which
subsidize inefficiencies in the health care system and if
eliminated would result in Federal budget savings of not less
than $10,000,000,000 annually.
SEC. 205. PASS-THROUGH BUSINESS ENTITY TRANSPARENCY.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways
and Means of the House of Representatives regarding the
implementation of additional reporting requirements with
respect to any pass-through entity with the goal of the
reduction of tax avoidance through the use of such entities,
In addition, the Secretary shall develop procedures to share
such report data with State revenue agencies under the
disclosure requirements of section 6103(d) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
TITLE III--TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS; SUNSET
SEC. 301. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
The Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate
shall not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the
Senate a draft of any technical and conforming changes in the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which are necessary to reflect
throughout such Code the purposes of the provisions of, and
amendments made by, this Act.
SEC. 302. SUNSET.
(a) In General.--All provisions of, and amendments made by,
this Act shall not apply to taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2010.
(b) Application of Code.--The Internal Revenue Code of 1986
shall be applied and administered to taxable years described
in subsection (a) as if the provisions of, and amendments
made by, this Act had never been enacted.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Cochran):
S. 1930. A bill to expand the research, prevention, and awareness
activities of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and
Kidney Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with
respect to inflammatory bowel disease; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
focused on a devastating condition known as inflammatory bowel disease
(IBD). I am pleased that Senator Cochran has once again joined me in
the fight against this painful and debilitating disease.
Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, collectively known as
inflammatory bowel disease, are chronic disorders of the
gastrointestinal tract which afflict approximately 1.4 million
Americans, 30 percent whom are diagnosed in their childhood years. IBD
can cause severe abdominal pain, fever, and intestinal bleeding.
Complications related to the disease include; arthritis, osteoporosis,
anemia, liver disease, growth and developmental challenges, and
colorectal cancer. Inflammatory bowel disease represents a major cause
of morbidity from digestive illness and has a devastating impact on
patients and families.
In the 108th Congress I was proud to sponsor bipartisan legislation
focused on IBD that attracted 36 co-sponsors. Several important
provisions of that bill were incorporated into legislation known as the
``Research Review Act'' which was signed into law by the President last
November. Specifically, the ``Research Review Act'' called on the
Government Accountability Office and the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention to submit reports to Congress on three issues of
critical importance to the IBD community, 1. Social Security
Disability, 2. Medicare and Medicaid coverage, and 3. the epidemiology
of the disease in the United States.
The legislation I am introducing today builds upon the progress made
last year by calling for an increased Federal investment in biomedical
research on IBD. The hope for a better quality of life patients and
families depends on basic and clinical research sponsored by the
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at the
National Institutes of Health (NIDDK). The ``Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Research Act'' calls for an expansion of NIDDK's research portfolio on
Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in order to capitalize on
several exciting discoveries that have broadened our understanding of
IBD in recent years. By increasing our investment in this area, we will
maximize the possibility that we will be able to offer hope to millions
of Americans who suffer from this debilitating disease. At the same
time, progress in this area could also mean we would save millions of
dollars in net health care expenditures through reduced
hospitalizations and surgeries.
In addition to biomedical research, this legislation also calls on
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop a ``National
Inflammatory Bowel Disease Action Plan.'' This plan will provide a
comprehensive approach to addressing the burden of IBD in the United
States, including strategies for raising awareness of the disease among
the general public and health care community, expanding epidemiological
research focused on the prevalence of IBD, and preventing the
progression of the disease and its complications.
The Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America, an organization that
has been a leader in the battle against IBD, has strongly endorsed this
legislation. In addition to CCFA, the following organizations have
endorsed this bill: The North American Society for Pediatric
Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, the American
Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the Digestive Disease National Coalition,
the Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates, and the
Pennsylvania Society of Gastroenterology.
I urge all Senators to join Senator Cochran and me in this important
cause by co-sponsoring the ``Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Act.''
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. 1930
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 ``Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Research Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are serious
inflammatory diseases of the gastrointestinal tract.
(2) Crohn's disease may occur in any section of the
gastrointestinal tract but is predominately found in the
lower part of the small intestine and the large intestine.
Ulcerative colitis is characterized by inflammation and
ulceration of the innermost lining of the colon. Complete
removal of the colon in patients with ulcerative colitis can
potentially alleviate and cure symptoms.
(3) Because Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis behave
similarly, they are collectively known as inflammatory bowel
disease. Both diseases present a variety of symptoms,
including severe diarrhea; abdominal pain with cramps; fever;
and rectal bleeding. There is no known cause of inflammatory
bowel disease, or medical cure.
(4) It is estimated that up to 1,400,000 people in the
United States suffer from inflammatory bowel disease, 30
percent of whom are diagnosed during their childhood years.
(5) Children with inflammatory bowel disease miss school
activities because of bloody
[[Page 24122]]
diarrhea and abdominal pain, and many adults who had onset of
inflammatory bowel disease as children had delayed puberty
and impaired growth and have never reached their full genetic
growth potential.
(6) Inflammatory bowel disease patients are at high risk
for developing colorectal cancer.
(7) The total annual medical costs for inflammatory bowel
disease patients is estimated at more than $2,000,000,000.
SEC. 3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND
KIDNEY DISEASES; INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE
RESEARCH EXPANSION.
(a) In General.--The Director of the National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases shall expand,
intensify, and coordinate the activities of the Institute
with respect to research on inflammatory bowel disease, with
particular emphasis on the following areas:
(1) Genetic research on susceptibility for inflammatory
bowel disease, including the interaction of genetic and
environmental factors in the development of the disease.
(2) Research targeted to increase knowledge about the
causes and complications of inflammatory bowel disease in
children.
(3) Animal model research on inflammatory bowel disease,
including genetics in animals.
(4) Clinical inflammatory bowel disease research, including
clinical studies and treatment trials.
(5) Expansion of the Institute's Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Centers program with a focus on pediatric research.
(6) Other research initiatives identified by the scientific
document entitled ``Challenges in Inflammatory Bowel
Disease'' and the research agenda for pediatric
gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition entitled ``Chronic
Inflammatory Bowel Disease''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--For the purpose of carrying out subsection
(a), there are authorized to be appropriated $75,000,000 for
fiscal year 2006, $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, and
$100,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
(2) Reservation.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under paragraph (1), not more than 20 percent
shall be reserved for the training of qualified health
professionals in biomedical research focused on inflammatory
bowel disease, including pediatric investigators.
SEC. 4. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION; NATIONAL
INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE ACTION PLAN.
(a) In General.--
(1) Preparation of plan.--The Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, in consultation with the
inflammatory bowel disease community, shall prepare a
comprehensive plan to address the burden of inflammatory
bowel disease in both adult and pediatric populations (which
plan shall be designated by the Director as the ``National
Inflammatory Bowel Disease Action Plan'').
(2) Report to congress.-- Not later than 12 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shall submit the
Plan referred to in paragraph (1) to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce and the Committee on Appropriations in the House
of Representatives and to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions and the Committee on Appropriations in the
Senate.
(b) Content.--
(1) In general.--The National Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Action Plan shall address strategies for determining the true
prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in the United
States, and the unique demographic characteristics of the
patient community through the expansion of appropriate
epidemiological activities.
(2) Certain requirements.-- The Plan referred to in
paragraph (1) shall--
(A) focus on strategies for increasing awareness about
inflammatory bowel disease within the general public and the
health care community in order to facilitate more timely and
accurate diagnoses; and
(B) address mechanisms designed to prevent the progression
of the disease and the development of complications, such as
colorectal cancer, and other strategies and activities as
deemed appropriate.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there is authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2006.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Brownback, Mr.
Talent, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kyl, Mr.
Santorum, and Mr. Obama):
S. 1934. A bill to reauthorize the grant program of the Department of
Justice for reentry of offenders into the community, to establish a
task force on Federal programs and activities relating to the reentry
of offenders into the community, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce,
along with Senators Biden and Brownback, the Second Chance Act of 2005:
Community Safety through Recidivism Prevention. This legislation is
designed to reduce recidivism among adult and juvenile ex-offenders.
Never before in our history have so many individuals been released from
prison and never before in our history have so many ex-offenders been
is prepared to reenter their communities. Each year, more than 650,000
individuals are released, which roughly equates to about 1,700
individuals returning communities each day. This number is expected to
grow in the near future as more inmates complete their prison terms.
For most offenders, the transition back into their communities is
difficult because many lack the necessary skill to ensure a successful
reentry. Many suffer from serious substance abuse addictions and mental
health issues. Many have difficulty securing a job or adequate housing
and often find themselves lured back to a life of crime. A study
conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that over two-
thirds of released prisoners were rearrested within three years and
one-half of those rearrested were convicted and re-incarcerated. This
high rate of recidivism devastates our towns and communities and puts
an enormous strain on state and local budgets.
The Second Chance Act reauthorizes the Adult and Juvenile Offender
Reentry Demonstration projects, authorizing the Attorney General to
make grants to States and local governments to establish offender
reentry projects, with an enhanced focus on job training, housing,
substance abuse and mental health treatment, and working with children
and families. It also creates a new grant program available to
nonprofit organizations for the purpose of providing mentoring and
other transitional services essential to reintegrating ex-offenders.
The Second Chance Act encourages new community partnerships to help
educate, train, and employ these individuals who might otherwise return
to a life of crime.
Many ex-offenders are often stigmatized by their incarceration, and
must face the reality that many employers are reluctant to hire them. A
National Adult Literacy Study determined that a majority of prisoners
are either illiterate or have marginal reading, writing, and math
skills. Following the repeal of Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated
individuals, I worked to create the Grants to States for Workplace and
Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth Offenders program.
This program is aimed at providing post-secondary education, employment
counseling, and workplace and community transition training for
incarcerated youth offenders while in prison, which continue for up to
one year after the individual is released. The current program limits
expenditures per youth offender to $1,500 for tuition and books, and
only allows an additional $300 for other related services. The Second
Chance Act builds upon my earlier efforts by increasing State's
flexibility and accountability within the grant program. It removes the
cap and raises the allowable expenditure permitted for each youth
offender to the maximum level of Pell Grants. One of the keys to
preventing recidivism is access to education an in recognizing the
impact that education an job training can have on incarcerated
offenders. It is my sincere hope that this legislation will encourage
incarcerated individuals to achieve their independence and to gain the
necessary skills to become productive members of society.
Another crisis that we'll face is the growing populations of
prisoners who are parents. More than half of those currently
incarcerated are parents of minor children. Female incarceration rates
are increasing faster than those men, totaling 7 percent of the prison
population. Of those incarcerated, 80 percent are mothers with, on
average two dependent children. What is most troubling is that two-
thirds of their children are younger the the age of 10. The
incarceration of a parent can have a tremendous impact on childhood
development. Prison presents a unique
[[Page 24123]]
opportunity to improve a prisoner's ability to become a better part
once they are released. Unfortunately, many of our prisons do not
employ such programs, due to fiscal constraints as well as a shift in
priorities. The Second Chance Act of 2005 encourages the creating of
programs that facilitate visitation, if it is in the best interest of
the child. It also directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to establish services to help preserve family units, with special
attention paid to the impact on the child of an incarcerated parent.
There is ample evident that well-designed reentry programs reduce
recidivism. Programs such as aftercare for substance abusers and adult
vocational education have shown to reduce recidivism up to 15 percent.
These programs pay for themselves by reducing future correction costs
associated with re-housing these individuals upon their return back
into the institution. The revolving door of prisons not only hurts
those who are caught up in the process, but hurts their families and
our communities. If we fail to address this problem, 1e are burdening
our communities not only with greater expenditures, but in the risk of
increased crime and unsafe neighborhoods. The more we can do to prepare
these individuals when they return home, the better off we will all be.
I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and
urge its swift adoption.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Senator Specter, Senator Brownback, and I
introduce today the Second Chance Act of 2005, which takes direct aim
at reducing recidivism rates for our nation's ex-offenders and
improving the transition for these offenders from prison back into the
community.
All too often we think about today, but not tomorrow. We look to
short- term solutions for long-term problems. We need to have a change
in thinking and approach. It's time we face the dire situation of
prisoners reentering our communities with insufficient monitoring,
little nor no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient
housing, lack of positive influences, a pap city of basic physical and
mental health services, and deficient basic life skills.
The bill we introduce today is about providing a second chance for
these ex-offenders, and the children and families that depend on them.
It's about strengthening communities and ensuring safe neighborhoods.
Since my 1994 Crime Bill passed, we've had great success in cutting
down on crime rates in this country. Under the Community Oriented
Policing Services, COPS, program, we've funded over 100,000 officers
all across the country. And our crime rate has plummeted.
But there's a record number of people currently serving time in our
country--over 2 million in our federal and state prisons; with millions
more in local jails. And 95 percent of all prisoners we lock up today
will eventually get out. That equals nearly 650,000 being released from
federal or state prisons to communities each year.
If we are going to continue the downward trend of crime rates, we
simply have to make strong, concerted, and common-sense efforts now to
help ex-prisoners successfully reenter and reintegrate to their
communities.
And right now, we're not doing a good enough job. A staggering two-
thirds of released State prisoners are expected to be rearrested for a
felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release. Two out of
every three. You're talking about hundreds of thousands of reoffending,
ex-offenders each year and hundreds of thousands of serious crimes
being committed by people who have already served time in jail.
And, unfortunately, it's too difficult to see why such a huge portion
of our released prisoners recommit serious crimes. Up to 60 percent of
former inmates are not employed; 15-27 percent of prisoners expect to
go to homeless shelters upon release; and 57 percent of federal and 70
percent of state inmates used drugs regularly before prison, with some
estim1tes of involvement with drugs or alcohol around the time of the
offense as high as 84 percent.
These huge numbers or released prisoners each year and the out-of-
control recidivism rates are a recipe for diaster--leading to untold
damage, hardship, and death for victims; ruined futures and lost
potential for re-offenders; and a huge drain on society at large. One
particularly vulnerable group is the children of these offenders. We
simply cannot be resigned to allowing generation after generation
entering and reentering our prisons. This pernicious cycle must come to
an end.
My 1994 Crime Bill recognized these extraordinarily high rates of
recidivism as a real problem. My bill, for example, created innovative
drug treatment programs for State and Federal inmates to help them kick
their habit.
But this is only one piece of the puzzle. I introduced a bill in 2000
that would have built on my 1994 Crime Bill--the ``Offender Reentry and
Community Safety Act of 2000'' (S. 2908). This bill would have created
demonstration reentry programs for Federal, State, and local prisoners.
These programs were designed to assist high-risk, high-need offenders
who served their prison sentences, but who posed the greatest risk of
reoffending upon release because they lacked the education, job skills,
stable family or living arrangements, and the health services they
needed to successfully reintegrate into society.
While we have made some progress on offender reentry efforts since
1994, much more needs to be done. In the current session of Congress, I
am pleased that colleagues of mine--from both sides of Capitol Hill and
from both sides of the aisle--are also focusing their attention and
this vital issue.
Senators Specter and Brownback have been dedicated and tireless
leaders on crime and public safety issues throughout their careers, and
I am proud to join efforts with them today. Other Senators have also
taken a leadership role on these issues, including Senators Leahy,
Kennedy, Brownback, Hatch, Specter, Grassley, Feinstein, DeWine,
Santorum, Landrieu, Bingaman, Coburn, Durbin, and Obama.
The Second Chance Act of 2005 provides a competitive grant program to
promote innovative programs to this out a variety of methods aimed at
reducing recidivism rates. Efforts would be focus on post-release
housing, education and job training, substance abuse and mental health
services, and mentoring programs, just to name a few.
Because the scope of the problem is so large--with 650,000 prisoners
being released from state and federal prisons each year--our bill
provides $100 million per year in competitive grant funding . This
isn't being wasteful with our scarce federal resources, it's just an
acknowledgement of the scope of the problem we're faced with.
A relatively modest investment in offender reentry efforts compares
very well with the alternative, building more and more prisons for
these ex-offenders to return to if they are unable to successfully
reenter their communities and instead are rearrested and reconvicted of
more cries. We must remember that the average cost of incarcerating
each prisoner exceeds 20,000 per year, with expenditures on corrections
alone having increased from $9 billion in 1982 to $60 billion in 2002.
We simply can't be penny-wise but pound-foolish.
The Second Chance Act of 2005 also requires that federal departments
with a role in offender reentry efforts coordinate and work together;
to make sure there aren't duplicative efforts or funding gaps; and to
coordinate reentry research. Our bill would raise the profile of this
issue within the executive branch and secure the sustained and
coordinated federal attention offender reentry efforts deserve.
We also need to examine existing Federal and State reentry barriers--
laws, regulations, rules, and practices that make it more difficult for
former inmates to successfully reintegrate back into their communities;
laws that confine ex-offenders to society's margins, making it even
more likely that they will recommit serious crimes and return to
prison.
Turning over a new leaf and going from a life of crime to becoming a
productive member of society is tough enough. We shouldn't have Federal
and
[[Page 24124]]
State laws on the books that make this even more challenging. That's
not say that we don't want to restrict former drug addicts from working
in pharmacies, for example, or to bar sex offenders from working it day
care centers. But many communities across the country currently exclude
ex-prisoners from virtually every occupation requiring a state license,
like chiropractic care, engineering, and real estate. Lifting these
senselessly punitive bans would make it easier for ex-offenders to stay
out of prison.
Our bill provides for a roust analysis of these federal and state
barriers with recommendations on what next steps we need to take. And
these reviews are mandated to take place out in the open under public
scrutiny.
The Second Chance Act also spurs state-of-the-art research and study
on offender reentry issues. We need to know who is most likely to
recommit crimes when they are released, to better target our limited
resources where they can do the most good. We need to study why some
ex-offenders who seem to have the entire deck stacked against them are
able to become successful and productive members of our society. We
need to know what, works and how we can replicate what works for
others.
Our bill also provides a whole slew of common-sense proposals in the
areas of job training, employment, education, post-release housing,
substance abuse, and prisoner mentoring--efforts and changes in law
that we can do now.
Our Second Chance Act is a next, natural step in our campaign against
crime. Making a dent in recidivism rate is an enormous undertaking; one
that requires action now and continued focus in the future. I commit to
vigorously pushing this legislation as well as keeping an eye on what
steps we need to take in the future. We need to realize that the
problems facing ex-offenders are enormous and will need sustained
focus. The safety of our neighbors, our children, and our communities
depends on it.
I am proud today to join with Senator Specter and Senator Brownback
in introducing the Second Chance Act and ask our colleagues to join
with us in this vital effort.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am please to join with Chairman
Specter and Senator Biden today as we introduce a bill that will have a
dramatic and positive effect in the lives of individuals re-entering
society after incarceration. The Second Chance Act: Community Safety
Through Recidivism Prevention is a bill that will not only protect our
Nation's citizens but will more importantly help to reduce recidivism
in our Nation.
A hallmark of any just society lies in its ability to protect the
interest of all its citizens and I am proud that the United States is a
leader in this regard. Yet, while we continue to strive toward this
lofty goal, we must realize that there are areas in which we, as a
society and as government, must do more to improve. No where is that
more apparent than in our Nation's pension system.
Today, we have challenges within the prison system that range from
high recidivism rates to budgetary and safety concerns. With this bill,
we will be able to address this pressing problem within our society.
Already we have seen innovative and model programs within the states
and the faith community, and I am proud to say that Kansas is a leader
in this regard, as well a such faith organizations as Prison Fellowship
Ministries, Catholic Charities U.S.A., and the Salvation Army. However,
we must stimulate innovation in this area on a national level and that
is what this bill will accomplish. It is paramount that we ensure the
safety of our communities and ensure that those incarcerated have the
tools necessary to succeed after they rejoin society.
With this bill, we wil1 be able to combat the extremely high
recidivism rates plaguing the prison system, currently as high as 70
percent, as well as address the financial burdens that hinder many of
our state penitentiaries. State prison operating expenditures totaled
$28.4 billion in fiscal year 2001, or a nationwide average annual
operating cost of $22,650 per inmate. Today, it is more likely than
ever that a person released from prison will be rearrested--two-thirds
of state prisoners are rearrested within 3 years of release. Depending
of the expert consulted, between one-third and two-thirds of all prison
re-admissions are related to probation or parole violations and at
least half of those violations are technical.
We must stop subsidizing programs that do not work and that lead, in
turn, to negative behavior.
I am confident that the bill we are putting forward today will indeed
take the much needed steps to reduce the recidivism rate in this
Nation, which will in turn help those incarcerated make positive
changes within their lives so that when they do rejoin society, they
will be able to do so with the confidence of knowing that they can
contribute to society in a positive manner. As an added incentive to
recidivism reduction, each grant application submitted under this
program must have as its strategic plan a goal to reduce recidivism by
50 percent in 5 years and in order to receive continued funding under
this program, each granted must show a reduction in the recidivism rate
of participants by 10 percent over 2 years.
Specifically, this bill facilitates change within our current
correctional system, and promotes coordination with the Federal
Government to better assist those returning to our communities after
incarceration their children. The bill reauthorizes the Re-Entry
Demonstration Project with an enhanced focus on jobs, housing,
substance abuse treatment, mental health, and the children and families
of those incarcerated. The bill authorizes $200 million over a period
of two years to fund these demonstration programs and creates
performance outcome standards and deliverables. It will also encourage
states to enhance their re-entry services and systems with grants to
fund the creation or enhancement of state re-entry councils for
strategic planning and review the state barriers and resources that
exit.
Additionally, the bill creates a Federal interagency taskforce to
facilitate collaboration and identify innovative programs initiatives.
The taskforce will review and report to Congress on the Federal
barriers that exist to successful re-entry.
Furthermore, the bill creates a $50 million 2 year mentoring program
geared toward reducing recidivism and the societal costs of recidivism.
This mentoring program will help ex-offenders re-integrate into their
communities. This initiative will specifically harness the resources
and experience of community-based organizations in helping returning
ex-offender.
Finally, the bill amends the Workplace and Community Transition
Training for Incarcerated Youth Offenders Act by improving the existing
grants to States under this program and provides $60 million for the
administration of the program. This youth program calls for expanding
the eligibility age from 25 to 35 years, increases accountability by
requiring State correctional education agencies to track specific and
quantified student outcomes referenced to non-program participants, and
increases the allowable expenditure per youth offender up to the level
of the maximum Federal Pell Grant award for tuition, books and
essential materials; and related services, such as career development.
We have an incredible opportunity to re-shape the way in which this
nation's prison systems operate. Much like welfare reform in the mid
1990s, we have a chance to make real and effective change in an area
where change is sorely needed. I look forward to pushing this
legislation forward.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 289--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT JOSEPH
JEFFERSON ``SHOELESS JOE'' JACKSON SHOULD BE APPROPRIATELY HONORED FOR
HIS OUTSTANDING BASEBALL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Mr. DeMINT (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Feingold)
[[Page 24125]]
submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 289
Whereas Joseph Jefferson ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson, a native
of Greenville, South Carolina, and a local legend, began his
professional career and received his nickname while playing
baseball for the Greenville Spinners in 1908;
Whereas ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson moved to the Philadelphia
Athletics for his major league debut in 1908, to the
Cleveland Naps in 1910, and to the Chicago White Sox in 1915;
Whereas ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson's accomplishments
throughout his 13-year career in professional baseball were
outstanding--he was 1 of only 7 Major League Baseball players
to ever top the coveted mark of a .400 batting average for a
season, and he earned a lifetime batting average of .356, the
third highest of all time;
Whereas ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson's career record makes him
one of our Nation's top baseball players of all time;
Whereas in 1919, the infamous ``Black Sox'' scandal erupted
when an employee of a New York gambler allegedly bribed 8
players of the Chicago White Sox, including Joseph Jefferson
``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson, to lose the first and second games
of the 1919 World Series to the Cincinnati Reds;
Whereas in September 1920, a criminal court acquitted
``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson of the charge that he conspired to
lose the 1919 World Series;
Whereas despite the acquittal, Judge Kenesaw Mountain
Landis, baseball's first commissioner, banned ``Shoeless
Joe'' Jackson from playing Major League Baseball for life
without conducting any investigation of Jackson's alleged
activities, issuing a summary punishment that fell far short
of due process standards;
Whereas the evidence shows that Jackson did not
deliberately misplay during the 1919 World Series in an
attempt to make his team lose the World Series;
Whereas during the 1919 World Series, Jackson's play was
outstanding--his batting average was .375 (the highest of any
player from either team), he set a World Series record with
12 hits, he committed no errors, and he hit the only home run
of the series;
Whereas because of his lifetime ban from Major League
Baseball, ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson has been excluded from
consideration for admission to the Major League Baseball Hall
of Fame;
Whereas ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson died in 1951, after fully
serving his lifetime ban from baseball, and 85 years have
elapsed since the 1919 World Series scandal erupted;
Whereas Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig took
an important first step toward restoring the reputation of
``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson by agreeing to investigate whether
he was involved in a conspiracy to alter the outcome of the
1919 World Series and whether he should be eligible for
inclusion in the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame;
Whereas it has been 6 years since Commissioner Selig
initiated his investigation of ``Shoeless Joe'', but there
has been no resolution;
Whereas the Chicago White Sox are the 2005 American League
Champions, and will compete in the World Series for the first
time since 1959;
Whereas ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson helped lead the Chicago
White Sox to their last World Series Championship in 1917;
and
Whereas it is appropriate for Major League Baseball to
remove the taint upon the memory of ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson
and honor his outstanding baseball accomplishments: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that Joseph
Jefferson ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson should be appropriately
honored for his outstanding baseball accomplishments.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 290--HONORING THE LIFE AND EXPRESSING THE DEEPEST
CONDOLENCES OF CONGRESS ON THE PASSING OF EDWARD ROYBAL, FORMER UNITED
STATES CONGRESSMAN
Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Feinstein,
Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Pryor,
Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Reed) submitted the following resolution; which was
considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 290
Whereas Edward Roybal was born on February 10, 1916, in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, and moved at the age of 6 with his
family to the Boyle Heights barrio of Los Angeles;
Whereas his pioneering efforts in the Congress for civil
rights and social justice on behalf of the elderly,
Hispanics, and others has inspired generations of Americans;
Whereas Edward Roybal attended public schools, graduating
from Roosevelt High School in 1934, and subsequently studying
at the University of California in Los Angeles and
Southwestern University;
Whereas Edward Roybal is a distinguished veteran who served
in the United States Army during World War II;
Whereas Edward Roybal worked as a public health educator
for the California Tuberculosis Association, and eventually
served as Director of Health Education for the Los Angeles
County Tuberculosis and Health Association until 1949;
Whereas Edward Roybal founded the Community Service
Organization in 1947 with Fred Ross and a group of Mexican
Americans forging a partnership between the Mexican-American
and Jewish communities of East Los Angeles , and as the
President of the organization, fought against discrimination
in housing, employment, voting rights, and education;
Whereas Edward Roybal was elected to the Los Angeles City
Council in 1949 and, as the first Hispanic to serve on the
city council in more than a century, served for 13 years;
Whereas on November 6, 1962, Edward Roybal became the first
Hispanic elected from California to serve in the House of
Representatives since 1879, and served for 30 years;
Whereas during his 3 decades of service in the House of
Representatives, Roybal worked to protect the rights of
minorities, the elderly, and the physically-challenged;
Whereas during his tenure in the House of Representatives,
Congressman Roybal served on several important congressional
committees, including the Committee on the Post Office and
Civil Service, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and as the Chair of the
Select Committee on Aging;
Whereas in 1971, Congressman Roybal was selected to serve
on the Committee on Appropriations, where he remained for the
rest of his tenure in the House of Representatives and
eventually chaired the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal
Service, and General Government in 1981;
Whereas, while serving as a member of the Committee on
Appropriations, Edward Roybal was a powerful advocate for the
funding of education, civil rights, and health programs and
was 1 of the first members of Congress to press for and
obtain funding for HIV and AIDS research;
Whereas Congressman Roybal was committed to providing
opportunities for Spanish-speaking Americans, helped
establish a Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for Spanish-
speaking people in 1968 with the goal of improving education,
housing, and employment opportunities for Spanish-speaking
Americans, and authored the first education bill to provide
local school districts with assistance with special bilingual
teaching programs;
Whereas in 1976, the County of Los Angeles opened the
Edward R. Roybal Clinic in East Los Angeles;
Whereas in 1976, Congressman Roybal was 1 of the founding
members and became the first chair of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus, a legislative service organization of the
House of Representatives that today is comprised of 21
Representatives;
Whereas Congressman Roybal was instrumental in the
establishment of several national nonprofit organizations
dedicated to advancing and promoting a new generation of
Latino leaders, such as the Congressional Hispanic Caucus
Institute and the National Association of Latino Elected and
Appointed Officials; and
Whereas Congressman Roybal received numerous honors and
awards, including two honorary doctor of law degrees from
Pacific States University and from Claremont Graduate School,
as well as the prestigious Presidential Citizens Medal of
Honor from President William Jefferson Clinton; Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the United States Congress honors the trail-
blazing life and pioneering accomplishments of Congressman
Edward Roybal and expresses its condolences on his passing.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 291--TO CONGRATULATE THE CHICAGO WHITE SOX ON WINNING
THE 2005 WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONSHIP
Mr. OBAMA (for himself and Mr. Durbin) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 291
Whereas, on October 26, 2005, the Chicago White Sox
baseball club won the 2005 World Series;
Whereas this is the first championship for the White Sox
since 1917, when Woodrow Wilson was president and the United
States was fighting in World War I;
Whereas this is the first World Series appearance for the
White Sox since 1959;
Whereas the White Sox posted a regular season record of 99-
63 and dominated their opponents during the playoffs,
compiling 11 wins and only 1 loss, and finishing with an 8-
game win streak that included a sweep in the Fall Classic;
Whereas the White Sox joined the 1990 Cincinnati Reds and
the legendary 1927 New York Yankees as the only teams who
have swept a World Series after playing every game of the
regular season while in first place;
Whereas the White Sox pitching staff tied a Major League
playoff record of 4 straight
[[Page 24126]]
complete game wins and did not allow a single run in the last
15 innings of the World Series;
Whereas Manager Ozzie Guillen, General Manager Kenny
Williams, and owners Jerry Reinsdorf and Eddie Einhorn have
put together and led a great organization;
Whereas all 25 players on the playoff squad, whose sole
goal was winning the World Series rather than chasing
individual glory, contributed to the victory, including World
Series Most Valuable Player, Jermaine Dye, as well as Scott
Podsednik, Tadahito Iguchi, Joe Crede, Aaron Rowand, Paul
Konerko, Juan Uribe, A.J. Pierzynski, Carl Everett, Freddy
Garcia, Geoff Blum, Willie Harris, Timo Perez, Chris Widger,
Pablo Ozuna, Mark Buehrle , Jose Contreras, Neal Cotts , Jon
Garland, Dustin Hermanson, Orlando Hernandez, Bobby Jenks,
Damaso Marte, Cliff Politte, and Luis Vizcaino;
Whereas other players, such as Frank Thomas and Brandon
McCarthy, made important contributions to get the White Sox
to the playoffs, but were unable to be placed on the playoff
roster;
Whereas this current group of White Sox players follows in
the giant footsteps of the great players in White Sox history
who have had their numbers retired, players such as Nellie
Fox (#2), Harold Baines (#3), Luke Appling (#4), Minnie
Minoso (#9), Luis Aparicio (#11), Ted Lyons (#16), Billy
Pierce (#19), and Carlton Fisk (#72);
Whereas the city of Chicago and White Sox fans have
faithfully stuck by their team during the decades it spent in
baseball's wilderness;
Whereas a new generation of young fans in Chicago and
around Illinois are discovering the joy of world championship
baseball; and
Whereas the Boston Red Sox, the Los Angeles Angels of
Anaheim, and the Houston Astros proved worthy and honorable
adversaries and also deserve recognition, and: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Senate--
(1) congratulates the Chicago White Sox on winning the 2005
World Series Championship;
(2) commends the fans, players, and management of the
Houston Astros for allowing the Chicago White Sox and their
many supporters to celebrate their first World Series title
in 88 years at Minute Maid Park, the home field of the
Houston Astros; and
(3) respectfully directs the Enrolling Clerk of the Senate
to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to--
(A) the 2005 Chicago White Sox baseball club;
(B) White Sox owners, Jerry Reinsdorf and Eddie Einhorn.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 292--CALLING ON THE PRESIDENT TO CONDEMN THE ANTI-
ISRAEL SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED BY THE PRESIDENT OF IRAN, MAHMOUD
AHMADINEJAD, ON OCTOBER 26, 2005.
Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Dole, Mr.
Nelson of Florida, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Levin,
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Coleman, and Mrs. Feinstein) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 292
Whereas, on October 26, 2005, the President of Iran,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said that Israel must be ``wiped off the
map'' and that ``[a]nybody who recognizes Israel will burn in
the fire of the Islamic nations' fury'';
Whereas the Department of State has designated Iran as a
state sponsor of terrorism that has repeatedly provided
support for acts of international terror;
Whereas the Government of Iran sponsors terrorist
organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the
al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and PFLP-GC by providing funding,
training, weapons, and safe haven to such organizations; and
Whereas the outrageous statements of Mr. Ahmadinejad are
not in accord with the expressions of the Palestinian
leadership in the peace process: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) thoroughly repudiates the anti-Israel sentiments
expressed by the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on
October 26, 2005; and
(2) calls on the President, on behalf of the United States,
to thoroughly repudiate, in the strongest terms possible, the
statement by Mr. Ahmadinejad.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 293--CALLING FOR A FREE AND FAIR PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION IN THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN
Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Leahy,
Mr. Smith, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Lieberman) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:
S. Res. 293
Whereas the Republic of Kazakhstan is scheduled to hold a
presidential election on December 4, 2005;
Whereas Kazakhstan freely accepted commitments on
democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and other
fundamental freedoms and rights when it joined the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) as
a participating state in 1992;
Whereas the United States supports the promotion of
democracy and transparent, free, and fair elections in
Kazakhstan, consistent with that country's OSCE commitments;
Whereas the OSCE declared that, while the 2004
parliamentary elections in Kazakhstan reflected improvement
over past parliamentary elections, the election process
``fell short of OSCE commitments and other international
standards for democratic elections in many respects'';
Whereas the OSCE election monitoring mission documented a
number of shortcomings in the parliamentary elections in
Kazakhstan, including the government's barring of 2
opposition leaders from running, a lack of transparency in
the work of the Central Election Commission, discrepancies in
voter lists, a lack of political balance in the composition
of election commissions, a strong media bias in favor of pro-
presidential parties, pressure placed on voters to support
pro-presidential parties by local government officials and
workplace supervisors, and other shortcomings;
Whereas in April 2005, Kazakhstan amended its election law
to ban political demonstrations in the period between the end
of election campaigns and the announcement of official
election results;
Whereas on September 9, 2005, President Nursultan Nazarbaev
issued a decree directing state authorities to undertake
actions, which, if fully implemented, could improve on many
of the shortcomings found in previous elections;
Whereas other elements of Kazakhstan's stated commitments
to OSCE principles and to fulfilling the goals of democracy
remain unfulfilled;
Whereas there is currently no representation of the
opposition in either the Majilis or the Senate, the lower and
upper houses of the Kazakh Parliament, respectively;
Whereas some independent media exists in Kazakhstan, but
self-censorship is common due to fears of official reprisal;
Whereas the Department of State concluded in its Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2004 that ``the
[Kazakhstan] Government's human rights record remained poor,
and it continued to commit numerous abuses'';
Whereas a transparent, free, and fair presidential election
process in Kazakhstan would mark an important step in that
country's progress toward its integration into the democratic
community of nations;
Whereas a genuinely free and fair election requires that
citizens be guaranteed the right and opportunity to exercise
their civil and political rights, free from intimidation,
undue influence, threats of political retribution, or other
forms of coercion by national or local authorities or others;
and
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: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) calls on the Government of Kazakhstan to hold an
orderly, peaceful, free, and fair presidential election in
December 2005, in accordance with all Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) guidelines;
(2) calls upon the Government of Kazakhstan to guarantee
the full participation of opposition figures and parties in
the upcoming election, and to permit the return of political
exiles;
(3) believes that it is vital that the December election be
viewed by the people of Kazakhstan as fully free and fair,
and that all sides refrain from violence or intimidation
before, during, or after election day;
(4) calls upon the Government of Kazakhstan to guarantee
unimpeded access to all aspects of the election process for
election monitors from the Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights of the OSCE, Kazakh political parties,
representatives of candidates, nongovernmental organizations,
and other private institutions and organizations, both
foreign and domestic;
(5) urges the international community and domestic
nongovernmental organizations to provide a sufficient number
of election observers to ensure credible monitoring and
reporting of the December presidential election;
(6) calls upon the Government of Kazakhstan to guarantee
freedom of speech and assembly; and
(7) calls upon the Government of Kazakhstan to meet all of
its freely accepted OSCE commitments on democracy, human
rights, and the rule of law.
[[Page 24127]]
____________________
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 61--AUTHORIZING THE REMAINS OF ROSA PARKS
TO LIE IN HONOR IN THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL
Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dodd, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Levin,
Mr. Brownback, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Obama, Mr. Talent, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Allen, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Pryor, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Corzine, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Akaka) submitted the following concurrent
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That, in recognition of the historic
contributions of Rosa Parks, her remains be permitted to lie
in honor in the rotunda of the Capitol from October 30 to
October 31, 2005, so that the citizens of the United States
may pay their last respects to this great American. The
Architect of the Capitol, under the direction and supervision
of the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, shall take all necessary steps
for the accomplishment of that purpose.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 2335. Mr. HARKIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 2280 proposed by Mr. Harkin to the
bill H.R. 3010, making appropriations for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and
for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 2336. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 2234 proposed by Mr. Coburn to the
bill H.R. 3010, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 2337. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 2285 submitted by Mrs. Murray to the
bill H.R. 3010, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 2338. Mr. BROWNBACK submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed to amendment SA 2319 submitted by Mrs. Clinton
and intended to be proposed to the bill H.R. 3010, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 2339. Mrs. CLINTON submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill H.R. 3010, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 2340. Mr. MARTINEZ (for Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr.
Martinez, Mr. Lott, and Mr. Nelson, of Florida)) proposed an
amendment to the bill S. 939, to expedite payments of certain
Federal emergency assistance authorized pursuant to the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act, to authorize the reimbursement under that Act of certain
expenditures, and for other purposes.
SA 2341. Mr. MARTINEZ proposed an amendment to the bill S.
939, supra.
SA 2342. Mr. SPECTER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 2283 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for
himself Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Reid, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Obama, Mr.
Bayh, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Johnson, and
Mr. Dayton) to the bill H.R. 3010, making appropriations for
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 2343. Mr. McCONNELL (for Ms. Snowe (for herself, Ms
Cantwell, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Inouye)) proposed an amendment
to the bill S. 1280, to authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 2006 and 2007 for the United States Coast Guard, and
for other purposes.
SA 2344. Mr. McCONNELL (for Mr. Inouye) proposed an
amendment to the bill S. 1280, supra.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 2335. Mr. HARKIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 2280 proposed by Mr. Harkin to the bill H.R. 3010, making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table; as follows:
Sec. 222. (a) Section 640(i) of the Head Start Act (42
U.S.C. 9835(i)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(i) The'' and inserting the following:
``(i) Transportation Safety.--
``(1) Regulations.--The''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Waiver authority.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may waive for a period of
up to one year the requirements of regulations promulgated
under paragraph (1) for one or more vehicles used by the
agency or its designee in transporting children enrolled in a
Head Start program or an Early Head Start program if--
``(i) such requirements pertain to child restraint systems
and bus monitors;
``(ii) the agency demonstrates that compliance with such
requirements will result in a significant disruption to the
Head Start program or the Early Head Start program; and
``(iii) the waiver is in the best interest of the child.
``(B) Renewal.--The Secretary may renew a waiver under
subparagraph (A).''.
(b) Section 1310.12(a) of the Code of Federal Regulations
shall be effective beginning on the date that is 120 days
after the first reauthorization of the Head Start Act
occurring after the date of enactment of this Act.
______
SA 2336. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 2234 proposed by Mr. Coburn to the bill H.R. 3010, making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table; as follows:
On page 222, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
SEC. __. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RISK ASSESSMENT.
(a) Estimate.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
and the Secretary of Education shall estimate improper
payments pursuant to section 2 of the Improper Payments
Information Act of 2002 (31 U.S.C. 3321 note, Public Law 107-
300) under--
(1) in the case of the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program
under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
Program under part E of title IV of such Act (42 U.S.C. 670
et seq,), the Medicaid program under title XIX of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), the State Children's Health
Insurance Program under title XXI of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1397aa et seq.), and the Child Care and Development Block
Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.); and
(2) in the case of the Secretary of Education, title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6301 et seq.).
(b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in the case of the programs specified in subsection
(a)(1), and the Secretary of Education, in the case of the
program specified in subsection (a)(2), shall report to
Congress on the specific actions taken under each such
program to comply with section 2 of the Improper Payments
Information Act of 2002, including a schedule for full
compliance with such Act within fiscal year 2006.
(c) Failure to Report.--If the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, in the case of a program specified in
subsection (a)(1), or the Secretary of Education, in the case
of the program specified in subsection (a)(2), fails to
report to Congress on specific actions taken to estimate
improper payments under such a program by the date described
in subsection (b), none of the funds made available in this
Act for that program shall be obligated or expended after
such date until a report regarding the program that contains
the information specified in subsection (b) is submitted to
Congress.
______
SA 2337. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 2285 proposed by Mrs. Murray to the bill H.R. 3010, making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table; as follows:
On page 2, line 5 of the amendment, strike the period and
insert ``, and a review of the approval process under section
314.510 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, of the drug
known as RU-486.''.
______
SA 2338. Mr. BROWNBACK submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 2319 submitted by Mrs. Clinton to the bill H.R. 3010,
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered to
lie on the table; as follows:
On page 3 of the amendment, between lines 5 and 6, insert
the following:
(c) Conscience Protection.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to require any hospital that receives Federal
funds or any individual to offer, provide, refer for or
administer any treatment that has as its effect the
destruction or interference with the implantation of a newly
conceived human embryo if the offering, provision, referral
or administering of such treatment is contrary to
[[Page 24128]]
the religious beliefs or moral convictions of such hospital
or individual.
______
SA 2339. Mrs. CLINTON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by her to the bill H.R. 3010, making appropriations for the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
In the amendment strike all after the first word and insert
the following:
__. SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT; PROVISION BY HOSPITALS OF
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVES.
(a) In General.--No Federal funds appropriated in this Act
may be provided to a hospital under any health-related
program, unless the hospital meets the conditions specified
in subsection (b) in the case of--
(1) any woman who presents at the hospital and states that
she is a victim of sexual assault, or is accompanied by
someone who states she is a victim of sexual assault; and
(2) any woman who presents at the hospital whom hospital
personnel have reason to believe is a victim of sexual
assault.
(b) Assistance for Victims.--The conditions specified in
this subsection regarding a hospital and a woman described in
subsection (a) are as follows:
(1) The hospital promptly provides the woman with medically
and factually accurate and unbiased written and oral
information about emergency contraception, including
information explaining that--
(A) emergency contraception does not cause an abortion; and
(B) emergency contraception is effective in most cases in
preventing pregnancy after unprotected sex.
(2) The hospital promptly offers emergency contraception to
the woman, and promptly provides such contraception to her on
her request.
(3) The information provided pursuant to paragraph (1) is
in clear and concise language, is readily comprehensible, and
meets such conditions regarding the provision of the
information in languages other than English as the Secretary
may establish.
(4) The services described in paragraphs (1) through (3)
are not denied because of the inability of the woman or her
family to pay for the services.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) The term ``emergency contraception'' means a drug, drug
regimen, or device that--
(A) is used postcoitally;
(B) prevents pregnancy by delaying ovulation, preventing
fertilization of an egg, or preventing implantation of an egg
in a uterus; and
(C) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
(2) The term ``hospital'' has the meanings given such term
in title XVIII of the Social Security Act, including the
meaning applicable in such title for purposes of making
payments for emergency services to hospitals that do not have
agreements in effect under such title.
(3) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health
and Human Services.
(4) The term ``sexual assault'' means coitus in which the
woman involved does not consent or lacks the legal capacity
to consent.
(d) Effective Date; Agency Criteria.--This section takes
effect upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on
the date of enactment of this Act. Not later than 30 days
prior to the expiration of such period, the Secretary shall
publish in the Federal Register criteria for carrying out
this section.
______
SA 2340. Mr. MARTINEZ (for Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr. Martinez,
Mr. Lott, and Mr. Nelson of Florida)) proposed an amendment to the bill
S. 939, to expedite payments of certain Federal emergency assistance
authorized pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, to authorize the reimbursement under that Act
of certain expenditures, and for other purposes; as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Debris Removal Act of
2005''.
SEC. 2. EXPEDITED PAYMENTS.
(a) Expedited Payments Authorized.--Notwithstanding the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) (including any regulation
promulgated pursuant to that Act), the Secretary of Homeland
Security, acting through the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, shall pay to an eligible
applicant, in accordance with subsection (b), 50 percent of
the Federal share of assistance that the applicant is
eligible to receive under section 407 of that Act (42 U.S.C.
5173).
(b) Date of Payment.--A claim described in subsection (a)
shall be paid not later than 60 days after the date on which
the applicant files an eligible claim for assistance.
SEC. 3. DEBRIS CLEARANCE, REMOVAL, AND DISPOSAL FROM
EMERGENCY ACCESS ROADS.
(a) Definition of Emergency Access Road.--In this section,
the term ``emergency access road'' means a road that requires
access by emergency personnel, including firefighters,
police, emergency medical personnel, or any other entity
identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security that
provides an emergency service after a declaration of an
emergency or major disaster (as defined in section 102 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)).
(b) Reimbursement Authorized.--Any reimbursement authorized
under section 407 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5173) for clearing
and removing debris may include reimbursement for clearing,
removing, and disposing of debris from any emergency access
road.
SEC. 4. INCLUSION OF DEBRIS REMOVAL AS ELIGIBLE CLAIM FOR
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.
Section 408(c)(2)(A) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(c)(2)(A))
is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
``(iii) the removal of debris and wreckage resulting from a
major disaster from owner occupied private residential
property, utilities, and residential infrastructure (such as
a private access route) as necessary for a safe and sanitary
living or functioning condition.''.
SEC. 5. COST SHARE.
For a period of not less than 180 days after the date of
declaration of an emergency or major disaster (as defined in
section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)) during the period
beginning on August 25, 2005 through December 31, 2005, the
Federal share of assistance provided to eligible applicants
for debris removal under section 407 of that Act (42 U.S.C.
5173) shall be 100 percent.
SEC. 6. GUIDELINES FOR REIMBURSEMENT.
In light of concerns regarding inconsistent policy
memoranda and guidelines issued to counties and communities
affected by the 2004 hurricane season, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, acting through the Under Secretary for
Emergency Preparedness and Response, shall provide clear,
concise, and uniform guidelines for the reimbursement to any
county or government entity affected by a hurricane of the
costs of hurricane debris removal.
SEC. 7. APPLICABILITY; TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.
This Act and the authority provided by this Act (including
by any amendment made by this Act) shall--
(1) apply to each major disaster declared in accordance
with section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) during calendar
year 2005; and
(2) terminate on the date that is 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act.
______
SA 2341. Mr. MARTINEZ proposed an amendment to the bill S. 939, to
expedite payments of certain Federal emergency assistance authorized
pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, to authorize the reimbursement under that Act of
certain expenditures, and for other purposes; as follows:
Amend the title so as to read: ``To expedite payments of
certain Federal emergency assistance authorized pursuant to
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, to authorize the reimbursement under that Act
of certain expenditures, and for other purposes.''.
______
SA 2342. Mr. SPECTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 2283 proposed by Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Reid, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Obama, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Dayton) to the bill H.R. 3010, making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and or other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, strike ``$183,589,000: Provided,
That $120,000,000 of amounts available for influenza
preparedness'' and replace with ``$8,158,589,000: Provided,
That $8,095,000,000 of amounts available for influenza
preparedness is designated as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006
and''
______
SA 2343. Mr. McCONNELL (for Ms. Snowe (for herself, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
[[Page 24129]]
Stevens, and Mr. Inouye)) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1280, to
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 for the United
States Coast Guard, and for other purposes; as follows:
On page 2, strike the item relating to section 211 and
insert the following:
Sec. 211. Undocumented Maine fish tenders.
On page 2, after the item relating to section 217, insert
the following:
Sec. 218. Distant water tuna fleet.
Sec. 219. Automatic identification system.
On page 3, after the item relating to section 410, insert
the following:
Sec. 411. Conveyance of decommissioned Coast Guard Cutter MACKINAW.
On page 8, line 17, strike ``2006.'' and insert ``2006 and
as of September 30, 2007.''.
On page 8, beginning in line 18, strike ``fiscal year
2006,'' and insert ``each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007,''.
On page 9, beginning in line 3, strike ``fiscal year 2006''
and insert ``each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007''.
On page 18, strike lines 6 through 24 and insert the
following:
SEC. 211. UNDOCUMENTED MAINE FISH TENDERS.
Not withstanding any other provision of law, a vessel that
is ineligible for documentation under chapter 121 of title
46, United States Code, because it measures less than 5 net
tons, may transport fish or shellfish within the coastal
waters of the State of Maine if--
(1) the vessel transported fish or shellfish pursuant to a
valid wholesale seafood license, issued under the authority
of section 6851 of title 12 of the Maine Revised Statutes
prior to December 31, 2004; and
(2) the vessel is owned by an individual or entity meeting
the citizenship requirements necessary to document a vessel
under section 12106 of title 46, United States Code.
On page 19, line 18, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before
``The''.
On page 20, after line 25, insert the following:
(b) Independent Analysis of Revised Deep Water Plan.--
Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard may execute a contract with an
independent entity--
(1) to conduct an analysis of the Coast Guard's revised
Deepwater Plan; and
(2) to assess whether--
(A) the mix of assets and capabilities selected as part of
that plan will meet the Coast Guard's criteria of--
(i) performance; and
(ii) minimizing total ownership costs; or
(B) additional or different assets should be considered as
part of the plan.
On page 22, strike lines 13 through 18, and insert the
following:
``(c)(1) No vessel without a registry endorsement may
engage in--
``(A) the setting or movement of the anchors or other
mooring equipment of a mobile offshore drilling unit that is
located over the outer Continental Shelf (as defined in
section 2(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.c. 1331(a))) whether or not attached to the outer
Continental Shelf; or
``(B) the movement of merchandise or personnel to or from a
point in the United States from or to a mobile offshore
drilling unit located over the outer Continental Shelf that
is--
``(i) not attached to the seabed; or
``(ii) attached to the seabed on the outer Continental
Shelf but not exploring for oil and gas resources from the
outer Continental Shelf.
``(2) Nothing in paragraph (1) authorizes the employment in
the coastwise trade of a vessel that does not meet the
requirements of section 12106 of this title.''.
On page 22, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
SEC. 218. DISTANT WATER TUNA FLEET.
(a) Manning requirements.--United States purse seine
fishing vessels transiting to or from, or fishing exclusively
for highly migratory species in, the Treaty area under a
fishing license issued pursuant to the 1987 Treaty of
Fisheries Between the Governments of Certain Pacific Islands
States and the Government of the United States of America may
utilize non-United States licensed and documented personnel
to meet manning requirements for the 48 month period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act if, after
timely notice of a vacancy, no United States-licensed and
documented personnel are readily available.
(b) Limitation.--Subsection (a) applies only to vessels
operating in and out of American Samoa.
(c) Waiver.--The citizenship requirements of sections
8103(a) and 12110 of title 46, United States Code, are waived
for vessels to which subsection (a) applies during the 48-
month period.
SEC. 219. AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM.
(a) Prevention of Harmful Interference.--The Secretary of
the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, acting
through the Commandant of the Coast Guard, may, within 60
days of the enactment of this Act, transfer $1,000,000 to the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration of
the Department of Commerce for the purposes of awarding,
within 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act a
competitive grant to design, develop, and prototype a device
that integrates a Class B Automatic Identification System
transponder (International Electrotechnical Commission
standard 62287) with an FCC-approved wireless maritime data
device with channel throughput greater than 19.2 kilobits per
second to enable such wireless maritime data device to
provide wireless maritime data services, concurrent with the
operation of such Automatic Identification System
transponder, on frequency channels adjacent to the frequency
channels on which the Automatic Identification System
transponder operates, while minimizing or eliminating the
harmful interference between such Automatic Identification
System transponder and such wireless maritime data device.
The design of such device shall be available for public use.
(b) Implementation of AIS.--It is the Sense of the Senate
that the Federal Communications Commission should resolve
within 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act the
disposition of its rulemaking on the Automatic Information
System and licensee use of frequency bands 157.1875-157.4375
MHz and 161.7875-162.0375 MHz (RM-10821, WT Docket Number 04-
344). The implementation of this section shall not delay the
implementation of an Automatic Identification System as
required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002
and international convention.
On page 30, line 5, strike `` `Members'; '' and insert ``
`The'; ''.
On page 30, line 7, insert ``(1)'' before ``The''.
On page 30, line 12, strike the closing quotation marks and
the second period.
On page 30, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
``(2) Any motorized vehicle placed at the disposition of
the Coast Guard and utilized to carry out its functions under
paragraph (1) shall be considered to be a `motorized vehicle
utilized under section 826(b)' as that term is used in
section 830.''.
On page 35, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
SEC. 411. CONVEYANCE OF DECOMMISSIONED COAST GUARD CUTTER
MACKINAW.
(a) In General.--Upon the scheduled decommissioning of the
Coast Guard Cutter MACKINAW, the Commandant of the Coast
Guard shall convey all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to that vessel to the City and County of
Cheboygan, Michigan, without consideration, if--
(1) the recipient agrees--
(A) to use the vessel for purposes of a museum;
(B) not to use the vessel for commercial transportation
purposes;
(C) to make the vessel available to the United States
Government if needed for use by the Commandant in time of war
or a national emergency; and
(D) to hold the Government harmless for any claims arising
from exposure to hazardous materials, including asbestos and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), after conveyance of the
vessel, except for claims arising from the use by the
Government under subparagraph (C);
(2) the recipient has funds available that will be
committed to operate and maintain the vessel conveyed in good
working condition, in the form of cash, liquid assets, or a
written loan commitment, and in an amount of at least
$700,000; and
(3) the recipient agrees to any other conditions the
Commandant considers appropriate.
(b) Maintenance and Delivery of Vessel.--Prior to
conveyance of the vessel under this section, the Commandant
shall, to the extent practical, and subject to other Coast
Guard mission requirements, make every effort to maintain the
integrity of the vessel and its equipment until the time of
delivery. If a conveyance is made under this section, the
Commandant shall deliver the vessel to a suitable mooring in
the local area, in its present condition, on or about June
10, 2006, and no later than June 30, 2006. The conveyance of
the vessel under this section shall not be considered a
distribution in commerce for purposes of section 6(e) of
Public Law 94-469 (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)).
(c) Other Excess Equipment.--The Commandant may convey to
the recipient any excess equipment or parts from other
decommissioned Coast Guard vessels for use to enhance the
vessel's operability and function for purposes of a museum.
______
SA 2344. Mr. McCONNELL (for Mr. Inouye) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 1280, to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2006 and
2007 for the United States Coast Guard, and for other purposes; as
follows:
On page 3, after the item relating to section 601, insert
the following:
TITLE VII--HURRICANE KATRINA
Sec. 701. Sense of the Senate on Coast Guard response to Hurricane
Katrina.
Sec. 702. Supplemental authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 703. Report on the use of vessels.
Sec. 704. Use of maritime safety and security teams.
[[Page 24130]]
Sec. 705. Temporary authority to extend duration of merchant mariner
licenses and documents.
Sec. 706. Temporary authority to extend duration of vessel certificates
of inspection.
Sec. 707. Preservation of leave lost due to Hurricane Katrina
operations.
Sec. 708. Reports on impacts to Coast Guard.
Sec. 709. Reports on impacts on navigable waterways.
On page 44, after line 10, add the following:
TITLE VII--HURRICANE KATRINA
SEC. 701. SENSE OF SENATE ON COAST GUARD RESPONSE TO
HURRICANE KATRINA.
(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The response of the Coast Guard to Hurricane Katrina
was exemplary.
(2) The Coast Guard strategically positioned its aircraft,
vessels, and personnel the day before Hurricane Katrina made
landfall and launched search and rescue teams within hours
after Hurricane Katrina struck.
(3) The impacts of Hurricane Katrina were unprecedented,
and the Coast Guard rose to meet the challenges presented by
such impacts.
(4) The Coast Guard moved its operations in areas
threatened by Hurricane Katrina to higher ground and
mobilized cutters, small boats, and aircraft from all around
the United States to help in the response to Hurricane
Katrina.
(5) The Coast Guard rescued more than 33,000 people
affected by Hurricane Katrina through the air and by water,
including evacuations of hospitals, and has been at the
center of efforts to restore commerce to areas affected by
Hurricane Katrina by clearing shipping channels, replacing
aids to navigation, and securing uprooted oil rigs.
(6) The Coast Guard has been at the forefront of the
Federal response to the numerous oil and chemical spills in
the area affected by Hurricane Katrina.
(7) As an indication of the effectiveness of the Coast
Guard in a time of emergency, the Chief of Staff of the Coast
Guard was placed in charge of coordinating all response
operations relating to Hurricane Katrina.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that
the Coast Guard should play a major role in the event of any
future national emergency or disaster caused by a natural
event in the United States in a coastal or offshore area.
SEC. 702. SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to
amounts provided to the Coast Guard from another Federal
agency for reimbursement of expenditures for Hurricane
Katrina, there are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2005 to the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating the following amounts for non-
reimbursed expenditures:
(1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard in
responding to Hurricane Katrina, including, but not limited
to, search and rescue efforts, clearing channels, and
emergency response to oil and chemical spills, and for
increased costs of operation and maintenance of the Coast
Guard due to higher than expected fuel costs, $200,000,000.
(2) For the acquisition, construction, renovation, and
improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore
facilities, and vessels and aircraft, including equipment
related thereto, related to damage caused by Hurricane
Katrina, $300,000,000.
(b) Construction With Other Funding.--The amounts
authorized to be appropriated by subsection (a) are in
addition to any other amounts authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal year 2005 to the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating under any other provision
of law.
(c) Availability.--The amounts authorized to be
appropriated by subsection (a) shall remain available until
expended.
SEC. 703. REPORT ON THE USE OF VESSELS.
(a) In General.--The Inspector General of the Department of
Homeland Security shall review any contract valued at
$10,000,000 or more entered into by or on behalf of the
United States Government with an owner, charterer, managing
operator, agent or person in charge of a vessel in response
to Hurricane Katrina to determine whether--
(1) the contract price, as modified, was appropriate and
reasonable, and based on current, accurate, and complete cost
and pricing data;
(2) information other than certified cost or pricing data
was relied upon;
(3) applicable procurement laws and regulations were
followed to the extent practicable throughout the award and
contract administration process; and
(4) there were any irregularities or deviations in the
award and subsequent oversight and administration of the
contract.
(b) Report.--No later than 9 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Inspector General shall transmit a
report of results of the review with findings and
recommendations, including possible legislative or regulatory
changes, or improvements to the contracting process
immediately following a disaster, to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the House of
Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
SEC. 704. USE OF MARITIME SAFETY AND SECURITY TEAMS.
Section 70106 of title 46, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Implementation of Coast Guard Missions.--The
Secretary may also use maritime safety and security teams to
implement any other mission of the Coast Guard.''.
SEC. 705. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY TO EXTEND DURATION OF MERCHANT
MARINER LICENSES AND DOCUMENTS.
(a) Merchant Mariner Licenses.--The Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating may
temporarily extend the expiration date of any merchant
mariner license issued pursuant to chapter 71 of title 46,
United States Code, when such action is deemed appropriate
and necessary.
(b) Merchant Mariner Documents.--The Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating may
temporarily extend the expiration date of any merchant
mariner's document issued pursuant to chapter 73 of title 46,
United States Code, when such action is deemed appropriate
and necessary.
(c) Scope of Authority.--Any extension under subsection (a)
or (b) may be granted to individual mariners or to
specifically identified groups of mariners.
(d) Expiration of Authority.--The authorities provided in
this section shall expire on September 30, 2007.
SEC. 706. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY TO EXTEND DURATION OF VESSEL
CERTIFICATES OF INSPECTION.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating may temporarily extend the expiration date or
validity of any Certificate of Inspection or Certificate of
Compliance issued pursuant to subtitle II of title 46, United
States Code.
(b) Expiration of Authority.--The authority provided in
this section shall expire on September 30, 2007.
SEC. 707. PRESERVATION OF LEAVE LOST DUE TO HURRICANE KATRINA
OPERATIONS.
(a) Preservation of Leave.--Notwithstanding section 701(b)
of title 10, United States Code, any member of the Coast
Guard who serves on active duty for a continuous period of 30
days, who is assigned to duty or otherwise detailed in
support of units or operations in the Eighth Coast Guard
District area of responsibility for activities to mitigate
the consequences of, or assist in the recovery from,
Hurricane Katrina, during the period beginning on August 28,
2005, and ending on January 1, 2006, and who would otherwise
lose any accumulated leave in excess of 60 days as a
consequence of such assignment, is authorized to retain an
accumulated total of up to 90 days of leave.
(b) Excess Leave.--Leave in excess of 60 days accumulated
under subsection (a) shall be lost unless used by the member
before the commencement of the second fiscal year following
the fiscal year in which the assignment commences, in the
case of a Reserve members, the year in which the period of
active service is completed.
SEC. 708. REPORTS ON IMPACTS TO COAST GUARD.
(a) Reports Required.--
(1) Interim report.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the department
in which the Coast Guard is operating shall submit to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives an interim report on the
impacts of Hurricane Katrina and the response of the Coast
Guard to such impacts.
(2) Final report.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the date of the submittal of the report required by
paragraph (1), the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating shall submit to the committees of
Congress referred to in that paragraph a final report on the
impacts of Hurricane Katrina and the response of the Coast
Guard to such impacts.
(b) Elements.--Each report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) A discussion and assessment of the impacts of Hurricane
Katrina on the facilities, aircraft, vessels, and other
assets of the Coast Guard, including an assessment of such
impacts on pending or proposed replacements or upgrades of
facilities, aircraft, vessels, or other assets of the Coast
Guard.
(2) A discussion and assessment of the impact of Hurricane
Katrina on Coast Guard operations and strategic goals.
(3) A statement of the number of emergency drills held by
the Coast Guard during the five-year period ending on the
date of the report with respect to natural disasters and with
respect to security incidents.
(4) A description and assessment of the lines of
communication and reporting within the Coast Guard, and
between the Coast Guard and other departments and agencies of
the Federal Government and State and local governments, as
well as the interoperability of such communications, during
the response to Hurricane Katrina.
(5) A discussion and assessment of the financial impact on
Coast Guard operations during fiscal years 2005 and 2006 of
unbudgeted increases in prices of fuel.
[[Page 24131]]
SEC. 709. REPORTS ON IMPACTS ON NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS.
(a) Reports Required.--
(1) Interim report.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the department
in which the Coast Guard is operating shall, in consultation
with the Secretary of Commerce, submit to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives a report on the impacts of Hurricane
Katrina on navigable waterways and the response of the Coast
Guard to such impacts.
(2) Final report.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the submittal of the report required by paragraph (1), the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating shall, in consultation with the Secretary of
Commerce, submit to the committees of Congress referred to in
that paragraph a report on the impacts of Hurricane Katrina
on navigable waterways with respect to missions within the
jurisdiction of the Coast Guard and the response of the Coast
Guard to such impacts.
(b) Elements.--Each report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) A discussion and assessment of the impacts, and
associated costs, of Hurricane Katrina on--
(A) the navigable waterways of the United States;
(B) facilities located in or on such waterways;
(C) aids to navigation to maintain the safety of such
waterways; and
(D) any other equipment located in or on such waterways
related to a mission of the Coast Guard.
(2) An estimate of the costs to the Coast Guard of
restoring the resources described in paragraph (1) and an
assessment of the vulnerability of such resources to natural
disasters in the future.
(3) A discussion and assessment of the environmental
impacts in areas within the Coast Guard's jurisdiction of
Hurricane Katrina, with a particular emphasis on any releases
of oil or hazardous chemicals into the navigable waterways of
the United States.
(4) A discussion and assessment of the response of the
Coast Guard to the impacts described in paragraph (3),
including an assessment of environmental vulnerabilities in
natural disasters in the future and an estimate of the costs
of addressing such vulnerabilities.
(c) Navigable Waterways of the United States.--In this
section, the term ``navigable waterways of the United
States'' includes waters of the United States as described in
Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of December 27, 1988.
____________________
NOTICES OF HEARINGS/MEETINGS
permanent subcommittee on investigations
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing on October 31, 2005,
entitled ``Corruption in the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program:
Reaching a Consensus on UN Reform.''
The October 31 hearing will be the fourth hearing the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations has held on the United Nations' Oil-for-
Food Program (``OFF Program''). The Subcommittee's first hearing on the
OFF Program laid the foundation for future hearings by describing how
the OFF Program was exploited by Saddam Hussein. A second hearing
examined the operations of the independent inspection agents retained
by the United Nations in the OFF Program and examined issues related to
inadequate management, audit, and procurement oversight. The hearing
also examined issues related to why the U.S. and U.N. did not interfere
with Iraq's open exports of oil to Jordan and Turkey, in violation of
U.N. sanctions. The Subcommittee's third hearing detailed how Saddam
Hussein manipulated the OFF Program to win influence and reward friends
in order to undermine sanctions. In particular, the hearing presented
evidence detailing how Saddam rewarded foreign officials with lucrative
oil allocations that could be converted to money. The hearing also
examined the illegal surcharges paid on Iraqi oil sales, using examples
involving the recently indicted U.S. company, Bayoil. In addition, more
detailed information was provided on the nature and extent of the 2003
Khor al-Amaya incident in which oil tankers loaded a large amount of
Iraqi oil circumventing U.N. sanctions.
The Subcommittee's October 31 hearing will address: 1. The findings
of the Subcommittee's October 25, 2005, Oil-for-Food Program Report
covering illegal payments to individuals; 2. the findings of the
October 27, 2005 final report of the Volker Independent Inquiry
Committee (IIC) on the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program; 3. a
Government Accountability Office (GAO) status report on two
Subcommittees requested investigations of the United Nations Office of
Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) and the United Nations Procurement
System; 4. the findings of a supplemental Minority report on Bayoil oil
diversions; and 5. progress toward implementing United Nations
management reforms resulting from the September 2005 UN Summit on
Reform. The hearing will also examine the oversight by the U.S. Office
of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to stop misconduct by U.S. persons
doing business under the OFF Program.
The Subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Monday, October 31, 2005,
at 1:00 p.m. in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For
further information, please contact Raymond V. Shepherd, III, Staff
Director and Chief Counsel to the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, at 224-3721.
____________________
AUTHORITIES FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
Committee on Armed Services
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on October 27, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in closed session to mark
up S. 1803, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Mr. SPECTER. 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 October 27, 2005, at 10 a.m., to
conduct a hearing on ``Issues Regarding the Sending of Remittances and
the Role of Financial Institutions.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 27 at 10 a.m. The
purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony from the administration
on hurricane recovery efforts related to energy and to discuss energy
policy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Indian Affairs
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, October
27, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office
Building to conduct a business meeting on the following bills:
(1) S. 1057, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act amendments of
2005.
(2) S. 1003, The Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement amendments of 2005.
(3) S. 692, A bill to provide for the conveyance of certain public
land in northwestern New Mexico by resolving a dispute associated with
coal preference right lease interests on the land.
(4) S.___, A bill to extend the statute of limitations for breach of
trust claims.
(5) S. 1219, A bill to authorize certain tribes in the State of
Montana to enter into a lease or other temporary conveyance of water
rights to meet the water needs of the Dry Prairie Rural Water
Association, Inc.
Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs
Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on the Judiciary
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on the Judiciary be authorized
[[Page 24132]]
to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, October 27, 2005 at 9:30 a.m.
in Senate Dirksen Office Building room 226.
Agenda:
I. Nominations:
Wan Kim, to be an Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division;
Steven G. Bradbury, to be an Assistant Attorney General for the Office
of Legal Counsel; Sue Ellen Wooldridge, to be an Assistant Attorney
General, Environment and Natural Resources Division; and Thomas O.
Barnett, to be an Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division.
II. Bills:
S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005, Kyl, Cornyn, Grassley,
Hatch;
S. 1789, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005, Specter,
Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold;
S. 751, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act, Feinstein, Kyl;
S. 1699, Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act, Specter,
Leahy, Hatch, DeWine, Cornyn, Brownback, Feingold, Durbin;
S. 1095, Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005, Cornyn,
Leahy;
H.R. 683, Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005, Smith--TX;
S. 1787, Relief to Victims of Hurricane Katrina and Other Natural
Disasters Act of 2005, Vitter, Grassley, Cornyn, DeWine;
S. 1647, Hurricane Katrina Bankruptcy Relief and Community Protection
Act of 2005, Feingold, Leahy, Durbin, Kennedy, Feinstein; and
S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment, Allard, Sessions, Kyl,
Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session
of the Senate on Thursday, October 27, 2005, for a committee hearing
titled ``The Rising Number of Disabled Veterans Deemed Unemployable: Is
the System Failing? A Closer Look at VA's Individual Unemployment
Benefit.'' The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell
Senate Office Building at 2 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Select Committee on Intelligence
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on October 27, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization be
authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on
Thursday, October 27, 2005, at 10 a.m. in room 328A, Senate Russell
Office Building. The purpose of this subcommittee hearing will be to
conduct oversight of the Forest and Rangeland Research Program of the
USDA Forest Service.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Trade
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Trade be authorized to meet during the session on
Thursday, October 27, 2005, at 2 p.m., to hear testimony on ``The
Status of World Trade Organization Negotiations.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tec Chapman be
allowed to be on the floor during the remainder of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
REENROLLMENT OF H.R. 3765
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 276, which was
received from the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the concurrent
resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 276) requesting the
President to return to the House of Representatives the
enrollment of H.R. 3765 so that the Clerk of the House may
reenroll the bill in accordance with the action of the two
Houses.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution 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 (H. Con. Res. 276) was agreed to.
____________________
DEBRIS REMOVAL ACT OF 2005
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed to
immediate consideration of S. 939.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 939) to expedite payments of certain Federal
emergency assistance authorized pursuant to the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and to
direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to exercise certain
authority provided under that Act.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill
to which had been reported from the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, with amendments.
[Strike the parts shown in black brackets and insert the parts shown
in italic.]
S. 939
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 ``Disaster Recovery Act of
2005''.
[SEC. 2. EXPEDITED PAYMENTS OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR DEBRIS
REMOVAL AND EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE MEASURES.
[(a) Definitions.--In this section:
[(1) Eligible applicant.--The term ``eligible applicant''
means--
[(A) a State government;
[(B) a local government;.
[(C) a private nonprofit organization or institution that
owns or operates any private nonprofit educational, utility,
emergency, medical, or custodial care facility, including a
facility for the aged or disabled, or any other facility
providing essential governmental services to the general
public, and such facilities on Indian reservations; and
[(D) an Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or
an Alaska Native village or organization (other than an
Alaska Native Corporation), the ownership of which is vested
in a private individual.
[(2) Eligible claim for assistance.--The term ``eligible
claim for assistance'' means--
[(A) a claim for the clearance, removal, or disposal of
debris (such as trees, sand, gravel, building components,
wreckage, vehicles, and personal property), if the debris is
the result of an emergency or major disaster and the
clearance, removal, or disposal is necessary--
[(i) to eliminate an immediate threat, as determined by the
Secretary of Homeland Security, to human life, public health,
or safety;
[(ii) to eliminate an immediate threat, as determined by
the Secretary, of significant damage to public or private
property;
[(iii) to ensure the economic recovery of the community
affected by the emergency or major disaster to the benefit of
the community and any other community, as determined by the
Secretary; or
[(iv) to ensure the provision of temporary public
transportation service in the community affected by the
emergency or major disaster pursuant to section 419 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5186);
[(B) an action taken by an applicant before, during, or
after an emergency or major disaster that is necessary--
[(i) to eliminate or reduce an immediate threat, as
determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, to human
life, public health, or safety; or
[(ii) to eliminate or reduce an immediate hazard, as
determined by the Secretary, that threatens significant
damage to public or private property; or
[(C) any other claim that the Secretary of Homeland
Security determines to be appropriate.
[[Page 24133]]
[(3) Emergency.--The term ``emergency'' has the meaning
given the term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
[(4) Major disaster.--The term ``major disaster'' has the
meaning given the term in section 102 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
5122).
[(b) Expedited Payments Authorized.--Notwithstanding the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) (including any regulation
promulgated pursuant to that Act), the Secretary of Homeland
Security, acting through the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, shall pay to an eligible
applicant, in accordance with subsection (c), 50 percent of
the Federal share of assistance that the applicant is
eligible to receive under section 403(b), 407(d), or 503 of
that Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(b), 5173(d), 5193).
[(c) Date of Payment.--A claim described in subsection (b)
shall be paid not later than 60 days after the date on which
the applicant files an eligible claim for assistance.
[SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT TO ENSURE DEBRIS CLEARANCE, REMOVAL, AND
DISPOSAL FROM EMERGENCY ACCESS ROADS.
[(a) Definition of Emergency Access Road.--In this section,
the term ``emergency access road'' means a road that requires
access by emergency personnel, including firefighters,
police, emergency medical personnel, or any other entity
identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security that
provides an emergency service after a declaration of an
emergency or major disaster (as defined in section 102 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)).
[(b) Requirement.--Any reimbursement authorized under
section 407 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5173) for clearing and
removing debris shall include reimbursement for clearing,
removing, and disposing of debris from any emergency access
road.
[SEC. 4. INCLUSION OF DEBRIS REMOVAL FROM PRIVATE LAND AS
ELIGIBLE CLAIM FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.
[Section 408(c)(2)(A) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(c)(2)(A))
is amended--
[(1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
[(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
[(3) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
[``(iii) the removal, clearance, and disposal of debris
from private property that is the result of an emergency or
major disaster.''.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Debris Removal Act of
2005''.
SEC. 2. EXPEDITED PAYMENTS.
(a) Expedited Payments Authorized.--Notwithstanding the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) (including any regulation
promulgated pursuant to that Act), the Secretary of Homeland
Security, acting through the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, shall pay to an eligible
applicant, in accordance with subsection (b), 50 percent of
the Federal share of assistance that the applicant is
eligible to receive under section 407 of that Act (42 U.S.C.
5173).
(b) Date of Payment.--A claim described in subsection (a)
shall be paid not later than 60 days after the date on which
the applicant files an eligible claim for assistance.
SEC. 3. DEBRIS CLEARANCE, REMOVAL, AND DISPOSAL FROM
EMERGENCY ACCESS ROADS.
(a) Definition of Emergency Access Road.--In this section,
the term ``emergency access road'' means a road that requires
access by emergency personnel, including firefighters,
police, emergency medical personnel, or any other entity
identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security that
provides an emergency service after a declaration of an
emergency or major disaster (as defined in section 102 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)).
(b) Reimbursement Authorized.--Any reimbursement authorized
under section 407 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5173) for clearing
and removing debris may include reimbursement for clearing,
removing, and disposing of debris from any emergency access
road.
SEC. 4. INCLUSION OF DEBRIS REMOVAL AS ELIGIBLE CLAIM FOR
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.
Section 408(c)(2)(A) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(c)(2)(A))
is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
``(iii) the removal of debris and wreckage resulting from a
major disaster from owner occupied private residential
property, utilities, and residential infrastructure (such as
a private access route) as necessary for a safe and sanitary
living or functioning condition.''.
SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY; TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.
This Act and the authority provided by this Act (including
by any amendment made by this Act) shall--
(1) apply to each major disaster declared in accordance
with section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) during calendar
year 2005; and
(2) terminate on the date that is 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendments at the desk be agreed to, the committee-reported amendment,
as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time
and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any
statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2340) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to,
as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Debris Removal Act of
2005''.
SEC. 2. EXPEDITED PAYMENTS.
(a) Expedited Payments Authorized.--Notwithstanding the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) (including any regulation
promulgated pursuant to that Act), the Secretary of Homeland
Security, acting through the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, shall pay to an eligible
applicant, in accordance with subsection (b), 50 percent of
the Federal share of assistance that the applicant is
eligible to receive under section 407 of that Act (42 U.S.C.
5173).
(b) Date of Payment.--A claim described in subsection (a)
shall be paid not later than 60 days after the date on which
the applicant files an eligible claim for assistance.
SEC. 3. DEBRIS CLEARANCE, REMOVAL, AND DISPOSAL FROM
EMERGENCY ACCESS ROADS.
(a) Definition of Emergency Access Road.--In this section,
the term ``emergency access road'' means a road that requires
access by emergency personnel, including firefighters,
police, emergency medical personnel, or any other entity
identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security that
provides an emergency service after a declaration of an
emergency or major disaster (as defined in section 102 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)).
(b) Reimbursement Authorized.--Any reimbursement authorized
under section 407 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5173) for clearing
and removing debris may include reimbursement for clearing,
removing, and disposing of debris from any emergency access
road.
SEC. 4. INCLUSION OF DEBRIS REMOVAL AS ELIGIBLE CLAIM FOR
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.
Section 408(c)(2)(A) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(c)(2)(A))
is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
``(iii) the removal of debris and wreckage resulting from a
major disaster from owner occupied private residential
property, utilities, and residential infrastructure (such as
a private access route) as necessary for a safe and sanitary
living or functioning condition.''.
SEC. 5. COST SHARE.
For a period of not less than 180 days after the date of
declaration of an emergency or major disaster (as defined in
section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)) during the period
beginning on August 25, 2005 through December 31, 2005, the
Federal share of assistance provided to eligible applicants
for debris removal under section 407 of that Act (42 U.S.C.
5173) shall be 100 percent.
SEC. 6. GUIDELINES FOR REIMBURSEMENT.
In light of concerns regarding inconsistent policy
memoranda and guidelines issued to counties and communities
affected by the 2004 hurricane season, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, acting through the Under Secretary for
Emergency Preparedness and Response, shall provide clear,
concise, and uniform guidelines for the reimbursement to any
county or government entity affected by a hurricane of the
costs of hurricane debris removal.
SEC. 7. APPLICABILITY; TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.
This Act and the authority provided by this Act (including
by any amendment made by this Act) shall--
(1) apply to each major disaster declared in accordance
with section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) during calendar
year 2005; and
(2) terminate on the date that is 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
[[Page 24134]]
The amendment (No. 2341) was agreed to, as follows:
Amend the title so as to read: ``To expedite payments of
certain Federal emergency assistance authorized pursuant to
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, to authorize the reimbursement under that Act
of certain expenditures, and for other purposes.''.
The bill (S. 939), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know that the distinguished chairman and
the ranking member want to move forward on this legislation. I do not
want to delay their proceedings, but I will take just a moment. I will
take advantage of the opportunity to put a statement in the Record.
I think it is important that we acknowledge the importance of this
relatively small bill as we try to recover from the hurricanes we are
dealing with.
I think we must give credit to the chairman of the Governmental
Affairs and Homeland Security Committee, Senator Collins from Maine,
the ranking member, Senator Lieberman from Connecticut, to the
leadership of the distinguished Senator from Florida, and Senator
Martinez, who knows full well the things we are dealing with in the
recovery from these disasters. His own State has been hit once again.
Mother Nature can be a very devastating vixen when you don't anticipate
the kind of damage you wind up with.
Also, I thank the Democrats and their leadership for helping clear
this legislation.
I thank and acknowledge Senator Vitter's and Senator Landrieu's
involvement in all these efforts.
It is hard to get anything done in the Senate these days. It is the
way our body functions. And we all question everything, legitimately.
But we got it done.
I would like to give credit to both sides and to all of those
involved.
This just has four or five important things. They are important.
People are hurting, and this will help us get through this recovery
period.
Thank you very much for allowing me this moment to comment.
S. 939
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 ``Debris Removal Act of
2005''.
SEC. 2. EXPEDITED PAYMENTS.
(a) Expedited Payments Authorized.--Notwithstanding the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) (including any regulation
promulgated pursuant to that Act), the Secretary of Homeland
Security, acting through the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, shall pay to an eligible
applicant, in accordance with subsection (b), 50 percent of
the Federal share of assistance that the applicant is
eligible to receive under section 407 of that Act (42 U.S.C.
5173).
(b) Date of Payment.--A claim described in subsection (a)
shall be paid not later than 60 days after the date on which
the applicant files an eligible claim for assistance.
SEC. 3. DEBRIS CLEARANCE, REMOVAL, AND DISPOSAL FROM
EMERGENCY ACCESS ROADS.
(a) Definition of Emergency Access Road.--In this section,
the term ``emergency access road'' means a road that requires
access by emergency personnel, including firefighters,
police, emergency medical personnel, or any other entity
identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security that
provides an emergency service after a declaration of an
emergency or major disaster (as defined in section 102 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)).
(b) Reimbursement Authorized.--Any reimbursement authorized
under section 407 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5173) for clearing
and removing debris may include reimbursement for clearing,
removing, and disposing of debris from any emergency access
road.
SEC. 4. INCLUSION OF DEBRIS REMOVAL AS ELIGIBLE CLAIM FOR
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.
Section 408(c)(2)(A) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(c)(2)(A))
is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
``(iii) the removal of debris and wreckage resulting from a
major disaster from owner occupied private residential
property, utilities, and residential infrastructure (such as
a private access route) as necessary for a safe and sanitary
living or functioning condition.''.
SEC. 5. COST SHARE.
For a period of not less than 180 days after the date of
declaration of an emergency or major disaster (as defined in
section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)) during the period
beginning on August 25, 2005 through December 31, 2005, the
Federal share of assistance provided to eligible applicants
for debris removal under section 407 of that Act (42 U.S.C.
5173) shall be 100 percent.
SEC. 6. GUIDELINES FOR REIMBURSEMENT.
In light of concerns regarding inconsistent policy
memoranda and guidelines issued to counties and communities
affected by the 2004 hurricane season, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, acting through the Under Secretary for
Emergency Preparedness and Response, shall provide clear,
concise, and uniform guidelines for the reimbursement to any
county or government entity affected by a hurricane of the
costs of hurricane debris removal.
SEC. 7. APPLICABILITY; TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.
This Act and the authority provided by this Act (including
by any amendment made by this Act) shall--
(1) apply to each major disaster declared in accordance
with section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) during calendar
year 2005; and
(2) terminate on the date that is 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act.
____________________
REMOVAL OF INJUNCTION OF SECRECY--TREATY DOCUMENTS NOS. 109-5 AND 109-6
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask
unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the
following treaties transmitted to the Senate on October 27, 2005, by
the President of the United States: the Tax Convention with Bangladesh,
Treaty Document No. 109-5; and the U.N. Convention Against Corruption,
Treaty Document No. 109-6. I further ask unanimous consent that the
treaties be considered as having been read the first time; that they be
referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign
Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's messages
be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The messages of the President are as follows:
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith for the advice and consent of the Senate to
ratification a Convention Between the Government of the United States
of America and the Government of Bangladesh for the Avoidance of Double
Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on
Income signed at Dhaka on September 26, 2004 (the ``Convention''). An
exchange of notes is enclosed, and the report of the Department of
State with respect to the Convention is transmitted for the information
of the Senate.
This Convention, which is similar to tax treaties between the United
States and other developing nations, provides maximum rates of tax to
be applied to various types of income and protection from double
taxation of income. The Convention also provides for the resolution of
disputes and sets forth rules making its benefits unavailable to those
who are engaged in treaty forum shopping.
I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to
this Convention and that the Senate give its advice and consent to
ratification.
George W. Bush.
To the Senate of the United States:
With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to
ratification, I transmit herewith the United Nations Convention Against
Corruption (the ``Corruption Convention''), which was adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly on October 31, 2003. I also transmit,
for the information of the Senate, the report of the Secretary of State
with respect to the Corruption Convention, with an enclosure.
The international fight against corruption is an important foreign
policy priority for the United States. Corruption hinders sustainable
development,
[[Page 24135]]
erodes confidence in democratic institutions, and facilitates
transnational crime and terrorism. The Convention will be an effective
tool to assist in the growing global effort to combat corruption.
The U.N. Corruption Convention is the first global multilateral
treaty to comprehensively address the problems relating to corruption.
It provides for a broad range of cooperation, including extradition and
mutual legal assistance, and commits governments to take measures that
will prevent corruption from happening in the first place. The
Corruption Convention includes provisions to criminalize and prevent
corruption and provides procedures for governments to recover assets
that have been illicitly acquired by corrupt officials.
The provisions of the Corruption Convention are explained in the
accompanying report of the Department of State. The report also sets
forth proposed reservations that would be deposited by the United
States with its instrument of ratification. With these reservations,
the Convention will not require implementing and consent to its
ratification, subject to the reservations, understandings, and
declarations described in the accompanying report of the Department of
State.
I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to
the Corruption Convention and give its advice and consent to its
ratification, subject to the reservations, understandings, and
declarations described in the accompanying report of the Department of
State.
George W. Bush.
____________________
AUTHORIZING THE REMAINS OF ROSA PARKS TO LIE IN HONOR IN THE ROTUNDA OF
THE CAPITOL
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 61, submitted
early 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. 61) authorizing the
remains of Rosa Parks to lie in honor in the rotunda of the
Capitol.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on Monday, this Nation lost a great American
humanitarian, public servant, and true modern day civil rights hero,
Mrs. Rosa Parks. The powerful and nonviolent act of defiance of this
single, extraordinary lady changed the course of human history in this
Nation, and around the world. By her respectful refusal to give up her
seat to a white man and move to a seat in the back of a Montgomery, AL,
city bus 50 years ago, Rosa Parks spoke to the fundamental truth of our
democracy: that all men are created equal. None of us living today, nor
the future generations of an eternity of tomorrows, will ever be the
same because of the act of this brave woman. By her solitary action,
Rosa Parks proved that one person can make a difference. And she did.
Rosa Parks is not just a national hero, she is the embodiment of our
social and human conscience and the spark that lit the flame of liberty
and equality for African Americans and minority groups in this country
and around the globe. Nelson Mandela, the former President of South
Africa, once called her ``the David who challenged Goliath'' and his
inspiration during his long imprisonment prior to taking office.
It is altogether fitting and proper that this Nation honor the memory
and gentle spirit of this great American and her legacy by providing an
opportunity for the ordinary citizens of this Nation to pay their last
respects to Mrs. Rosa Parks.
Therefore, I proposed to the Senate leadership that we adopt a
resolution authorizing such, and I am grateful to them for sponsoring
the resolution that I authored to authorize the use of the Capitol
Rotunda for the remains of Mrs. Rosa Parks to lie in honor beginning on
Sunday, October 30.
It has been the longstanding tradition of the Congress to authorize
this honor for not just Members of Congress and Presidents, but
ordinary citizens whose extraordinary efforts and service distinguished
them in the history of this Nation. Other great Americans who have been
similarly honored date back to 1909 when Pierre Charles L'Enfant,
planner of the Capital City of Washington, lay in state in the Rotunda.
Others include Admiral George Dewey in 1917; General John Joseph
Pershing in 1948; General Douglas MacArthur in 1964; Director of the
FBI, J. Edgar Hoover in 1972; and most recently, Capitol Police
Officers Jacob Joseph Chestnut and John Michael Gibson in 1998.
Congress recognized the need for the Nation to pay its respects to
these honorable men and Congress should permit the Nation to pay its
last respects to this honorable woman, Mrs. Rosa Louise Parks, as well.
I thank my colleagues for their assistance and support and urge the
House to adopt this measure expeditiously so that America may properly
honor this courageous lady and great America.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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 thereto be printed in
the Record, without intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 61) was agreed to, as
follows:
S. Con. Res. 61
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That, in recognition of the historic
contributions of Rosa Parks, her remains be permitted to lie
in honor in the rotunda of the Capitol from October 30 to
October 31, 2005, so that the citizens of the United States
may pay their last respects to this great American. The
Architect of the Capitol, under the direction and supervision
of the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, shall take all necessary steps
for the accomplishment of that purpose.
____________________
HONORING JOSEPH JEFFERSON ``SHOELESS JOE'' JACKSON FOR HIS OUTSTANDING
BASEBALL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 289, which was submitted
early today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 289) expressing the sense of the
Senate that Joseph Jefferson ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson should
be appropriately honored for his outstanding baseball
accomplishments.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate now proceed to a
voice vote on adoption of the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
The resolution (S. Res. 289) was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 289
Whereas Joseph Jefferson ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson, a native
of Greenville, South Carolina, and a local legend, began his
professional career and received his nickname while playing
baseball for the Greenville Spinners in 1908;
Whereas ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson moved to the Philadelphia
Athletics for his major league debut in 1908, to the
Cleveland Naps in 1910, and to the Chicago White Sox in 1915;
Whereas ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson's accomplishments
throughout his 13-year career in professional baseball were
outstanding--he was 1 of only 7 Major League Baseball players
to ever top the coveted mark of a .400 batting average for a
season, and he earned a lifetime batting average of .356, the
third highest of all time;
[[Page 24136]]
Whereas ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson's career record makes him
one of our Nation's top baseball players of all time;
Whereas in 1919, the infamous ``Black Sox'' scandal erupted
when an employee of a New York gambler allegedly bribed 8
players of the Chicago White Sox, including Joseph Jefferson
``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson, to lose the first and second games
of the 1919 World Series to the Cincinnati Reds;
Whereas in September 1920, a criminal court acquitted
``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson of the charge that he conspired to
lose the 1919 World Series;
Whereas despite the acquittal, Judge Kenesaw Mountain
Landis, baseball's first commissioner, banned ``Shoeless
Joe'' Jackson from playing Major League Baseball for life
without conducting any investigation of Jackson's alleged
activities, issuing a summary punishment that fell far short
of due process standards;
Whereas the evidence shows that Jackson did not
deliberately misplay during the 1919 World Series in an
attempt to make his team lose the World Series;
Whereas during the 1919 World Series, Jackson's play was
outstanding--his batting average was .375 (the highest of any
player from either team), he set a World Series record with
12 hits, he committed no errors, and he hit the only home run
of the series;
Whereas because of his lifetime ban from Major League
Baseball, ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson has been excluded from
consideration for admission to the Major League Baseball Hall
of Fame;
Whereas ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson died in 1951, after fully
serving his lifetime ban from baseball, and 85 years have
elapsed since the 1919 World Series scandal erupted;
Whereas Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig took
an important first step toward restoring the reputation of
``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson by agreeing to investigate whether
he was involved in a conspiracy to alter the outcome of the
1919 World Series and whether he should be eligible for
inclusion in the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame;
Whereas it has been 6 years since Commissioner Selig
initiated his investigation of ``Shoeless Joe'', but there
has been no resolution;
Whereas the Chicago White Sox are the 2005 American League
Champions, and will compete in the World Series for the first
time since 1959;
Whereas ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson helped lead the Chicago
White Sox to their last World Series Championship in 1917;
and
Whereas it is appropriate for Major League Baseball to
remove the taint upon the memory of ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson
and honor his outstanding baseball accomplishments: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that Joseph
Jefferson ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson should be appropriately
honored for his outstanding baseball accomplishments.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF EDWARD ROYBAL
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 290, submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 290) honoring the life and expressing
the deepest condolences of Congress on the passing of Edward
Roybal, former United States Congressman.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President. I rise today to pay tribute to a
trailblazing American and former Member of Congress, the Honorable
Edward R. Roybal. It is an honor to speak about this incredible man,
who on Monday passed away at the age of 89 and was an inspiration to me
and to millions of Hispanics across our Nation.
First, I must offer my heartfelt condolences to the Honorable
Roybal's wife, Lucile; his daughter, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-
Allard, who is in her seventh term representing California's 34th
District; his other daughter, Lillian Roybal-Rose; and his son, Edward
R. Roybal, Jr.
When elected to the House of Representatives in 1962, Congressman
Roybal became the first Hispanic to serve in Congress in nearly 100
years.
He represented the people of California's 30th Congressional District
and served on behalf of the public interest during a very difficult and
tumultuous time in our Nation's history.
As a 5th generation product of rural Colorado, my childhood at Los
Rincones, my family's ranch in the San Luis Valley, was a far cry from
Congressman Roybal's on the streets of East Los Angeles.
Our family's house was small--in fact, my five of the eight siblings
shared a small room and two beds. We did not have running water or
electricity until 1981.
However, even though we did not have electricity, I, like many other
Latinos across this Nation, knew who the Honorable Ed Roybal was.
It was people like Congressman Roybal, and Cesar Chavez who inspired
me to dream of serving our country as Colorado's Attorney General and
later here in the United States Senate.
As a Hispanic American, he provided a shining example of just what I
could accomplish if I heeded my parent's advice to get my education and
work hard in all my endeavors. Today, as I speak as one of 100 in the
Senate, I firmly believe that I am standing on the shoulders of many
giants, in particular, Congressman Roybal.
Congressman Roybal lived by the fundamental values that make this
country the greatest country in the world and the place I am privileged
to call home. He fought social injustice on the streets, in our
classrooms, and in the halls of Congress.
Like my parents, he was a part of the American generation who grew up
during the Great Depression and came of age during World War II. He
served our country in the U.S. Army and defended our rights and
privileges afforded under the Constitution in battle. I am certain that
this experience served him well when he served on the House's Veteran
Affairs Committee.
Throughout his life, he gave voice to the disenfranchised and offered
hope to the sick. When the tragic HIV/AIDS epidemic began to sweep our
Nation, Congressman Roybal answered the call to duty and worked to
provide funding for research and health services.
During a time when many of our Nation's laws and several in out
Nation's leadership tolerated and enabled political disenfranchisement
and unequal educational and employment opportunities, the Honorable Ed
Roybal organized and inspired his community to insist on equality and
to embrace their ganas to change society.
Mr. President, ``ganas'' means ``to have a will to achieve.'' The
Honorable Roybal had the ganas to right injustices in America because
he believed that he had the obligation to make this country a better
place for his children and my children when he left it.
I believe that he did accomplish his great goal. He did this by the
work he did in Congress as well as the work he did when he was away
from Washington, DC.
In 1976, Congressman Roybal joined with his colleagues Congressman
``Kika'' de la Garza and Congressman Baltasar Corrada, in establishing
the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. The purpose of the CHC was and is to
advocate on behalf of and represent the interests of Hispanic across
the nation and in Puerto Rico. Representative Roybal was the Caucus's
first chairman, and his the continued work of the Caucus, the first
forum in the United States Congress for Latino elected Members to
formulate a common collective legislative agenda, is a part of his
legacy.
In addition to the Caucus, Congressman Roybal was instrumental in the
founding of non-profit organizations like the Congressional Hispanic
Caucus Institute and the National Association of Latino Elected and
Appointed Officials. Through these organizations, the fruits of his
efforts can still be felt throughout the country today.
As I reflect on the life and work of the late Representative Roybal,
I am reminded of a prayer written by another civil and human rights
leader, Cesar Chavez:
Show me the suffering of the most miserable;
So I will know my people's plight.
Free me to pray for others;
For you are present in every person.
Help me take responsibility for my own life;
So that I can be free at last.
Grant me courage to serve others;
For in service there is true life.
Give me honesty and patience;
So that the Spirit will be alive among us.
Let the Spirit flourish and grow;
So that we will never tire of the struggle.
Let us remember those who have died for justice;
For they have given us life.
Help us love even those who hate us;
[[Page 24137]]
So we can change the world.
I join with the thousands of Americans in mourning the loss of this
trailblazing leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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 thereto be printed in the
Record, without intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 290) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 290
Whereas Edward Roybal was born on February 10, 1916, in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, and moved at the age of 6 with his
family to the Boyle Heights barrio of Los Angeles;
Whereas his pioneering efforts in the Congress for civil
rights and social justice on behalf of the elderly,
Hispanics, and others has inspired generations of Americans;
Whereas Edward Roybal attended public schools, graduating
from Roosevelt High School in 1934, and subsequently the
University of California in Los Angeles and Southwestern
University;
Whereas Edward Roybal is a distinguished veteran who served
in the United States Army during World War II;
Whereas Edward Roybal worked as a public health educator
for the California Tuberculosis Association, and eventually
served as Director of Health Education for the Los Angeles
County Tuberculosis and Health Association until 1949;
Whereas Edward Roybal founded the Community Service
Organization in 1947 with Fred Ross and a group of Mexican
Americans forging a partnership between the Mexican-American
and Jewish communities of East Los Angeles , and as the
President of the organization, fought against discrimination
in housing, employment, voting rights, and education;
Whereas Edward Roybal was elected to the Los Angeles City
Council in 1949 and, as the first Hispanic to serve on the
city council in more than a century, served for 13 years;
Whereas on November 6, 1962, Edward Roybal became the first
Hispanic elected from California to serve in the House of
Representatives since 1879, and served for 30 years;
Whereas during his 3 decades of service in the House of
Representatives, Roybal worked to protect the rights of
minorities, the elderly, and the physically-challenged;
Whereas during his tenure in the House of Representatives,
Congressman Roybal served on several important congressional
committees, including the Committee on the Post Office and
Civil Service, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and as the Chair of the
Select Committee on Aging;
Whereas in 1971, Congressman Roybal was selected to serve
on the Committee on Appropriations, where he remained for the
rest of his tenure in the House of Representatives and
eventually chaired the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal
Service, and General Government in 1981;
Whereas, while serving as a member of the Committee on
Appropriations, Edward Roybal was a powerful advocate for the
funding of education, civil rights, and health programs and
was 1 of the first members of Congress to press for and
obtain funding for HIV and AIDS research;
Whereas Congressman Roybal was committed to providing
opportunities for Spanish-speaking Americans, helped
establish a Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for Spanish-
speaking people in 1968 with the goal of improving education,
housing, and employment opportunities for Spanish-speaking
Americans, and authored the first education bill to provide
local school districts with assistance with special bilingual
teaching programs;
Whereas in 1976, the County of Los Angeles opened the
Edward R. Roybal Clinic in East Los Angeles;
Whereas in 1976, Congressman Roybal was 1 of the founding
members and became the first chair of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus, a legislative service organization of the
House of Representatives that today is comprised of 21
Representatives;
Whereas Congressman Roybal was instrumental in the
establishment of several national nonprofit organizations
dedicated to advancing and promoting a new generation of
Latino leaders, such as the Congressional Hispanic Caucus
Institute and the National Association of Latino Elected and
Appointed Officials; and
Whereas Congressman Roybal received numerous honors and
awards, including two honorary doctor of law degrees from
Pacific States University and from Claremont Graduate School,
as well as the prestigious Presidential Citizens Medal of
Honor from President William Jefferson Clinton; Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the United States Congress honors the trail-
blazing life and pioneering accomplishments of Congressman
Edward Roybal and expresses its condolences on his passing.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE CHICAGO WHITE SOX
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to immediate consideration of S. Res. 291 submitted earlier
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 291) to congratulate the Chicago
White Sox on winning the 2005 World Series Championship.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today as a Senator, as an
Illinoisan, and as a proud resident of the South Side of Chicago to
congratulate the Chicago White Sox for winning the 2005 World Series.
As my fellow South Siders know, it has been a long time coming.
A little bit of history: Founded in 1900 as the Chicago White
Stockings, this year's team reached the World Series for the first time
since 1959, and this is a '59-style cap that I have here with me. Over
a century of White Sox fans have cheered for superstars such as Luke
Appling, Nellie Fox, Carlton Fisk, Luis Aparicio, Harold Baines, and,
of course, Big Frank Thomas. But we haven't savored the sweet taste of
a World Series championship since 1917--until now.
Back in 1917, Woodrow Wilson was President, and the Great War was
raging in Europe. The White Sox were a bright spot in tough times.
The Sox won last night the way they have won all season--by playing
aggressively, scrapping for every base and every run. When Juan Uribe
threw to Paul Konerko for the final out, it was fitting that the ball
beat the runner by only half a step. The four games against the Astros
were decided by a total of six runs. Winning by the skin of your teeth
has been our style. Win or die trying, that is our motto this year.
I congratulate my colleague from Texas. The Houston Astros were an
outstanding team. But it just so happened that this year they ran into
the buzz saw of the Chicago White Sox.
I congratulate Jermaine Dye, who is the World Series MVP. But I am
sure he will be the first to say that everyone on this year's team
deserves a part of that award. This is a team with so many great
players but no undisputed leader on the field. I don't claim to be a
baseball expert or particularly unbiased on this matter, but this is
one of the most balanced and selfless teams any of us have seen. A team
of unlikely heroes.
Scott Podsednik, who hadn't hit a home run all season, stepped up and
hit two in the playoffs, including the walk-off winner in game two on
Sunday. Willie Harris, who barely played in the playoffs, got a pinch
hit to get on base and bring home the only run last night. Geoff Blum,
a former Astro, who got a pinch hit homer in the 14th inning to give us
the margin of victory in game three. And the pitching--four complete
games to close out the American League Championship Series. An 11 and 1
record in the playoffs. 15 scoreless innings to finish the World
Series.
Before the season started, the Sox were a consensus .500 team. Even
as we built and maintained the best record in the American League all
season, there were many doubters. Towards the end of the season, we hit
a rough patch, and the doubters grew louder. They said Cleveland had
more playoff experience. They said even if we held on to make the
playoffs, we would get embarrassed in the first round. But during the
stretch run, manager Ozzie Guillen and his ``kids,'' as he calls them,
were calm and relaxed. Even as Cleveland came on strong and our lead in
the Central Division dwindled, Ozzie's kids continued to play pranks on
each other in the clubhouse, and continued to run hard on the
basepaths.
Once the playoffs started, there was no looking back. That difficult
September was gone in an instant. We silenced the doubters by sweeping
the World Champion Boston Red Sox. We
[[Page 24138]]
silenced the Angels during the ALCS in five games. And we swept the
Astros in four games.
I had the privilege of attending game one of the World Series on
Saturday, and the fans in and around the park were a cross-section of
the city. There were plenty of folks old enough to remember the `59
team. Almost everyone remembered the 2000 team that made the playoffs.
A few were even alive in 1917.
I don't want to belabor this issue. I know those of you who had to
listen to Red Sox fans last year may have gotten a little weary of
those of us who have all this pent-up energy when we finally win the
championship.
But I do want to say that the entire city of Chicago and the entire
State of Illinois are extraordinarily proud.
I congratulate the entire White Sox organization, in particular Jerry
Reinsdorf, Kenny Williams, and Ozzie Guillen. We will be celebrating
this victory for a long time on the South Side, around the city of
Chicago, and around the entire State of Illinois.
Let me make one last point. While we were watching the game the other
night, in the drenching rain Sunday evening there was a sign held up by
an elderly woman 92 years old. She said: I've been waiting for this for
88 years.
I think it gave you some sense of how much this means to the city of
Chicago and to those blue-collar neighborhoods made up of Black, White,
and Hispanic who were represented so ably by their team. It spoke to
the diversity of this country and the fact that we work together in
ways that make us all proud.
Senator Durbin and myself will be introducing a resolution later
today.
I want to turn it over to my senior colleague from the great State of
Illinois to maybe add a few other remarks regarding this outstanding
team.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from the State of
Illinois who is truly a White Sox fan from the South Side of Chicago.
We have town meetings every Thursday morning, and from the beginning of
this baseball season, he has been rooting for his White Sox. As his
fellow Senator from Illinois, I want to congratulate him and the White
Sox organization.
Say it is so, Joe.
Eighty-six years after the 1919 Black Sox scandal, and 88 years after
they beat the New York Giants in the 1917 World Series, the Chicago
White Sox are bringing the World Series crown home to Chicago. It is
amazing. The ghost of Sholeless Joe Jackson can finally rest in peace.
Last night, the White Sox completed their magical World Series quest
with a 1-0 win to complete a four-game sweep over the Houston Astros.
But as Senator Obama has said, they were close games. Some of them
broke records for their length and the hard battle that they brought to
the mound and to the field.
White Sox fans from my home State of Illinois and all around the
world are rejoicing as the White Sox nation will cherish this victory
for decades to come.
The South Side of Chicago is the gladdest part of town. If you go
down there, you better be aware that the White Sox won the World Series
crown.
I congratulate the White Sox players, their manager, the valiant
Venezuelan, Ozzie Guillen, pitching coach Don Cooper. What an amazing
performance by the pitching staff, and so many White Sox stars turned
coaches such as Tim Raines, Greg Walker, Harold Baines, and Joey Cora;
general manager Kenny Williams for putting together this magical team,
himself a former Sox player who made key moves not only in the off
season but during the season, such as adding closer Bobby Jenks, just
24 years old, pitching in double A's just a few months ago. And there
he stood on the mound last night pitching those 99- and 100-mile-an-
hour fast balls. But during the season, general manager Kenny Williams
also added game 3 hero Geoff Blum. To the owners and my friends, Eddie
Einhorn and Jerry Reinsdorf, congratulations for 25 years of dedication
to their great moment of victory. Everyone in the White Sox
organization richly deserves this World Series victory.
The Sox organization has made citizens of Chicago and the State of
Illinois proud by bringing home this crown. And to those generations of
White Sox fans who stayed faithful to their team even in the darkest
days, I say rejoice. The Chicago White Sox are world champions.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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 thereto be printed in the
Record without intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 291) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 291
Whereas, on October 26, 2005, the Chicago White Sox
baseball club won the 2005 World Series;
Whereas this is the first championship for the White Sox
since 1917, when Woodrow Wilson was president and the United
States was fighting in World War I;
Whereas this is the first World Series appearance for the
White Sox since 1959;
Whereas the White Sox posted a regular season record of 99-
63 and dominated their opponents during the playoffs,
compiling 11 wins and only 1 loss, and finishing with an 8-
game win streak that included a sweep in the Fall Classic;
Whereas the White Sox joined the 1990 Cincinnati Reds and
the legendary 1927 New York Yankees as the only teams who
have swept a World Series after playing every game of the
regular season while in first place;
Whereas the White Sox pitching staff tied a Major League
playoff record of 4 straight complete game wins and did not
allow a single run in the last 15 innings of the World
Series;
Whereas Manager Ozzie Guillen, General Manager Kenny
Williams, and owners Jerry Reinsdorf and Eddie Einhorn have
put together and led a great organization;
Whereas all 25 players on the playoff squad, whose sole
goal was winning the World Series rather than chasing
individual glory, contributed to the victory, including World
Series Most Valuable Player, Jermaine Dye, as well as Scott
Podsednik, Tadahito Iguchi, Joe Crede, Aaron Rowand, Paul
Konerko, Juan Uribe, A.J. Pierzynski, Carl Everett, Freddy
Garcia, Geoff Blum, Willie Harris, Timo Perez, Chris Widger,
Pablo Ozuna, Mark Buehrle , Jose Contreras, Neal Cotts , Jon
Garland, Dustin Hermanson, Orlando Hernandez, Bobby Jenks,
Damaso Marte, Cliff Politte, and Luis Vizcaino;
Whereas other players, such as Frank Thomas and Brandon
McCarthy, made important contributions to get the White Sox
to the playoffs, but were unable to be placed on the playoff
roster;
Whereas this current group of White Sox players follows in
the giant footsteps of the great players in White Sox history
who have had their numbers retired, players such as Nellie
Fox (#2), Harold Baines (#3), Luke Appling (#4), Minnie
Minoso (#9), Luis Aparicio (#11), Ted Lyons (#16), Billy
Pierce (#19), and Carlton Fisk (#72);
Whereas the city of Chicago and White Sox fans have
faithfully stuck by their team during the decades it spent in
baseball's wilderness;
Whereas a new generation of young fans in Chicago and
around Illinois are discovering the joy of world championship
baseball; and
Whereas the Boston Red Sox, the Los Angeles Angels of
Anaheim, and the Houston Astros proved worthy and honorable
adversaries and also deserve recognition, and: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Senate--
(1) congratulates the Chicago White Sox on winning the 2005
World Series Championship;
(2) commends the fans, players, and management of the
Houston Astros for allowing the Chicago White Sox and their
many supporters to celebrate their first World Series title
in 88 years at Minute Maid Park, the home field of the
Houston Astros; and
(3) respectfully directs the Enrolling Clerk of the Senate
to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to--
(A) the 2005 Chicago White Sox baseball club;
(B) White Sox owners, Jerry Reinsdorf and Eddie Einhorn.
____________________
CONDEMNING ANTI-ISRAEL SENTIMENTS OF THE PRESIDENT OF IRAN
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 292 which was
submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
[[Page 24139]]
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 292) calling on the President to
condemn the anti-Israel sentiments expressed by the President
of Iran on October 26, 2005.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, yesterday, Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, citing the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic
revolution, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, said ``Israel must be
wiped off the map.''
He then went on to call Israel a ``disgraceful blot.''
He rejected the two-state solution to the Middle East crisis as a
defeat for the Islamic world, adding that the ``roadmap'' would be
short-lived. He said ``If we put it behind us successfully, God
willing, it will pave the way for the destruction and the downfall of
the Zionist regime.''
The Iranian President also criticized his neighbors by warning
``Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic
nations' fury.''
He made these despicable comments to 4,000 students attending a
``World without Zionism'' conference.
This was just hours before a Palestinian suicide bomber from Islamic
Jihad blew himself up in the small Israeli town of Hadera, killing 5
people and wounding more than 30.
It's important to note that Islamic Jihad's murderers are supported
and trained by Iran.
Given the seriousness of President Ahmadinejad's hateful comments, I
am submitting a resolution with Senator Smith asking that this body
repudiate them.
The resolution also calls on President Bush, on behalf of the United
States, to condemn the remarks in the strongest terms possible.
This kind of incendiary rhetoric is what we have come to expect from
Iran.
The Iranian President has been quite open about his views on Israel.
He has been clear and consistent, echoing Iranian leader Ayatollah
Khomeini, who called frequently for the destruction of Israel through
the 1980s.
The words and ideas of the President of Iran are offensive to
civilized people around the world. We will not tolerate anti-Israel or
anti- Semitic rhetoric.
The Iranian President has spoken words that are certain to incite
violence against the state of Israel. Too often, that translates into
violence against Jews worldwide.
But what makes the comments especially chilling is the fact that
Iranian officials announced earlier this year that they had completed
development of solid fuel technology for missiles, a huge breakthrough
that increases missile accuracy.
Iran has the Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of 810 miles to more
than 1,200 miles. Jerusalem is 970 miles from Tehran.
The Shahab-3 is capable of deliverinq a nuclear warhead to Israel and
to U.S. forces in the Middle East.
So when the Iranian President threatens to ``wipe Israel off the
map,'' we can't afford to take such a threat lightly. We have to take
note of it and repudiate it.
I urge the Senate to adopt this resolution and go on record
condemning the hateful words of the Iranian President. And I hope that
President Bush himself will speak to this issue. It's that important.
I want to thank Senator Smith for co-sponsoring this resolution with
me. I urge its adoption.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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 measure be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 292) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 292
Whereas, on October 26, 2005, the President of Iran,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said that Israel must be ``wiped off the
map'' and that ``[a]nybody who recognizes Israel will burn in
the fire of the Islamic nations' fury'';
Whereas the Department of State has designated Iran as a
state sponsor of terrorism that has repeatedly provided
support for acts of international terror;
Whereas the Government of Iran sponsors terrorist
organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the
al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and PFLP-GC by providing funding,
training, weapons, and safe haven to such organizations; and
Whereas the outrageous statements of Mr. Ahmadinejad are
not in accord with the expressions of the Palestinian
leadership in the peace process: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) thoroughly repudiates the anti-Israel sentiments
expressed by the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on
October 26, 2005; and
(2) calls on the President, on behalf of the United States,
to thoroughly repudiate, in the strongest terms possible, the
statement by Mr. Ahmadinejad.
____________________
COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 185, S. 1280,
the Coast Guard authorization bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1280) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 2006 and 2007 for the United States Coast Guard, and
for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill
which had been reported from the Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation, with amendments.
S. 1280
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 ``Coast Guard Authorization
Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION
Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Authorized levels of military strength and training.
Sec. 103. Web-based risk management data system.
TITLE II--HOMELAND SECURITY, MARINE SAFETY, FISHERIES, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Sec. 201. Extension of Coast Guard vessel Anchorage and movement
authority.
Sec. 202. Enhanced civil penalties for violations of the Maritime
Transportation Security Act.
Sec. 203. Icebreakers.
Sec. 204. Cooperative agreements.
Sec. 205. Pilot program for dockside no fault/no cost safety and
survivability examinations for uninspected commercial
fishing vessels.
Sec. 206. Reports from mortgagees of vessels.
Sec. 207. International training and technical assistance.
Sec. 208. Reference to Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
Sec. 209. Bio-diesel feasibility study.
Sec. 210. Certification of vessel nationality in drug smuggling cases.
Sec. 211. Jones Act waivers.
Sec. 212. Deepwater oversight.
Sec. 213. Deepwater report.
Sec. 214. LORAN-C.
Sec. 215. Long-range vessel tracking system.
Sec. 216. Marine vessel and cold water safety education.
Sec. 217. Suction anchors.
TITLE III--UNITED STATES OCEAN COMMISSION IMPLEMENTATION
Sec. 301. Place of refuge.
Sec. 302. Implementation of international agreements.
Sec. 303. Voluntary measures for reducing pollution from recreational
boats.
Sec. 304. Integration of vessel monitoring system data.
Sec. 305. Foreign fishing incursions.
TITLE IV--COAST GUARD PERSONNEL, FINANCIAL, AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
Sec. 401. Reserve officer distribution.
Sec. 402. Coast Guard band director.
Sec. 403. Reserve recall authority.
Sec. 404. Expansion of equipment used by auxiliary to support Coast
Guard missions.
Sec. 405. Authority for one-step turnkey design-build contracting.
Sec. 406. Officer promotions.
Sec. 407. Redesignation of Coast Guard law specialists as judge
advocates.
[[Page 24140]]
Sec. 408. Boating safety director.
Sec. 409. Hangar at Coast Guard air station at Barbers Point.
Sec. 410. Promotion of Coast Guard officers.
TITLE V--TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
Sec. 501. Government organization.
Sec. 502. War and national defense.
Sec. 503. Financial management.
Sec. 504. Public contracts.
Sec. 505. Public printing and documents.
Sec. 506. Shipping.
Sec. 507. Transportation.
Sec. 508. Mortgage insurance.
Sec. 509. Arctic research.
Sec. 510. Conservation.
Sec. 511. Conforming amendment.
Sec. 512. Anchorage grounds.
Sec. 513. Bridges.
Sec. 514. Lighthouses.
Sec. 515. Oil pollution.
Sec. 516. Medical care.
Sec. 517. Conforming amendment to Social Security Act.
Sec. 518. Shipping.
Sec. 519. Nontank vessels.
Sec. 520. Drug interdiction report.
Sec. 521. Acts of terrorism report.
TITLE VI--EFFECTIVE DATES
Sec. 601. Effective dates.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION
SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year
2006 to the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating the following amounts:
(1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard
$5,594,900,000, of which $24,500,000 is authorized to be
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out
the purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)).
(2) For the acquisition, construction, renovation, and
improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore
facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment
related thereto, $1,424,852,000, to remain available until
expended, of which--
(A) $20,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of section
1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2712(a)(5)); and
(B) $1,100,000,000 is authorized for acquisition and
construction of shore and offshore facilities, vessels, and
aircraft, including equipment related thereto, and other
activities that constitute the Integrated Deepwater Systems.
(3) For the use of the Commandant of the Coast Guard for
research, development, test, and evaluation of technologies,
materials, and human factors directly relating to improving
the performance of the Coast Guard's mission in search and
rescue, aids to navigation, marine safety, marine
environmental protection, enforcement of laws and treaties,
ice operations, oceanographic research, and defense
readiness, $24,000,000, to remain available until expended,
of which $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of section
1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2712(a)(5)).
(4) For retired pay (including the payment of obligations
otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this
purpose), payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family
Protection and Survivor Benefit Plans, and payments for
medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under
chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, $1,014,080,000,
to remain available until expended.
(5) For alteration or removal of bridges over navigable
waters of the United States constituting obstructions to
navigation, and for personnel and administrative costs
associated with the Bridge Alteration Program, $17,400,000,
of which $2,500,000, to remain available until expended, may
be utilized for construction of a new Chelsea Street Bridge
over the Chelsea River in Boston, Massachusetts.
(6) For environmental compliance and restoration
$12,000,000, to remain available until expended for
environmental compliance and restoration functions under
chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code.
(7) For operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard
reserve program, $119,000,000.
(b) There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year
2007 to the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating the following amounts:
(1) For the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard
$6,042,492,000, of which $24,500,000 is authorized to be
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out
the purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)).
(2) For the acquisition, construction, renovation, and
improvement of aids to navigation, shore and offshore
facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment
related thereto, $1,538,840,160, to remain available until
expended, of which--
(A) $20,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of section
1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2712(a)(5)); and
(B) $1,188,000,000 is authorized for acquisition and
construction of shore and offshore facilities, vessels, and
aircraft, including equipment related thereto, and other
activities that constitute the Integrated Deepwater Systems.
(3) For the use of the Commandant of the Coast Guard for
research, development, test, and evaluation of technologies,
materials, and human factors directly relating to improving
the performance of the Coast Guard's mission in search and
rescue, aids to navigation, marine safety, marine
environmental protection, enforcement of laws and treaties,
ice operations, oceanographic research, and defense
readiness, $25,920,000, to remain available until expended,
of which $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of section
1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2712(a)(5)).
(4) For retired pay (including the payment of obligations
otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this
purpose), payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family
Protection and Survivor Benefit Plans, and payments for
medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under
chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, $1,095,206,400,
to remain available until expended.
(5) For alteration or removal of bridges over navigable
waters of the United States constituting obstructions to
navigation, and for personnel and administrative costs
associated with the Bridge Alteration Program, $18,792,000,
of which $2,500,000, to remain available until expended, may
be utilized for construction of a new Chelsea Street Bridge
over the Chelsea River in Boston, Massachusetts.
(6) For environmental compliance and restoration
$12,960,000, to remain available until expended for
environmental compliance and restoration functions under
chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code.
(7) For operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard
reserve program, $128,520,000.
SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED LEVELS OF MILITARY STRENGTH AND
TRAINING.
(a) Active Duty Strength.--The Coast Guard is authorized an
end-of-year strength of active duty personnel of 45,500 as of
September 30, 2006.
(b) Military Training Student Loads.--For fiscal year 2006,
the Coast Guard is authorized average military training
student loads as follows:
(1) For recruit and special training, 2,500 student years.
(2) For flight training, 125 student years.
(3) For professional training in military and civilian
institutions, 350 student years.
(4) For officer acquisition, 1,200 student years.
SEC. 103. WEB-BASED RISK MANAGEMENT DATA SYSTEM.
There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year
2006 to the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating $1,000,000 to continue deployment of a
web-based risk management system to help reduce accidents and
fatalities.
TITLE II--HOMELAND SECURITY, MARINE SAFETY, FISHERIES, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF COAST GUARD VESSEL ANCHORAGE AND
MOVEMENT AUTHORITY.
Section 91 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d) As used in this section, the term `navigable waters
of the United States' includes all waters of the territorial
sea of the United States as described in Presidential
Proclamation No. 5928 of December 27, 1988.''.
SEC. 202. ENHANCED CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
MARITIME TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ACT.
The second section enumerated 70119 of title 46, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``Any''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Continuing Violations.--Each day of a continuing
violation shall constitute a separate violation, with a total
fine per violation not to exceed--
``(1) for violations occurring during fiscal year 2006,
$50,000;
``(2) for violations occurring during fiscal year 2007,
$75,000; and
``(3) for violations occurring after fiscal year 2007,
$100,000.
``(c) Determination of Amount.--In determining the amount
of the penalty, the Secretary shall take into account the
nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation
committed and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
culpability, history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and
such other matters as justice may require.
``(d) Compromise, Modification, and Remittal.--The
Secretary may compromise, modify, or remit, with or without
conditions, any civil penalty imposed under this section.''.
SEC. 203. ICEBREAKERS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating shall take all necessary
measures--
(1) to ensure that the Coast Guard maintains, at a minimum,
its current vessel capacity for carrying out ice-breaking in
the Arctic and Antarctic regions, including the necessary
funding for operation and maintenance of such vessels; and
(2) for the long-term recapitalization of these assets.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for
[[Page 24141]]
fiscal year 2006 to the Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating $100,000,000 to carry out this
section.
SEC. 204. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating shall provide a report to the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of
Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure on opportunities for and the feasibility of
co-locating Coast Guard assets and personnel at facilities of
other Armed Services branches throughout the United States.
The report shall--
(1) identify the locations of possible sites;
(2) identify opportunities for cooperative agreements that
may be established between the Coast Guard and such
facilities with respect to maritime security and other Coast
Guard missions; and
(3) analyze anticipated costs and benefits associated with
each site and such agreements.
SEC. 205. PILOT PROGRAM FOR DOCKSIDE NO FAULT/NO COST SAFETY
AND SURVIVABILITY EXAMINATIONS FOR UNINSPECTED
COMMERCIAL FISHING VESSELS.
(a) Pilot Program.--The Secretary shall conduct a pilot
program to determine the effectiveness of mandatory dockside
crew survivability examinations of uninspected United States
commercial fishing vessels in reducing the number of
fatalities and amount of property losses in the United States
commercial fishing industry.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Dockside crew survivability examination.--The term
``dockside crew survivability examination'' means an
examination by a Coast Guard representative of an uninspected
fishing vessel and its crew at the dock or pier that
includes--
(A) identification and examination of safety and survival
equipment required by law for that vessel;
(B) identification and examination of the vessel stability
standards applicable by law to that vessel; and
(C) identification and observation of--
(i) proper crew training on the vessel's safety and
survival equipment; and
(ii) the crew's familiarity with vessel stability and
emergency procedures designed to save life at sea and avoid
loss or damage to the vessel.
(2) Coast guard representative.--The term ``Coast Guard
representative'' means a Coast Guard member, civilian
employee, Coast Guard Auxiliarist, or person employed by an
organization accepted or approved by the Coast Guard to
examine commercial fishing industry vessels.
(3) Uninspected fishing vessel.--The term ``uninspected
fishing vessel'' means a vessel, not including fish
processing vessels or fish tender vessels (as defined in
section 2101 of title 46, United States Code), that
commercially engages in the catching, taking, or harvesting
of fish or an activity that can reasonably be expected to
result in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish.
(c) Scope of Pilot Program.--The pilot program shall be
conducted--
(1) in at least 5, but no more than 10, major United States
fishing ports where Coast Guard statistics reveal a high
number of fatalities on uninspected fishing vessels within
the 4 fiscal year period beginning with fiscal year 2000, but
shall not be conducted in Coast Guard districts where a
fishing vessel safety program already exists;
(2) for a period of 5 calendar years following the date of
the enactment of this Act;
(3) in consultation with those organizations and persons
identified by the Secretary as directly affected by the pilot
program;
(4) as a non-fee service to those persons identified in
paragraph (3) above;
(5) without a civil penalty for any discrepancies
identified during the dockside crew survivability
examination; and
(6) to gather data identified by the Secretary as necessary
to conclude whether dockside crew survivability examinations
reduce fatalities and property losses in the fishing
industry.
(d) Report.--Not later than 180 days after end of the third
year of the pilot program, the Secretary shall submit a
report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure on the results of the pilot
program. The report shall include--
(1) an assessment of the costs and benefits of the pilot
program including costs to the industry and lives and
property saved as a result of the pilot program;
(2) an assessment of the costs and benefits to the United
States Government of the pilot program including operational
savings such as personnel, maintenance, etc., from reduced
search and rescue or other operations; and
(3) any other findings and conclusions of the Secretary
with respect to the pilot program.
SEC. 206. REPORTS FROM MORTGAGEES OF VESSELS.
Section 12120 of title 46, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``owners, masters, and charterers'' and inserting
``owners, masters, charterers, and mortgagees''.
SEC. 207. INTERNATIONAL TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Section 149 of title 14, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``Sec. 149. Assistance to foreign governments and maritime
authorities'';
(2) by inserting ``(a) Detail of Members To Assist Foreign
Governments.--'' before ``The President''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Technical Assistance to Foreign Maritime
Authorities.--The Commandant, in coordination with the
Secretary of State, may, in conjunction with regular Coast
Guard operations, provide technical assistance, including law
enforcement and maritime safety and security training, to
foreign navies, coast guards, and other maritime
authorities.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 7
of title 14, United States Code, is amended by striking the
item relating to section 149 and inserting the following:
``149. Assistance to Foreign Governments and Maritime Authorities.''.
SEC. 208. REFERENCE TO TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC
ISLANDS.
Section 2102(a) of title 46, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``37, 43, 51, and 123'' and inserting ``43,
51, 61, and 123'';
(2) by striking paragraph (2); and
(3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
SEC. 209. BIO-DIESEL FEASIBILITY STUDY.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating shall conduct a study that examines
the technical feasibility, costs, and potential cost savings
of using bio-diesel fuel in new and existing Coast Guard
vehicles and vessels, and which focuses on the use of bio-
diesel fuel in ports which have a high-density of vessel
traffic, including ports for which vessel traffic systems
have been established.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating shall transmit a report
containing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations (if
any) from the study to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
SEC. 210. CERTIFICATION OF VESSEL NATIONALITY IN DRUG
SMUGGLING CASES.
Section 3(c)(2) of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act
(46 U.S.C. App. 1903(c)(2)) is amended by striking the last
sentence and inserting ``The response of a foreign nation to
a claim of registry under subparagraph (A) or (C) may be made
by radio, telephone, or similar oral or electronic means, and
is conclusively proved by certification of the Secretary of
State or the Secretary's designee.''.
SEC. 211. JONES ACT WAIVERS.
Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920
(46 U.S.C. App. 883), a vessel that was not built in the
United States may transport fish or shellfish within the
coastal waters of the State of Maine if the vessel--
(1) meets the other requirements of section 27 of the
Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883) and section 2
of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 U.S.C. App. 802) for engaging
in the coastwise trade;
(2) is ineligible for documentation under chapter 121 of
title 46, United States Code, because it measures less than 5
net tons;
(3) has transported fish or shellfish within the coastal
waters of the State of Maine prior to December 31, 2004; and
(4) has not undergone a transfer of ownership after
December 31, 2004.
SEC. 212. DEEPWATER OVERSIGHT.
No later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Coast Guard, in consultation with Government
Accountability Office, shall provide a report to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure on--
(1) the status of the Coast Guard's implementation of
Government Accountability Office's recommendations in its
report, GAO-04-380, ``Coast Guard Deepwater Program Needs
Increased Attention to Management and Contractor Oversight'';
and
(2) the dates by which the Coast Guard plans to fully
implement such recommendations if any remain open as of the
date the report is transmitted to the Committees.
SEC. 213. DEEPWATER REPORT.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the
Congress, in conjunction with the transmittal by the
President of the Budget of the United States for Fiscal Year
2007, a revised Deepwater baseline that includes--
(1) a justification for the projected number and
capabilities of each asset (including the ability of each
asset to meet service performance goals);
(2) an accelerated acquisition timeline that reflects
project completion in 10 years and 15 years (included in this
timeline shall be the amount of assets procured during each
year of the accelerated program);
[[Page 24142]]
(3) the required funding for each accelerated acquisition
timeline that reflects project completion in 10 years and 15
years;
(4) anticipated costs associated with legacy asset
sustainment for each accelerated acquisition timeline that
reflects project completion in 10 years and 15 years;
(5) anticipated mission deficiencies, if any, associated
with the continued degradation of legacy assets in
combination with the procurement of new assets within each
accelerated acquisition timeline that reflects project
completion in 10 years and 15 years;
(6) a comparison of the amount of required assets in the
current baseline to the amount of required assets according
to the Coast Guard's Performance Gap Analysis Study; and
(7) an evaluation of the overall feasibility of achieving
each accelerated acquisition timeline (including contractor
capacity, national shipbuilding capacity, asset integration
into Coast Guard facilities, required personnel, training
infrastructure capacity on technology associated with new
assets).
SEC. 214. LORAN-C.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department
of Transportation, in addition to funds authorized for the
Coast Guard for operation of the LORAN-C system, for capital
expenses related to LORAN-C navigation infrastructure,
$25,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and $25,000,000 for fiscal
year 2007. The Secretary of Transportation may transfer from
the Federal Aviation Administration and other agencies of the
Department funds appropriated as authorized under this
section in order to reimburse the Coast Guard for related
expenses.
SEC. 215. LONG-RANGE VESSEL TRACKING SYSTEM.
(a) Pilot Project.--The Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating, acting through the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, shall conduct a pilot program
for long range tracking of up to 2,000 vessels using
satellite systems with an existing nonprofit maritime
organization that has a demonstrated capability of operating
a variety of satellite communications systems providing data
to vessel tracking software and hardware that provides long
range vessel information to the Coast Guard to aid maritime
security and response to maritime emergencies.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating $4,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008 to carry out subsection
(a).
SEC. 216. MARINE VESSEL AND COLD WATER SAFETY EDUCATION.
The Coast Guard shall continue cooperative agreements and
partnerships with organizations in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act that provide marine vessel safety
training and cold water immersion education and outreach
programs for fishermen and children.
SEC. 217. SUCTION ANCHORS.
Section 12105 of title 46, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(c) No vessel without a registry or coastwise endorsement
may engage in the movement of anchors or other mooring
equipment from one point over or on the United States outer
Continental Shelf to another such point in connection with
exploring for, developing, or producing resources from the
outer Continental Shelf.''.
TITLE III--UNITED STATES OCEAN COMMISSION IMPLEMENTATION
SEC. 301. PLACE OF REFUGE.
(a) In General.--Within 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the United States Coast Guard, working
with hazardous spill response agencies, marine salvage
companies, State and local law enforcement and marine
agencies, and other Federal agencies including the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental
Protection Agency, shall, in accordance with the
recommendations of the United States Commission on Ocean
Policy in its final report, develop a comprehensive and
effective process for determining whether and under what
circumstances damaged vessels may seek a place of refuge in
the United States suitable to the specific nature of distress
each vessel is experiencing.
(b) Report.--The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall
transmit a report annually to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of
Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure describing the process established and any
cases in which a vessel was provided with a place of refuge
in the preceding year.
(c) Place of Refuge Defined.--In this section, the term
``place of refuge'' means a place where a ship in need of
assistance can take action to enable it to stabilize its
condition and reduce the hazards to navigation and to protect
human life and the environment.
SEC. 302. IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating shall, in consultation with appropriate Federal
agencies, work with the responsible officials and agencies of
other Nations to accelerate efforts at the International
Maritime Organization to enhance flag State oversight and
enforcement of security, environmental, and other agreements
adopted within the International Maritime Organization,
including implementation of--
(1) a code outlining flag State responsibilities and
obligations;
(2) an audit regime for evaluating flag State performance;
(3) measures to ensure that responsible organizations,
acting on behalf of flag States, meet established performance
standards; and
(4) cooperative arrangements to improve enforcement on a
bilateral, regional or international basis.
SEC. 303. VOLUNTARY MEASURES FOR REDUCING POLLUTION FROM
RECREATIONAL BOATS.
The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating shall, in consultation with appropriate Federal,
State, and local government agencies, undertake outreach
programs for educating the owners and operators of boats
using two-stroke engines about the pollution associated with
such engines, and shall support voluntary programs to reduce
such pollution and that encourage the early replacement of
older two-stroke engines.
SEC. 304. INTEGRATION OF VESSEL MONITORING SYSTEM DATA.
The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating shall integrate vessel monitoring system data into
its maritime operations databases for the purpose of
improving monitoring and enforcement of Federal fisheries
laws, and shall work with the Undersecretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere to ensure effective use of such data
for monitoring and enforcement.
SEC. 305. FOREIGN FISHING INCURSIONS.
(a) In General.--No later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating shall provide a report to
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure on steps that the Coast Guard will take to
significantly improve the Coast Guard's detection and
interdiction of illegal incursions into the United States
exclusive economic zone by foreign fishing vessels.
(b) Specific Issues To Be Addressed.--The report shall--
(1) focus on areas in the exclusive economic zone where the
Coast Guard has failed to detect or interdict such incursions
in the 4 fiscal year period beginning with fiscal year 2000,
including the Western/Central Pacific; and
(2) include an evaluation of the potential use of unmanned
aircraft and offshore platforms for detecting or interdicting
such incursions.
(c) Biennial Updates.--The Secretary shall provide biannual
reports updating the Coast Guard's progress in detecting or
interdicting such incursions to the Senate Commerce, Science,
and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
TITLE IV--COAST GUARD PERSONNEL, FINANCIAL, AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
SEC. 401. RESERVE OFFICER DISTRIBUTION.
Section 724 of title 14, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``Reserve officers on an Active-duty list
shall not be counted as part of the authorized number of
officers in the Reserve.'' after ``5,000.'' in subsection
(a); and
(2) by striking so much of subsection (b) as precedes
paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(b)(1) The Secretary shall, at least once a year, make a
computation to determine the number of Reserve officers in an
active status authorized to be serving in each grade. The
number in each grade shall be computed by applying the
applicable percentage to the total number of such officers
serving in an active status on the date the computation is
made. The number of Reserve officers in an active status
below the grade of rear admiral (lower half) shall be
distributed by pay grade so as not to exceed percentages of
commissioned officers authorized by section 42(b) of this
title. When the actual number of Reserve officers in an
active status in a particular pay grade is less than the
maximum percentage authorized, the difference may be applied
to the number in the next lower grade. A Reserve officer may
not be reduced in rank or grade solely because of a reduction
in an authorized number as provided for in this subsection,
or because an excess results directly from the operation of
law.''.
SEC. 402. COAST GUARD BAND DIRECTOR.
(a) Band Director Appointment and Grade.--Section 336 of
title 14, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the first sentence of subsection (b) and
inserting ``The Secretary may designate as the director any
individual determined by the Secretary to possess the
necessary qualifications.'';
(2) by striking ``a member so designated'' in the second
sentence of subsection (b) and inserting ``an individual so
designated'';
(3) by striking ``of a member'' in subsection (c) and
inserting ``of an individual'';
[[Page 24143]]
(4) by striking ``of lieutenant (junior grade) or
lieutenant.'' in subsection (c) and inserting ``determined by
the Secretary to be most appropriate to the qualifications
and experience of the appointed individual.'';
(5) by striking ``A member'' in subsection (d) and
inserting ``An individual''; and
(6) by striking ``When a member's designation is
revoked,''in subsection (e) and inserting ``When an
individual's designation is revoked,''.
(b) Current Director.--The incumbent Coast Guard Band
Director on the date of enactment of this Act may be
immediately promoted to a commissioned grade, not to exceed
captain, determined by the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating to be most appropriate to
the qualifications and experience of that individual.
SEC. 403. RESERVE RECALL AUTHORITY.
Section 712 of title 14, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``during'' in subsection (a) and inserting
``during, or to aid in prevention of an imminent,'';
(2) by striking ``or catastrophe,'' in subsection (a) and
inserting ``catastrophe, act of terrorism (as defined in
section 2(15) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
101(15))), or transportation security incident as defined in
section 70101 of title 46, United States Code,'';
(3) by striking ``thirty days in any four month period'' in
subsection (a) and inserting ``60 days in any 4-month
period'';
(4) by striking ``sixty days in any two-year period'' in
subsection (a) and inserting ``120 days in any 2-year
period''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) For purposes of calculating the duration of active
duty allowed pursuant to subsection (a), each period of
active duty shall begin on the first day that a member
reports to active duty, including for purposes of
training.''.
SEC. 404. EXPANSION OF EQUIPMENT USED BY AUXILIARY TO SUPPORT
COAST GUARD MISSIONS.
(a) Motorized Vehicle as Facility.--Section 826 of title
14, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Members''; and
(2) adding at the end the following:
``(b) The Coast Guard may utilize to carry out its
functions and duties as authorized by the Secretary any
motorized vehicle placed at its disposition by any member of
the auxiliary, by any corporation, partnership, or
association, or by any State or political subdivision thereof
to tow government property.''.
(b) Appropriations for Facilities.--Section 830(a) of title
14, United States Code, is amended by striking ``or radio
station'' each place it appears and inserting ``radio
station, or motorized vehicle utilized under section
826(b)''.
SEC. 405. AUTHORITY FOR ONE-STEP TURNKEY DESIGN-BUILD
CONTRACTING.
(a) In General.--Chapter 17 of title 14, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 677. Turn-key selection procedures
``(a) Authority To Use.--The Secretary may use one-step
turn-key selection procedures for the purpose of entering
into contracts for construction projects.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) One-step turn-key selection procedures.--The term
`one-step turn-key selection procedures' means procedures
used for the selection of a contractor on the basis of price
and other evaluation criteria to perform, in accordance with
the provisions of a firm fixed-price contract, both the
design and construction of a facility using performance
specifications supplied by the Secretary.
``(2) Construction.--The term `construction' includes the
construction, procurement, development, conversion, or
extension, of any facility.
``(3) Facility.--The term `facility' means a building,
structure, or other improvement to real property.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
17 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 676 the following:
``677. Turn-key selection procedures.''.
SEC. 406. OFFICER PROMOTION.
Section 257 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(f) The Secretary of the Department in which the Coast
Guard is operating may waive subsection (a) of this section
to the extent necessary to allow officers described therein
to have at least 2 opportunities for consideration for
promotion to the next higher grade as officers below the
promotion zone.''.
SEC. 407. REDESIGNATION OF COAST GUARD LAW SPECIALISTS AS
JUDGE ADVOCATES.
(a) Section 801 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``The term `law specialist''' in paragraph
(11) and inserting ``The term `judge advocate', in the Coast
Guard,'';
(2) by striking ``advocate; or'' in paragraph (13) and
inserting ``advocate.''; and
(3) by striking subparagraph (C) of paragraph (13).
(b) Section 727 of title 14, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``law specialist'' and inserting ``judge
advocate''.
(c) Section 465(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
665(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``law specialist'' and
inserting ``judge advocate''.
SEC. 408. BOATING SAFETY DIRECTOR.
(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 11 of title 14,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 337. Director, Office of Boating Safety
``The initial appointment of the Director of the Boating
Safety Office shall be in the grade of Captain.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
11 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 336 the following:
``337. Director, Office of Boating Safety.''.
SEC. 409. HANGAR AT COAST GUARD AIR STATION BARBERS POINT.
No later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard
is operating shall provide the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with a
proposal and cost analysis for constructing an enclosed
hangar at Air Station Barbers Point. The proposal should
ensure that the hangar has the capacity to shelter current
aircraft assets and those projected to be located at the
station over the next 20 years.
SEC. 410. PROMOTION OF COAST GUARD OFFICERS.
(a) In General.--Section 211(a) of title 14, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a)(1) The President may appoint permanent commissioned
officers in the Regular Coast Guard in grades appropriate to
their qualification, experience, and length of service, as
the needs of the Coast Guard may require, from among the
following categories:
``(A) Graduates of the Coast Guard Academy.
``(B) Commissioned warrant officers, warrant officers, and
enlisted members of the Regular Coast Guard.
``(C) Members of the Coast Guard Reserve who have served at
least 2 years as such.
``(D) Licensed officers of the United States merchant
marine who have served 2 or more years aboard a vessel of the
United States in the capacity of a licensed officer.
``(2) Original appointments under this section in the
grades of lieutenant commander and above shall be made by the
President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
``(3) Original appointments under this section in the
grades of ensign through lieutenant shall be made by the
President alone.''.
(b) Wartime Temporary Service Promotion.--Section 275(f) of
title 14, United States Code, is amended by striking the
second and third sentences and inserting ``Original
appointments under this section in the grades of lieutenant
commander and above shall be made by the President by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate. Original
appointments under this section in the grades of ensign
through lieutenant shall be made by the President alone.''.
TITLE V--TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
SEC. 501. GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION.
Title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``The Department of Homeland Security.''
after ``The Department of Veterans Affairs.'' in section 101;
(2) by inserting ``the Secretary of Homeland Security,'' in
section 2902(b) after ``Secretary of the Interior,''; and
(3) in sections 5520a(k)(3), 5595(h)(5), 6308(b), and
9001(10), by striking ``of Transportation'' each place it
appears and inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
SEC. 502. WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE.
The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 (Public
Law 76-861, 56 Stat. 1178, 50 U.S.C. App. 501 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Secretary of Transportation'' each place
it appears in section 515 and inserting ``Secretary of
Homeland Security''; and
(2) by striking ``Secretary of Transportation'' in section
530(d) and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''.
SEC. 503. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT.
Title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``of Transportation'' in section 3321(c)
and inserting ``of Homeland Security.'';
(2) by striking ``of Transportation'' in section 3325(b)
and inserting ``of Homeland Security'';
(3) by striking ``of Transportation'' each place it appears
in section 3527(b)(1) and inserting ``of Homeland Security'';
and
(4) by striking ``of Transportation'' in section 3711(f)
and inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
SEC. 504. PUBLIC CONTRACTS.
Section 11 of title 41, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``of Transportation'' each place it appears and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
SEC. 505. PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS.
Sections 1308 and 1309 of title 44, United States Code, are
amended by striking ``of Transportation'' each place it
appears and inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
SEC. 506. SHIPPING.
Title 46, United States Code, is amended--
[[Page 24144]]
(1) by striking ``a Coast Guard or'' in section 2109;
(2) by striking the second sentence of section 6308(a) and
inserting ``Any employee of the Department of Transportation,
and any member of the Coast Guard, investigating a marine
casualty pursuant to section 6301 of this title, shall not be
subject to deposition or other discovery, or otherwise
testify in such proceedings relevant to a marine casualty
investigation, without the permission of the Secretary of
Transportation for Department of Transportation employees or
the Secretary of Homeland Security for military members or
civilian employees of the Coast Guard.''; and
(3) by striking ``of Transportation'' in section 13106(c)
and inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
SEC. 507. TRANSPORTATION; ORGANIZATION.
Section 324 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
striking subsection (b); and redesignating subsections (c)
and (d) as subsections (b) and (c), respectively.
SEC. 508. MORTGAGE INSURANCE.
Section 222 of the National Housing Act of 1934 (12 U.S.C.
1715m) is amended by striking ``of Transportation'' each
place it appears and inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
SEC. 509. ARCTIC RESEARCH.
Section 107(b)(2) of the Arctic Research and Policy Act of
1984 (15 U.S.C. 4106(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subparagraph
(J);
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (K) as subparagraph (L);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (J) the following new
subparagraph:
``(K) the Department of Homeland Security; and''.
SEC. 510. CONSERVATION.
(a) Section 1029(e)(2)(B) of the Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness
Expansion and Fossil Protection Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C.
460kkk(e)) is amended by striking ``of Transportation'' and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(b) Section 312(a)(2)(C) of the Antarctic Marine Living
Resources Convention Act of 1984 (16 U.S.C. 2441(c)) is
amended by striking ``of Transportation'' and inserting ``of
Homeland Security''.
SEC. 511. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Section 3122 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by striking ``Secretary of Transportation'' each
place it appears and inserting ``Secretary of the Department
in which the Coast Guard is operating''.
SEC. 512. ANCHORAGE GROUNDS.
Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1915 (33 U.S.C.
471) is amended by striking ``of Transportation'' and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
SEC. 513. BRIDGES.
Section 4 of the General Bridge Act of 1906 (33 U.S.C. 491)
is amended by striking ``of Transportation'' and inserting
``of Homeland Security''.
SEC. 514. LIGHTHOUSES.
(a) Section 1 of Public Law 70-803 (33 U.S.C. 747b) is
amended by striking ``of Transportation'' and inserting ``of
Homeland Security''.
(b) Section 2 of Public Law 65-174 (33 U.S.C. 748) is
amended by striking ``of Transportation'' and inserting ``of
Homeland Security''.
(c) Sections 1 and 2 of Public Law 75-515 (33 U.S.C. 745a,
748a) are amended by striking ``of Transportation'' each
place it appears and inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
SEC. 515. OIL POLLUTION.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et. seq.) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``Homeland Security,'' in section
5001(c)(1)(B) (33 U.S.C. 2731(c)(1)(B)) after ``the
Interior,'';
(2) by striking ``of Transportation.'' in section
5002(m)(4) (33 U.S.C. 2732(m)(4)) and inserting ``of Homeland
Security.'';
(3) by striking section 7001(a)(3) (33 U.S.C. 2761(a)(3))
and inserting the following:
``(3) Membership.--
``(A) The Interagency Committee shall include
representatives from the Department of Commerce (including
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology), the
Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior
(including the Minerals Management Service and the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service), the Department of
Transportation (including the Maritime Administration and the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration), the
Department of Defense (including the Army Corps of Engineers
and the Navy), the Department of Homeland Security (including
the United States Coast Guard and the United States Fire
Administration in the Federal Emergency Management Agency),
the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, as well as such other
Federal agencies the President may designate.
``(B) A representative of the Department of Transportation
shall serve as Chairman.''; and
(4) by striking ``other'' in section 7001(c)(6) (33 U.S.C.
2761(c)(6)) before ``such agencies''.
SEC. 516. MEDICAL CARE.
Section 1(g)(4)(B) of the Medical Care Recovery Act of 1962
(42 U.S.C. 2651(g)(4)(B)) is amended by striking ``of
Transportation,'' and inserting ``of Homeland Security,''.
SEC. 517. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.
Section 201(p)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
405(p)(3)) is amended by striking ``of Transportation'' each
place it appears and inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
SEC. 518. SHIPPING.
Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (46 U.S.C.
App. 883) is amended by striking ``Satisfactory inspection
shall be certified in writing by the Secretary of
Transportation'' and inserting ``Satisfactory inspection
shall be certified in writing by the Secretary of Homeland
Security.''.
SEC. 519. NONTANK VESSELS.
Section 311(a)(26) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(A)(26)) is amended to read as follows:
``(26) `nontank vessel' means a self-propelled vessel--
``(A) of at least 400 gross tons as measured under section
14302 of title 46, United States Code, or, for vessels not
measured under that section, as measured under section 14502
of that title;
``(B) other than a tank vessel;
``(C) that carries oil of any kind as fuel for main
propulsion; and
``(D) that is a vessel of the United States or that
operates on the navigable waters of the United States
including all waters of the territorial sea of the United
States as described in Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of
December 27, 1988.''.
SEC. 520. DRUG INTERDICTION REPORT.
(a) In General.--Section 89 of title 14, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Quarterly Reports on Drug Interdiction.--Not later
than 30 days after the end of each fiscal year quarter, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the House of
Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation a report on all expenditures related to
drug interdiction activities of the Coast Guard on an annual
basis.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 103 of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1996 (14 U.S.C. 89 note) is repealed.
SEC. 521. ACTS OF TERRORISM REPORT.
Section 905 of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and
Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (46 U.S.C. App. 1802) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Not later than February 28, 1987, and
annually thereafter, the Secretary of Transportation shall
report'' and inserting ``The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall report annually''; and
(2) by inserting ``Beginning with the first report
submitted under this section after the date of enactment of
the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, the
Secretary shall include a description of activities
undertaken under title I of that Act and an analysis of the
effect of those activities on port security against acts of
terrorism.'' after ``ports.''.
TITLE VI--EFFECTIVE DATES
SEC. 601. EFFECTIVE DATES.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this
Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on
the date of enactment.
(b) Exception.--Sections 501 through 518 of this Act and
the amendments made by those sections shall take effect on
March 1, 2003.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
committee-reported amendments be agreed to and the amendments at the
desk be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendments were agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2343) was agreed to, as follows:
On page 2, strike the item relating to section 211 and
insert the following:
Sec. 211. Undocumented Maine fish tenders.
On page 2, after the item relating to section 217, insert
the following:
Sec. 218. Distant water tuna fleet.
Sec. 219. Automatic identification system.
On page 3, after the item relating to section 410, insert
the following:
Sec. 411. Conveyance of decommissioned Coast Guard Cutter MACKINAW.
On page 8, line 17, strike ``2006.'' and insert ``2006 and
as of September 30, 2007.''.
On page 8, beginning in line 18, strike ``fiscal year
2006,'' and insert ``each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007,''.
On page 9, beginning in line 3, strike ``fiscal year 2006''
and insert ``each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007''.
On page 18, strike lines 6 through 24 and insert the
following:
SEC. 211. UNDOCUMENTED MAINE FISH TENDERS.
Not withstanding any other provision of law, a vessel that
is ineligible for documentation under chapter 121 of title
46, United States Code, because it measures less than 5 net
tons, may transport fish or shellfish within the coastal
waters of the State of Maine if--
(1) the vessel transported fish or shellfish pursuant to a
valid wholesale seafood license, issued under the authority
of section
[[Page 24145]]
6851 of title 12 of the Maine Revised Statutes prior to
December 31, 2004; and
(2) the vessel is owned by an individual or entity meeting
the citizenship requirements necessary to document a vessel
under section 12106 of title 46, United States Code.
On page 19, line 18, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before
``The''.
On page 20, after line 25, insert the following:
(b) Independent Analysis of Revised Deep Water Plan.--
Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard may execute a contract with an
independent entity--
(1) to conduct an analysis of the Coast Guard's revised
Deepwater Plan; and
(2) to assess whether--
(A) the mix of assets and capabilities selected as part of
that plan will meet the Coast Guard's criteria of--
(i) performance; and
(ii) minimizing total ownership costs; or
(B) additional or different assets should be considered as
part of the plan.
On page 22, strike lines 13 through 18, and insert the
following:
``(c)(1) No vessel without a registry endorsement may
engage in--
``(A) the setting or movement of the anchors or other
mooring equipment of a mobile offshore drilling unit that is
located over the outer Continental Shelf (as defined in
section 2(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.c. 1331(a))) whether or not attached to the outer
Continental Shelf; or
``(B) the movement of merchandise or personnel to or from a
point in the United States from or to a mobile offshore
drilling unit located over the outer Continental Shelf that
is--
``(i) not attached to the seabed; or
``(ii) attached to the seabed on the outer Continental
Shelf but not exploring for oil and gas resources from the
outer Continental Shelf.
``(2) Nothing in paragraph (1) authorizes the employment in
the coastwise trade of a vessel that does not meet the
requirements of section 12106 of this title.''.
On page 22, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
SEC. 218. DISTANT WATER TUNA FLEET.
(a) Manning Requirements.--United States purse seine
fishing vessels transiting to or from, or fishing exclusively
for highly migratory species in, the Treaty area under a
fishing license issued pursuant to the 1987 Treaty of
Fisheries Between the Governments of Certain Pacific Islands
States and the Government of the United States of America may
utilize non-United States licensed and documented personnel
to meet manning requirements for the 48 month period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act if, after
timely notice of a vacancy, no United States-licensed and
documented personnel are readily available.
(b) Limitation.--Subsection (a) applies only to vessels
operating in and out of American Samoa.
(c) Waiver.--The citizenship requirements of sections
8103(a) and 12110 of title 46, United States Code, are waived
for vessels to which subsection (a) applies during the 48-
month period.
SEC. 219. AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM.
(a) Prevention of Harmful Interference.--The Secretary of
the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, acting
through the Commandant of the Coast Guard, may, within 60
days of the enactment of this Act, transfer $1,000,000 to the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration of
the Department of Commerce for the purposes of awarding,
within 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act a
competitive grant to design, develop, and prototype a device
that integrates a Class B Automatic Identification System
transponder (International Electrotechnical Commission
standard 62287) with an FCC-approved wireless maritime data
device with channel throughput greater than 19.2 kilobits per
second to enable such wireless maritime data device to
provide wireless maritime data services, concurrent with the
operation of such Automatic Identification System
transponder, on frequency channels adjacent to the frequency
channels on which the Automatic Identification System
transponder operates, while minimizing or eliminating the
harmful interference between such Automatic Identification
System transponder and such wireless maritime data device.
The design of such device shall be available for public use.
(b) Implementation of AIS.--It is the Sense of the Senate
that the Federal Communications Commission should resolve
within 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act the
disposition of its rulemaking on the Automatic Information
System and licensee use of frequency bands 157.1875-157.4375
MHz and 161.7875-162.0375 MHz (RM-10821, WT Docket Number 04-
344). The implementation of this section shall not delay the
implementation of an Automatic Identification System as
required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002
and international convention.
On page 30, line 5, strike `` `Members'; '' and insert ``
`The'; ''.
On page 30, line 7, insert ``(1)'' before ``The''.
On page 30, line 12, strike the closing quotation marks and
the second period.
On page 30, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
``(2) Any motorized vehicle placed at the disposition of
the Coast Guard and utilized to carry out its functions under
paragraph (1) shall be considered to be a `motorized vehicle
utilized under section 826(b)' as that term is used in
section 830.''.
On page 35, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
SEC. 411. CONVEYANCE OF DECOMMISSIONED COAST GUARD CUTTER
MACKINAW.
(a) In General.--Upon the scheduled decommissioning of the
Coast Guard Cutter MACKINAW, the Commandant of the Coast
Guard shall convey all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to that vessel to the City and County of
Cheboygan, Michigan, without consideration, if--
(1) the recipient agrees--
(A) to use the vessel for purposes of a museum;
(B) not to use the vessel for commercial transportation
purposes;
(C) to make the vessel available to the United States
Government if needed for use by the Commandant in time of war
or a national emergency; and
(D) to hold the Government harmless for any claims arising
from exposure to hazardous materials, including asbestos and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), after conveyance of the
vessel, except for claims arising from the use by the
Government under subparagraph (C);
(2) the recipient has funds available that will be
committed to operate and maintain the vessel conveyed in good
working condition, in the form of cash, liquid assets, or a
written loan commitment, and in an amount of at least
$700,000; and
(3) the recipient agrees to any other conditions the
Commandant considers appropriate.
(b) Maintenance and Delivery of Vessel.--Prior to
conveyance of the vessel under this section, the Commandant
shall, to the extent practical, and subject to other Coast
Guard mission requirements, make every effort to maintain the
integrity of the vessel and its equipment until the time of
delivery. If a conveyance is made under this section, the
Commandant shall deliver the vessel to a suitable mooring in
the local area, in its present condition, on or about June
10, 2006, and no later than June 30, 2006. The conveyance of
the vessel under this section shall not be considered a
distribution in commerce for purposes of section 6(e) of
Public Law 94-469 (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)).
(c) Other Excess Equipment.--The Commandant may convey to
the recipient any excess equipment or parts from other
decommissioned Coast Guard vessels for use to enhance the
vessel's operability and function for purposes of a museum.
The amendment (No. 2344) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 889
and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 889) to authorize appropriations for the Coast
Guard for fiscal year 2006, to make technical corrections to
various laws administered by the Coast Guard, and for other
purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all after
the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1280, as amended, be
inserted in lieu thereof, that the bill, as amended, be read a third
time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the
Senate insist upon its amendment, and the Chair be authorized to
appoint conferees. I further ask that S. 1280 be returned to the
calendar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 889), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER appointed Mr. Stevens, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Lott, Mr.
Smith, Mr. Inouye, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Lautenberg conferees on the
part of the Senate.
____________________
ORDERS FOR FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2005
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on
Friday, October 28. I further ask that following the
[[Page 24146]]
prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal
of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be
reserved, and the Senate proceed to a period for morning business with
Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. McCONNELL. Today, the Senate completed action on the Labor-HHS-
Education appropriations bill, a splendid job by Senator Specter and
Senator Harkin in moving the bill along. That is the fastest I can
recall that measure clearing the Senate, certainly in recent years.
As the majority leader announced earlier today, we will be in session
tomorrow, but there will not be any votes. We will not have any votes
during Monday's session. So Senators should expect a busy week as we
consider the deficit reduction omnibus reconciliation bill.
In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m. on Monday,
October 31, the Senate proceed to S. 1932, the 2005 deficit reduction
bill, and it be considered under the following statutory time
agreement, with time divided as follows: The first hour on Monday under
the control of the chairman of the Budget Committee; provided further
that the Senate then resume the bill on Tuesday, November 1, at 9 a.m.,
with the time until 8 divided between the chairman and ranking member,
with 4\1/2\ hours under the control of the chairman and 5\1/2\ hours
under the control of the ranking member; provided further that the
Senate recess from 12:30 to 2 for the weekly policy luncheons; provided
that any votes ordered on Tuesday be postponed to occur at a time
determined by the leader after consultation with the Democratic leader.
I further ask consent that the Senate then resume the bill on
Wednesday, November 2, with the time from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. equally
divided between the chairman and ranking member; provided further that
at 6 p.m. on Wednesday all time be considered expired.
Before the Chair rules, it is my understanding that Senators Gregg
and Conrad have agreed that we will have 1 hour of debate on Monday. We
will then resume the deficit reduction measure on Tuesday, with debate
until 8. Any votes ordered on Tuesday would be stacked to occur at a
later time. We would then resume the bill on Wednesday, with all time
expired at 6 p.m.
The Budget Act allows for amendments to be offered and voted on
beyond the statutory time limit, the so-called vote-arama that we look
forward to every year. I would hope that we would not have a vote-
arama, but understanding that Members will offer amendments after the
expiration of time, we would begin those sequenced votes on Thursday.
We will proceed until complete, and we all hope that will be a short
time thereafter.
In any event, we would stop in the late afternoon on Thursday and
resume on Friday if, and only if, that becomes necessary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. McCONNELL. I believe that completes the business of the Senate.
If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask
unanimous consent that it stand in adjournment under the previous
order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:20 p.m., adjourned until
Friday, October 28, 2005, at 10 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nomination received by the Senate October 27, 2005:
In the Army
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. PETER W. CHIARELLI, 0000
____________________
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate: Thursday, October 27,
2005:
The Judiciary
SUSAN BIEKE NEILSON, OF MICHIGAN, TO BE UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.
JOHN RICHARD SMOAK, OF FLORIDA, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.
[[Page 24147]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
SALUTE TO HURRICANE VOLUNTEER MARC OBERLIN OF SAVE-A-LOT
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute those individuals
and organizations that opened their hearts and dedicated both financial
and emotional support to the evacuees of Hurricane Katrina and
Hurricane Rita. All of the States along the gulf coast have endured
terrible hardships during this hurricane season, and I know that the
generosity of North Texans played a vital role in bringing some peace
into their lives.
Today, I want to specifically thank one man, his store and his
donation. Marc Oberlin, from Save-A-Lot donated $5,572 worth of various
food and supplies for volunteers during hurricane Katrina.
Save-A-Lot is one of the Nation's leading extreme value, limited
assortment grocery chains, operating value-oriented stores in all types
of neighborhoods--urban, rural and suburban. Today the company's annual
system-wide retail sales exceed $4 billion and are expected to grow as
the company expands its store network.
I stand here today to sincerely thank Marc Oberlin for his donation.
It is people like him that I am proud to call a fellow Texan. Through
his contribution, he not only stands as a devoted and giving American
citizen, but he serves as an inspiration to others.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO MR. LEON LYNCH
______
HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and honor that
I congratulate Mr. Leon Lynch on his retirement from the position as
United Steel Workers of America Vice President of Human Affairs. Leon
has spent nearly 40 years dedicating his life to the interests of the
USWA and many social and political organizations throughout the
country. His career at the USWA has allowed him the opportunity to
touch the lives of numerous people. In honor of his gracious service to
the USWA, there will be a celebration of his accomplishments on Friday,
October 28, 2005, at the Genesis Convention Center in Gary, IN.
Leon Lynch has accomplished many visionary goals throughout his
career. Leon joined USWA Local 1011 in 1956 at the Youngstown Sheet &
Tube Company Mill in East Chicago, Indiana. He has served on many local
committees and was President of the YS&T Federal Credit Union. In 1968
Leon was named a staff representative and an International
Representative in 1973. In 1994, he was appointed by President Bill
Clinton to the Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation. In 1995,
Leon was elected to the AFL-CIO Executive Council, and in December of
2000, President Clinton appointed Leon to the Air Traffic Service Board
of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Not only has Leon had many positive accomplishments throughout his
career at the USWA, he has also actively contributed to his community
through participation in various programs aimed at improving
opportunities for people. Leon is a member of the executive committee
of the Democratic National Committee, Chairman of the A. Philip
Randolph Institute, President of the Workers Defense League, a board
member of the National Endowment for Democracy, and a member of the
Labor Roundtable of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators.
Leon has served six terms as the USWA's International Vice President
for Human Affairs. He was appointed to that post when it was created by
the USWA's 18th Constitutional Convention in 1976. As Vice President,
he oversees the USWA's civil rights and human rights efforts. He chairs
the Container Industry Conference and handles the negotiations for
Rexam, Crown Cork & Seal, and Silgan Containers. He also chairs the
Public Employees Conference, International Constitution Committee, and
the Steelworkers Health and Welfare Fund.
Leon's family and friends should be proud of his efforts, as his
leadership has served as a beacon of hope throughout the country.
Leon's longstanding commitment to improving the quality of life for
Steelworkers is truly inspirational and should be commended. Our
community has certainly been rewarded by the true service,
uncompromising dedication and loyalty displayed by Leon Lynch.
Mr. Speaker, Leon Lynch has given his time and efforts selflessly to
the members of the USWA throughout his years of service. He has taught
every member of the USWA the true meaning of service. I respectfully
ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in
congratulating Mr. Leon Lynch for his outstanding contributions. I am
proud to commend him for his lifetime of service and dedication.
____________________
HONORING GINGER ARMSTRONG
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ginger Armstrong
of Tuolumne County, California for her tireless service and
contributions to her community. At the end of the month of October, Ms.
Armstrong will retire from her position as an Advocacy Consultant with
the Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources and the Environment
(TuCARE). An event to celebrate Ms. Armstrong's professional
accomplishments and contributions will occur on October 27, 2005 in
Sonora, California.
A native of New Mexico, Ginger Armstrong moved to Tuolumne County in
1971, where she taught in the Tuolumne County public school system for
over 20 years. After teaching in the public school system, Ms.
Armstrong became the Education Coordinator for TuCARE, an organization
established to advise the public on conservation practices and the
utilization of our natural resources.
In the late 1990's, Ginger earned the position of Executive Director
of TuCARE, where she demonstrated exemplary leadership on issues
concerning the long term viability of natural resources and
conservation of public and private lands.
Together with her husband Jim, the Armstrong's own and operate Jim
Armstrong Logging. In addition to the logging operation, the
Armstrong's own Snowy Peaks Christmas Tree Farm and plan to operate a
strawberry and blueberry farm.
Ginger and her husband Jim have two children, Matt and Haley.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Ginger Armstrong for her years of
service to Tuolumne County and dedication to natural resource issues. I
invite my colleagues to join me in wishing Ginger many years of
continued success.
____________________
HONORING CRESCENT ELEMENTARY FOR BECOMING A BLUE RIBBON SCHOOL OF
EXCELLENCE
______
HON. NICK J. RAHALL II
of west virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I honor Crescent
Elementary School in Raleigh County, West Virginia for their remarkable
academic achievements. Next month, Crescent will receive the highest
national honor in education as a No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon
School. Out of 738 schools in West Virginia, Crescent is one of just
three to receive the award, and one of only 295 in the United States.
Crescent Elementary School qualifies for this award because the
school has dramatically improved student performance on the State
assessment test. In light of the fact that 62 percent of Crescent's 284
students, are of low socioeconomic background, this accomplishment is
even more commendable. On the
[[Page 24148]]
State assessment test, the entire school tested in the 80th percentile
in math and reading. Another great achievement for the school is a 98
percent attendance rate during the 2004-2005 school year.
At the November ceremony to honor the 2005 No Child Left Behind-Blue
Ribbon Schools, United States Assistant Secretary of Education, Kevin
F. Sullivan, will recognize each recipient and award the representative
with a plaque. Receiving the award for Crescent Elementary School will
be Principal Danny Pettry, along with speech teacher Stephanie Anderson
and first-grade teachers Mary Haynes and Pat Hudson. I am very proud of
the many achievements this school has made in its pursuit to educate
the future leaders of this country. Having an educational institution
such as Crescent in my State and my district is something in which to
take pride.
____________________
ESSAY ON THE PLEDGE
______
HON. MARK R. KENNEDY
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the
Record, the text of an essay by Katelin Richter of Watertown,
Minnesota, as published in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune on October 3,
2005.
Of course the pledge is still relevant. How does a trait
such as loyalty cease to be relevant? How do liberty and
justice for all cease to be relevant? How does God cease to
be relevant? Just because our America is a little different
than our Founding Fathers' America doesn't mean that the core
values that built this Nation have changed. Deep down, we are
still the same, members of the greatest democracy on Earth,
where liberty and justice are truly for all.
We have to remember, when pledging, that our great Nation
is not totally infallible, and will never be. We can only try
our hardest, with the powers we have, to make our Nation live
up to the pledge. Americans will constantly work to see this
goal.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE NEW MEXICO HOMETOWN HEROES COMMITTEE
______
HON. HEATHER WILSON
of new mexico
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
New Mexico Hometown Heroes committee and the remarkable work it has
done to find and mark the gravesites of recipients of the Congressional
Medal of Honor. Mr. Paul Layer Jr., who has served as this
organization's president and his team of volunteers worked for many
years on this project. They spent hundreds of hours researching
archived records, excavating historical battle sites, and exploring
cemeteries. As a result, our soldiers have a resting place that
acknowledges the extraordinary deeds that they accomplished during
their lifetimes.
The actions taken by Mr. Layer and the New Mexico Hometown Heroes
Committee will allow generations of New Mexicans to remember the
courage these soldiers showed on the battlefield.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Layer
and the other members of the New Mexico Hometown Heroes Committee for
their efforts.
____________________
CONGRATULATING JORDAN HUNT
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Jordan
Hunt for receiving the Gold Medal of Achievement in Royal Rangers.
Royal Rangers is an achievement program of the Assemblies of God
which utilizes an outdoor theme to teach positive character,
responsibility, leadership, citizenship and service to God, men and
country. The Gold Medal of Achievement is the highest achievement that
can be earned in the Royal Ranger Program.
Mr. Hunt is a freshman at Marcus High School in Flower Mound, Texas.
His achievement represents many years of diligent work completing
merits, camping and nature skills, leadership training camps,
memorization, essays and service projects. A special service honoring
Mr. Hunt's accomplishment is planned for November 27, 2005 at Grace
Community Assembly of God in Flower Mound, Texas.
I extend my sincere congratulations to Mr. Jordan Hunt on receiving
the Gold Medal of Achievement. His hard work and dedication to
excellence warrants the highest achievement given by the Royal Rangers
Program.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO MR. RICHARD KRAME
______
HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and honor that
I congratulate Mr. Richard Krame on his retirement from the Town of
Schererville. Dick has spent nearly 50 years dedicating his life to the
interests of the residents of Schererville, Indiana. His career has
allowed him the opportunity to touch the lives of numerous people. In
honor of his gracious service to the community, there will be a
celebration of his accomplishments on November 3, 2005.
Dick Krame has accomplished many visionary goals throughout his
career. Dick was born in Chicago, Illinois and entered the United
States Army in 1943, where his first mission was D-Day 1944. Dick was
awarded the Croix De Guerre-with Star, which was the highest decoration
a soldier could earn from French President Charles De Gaulle. He also
received a number of U.S. awards for his service in the European,
African, and Middle Eastern theaters. Dick felt tremendous pride for
his country, and he was willing to endanger his own life to protect the
lives of his fellow Americans. His courage and heroism will always be
remembered, and his sacrifice will forever live in the hearts and minds
of those for whom he battled.
After the War, Dick resumed his career with Inland Steel. He moved to
Schererville, Indiana in 1954, and he became involved with the
community in 1964. He served as an elected member of the Town Board and
was Town Board President in 1970, 1971, and 1979. In 1982, Dick retired
from his position as a General Foreman with Inland Steel. In 1989, he
came out of full-time retirement from Inland Steel to fill many
positions with the Town of Schererville. He served as Chairman of the
Schererville Planning Commission, a member of the Police Commission,
President of the Chamber of Commerce, Chairman of the Chamber of
Commerce Corn Roast, a member of the Chamber's Economic Development
Commission, and a member of the Quad Town Economic Commission. In 1998,
Dick became the Schererville Town Manager.
While Dick has dedicated considerable time and energy to his work, he
has always made an extra effort to give back to the community. Dick has
been an active member of the Schererville Lions Club for over 42 years,
and he was named President of the Lions in 1973 and 1986. Some other of
his involvements include the Parade Picnic Committee and the St.
Michael Church Council. The Rotary Club of Schererville also presented
Dick with their 2004 Outstanding Citizen Award.
His work has been improving his community for over forty years.
Though Dick is dedicated to his career and the community of
Schererville, he has never limited his time and love for his family.
Dick and his wife, Eleanor, have been happily married for thirty years.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that you and my other distinguished
colleagues join me in congratulating Mr. Richard Krame for his
outstanding devotion to Indiana's First Congressional District. His
unselfish and lifelong dedication to those in need is worthy of the
highest commendation, and I am proud to represent him in Congress.
____________________
HONORING THE GEMPERLE FAMILY
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Gemperle
Family of Turlock, California upon receiving the 2005 Distinguished
Citizens Award from The Greater Yosemite Council, Boy Scouts of
America. The family will be honored on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 at
The Greater Yosemite Council, Boy Scouts of America 2005 Distinguished
Citizens Award Dinner in Modesto, California.
As a leader in the egg production business in the Turlock area since
the 1950's, the Gemperle Family has transformed a small family business
into an industry-leading, technology driven company. In addition to the
great successes achieved in business, the Gemperle Family has
distinguished itself
[[Page 24149]]
through its leadership and generosity to many communities throughout
California's Central Valley.
Ernie T. Gemperle, the family patriarch, has served in many
positions, including President, on his local Boy Scouts of America
Executive Board. For over 35 years, the Gemperle Family has hosted an
annual fundraising event to benefit the Boy Scouts of America.
Moreover, the Gemperle Family has earned a well deserved reputation for
supporting numerous causes, including Catholic Charities, California
State University-Stanislaus, and the arts.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Gemperle Family upon receiving the
2005 Distinguished Citizens Award from The Greater Yosemite Council,
Boy Scouts of America. I invite my colleagues to join me in
congratulating and thanking the Gemperle Family for their leadership
and tremendous generosity.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF AKAL SECURITY
______
HON. JOE WILSON
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to
congratulate Akal Security, the second largest U.S-based security guard
company, on its twenty-fifth anniversary. Since 1980, Akal Security has
grown from just a handful of earnest entrepreneurs to almost 15,000
employees in 48 States and around the world.
Today, the company provides 80 percent of guards for the Department
of Justice's Marshals Service and, through a subsidiary, 80 percent of
cleared American guards for embassy construction. Akal's employees work
in several Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention
centers, airports and military installations; Federal Protective
Service operations; and local government and commercial properties.
Although the tremendous growth of this company is important, I am
also impressed by the unique inspiration of its founders and their
continued record of hiring disabled veterans.
Gurutej Khalsa and Daya Khalsa, the founders of Akal Security,
incorporate the practices of Sikh Dharma into their day-to-day business
lives. They describe Sikh Dharma as a peaceful, monotheistic religion
brought to the West from India by Yogi Bhajan, who was only the fourth
religious leader to receive a joint resolution of recognition from
Congress.
Akal Security also has a distinguished history of hiring veterans of
law enforcement and the military, including many decorated heroes and
even a few U.S. Marshals. These veterans are patriotic, experienced,
and committed to their jobs. This year, Akal Security received the
Large Employer of the Year Award from the Disabled American Veterans
organization for the company's continued commitment to serving disabled
Veterans.
Today, I am pleased to congratulate Akal Security on its remarkable
record of accomplishment over the past 25 years.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE FEDERAL DISASTER PROFITEERING PREVENTION ACT OF
2005
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Federal
Disaster Profiteering Prevention Act of 2005,'' legislation that
imposes tough new criminal and civil penalties on would-be profiteers
who intentionally overcharge the Federal Government for the provision
of goods or services tendered in response to a presidentially declared
major disaster or emergency. I am joined by Representatives Emanuel,
DeFazio, Grijalva, Hinchey, Kilpatrick, Serrano, McDermott, Maloney and
Sanders.
One need not look beyond the ongoing reconstruction efforts in Iraq
and the current controversy surrounding Halliburton to understand the
need for such legislation. To date, Halliburton has been accused of
overcharging the Federal Government by more than $1.4 billion in
``questionable'' and ``unsupported'' reconstruction costs. Nearly two-
thirds of these costs have been characterized as ``questionable''
because, according to government auditors, they are ``unreasonable in
amount'' and ``exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent
person.'' Such costs include, but are in no way limited to, $617,000 in
overpriced and double-billed soft drinks; $152,000 in movie rental
charges; $1.5 million in excessive tailoring and seamstress charges;
and over $560,000 in unnecessary heavy equipment charges.
The ``Federal Disaster Profiteering Prevention Act of 2005'' is
designed to prevent such acts from occurring in the future. It achieves
this objective by cracking down on anyone who, in a matter involving a
contract with the Federal Government, develops a ``scheme or artifice
to defraud the United States.'' The civil penalties associated with a
violation of this prohibition are the greater of $1 million dollars or
triple the gross profits or received proceeds.
The potential for additional future abuse of the Federal contracting
and procurement process is quite clear. According to recent press
reports, FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers already have awarded at
least seven no-bid contracts to several politically well connected
firms, including Halliburton. For example, Kellogg, Brown & Root, a
subsidiary of Halliburton, is currently repairing damaged naval
facilities under a $500 million Defense Department contract.
Additionally, no-bid housing contracts have been awarded to the Fluor
Corp, a major Republican Party donor, and to the Shaw Group, a client
of the lobbying and consulting firm run by friend of the president and
former FEMA chief Joe Allbaugh. With such large sums being spent in
this manner, it's more important than ever that we send a clear message
that we will not tolerate the overcharging of our government during
times of federal emergencies.
I am hopeful that Congress can move quickly to enact this worthwhile
and timely legislation.
____________________
CONGRATULATING LUCAS FLEMMING
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Lucas
Flemming for receiving the Gold Medal of Achievement in Royal Rangers.
Royal Rangers is an achievement program of the Assemblies of God
which utilizes an outdoor theme to teach positive character,
responsibility, leadership, citizenship and service to God, men and
country. The Gold Medal of Achievement is the highest achievement that
can be earned in the Royal Ranger Program.
Mr. Flemming is a senior at Flower Mound High School in Flower Mound,
Texas. His achievement represents many years of diligent work
completing merits, camping and nature skills, leadership training
camps, memorization, essays and service projects. A special service
honoring Mr. Hunt's accomplishment is planned for November 27, 2005 at
Grace Community Assembly of God in Flower Mound, Texas.
I extend my sincere congratulations to Mr. Lucas Flemming on
receiving the Gold Medal of Achievement. His hard work and dedication
to excellence warrants the highest achievement given by the Royal
Rangers Program.
____________________
HONORING EDWARD CONNER
______
HON. GEOFF DAVIS
of kentucky
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Edward
Conner, a young man from Falmouth, Kentucky, who has shown a tremendous
appreciation for the service of many veterans in Kentucky through his
involvement with volunteer activities honoring the Men and Women who
served in our Armed Forces.
Edward, or ``Eddie''--as his friends call him, is an honorary member
of American Legion Post 109 and despite his young age of 15, is
actively involved with organizing annual Veterans Day events in
Pendleton County.
Eddie often volunteers his time at the Legion Post--performing a
variety of services and speaks to children at area schools about his
work with veterans.
Being a Member of the American Legion, I thoroughly appreciate
Eddie's hard work and commend him on volunteering his time in support
of veterans everywhere.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JOHN ZUTAVERN OF ABILENE, KANSAS
______
HON. JERRY MORAN
of kansas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize John
Zutavern of Abilene,
[[Page 24150]]
Kansas and congratulate him for receiving the 2005 Excellence in Local
Government award from the League of Kansas Municipalities. I commend
him for his excellence in leadership and passion for helping citizens
of Abilene and the State of Kansas.
John's love for his community and his home-State is visible to
everyone around him. He has been a diligent ambassador for Abilene and
promotes the virtues of the city wherever he goes. He always welcomes
guests with a warm greeting and hearty handshake. People like John are
the ones who give small towns their good name.
John is involved in many community and civic groups, and his
influence extends to all areas of the community. John has served the
citizens of Abilene as a member of the City Commission since 1991,
serving as Mayor on two different occasions. He is responsive to
citizens and is known for being unafraid to take on new challenges.
Forward thinking and innovativeness are also characteristics that John
possesses, both of which help him in his leadership roles.
John's influence also extends to a state-wide level. He was appointed
Chairman of the Governor's Advisory Committee for Children and Families
where he served from 1996 to 2000. He currently serves on the Board of
Directors for the Kansas Health Institute. John has also served the
League of Kansas Municipalities and is considered ``the go-to guy'' on
the Governing Body. He has served with the League since 1994, taking on
the responsibility of Vice President, President, and Chair of the
Executive Director search committee.
I am pleased that John's hard work and dedication has not gone
unnoticed by the people of Kansas. Tonight, I extend my congratulations
to John for being the 2005 Excellence in Local Government Award
recipient, an honor he well deserves. Thank you for your dedication to
serving the people of Abilene and the people of Kansas.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MS. AMALIA V. BETANZOS
______
HON. JOSE E. SERRANO
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today
to pay tribute to a woman of great integrity and character. Ms. Amalia
V. Betanzos has decided to retire from the Wildcat Service Corporation
after 27 years of dedicated leadership. Tonight, she will be honored
for her service in the city of New York.
Born and raised in the South Bronx, Amalia is a graduate of New York
University and has extensive experience in the public and private not-
for-profit sectors. She has served in a variety of positions in the
administrations of several New York Mayors. As Commissioner of the
Youth Services Agency she helped to shape the destinies of more than
half a million New York youth and gained a reputation for being an
outstanding administrator with an untiring capacity to meet new
challenges. As Executive Secretary to Mayor John Lindsay she was in
charge of programs for the poor and the physically and mentally
handicapped. As Commissioner of Relocation and Management services in
the Housing and Development Administration, Amalia was directly in
charge of coordinating relocation services to families in conjunction
with the City's Urban Renewal programs and emergency housing.
Amalia's extensive experience in city government provided her with
the breadth of knowledge necessary to lead an organization such as
Wildcat Service Corporation. Founded in 1972, Wildcat's mission is to
bring the chronically unemployed, for example, ex-offenders, public
assistance recipients, former alcohol and substance abusers, high
school dropouts, youth involved with the criminal justice system and
persons with limited English language proficiency, into the regular
labor force, thus breaking their cycle of poverty, addiction and crime.
Under Amalia's strong leadership Wildcat changed the lives of countless
New Yorkers, providing them and their families with a new lease on
life.
Mr. Speaker, it is rare to find individuals who are willing to
dedicate their entire lives to uplifting others. Amalia V. Betanzos is
indeed one of these special people. She has literally improved the
lives of thousands of individuals. Her efforts to empower society's
most vulnerable citizens will not only change their destinies but also
the destinies of generations to come. Surely that is the mark of a
great career.
For her unyielding service and untiring spirit, I ask my colleagues
to join me in paying tribute to a dear friend, Ms. Amalia V. Betanzos.
____________________
IN HONOR AND REMEMBRANCE OF ALVA ``TED'' BONDA
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of
Alva ``Ted'' Bonda, beloved husband, father, grandfather, great-
grandfather, brother, WWII Veteran, and dear friend and mentor to many,
including me. Mr. Bonda's life was framed by tenacity, integrity and
heart, and although he will be greatly missed, he deeply touched the
lives of everyone he knew.
Mr. Bonda will forever be remembered as a true renaissance man who
possessed a high intellect, love for education and keen business savvy.
He was born and raised in Cleveland and graduated from Glenville High
School. He worked as a shoe store clerk and parking lot attendant
before serving in the U.S. Army during WWII. Following the war, Mr.
Bonda teamed up with childhood friend, Senator Howard Metzenbaum, to
form their joint venture, APCOA Inc., which evolved into the world's
largest parking lot company.
Though an extremely successful businessman, Mr. Bonda's unwavering
dedication remained focused on his family and the Cleveland community.
Together, Mr. Bonda and the late Marie C. Bonda raised their three
children, Penny, Joel and Tom. Mr. Bonda's faith in the City of
Cleveland and love for its people was just as steadfast. When it was
largely feared that the Cleveland Indians could be whisked away to
another town, Mr. Bonda stepped up to the plate and convinced more than
50 Cleveland business owners to purchase the team. As the Team
President, he consistently dismissed out-of-towners looking to buy the
team because they would not promise to keep the club in Cleveland. Most
significantly, Mr. Bonda contributed to sports history and civil rights
history by hiring Frank Robinson as the first African American Manager
in the Major Leagues.
After retiring from business, Mr. Bonda renewed his commitment as a
proponent of education. As a member of the Cleveland School Board
during the 1980s, Mr. Bonda led the successful effort in persuading
voters to support the first operating levy in many years. In 1984, he
was appointed by then Governor Richard Celeste to the Ohio Board of
Regents, where he served as Chairman from 1998 to 1991. Mr. Bonda was
also a trustee with Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass. In 1995,
Cleveland State University's College of Urban Affairs awarded Mr. Bonda
an honorary Doctorate degree.
A staunch and active Democrat, Mr. Bonda's wisdom and advice was
consistently sought after by political hopefuls. His leadership infused
significant energy and results into the momentum of numerous local and
national campaigns, including those of President Jimmy Carter,
presidential candidate George McGovern, Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Ohio
Governor Richard Celeste, and my own congressional campaigns.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance
of Alva ``Ted'' Bonda. I offer my deepest condolences to his daughter
Penny, sons Joel and Tom, daughter-in-law, Jodi; his grandchildren;
great grandchildren; extended family and many friends.
Mr. Bonda left this world with a legacy that will forever shine hope
and light upon his family, friends and upon our entire Cleveland
community. His joy for life, caring heart and concern for the people of
Cleveland defined his life and resounds every spring with the first at
bat; and will live on in the hearts of all he who knew and loved well,
today, and for all time.
____________________
SALUTE TO HURRICANE VOLUNTEERS AT DFW AIRPORT
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute those individuals
and organizations that opened their hearts and dedicated both financial
and emotional support to the evacuees of Hurricane Katrina and
Hurricane Rita. All of the States along the gulf coast have endured
terrible hardships during this hurricane season, and I know that the
generosity of North Texans played a vital role in bringing some peace
into their lives.
Today, I want to specifically thank the DFW Airport and their
donation during Hurricane Katrina. Jeffrey Fegan, the CEO of DFW, and
[[Page 24151]]
Ken Capps, the Vice President of Public Affairs, sent six DFW
firefighters to relieve others at the New Orleans Airport. These
firefighters were Adrian Garcia, Darren Himes, Jacob Evens, Terry Cole,
Dan White and Sullivan McNulty.
I stand here today to sincerely thank the DFW Airport for their hard
work and help during the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. It is people
like them that I am proud to call fellow Texans. Through their
contribution, they not only stand as devoted and giving American
citizens, but they serve as an inspiration to others.
____________________
IN TRIBUTE TO THE LIFE OF BROTHER DELOCH
______
HON. WM. LACY CLAY
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Mr.
Brother Deloch, a constituent of mine and well-beloved and respected
husband of 75 years, father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and uncle.
I was saddened to recently learn of his passing on Friday evening,
October 14, at the age of 97.
Mr. Deloch was born January 20, 1908 in Macon, Mississippi to the
late Mr. Israel and Mrs. Cora (Grey) Deloch. After the death of his
father, Brother Deloch, along with his mother and siblings, moved to
Kinloch, Missouri. During the late 1920's Brother Deloch met Emma Lou
Dailey and on January 22, 1930 they were joined in holy matrimony. He
remained faithfully married his whole life; Brother and Emma Lou had
nine children together. Brother and Emma Lou were together as husband
and wife for 75 years, Mr. Speaker.
Soon after getting married and making it through the great
depression, Brother Deloch worked for several years installing and
repairing motors as an employee of the French, Gerleman Electric
Company. From there, he became a clerk for the Missouri Kansas Texas
(MKT, Katy) Railroad Company and later for the Missouri Pacific
Railroad Company. He retired in 1973 and moved to Mulberry Grove,
Illinois where he played a vital role in developing the infrastructure
of the Royal Lakes Sub-Division. A little over a decade and a half
later he returned to St. Louis where he served the pastor and the
church family of Bostick Temple Church of God in Christ. He also worked
in the Church Pantry and kept up his active and faithful service to the
church and his community until his health began to fail earlier this
year.
Brother Deloch leaves behind Emma Lou, his lovely wife of 75 years,
four sons and three daughters: Marvell Aaron; Mozell Jr; Frederick
Douglas; Walter James; Anetta Bernice Carter; and Annabelle Ireland of
Flint, Michigan, and Anita Louise Hyshaw of St. Louis. He also leaves
behind fourteen marvelous grandchildren, and twenty-four wonderful
great grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I ask those assembled here today to pay tribute to
Brother Deloch and celebrate his long life, his faithful and loving
marriage of seven and half decades, and the family and friends who
remember him with great affection.
____________________
IN HONOR OF MORRIS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF NEW JERSEY
______
HON. RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Morris Habitat
for Humanity of New Jersey, a vibrant organization I am proud to
represent. On October 29, 2005 the Board of Directors celebrates its
Twentieth Anniversary.
Through both volunteer labor and donations of money and materials,
Morris Habitat for Humanity builds and rehabilitates houses in
partnership with families in need. Hundreds of volunteers and partner
families have allowed Morris Habitat for Humanity to provide affordable
homeownership opportunities to low income families. There is no profit
added to the sale price of the home and mortgage payments are returned
to a revolving fund that is used to build more houses.
Morris Habitat for Humanity was formed in 1985 when a group of local
residents traveled to New York City to hear former President Jimmy
Carter and Millard Fuller, the founder of Habitat for Humanity
International, speak at the first Jimmy Carter Work Project. The group
returned and incorporated Morris Habitat for Humanity as a charitable
nonprofit that same year, attaining, affiliate status in 1986.
Since its formation, Morris Habitat for Humanity has completed 26
homes in seven municipalities throughout the 11th Congressional
District. The hard work and efforts donated by private corporations,
non-profit organizations, local governing officials, schools, and
citizens with whom Morris Habitat has built partnerships have
contributed to the benefit of more than 110 individuals of which 70 are
children.
Mr. Speaker, I urge you and my colleagues to join me in
congratulating the members of Morris Habitat for Humanity on the
celebration of its 20 years of service to the Morris County area.
Special praise is due to their dedicated staff and active volunteers
who work cooperatively to provide affordable housing to families in
need.
____________________
IN HONOR OF DR. I. KING JORDAN ON HIS RETIREMENT
______
HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Dr. I. King Jordan upon his
retirement as president of Gallaudet University on December 31, 2006.
Dr. Jordan is an accomplished, respected leader and someone I consider
a personal friend.
Dr. Jordan became the Nation's first deaf university president when
appointed in 1988 and the first deaf president to preside over
Gallaudet University. During his tenure there he has proven to be an
able, caring leader propelling the university forward as well as
becoming a strong advocate for deaf students on the Federal level.
Among his accomplishments, he led the university's first ever capital
campaign, raising nearly $40 million, which supported the construction
of the state-of-the-art Student Academic Center and contributed to the
extraordinary increase in the university's endowment, which paved the
way for an increase in scholarships and more academic programs. He also
established a fellows program to provide support for deaf college
graduates to complete their terminal degrees and become faculty
members.
Dr. Jordan was not only a strong advocate for the Gallaudet
community, but for individuals with disabilities across this Nation.
Another proud accomplishment of Dr. Jordan's is the work he did to
assist with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, in
1990. He was a lead witness in support of the ADA during a joint
session of Congress and delivered significant testimony in Congress and
across the country during the deliberations of this bill.
Before coming to Gallaudet Dr. Jordan's life was filled with many
other accomplishments. A native of Glen Riddle, PA, a small town near
Philadelphia, Dr. Jordan earned a B.A. in psychology from Gallaudet
University and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Psychology from the University
of Tennessee.
Upon receiving his doctorate, Dr. Jordan joined the faculty of
Gallaudet's Department of Psychology. Before his appointment as
President, Dr. Jordan served as Chair of Gallaudet's Psychology
Department and as Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. He has been
a research fellow at Donaldson's School for the Deaf in Edinburgh,
Scotland, and an exchange scholar at Jagiellonian University in Krakow,
Poland.
Dr. Jordan holds 11 honorary degrees and is the recipient of numerous
awards, among them: the Presidential Citizen's Medal, presented by Bill
Clinton in 2001; the Washingtonian of the Year Award; the James L.
Fisher Award from the Council for Advancement and Support of Education,
CASE; the Larry Stewart Award from the American Psychological
Association and the Distinguished Leadership Award from the National
Association for Community Leadership. President George H.W. Bush
appointed Dr. Jordan vice chair of the President's Committee on
Employment of People with Disabilities, PCEPD, in 1990, and President
Clinton reappointed Dr. Jordan to that role in 1993. In the summer of
2005, Dr. Jordan was presented the George Bush Medal for the
Empowerment of People with Disabilities from President George H.W.
Bush.
Mr. Speaker, I wish Dr. Jordan much happiness in his retirement as he
looks forward to traveling with his wife Lynda and spending more time
with his family. His compassion and service will be greatly missed. I
am proud to have had a chance to work with him these past years.
[[Page 24152]]
____________________
SALUTE TO HURRICANE VOLUNTEERS
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. BURGESS, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute those individuals
and organizations that opened their hearts and dedicated both financial
and emotional support to the evacuees of Hurricane Katrina and
Hurricane Rita. All of the States along the gulf coast have endured
terrible hardships during this hurricane season, and I know that the
generosity of North Texans played a vital role in bringing some peace
into their lives.
Today, I want to specifically thank one woman, her organization and
her donation. Bonnie Gardner, from Friends of the Library in Fort
Worth, donated various books for all ages to Hurricane Katrina victims.
Friends of the Fort Worth Library is a non-profit membership
organization which exists to improve the quality of life in the
community by providing advocacy, funding, and volunteer services to the
Library. The organization also serves as a conduit for organizations
and corporations which are restricted from making donations directly to
government entities.
I stand here today to sincerely thank Bonnie Gardner for her
donation. It is people like her that I am proud to call a fellow Texan.
Through her contribution, she not only stands as a devoted and giving
American citizen, but she serves as an inspiration to others.
____________________
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, JEANETTE CANTRELL RUDY
______
HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, Tennesseans have long been known for
giving back more to their community than they take. Jeanette Cantrell
Rudy exemplifies our State's proud tradition of contributing to the
betterment of both community and country.
This year as Jeanette celebrates her 78th birthday, we should take a
moment to recognize her good works and thank her for enriching our
lives.
In 1985, Jeanette helped create and fund the Dan Rudy Cancer Center
at Saint Thomas Hospital in honor of her husband. With her sisters'
help, she honored her parents by founding the Felix A. and Edna L.
Cantrell Endowment Fund. The fund has given nurses the opportunity to
continue their education at Saint Thomas Hospital. As a former nurse,
Jeanette knows just how important nurses are to our quality of life.
It's clear that Jeanette's work has had a tremendous impact on the
lives of people across our State. Her life is a testament to the power
each of us have to help others.
The list of Jeanette's achievements and interests is a long one.
She's a sportswoman, a member of several boards including those serving
the Nashville Zoo and Cumberland University. She's even written a book,
A Bend in the Cumberland, chronicling the history of her longtime home
community in the Pennington Bend area.
It's impossible to capture the many friendships and contributions
Jeanette has been responsible for over the years, but we owe her a debt
of gratitude for choosing to live in and serve our community. All our
best to Jeanette and her family on her 78th birthday.
____________________
REGARDING THE INTRODUCTION OF LEAD LABELING ACT LEGISLATION
______
HON. TOM UDALL
of new mexico
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce an
important piece of legislation designed to strengthen our existing laws
regarding lead in consumer products.
Currently, we have laws that pertain to lead-containing paint and its
many applications. The laws are explicit and focus mainly on the paint
used in public housing around the United States. In the last three
decades we have seen the rate of lead poisoning plummet and than
plateau. These laws, though effective, are specific only to paint. We
must do more to protect our consumers.
That is why I am introducing the Lead Labeling Act of 2005 today, to
direct the Consumer Products Safety Commission to establish regulations
to require the labeling of dishware products sold in the United States
that may contain hazardous amount of lead within them. Labeling these
products will help consumers identify products that are potentially
hazardous to their children through a simple labeling process.
Mr. Speaker, there are many products imported every year and these
imports are a vital part of our economy, but because they are
manufactured outside the United States, they are not subject to the
same stringent regulations that our products must meet. This is a
concern, because many of the products that we eat out of, drink out of,
and cook with are made of materials that contain levels of lead that we
do not normally ingest. These products can release these leads into our
foods and our water and the affects can be very damaging, especially to
the development of our children.
According to the National Institute of Health, lead, even in very low
levels, can have damaging effects on our children. The Center for
Disease Control states that approximately 310,000 U.S. children aged 1-
5 years have blood lead levels greater than the CDC recommended level
of 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. Also, lead can affect
every system in our bodies. It has been linked to learning
disabilities, behavioral problems, and, when our bodies are exposed to
very high levels, lead causes seizures, coma, and even death.
Lead in our products is a concern in our households. Labeling
products containing lead will help ease these concerns and allow
consumers to make more informed decisions. I urge my colleagues in the
House to support this legislation for the health of American consumers.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO VETERANS
______
HON. BEN CHANDLER
of kentucky
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today
to pay tribute to the veterans of this country. November 11, 2005 is
Veteran's Day. On this day, there will be ceremonies across our Nation
honoring the service and sacrifice of the men and women who have served
in our armed forces. In honor of these heroes, there will be a ceremony
at the VA Medical Center on Leestown Road in Lexington, KY.
Kentuckians have always been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice
for their country. Currently, there are more than 370,000 veterans who
call Kentucky home. These men and women have inspired our citizens for
generations. As our men and women continue to return home from battle
in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must honor their service and pay tribute to
those who served before them.
Armistice Day, the original name of Veteran's Day, was established on
the anniversary of the signing of the Armistice, which ended the first
World War. The men and women who sacrificed and served during WWI were
honored and remembered, in hopes that their service would be the last
time American soldiers were called upon for such duties. Regrettably,
our men and women continue to answer the call. Fortunately, our VA
Medical Centers continue to provide the care that our veterans so
desperately need.
It is the spirit of those who work at these centers, the spirit of
the American people and the will of the American armed forces that keep
this country strong. Veteran's Day should serve as a reminder to every
American that our armed forces, both of past and present, are made up
of individuals of great courage, character and honor.
It is our duty to ensure that our children and grandchildren never
forget our country's finest heroes and always know their sacrifice. We
must take the time to pay tribute to our fallen heroes, not just on
Veteran's Day, but everyday. Their sacrifices and those of our military
families are freedom's foundation. Without the brave efforts of all the
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines and their families, our country
would not stand so boldly, shine so brightly and live so freely.
The United States has attained its position of strength and
prosperity thanks to the dedication of our veterans and our armed
forces. No other group of Americans has stood stronger and braver for
our democracy than our troops and veterans. We must always celebrate,
honor and remember these courageous and faithful men and women.
[[Page 24153]]
____________________
SALUTE TO HURRICANE VOLUNTEERS AT JPS HEALTH NETWORK
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute those individuals
and organizations that opened their hearts and dedicated both financial
and emotional support to the evacuees of Hurricane Katrina and
Hurricane Rita. All of the States along the gulf coast have endured
terrible hardships during this hurricane season, and I know that the
generosity of North Texans played a vital role in bringing some peace
into their lives.
Today, I want to specifically thank one company and their donation.
JPS Health Network registered 1011 Hurricane Katrina evacuees and
admitted 230 to the hospital for radiology, lab work, or other
services.
Committed to improving the health of families and individuals in
Tarrant County, JPS Health Network includes John Peter Smith Hospital,
the JPS Institute for Health Career Development, a network of
community-based health centers, home care and psychiatric services at
Trinity Springs Pavilion.
I stand here today to sincerely thank JPS for their help and
donation. It is people like them that I am proud to call fellow Texans.
Through their contribution, they not only stand as devoted and giving
American citizens, but they serve as an inspiration to others.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. MICHAEL M. HONDA
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 25, 2005, I was
unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes on that day.
Had I been present I would have voted the following: ``yea'' on
rollcall vote number 536, the American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act, and
``yea'' on rollcall vote number 537, Recognizing the 40th anniversary
of the White House Fellows Program.
____________________
HONORING SAINT JOHN OF THE CROSS PARISH OF WESTERN SPRINGS, ILLINOIS,
AS THEY CELEBRATE THE 45TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE PARISH
______
HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Catholic
Community of Saint John of the Cross of Western Springs, Illinois on
celebrating their 45th Anniversary of the parish.
St. John of the Cross was created in May 1960 with the appointment of
Rev. William J. Bennett. In September of 1961 the one million dollar
building was completed, which included the living quarters for the
parish priests, the worship space, and the classroom space for 600
students. The parish was built on 5.5 acres of land but over the years
through fundraising, the parish doubled to the present size of 11
acres.
In 1980, Father Bennett retired, and Rev. Joseph McDonnell became the
second pastor of the parish. The parish began to expand through various
programs such as religious education, liturgical ministries, and other
social organizations. Additional space was then needed to accommodate
for the growing number of organizations within the parish, so in 1988,
Father McDonnell and the Parish Council agreed to construct a Parish
Center. This Parish Center included space for daily worship, private
prayer, the day school, religious education, parish meetings, staff
offices, choir rehearsal and many more activities.
After 16 years as pastor, Father McDonnell retired in August of 1996
from the parish. Reverend Richard Hynes, the current pastor, was
appointed by Cardinal Bernardin to succeed Father McDonnell. Father
Hynes has been committed to spreading the awareness of the Catholic
tradition to the parish community.
It is quite obvious that over the 45 years of Saint John of the
Cross, the parish community has grown stronger through their worship,
formation, and charity.
It is my honor to recognize Saint John of the Cross of Western
Springs, Illinois on celebrating 45 years of service to spreading the
Catholic faith throughout the community.
____________________
H.R. 3824, THE THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY ACT
______
HON. HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for Threatened and
Endangered Species Recovery Act, TESRA. This legislation is needed to
make important changes to the Endangered Species Act, ESA, which, after
30 years of implementation, has been unable to return endangered
species to healthy and sustainable populations and has caused turmoil
for landowners and local communities across the country, especially in
my district in California.
As you know, recent U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, FWS, studies
indicate that ESA has successfully recovered less than 1 percent of
species listed in the original law. Frankly, this is far from being an
exemplary model of effective legislation.
TESRA offers a new emphasis on recovery, which will require the
identification of lands important to the conservation and resurgence of
species. The bill provides numerous tools to promote preservation on
private lands without further increasing the size of the federal
estate.
TESRA also lists specific difference to distinguish between
endangered and threatened species. TESRA requires rules, which will
regulate that threatened species be disseminated on a case by case
basis rather than by some overarching rule for all threatened species.
By these requirements, TESRA provides a flexibility that can be central
to effectively promoting conservation.
I would like to commend Chairman Pombo for his efforts in this
legislation and would like to express my full support for the
underlying bill.
____________________
HONORING MR. CHARLES O. WRIGHT FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE OAKLAND CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE
______
HON. SCOTT GARRETT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the duty of promoting,
developing and preserving the economic environment and quality of life
of a community is a personal contribution to the democracy that has
made America the great country it is today. Leaders are looked upon for
advice, ideas and stability to sustain the growth and security of our
communities.
In recognition of the outstanding dedication and personal leadership
to a community, I am pleased to extend my warmest commendation to Mr.
Charles O. Wright for his services to the Oakland Chamber of Commerce
in Oakland, New Jersey.
For the last 25 years, businesses as well as prospective college
students in Oakland, NJ have flourished on his behalf. In 1981, Mr.
Wright was selected to join the Chamber's Board of Directors. Soon
after, he served as Vice President and Treasurer. In 1984, as President
of the Oakland Chamber of Commerce, he established the Chamber
Scholarship, benefiting students of the community. His respected
leadership qualities resulted in his Chairmanship of four Standing
Committees: Scholarship, Membership, Election and Technology.
Mr. Wright has enjoyed a career focused on providing service and
intellect to the Borough of Oakland, NJ. The community will thrive for
years to come because of his leadership and dedication to society.
It is therefore with great honor that I offer my sincerest
appreciation and congratulations to Mr. Charles O. Wright for his
committed service to the Oakland Chamber of Commerce and I wish him a
future filled with continued success.
____________________
LOBBYISTS REPRESENTING REPRESSIVE REGIMES
______
HON. FRANK R. WOLF
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Congressional Record an
article from Harper's Magazine titled ``Spin Doctors without borders:
how one Washington lobbyist administers to dictatorship.''
[[Page 24154]]
Robert Cabelly, managing director of C/R International, was recently
hired to represent the Government of Sudan. As disturbing as this is,
the Harper's article below reveals the lengths that lobbyists will go
to represent some of Africa's most repressive regimes.
The U.S. Congress has not forgotten that genocide is still taking
place in Sudan. The administration should not allow an American citizen
to represent a government guilty of genocide. I call on the State
Department to immediately revoke the waiver allowing this lobbying to
continue.
[From Harper's Magazine, Mar. 1, 2004]
Spin Doctors Without Borders: How One Washington Lobbyist Administers
to Dictatorship
(By Elisabeth Eaves)
Lobbyists in Washington, D.C., don't just serve such U.S.
interests as the oil industry and the tobacco corporations;
they also solicit work from foreign governments. In an
extreme, though not uncommon scenario, Americans, many of
them former diplomats and public servants, make their
fortunes by advancing the interests of dictatorships against
those of their own nation. Take Robert Cabelly, managing
director of the lobbying and P.R. from C/R International, who
last August signed a contract with the small African nation
of Equatorial Guinea. Cabelly has every reason to expect that
he will succeed in preventing any sanctions the U.S. Congress
might wish to impose on Equatorial Guinea and in other ways
shaping American policy to the liking of this repressive
regime.
Equatorial Guinea, governed by President Teodoro Obiang
Nguema Mbasogo, might seem like a public-relations problem.
In 2002 more than 150 of the president's political opponents
were arrested for allegedly plotting a coup. Blindfolded for
long periods, some of the prisoners were hung in positions
designed to break their bones, and at least two died. A
democracy only in name (the president ``won'' 97 percent of
the vote in 2002), Equatorial Guinea did little to improve
its human-rights record in 2003, during which a journalist
was detained for reporting rumors of a coup, an outspoken
pastor was arrested without charges, and an opposition-party
member was moved to solitary confinement, chained to a wall,
and denied badly needed medical care. But Washington, as well
as ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco, now has an interest in trade
with Equatorial Guinea: oil was discovered offshore there in
1995, making it the third largest petroleum producer in
Africa.
Cabelly's firm, C/R International, may have won its
contract with Equatorial Guinea because of its service to
African nations with even more oil. In 1995, after Sani
Abacba, then dictator of Nigeria, executed nine prominent
political activists, members of the U.S. House and Senate
introduced bills laying the groundwork for an international
oil embargo. Africa's top oil producer fought back by hiring
nine U.S. lobbying and P.R. firms, including C/R (to which
Base Petroleum, owned by Abachals son, paid an estimated $1
million). The bills died, and only trifling penalties against
the regime--limiting sales of military equipment and
restricting visas for senior officials--were enacted. From
1996 to 2002, C/R received $6 million from Angola. In 2001
the United States gave Angola $2.8 million in military
assistance, a marked increase from $0 in the previous three
years and a total of $200,000 between 1962 and 1997. While C/
R served Angola, the government's troops beat and raped
civilians, and killed suspected rebel sympathizers.
Because of its sudden oil wealth, Equatorial Guinea has the
world's fastest-growing economy, but the nation qualifies as
``stable'' only in that President Obiang has ruled since
1979, when he overthrew and executed his even more despotic
uncle. While most of its citizens earn about $1 a day,
President Obiang neglects infrastructure and misappropriates
oil revenue in favor of lavish personal expenditures. (He
recently paid $2.6 million in cash for a mansion near
Washington, D.C.) As the United States tries to reduce its
dependence on the Middle East, African oil has taken on
greater geopolitical significance. Because of work by C/R and
others, Washington will likely continue to ignore the fact
that Africa's oil producers are ruled by dictatorships that
continually violate human rights.
For Cabelly, daily contact with U.S. officials includes
talking to old colleagues from his years at the State,
Department, where he helped to negotiate the 1994 peace
agreement between Angola and its UNITA rebels. Many lobbyists
have worked previously in public service: in 1997, Burma
hired Jefferson Waterman International, a firm run by former
assistant secretary of state far international narcotics Ann
Wrobleski in an unsuccessful attempt to end U.S. trade
sanctions. (Since 1997, Burma has been one of the top two
producers of opium in the world.) With his connections,
Cabelly may urge the Bush Administration to grant Equatorial
Guinea preferential trade status and will likely lobby the
State Department to issue MPRI, a Virginia-based military
contractor, the license it has been seeking to train the
Equatoguinean military. His work for the country began on a
promising note: in October, two months after the deal between
Equatorial Guinea and C/R, the U.S. embassy in Malabo
reopened after being shuttered far eight years.
C/R's fee of $300,000 is a small price to pay far favorable
U.S. policy. In 2002, payments to the lobbyists and P.R.
firms registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act--a
total of $408 million--covered a range of projects, from
touting Caribbean beaches to urging the removal of sanctions
against pariah nations. Oil-industry insiders and excited
energy experts have nicknamed Equatorial Guinea ``the Kuwait
of Africa'' for its tiny population (500,000) and its vast
oil reserves (1.1 billion barrels). Perhaps Cabelly will be
so successful as to further the parallel. In 1990 and 1991,
Citizens for a Free Kuwait, funded by the emir's government,
paid Hill & Knowlton a record $10.8 million over six months
to create a media and lobbying campaign widely credited with
convincing the U.S. public that its soldiers should defend
the tiny, distant monarchy. As long as the dictatorship in
Equatorial Guinea finds lobbyists to take its oil money, it
has every reason to expect preferential trade policies, if
not, one day, U.S. troops to defend it.
____________________
HONORING AMERICA'S FALLEN HEROES
______
HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO
of guam
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to somberly note the 2,000th
death of an American servicemember in Iraq. Having reached this
unwelcome milestone, I realize that the important number, however, is
and remains, one. Each loss of a servicemember in Iraq is a loss to one
unit, to one family, to one mother and one father and it is a loss we
all suffer together as one Nation. Each loss represents the supreme
sacrifice of one more American hero, a hero that now stands forever
alongside the American heroes who gave their lives in forging this
great Nation in the war of independence, that preserved our Union in
the Civil War, that defeated the fascists and the Nazis in World War II
and that fought communism in Korea and Vietnam. Among these men and
women we honor today are four from my community in Guam. These four
fallen heroes are a reflection of our island's patriotism, valor and
sacrifice. I mark this new milestone with great sadness but take
comfort in knowing that another generation of Americans, included among
them another generation of Guam's sons and daughters, has answered the
call of duty to protect freedom and the American way of life. We owe a
deep gratitude to these fallen men and women and to their families. May
God bless them and may God bless our country.
____________________
THE INTRODUCTION OF A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE LIFE AND WORKS OF
WELLINGTON MARA
______
HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of fellow
Fordham University alumnus Wellington Timothy Mara, who succumbed to
cancer yesterday at the age of 89. To football fans in the New York/New
Jersey Metropolitan Area, Mara is synonymous with our beloved New York
Giants, and has been for decades.
Born in New York City on August 14, 1916, Mara was introduced to
professional football in 1925, when his father purchased the rights to
establish a team in New York. It was that year that Mara had his first
job with the Giants, as a ball boy. He would later recount a story from
that inaugural season of overhearing head coach Robert Folwell telling
his team to ``give them hell out there.'' It was at that moment that 9-
year-old Mara realized what a tough game football must be, and fell in
love with the game forever.
In 1930, Timothy Mara, Wellington's father, gave the team to his two
sons, Jack, 22, and Wellington, who was just 14. He became the youngest
owner in the league.
In the late 1930's, Wellington Mara attended Fordham University. By
now an avid football fan, Mara befriended many of the university's
football players. At that time, Fordham was a formidable national
powerhouse, at one point winning 25 straight games. It was here Mara
befriended legendary player, coach and fellow NFL Hall of Famer Vince
Lombardi.
Upon graduation in 1937, Mara joined the New York Giants operation
full-time. With his brother in charge of the business, Wellington
[[Page 24155]]
Mara soon took control of the player personnel decisions. In this role
he drafted or traded for some of the all time great NFL players. He
integrated the Giants at a time when much of the league remained all-
white. He drafted running back Frank Gifford and Roosevelt Brown and
traded for quarterback Y.A. Tittle, all future Hall of Famers. He was
the architect of the dominant Giants teams of 1958-1963 when they
appeared in five NFL championship games, winning one championship. The
first of these championship appearances in 1958 is known as ``the
greatest game ever played,'' against the Baltimore Colts, the NFL's
first ever sudden death overtime in a championship game.
During World War II Mara joined the United States Navy. He served
honorably in both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters, earning the rank
of Lieutenant Commander.
In the early 1960's, Jack and Wellington Mara agreed to give up
lucrative television revenue and allow it to be equally split among all
NFL teams. As the owners of the most valuable team in the league at the
time, their decision to put the good of the entire league above their
self-interest set the league on a path to the enormous prosperity it is
enjoying today.
When the Giants hit lean times during the 1970's, Mara placed most of
the blame on himself. To respond he hired George Young as General
Manager, who then was the architect of the dominant Giants' teams of
the late 1980's. These teams won Super Bowl XXI (1987) and Super Bowl
XXV (1991). Young won five NFL Executive of the Year awards in his 19
seasons with the Giants.
All told, in Mara's 81 years with the Giants, they appeared in 26
postseasons, won 16 division championships and six NFL titles. Those
six championships represent the third most of any franchise, behind
only the Green Bay Packers and the Chicago Bears.
In addition to his service to the Giants, Mara also worked hard for
the league as a whole to ensure collective prosperity. He served on the
league's Competition Committee, the Hall of Fame Committee, and the
Executive Committee, including a term as chairman from 1971-1977. He
has been widely lauded by his fellow owners for his invaluable service
to the league.
In 1971-72, Fordham University inducted Mara into their Athletic Hall
of Fame. Mara has continued his close ties to the university throughout
his life, and in 2002 he was honored at the Fordham Founder's dinner,
the university's highest honor.
In 1997 Mara was inducted into the National Football League Hall of
Fame, an honor he reluctantly accepted. He was a strong advocate of
leaving the Hall of Fame for just players and coaches, insisting it was
they, and not owners, who made the game great.
Wellington Mara served his community as a member of the board of the
Giants Foundation, a charitable organization founded by the New York
Giants involved with providing financial and social support for
disadvantaged youth in the New York/New Jersey Metropolitan Area.
Mr. Speaker, I would 1ike to offer my deepest condolences to his wife
of 61 years Ann, his 11 children and 40 grandchildren.
Today I am proud to have introduced a House Resolution honoring the
life and work of Wellington Timothy Mara. I respectfully urge that all
my colleagues join me in paying our respects, and offer their support
for this resolution.
____________________
EULOGY FOR KENNY SWYGERT
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will be attending the funeral of
Kenny Swygert, beloved husband of my long-time staff assistant and
friend, Brenda. I submit to the record the remarks I will be making at
the service.
At times such as this we find that words can never adequately provide
a true expression of the sympathy we feel, and words seem so unlikely
to provide comfort, but we gathered here this morning to show Brenda
and her family that we are grieving with you over the loss of your
beloved Kenny.
Having known Kenny from the time Brenda met him, and remembering that
it was in my first Congressional office that they met due to the
matchmaking efforts of brother Pat, I have always felt partly
responsible for the success of their marriage, and, Brenda, you two
found such happiness together that I came to believe that your marriage
was one of the best things I have ever been a part of.
Over the years Brenda and Kenny have defined a good marriage for me
and for all who know them, so we know how difficult this loss will be
for you, Brenda, and how difficult it will be for you to be without
your life partner.
Please know that your many friends, and all of those whose lives you
and Kenny have touched over the years, are with you in spirit at this
time of sorrow and that you and your family are in our thoughts and
prayers.
I believe that it is often the case that those who work with someone
on a daily basis have a very good opportunity to know of the quality of
a marriage. It is on a daily basis that one has, particularly in a
small Congressional office, to see what the people with whom you work
are experiencing in their lives away from the office. With Brenda, I
could tell that she was married to a man who supported her and enabled
her to devote herself to the demands of a Congressional career as well
as give of herself to friends and family as generously as she has over
the years.
And give of herself Brenda has, so much so that I knew Kenny must be
a wonderfully supportive husband to tolerate her missing so many
evenings at home while she was working late with me. I have benefited
so much over the years from Brenda's professionalism and dedication
that I haven't thought enough of thanking Kenny for allowing her to be
as devoted as she is.
When Brenda was sick a couple of years we were able to see the kind
of love and support that Kenny provided and how his prayers and his
strength and determination that she survive was a force that encouraged
and sustained Brenda in her fight to breathe and restore her health. We
all worried about the illness that threatened her life and the capacity
of her doctors and medicine to overcome it, but we had absolutely no
worry about Brenda's will to live and her fighting spirit and that she
was not alone because Kenny was there fighting with her.
Brenda, I hope that you and your family will be comforted at this
time by the memories of the many good times you shared and by the
knowledge that you were able to care for and comfort him at the end of
his life, at his side as he was with you. By being with him as he
passed you truly fulfilled your wedding vow ``until death do us part.''
I once heard a Pastor of a younger congregation, who counseled many
couples before marriage and continue in touch with them through a
Married Couples club in the church, tell the story of the death of an
elderly male member of cancer and saw at his bedside at the moment of
his death his wife beside him holding his hands, mopping his brow, and
giving him comfort. He said to the young people that evening that he
knew there were many good ways for a marriage to begin, but there was
no better way for a marriage to end.
I know, however, that what is important to you and your family at
this time is that Kenny has been taken from you. May God give you the
strength and courage at this time of sorrow to help you bear your
burden of grief, and may He strengthen your faith in the resurrection
promised by Jesus to provide hope of reunion in Heaven.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
______
HON. EMANUEL CLEAVER
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Breast
Cancer Awareness Month and the brave survivors of this disease. The
statistics for breast cancer are staggering. One out of every eight
women in the United States will be diagnosed with breast cancer in
their lifetime, and 1 out of every 229 women in their 30s will be
affected by the disease at some point in their lives. The unfortunate
truth behind these numbers is that there is a limited amount of
information available on women under 35 with breast cancer. The general
sentiment is that women in their 20s and 30s are too young to contract
the illness, but the reality is that women of this age are not immune.
Four young women have shared their stories of survival with each
other as part of a support group called Nordie's at Noon, and they
recently published a book of the same name documenting their stories.
These women were in the first stages of their lives when they were
diagnosed with breast cancer, and their stories, although different,
are bound together by a common challenge. These courageous women are
Patti Balwanz, Kim Carlos, Jennifer Johnson, and Jana Peters.
Patti Balwanz fought a long and brave battle against breast cancer.
She was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24, while working as
an IT consultant. Her cancer metastasized to her bones, lungs and
liver, but
[[Page 24156]]
she used her experience to educate women about the disease. Patti
stayed active in breast cancer awareness outlets during her treatment
by serving as a Board Officer of the Ribbons of Pink Foundation and
being honored with the foundation's ``You Are an Inspiration'' award.
Patti also continued her education by receiving a Bachelor of Arts
degree trom Southwest Missouri State University and remaining active in
the Alpha Sigma Alpha sorority. Until her death in 2003, Patti
continued to educate women about breast cancer while bravely facing her
own fight.
Kim Carlos was diagnosed with breast cancer during the planning of
her son's second birthday party. After three years of extensive
treatment including eight rounds of chemotherapy, a mastectomy with
breast reconstruction, and treatments for lymphedema, Kim is now
cancer-free. Currently Kim serves as President of the Board for the
Greater Kansas City Affiliate of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer
Foundation, and she was recently selected to serve on the Komen
National Public Policy Council. Kim is also a member of the American
Cancer Society State Advocacy Committee. She has been honored by
Lifetime Television and SELF Magazine for her efforts in educating
women about breast cancer. Kim now focuses on advocacy full-time with
her business, K.C. Consulting, where her focus is governmental and
public relations and grassroots avocacy.
While five months pregnant with her first child, Jennifer Johnson was
diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 27. Her treatment involved
chemotherapy and a mastectomy during her pregnancy. Jennifer completed
her final chemotherapy treatment in 2000, and the next day delivered a
healthy baby boy, Parker Matthew. Three years later, Jennifer had a
daughter, Emma Grace, and she has been cancer-free for six years.
Jennifer is active in several breast cancer advocacy groups including
the American Cancer Society, the Susan G. Komen Association, the
Ribbons of Pink Foundation, and the Pregnant with Cancer organization.
Jana Peters was 27 and engaged to be married when she received her
breast cancer diagnosis. She has undergone several treatments since
then including a mastectomy and chemotherapy. In 1999 Jana founded the
Ribbons of Pink Foundation, a non-profit organization with the goal of
promoting breast health and serving as a support for young breast
cancer survivors. She is a member of the United Methodist Church of the
Resurrection, and she is a volunteer for several breast cancer
organizations and events. Jana continues her career in the clinical
research industry in San Francisco, where she resides with her husband
Chris.
We celebrate these courageous women who have battled breast cancer
and those who continue their fight against this illness. Breast cancer
survivors and supporters gather to raise awareness and encourage the
access of information for breast cancer in young women. Thank you to
Patti, Kim, Jennifer and Jana for sharing their stories of bravery and
determination.
____________________
THE 9/11 COMMISSION FINAL REPORT ONE YEAR LATER
______
HON. CYNTHIA McKINNEY
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to enter the following into the
Congressional Record:
The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later
A CITIZENS' RESPONSE: DID THE COMMISSION GET IT RIGHT?
A Congressional Briefing Convened on the First Anniversary of the
Release of the 9/11 Commission Report, Friday, July 22, 2005
EXCERPTS FROM THE TESTIMONY
Opening Remarks: Rep. Cynthia McKinney:
9/11 Families Report
Lorie Van Auken, 9/11 Family Steering Committee ``Unanswered
Questions and The Call for Accountability''
Behind the 9/11 Commission: Flaws in the Process
John Judge, staff and 9/11 Citizens Watch: ``Staff Report--A
Citizens' Critique''
Mel Goodman, former CIA, Center for International Policy:
``Conflicts of Interest--A Commission Investigates
Itself''
Omissions and Errors in the Commission's Final Report
Paul Thompson, author of Terror of Timeline, ``NORAD/FAA, P-
56 Responses, Pre-9/11 Exercises''
John Newman, former NSA: ``The $100,000 Transfer--Pakistan
ISI, bin Laden and U.S. Intelligence''
9/11 in Historical Perspective: Flawed Assumptions
Loretta Napolione, author of Modern Jihad: ``The Underground
World of Terrorist Financing''
Anne Norton, author of Leo Strauss & the Politics of American
Empire: ``The Rise of the Neo-Conservatives''
Peter Dale Scott, author of Drugs, Oil & War: ``Deep
Politics: Contragate, Drug, Oil, Covert Operations &
Terrorism''
Nafeez Ahmen, author of The War of Truth, ``Afghanistan
Mujahedin--Covert Operations, Creating Terrorism''
Foreign Policy: Immediate Response and Recommendations
Wayne Smith, former diplomat, Center on International Policy,
``The End of International Law?''
Bob McIlvaine, September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows,
Alternatives to Pax Americana and Permanent War
Domestic Policy: Immediate Response and Recommendations
Elaine Cassel, author of The War on Civil Liberties
Rebecca Daugherty, Reporters Committee on Freedom of the
Press: ``The Rise of Secrecy After 9/11''
William Michaels, author of No Greater Threat, ``The Patriot
Act--Sunset of Freedom?''
Intelligence Reform: Immediate Response and Recommendations
David MacMichael, former CIA: ```The Wall': Breaking Down the
Division of Intelligence, Military and Law Enforcement''
John Nutter, author of The CIA's Black Operations, ``Covert
Operations and Increased Intelligence Budget--Solution or
Cause?''
Opening Remarks
Rep. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Last year, we got the final report,
an extensive, prosaically impressive report, but as some of
us sat down to read it, the errors and omissions immediately
jumped out at us. How was it that it took over an hour after
the first transponder went off before planes were scrambled
to meet the threat, all of them too late? What happened to
those reports that surfaced within months of September 11th
stating that seven or more of the alleged hijackers had come
forward and claimed they were victims of stolen identities
and were alive and well, living in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and
Tunisia? Why did the Commission choose not even to address
this? What about Osama bin Laden and his role in the
Mujahedin backed by the CIA in the 1980s to fight the
Soviets? The Commission didn't go there . . . We cannot
afford to shy away from inconvenient truths. Many of you may
find what you hear today to be inconvenient information. Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. said the ultimate measure of a man is
not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience,
but times of challenge and controversy. I encourage you to
engage with the issues that are raised. If you don't agree or
don't like what you hear, challenge it. I believe that we
should take in what every reasonable person has to say, to
inform our decisions, because that is the best way to find
the truth. In our pursuit of the truth, I encourage you to
emulate the courage and the determination of the September
11th families in their struggle to know what really happened.
9/11 Families Report
Ms. LORIE VAN AUKEN: A thorough and definitive
investigation by the Commission . . . would have subpoenaed
for the information it required and examined the plethora of
information that other citizens and groups responsibly
provided. . . . it would have reported all of its findings
with its redactions blacked out and submitted to the American
people. In essence, the Commission could have produced a
final product where the resulting conclusions and
recommendations could be trusted. Instead, at the end of the
day, what we got were some statements that truly insulted the
intelligence of the American people, violated our loved ones'
memories, and might end up hurting us one day soon.
One such statement was that 9/11 was a failure of
imagination: a failure of whose imagination? What exactly
does that mean? When you have a CIA Director with his hair on
fire, a system blinking red, 52 FAA warnings, an August 6,
2001 PDB entitled ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the
United States,'' leads on several 9/11 hijackers . . .
warnings from many foreign governments, a Phoenix memo,
warning of Islamic extremists taking flying lessons, the
arrest of would-be terrorists Zacarias Moussaoui, facts
imparted to one agent, Agent Frasca, at the RFU of the FBI,
9/11 was truly a failure, all right, but I would certainly
not call it a failure of imagination. Another outrageous
statement made at the time of the release of the 9/11 final
report that got a fair amount of media coverage was the one
``Everyone's to blame, therefore, no one's to blame.'' The
problem with that assumption is that it creates a no fault
Government, and a no fault Government does nothing to ensure
that things will be different or better in the future. When
you hold people accountable, it serves as a deterrent for
those that would repeat that same behavior in the future. For
the record, I would like to see that
[[Page 24157]]
assumption restated to read ``Everyone's to blame, therefore,
everyone's to blame.'' In fact, the fact that there has been
no accountability for the failures that led to the deaths of
almost 3,000 people is truly unconscionable and irresponsible
on the part of all of our nation's leaders. The tools of
democracy available to the citizens of America to address
these issues are incredibly limited. We asked for an
independent commission to investigate 9/11 because that was
the only tool that we, as American citizens, had access to,
and hoped that our leaders, the members of Congress and the
American public, would ensure its validity and that its
ensuing recommendations would make us all safer, as safe as
we could reasonably expect to be in the event of another
attack. Sadly, as Americans, we have all been let down.
Behind the 9/11 Commission: Flaws in the Process
Mr. JOHN JUDGE: This Commission's report is not a rush to
judgment. It's rather a rush to exoneration. It fails to
really hold people to accountability . . . By approaching the
whole matter as an intelligence failure in the report, it
obscured the evidence that what was normally a standard
operating procedure in the period prior to 9/11 fell apart,
apparently, in the months around and on that day. It led to
them pursuing leads and suspects, basically accepting earlier
reports without doing further follow up, blaming certain
suspects, even though the evidence is we don't yet clearly
know who the suspects were that got onto the plane, and
that's because several people have come forward saying that
their identity was stolen, basically, by these people. We are
left with a story that comes from people that we can't get
to, and we are left with a story that perhaps is giving us
the wrong direction in terms of how we are looking. Until we
open up the report and until we can look at the actual
evidence and compare it, and begin to actually investigate
further on many of the areas that the Commission ignored,
then we have a report that doesn't eventually serve the
mandate that this Commission was required to take care of,
looking at the truth of terrorist acts upon the United
States.
Mr. MELVIN GOODMAN: The most important individual to me,
other than a commissioner, was the staff director, Philip
Zelikow. His conflicts of interest were so great that you do
have to wonder why this individual was appointed to head this
important staff of over 80 people. He had very strong ties to
the George Herbert Walker Bush Administration. Very strong
personal and political and policy ties to Condoleezza Rice.
More importantly, Philip Zelikow was running the case study
program at Harvard which took millions of dollars from the
Central Intelligence Agency over a ten year period to write
case studies on the CIA, to establish a record that was
essentially untrue with the facts about the work of the CIA.
Of course, the classic case study that Philip Zelikow
chaired, along with Ernest May, who was his patron at the
Harvard Kennedy School, was the case on the Soviet Union, how
the CIA got it right. You know, the politics of getting it
right. Of course, as we all know, one of the greatest
disasters of politicization of intelligence that occurred
even before the Iraq war was over the politicization of
intelligence on the Soviet Union. Who did Philip Zelikow
bring into the staff structure as a team leader on his staff?
None other than Douglas MacEachin, who was serving a tour up
at the Harvard Kennedy School. Who was Douglas MacEachin?
Douglas MacEachin was the head of the Soviet analysis job
during the 1980s . . . responsible for most of the
politicization of intelligence. Here you have Philip Zelikow
from Harvard and the case study program, and Douglas
MacEachin, as a team leader on Zelikow's staff, making
serious decisions about the need for change within the
intelligence community.
Omissions and Errors in the Commission's Final Report
Mr. PAUL THOMPSON: The 9/11 Commission claims it wasn't
until 9:20 when Indianapolis communicated with the FAA
command center and notified them that Flight 77 was missing,
and then the information started to get out to other command
centers, but still, NORAD wasn't notified. We are talking
over half an hour later, the plane has been missing, still no
one notifies NORAD, until finally 9:34, three minutes before
the plane crashes, and then it was only mentioned
inadvertently in passing when talked about with something
else.
In order for this to be true, the 9/11 Commission is making
the claim essentially that the Indianapolis flight control
center and the local FAA center that they contacted were in
complete lack of contact with the outside world during this
time, that they were unaware, unlike the tens of millions of
people who had been watching CNN, that there was an ongoing
crisis, that planes had crashed into the World Trade Center,
two planes. They are saying that all the way until 9:20,
there has been over half an hour now where this has been the
breaking news, that nobody in this entire Indianapolis flight
control center or the FAA center had any idea that any of
this had been happening.
We know that just isn't true. In fact, there was one news
report saying that other centers such as theirs had been
notified of the crisis long before the first plane even
crashed into the World Trade Center. What we see is an
account coming from the 9/11 Commission that in my opinion is
just frankly impossible.
Mr. JOHN NEWMAN: An FBI team working with cell phone
numbers provided by Indian intelligence uncovered a new
smoking gun. They learned that the chief of the ISI, Mahmood
Ahmed, had ordered Saeed Sheikh to send $100,000 of the
kidnapping ransom to Mohamed Atta a month before the 9/11
attacks. This ugly detail emerged when the FBI team ran
traces on Saeed Sheikh's cell phone number beginning in July;
the ISI chief's number was among the regular people that
Saeed Sheikh communicated with. On October 7th, President
Musharraf sacked Ahmed for this notorious act. This story was
widely covered in the press around the world, not covered
here in the United States . . . It's hard to imagine a
revelation more damaging than the fact that Pakistan's
intelligence service and most powerful Army commanders were
behind the 9/11 attacks and the paymaster, a known terrorist
who had been able to carry out his mission because the U.S.
and U.K. had set aside justice for his crimes . . . that a
sovereign government and supposed ally was so directly
involved in the 9/11 atrocity must have stunned and deeply
embarrassed the American Administration . . . The story of
Saeed Sheikh and the generals are only lightly covered in
western media, and only one American newspaper, the Wall
Street Journal, carried it on October 10th.
The 9/11 Commission report which carries Mustafa al-Hawsawi
as the paymaster and Sheikh Saeed as the al-Qaeda CFO, has
dodged the issue, and does not say if the two are the same or
not. Thus, technically, even if the Commission staff knew the
truth, they have not told a bald lie. The Administration
officials speak on terms of anonymity and were told that the
Justice Department had pressed the National Security Council
to have Saeed Sheikh extradited. One might be justified in
asking the question why would the National Security Council
have to be pressed to extradite a murderer of U.S. citizens?
By late February [2002], the issue was moot. Pearl was
murdered, and Musharraf swore he would personally hang him
[for Pearl's murder] before turning him over to the
Americans, unlike Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-
Shibh, whom he did turn over. Of course, they had not been
western penetrators of al-Qaeda . . . We can no longer say we
are protecting sources and methods about a story known to the
rest of this planet. We are now mocked for our ignorance
about this story, and even members of Britain's Parliament
poke fun at us. It is long past time to come clean about
Saeed Sheikh.
9/11 in Historical Perspective: Flawed Assumptions
Ms. LORETTA NAPOLIONE: . . . we need to implement a forward
looking anti-terrorist policy, one which predicts the enemy's
next move. . . . a forward looking anti terrorist financing
policy should look at the situation in Congo, isolated as a
potential area where terrorist financing could take place. In
order to prevent that, it should dismantle this business of
smuggling gold . . . Of course, a forward looking approach in
the fight against terrorism will require the full
participation of the private sector, and a multilateral
policy. One country alone, not even if it is the United
States, can actually fight this war on terror alone. Among
other things, this policy, if implemented, will then cut the
link between crime and terror. Terror will not any longer be
a very profitable partner for crime. Breaking the link
between crime and terror would already be a step forward,
which you have not yet made.
Ms. ANNE NORTON: Neoconservative foreign policy centers on
a fear of world government and the international institutions
that might lead to it, most notably, the United Nations, a
rejection of multilateralism, and as they say, above all, the
ability to distinguish friends from enemies. . . Europeans
regard neoconservatism with special skepticism, and they do
so, as you might have already realized, because they know its
progenitors all too well, the desire for the combination of
traditional values, the desire for an expansion of executive
power, the ambition to create a new world order, and the
identification of a providential enemy are all parts of a
very familiar past, the shadows of German national socialism
and 19th Century European empires fall very heavily on the
neo conservative project. As the Administration responded to
9/11, this influence became increasingly evident.
Mr. PETER DALE SCOTT: The 9/11 report describes Ali Mohamed
as ``a former Egyptian Army officer who had moved to the
United States in the mid 1980s, enlisted in the U.S. Army,
and became an instructor at Ft. Bragg, as well as helping to
plan the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya.'' In fact, Ali
Mohamed was a very important al Qaeda agent who, as the 9/11
Commission was told, ``trained most of the al Qaeda's top
leadership, including persons who would later carry out the
1993 World Trade Center bombing.'' Ali Mohamed clearly
enjoyed U.S. protection. In 1993, he was detained by the RCMP
in Canada, and a single phone call to the United States
secured his release. This
[[Page 24158]]
enabled him to play a role in the same year in planning the
bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya in 1998. Eventually, he
was allowed to plea bargain and receive a secret sentence. We
don't know what the sentence is . . . The amazing thing,
although he was named as a conspirator in that bombing, he
was not an indicted conspirator, which itself is evidence of
something going on behind the scene. Congress should
determine the true relationship of the U.S. Government to Ali
Mohamed, who was close to Bin Laden and above all, al
Zawahiri, who has been called the main player in 9/11. This
is very important, I think, whereas the report focuses almost
uniquely on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin Al Shibh.
Many other sources independently say the main figure and the
top brains in al Qaeda was al Zawahiri, who Ali Mohamed was
clearly close to.
Mr. NAFEEZ AHMED: In April 1991, according to a classified
U.S. intelligence report, then head of Saudi Intelligence
Services, Prince Turki al Faisel, struck a secret deal with
Bin Laden, despite his being under house arrest for his
opposition to the presence of U.S. soldiers. Under this deal,
although the regime would publicly disown him, Bin Laden was
permitted to leave Saudi Arabia with his funding and
supporters. Moreover, the regime would continue to fund his
activities on the condition that he does not target the Saudi
kingdom himself. Posner's accounts of a secret agreement
between Bin Laden and Saudi intelligence is significant
because he argues this was known to U.S. intelligence, this
wasn't something that we didn't know. Levivier also
interviewed a CIA analyst about the role of the Mujahedin.
This CIA agent said ``The policy of guiding the evolution of
Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked
marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red army. The
same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains
of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese
influence in Central Asia.'' When I read this, I was quite
surprised. Could this really be possible?
Suffice it to say in conclusion, this is a phenomenon I
have discovered to be paraded throughout many regions in the
Middle East and Central Asia. It is a very worrying
phenomenon. It fundamentally challenges the whole paradigm of
the war on terror. If we are allying ourselves in some manner
with al Qaeda in this rather direct way, how can we fight a
war and win? It just doesn't make any sense.
Foreign Policy: Immediate Response and Recommendations
Mr. WAYNE SMITH: The 9/11 Commission report says that the
United States should engage its friends to develop a common
coalition approach toward the detention and humane treatment
of captured terrorists. New principles might draw upon
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions on the law of armed
conflict. That article was specifically designed for those
cases in which the usual laws of war did not apply. In other
words, these cases in which our Government tells us the
Geneva Conventions don't apply. The minimum standards are
generally accepted throughout the world as customary
international law. What does Article 3 call for? Well, among
other things, it prohibits outrages . . . upon personal
dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.
All these practices of stripping the prisoners naked, putting
women's underwear or perhaps even men's underwear on their
heads, is degrading treatment. It is prohibited by
international law. . . . I'm not ageless, but I have lived a
long time, and I don't remember ever having been ashamed of
what we were doing to foreign prisoners. In World War II, we
treated prisoners well, let's say soldiers. Even German spies
arrested in the United States were not treated in a degrading
manner . . . This is not an intelligent way to proceed in our
struggle against terrorism. We ought to get back to full
respect for international law, and fully humane treatment of
all prisoners, without any exception.
Mr. ROBERT McILVAINE: I had an unbelievable opportunity to
go to Bogota. I haven't flown since 9/11. Not that I'm
necessarily afraid, but I just won't fly. I've learned too
much about the shoe bomber. I'm just not going to leave the
country. Bogota, they have an international conference on
violence and terrorism, and they called me to speak down
there. I decided to do it. There were probably about 2,000
people in the auditorium, the first two rows were all
victims. 13 year olds with legs missing. Burn victims. I had
dinner with one burn victim, 75 percent of her body, an
African/Colombian. She lost her three children and her
husband. I said, I feel sorry for myself sometimes. That
woman could sit there and laugh with me, because you have a
bond with people who have suffered. That is what we have to
think about. It's the civilians, the 25,000 civilians in Iraq
that have died, and 500,000 people in Iraq that have died in
the 1990s. What is this foreign policy that we have? We talk
about Pax Americana. In Latin, does that not mean American
peace? Have we perpetrated peace in this world? Have we,
since 1945? I think not.
Domestic Policy: Immediate Response and Recommendations
Ms. ELAINE CASSEL: Four years since September 11th, almost
four years, and one year since the 9/11 Commission's report,
critical infrastructures and resources are unprotected, and
protections are unplanned, as far as I know. Co-Chair of the
panel, Lee Hamilton, mentioned that this morning in a press
briefing. He was very frustrated by that, and he mentioned
these are difficult tasks to take on. Yes . . . it's hard to
try to assess the risk to our critical infrastructure and to
intervene and prevention . . . It's easy to open a file on
demonstrators against the Administration's policies and
conduct surveillance on the ACLU and Greenpeace, as the
Washington Post reported last week. I seriously doubt that
the ACLU and Greenpeace are terrorist organizations. In fact,
if they were, the Government would have shut them down. Why
are we paying the FBI's counterterrorism unit to amass
thousands of files on these organizations and individuals?
Mr. C. WILLIAM MICHAELS: I still do not think the case has
been made that civil liberties of any sort must be
compromised so we can get to the bottom of what terrorist
conspiracies may or may not be operating within the United
States. All of this plus the scope and approach of the 9/11
Commission recommendations, which deal with everything from
the FBI, passports, driver's licenses, airline passengers,
brings me to the final points. And that is the effect we may
be seeing as these varied parallel developments, including,
of course, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
situation in military commissions in Camp Delta, Guantanamo
Bay, which continue to unfold as we dispense with the legal
preliminaries, and U.S. citizens held as enemy combatants,
come to a single point, which should be considered as we
continue with this national debate as what might be on the
horizon at that point. Here they are, 12 common
characteristics of a national security state:
1. Visible increase in uniformed security personnel.
2. Lack of civil accountability for the actions of law
enforcement and security personnel.
3. Reduced role of the judiciary and executive treatment of
suspects.
4. Secrecy of ruling authority and momentum of the threat.
5. Media in the service of the state.
6. Public and national resources called to service against
security threat.
7. Patriotism moving to nationalism.
8. Lack of critical response by religious denominations.
9. War time mentality and permanent war economy.
10. Targeted individuals or groups.
11. Direct attack against dissent.
12. Increased surveillance of citizenry.
Intelligence Reform: Immediate Response and Recommendations
Mr. DAVID MacMICHAEL: The quote I want to give you is from
a book written by a very interesting man, now deceased,
Arthur Macy Cox, who was George Kennan's principal assistant
when George Kennan, post World War II, was head of the State
Department's Planning Office . . . His book is called The
Myths of National Security, the Peril of Secret Government .
. . published by Beacon Press in 1975:
``The drafters of the Constitution provided us with an
ingenious system of Government based on machinery to check
and balance the use of power, but they did not anticipate the
problem of secret Government, nor has that problem been dealt
with in subsequent constitutional amendments. Despite a lack
of safeguards, a large consensus of the American public since
World War II, has granted to succeeding presidents
extraordinary secret powers to protect the security of the
nation. The people felt that in matters of national survival,
the President should be given total trust. He should be
allowed to make decisions in secret to protect our national
security, but democracy and secrecy are incompatible and it
has now become clear that secret powers should never have
been delegated without guarantees of accountability to the
people's representatives in the Congress.''
Mr. JOHN NUTTER: As I listened to David, I was struck by
the various documents that I've read in my scholarship,
documents like the Tower Commission report on Iran Contra,
the Church Committee, the Pike Committee, and its
recommendations, the Taylor Committee, which some of you may
recognize as the postmortem on the Bay of Pigs . . . One
could very easily take the recommendations from any of those
reports, cut and paste them into the 9/11 Commission, and you
wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Closing Remarks
Rep. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: I would just like to say after we
have heard all of the testimony that has been presented to us
today, there is one thing that is very clear, and that is
that we must know what our Government is doing in our name.
The American people have to inform themselves, despite the
failure of the corporate press, to investigate the
information in the public domain that provides answers to our
questions. Today is a very special day because we have
brought truth to Capitol Hill.
[[Page 24159]]
____________________
INCREASING THE AUTHORIZED PERIOD OF STAY FOR THE GUAM VISA WAIVER
PROGRAM
______
HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO
of guam
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced legislation to
increase the period of authorized stay for the Guam Visa Waiver Program
to mirror the period of authorized stay established in law for the
nationwide Visa Waiver Program. I have introduced this bill at the
request of both the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor of Guam.
The Guam Visa Waiver Program was authorized by the Omnibus
Territories Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-396). This program was
established to largely complement the nationwide Visa Waiver Program,
which was permanently authorized by Congress in 2000 (Public Law 106-
396), and to strengthen economic and cultural ties with nations in East
Asia and the Pacific Rim.
Today there are currently 27 countries participating in the
nationwide Visa Waiver Program, while an additional ten countries are
authorized to participate in the Guam Visa Waiver Program. These ten
countries, admitted into the program as participants through the State
Department rulemaking process, are as follows: Brunei, Indonesia, the
Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon
Islands, Taiwan, the possessions of the United Kingdom, Vanuatu and
Western Samoa.
Under current law, nonimmigrant visitors arriving in the United
States, including Guam, through the nationwide Visa Waiver Program are
permitted entry for business or pleasure for a period not to exceed 90
days. However, nonimmigrant visitors arriving in Guam from any of the
ten countries currently participating in the Guam Visa Waiver Program
are permitted entry for business or pleasure for a period not to exceed
15 days. The bill I have introduced today would increase the period
authorized for stay in Guam under the Guam Visa Waiver Program from 15
days to 90 days, a period equal in length to that established in law
for the nationwide Visa Waiver Program.
I believe that establishing consistency in the authorized periods of
stay under both programs will improve the administration of the Guam
Visa Waiver Program. Additionally, extending the period of authorized
stay for the Guam Visa Waiver Program could potentially boost tourism
for Guam.
Tourism is a key sector of Guam's economy, and the Guam Visa Waiver
Program has been central to increased international travel to Guam
since its implementation in 1998. I believe this program can be
strengthened with an increased authorized period of stay.
This bill has been co-sponsored by the Chairman and the Ranking
Member of the House Small Business Committee, Mr. Manzullo and Ms.
Velazquez, respectively. Their support is especially appreciated given
the fact that this bill will support many small businesses in Guam
which are a part of the visitor industry. Additionally, Mr.
Abercrombie, Mr. Burton, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Faleomavaega, and Mr.
Farr are original cosponsors of this bill. I look forward to building
more support for this bill in the 109th Congress and to working with
the leadership of the House Judiciary Committee on this issue.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE CHICAGO WHITE SOX ON WINNING THE WORLD SERIES
______
HON. J. DENNIS HASTERT
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the players,
owners and staff of the Chicago White Sox on their tremendous victory
in the 2005 World Series. Loyal White Sox fans across Illinois have
been waiting 88 long years for this moment and it is every bit as
satisfying as any of us could imagine.
Not many picked the Chicago White Sox to win the World Championship
when the season started. After all, they had not won a playoff game in
more than a decade, they did not have a group of high-priced superstars
on their roster, and they are from the city of Chicago--which had not
even seen a World Series game in nearly half a century. But this team
never stopped believing in itself and quickly showed the experts and
the Nation that championships are won through tireless effort,
consistent teamwork, and a spirit that says anything is possible.
History will record that the 2005 Chicago White Sox marched through
the season with a 99-63 record, the best in the American League. It
will further show that this team went on to dominate in the postseason
with an 11-1 record that included an unimaginable World Series sweep.
But no historic record can convey the excitement this team created in a
city desperate for a baseball championship, or the joy felt in the
hearts of White Sox fans everywhere. And it certainly cannot capture
the pride felt throughout our state in having this tremendous group of
young men represent us in the World Series.
It is my honor to congratulate owner Jerry Reinsdorf, General Manager
Kenny Williams, Manager Ozzie Guillen and the White Sox players for
this extraordinary accomplishment. From the first day of this season,
you have conducted yourself with class on and off the field and truly
exemplified what it means to be a champion. In the process, you have
set a standard of excellence for others to follow and provided
cherished memories that so many dreamed of, but feared impossible.
____________________
HONORING MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM E. POTTS FOR FAITHFUL SERVICE TO STATE
AND NATION
______
HON. LINCOLN DAVIS
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, during a ceremony on November
11, 2005 in Columbia, Tennessee, the late Major General William E.
Potts will be recognized for his service to his state and nation. The
Veteran's Plaza on the grounds of the Maury County Courthouse will be
named the Major General William E. Potts Veterans Memorial Plaza, with
a plaque placed as a permanent memorial to his memory.-
General Potts was born December 9, 1935 in Nashville. He later moved
to Columbia with his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Madden Potts. General
Potts graduated from Columbia Central High School and Vanderbilt
University. Having played football in high school and college he helped
his Commodores defeat Auburn in the 1955 Gator Bowl.
Upon graduation from Vanderbilt in 1958, General Potts was
commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army. He studied Turkish
at the Army's language school and graduated from both the Command and
General Staff College and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.
He also earned a master's degree in public administration from Middle
Tennessee State University.
General Potts was company commander of the 801st Maintenance
Battalion, 101st Airborne Division, served as an adviser in Vietnam and
Army Attache in Ankara, Turkey, and battalion commander of the 702nd
Maintenance Battalion, Second Infantry Division in Korea. After being
assigned to the Pentagon he was made Deputy Commanding General for
research and development, Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal in
Huntsville before assuming command of the Army's Ordnance Center and
School at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.
General Potts passed away February 29, 2004 at Walter Reed Army
Hospital, and was buried with full military honors in Arlington
National Cemetery.
In attendance for the November 11th ceremony will be General Potts's
wife, Peggy; his sons, Colonel Gary Potts, who is currently serving in
Afghanistan, Neil Potts, a former Army Captain, Airborne Ranger,
Special Forces, now a restaurateur in Dallas, and their respective
families. The General's only surviving sibling, Irene Morris of
Columbia, will also be in attendance.
The ceremony will include color guards from the Vanderbilt University
Army Reserve Officer Training Corps, the Tennessee State Guard, Spring
Hill Junior Army ROTC and the Columbia Central Junior Navy ROTC.
____________________
TRINITY RAILWAY EXPRESS--SALUTE TO HURRICANE VOLUNTEERS
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute those individuals
and organizations that opened their hearts and dedicated both financial
and emotional support to the evacuees of Hurricane Katrina and
Hurricane Rita. All of the states along the Gulf Coast have endured
terrible hardships during this hurricane season, and I know that the
generosity of North
[[Page 24160]]
Texans played a vital role in bringing some peace into their lives.
Today, I want to specifically thank one company and their donation.
Trinity Railway Express helped senior citizens and other residents of
the Houston-Galveston area flee from Hurricane Rita. They donated their
time and equipment when it was most needed.
TRE is a service provided jointly by Dallas Area Rapid Transit and
the Fort Worth Transportation Authority and it links downtown Fort
Worth, downtown Dallas and DFW Airport.
I stand here today to sincerely thank Trinity Railway Express for
their help and donation. It is people like them that I am proud to call
fellow Texans. Through their contribution, they not only stand as
devoted and giving American citizens, but they serve as an inspiration
to others.
____________________
HONORING THE MONASTERY OF THE GLORIOUS CROSS AS THEY CELEBRATE THEIR
50TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to
join the Benedictines of Jesus Crucified of the Monastery of the
Glorious Cross as they celebrate their 50th Anniversary--a milestone
for this community of nineteen.
Seventy-five years ago, Father Maurice Gaucheron, a priest on the
staff of the Basilica of Montmatre in Paris and Suzanne Wrotnowska, the
future Mother Marie des Deouleurs, began plans to open the doors of
monastic life to women who, though interested in pursuing this path,
were unable to do so due to their fragile health. From the very
beginning, the Monastery of the Holy Cross formed on the Rule of Saint
Benedictine which emphasizes a listening heart, obedience, silence, and
humility. In 1930, during a Mass celebrated in the crypt of Montmatre,
Mother Marie des Douleurs and the first sisters were consecrated and
their journey began.
The Monastery of the Glorious Cross in Branford, Connecticut was
established just fifty years ago and is the only order of the
Benedictines of Jesus Crucified in the United States. Houses of worship
play a critical role in all of our communities. It is to these walls
that so many turn in times of their greatest need. The Congregation at
the Monastery of the Glorious Cross has always opened its doors to
those in need of spiritual guidance and comfort. The public is welcomed
to celebrate their daily Mass, the community sponsors a monthly day of
recollection, and they also provide Mass cards and spiritual bouquets.
It has been through their generosity and compassion that the Monastery
of the Glorious Cross has become a local treasure. Every community
should be so fortunate.
Today, as they celebrate their Golden Jubilee, the Sisters of the
Monastery of the Glorious Cross will reflect on their own history as
well as all that they have given to our community. It is my great
pleasure to join Sister Mary Agatha, the Superior of the community, and
all of the sisters of the Monastery of the Glorious Cross as they
celebrate this very special occasion. I am honored to extend my deepest
thanks and appreciation to them for all of their good work.
____________________
HONORING MR. FRANK D. LINN, SR ON HIS 50TH ANNIVERSARY AS SANTA CLAUS
______
HON. TIM HOLDEN
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Frank D. Linn, Sr.
of Lower Swatara Township, Middletown, Pennsylvania as he celebrates
fifty years of selfless and heartfelt service to the children and
families of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania as Santa Claus.
Mr. Linn has given of his time and effort making thousands of
children happy as ``The Jolly Old Man with the Beard'' since 1955.
Acting as Santa in a shopping center and at private home parties, he
also spreads the spirit of the holidays making visits and toy
deliveries to around seventy-five homes at Christmastime.
A graduate of Central Dauphin High School, Mr. Linn has been employed
with the House of Representatives, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the
past forty-three years serving as Specialist in Intergovernmental
Affairs to the Speaker of the House for Speaker Matthew J. Ryan and
currently Speaker John M. Perzel. He has also devoted his time to the
Lower Swatara Lions Club and the Middletown Area Red Cross as well as
multiple local athletic teams, boy scouts troops, and fire companies.
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to recognize a man who has
been committed to bringing joy to the people of my district for fifty
years. I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in
congratulating Mr. Frank D. Linn, Sr. on fifty years of devoted service
as our local Santa Claus and thank him for the many contributions he
has made toward the well being of the citizens of Pennsylvania.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO STATE REPRESENTATIVE TOMMY CARTER
______
HON. ROBERT E. (BUD), CRAMER JR.
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Alabama State
Representative Tommy Carter. Representative Carter has represented
Limestone County in the Alabama State Legislature for thirty-six years.
He plans to retire from public service at the conclusion of his current
legislative term in 2006.
I consider it a privilege to have worked with Representative Carter
on a wide variety of issues facing Limestone County. He has done a
great deal to help further the quality of life for all individuals in
our community.
During his many years of service in the State Legislature,
Representative Carter was elected by his peers to numerous legislative
leadership positions. Most notably, he served as the Chairman of the
House Rules Committee for over twelve years. Representative Carter
currently serves on the Education Finance and Appropriations Committee
and the Agriculture and Forestry Committee.
Mr. Speaker, Representative Carter is well respected throughout our
local community and the entire State of Alabama. He is a past recipient
of the Athens Limestone County Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year
Award and was the Conservationist of the Year Award winner in 1978.
Representative Carter is also a former Scout Master and member of the
Alabama National Guard.
After he steps down from the Alabama State Legislature, he will
continue to serve on the Board of Directors for Community Bank and
Athens State University Foundation Board.
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, October 27th, the North Alabama community
gathered to honor and celebrate all of Representative Carter's
achievements. I rise today, to join in their celebration and to thank
Representative Carter for his many years of dedicated service.
____________________
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO JEANETTE CANTRELL RUDY--HEALTHCARE PHILANTHROPIST
______
HON. JIM COOPER
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the
birthday of a dear friend and a distinguished member of the Nashville
community, Mrs. Jeanette Cantrell Rudy. Mrs. Rudy is a generous
philanthropist, an accomplished sportswoman and a true friend to many
in Tennessee and across the nation. She celebrates her 78th birthday on
October 27th, 2005.
When you look at everything Jeanette has accomplished in a mere 78
years, it is clear she is a woman of fierce commitment, incomparable
energy and true generosity. As someone fortunate to have worked with
Jeannette on various community initiatives, I can tell you there is no
one you would rather have on your team when you launch a new project.
Born October 27th, 1927 in Sheffield, Alabama, Jeanette enrolled in
the Saint Thomas Hospital School of Nursing in Nashville following high
school graduation. She received her nursing degree in 1948. That
occasion changed her life--along with the fact that she also met her
future husband, Mr. Daniel Clees Rudy, about this time.
Daniel Clees Rudy, cofounder of the Rudy's Farm Sausage Company, and
Jeanette married on February 20th, 1949. The Rudys made their home in
the Pennington Bend area on the Cumberland River until Mr. Rudy's death
in 1984.
Jeanette served her community as a public health nurse for seven
years. But that was just the beginning to her commitment to better
health care for all of Nashville. In memory of
[[Page 24161]]
her late husband, Jeanette helped to establish and fund the Dan Rudy
Cancer Center at Saint Thomas Hospital in 1985. Also in 1985, Jeanette
and her sisters, founded the Felix A. and Edna L. Cantrell Endowment
Fund in honor of their parents. This special endowment has helped a
host of nurses reach their educational goals and advance in the nursing
field. A long-time supporter of the nursing program at Cumberland
University in Lebanon, Tennessee, Jeanette was recognized for her
efforts with an honorary doctorate of humanities from Cumberland
University in 1990.
In addition to her commitment to public service, Jeanette is a
passionate hobbyist. She has assembled the finest privately held
collection of State and Federal duck stamps, including the very first
stamp issued in 1934. Jeanette served as a judge of the Federal duck
stamp competition in Washington, D.C. in 1992. In 1996, the Smithsonian
Institution established, in her honor, the Jeanette Cantrell Rudy Duck
Stamp Gallery at the National Postal Museum.
Jeanette's energy and zest for life do not stop there. An avid
sportswoman, she held the title of Ladies State Trapshooting Champion
for nine years, was named to the women's all-American trap team twice,
and has been an ardent hunter and angler since 1949 over much of North
America. Jeanette has also spent endless hours helping many
organizations and educational institutions in Middle Tennessee. She
served on the boards of Cumberland University, the Saint Thomas
Hospital Auxiliary, the Saint Thomas Foundation and the Nashville Zoo,
and she is a major supporter of the Nashville Police and Fire
Department and the National Police Memorial in Washington, DC.
She is the recipient of the 1992 Seton Medal for her service to
patients of Saint Thomas Hospital. She authored a book, ``A Bend in the
Cumberland,'' which traces the history of the Pennington Bend area,
where, for many years, her husband and his brother operated the Rudy's
Farm Sausage Company. And, now, as a Commissioner of the Tennessee
Wildlife Resources Agency since 2001, Jeannette is dedicated to raising
funds for projects that will help preserve, conserve and enhance
Tennessee's population of fish and wildlife.
Jeanette's devotion to public service and her long-standing advocacy
for nursing are truly remarkable. I thank this spirited American for
her unwavering compassion and desire to make life more positive for
others in her community.
Today, I join my distinguished colleagues--Representatives Bart
Gordon and John Tanner--and all Tennesseans in congratulating and
extending our warmest and best wishes to Jeanette Cantrell Rudy for a
happy 78th birthday. Jeannette, may you have many more rewarding and
life-enriching experiences ahead.
____________________
WILDERNESS CHALLENGE
______
HON. NICK J. RAHALL II
of west virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, October 8, 2005 46 teams of
active-duty men and women from military installations around the U.S.
converged in West Virginia's Gauley and New River Gorge to compete in
the sixth annual ``Wilderness Challenge.'' I am proud to have such an
event in West Virginia that allows our armed forces the chance to
display their skills of physical endurance and of course, bragging
rights. There is not a better place to host the Wilderness Challenge
than the New River Gorge National Park. It has superb overlooks,
historic scenery, rugged Appalachian trails and peaceful valley flats,
not to mention the world class whitewater. Rafting the waters is no
easy task, as one could imagine by the names of some of our rapids such
as ``Big Nasty'', ``Even Nastier'' and ``Heaven's Doors,'' just to name
a few.
The Challenge begins with a 20-mile mountain bike race which precedes
a half-mile swim on the Lower Gauley River, and ends with each team
tackling a 13-mile stretch of Class III to V whitewater. The next day
the competitors start with a run, paddle a section of the New River in
inflatable rubber kayaks called ``duckies,'' and finish with a 14-mile
hike that entails the steep slopes of the New River Canyon. The whole
event is sponsored by a whitewater outfitter Class VI River Runners,
which supplies the event with the rafts and equipment used in the
outdoor extreme sports match.
It is really a pleasure for me to see such a group of well trained,
highly motivated soldiers compete. I know that there is friendly
competition between the branches of service and West Virginians as well
as all Americans hold them all in the highest regard.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. BRIAN HIGGINS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, due to an excused absence, I missed 3
rollcall votes on the night of Tuesday October 25, 2005. I would like
to enter into the record how I would have voted if I had been able to
attend the session:
On H.R. 3675, the American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act, I would have
voted ``yea.''
On H. Con. Res. 269, a resolution recognizing the 40th anniversary of
the White House Fellows Program, I would have voted ``yea.''
On H.R. 3256, a bill to designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 3038 West Liberty Avenue in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, as the ``Congressman James Grove Fulton Memorial Post
Office Building,'' I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS FOR ABINGTON
______
HON. ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as the proud congressional
representative of Abington Township, a township that was recently named
one of the 100 best communities for young people by America's Promise--
the Alliance for Youth.
The Alliance for Youth and its Founding Chairman, General Colin
Powell, launched this first-ever national competition to pay tribute to
the communities working to empower and advance our Nation's youth. And,
there is no doubt that Abington Township worked hard to earn this
honorable distinction.
I have had the privilege of representing Abington; first from my seat
in the Pennsylvania State Senate and now as a member of Congress. Over
the years, I have seen first-hand the community's unity, especially
when it comes to advancing the lives of its young people.
Together, Abington's school district, police department, community
organizations, businesses, and residents have worked hand-in-hand to
create an environment that embraces its young residents. They've
established the Abington Community Taskforce, which is comprised of
parents, caregivers, religious and civic leaders and has launched
programs to teach effective parenting skills, create tolerance and
respect, and promote community safety. They've successfully established
cooperative agreements between the school district and police
department, including an anti-drug program and joint fundraising
challenges. And, they've created the Community Partnership of Youth and
Adults to mobilize community spirit and participation.
Abington was included on the America's Promise list because it has
demonstrated true public leadership with regard to the needs of
children. And, we in Congress must make sure to encourage and support
these kinds of grassroots, community-based efforts, like that in
Abington, because they play an important role in ensuring that our
young people have the strength of character and tools necessary to
succeed.
Mr. Speaker, I couldn't be prouder of Abington for the outstanding
work it has done on behalf of young people, and I look forward to
working too with area officials to make sure our neighborhood remains a
safe and caring environment.
So again, congratulations to Abington on their selection as one of
the 100 Best Communities for Young People. Keep up the good work!
____________________
HIAWTHI WILLIAMS--SALUTE TO HURRICANE VOLUNTEERS
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute those individuals
and organizations that opened their hearts and dedicated both financial
and emotional support to evacuees of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane
Rita. All of the States along the gulf coast have endured terrible
hardships during this hurricane season, and I know that the generosity
of North Texans played a vital role in bringing some peace into their
lives.
[[Page 24162]]
Today, I want to specifically thank one man, his company and his
donation. Hiawthi Williams, the owner of Williams Chicken donated 200
pieces of chicken for volunteers during hurricane Katrina.
Williams Chicken was first opened in 1987 and has rapidly grown
since. Today, with over 50 stores in operation, the company continues
to grow. Notwithstanding the market research, the chain admits the real
secret to the company's success is staying true to their philosophy,
``To Serve, Grow and Give Back to the Community.''
I stand here today to sincerely thank Hiawthi Williams for his
donation. It is people like him that I am proud to call a fellow Texan.
Through his contribution, he not only stands as a devoted and giving
American citizen, but he serves as an inspiration to others.
____________________
HONORING HERMAN WOLF FOR HIS LIFETIME OF PUBLIC SERVICE
______
HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today
to pay tribute to the remarkable life and legacy of a dear friend,
Herman Wolf. In a career that spanned eight decades, his influence on
State and national politics garnered him a respected reputation with
Democrats and Republicans alike. At the age of 93, Herman passed away
this past week, marking the end of an era in Connecticut politics.
A gifted public relations guru and a talented political strategist,
Herman spent a lifetime working to improve the quality of life for all
people. His dedication and commitment to social justice never wavered--
in fact he never stopped, working up until the time of his passing.
Herman was an activist, advocate and leader who provided a strong voice
to those most in need.
In his earliest years in Connecticut, Herman was best known as a top
advisor to Governors Abe Ribicoff, John Dempsey, and Ella T. Grasso. He
served as an executive aide to then Governor Ribicoff and was an
integral part of his successful election to the United States Senate.
In addition to his involvement with local campaigns, Herman was also an
advisor to State and National Democratic Party Chairman John Bailey.
Working with some of our State's most powerful modern political
leaders, Herman helped to shape decades of public policy.
In addition to his role as a political strategist, Herman also ran a
successful public relations firm, Herman Wolf Associates. He
represented over 100 clients including prominent labor unions like the
AFL-CIO, businesses such as United Technologies and Guiness Stout, and
non-profit organizations such as the Ford Foundation, the NAACP, and
the American Shakespeare Festival. Herman would later become executive
vice-president of the Design Science Institute of Washington, DC, a
group dedicated to furthering the work of inventor and philosopher R.
Buckminster Fuller. Local projects also received the attention of
Herman. He was involved with a number of projects in the Bridgeport
area including several at Action for Bridgeport Community Development
where he had been working up until the time of his passing.
For Herman, his work was about more than promoting an agenda. He had
deep convictions and indisputable integrity. His work reflected his
strong belief in leveling the playing field for all Americans. He
firmly believed that the government had a responsibility to provide for
our most vulnerable citizens and ensure that their needs received the
same attention as those more fortunate. Herman's energy, enthusiasm,
and excitement not only made him a success but inspired others to
greatness as well. He left an indelible mark on our communities, the
State of Connecticut, and our Nation--a legacy that will undoubtedly be
remembered by history.
I extend my deepest sympathies to his wife, Monica; his children,
David, Bill, Fay, and Louise; and their families. Herman Wolf was an
extraordinary individual with a unique dedication to public service
that touched the lives of many. Though he will be missed, his legacy
will continue to inspire generations to come.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF DR. N. RAO CHAVA
______
HON. MIKE ROGERS
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
Dr. N. Rao Chava of Montgomery, Alabama. Dr. Chava is a highly
accomplished medical doctor and administrator, and will soon be
retiring as Director of the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System
hospital in Macon County.
In 1974, Dr. Chava began his career with the Department of Veterans
Affairs as an internal medicine resident. As a naturalized United
States citizen, he has devoted himself to VA Medical Centers in both
West Virginia and Alabama. Dr. Chava was certified by the American
Board of Internal Medicine and received a Certificate for Added
Qualifications in Geriatric Medicine. He is also a Fellow for the
American College of Physicians and a member of the American Geriatrics
Society, the American College of Physician Executives, and the American
College of Healthcare Executives.
Our nation's veterans deserve the highest quality care available, and
I know Dr. Chava has spent much of his career caring for their needs.
He will be missed. I congratulate Dr. Chava for his many
accomplishments over the years, and wish him all the best in his
retirement.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF HISPANIC LEADERS AND IN COMMEMORATION OF HISPANIC
HERITAGE MONTH
______
HON. NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the floor of the U.S.
House of Representatives in commemoration of Hispanic Heritage month to
recognize and celebrate the outstanding achievements of remarkable
leaders of the Hispanic community. I am honored to acknowledge the
wonderful contributions of Margarita Rosa Esq., Frances Lucerna, Dr.
Maria Montes, Elizabeth C. Yeampierre and Rev. Jorge L. Roa, Jr. These
individuals have been a true inspiration, working tirelessly to better
the lives of New Yorkers and the Hispanic community by making a
positive impact in our community.
Through devotion and commitment, these enthusiastic role models have
excelled in their strong community service and diligent work to improve
the quality of life in many disenfranchised neighborhoods, encouraging
the next generation of Latino leaders. A living example of this arduous
dedication is Ms. Margarita Rosa who is the Executive Director of Grand
Street Settlement, a New York based community organization whose
primary vision is to improve the lives of those less fortunate or
disadvantaged by encouraging self-determination through learning
advocacy, support and community building.
Margarita has been a steadfast, passionate advocate of human rights,
as the first Hispanic woman to be appointed to the New York State
Commission on Human Rights in the early 1990s. Working at the local
government level gave her the unique perspective of understanding how
public policy affects diverse communities. Margarita's accomplishments
have been plentiful--being honored for her eager public service
dedication, she received a prestigious teaching fellowship award, and
is currently an active member of several Boards of Directors for
organizations such as the Public Interest Law Foundation at New York
University (NYU) Law School, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and
the Lower Union East Side Family Union. These endeavors are a mere
representation of Margarita's achievements and willingness to continue
empowering those in need.
Another notable and distinguished leader has been an energetic force
and true pioneer in the world of cultural and performing arts. Ms.
Frances Lucerna founded the Williamsburg Arts and Cultural Council for
Youth, a community performing and visual arts program for youngsters.
She later became the co-founder and Executive Director of El Puente
Academy for Peace and Justice, a Brooklyn youth-based community
development organization nurturing leadership for peace and social
justice. Frances' leadership and artistic vision motivated her to
develop one of the most comprehensive Latino arts and cultural center,
which provide young students with the opportunity to express themselves
artistically.
As a strong advocate for education and a loving artist, Frances has
broken barriers by
[[Page 24163]]
channeling the talent and skill of thousands of youngsters into a
bright path and a hopeful future for many within the community. As a
visionary with an artistic soul, Frances has achieved many high
recognitions highlighting her efforts, such as the 1998 Heinz Award for
the Human Condition, and being appointed to the Advisory Committee to
the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities, and the Community
School Task Force for the White House Conference on Character Building
for a Democratic, Civil Society. She has also served on the Boards of
Directors of the Arts Center of the Brooklyn Academy of Music and the
Community Youth Development Guide Team of the National Network for
Youth.
Among the list of remarkable thinkers impacting higher education is
Dr. Maria Montes Morales, Vice-President and Dean of Academic Affairs
at Boricua College. Dr. Montes Morales understood the critical value of
education and how peoples' lives could be transformed. She lived and
realized the educational injustices faced by Latinos, which allowed her
to make a difference and change the traditional college learning
environment. Her vision and commitment to educate and empower Latinos
in New York City motivated her to help establish the first Boricua
College campus in Williamsburg, Brooklyn which opened in 1974.
This was a tremendous achievement for the community, especially since
many of the Williamsburg residents were Spanish speaking and interested
in furthering their education at an institution that was culturally
sensitive, community based, competitive and accessible. Since its
creation, thousands of students have graduated from this Boricua
College campus, with many remaining in the community and providing
professional human services.
Maria's contribution to higher education for all students, especially
Latinos, is highly commendable. Her leadership at Boricua College
successfully promotes student learning through active participation in
meaningful and planned service experiences in the community that are
directly related to course content. With a humanistic approach, such as
a sense of civic responsibility, self-awareness, and commitment to the
community, Dr. Montes Morales makes Boricua College an outstanding and
unique higher learning institution in New York City.
Mr. Speaker, I am also proud to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month by
recognizing the great efforts of Mrs. Elizabeth C. Yeampierre,
Executive Director of the United Puerto Rican Organization of Sunset
Park (UPROSE), Brooklyn's oldest Latino community-based organization.
Under Elizabeth's leadership, UPROSE has become the frontier
organization on multiracial environmental justice issues impacting the
community. Its ``Youth Justice'' program has set the path to several
victories advocating on behalf of low-income and minority communities
that are environmentally overburdened.
Elizabeth's dedication and endeavors at UPROSE have included
promoting youth, family and community empowerment, and creating
awareness for environmental issues impacting the living conditions of
residents in Sunset Park. Her accomplishments range from successfully
leading UPROSE in opposition to the Sunset Energy Fleet 520--a power
plant proposal to place two power plants in the area--to campaigning
against the placement of a sewage sludge treatment plant in Sunset
Park, and advocating the prevention of child lead paint poisoning.
Elizabeth has also created an effective ``Youth Justice'' program
which provides young environmental activists across the country with
opportunities to promote environmental issues. As a result, these young
leaders were able to organize the first environmental justice
conference in Sunset Park. The outstanding work and contributions of
UPROSE under Elizabeth's leadership has had a valuable impact on the
residents of Sunset Park.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to commend and acknowledge the highly
regarded work of Reverend Jorge L. Roa, Jr. a native of Brooklyn and a
devoted pastor who committed his life to God, and assisting those most
in need, including youngsters and the Hispanic community. Rev. Roa has
been a true inspiration who has excelled in promoting youth programs
within his church, ``the Missionary Christian Church,'' in Manhattan
where he preaches and is very pro-active on social and justice issues.
Rev. Roa has touched many lives by helping his community seek
spiritual guidance and a path, collaborating in missionary projects
such as rebuilding churches, and collecting donations for relief
efforts for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. He has been a
humanitarian champion in this country and abroad, taking part in
missions providing food, water, medicine and other resources to
impoverished communities throughout different countries, including
Latin America and Africa.
Rev. Roa, is also the program director of a radio and TV show known
as ``En sus Pasos'' or ``In Your Steps,'' which is transmitted in
Manhattan. He is also the author of a renowned book, ``Una Luz de Dios,
La Historia de la Iglesia Cristiana Misionera,'' ``A light of God, the
History of the Christian Missionary Church.'' Rev. Roa's true vocations
have enlightened the community and changed the lives of many youngsters
throughout his 24 years of ministry. His excellence in leadership and
service is laudable for Latinos and residents of the Manhattan
community and beyond.
Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honor for me to rise today and recognize
these wonderful Hispanic leaders who I firmly believe possess key
elements that strengthen our culture, community and nation. In
commemoration of Hispanic Heritage Month, it is essential and truly
important to emphasize the life-time commitment these remarkable
persons have demonstrated in breaking down stereotypes about Latinos,
and empowering the Hispanic American community.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO REV. DR. HENRY McGILL, JR.
______
HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to pay tribute today to the
extraordinary pastor of Mt. Pisgah Baptist Church of Marion, South
Carolina. For more than 40 years of dedicated service and compassionate
leadership, Reverend Dr. Henry McGill, Jr. has served his parishioners
and community with great respect and dignity. He has spent decades
reaching out to those in need of strengthened faith and fellowship.
Reverend McGill grew up the son of a deacon and quickly incorporated
strong values and understanding of others in his everyday life. His
education started in a one-room schoolhouse in Lake City, South
Carolina. He went on from that meager beginning to achieve degrees in
social studies and divinity at Morris College in Sumter, South
Carolina. He heard and heeded the call to the ministry at an early age
and focused his life on the teachings of peace and cooperation among
all people. Reverend McGill's expertise on theology has also earned him
positions among some of the most prestigious public service boards, as
well as university and ministerial committees. He continues to be a
devout advocate of the church in sharing his thoughts on fairness and
finding the good in every person. Because of his widely-honored
achievements in academia and religious education the Manhattan School
of Theology in New York awarded him an honorary degree.
A successful businessman, Reverend McGill owned the funeral home
founded by his father-in-law, Henry L. Jackson, for many years. He has
since passed the family business, Jackson & McGill Funeral Home
Service, to the third generation of owners.
I am pleased to join the parishioners of Mt. Pisgah Baptist Church
and so many other grateful members of the community in thanking
Reverend McGill for always searching to find what is best for his
church, his community and his state. He continues to respond to the
needs of the less fortunate and putting education at the forefront of
his message. His saying, ``Everyone is someone special,'' embodies his
considerate and personal nature.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my colleagues join me in paying
tribute to Reverend Dr. Henry McGill, Jr. He is special to the people
of his church and community, and I wish him good luck and Godspeed.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably
detained yesterday, October 26, 2005, due to a death in my family. As a
result I missed rollcall votes Nos. 539 through 547. Had I been present
I would have No. 541 ``no''; rollcall No. 542 ``no''; rollcall No. 543
``no''; rollcall No. 544 ``no''; rollcall No. 545 ``no''; rollcall No.
546 ``aye''; rollcall No. 547 ``aye.''
[[Page 24164]]
____________________
RECOGNIZING FORMER STATE REPRESENTATIVE JOE BATTISTO AS HE RECEIVES THE
FIRST LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD FROM THE MONROE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA,
DEMOCRATS
______
HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask you and my esteemed
colleagues in the House of Representatives to pay tribute to former
Pennsylvania State Representative Joe Battisto, of Monroe County, on
the occasion of receiving the first annual Lifetime Achievement Award
from the Monroe County Democrats.
Joe Battisto distinguished himself during 18 years of public service
in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives following a career as
public school teacher and chairman of the language arts department of
the Pocono Mountain School District.
Despite moving to the realm of public service, Joe was well known for
maintaining his connection with the youth in his community and
frequently served as mentor for young people who were behaviorally
troubled.
Prior to being elected to the State House of Representatives, Joe
served in the public arena first as a borough councilman in the Borough
of Mount Pocono, rising to become the council president. He also served
as mayor of Mount Pocono Borough.
Joe Battisto subsequently was a driving force in the formation of the
Pocono Mountain Library and in the construction of a municipal sewage
system.
He founded the Monroe County Litter Control and Beautification Task
Force.
During his nearly 2 decades of service in the State House of
Representatives, he served on the Education and Appropriations
Committees and rose to become chairman of the Transportation Committee.
While serving as a State Representative, Joe launched the
reconstruction of the Pocono Mountains Welcome Center, led the efforts
to build the badly needed Marshalls Creek Bypass, and ensured the
environmental cleanup of major industrial and disposal sites in Monroe
County.
He also obtained funding for an open space trail system and for
highway safety and signalization projects. He fought to preserve rights
of way for possible future rail service to major metropolitan
destinations.
In addition, he obtained funding for street lights in downtown
Stroudsburg and streetscaping work in the Delaware Water Gap.
Joe Battisto was the first lawmaker to receive the prestigious East
Stroudsburg University's ``Legislative Fellow'' award created to
establish a stronger bond between the university and elected state
officials. The award was especially meaningful to Joe because he
graduated from ESU in 1956.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Joe Battisto on this
auspicious occasion. The quality of life in Monroe County,
Pennsylvania, has been made far better due to the achievements of Joe
Battisto and others like him. His integrity and commitment to his
community serve as wonderful examples of what it means to be a true
public servant.
____________________
DAVIS MOORE--SALUTE TO HURRICANE VOLUNTEERS
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute those individuals
and organizations that opened their hearts and dedicated both financial
and emotional support to the evacuees of Hurricane Katrina and
Hurricane Rita. All of the States along the Gulf Coast have endured
terrible hardships during this hurricane season, and I know that the
generosity of North Texans played a vital role in bringing some peace
into their lives.
Today, I want to specifically thank one man, his office and his
donation. Davis Moore, a dentist in Euless, donated 150 adult
toothbrushes, 50 children toothbrushes, 150 tubes of toothpaste and
floss for victims of Hurricane Katrina.
I stand here today to sincerely thank Davis Moore for his donation.
It is people like him that I am proud to call a fellow Texan. Through
his contribution, he not only stands as a devoted and giving American
citizen, but he serves as an inspiration to others.
____________________
OXI DAY SPEECH
______
HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the Hellenic-Americans and
Philhellenes in my district and throughout the country in celebrating
``OXI Day (No Day),'' which falls on the 28th of October. This year
marks the 65th anniversary of a very important day in Hellenic history,
the day on which brave Greek patriots said ``NO'' to fascism, ``NO'' to
injustice, and ``NO'' to slavery.
For those individuals who lived through that momentous period and
their descendants, many of whom live in the 14th Congressional District
of New York, ``OXI Day'' is more than a memory: it is the embodiment of
Hellenism and its highest ideals.
On October 28, 1940, a terrifying sound went up throughout all Greek
cities and towns, the sound of sirens and klaxons announcing the
invasion of Greece by the Nazis. Walls that before had echoed only with
the tolling of church bells now reverberated with the din of alarms.
At a time when Europe was descending into the inferno of another
world war, the people of Greece did not panic. Men went calmly to their
closets and retrieved their military uniforms and weapons. Women went
about their necessary tasks, and the children assisted as they were
able. With level-headed determination and steadfast resolve, the
citizenry of Greece mobilized against the coming invaders and delivered
their resounding ``NO!'' to the Axis aggressors.
On OXI Day, the people of Greece chose the harder path, the path of
resistance. If they had opened their gates to the invaders, much
bloodshed and many deprivations might have been avoided. That brave
generation of Hellenes, refused to submit to oppression, even at the
cost of their homes, their land, and their lives. They chose to fight
and even to die so that their children and the children of other
nations might live in liberty. Theirs was an act of self-sacrifice that
clearly proclaimed the humanitarian ideals of their Orthodox Christian
faith and their ethnic heritage.
Demonstrating poise under pressure, the heroes of that period fought
against tyranny and delayed the Axis onslaught in the Balkan Peninsula.
The Greek nation which said ``OXI'' contributed to the eventual
downfall of the Fascist powers in Europe.
This year the Hellenic community is celebrating another great moment
in their history, having successfully hosted a magnificent and peaceful
Olympics at a time when terrorism imperils every public gathering. The
smallest nation to ever host the Olympics, Greeks once again showed
that they always rise to the occasion.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the heroes of
OXI Day. In their brave words and deeds we see all of the highest
virtues of Hellenic heritage: passion for justice, courage at a time of
trial, unity in the midst of conflict, and willingness to sacrifice
one's life for the good of others. On this day, we thank Greece for
saying ``OXI.''
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO CARY CRANE
______
HON. JO ANN EMERSON
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Cary Crane--
the recipient of the 2005 Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Award. Mr. Crane
and his company, Apple & Eve, have for years been generous enough to
provide juice beverage products to the nation's less fortunate through
Rock and Wrap It Up! Inc., a nonprofit, nonpartisan hunger relief
organization Bill helped to found.
Mr. Crane has been a true public servant in supplying nutritious food
to those in need. He is the Cofounder and Executive Vice President of
Apple & Eve, LLC a manufacturer of premium fruit juices, which donates
heavily to Rock and Wrap It Up! to further their cause. This is just
one area of service and philanthropy in Mr. Crane's life. He is also
involved with many other charitable organizations, such as the
Education Assistance Corporation, the American Diabetes Association,
and Big Brothers/Big Sisters.
Through his efforts, Mr. Crane is helping to advance the vision of my
husband, Bill Emerson, for domestic food aid programs when he worked to
pass the Good Samaritan Food Act, a law protecting these donations from
liability. Bill's hopes for hunger relief in America were very high
when he worked to make Rock and
[[Page 24165]]
Wrap It Up! possible in 1990. Following in his dream, Mr. Crane is an
ideal recipient of the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Award.
Rock and Wrap It Up! is a volunteer hunger relief charity, which has
fed over 20 million since its inception. With over 4,000 volunteers in
500 cities across America, its dedicated supporters recover food in
schools, colleges, music concerts, sporting events, and political and
corporate functions. Rock and Wrap It Up! was adopted by resolution in
2003 by the United States Conference of Mayors to teach its successful
strategies to cities to fill America's food pipeline to feed the
indigent.
Cary Crane and Apple & Eve are a major reason the program continues
to gain notoriety and grow. They are proof that our commitment to feed
America's hungry can always use new initiative and better ideas. As
long as there are men, women, and children who need the helping hand of
other Americans, we are glad that there are gentlemen like Mr. Crane.
Thank you for your kind service to our nation, Mr. Crane.
Congratulations on earning the 2005 Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Award.
Best of luck to you as you continue your noble work helping to improve
the lives of the less fortunate in our great nation.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF DONALD STATHOS
______
HON. EARL BLUMENAUER
of oregon
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this week we mark the passing of a
unique and important figure in Oregon politics and civic life. Donald
Stathos was a small-business man, state legislator, and a creative and
vibrant force in our community. He was best-known as the father of
Oregon's Bike Bill in 1971 which created an allocation for cycling,
long before the cycling craze hit this country. The bill was a typical
act of foresight on behalf of an extraordinary man which led to our
states leadership in promoting cycling for all ages.
Mr. Stathos was a creative legislator not bound by narrow ideology or
partisan interests. When there was a rash of campus and other violence
and bombings during his career he had the courage to sponsor
legislation dealing with the control of explosives and as a result had
his office firebombed. Either a right-wing extremist or a printing
error left his information out of the voting pamphlet in the state's
most populous county. Had this not of happened he might well have gone
on to a statewide elected office; however, the man was not defined by
the offices he held but rather by his beliefs.
Donald Stathos' zest for life and his friendship will be sorely
missed.
____________________
HONORING PHYLLIS CIMINELLO UPON HER NINE YEARS OF VOLUNTEERING FOR THE
FOSTER GRANDPARENTS PROGRAM
______
HON. BRIAN HIGGINS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the exemplary
community service of Phyllis Ciminello, a resident of Chautauqua
County, Village of Fredonia, in recognition of her nine years of
volunteering for the Foster Grandparent Program.
Ms. Ciminello works every day helping children to increase
motivation, academic skills, daily living skills, and positive
behaviors. Ms. Ciminello has served with the FGP since 1996 and is a
vocal fan of this program. She is also involved with the Head Start
program, where she volunteers in a Head Start classroom at Connections
North in Dunkirk.
Ms. Ciminello has donated countless hours towards improving her
community. She is hard working, and dedicated. Her leadership and
generosity sets an example for us all. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I rise
to honor her today.
____________________
FREEDOM FOR JORGE LUIS GONZALEZ TANQUERO
______
HON. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
speak about Jorge Luis Gonzalez Tanquero, a political prisoner in
totalitarian Cuba.
Mr. Gonzalez Tanquero is a courageous pro-democracy activist and
president of the Carlos Manuel de Cespedes Independence Movement. His
pro-democracy activities have helped the world to learn the facts about
the nightmare that is the Castro regime. Unfortunately, those who
believe in truth are targeted by the tyrant's machinery of repression.
On March 19, 2003, as part of Castro's condemnable crackdown on
peaceful pro-democracy activists, Mr. Gonzalez Tanquero was arrested.
In a sham trial, he was sentenced to 12 years in the totalitarian
gulag.
Mr. Gonzalez Tanquero is currently languishing in the abhorrent gulag
because of his belief in liberty for the Cuban people. According to
CubaNet, Mr. Gonzalez Tanquero's family has been harassed and
threatened by the dictatorship's thugs. His wife, Marlene Gonzalez,
said that she had been threatened by the dictatorship's organized mobs
and that her neighbors have been warned not to let their children play
with her daughter Melisa.
Mr. Gonzalez Tanquero is an excellent example of the heroism of the
Cuban people. No matter how intense the repression, no matter how
horrifically brutal the consequences of a dignified struggle for
liberty, no matter how often their families are harassed and
threatened, the totalitarian gulags are full of men and women of all
backgrounds and ages who represent the best of the Cuban nation.
Mr. Speaker, it is as inconceivable as it is unacceptable that, in
the 21st Century and only 90 miles from our shore, brave men and women
are locked in dungeons because they believe that all people have basic
human rights. It is a profound embarrassment for mankind that the world
stands by in silence and acquiescence while political prisoners are
systematically tortured because of their belief in freedom, democracy,
human rights and the rule of law. My Colleagues, we must demand the
immediate and unconditional release of Jorge Luis Gonzalez Tanquero and
every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.
____________________
KRISTI CHRISTIANSON--SALUTE TO HURRICANE VOLUNTEERS
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute those individuals
and organizations that opened their hearts and dedicated both financial
and emotional support to the evacuees of Hurricane Katrina and
Hurricane Rita. All of the states along the Gulf Coast have endured
terrible hardships during this hurricane season, and I know that the
generosity of North Texans played a vital role in bringing some peace
into their lives.
Today, I want to specifically thank one woman, her company and her
donation. Kristi Christianson, from Town Place Suites by Marriott
donated a case of shampoo for victims during hurricane Katrina.
Town Place Suites by Marriott is an extended stay hotel that takes
pride in their friendly staff and neighborhood feel. Helping hurricane
victims is certainly a good demonstration of the friendly staff.
I stand here today to sincerely thank Kristi Christianson for her
donation. It is people like her that I am proud to call a fellow Texan.
Through her contribution, she not only stands as a devoted and giving
American citizen, but she serves as an inspiration to others.
____________________
IN HONOR OF OFFICER DAVID PERRY
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Police Officer David
Perry for his service to our community. Mr. Perry has dedicated his
life to protecting his country as well as his community, and for that I
am grateful.
David Perry heroically served in the United States Marine Corps from
1983 to 1989. His service included a meritorious promotion to Corporal
and assignment to the Marine Security Guard Detachment in Calcutta,
India. While serving in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, he was promoted to
Sergeant and honorably discharged from active duty on January 6, 1989.
He has maintained Reserve status while serving as a Patrol Officer in
the City of Santa
[[Page 24166]]
Cruz. Furthermore, Mr. Perry had dedicated his time to serving the city
as a Field Training Officer and is a member of the Santa Cruz Police
Department Honor Guard.
Mr. Perry is known for his allegiance to the enforcement of law, the
prevention of crime, and his deep sense of community. Respectfully,
David Perry has volunteered to return to active duty with the United
States Marine Corps. He will be deployed to Iraq in January of 2006.
Mr. Perry's voluntary service is truly appreciated and highly valued.
Mr. Speaker, the service of local members of the community is an
asset to this Nation, and I applaud Mr. Perry's contributions. We all
look forward to the safe return of Officer Perry, and wish him well in
his service in Iraq. Mr. Perry is an outstanding member of the
community, and his dedication is appreciated.
____________________
IN HONOR OF FIRE CHIEF KERRY SHERIDAN
______
HON. JERRY WELLER
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Fire Chief Kerry
Sheridan of the Troy Fire Protection District in Shorewood, Illinois.
On Saturday, Sheridan will celebrate 45 years of service as the Fire
Chief with the local volunteer fire protection district:
Since first being elected in 1960 to the Fire Chief position,
Sheridan has seen major changes from not only the size and scope of the
fire protection district, but also advances in technology and
equipment. In 1960, his equipment consisted of a used 1929 REO
Speedwagon and a dispatch that was a phone call to the Chief to sound
the siren. Now, the department consists of multiple engines, an
enhanced 911 dispatch center and the protection district has grown to
over 18,000 residents compared to the 800 residents in 1960.
Within Sheridan's impressive 45 years of services, the Chief has
provided a classroom in the Joliet Junior College to teach fire
services, started one of the first cadet programs in Illinois and
organized an Ambulance service that recruits and trains new EMT's every
year. Chief Sheridan is still actively serving on the Joliet Junior
College Fire Science Advisory Board which he has served on since 1974
and is very involved with the local government.
The most impressive part of his service as a volunteer for the fire
department is that he achieved all of these great accomplishments while
being a full time employee with Illinois Bell Telephone and now AT&T.
With 45 years of dedication to his township and the safety of its
residents, Kerry Sheridan provides an example to all of what they can
do to better their community. When we hear young children having
aspirations of becoming firemen when they grow up, we should all point
to the example Kerry Sheridan has set.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO ROGER MILLIKEN
______
HON. DUNCAN HUNTER
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to a
true American patriot who has maintained a reputation as a protector of
American manufacturing--Mr. Roger Milliken. Roger recently celebrated
his 90th birthday and, not to the surprise of many, continues to
faithfully sit at the helm of Milliken & Company, one of the largest
and most successful textile and chemical manufacturing companies in the
world.
On the special occasion of his 90th birthday, I feel it prudent to
ensure that my colleagues in the House are made aware of Roger's
immeasurable commitment to the protection and development of our
domestic manufacturing base. Roger has long deflected the enticements
of outsourcing and importation, believing the divestment of American
industry in foreign markets is not conducive to economic growth and
detrimental to our nation's productivity and ingenuity.
Roger's personal success can be credited to his entrepreneurial
spirit and his strong work ethic, both professionally and academically.
He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Yale University in 1937 and
was named President of Deering Milliken in less than ten years. Under
Roger's leadership, Deering Milliken officially became known as
Milliken & Company and gained its status as a nationally recognized
textile manufacturer. He served as President of Milliken & Company
until 1988, when he was named Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, the
title which he continues to hold today.
Roger maintains an inclusive relationship with his employees and each
Milliken associate is encouraged to share their thoughts on how quality
and excellence can be achieved. As a matter of fact, much of Milliken &
Company's success can be attributed to its network of faithful
employees who tirelessly strive for nothing less than perfection.
Mr. Speaker, President Ronald Reagan once said, ``My goal is to keep
America the premier job-creating nation on Earth and we must unleash
the full power of entrepreneurship. We can make our land that of the
future, offering unlimited opportunity to all Americans who dare to
live for their dreams.'' We are fortunate to have individuals like
Roger Milliken, who never relent in their quest to foster and protect
American industry, and believe the industrial climate envisioned by
President Reagan is achievable.
Roger is recognized as someone who takes pride in the craftsmanship
of the American workforce and fights for the preservation of those
jobs. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal in 1995, Roger said,
``I'm going to keep on doing what I'm doing. I'm going to die in the
saddle, fighting for American manufacturing supremacy.'' While this
statement is certainly indicative of Roger's tenacity and
entrepreneurial ambition, it more importantly demonstrates the elements
of selflessness and confidence that need to be revived within our
industrial community. Roger's desire for American manufacturing
supremacy is not unrealistic and one in which I believe we can achieve.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring Roger
Milliken's contribution and commitment to American industry and
manufacturing. In celebration of his 90th birthday, I wish him many
more years of good health and happiness.
____________________
JERRY AND SHIRLEY McCORMICK--SALUTE TO HURRICANE VOLUNTEERS
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute those individuals
and organizations that opened their hearts and dedicated both financial
and emotional support to the evacuees of Hurricane Katrina and
Hurricane Rita. All of the states along the Gulf Coast have endured
terrible hardships during this hurricane season, and I know that the
generosity of North Texans played a vital role in bringing some peace
into their lives.
Today, I want to specifically thank one family, their company and
their donation. Jerry and Shirley McCormick, from Texas Manhole Company
donated a refrigerator and dinner for 100 volunteers during hurricane
Katrina.
I stand here today to sincerely thank Jerry and Shirley McCormick for
their donation. It is people like them that I am proud to call fellow
Texans. Through their contribution, they not only stand as a devoted
and giving American citizens, but they serves as an inspiration to
others.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO LANCE CORPORAL BRIAN PARRELLO
______
HON. SCOTT GARRETT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I honor Lance Corporal
Brian Parrello, a heroic young man from my district who died while
bravely serving his country in Iraq. I am proud that this week we will
name the United States Post Office in his hometown of West Milford, New
Jersey after Brian, the very post office where his father has spent
many years working for the Postal Service.
On January 1 of this year, Lance Cpl. Brian P. Parrello, 19, of West
Milford, N.J. was killed in Al Anbar Province, Iraq as a result of
hostile fire. Lance Cpl. Parrello was assigned to Small Craft Company,
Headquarters Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary
Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Parrello was attached to a Marine Swift Boat
unit that patrolled the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
A resident of West Milford, New Jersey, Parrello attended West
Milford High School where he was a member of both the football and
hockey teams. Following high school, he was so deeply affected by the
attack on the
[[Page 24167]]
World Trade Center and Pentagon that he proudly enlisted in the U.S.
Marine Corps. His teachers, coaches and peers have called him a real
leader and a role model, someone who always gave 150 percent, and a
person who led by example with a big heart.
This loss causes us to reflect on the bravery demonstrated by our men
and women in uniform as they carry out their obligations in the face of
danger. When their Nation called them to duty to preserve freedom and
the security of our neighbors, they answered without hesitation.
Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere privilege to recognize the life of a
proud soldier and heroic representative of the State of New Jersey.
Lance Cpl. Brian P. Parrello was an honorable defender of liberty and
he deserves our gratitude and respect.
I am pleased that we could recognize Brian's sacrifice in this manner
and I hope that years from now the citizens of West Milford can
remember the courage and sacrifice of this brave young man. We will
continue to keep Brian's family and the families of all our men and
women serving around the world in our thoughts and prayers.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. DEBORAH PRYCE
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on vote No. 535 regarding a Motion to
Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2744--the Department of Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006--my vote was recorded in a
manner inconsistent with my intent. Let the Record show that my vote
should have been recorded as ``nay'' not ``yea.''
____________________
REMEMBERING DON F. GILBERT
______
HON. ALLEN BOYD
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
Record my comments on the life of a great Floridian from my district
who passed away recently.
Born on December 26, 1930, in Peekskill, New York, Don F. Gilbert
gave tirelessly of himself to his family and community. A veteran of
the Korean Conflict, Don served in the United States Marine Corps from
1951-1952.
Following his tour in the Corps, Don attended Texas Western College,
now the University of Texas at EI Paso. During that time, he worked for
the FBI and later began a career in court reporting.
Throughout his professional career, Don had many interests and was
active in the Masonic Order, Job's Daughters and the International
Order of the Rainbow for Girls. After his service in Korea, Don joined
the Coast Guard Auxiliary, where he helped organize Flotilla 12 and
served as its commander.
Don passed away at his home in Tallahassee, Florida, on August 28,
2005, and is survived by his children and wife, Gwen, whom he shared 49
years of marriage.
____________________
THE DEATH OF RICHARD PENN KEMBLE
______
HON. STEVE ISRAEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, all too seldom we are blessed with a person
of extraordinary talent, vision and blinding commitment to social
justice who devotes his entire life--selflessly and completely--to the
public interest, and to spreading the values of his nation all across
the planet. Penn Kemble, who died October 15th after a fierce year long
struggle with brain cancer, was that rare kind of American.
Penn devoted his life to ideas. He fought with passion for what he
believed, and he sometimes fought alone. He was a college socialist who
battled against the Stalinists who led the Soviet Union; a hardliner on
defense and foreign policy issues who came to become a leader in the
fight to negotiate an end to the war in Vietnam. He was a Scoop Jackson
Democrat, a Hubert Humphrey Democrat, a Bill Clinton Democrat--always a
Democrat working within our Party to make it more committed to social
and economic justice and more committed to a strong and realistic
national security policy. Some talked change--Penn caused it: a civil
rights leader who put his life on the line fighting for racial
equality, but confident enough in himself and his values to lead the
fight against racial quotas; an internationalist who was not afraid to
confront and challenge what he perceived to be dangerous isolationism
within his Party. Through the difficult decades of the 1970s and 1980s,
some chose to cut and run when they did not have their way. Penn Kemble
chose to stay and fight. No one fought harder and with more conviction.
And nothing exemplified his commitment to values, to ideas and to the
strength of the American experience more than his work as Deputy
Director and Acting Director of the United States Information Agency,
where he created and executed the brilliant and unique international
CIVITAS program to promote civil society and civic education around the
world. Like so many things that Penn developed, he created CIVITAS to
break out of the worn mold of traditional West-to-East assistance in
democracy building by replacing it with an innovative participatory
network to develop civil society and free markets in emerging
democracies through civic education and grass roots civic
participation. CIVITAS was thinking ``outside the box.'' It was, in the
words of one of its Russian participants, ``a unique possibility to see
the full context of what we can do to support democracy, in concrete
terms, now and in the future.'' CIVITAS is an international dialogue,
not a monologue by the U.S.
Penn's vision can best be summarized in his own words. In Prague, in
1995, Penn Kemble said that ``today there is an emerging recognition
that what we usually think of as the civic realm and the economic realm
are interlinked, and that when one is strong the other is generally
strong, and that when one is weak or broken the other is in danger, too
. . . One thing we surely have neglected is education. Education is the
principal means for transmitting and strengthening the values and
understandings--the subjective element, the culture--on which the
institutions of all societies rest. Perhaps democratic society more
than any other depends on the quality of its education.''
At USIA Penn Kemble saw that our embassies and public diplomacy posts
abroad would work with local NGOs to foster civic education as a
transformative element to grow democracy from the grass roots. He
understood that a truly international movement for civic education
could take an issue and give it life, a place on the international
agenda of the community of democratic nations--whether it was human
rights, sensible environment polices, or equal protection, treatment
and opportunity for women in modern society. He internationalized
national issues. He was nobly committed to the globalization of social
democracy.
Participants in the most recent gathering of the CIVITAS consortium
in Amman, Jordan in June 2005, were struck with the realization that
the group that Penn Kemble first convened in Prague 10 years before was
still at it, plugging away in the trenches to build support for
teaching democracy in schools and building a culture of democracy from
the bottom up.
Robert F. Kennedy once said that ``the future does not belong to
those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and
their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and
bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision,
reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great
enterprises of American Society.''
That future--the future of the universal dream of social justice that
should be the dream of all people everywhere--belongs to Penn Kemble.
The very definition of CIVITAS is Penn's legacy: ``the concepts and
values of citizenship that impart shared responsibility, common purpose
and a sense of community among citizens.'' He will be missed, but the
power of his ideas makes him immortal. Time, justice and the forces of
history are on Penn's side.
____________________
AMERICAN INGENUITY AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
______
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues Representative Ben
Cardin of the Third Congressional District of Maryland and
Representative Steny Hoyer of the Fifth Congressional District of
Maryland today to bring to our colleagues' attention an excellent
article that appeared in the Inside Annapolis Magazine this month about
a family business in Galesville, MD. The business, Smith Brothers,
Inc., is an excellent example of American ingenuity and
entrepreneurship. We are proud
[[Page 24168]]
to know Kenneth Smith and his son Jeff Smith and would like to
congratulate them on the recent acknowledgement of their value to the
community. America needs more people like the Smiths, who have a can-do
attitude and are willing to work hard to excel. We have attached a copy
of the article, which explains some of the history of the company and
family and how their attitude has helped them in business and life.
Smith Brothers: Building on a Firm Foundation
(By Kathy Bergren Smith)
When the makers of the upcoming romantic comedy starring
Matthew MacConaughney and Sarah Jessica Parker came to
Maryland scouting locations and resources, one of their first
stops was in the quiet village of Galesville; just south of
Annapolis. The film includes multiple scenes of frolicking
dolphins and the marine coordinators needed a way to
transport the radio-controlled ``stand-ins'' as well as
millions of dollars worth of camera and sound equipment
around the Bay. They found what they were looking for at
Smith Brothers, an eighty-seven-year-old family business that
provides tugboat and barge services for customers as diverse
as Paramount Pictures, the Lincoln Tunnel and the Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. The company's extensive fleet of
charter equipment is the largest between Baltimore and
Norfolk. Marine contractors rent Smith Brothers equipment to
build piers and bulkheads, dredge channels and shoot off
fireworks. The story of how Smith Brothers became the ``one
stop shop'' for tugs, barges, cranes, anchors and chains goes
back . . . way back . . . and is best told by the company's
president, Kenneth Smith, the last of the Smith Brothers.
``Our family had been here in Galesville for several
generations when my older brothers began the business in
1918,'' says Smith. Indeed, an occupancy notice dated 1952 is
tacked to the bulletin board in the office on Tenthouse
Creek, notes that the premises has been legal since 1862.
Back then, the Smiths, like most of their neighbors in
southern Anne Arundel County, were oystermen. But they were
also entrepreneurs, operating a lime kiln which reduced the
oyster shells into fertilizer for other major industry of the
area, farming. In 1916, the eldest of the seven Smith
Brothers, J. Edward ``Eddy'' and Nelson began to freight
oysters by truck to Washington's dandies.
``Eddy and Nelson made a great team,'' recalls the much
younger Kenneth, who is now ninety. He and his older sister
Agnes, are the only siblings of the original nine that
remain. Agnes, a former post-mistress in Galesville, at 101
still serves as a social and historical center for the
community. Kenneth comes to work each day and remains active
in the business.
``After World War I, when Eddy came home, he and Nelson and
Captain Oscar Hartge began to build docks around the river,
that is how they got started,'' says Kenneth Smith. As the
city dwellers from Washington began to take drives in their
new automobiles, the face of bay country began to change.
Boarding houses and marinas were built to accommodate the new
tourist trade and summer homes with docks sprang up along the
West River. Pile driving overtook oystering as the Smiths'
primary occupation. Captain Oscar Hartge, a member of a
family whose name is synonymous with yachting on the Bay,
sold his portion of the business to his friends, the Smiths,
for $1 to take a position as captain aboard a private yacht.
Ultimately, six of the seven brothers and one close friend,
Robert Leatherbury, became Smith Brothers, Inc. The brothers
were very hard-working and quickly built a reputation as high
quality contractors. Throughout the 20's and 30's taking
meager salaries and putting every spare cent into the
business, the brothers grew the company. World War II took
Kenneth and many of the workers overseas, but when they
returned, the business began to thrive. Crews worked on the
land as well as the water, building bridges for the Baltimore
Beltway (695), the West Virginia Turnpike and up and down the
Eastern Shore.
Many Annapolis waterfront landmarks were built on the firm
foundation of Smith Brothers. A railway at Trumpy's was
installed by Carroll Smith who forged a long-lasting
relationship with the fabled boat builder. On the city dock,
pilings under the Marriott were driven by Carroll's crew
alongside other larger contractors. Bulkheading was built
near what is now Fawcett's by the brothers. Kenneth remembers
the unusual payment scheme developed for that project.
``That land was owned by Bert Spriggs (a car dealer) and
when we finished up the bulkhead, one of my brothers said to
him, ``Say, how about instead of paying us with a check we
just pick out some new cars?'' and darned if he didn't go
along with that,'' says Kenneth chuckling at the thought.
``Who would go along with that today?''
Today, there is a quiet dignity- to Kenneth Smith as he
recalls the old times. He is a man who has spent well over
half a century both as a crack crane operator and a respected
businessman. Kenneth bought out his brothers one by one and
today he and his son, Jeff, have moved the company in a new
direction.
``Competition for the type of bridge building and pile
driving we always did got very stiff in the late 80's,'' says
Jeff Smith. He and his father made the tough decision to stop
bidding and let the crews go. ``We had no alternative at the
time,'' he says.
There were also creative ways of dealing with overdue bills
that would not fly today . . . like the time that the owner
of a large vacation home in south county balked at paying for
a pier built by Nelson and his crew. Before taking the rig
back to Galesville, Nelson confronted the owner about
payment. When the owner refused to pay, Nelson gave the
signal to the crane operator to crank up the pile driver. He
then positioned the crane to begin tearing out the pier.
Kenneth cannot control his laughter as he recalls the man
``running down the pier waving a check!''
Instead of doing the contracting themselves, Kenneth and
Jeff began to rent equipment to other contractors. Their six-
acre construction yard in Galesville has gradually become a
``rent it'' center for those engaged in heavy construction.
Jeff and his father have built an inventory of barges and
tugboats and cranes, plus the intangible asset of Kenneth's
vast experience.
The tug and barge fleet has grown in size and scope and the
Smith Brothers' red and white colors can be found from New
York to Florida. Around the Bay, the newest addition to the
fleet is the Megalodon, a 50' tugboat named for the
prehistoric shark that roamed the local waters. Megalodon was
the product of the latest Galesville collaboration between
the Smiths and Hartges. Capt. Oscar Hartge's grandson,
Preston, is the operations manager at Smith Brothers. When
the company decided it was time to build a new tug, Preston
took the project on with vigor.
``It has come full circle here, our families have both been
part of the maritime history of this county and Jeff and I
are both committed to continuing our legacy,'' says Hartge.
Kenneth is moving into a supporting role at the yard, and
he too is pleased to see the company continuing to thrive.
``You know, very few family businesses survive, all too
often the hard work of one generation is squandered on young
people, but the Smith Brothers philosophy has always been to
work hard and not to ask anyone to do something you would not
be willing to yourself. I see that same quality today here at
the yard when Jeff and Preston are out there together
arguing, it reminds me of the old days when the brothers
would cuss and fuss and then go out and have dinner
together.''
____________________
REGISTERING OPPOSITION TO H.R. 1461
______
HON. GEORGE MILLER
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to
register my opposition to H.R. 1461. Yesterday, while rushing between
two Committee markups I inadvertently voted in favor of H.R. 1461. I
intended to vote against it.
While I supported the underlying premise of the bill, its aims of
helping new homebuyers were hijacked by right-wing extremists who
inserted language into the bill that will restrict non-profit
organizations that apply for Federal housing grants from engaging in
nonpartisan voter registration. That provision is undemocratic and
completely misplaced.
I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Rep. Barney
Frank of Massachusetts. As the senior Democrat on the House Financial
Services Committee, he was originally a supporter of the bill. But,
like me, he could not look the other way and support one aspect of the
bill while ignoring other noxious provisions that are unjustified.
Rep. Frank said yesterday that, ``The restrictive language being put
forward, which would say no faith-based group could participate, has
never been debated in this committee. . . It was brought up in a
private session between the Republican Study Committee and the then-
majority leader [DeLay]. That is not an appropriate forum to be the
only place where we discuss things.''
I regret the error that has occurred but wish the Record to clearly
reflect my views on this bill. If given the opportunity again, I would
vote to defeat H.R. 1461 in its present form.
[[Page 24169]]
____________________
CONDEMNING THE INTOLERANT AND INAPPROPRIATE STATEMENT BY IRANIAN
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD
______
HON. SCOTT GARRETT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the
venomous words spewed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad towards
one of America's closest allies and a true companion in the War on
Terrorism, Israel.
Yesterday's statement by President Ahmadinejad confirms his country's
station among the most radical and dangerous in the world. It is the
sort of hate espoused by Mr. Ahmadinejad, cheered unwittingly by a
crowd of impressionable children, that breeds new terrorists among
Islamic youth. Israel has been a unwavering companion of the United
States. America must stand behind them as they face such invective, and
we must remain as steadfastly committed to Israel's defense and
independence.
As the process moves forward to promote peace between Israel and
their Arab neighbors, this declaration by the Iranian leader
potentially takes us two steps backwards.
I call on any citizen of Iran who is peaceful and freedom loving, to
reject the sentiments of their close-minded and hateful leader.
I urge the State of Israel to trust that when the rhetorical smoke of
their enemies clears, the United States will, as always, be standing
strong as a proud ally.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF DR. WAYNE GILES
______
HON. EMANUEL CLEAVER
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today in recognition of the
achievements of Dr. Wayne Giles, Chancellor Emeritus of the
Metropolitan Community Colleges (MCC) in the Greater Kansas City area.
Dr. Giles retired as Chancellor on June 30, 2005 after 22 years of
distinguished service to MCC and our community. He served as Vice-
Chancellor for Educational Services for the first ten years and the
past twelve as Chancellor. He has been a tireless advocate for urban
education and has implemented programs that have brought national
recognition to the Community College system. For this reason and many
more, I rise today to honor and celebrate his achievements.
Wayne Giles' tenure with the Metropolitan Community Colleges has been
fruitful for the bi-state area, the State of Missouri, and our entire
Nation. Dr. Giles has overseen the establishment of two new campuses
during his tenure, bringing the total to five community colleges in a
system that serves approximately 43,000 students each year. The
Longview campus was the first community college in the United States to
be recognized as a College of the Year by Time Magazine and the
Princeton Review. The Business and Technology College is the first
community college in the country to earn ISO 9002 certification, which
places it within a select group of companies and organizations
worldwide that have achieved this quality standard.
Dr. Giles has brought many innovative enhancements to MCC, most
recently with the development of writing intensive and diversity
courses as part of the general education learning requirements. To best
serve MCC's increasingly diverse population, he initiated a faculty
internship program, which will be featured at this year's American
Association of Community Colleges national conference. This program has
significantly increased the number of MCC faculty of color in the last
two years.
Wayne Giles has served on numerous committees, including: Member of
the Presidents Advisory Council, NCATC from 2000 to present--a national
network of resources that advocates and promotes the use of technology
that enhances economic and workforce development programs and services;
Member from 1993 to present, and President in 1994 of RC-2000--a
national organization of presidents and chancellors of urban community
colleges; Member of the Missouri Training and Employment Council from
2001 to present; Member from 2001 to present of the Coordinating Board
for Higher Education Resource Group for Postsecondary Technical
Education; and as a Member of the Missouri Coordinating Board for
Higher Education Advisory Committee from 1990 to present, serving as
Chair in 1998.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in expressing our heartfelt gratitude to
Dr. Wayne Giles, not only for his unwavering effort to educate youth
and adults in the Greater Kansas City area, but also for his courage in
bringing about diversity in education and providing a vehicle for
workforce training to our citizens. I urge my colleagues to please join
me, in congratulating Wayne on his retirement as Chancellor of the
Metropolitan Community Colleges, and in celebrating his invaluable
contributions and sacrifices to provide educational and employment
opportunities to constituents of the Fifth Congressional District of
Missouri and throughout our region.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO AMBASSADOR TERRENCE R. TODMAN
______
HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN
of the virgin islands
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a
distinguished Virgin Islander and American, Ambassador Terrence R.
Todman, on the occasion of his being honored by the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee today. Ambassador Todman, one of the U.S. Virgin
Islands best-known international figures was chosen for two years by
the Organization of American States to represent the OAS their efforts
to promote dialogue among political and social elements in Haiti as a
prelude to the holding of elections there later this year.
Ambassador Todman was born on St. Thomas on March 13, 1926. He was
raised, along with his thirteen brothers and sisters, by his mother
Rachel Callwood. He retired from the U.S. Senior Foreign Service in
1993 with the title of Career Ambassador. In 41 years of diplomatic
service, his postings included service as Assistant Secretary of State
for Inter-American Affairs and as U.S. Ambassador to Argentina,
Denmark, Spain, Costa Rica, Guinea and the Republic of Chad.
He serves on the board of directors of several organizations
including the National Endowment for Democracy, a private not-for-
profit entity created in 1983 to strengthen democratic institutions
around the world through non-governmental efforts. He is a former
trustee of the University of the Virgin Islands.
He is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Presidential
Distinguished Service and Meritorious Service Awards, the National
Public Service Award and the State Department's Superior Service Honor
Award. He has also been decorated by the governments of Denmark, Spain,
Chad, and the Virgin Islands.
Ambassador Todman is a graduate of Inter-American University in
Puerto Rico and of Syracuse University. He was been awarded several
honorary doctoral degrees. Before joining the Department of State, he
served in the U.S. Army as a commissioned officer in post-war Japan. He
has been inducted into the Hall of Fame of the U.S. Infantry School at
Fort Benning, Georgia. On behalf of the people of the Virgin Islands
who I am privileged to present, I extend heartfelt congratulations to
Ambassador and Mrs. Todman.
____________________
ON THE PASSING OF DR. JOHN LONG
______
HON. MICHAEL BILIRAKIS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sorrow to mourn
the loss of one of Pasco County's finest citizens and public servants,
Dr. John Long. While on a hunting trip with his wife Marsha in Montana,
John unexpectedly passed away from an apparent heart attack on October
26. He was 59 years old.
Born in Wauchula, Florida, John dedicated his life to serving the
residents of Pasco County and improving the quality of education that
its students received. His passion and reputation would lead him to
serve as a state representative and eventually to be appointed as the
County's Superintendent of Schools, a position he held until his
retirement last year.
John's career in public service began shortly after he completed his
masters degree and doctorate in education at the University of South
Florida. John seized the opportunity to work for the Pasco County
School District and during heightened tension in the District in 1976,
he was hired as the County's Director of Personnel. Known as a problem-
solver, John quickly garnered respect and trust from the teacher's
union and ironed out their labor grievances. His ability to compromise
and find the middle ground would follow him throughout his career.
[[Page 24170]]
In 1986, John ran successfully for a seat in the Florida House of
Representatives. He quickly rose to prominence within the Democratic
Party and was poised to become the Speaker of the Florida House.
However, another institution took precedence: his family. John retired
from state politics to spend more time at home with Marsha and his two
daughters, Jennifer and Jessica. Soon after stepping down, the late
Governor Lawton Chiles appointed John as Pasco County Schools
Superintendent in 1995.
After winning a second term in 2000, John was named Florida's
Superintendent of the Year by the Florida Association of District
School Superintendents, a distinction he greatly cherished. John also
facilitated the enactment of the Penny for Pasco program in March 2004,
which he considered one of his proudest accomplishments.
Mr. Speaker, too often in this extremely partisan business, we lose
sight of the things that really matter. John looked past party
politics. He placed his family ahead of his promising political career.
He was a breath of fresh air in an occupation that can suffocate
integrity. I am truly saddened by the loss of John, and my thoughts and
prayers are with the Long family. May God bless them as they remember
this great man.
____________________
ON THE LOSS OF AMERICAN LIVES IN IRAQ
______
HON. MICHAEL M. HONDA
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, this week, the U.S. Department of Defense
acknowledged that the number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq has
reached 2,000. Sadly, Californians represented the majority of these
deaths, with 215 falling victim in the conflict. I, along with all
other Americans, mourn the loss of these brave American patriots and
insist that we all continue to support those courageous men and women
who bear the burden of this military action in Iraq.
As we pause to remember the 2,000 patriots who gave their lives and
console the families they left behind, we must demand that the
remainder of our troops begin their journey home. This unfounded war
began with the false belief that Iraq was in possession of weapons of
mass destruction and has continued under a shortsighted and flawed
military strategy. While the Administration chooses to ``stay the
course'' and insists that there is significant progress in Iraq, the
insurgency continues unabated and too many of our soldiers are
returning to their families as only a memory. Others return with
emotional and physical wounds that may never heal.
Let this week's grim milestone not slip away without a renewed demand
that the President provide to the American public, as well as the U.S.
soldiers in Iraq, a clear strategy for success. Only through the
creation of a coherent and realistic plan can this Administration begin
to stem the loss of American life.
____________________
INTRODUCING THE ``ELIMINATION OF BARRIERS FOR KATRINA VICTIMS ACT''
______
HON. ROBERT C. SCOTT
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my
colleagues, Congressman Conyers of MI, Congressman Rangel of NY,
Congressman Thompson of MS, Congressman Jefferson of LA, Congressman
Frank of MA, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee of TX, Congressman Paul of TX,
Congresswoman Johnson of TX, Congresswoman Lee of CA, Congressman
Hastings of FL and Congressman Al Green of TX in introducing the
``Elimination of Barriers for Katrina Victims Act''. We are pleased to
be joined by a coalition of almost 100 national, state and local
organizations who have expressed their support for the legislation,
such as the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, American College
of Mental Health Administration, Drug Policy Alliance Network, League
of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), NAACP, NAADAC--The
Association for Addiction Professionals, National Council on Alcoholism
and Drug Dependence, and the National Urban League, and the list is
growing as word of the legislation gets out.
Millions of Americans were displaced from their homes due to
Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita and hundreds of thousands have not
been able to return and may never be able to do so. Having lost their
homes, their communities, their jobs and other support systems, most
have required emergency food, clothing, shelter, medical, or monetary
assistance. According to FEMA reports, an estimated 2.1 million
Americans have already applied for federal aid. Unfortunately, many of
these individuals and their families are in desperate need, but, due to
a prior drug conviction, will not be able to receive certain federal
assistance available to other victims in need. While it is impossible
to know for sure how many families will be denied public assistance
because of drug convictions, it is likely in the tens of thousands.
More than 1.5 million Americans are arrested for drug offenses every
year. Several federal laws disqualify those with felony convictions to
receive certain federal benefits. A recent GAO report commissioned by
myself and Congressman Rush of IL reveals that these disqualifications
are having a huge impact on receipt of federal benefits for which those
with prior drug convictions would otherwise receive. For example, an
estimated 41,000 students were denied college assistance during the
2003/2004 academic year because of drug conviction.
While the GAO was only able to collect data from 15 public housing
agencies, out of more than 3,000, those 15 agencies denied housing to
almost 1,500 families because of past drug violations in 2003 alone.
That indicates that there are thousands of families and tens of
thousands of individuals unable to receive housing benefits because a
family member has a drug convictions.
The drug conviction ban on eligibility for federal benefits also
applies to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or the TANF
program. TANF eligibility applies to families with minor children. One
study reflected that almost 25 percent of drug offenders released from
prison in 2001 were eligible for TANF benefits, but were permanently
barred from receiving it due to their state's application of the
federal ban for a drug conviction. While some states do not apply the
federal ban completely, other states, such as Alabama, Mississippi,
Texas and Virginia, where many of the displaced families are staying,
have fully applied the ban.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have inflicted suffering on millions of
people. The suffering will fall even harder on victims denied aid
because of past drug offenses. Parents who have lost everything and are
struggling to feed themselves and their family will be denied TANF and
food stamps; students who have lost their school, tuition, fees, room
and board, but could continue their education in another school willing
to accept them, or who were in school elsewhere when their parents lost
the ability to continue paying for their education, will be denied
student loans; and entire families that have lost everything in the
disasters will be denied housing--all due to the federal bans for a
past drug conviction.
The ``Elimination of Barriers for Katrina Victims Act'' applies only
to past drug offenses, some of which were many years ago, and suspends
the disqualification for only a 3-year period. This temporary
adjustment period in federal disqualifications would allow families
affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita a chance to put their lives
back together through the same means as other victims who suddenly lost
their homes and livelihood through no fault of their own. Therefore, we
are introducing this bill today and urge our colleagues to quickly
enact it into law to assist families who are otherwise hopelessly
destitute because of the disasters and the impact of a drug conviction.
____________________
HONORING DOROTHY MARION PETE
______
HON. BARBARA LEE
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of
Dorothy Marion Pete of Oakland, California. Dorothy was a beloved
mother, wife, grandmother, great-grandmother, sister, friend, and
leader in our community. She passed away on October 10, 2005 at her
home in Oakland at the age of 91.
A longtime East Bay Area resident, Dorothy was known throughout her
life for her devotion to her family, her church, and her community. She
was born in Berkeley, California on February 28, 1914 as the ninth of
thirteen children to Virginia (Jennie) Parker and Thomas Reid, Sr.
After graduating from Berkeley High School, she worked as the office
secretary at the then segregated West Oakland Linden Street Branch of
the YWCA. She later integrated the downtown Oakland YWCA, serving first
as a stenographer before becoming the administrative assistant to
Executive Director Helen Grant.
[[Page 24171]]
In addition to the changes she affected at the local YWCA, Dorothy
had an immense impact on the local faith community by integrating the
staff of the Lakeshore Avenue Baptist Church in Oakland. An active
member, Dorothy also taught Sunday school and served as president of
the American Baptist Women's Group.
Dorothy's bright and giving spirit shaped her actions not only in the
context of these institutions, but in every aspect of her life. She was
known by all for her boundless generosity toward those who were close
to her and also toward those she was meeting for the first time.
Dorothy was especially committed to providing aid and comfort to those
in need, initiating many food drives at her church and giving away
blankets, quilts and dolls that she created by hand or with her sewing
machine.
A bright light to many, Dorothy's role was especially profound in the
lives of her loved ones. She was happily married for many years to her
husband Herman Rideau Pete, who hailed originally from Crowley,
Louisiana but spent most of his life in the Bay Area. Though sadly
Herman preceded her in death, he and Dorothy spent many happy years
together and raised three sons, Gregory, Dennis, and Geoffrey, who is a
business owner and community activist in Oakland. Her guidance and
unconditional support has given them the strength they have needed to
confront and conquer life's challenges, and will continue to sustain
them as they, along with their families, continue to celebrate her life
in the years to come.
Dorothy's family and friends have come together during this time to
honor, remember and cherish not only her life, but the way that she
touched the lives of so many others. On behalf of the California's 9th
U.S. Congressional District, I am proud to add my voice to the
countless others who have united in thanks, appreciation, and joy to
remember this very special woman and wonderful friend, Mrs. Dorothy
Marion Pete.
____________________
CONDEMNING COMMENTS BY IRAN'S PRESIDENT
______
HON. RUSH D. HOLT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the new president of lran, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, told 4,000 hardline students in Tehran that ``Israel must
be wiped off the map.'' Mr. Ahmadinejad's address was the highlight, if
you want to call it that, of a forum called ``The World Without
Zionism,'' that also saw chants of ``Death to America'' and ``Death to
Israel.'' The Iranian President also attacked other Muslim nations for
making peace with Israel and claimed that terrorist attacks by
Palestinians could destroy the Jewish state.
I completely and utterly condemn the comments by Iran's president.
Peace will only come to the Middle East when all parties recognize
Israel's right to exist and completely renounce support for terrorism.
Unfortunately, Iran's new government is turning its back on peaceful
coexistence and appears bent on confrontation with Israel, the United
States, and the world community. Iran also continues to bankroll
terrorists, like those who killed five innocent Israelis on Wednesday.
Mr. Speaker, the world must unite to denounce the hate speech of Iran's
president in the strongest terms possible.
Tomorrow, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and people of other faiths will
come together to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, the
Catholic Church's landmark document that called from respect for other
faiths, particularly Islam and Judaism. And four months ago, the three
great Abrahamic religions came together to mourn the death of the great
spiritual leader, Pope John Paul II. Because of their nations'
alphabetical proximity, the then-presidents of Israel and Iran sat next
to each other and even shook hands. But it seems the spirit of
interfaith harmony, sadly, lasted little longer than the services for
the Pope.
Mr. Speaker, as long as Iran's president continues to rage hatefully
against Israel and the West, there will be no peace in the Middle East.
The world community will not tolerate these comments by Iran's
president, and I condemn them as strongly as I can.
____________________
NEW URGENCY REQUIRED TO STOP VIOLENCE IN SUDAN
______
HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am alarmed and worried about recent
reports coming out of Sudan describing deteriorating political
conditions and an increase of violence. The world's governments,
including the United States have moved too slowly to resolve the
conflict in Sudan. And now, despite a negotiated ceasefire, we have
received numerous reports of renewed killings and abductions, including
attacks on aid workers and African Union peacekeepers.
The escalating violence is threatening humanitarian support for
millions of people as international aid workers, increasingly find
themselves the target of violence. Last month, a squad supported by
Sudanese government helicopters attacked a camp for displaced civilians
in Darfur, killing 35. Days later, in West Darfur, an Arab rebel group
abducted 18 African peacekeepers. Last week, two African Union
peacekeeping soldiers were killed in an ambush along with two civilian
contractors. Three other African peacekeepers were wounded during the
same raid.
The Bush Administration's slow response offers little hope for
success and sets no deadline for resolution. We must adopt a new
approach that recognizes the urgency of the situation on the ground.
If the ceasefire is to successfully progress toward a fully
implemented peace agreement, the U.S. will need to play a more active
role in increasing the influence and capabilities of the African Union
troops. Currently there are 6,000 peacekeepers working to secure an
area the size of Texas and containing a population approaching two
million. By honoring its pledge to provide $50 million as part of the
FY06 Foreign Operations bill for equipment and supplies, the
Administration would do much to assist the efforts of the African
Union.
The U.S. should also work aggressively with the AU on expanding the
mandate of the African Union peacekeepers. After more than a year,
peacekeeping troops are still confused about their role in the region
and about their enforcement powers. While AU troops have been able to
protect civilians in some instances, their mandate does not expressly
include this important responsibility. As a result, their ability to
protect civilians from violence has been extremely limited and varies
from one contingent to the next.
Finally, the Bush Administration should pressure the Sudanese
government to fully implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. That
means the commissions and boards mandated by the peace agreement to
oversee such contentious, but essential issues as petroleum production
and military operations must be established.
Sudan has been the focus of organized armed conflict for 20 of the
last 21 years. Given that the Administration in Khartoum has
demonstrated only token commitment to the goal of establishing a
lasting peace, only the active, aggressive engagement of the United
States will make it possible for the Sudanese people to one day be able
to return safely to their homes.
____________________
REGARDING DR. C. DELORES TUCKER
______
HON. CHAKA FATTAH
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, it is never easy to lose an esteemed friend
and colleague such as Dr. C. Delores Tucker. A valiant warrior in the
fight for freedom and equality, she selfishly committed herself to the
work of serving others.
Dr. C. Delores Tucker was the first African American woman in the
nation to serve as the Common Wealth of Pennslvania Secretary of State.
During this time, she instituted the first Commission on the Status of
Women in Pennsylvania. In her term, Dr. Tucker was responsible for the
governor's appointment of more women and African Americans to
judgeships and commissions in the history of the Commonwealth. She also
led the effort to make Pennsylvania one of the first states to pass the
Equal Rights Amendment. As Chief of Elections of Pennsylvania, she was
a leader in instituting a voter registration by mail and reducing the
voting age from 21 to 18 years of age.
Dr. Tucker was founder and president of the Bethune-DuBois Institute,
Inc., which she established in 1991 to aid African American youth
through scholarships and educational programs. Dr. Tucker launched and
served as the publisher of the renowned publication, Vital Issues: The
Journal of African American Speeches. This endeavor caught the
attention of then Congressman William H. Gray and was submitted into
the Congressional Record.
[[Page 24172]]
Dr. Tucker has received awards from numerous organizations and
institutions including the NAACP, the Philadelphia Urban League, the
Salvation Army, Lincoln University, the National Association for Equal
Opportunity, Higher Education, Women for Good Government, the Alliance
of Black Women Attorneys, the National Black Caucus of State
Legislators, the Opportunities Industrialization Center, B'nai B'rith,
the National Newspaper Publishers Association, the Feminist Majority
Foundation, Berean Institute, and the National Association for Sickle
Cell Disease. Dr. Tucker was also selected as a People magazine 1996
Yearbook Honoree and was featured in the inaugural issue of John F.
Kennedy, Jr.'s George magazine for her crusade against gangster/porno
rap. In addition, she has been acknowledged for her deep concern for
children by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in the book ``It Takes a
Village.'' The National Women's Political Caucus and Redbook Magazine
also named Dr. Tucker as the woman best qualified to be ambassador to
the United Nations.
Her tireless and passionate pursuits have generated many discussions
over the concerns of equality and justice. Her efforts will never be
lost in the hearts of those she touched and the world she labored to
change. Our hearts are bowed in reverence of her memory. Please join me
in honoring the legacy that is C. Delores Tucker.
____________________
NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
______
HON. MICHAEL M. HONDA
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
millions of Americans whose lives have been touched by domestic
violence. October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and we
must continue to raise awareness and address the problem of violence
that still affects so many American families. One out of every four
American women will experience violence by an intimate partner at some
point in her life, and one out of every six women will be raped during
her lifetime. Domestic violence crosses ethnic, racial, age, national
origin, sexual orientation, religious, and socio-economic lines.
Although great strides have been made toward breaking the cycle of
violence, much work remains to be done.
During the past decade, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994
and 2000 have provided tremendous protections and support for victims
of domestic violence and sexual assault. VAWA funding has provided law
enforcement agencies, the judicial system, rape crisis centers, and
domestic violence shelters with the expertise and services they need to
do the work of prevention and protection of those affected by violence.
Both the House and the Senate have passed bills reauthorizing VAWA,
which will provide important prevention initiatives that have the
potential to keep millions of women and children safe.
As both chambers meet to work out differences in the respective
pieces of legislation, I encourage the Committee to retain the Senate
provision that addresses the needs of girls in the juvenile justice
system and correct flaws in the bills, such as improving the immigrant
provisions and restoring the funding stream for communities of color,
including key health, housing, and economic security provisions.
I am particularly concerned about violence against women of color. In
Santa Clara County, of the women killed in domestic-violence related
homicides between 1993 and 1997, 7 percent were African Americans, 31
percent were Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders, 22 percent were
Hispanic/Latino, and 35 percent were White. Asian American and Pacific
Islander women had the highest rates of domestic-violence related
homicides when compared to their proportion of the population. The
Congressional Hispanic, Black and Asian Pacific American Caucuses
(``Congressional Tri-Caucus'') continue to work together to address
issues that disproportionately affect people of color. Last month, the
National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Assault, in
collaboration with the Congressional Tri-Caucus, held an educational
briefing about the needs of victims of color and the importance of
culturally-specific messaging that ultimately provides a more
comprehensive response to addressing domestic violence, sexual assault,
stalking, and dating violence in racial and ethnic communities.
The needs of immigrant women are also important to consider. Although
VAWA 1994 and 2000 made significant progress in reducing violence
against immigrant women, many women and children who are victims of
domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, or trafficking are
still being deported. Others remain economically trapped by abusers or
traffickers in life-threatening environments. I am a co-sponsor of H.R.
3188, the Immigration Victims of Violence Protection Act, which would
stop the deportation of immigrant victims of violence, extend
immigration relief to all victims of family violence, and guarantee
economic security for immigrant victims and their children.
Domestic violence is not solely a woman's issue--it is also a health,
social, economic, and criminal justice issue, and must be addressed on
multiple levels. We must all do our part to prevent and address
violence in our homes, in our communities, and in our society in order
to build a safe and healthy nation.