[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 9]
[Issue]
[Pages 11677-11800]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 11677]]
VOLUME 151--PART 9
SENATE--Tuesday, June 7, 2005
The Senate met at 9:45 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
John Ensign, a Senator from the State of Nevada.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
God of all mercies, open our hearts to the forgiving, healing work of
Your Spirit that we may find our greatness in serving You and bringing
good into the hearts and homes and work and play of others.
Sustain the Members of this body in their labors today. May they so
strive to please You that even enemies will be transformed into
friends. Remind them that a love of justice brings true power. Help
them to speak with such kindness that others will want to listen. Teach
them that though they make important decisions, You alone determine
what happens.
God of grace and mercy, so bless our land that the people of the
Earth will glorify Your name.
Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable John Ensign led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Stevens).
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, June 7, 2005.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
John Ensign, a Senator from the State of Nevada, to perform
the duties of the Chair.
Ted Stevens,
President pro tempore.
Mr. ENSIGN thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning we will resume the debate on
Executive Calendar No. 72, the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to be
a U.S. circuit judge for the DC Circuit. The cloture vote is scheduled
for noon today. We will have a debate equally divided until then. I
expect that cloture will be invoked, and once that vote is concluded, I
will discuss with the Democratic leader a time for the up-or-down vote
on Janice Rogers Brown. I remind everyone that following that
confirmation vote, we will proceed to the cloture vote on the Pryor
nomination.
Again, I hope we can expedite the final vote on each of these
nominations once the cloture votes have been completed. We have other
nominations to consider this week, including the additional judicial
nominations that have time agreements already locked in place.
____________________
VISIT BY TURKISH PRIME MINISTER RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on Wednesday, I will have the honor of
meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan here in the
Capitol. We will be meeting to discuss the importance of the United
States-Turkish relationship and the ways in which we can strengthen
that bond to achieve our common goals. I have had the opportunity to
meet with the Prime Minister twice before over the past 12 months.
During a trip to the Middle East this spring, I sat down with Prime
Minister Erdogan in Jerusalem. Prior to that, we met in Istanbul in the
summer of 2004.
I look forward to continuing our dialog on the importance of the
Turkish-American relationship. Turkey is a critical NATO ally and an
indispensable partner in the global war on terror.
Despite our two countries' strong ties and close cooperation, there
have been strains in the recent past that began with the liberation of
Iraq in the spring of 2003. Some in the press speculate that Istanbul
and Washington are going their separate ways. This is simply not the
case.
It is true that March of 2003, the Turkish parliament rejected our
request to permit the deployment of U.S. troops to Turkey in order to
open a northern front against Saddam's forces. Clearly, we were not
pleased. However, Turkey's subsequent offer to send troops to Iraq and
President Bush's visit to Turkey last June moved our partnership beyond
that matter.
Turkey has granted coalition forces overflight rights through Turkish
airspace throughout the war in Iraq and has permitted the use of its
ports, airbases, and roads for resupplying coalition troops an
supporting reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Because of its proximity,
Turkey's Incirlik airbase has also served as a vital transit location
for coalition troops rotating in and out of Iraq. In fact, from January
to April 2004, half of all U.S. troops rotating in and out of Iraq went
through Incirlik, and Turkey recently agreed to allow coalition forces
to use the base as a logistics hub. Turkey's assistance and support has
been invaluable.
Turkey has also been a leader in Iraq's reconstruction efforts. At
the 2003 Madrid donors' conference, Turkey generously pledged to donate
$50 million in aid over 5 years. In addition, Turkish businesses are
functioning in Iraq and helping to provide fuel, electricity, and water
to the Iraqi people. And many brave Turkish men and
[[Page 11678]]
women have given the ultimate sacrifice to help build Iraq's nascent
democracy. We honor them for their courage.
Turkey's contribution to the reconstruction project in Afghanistan
must also not be overlooked. Turkey has taken the lead for the
International Security Assistance Force twice in the last 3 years, most
recently in February of this year.
And we must not forget that Turkey had been challenged by terrorism
at home by the PKK for years before 9/11. Turkey is threatened today as
well. Some PKK terrorists are seeking safe haven in northern Iraq, and
so I urge the administration and the Iraqi government to take more
aggressive action against the terrorists, and deny them any safe haven
from which to launch attacks.
Since 9/11, Turkey has also been the target of al-Qaida. In November
2003, 62 people were killed and more than 700 injured in multiple
bombings in Istanbul. It was a tragic event that saddened and angered
the world, and fortified our resolve to win the war on terror.
Turkey has been a dedicated and reliable ally. Our intelligence
communities are in close contact in this war, and Turkey has been
instrumental in capturing terrorists, disrupting their logistics and
planning, and dismantling their vast financial networks.
I am confident that Turkey will remain determined and resolute in the
war on terror, and that enhanced cooperation between our two countries
will prove to be fruitful. Turkey's role as a vital and strategic ally
can only be enhanced by its membership in the European Union. The
United States strongly supports this.
On December 17 last year, EU member states accepted the
recommendation of the European commission for the commencement of
accession negotiations with Turkey. These talks are scheduled to begin
in October. In order to reach this stage, the Turkish government has
undertaken sweeping reforms to fulfill the political and economic
criteria for membership in the EU.
Since October of 2001, the Turkish parliament has passed nine reform
packages to bring Turkish laws into line with EU benchmarks--five under
the leadership of Prime Minister Endrogan. Reforms include the
legalization of Kurdish broadcasting and education, the enhancement of
freedoms of speech and association, greater civilian control over the
military, and more thorough and transparent investigations into
allegations of human rights abuses. It is crucial that Turkey continue
to take steps to meet all of the EU's criteria. This will allow the
United States to remain a steady and effective supporter of Turkey's
ambitions to join the EU.
Turkey's accession to the EU will have a profound impact on Muslim
populations within Europe, in the broader Middle East and beyond. It
will further demonstrate that democratic governance and respect for the
rule of law are not unique to one religion or one culture, but are the
birthright of all peoples everywhere. Just as the people of Iraq,
Lebanon, and Afghanistan are setting a remarkable example for the
entire Middle East, Turkey's membership in the EU will inspire hope
throughout the entire Muslim world.
And, finally, as a secular democracy with a predominantly Muslim
population, Turkey's membership in the EU--as in NATO--will demonstrate
the United States' and Europe's commitment to diversity and tolerance.
We may not always agree on the same course of action--and sometimes
we may not agree on the same ends--but Turkey has, for decades, been a
friend. And it has consistently expressed its dedication to the values,
ideals, and interests that the United States holds dear.
Like the United States, Turkey is committed to a democratic Iraq that
respects the rights of its own people and is at peace with its
neighbors. It is committed to a just resolution to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict in which two democratic states, Israel and
Palestine, live side-by-side in peace and security. It stands against
Iran's nuclear ambitions, and squarely for victory in the war against
terror.
The United States and Turkey share the same objectives: peace,
security, and the spread of freedom and opportunity.
The partnership between the United States and Turkey has survived
disagreements in the past and has been consistently vital in the
pursuit of our shared interests. The key has always been strong
leadership at the highest levels that articulates our partnership and
defends the bilateral ties that help us advance our common goals.
Today, we face a golden opportunity to move beyond recent tensions
and strengthen our partnership. The first step is for Prime Minister
Erdogan to speak clearly in defense of our partnership, and to dispel a
wave of anti-Americanism that runs counter to the last 5 decades of
cooperation.
I'm confident that the prime minister will do so during his visit
this week, and when he returns home to Turkey. And I'm confident that
the United States-Turkish partnership will endure as we confront the
challenges of the 21st century together.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is
recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Chair inform me as to what the situation is
concerning morning business or debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are supposed to go into
executive session at this time.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order,
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF JANICE ROGERS BROWN TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will go into executive session to resume consideration of
calendar No. 72, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Janice Rogers
Brown, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the
District of Columbia Circuit.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 12 noon shall be equally divided for debate between the two
leaders or their designees, provided that the last 20 minutes prior to
the vote be divided, with 10 minutes under the control of the
Democratic leader or his designee, to be followed by 10 minutes under
the control of the majority leader or his designee.
The assistant Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, under the order, the time is equally
divided; is that right?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. DURBIN. I seek recognition under the terms of that order.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois, the
assistant Democratic leader, is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am sorry that this day has come. Janice
Rogers Brown is one of President Bush's most ideological and extreme
judicial nominees. This is not just my opinion. I invite anyone,
please, read her speeches, read her opinions. They reflect the views of
a judicial activist and a person who is, in fact, an ideological
warrior. They reflect the views of someone who is outside of the
mainstream of American thought. They reflect the views of someone who
should not be given a lifetime appointment to the second highest court
in America--a court second only to the United States Supreme Court.
I am a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I served as the
ranking Democrat at Justice Brown's hearing in October of 2003. I asked
her a lot of questions. Her answers offered little assurance that she
will be anything but a judicial activist with a far-right agenda.
[[Page 11679]]
She is a very engaging person. She has a great life story. You cannot
help but like her when you first meet her. But then, as you read what
she has said and ask her questions about it, you cannot help but be
troubled, if you are looking for someone who is moderate and centrist
and who will be fair in the way they view the most important cases
coming before the court.
Do not take my word for that. Listen to the words of George Will, one
of the most well-known, conservative voices in America. Two weeks ago
in the Washington Post, George Will wrote the following:
Janice Rogers Brown is out of that mainstream. That should
not be an automatic disqualification, but it is a fact: She
has expressed admiration for the Supreme Court's pre-1937
hyper-activism in declaring unconstitutional many laws and
regulations of the sort that now define the new post-New Deal
regulatory state.
I agree with George Will. So do hundreds of other individuals and
organizations. Newspaper editorial boards across America are deeply
troubled about her nomination by President Bush.
Justice Brown's ideological rants about the role of government in our
society are found most often in her speeches. She called the year of
1937 ``the triumph of our own socialist revolution.'' Socialism in
America, in the eyes of Justice Brown. Why? Because the Supreme Court
decisions that year upheld the constitutionality of Social Security and
other major parts of the New Deal. So in the eyes of Justice Brown, the
New Deal and Social Security are socialist ideas? That shows how far
removed she is from the reality of thinking in America.
She stated:
Where Government moves in, community retreats, civil
society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own
destiny atrophies.
That is a wonderful line to throw in a novel but to announce that as
your philosophy as you take off to preside over a bench making
decisions involving the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans is
just too extreme.
Justice Brown has praised an infamous case, Lochner v. New York. It
is a 100-year-old case. The Supreme Court struck down maximum-hour laws
for bakers and ruled that Government regulations interfered with the
constitutional right to ``freedom of contract.'' The Lochner case has
been repudiated by both liberals and conservatives. They said it went
too far. They believed it was extreme, but not Justice Brown. She not
only accepts the Lochner decision, she embraces it.
In another speech, Justice Brown said our Federal Government is like
slavery. She said:
We no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We
demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the
masses. It is the opiate.
Think about these words. Interesting things to read. You might want
to read them from time to time and say, let's see what the far right
thinks about things, except these are the words of a woman who is
seeking to bring her views to a lifetime appointment on the Federal
bench.
She has blasted Government programs that help seniors, and here is
what she said:
Today's senior citizens blithely cannibalize their
grandchildren because they have a right to get as much
``free'' stuff as the political system will permit them to
extract.
Think about that. Think of the cynicism in that remark and think
about whether she is the judge you would want to face with a critical
decision involving your life, your family, your community, or our
country--Janice Rogers Brown.
She rebuked elected officials for ``handing out new rights like
lollipops in the dentist's office.'' She has complained that ``in the
last 100 years, and particularly in the last 30, the Constitution has
been demoted to the status of a bad chain novel.''
Think about that. Is Roe v. Wade chapter 1 of Justice Brown's bad
chain novel? How about Brown v. Board of Education, Justice Brown? Is
that another bad chapter in America's novel? How about Miranda, a
decision which has now been accepted across America, another bad
chapter in America's novel?
Justice Brown just does not get it. America has changed, thank God,
in recognizing the right of privacy, in recognizing that we are putting
behind us segregation, separate but equal schools, in recognizing that
when it comes to the power of the State, there are limitations and
there are rights of individuals. For Justice Brown, these are part of a
bad chain novel. What a choice of words.
Justice Brown's rhetoric suggests she is guided more by ``The
Fountainhead,'' ``Atlas Shrugged,'' and ``The Road to Serfdom'' than by
our Constitution and Bill of Rights. And she wants a lifetime
appointment on the bench?
The Washington Post asked a question in an editorial this morning of
Republicans in the Senate: If you truly want moderate people who are
not activist, who do not come to the bench with an agenda, how can you
support Justice Brown? When you take a look at what she has done and
said, how can you honestly believe she is going to be moderate in her
approach on the bench?
The question is whether Republican Senators will march in lockstep
because President Bush says take it or leave it. It is Justice Janice
Rogers Brown, you have to have her. If they take it, they are basically
turning their backs on the fact they have argued against activism on
the bench. Hers is activism from the right, not from the left. But if
you are opposed to judicial activism, how could you support her based
on what she said?
In her confirmation hearing, Justice Brown dismissed her speeches.
She said they were just an attempt to stir the pot. They did more than
stir the pot. They set the kitchen on fire. Her speeches show she has
the temperament and ideology of a rightwing radio talk show host, not
of a person we want to serve on the second highest court of the land
for a lifetime--a lifetime.
Justice Brown's nomination to the DC Circuit of all courts is
particularly troubling. The DC Circuit is a unique court. It is the
court that most closely oversees the operations of Government, such as
dealing with worker safety and unfair labor practices. It is the only
appellate court with exclusive jurisdiction over many aspects of
environmental and energy laws. How ironic and unfortunate to have
someone considered for that position who is so openly hostile to the
role of the Government when it comes to the environment, when it comes
to protecting individual rights.
As a member of the California Supreme Court, Justice Brown has put
her theories into practice. In case after case, Justice Brown has sided
with anti-Government positions, and she has sided consistently against
victims seeking rights and remedies. She is a tough judge. Sometimes
you want a tough judge, but you also want a balanced judge, one who is
going to be fair in what they do on the bench.
Oftentimes she is the loan dissenter--remarkable--because the
California Supreme Court has six Republicans and only one Democrat.
Senator Barbara Boxer of California has counted at least 31 cases where
Justice Brown was the sole dissenter. Let me give a few examples.
She was the only member of the California Supreme Court to find the
California Fair Employment and Housing Commission did not have the
authority to award damages to housing discrimination victims.
She was the only member of the court to conclude that age
discrimination victims should not have the right to sue under common
law, an interpretation directly contrary to the will of the California
Legislature.
She was the only member of the California Supreme Court who voted to
strike down a San Francisco law that provided housing assistance to
displaced low-income, elderly, and disabled people.
In a case last year, Justice Brown was the sole member of her court
who voted to strike down a law that required health insurance plans
that cover prescription drugs to include prescription contraceptives in
that coverage. Her open hostility to access to contraception is
particularly worth noting today, June 7, 2005. Today is the
[[Page 11680]]
40th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case Griswold v.
Connecticut, which established a constitutional right to marital
privacy. That case really was a watershed decision.
In the State of Connecticut and several other States, a religious
group had been successful in convincing the State legislature to
dramatically limit the availability of birth control and contraception.
Forty years ago, some of us did not know it was happening, but it was
happening. In some States, you could not buy birth control because the
legislature said no. That is a decision the State had decided that you
could not make as an individual.
The Griswold case overthrew that law and said that your personal
right to privacy trumped State rights when it came to access to
contraception.
It turns out that Justice Brown's hostility to access to
contraception runs counter to 40 years of thinking in America about our
rights as individuals to privacy and to make those decisions involving
personal responsibility. Justice Janice Rogers Brown might take that
right away.
To reward her for this extreme and fringe view, President Bush wants
to give her a lifetime appointment to the second highest court of the
land. There she will sit day after day, week after week, and month
after month making decisions that affect the lives of individuals. It
is her point of view that will prevail. She has shown no inclination
toward moderation. She will push that agenda on that court, and people
will come into that courtroom and wonder what country they are living
in, where this court might be meeting because it is so inconsistent
with what America has stood for.
In another case, Justice Brown was the only member of the California
Supreme Court who voted to make it easier to sell cigarettes to minors.
Isn't that perfect? She wants the Government to invade your privacy
when it comes to the decisions about birth control and your family, but
she does not want the Government to stop the gas station down the
street from selling cigarettes to a 12-year-old.
She was the only member of her court who dissented in two rulings
that permitted counties to ban guns or gun sales on fairgrounds or
other public property.
She was the only member of her court who voted to overturn the rape
conviction of a 17-year-old girl because she believed the victim gave
mixed messages to the rapist. She was the only member to dissent. She
read the facts and concluded that she sided with the rapist and not the
victim--the only member to dissent.
She was the only member of her court who concluded there was nothing
improper about requiring a criminal defendant to wear a 50,000-bolt
stun belt at his trial--the only member of the court, a court of six
Republicans and one Democrat. In many of these cases, there were clear
precedents, decisions by the court which Justice Brown chose to ignore.
Her personal philosophy was more important to her than the law. That is
known as judicial activism. That is what Republicans have condemned,
and that is what they will endorse if they vote for her nomination.
Why does she ignore the law so often? It gets in the way of her
personal beliefs. Those are the most important things from her point of
view.
This is not a new revelation about Justice Brown. Back in 1996, the
California State Bar Commission rated Justice Brown as ``not
qualified''--not qualified--for the California Supreme Court. Here is
what they said about her: She had a tendency ``to interject her
political and philosophical views into her opinions.'' No surprise.
Read what she has done on that court. Read what she said about the law.
And do not be a bit surprised when she comes to this DC Circuit Court,
if she is approved by the Senate for a lifetime appointment, and does
exactly the same thing. It is not as if we can say 2 years from now:
Well, we guessed wrong; she is not independent, she is not moderate,
she is an activist, we will remove her. No way. This is a lifetime
appointment to this court by the Bush administration, just the kind of
ideologue they want to put on that bench to influence decision after
decision as long as she lives.
Nine years later, the American Bar Association, in evaluating Justice
Brown for the position we are voting on today, gave her the lowest
passing grade. Several members of the ABA screening committee rated
Justice Brown ``not qualified'' again.
In the editorial I mentioned earlier, entitled ``Reject Justice
Brown,'' the Washington Post today asserted:
No Senator who votes for her will have standing any longer
to complain about legislating from the bench.
And the Washington Post is right. Do not complain about judicial
activism if you vote for Janice Rogers Brown. She is a judicial
activist. She has an agenda, and she has been loyal to it on the
California Supreme Court. There is no reason to expect anything
different on the DC Circuit Court.
A Los Angeles Times editorial entitled ``A Bad Fit for a Key Court''
stated:
In opinions and speeches, Brown has articulated disdainful
views of the Constitution and Government that are so strong
and so far from the mainstream as to raise questions about
whether they would control her decisions.
That is from a Los Angeles Times editorial which, incidentally, is
her home State newspaper. They know her best.
The New York Times stated that Justice Brown ``is an outspoken
supporter of a radical movement to take constitutional law back to
before 1937, when the Federal Government had little power to prevent
discrimination, protect workers from unsafe conditions or prohibit
child labor.''
The Detroit Free Press put it this way:
Since her appointment to the State court in 1996, Brown has
all but hung a banner above her head declaring herself a foe
to privacy rights, civil rights, legal precedent and even
colleagues who don't share her extremist leanings.
Over 100 organizations oppose Justice Brown. It takes something in
this town to get 100 groups to oppose someone. She pulled it off,
including almost every major African-American organization in America,
despite the fact that Janice Rogers Brown is an African American.
Dr. Dorothy Height, the great civil rights leader, recipient of the
Congressional Gold Medal, attended a press conference before the
Judiciary Committee vote on Justice Brown in November of 2003 and said
this:
I cannot stand by and be silent when a jurist with the
record of performance of California Supreme Court Justice
Janice Rogers Brown is nominated to a Federal court, even
though she is an African-American woman. In her speeches and
decisions, Justice Janice Rogers Brown has articulated
positions that weaken the civil rights legislation and
progress that I and others have fought so long and hard to
achieve.
How hard it must have been for Dorothy Height, this great civil
rights leader, to come out and publicly say that this African-American
woman, Janice Rogers Brown, was not the right choice for the DC Circuit
Court, the same city that Dorothy Height calls home.
The Senate rejected the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown in 2003.
Her renomination this year is less about confirmation than it is about
confrontation. It is evident the White House wants to pick a fight over
this nomination. Well, they will get their wish today.
This White House strategy of confrontation does a great disservice to
the American people, who have every right to expect their elected
representatives to work together to address the real problems facing
our Nation, rather than fighting the same battles over and over.
I know my colleagues across the aisle have steadfastly supported
President Bush's judicial nominees, but I urge them to at least stand
up to the President on this one.
I ask them to consider the story of Stephen Barnett, a distinguished
constitutional law professor at the University of California at
Berkeley. Professor Barnett enthusiastically endorsed Janice Rogers
Brown before her October 2003 hearing, and Senator Hatch specifically
mentioned Professor Barnett and his endorsement in his opening
statement at Justice Brown's hearing.
[[Page 11681]]
But Professor Barnett changed his mind after he learned more about
her record. After the Brown confirmation hearing, Professor Barnett
sent a letter to Senator Hatch withdrawing his support. Here is what he
said:
Having read the speeches of Justice Brown that have now
been disclosed, and having watched her testimony before the
Committee on October 22, I no longer support the nomination.
Those speeches, with their government-bashing and their
extreme and outdated ideological positions, put Justice Brown
outside the mainstream of today's constitutional law.
I urge my colleagues across the aisle, who were initially inclined to
support the Brown nomination, like Professor Barnett, to reconsider.
Federal judges serve for life. The views of Janice Rogers Brown are too
extreme and too radical for a lifetime of service on the second highest
court in America.
It is well known that the last time the nomination of Janice Rogers
Brown came before the Senate, it was filibustered. I voted to continue
that filibuster because I do not believe she is the right person for
the job. There was a big controversy over the use of the filibuster,
and a decision was reached that Janice Rogers Brown would not be
subject to a filibuster when she came up this week. That is an effort
to move the Senate forward, to put the nuclear option and that
constitutional confrontation behind us.
I urge my colleagues who believe in good faith we need to be
bipartisan to show that bipartisanship today. Take an honest look at
her record. Understand she is not a good person for a lifetime
appointment. Join us in defeating the nomination of Janice Rogers
Brown.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). The Senator from New York is
recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the same subject as my
good colleague from Illinois. I hope everyone heard his outstanding
comments on Janice Rogers Brown. If there were ever a nominee who is
out of the mainstream of every nominee of all the 219 who have come
before us, there is no one more extreme than Janice Rogers Brown.
I have a special plea today. It is to my moderate colleagues across
the aisle. They have stood with their party and their President on
wanting an up-or-down vote, but that does not mean they have to vote
yes. If there was ever a nominee whose views are different from theirs,
it is Janice Rogers Brown. She is so far out of the mainstream that
conservative commentators such as George Will who have defended the
other nominees have said that she is out of the mainstream.
She is so far out of the mainstream that she makes Justice Scalia
look like a liberal. She is so far out of the mainstream that she
wishes to roll back not 20, not 40, not 60, not 80, but 100 years of
law and jurisprudence. She is typical of the kind of nominee we should
not have on the bench, whether they be far right or far left, someone
who thinks their own views ought to take precedence over the views of
the law, over the views of the people, over the views of the
legislature and the President.
There is no doubt that Janice Rogers Brown is smart and accomplished.
There is no doubt that she rose from humble beginnings, and that is
truly impressive, but none of that can offset her radical and
regressive approach to the law. None of that can mitigate her hostility
to a host of litigants who have appeared before her. The biography, as
wonderful as it is, is no justification to put on the courts someone
who clearly does not belong there. Particularly to place such a nominee
on the DC Court of Appeals, the second highest court in the land, would
be one of the worst wrongs we would have done in the short span of the
21st century for which this Congress has met.
To my mind, Janice Rogers Brown is the least deserving of all of
President Bush's appeal court nominees. Before I review the reasons I
will vote against her, I wish to ask a question that continues to nag
at me. I asked it yesterday, but let me ask it again in a different way
because I do not have a good answer, and I do not think there is a good
answer. Why are even moderate Republican Senators boarding the Brown
bandwagon when clearly her views are so far away from what any
moderate, Democrat or Republican, believes? A second question: Why are
so many self-described conservatives voting for her when she stands
against all the things this conservative movement has said they believe
in?
Does this nominee embody the conservative ideal of an appellate
judge? If the rhetoric from the President and the Republican leadership
is to be believed, a conservative nominee must be at least three
things: He or she must be a strict constructionist, he or she must be
judicially restrained, and he or she must be mainstream.
I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to take this little
multiple-choice quiz before they vote for Janice Rogers Brown. Which of
these describes the nominee? Is she a strict constructionist if she
says the whole history of the New Deal should be washed away? Is she a
strict constructionist if she says zoning laws, which have been with us
for over 100 years, are unconstitutional? Is she judicially restrained
when she says that the elderly are cannibalizing the young because they
want benefits? Is she mainstream when she asks question after question
and then takes views that 99.9 percent of the American people would
oppose?
I would argue, and I do not think there is very little dispute, that
Janice Rogers Brown is not a strict constructionist, is not judicially
restrained, and is not mainstream.
Let us see if she is a proud and principled strict constructionist,
and let us use President Bush's definition of what a strict
constructionist is. It is a judge who will not legislate from the
bench. Well, Janice Rogers Brown is no more of a strict constructionist
than I am a starting center for the New York Knicks.
Listen to what a conservative commentator, Ramesh Ponnuru of the
National Review, wrote about her:
Republicans, and their conservative allies, have been
willing to make . . . lame arguments to rescue even nominees
whose jurisprudence is questionable. Janice Rogers Brown . .
. has argued that there is properly an extra constitutional
dimension to constitutional law. . . .
Well, I say to my conservative strict constructionist colleagues, if
they are opening the door to this extra constitutional dimension, they
are going to reap what they have sown. They are going to find someone
sooner or later put on the court who is way to the left and says there
is an extra constitutional dimension. My guess is that some of their
allies on the hard right already think that has happened in, say,
Justice Kennedy's decision in Lawrence. But what is good for the goose
is good for the gander.
Ponnuru goes on to write:
. . . She has said that judges should be willing to invoke a
``higher law'' than the Constitution.
Let me repeat that. Janice Rogers Brown has said that judges should
be willing to invoke a higher law than the Constitution. Does she want
a theocracy? Does she want a dictatorship? The Constitution is our
highest law. We may have many other beliefs, and the Constitution
protects our right to practice those beliefs, but for a judge to say
they will invoke a higher law than the Constitution--how can any
conservative stand here with a straight face and tell us that they are
for Janice Rogers Brown?
Let us look at her own words. Here is what she said about California
proposition 209. She decided she should ``look to the analytical and
philosophical evolution of the interpretation and application of Title
VII to develop the historical context behind proposition 209.
Not what the people voted for, not strict constructionism, but her
own view.
Let us go to the next choice. Is she otherwise a dependable warrior
against the scourge of conservatives everywhere--judicial activism?
Well, here are her own words:
We cannot simply cloak ourselves in the doctrine of stare
decisis.
[I am] disinclined to perpetuate dubious law for no better
reason than it exists.
Please. This is not someone who is a strict constructionist. It is
somebody
[[Page 11682]]
who is saying, with, I might say, intellectual arrogance, that her
views supersede the views of the law. For those who did not go to law
school or school where they learned Latin, ``stare decisis'' means
decisions that have been already made by the courts, and they imply a
grand tradition often going back to England and Anglo-Saxon law to the
1200s.
We cannot cloak ourselves in the doctrine of stare decisis? Again,
what does Janice Rogers Brown want to be nominated for--dictator or
grand exalted ruler? Please. How can a conservative who believes we are
to follow the rule of law, who believes that there should be strict
constructionism and is against activist judges, support someone who
says, ``I am disinclined to perpetuate dubious law for no better reason
than it exists''?
What arrogance. What gall. And most importantly, why would we even
think--why did President Bush think and why do my colleagues think--of
putting someone on the bench who says that? Whether you are the most
conservative Republican or the most moderate Republican, whether you
are the most liberal Democrat or the most moderate Democrat, we don't
believe this. None of us believe this. This is against our entire
American tradition, from the Magna Carta, through common law, through
our Constitution, through the next wonderful 200 years.
The California State Bar Judicial Nominees Commission, which gave her
a ``nonqualified'' rating when she was first nominated to the court in
1996, said that the rating was in part because of complaints that she
was ``insensitive to legal precedent.''
Here is what Andrew Sullivan says, another conservative writer. This
is not Chuck Schumer, Democrat of Brooklyn, NY. This is Andrew
Sullivan, conservative writer. He said there is a very good case to be
made for the:
. . . constitutional extremism of one of the president's
favorite nominees, Janice Rogers Brown. Whatever else she is,
she does not fit the description of a judge who simply
applies the law. If she isn't a ``judicial activist,'' I
don't know who would be.
My colleagues, whether you are here in the Senate or out in the
conservative movement, you spent a 20-year battle fighting judicial
activism, but all of a sudden you are saying: Never mind. If we like
the views of the nominee, strict construction goes out the window, and
we will put in our own variety of judicial activist.
That is not going to bode well for consistency in your arguments, but
more importantly for the Republic, and for the keystone of article 3,
the article 3 branch of Government, the judiciary, which is that judges
interpret the law and follow the precedent of law and do not make law.
Mr. Ponnuru, the National Review writer, said:
She has said that judicial activism is not troubling per
se. . . .
Here is the point of Mr. Sullivan, who was the author of this other
quote. He said:
I might add, I am not unsympathetic to her . . . views. But
she should run for office, not the courts.
I couldn't say it better myself. This is somebody who has such
passionate views that she has to take those views, which are so
radically different--our Constitution says our way of governing is you
do not do that from the bench. You do it by running for office.
My guess is if she actually ran for office--of course she ran for
judge, but she was unopposed. I am sure if right now you asked the
people of California, Who is Janice Rogers Brown, maybe 3 or 4 percent
would know and they might not know her views.
You run for office.
What about her substantive views, are they mainstream? To call
Justice Brown mainstream is a distortion of her record. No one is
further from the mainstream. I cannot think of a single Clinton nominee
who is as far to the left as Janice Rogers Brown is to the right. I
cannot think of a single George Bush nominee, George Bush 41; I cannot
think of a single Ronald Reagan nominee; I cannot think of a single
nominee, in at least my lifetime, who is more out of the mainstream
than Janice Rogers Brown.
But don't take my word for it. How about George Will--hardly a
leftwing liberal--on the approach of this nominee? Here is what he
said:
Janice Rogers Brown is out of the mainstream of
conservative jurisprudence.
It is a fact: She has expressed admiration for the Supreme
Court's pre-1937 hyper-activism in declaring unconstitutional
many laws and regulations of the sort that now define the
post-New Deal regulatory state.
There may be some people who feel we should go back before the New
Deal, where the rich and powerful got their way almost all the time.
But, again, as was said by Andrew Sullivan, if she believes that, let
her run for office. But here is the dirty little secret of those on the
hard right who believe, as Janice Rogers Brown does, that the New Deal
was wrong, the Commerce Clause should be dismantled and wages and hours
laws are unconstitutional. The dirty little secret is they know they
cannot win in the court of public opinion, and their plan is to impose
their views on the rest of us by capturing the judiciary. Nobody--
nobody personifies those views more than Janice Rogers Brown.
Let me go over a few other of her views before I conclude. She has
described the New Deal as the ``triumph'' of America's ``socialist
revolution.'' Does that place her in the mainstream?
She has said the Lochner case--which said basically that wage-and-
hours laws passed by the States are unconstitutional--was correct. Does
that place her in the mainstream, taking a case from 1906 that has been
repudiated from the 1930s onward and saying that it was correctly
decided?
On another occasion she said that:
Today's senior citizens blithely cannibalize their
grandchildren because they have a right to get as much free
stuff as the political system will permit.
I would like the senior citizens of America, whether they be liberal
Democrats or conservative Republicans, to answer the question: Is she
out of the mainstream? By getting Social Security, is she asking are
they cannibalizing the young? Or Medicare? Because I don't know what
other benefits senior citizens get.
Janice Rogers Brown, by this quote, seems to believe we should not
have Social Security. It is probably part of the New Deal Socialist
revolution. We should not have Medicare. That is part of Lyndon
Johnson's furtherance of the Socialist revolution. How mainstream is
that?
Again, I want to ask my moderate colleagues--not only the 7 who
signed the document but the 10 or 12 others--how can you vote for her?
I mean, I understand marching in lockstep. I understand we are going to
have different views on a whole lot of judges. But how about once--once
showing a little independence. Because I know that Janice Rogers
Brown's views are not your views. She is not nominated for a district
court. She is nominated for the second highest court in the land, where
those views will be heard over and over and over again.
I am left with the same question. It is clear that her record shows
she is not strict in her constructionism; she is not mainstream in her
conservatism; and she is not quiet about her activism. Again, let me
ask the question: Why is Janice Rogers Brown touted as the model of a
conservative judge when she is anything but conservative in her
judicial approach?
I believe there are many Senators across the aisle who would vote
against such a candidate because her judicial philosophy could not be
more out of sync with theirs. But we know there is tremendous political
pressure, party pressure on the moderate Senators.
We have a new chart because we have had a few new votes. Of all the
votes we have had on judicial nominees, cloture and up-or-down votes,
here is how the Republican side of the aisle has stacked up: 2,811 to
2. Only twice in all the votes, 2,813, has any Member of the other side
voted against; once, when Trent Lott voted against Judge Gregory, and
just last week on Justice Owen, Senator Chafee voted against her.
If we want up-or-down votes, doesn't that imply some independence of
thought? Doesn't that imply we not march in lockstep? Doesn't that
imply,
[[Page 11683]]
when somebody is so far out of the mainstream, such as Janice Rogers
Brown, that there will be some opposition to her from the other side of
the aisle?
Senator Frist, last week, or a few weeks ago, spoke about leader-led
filibusters of judges--whatever that means. Is the vote for Janice
Rogers Brown not a leader-led rubberstamping of nominees, nominees who
have not even convinced conservatives that they belong on the bench?
I continue to believe Judge Brown was the least worthy pick this
President has made in the appellate courts, and that is based on her
record--not her background, not her story, not her race, not her
gender. We should vote for judges based on their record, and I, once
again, ask my colleagues across the aisle to look at that record.
If my colleagues across the aisle ask three simple questions--Is the
nominee a strict constructionist? Is the nominee a judicial activist?
And is the nominee a mainstream conservative?--I don't believe many
could bring themselves to vote for Janice Rogers Brown.
I could not support Judge Brown's nomination the first time. I cannot
support it now. I urge my colleagues, particularly my moderate friends
from the other side of the aisle, to vote against her this afternoon.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum and I ask the
time of the quorum be charged equally to each side as the quorum moves
forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share a few thoughts
about the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown, one of the best
nominations the President has made. She is a woman of integrity and
ability, with proven skill as an appellate jurist. She has won the
support and admiration of her colleagues on the California appellate
courts with whom she served and has won the support of the people of
California, as evidenced by her being reelected to the California
Supreme Court with 76 percent of the vote.
What do we hear from my colleague, the great advocate that he is, and
my friend, Senator Schumer? It is sad. He uses words of radicalism to
declare that she is outside the mainstream. He says she is far over and
out of the mainstream; her radical and regressive approach to the law
is so off the charts; she expresses hostility to a host of litigants;
the most out of the mainstream; a radical. Everything she believes in
is what they believe--he is talking about President Bush, I suppose,
and Republicans. He says she is no more a strict constructionist than
he is a second baseman for the New York Yankees. This morning he said
that she is no more a strict constructionist than he is a center for
the New York Jets.
Saying it does not make it so. There has been a systematic effort--
and I have watched with amazement--to declare this fine justice on the
California Supreme Court an extremist. Get past the allegations of
extremism, the charges, and the mud throwing--extremist, radical, out
of the mainstream. This morning, Senator Schumer used words that were
interesting: Did she want to be a dictator? What in her record
indicates she wants to be a dictator?
Then he said this: Did she want to be a grand exalted ruler? Was that
some reference to the Ku Klux Klan? This African American from my home
State of Alabama left as a teenager. I am sure one reason she went to
California was for discrimination and segregation that existed in rural
Alabama where she grew up at that time. She is the daughter of
sharecroppers. To have it suggested that somehow her ideas are
consistent with the Ku Klux Klan is offensive. It ought to be offensive
to Americans.
Where is the meat? What is it that shows Justice Brown is not fair,
that she is incapable? I don't see it. As a matter of fact, they have
examined her record in great detail, every speech she has given,
everything she has done in her life, remarks she has made, opinions she
has written. She is a restrained jurist, respected by her colleagues
and the people before whom she practices. She is one of the most
deserving nominees. I am proud of her. I am proud she came from
Alabama. I am sorry she left the State of Alabama. I am proud of what
she has accomplished in the State of California.
She currently serves as an associate justice on the California
Supreme Court and has held that job since 1996. Prior to that, she
served for 2 years as an associate on the Third District Court of
Appeals.
Let me add, if she is such a radical dictator, grand exalted ruler,
if that is her mentality and way of doing business, would every member
of the Third District Court of Appeals with whom she served and four of
her six fellow justices on the California Supreme Court write a letter
to Senator Hatch, then Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
saying to confirm this wonderful woman, asking that she be confirmed,
and saying glowing things about her? One of the justices on the
California Supreme Court who supports her is Justice Stanley Mosk, one
of the most liberal justices in America, recognized in that vein
throughout the country. Why would Justice Mosk and the others support
Janice Rogers Brown if she is such an out-of-the-mainstream radical
justice? The truth is, she is not. This has been conjured up by certain
groups, left-wing attack groups who have been smearing and besmirching
and sullying the reputation of excellent nominees for many years. It is
not right what is being done to this lady. She is a person of sterling
character. She writes beautifully. She is respected by her colleagues.
She is very much appreciated by the people of California. Four judges
were on the ballot when she ran for reelection, and she got the highest
number of votes of any.
We have Senators from California telling us she is out of the
mainstream. Maybe she believes in carrying out the duly elected death
penalty statutes of California. Maybe she believes the constitutional
amendment they passed, Proposition 209, ought to be enforced. Maybe she
believes the Pledge of Allegiance shouldn't be struck down as
unconstitutional. Maybe that is what they want. Maybe that is what they
think is a mainstream judge. I don't think she is there. She is the
kind of judge President Bush promised to appoint. It was an important
issue in this past election. The people of America debated and
discussed it and spoke clearly in the reelection of President Bush that
they want judges who enforce the law and follow the law--not make the
law.
They say she is out of the mainstream, but in 2002 on the California
Supreme Court--surely everyone recognizes California is not a right-
wing State. It is a State in which a higher percentage voted for John
Kerry. But in 2002, her colleagues on the California Supreme Court
asked her to write the majority opinion for the court more times than
any other justice on the court. Why would they do that if she is out of
the mainstream? Why would they have written letters on her behalf?
The way it works on the court, the justices meet and they discuss a
case, then the justices indicate how they are going to decide the case,
what their decision is, a majority gets together, and someone is asked
to write the opinion for the majority. The rest of the justices sign
onto the majority opinion, if they agree to it. Sometimes they will
file a separate occurrence if they do not agree with everything in the
opinion. In 2002, she was asked by her colleagues to write more
majority opinions than any other justice on the court. That speaks well
for the respect they have for her.
There has been much distortion of her record in an attempt to justify
these mud-slinging charges that have been made against her. Senator
Schumer and others have cited the High-Voltage Wire Works case, saying
she dissented in this case. They claim that she dissented from it and
that shows her to be a radical judge, because it dealt with affirmative
action and quotas and the California constitutional amendment that was
passed by
[[Page 11684]]
the people of California to eliminate quotas in California.
Let me state the truth: She did not dissent. She anchored and wrote
and authored the unanimous decision of the California Supreme Court.
They asked her to write this affirmative action / California
constitutional amendment / Proposition 209 opinion. Her colleagues
asked her to write it. She wrote it. They all joined in. It was a
unanimous opinion. It was based on California Proposition 209 that
said:
The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential treatment to any individual or group on the
basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in
the operation of public employment, public education, or
public contracting.
The case involved the city of San Jose. They had a minority
contracting program that required minority contractors bidding on the
city projects to either utilize a specified percentage of minority and
women contractors or document efforts to include women and
subcontractors in their bids.
Every judge who reviewed the case, including the trial judge, the
intermediate appellate court judges where she previously sat, and the
California Supreme Court Justices, agreed that the San Jose program
constituted ``preferential treatment'' within the meaning of
Proposition 209. They struck down the program.
And they suggest somehow she is against all affirmative action
programs in America and that she does not believe in those things. She
has explicitly stated otherwise. For example, in the High-Voltage Wire
Works opinion she explicitly stated this: ``equal protection does not
preclude race-conscious programs.'' In other words, she is saying that
there can be race-conscious programs in legislation under the equal
protection clause, but they cannot be too broadly used. It is a
dangerous trend. You have to watch it and be careful. This is what the
Supreme Court has said about it. She also said there are many lawful
ways for businesses to reach out to minorities and women. She favors
that. That is mainstream law in America. I don't know what they are
talking about when they suggest her opinion, joined by all the justices
of the California Supreme Court, was out of the mainstream. That is
beyond the pale.
It is suggested she does not believe in stare decisis, the doctrine
that courts should tend to follow the previous opinions of courts. But
all of us know, and I know Senator Schumer and anyone who believes in
civil liberties knows, a court opinion is not the same thing as the
Constitution of the United States. Some prior court opinions have been
rendered and made the law of the land which were not consistent with
the Constitution of the United States.
What about Plessy v. Ferguson? Justice Harlan dissented from that
opinion, which said separate but equal was constitutional. Justice
Harlan believed that separate but equal was unconstitutional. Were the
judges who later reversed Plessy v. Ferguson activists? I don't think
so. I think they were acting consistent with a clearer understanding of
the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the
Constitution of the United States than the Court in Plessy. Why attack
her on that basis? It is not legitimate.
The twelve judges on the California Third District Court of Appeals
wrote on her behalf. They said:
Justice Brown has served California well. She has written
many important decisions establishing and reaffirming
important points of law. Her opinions reflect her belief in
the doctrine of stare decisis.
So the 12 judges who wrote on her behalf say she is a believer in
stare decisis. Yet we have one or two Senators standing up and saying
she does not believe in that. Not so. In fact, she has a proven record
of following and showing respect for precedent.
For example, in Kasler v. Lockyer, Justice Brown, in a California
opinion, wrote the majority opinion for the court upholding an assault
weapons ban. She followed a prior decision by the California Supreme
Court even though she believed that prior decision was wrongly decided
and had dissented in it. But when it came back up, and the case had
been decided, she deferred to the California Supreme Court's decision
even though that wasn't her personal view. Doesn't that show she is
properly respectful of precedent?
Sometimes it is important that cases be challenged and judges
overrule a prior decision. Sometimes, even if you think it is wrong, it
is better to let it stand just to provide stability in the law. Judges
have to make that call frequently.
Senator Schumer says Justice Brown is an extremist and ``President
Clinton would never have nominated someone like this.'' But he has
probably forgotten Judge Paez, who was nominated to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals by President Clinton. This is what a real activist is.
This speaks to what an activist judge is. This is what Judge Paez, who
we confirmed, says about his judicial philosophy: It includes ``an
appreciation of the courts to act when they must, when the issue has
been generated as a result of the failure of the political process to
resolve a certain political question'' because in such instances, Judge
Paez says, ``there's no choice but for the courts to resolve the
question that perhaps ideally and preferably should be resolved through
the legislative process.''
I see the Presiding Officer, Senator Vitter, listened to that phrase.
That is what activism is. It is a belief that a judge can act even
though the legislature does not. It is a belief that if the legislature
does not act, the judge has a right to act. That is a stated judicial
philosophy of activism. Janice Rogers Brown never said anything like
that, nothing close to that.
So I repeat again, this is a nominee with a sterling record. She has
served on the Third District Court of Appeals in California. She served
in the attorney general's office of the State of California where she
wrote appellate briefs to the appellate courts and argued cases
involving criminal justice to defend convictions in the State. She now
serves on the Supreme Court of California. She was reelected by an
overwhelming vote, the highest vote of any judge on the ballot. We have
received a letter on her behalf from all of the court of appeals
justices who have served with her on the court of appeals, and four of
the six justices on the California Supreme Court, including the liberal
icon, Justice Stanley Mosk.
I think this is a nominee who is worthy of confirmation. I am
disappointed and hurt by some of the mischarac-
terizations of her record and her philosophy. I believe if Senators
review this nominee's record, they will see she will make an
outstanding justice. I am pleased she is a native of my State, and I
wish her every success.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for
allowing me to go out of turn. I will be fairly short.
Mr. President, we have been debating the circuit court nominations of
Justice Janice Rogers Brown and too many other nominees for way too
long. Justice Brown was first nominated to the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals in July of 2003.
Over the years, I have grown accustomed to the talking points of
Brown's liberal opposition. I think I have them committed to memory
now. Some liberal elitists charge she is extreme. Some liberal elitists
charge she is out of the mainstream. Some liberal elitists charge she
is a radical conservative.
This same broken record has been spun now for too many years, and
with too many nominees. Here is what is left out of this tired song and
dance.
Justice Janice Rogers Brown is a proven jurist. Her credentials and
her character are beyond reproach. She is a lifetime public servant
committed to the extension of civil rights and equal justice under law,
and there can be no doubt that these deep commitments grew in part out
of a childhood that witnessed the true evil of Jim Crow segregation.
She came up the hard way. She served for 2 years as an associate
justice on California's Third District Court of Appeals prior to being
appointed to the California Supreme Court.
[[Page 11685]]
What has her record been there? To listen to the interest groups, you
would think she has led a one-woman crusade to destroy the civil rights
of all Californians. Given Justice Brown's background, I have to say
this is an astonishing charge.
In order to once again dispel the false charge that Justice Janice
Rogers Brown is extreme, consider the following facts.
In 2002, Justice Brown's colleagues on the California Supreme Court
turned to her more than any other justice to write the majority opinion
for the court. Is this out of the mainstream?
When Justice Brown was retained with 76 percent of the vote in her
last election, were the people of California installing a radical
revolutionary on the bench? Were there any mainstream Californians who
voted for her? That is a pretty impressive majority. After all, the
junior Senator from California, who has spoken vociferously against
Justice Brown, and many of the other of the President's circuit court
nominees, one of Justice Brown's most vocal critics, once, I might say,
won reelection with only 53 percent of the vote.
Truth be told, there is nothing radical about Janice Rogers Brown.
She refuses to supplant her moral views for the law she is charged with
interpreting as a judge. Maybe the refusal to engage in activist
decisionmaking is radical at some predominantly liberal law schools,
but it is fully within the mainstream of American jurisprudence.
We have heard a lot about the background of Janice Rogers Brown in
this debate. I have been at the forefront of discussing her rise from
the Jim Crow South to her appointment as the first African-American
woman to serve on the California Supreme Court. We talk about her
background because her story demonstrates that while America is not
perfect, its commitment to the preservation and extension of civil
rights is without parallel in the history of the world.
Let me also add that no party has a monopoly on the promotion of
diversity. Yet, unfortunately, some of those who frequently speak about
the need for diversity on the bench have a rather limited definition of
diversity. As we saw with several other recent nominees, apparently
some believe only liberal minorities are sufficiently diverse for high
Federal office, especially the Federal courts.
In the end, it is hard to avoid the conclusions of Justice Brown's
colleagues. I have here a letter written to me in my former capacity as
chairman of the Judiciary Committee from a bipartisan group of Justice
Brown's colleagues, including all of her former colleagues on the
California Court of Appeals and Third Appellate District, as well as
four current members of the California Supreme Court.
Let me take a second or two and read you their assessment of Justice
Brown.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We are members of and present and former colleagues of
Justice Janice Rogers Brown on the California Supreme Court
and California Court of Appeals for the Third Appellate
District. Although we span the spectrum of ideologies, we
endorse her for appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit.
Much has been written about Justice Brown's humble
beginnings, and the story of her rise to the California
Supreme Court is truly compelling. But that alone would not
be enough to gain our endorsement for a seat on the federal
bench. We believe that Justice Brown is qualified because she
is a superb judge. We who have worked with her on a daily
basis know her to be extremely intelligent, keenly
analytical, and very hard working. We know that she is a
jurist who applies the law without favor, without bias, and
with an even hand. Because of these qualities, she has
quickly become one of the most prolific authors of majority
opinions on the California Supreme Court.
Although losing Justice Brown would remove an important
voice from the Supreme Court of California, she would be a
tremendous addition to the D.C. Circuit. Justice Brown would
bring to the court a rare blend of collegiality, modesty, and
intellectual stimulation. Her judicial opinions are
consistently thoughtful and eloquent. She interacts
collegially with her colleagues and maintains appropriate
judicial temperament in dealing with colleagues, court
personnel and counsel.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
McDonough Holland & Allen PC
Attorneys at Law,
October 16, 2003.
Re Nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We are members of and present and former
colleagues of Justice Janice Rogers Brown on the California
Supreme Court and California Court of Appeal for the Third
Appellate District. Although we span the spectrum of
ideologies, we endorse her for appointment to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Much has been written about Justice Brown's humble
beginnings, and the story of her rise to the California
Supreme Court is truly compelling. But that alone would not
be enough to gain our endorsement for a seat on the federal
bench. We believe that Justice Brown is qualified because she
is a superb judge. We who have worked with her on a daily
basis know her to be extremely intelligent, keenly
analytical, and very hard working. We know that she is a
jurist who applies the law without favor, without bias, and
with an even hand. Because of these qualities, she has
quickly become one of the most prolific authors of majority
opinions on the California Supreme Court.
Although losing Justice Brown would remove an important
voice from the Supreme Court of California, she would be a
tremendous addition to the D.C. Circuit. Justice Brown would
bring to the court a rare blend of collegiality, modesty, and
intellectual stimulation. Her judicial opinions are
consistently thoughtful and eloquent. She interacts
collegially with her colleagues and maintains appropriate
judicial temperament in dealing with colleagues, court
personnel and counsel.
If Justice Brown is placed on the D.C. Circuit, she will
serve with distinction and will bring credit to the U.S.
Senate that confirms her. We strongly urge that the Senate
take all necessary steps to approve her appointment as
expeditiously as possible.
Joining me in this letter are Justices Marvin R. Baxter,
Ming W. Chin and Carlos R. Moreno of the California Supreme
Court and Presiding Justice Arthur G. Scotland and Justices
Rodney Davis, Harry E. Hull, Jr., Daniel M. Kolkey, Fred K.
Morrison, George W. Nicholson, Vance W. Ray and Ronald B.
Robie of the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate
District.
I am informed that Justice Joyce L. Kennard of the
California Supreme Court has already written a letter in
support of Justice Brown's nomination.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Justice Kathryn M.
Werdegar of the California Supreme Court are not opposed to
Justice Brown's appointment but it is their long standing
policy not to write or join in letters of support for
judicial nominees.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter.
Very truly yours,
Robert K. Puglia,
Retired Presiding Justice, Court of
Appeal, Third Appellate District.
Mr. HATCH. Let me put in the Record a couple comments by Ellis
Horvitz and Regis Lane. Ellis Horvitz, a Democrat, one of the deans of
the Appellate Bar in California, has written in support of Justice
Brown, noting:
In my opinion, Justice Brown possesses those qualities an
appellate justice should have. She is extremely intelligent,
very conscientious and hard working, refreshingly articulate,
and possessing great common sense and integrity. She is
courteous and gracious to the litigants and counsel who
appear before her.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Horvitz & Levy LLP,
Encino, CA, September 29, 2003.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary U.S. Senate, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re Justice Janice Rodgers Brown nomination.
Dear Chairman Hatch: This letter is sent in support of
President Bush's nomination of Justice Janice Rodgers Brown
to the District of Columbia Court of Appeal.
Let me first introduce myself. I have been practicing law
in California for more than fifty years, almost all of that
time as a civil appellate specialist. Our firm of more than
thirty lawyers specializes in civil appeals. We appear
regularly in the California Court of Appeal and in the
California Supreme Court.
I have followed Justice Brown's career since she was
appointed to the California Supreme Court. Our firm has
appeared before
[[Page 11686]]
her on many occasions. I have appeared before her on several
occasions. We have also studied her opinions, majority,
(concurring and dissenting), in many civil cases.
In my opinion, Justice Brown posses those qualities an
appellate justice should have. She is extremely intelligent,
very conscientious and hard working, refreshingly articulate,
and possessing great common sense and integrity. She is
courteous and gracious to the litigants and counsel who
appear before her.
I hope your Committee will approve her nomination
expeditiously. The President has made an excellent choice.
Very truly yours,
Ellis J. Horvitz.
Mr. HATCH. Regis Lane, the executive director of Minorities in Law
Enforcement, a coalition of minority law enforcement officers in
California, wrote:
We recommend the confirmation of Justice Brown based on her
broad range of experience, personal integrity, good standing
in the community and dedication to public service. . . .
In many conversations with Justice Brown, I have discovered
that she is very passionate about the plight of racial
minorities in America, based on her upbringing in the South.
Justice Brown's views that all individuals who desire the
American dream, regardless of their race or creed, can and
should succeed in this country are consistent with MILE's
mission to ensure brighter futures for disadvantaged youth of
color.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Minorities In Law Enforcement,
Sacramento, CA.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the Executive Board and
members of the Minorities In Law Enforcement organization
(MILE), we recommend that you confirm President George W.
Bush's nomination of California Supreme Court Associate
Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. MILE is a
coalition of ethnic minority law enforcement officers in
California dedicated to ensuring brighter futures for
disadvantaged youth and ensuring that no child is left
behind.
We recommend the confirmation of Justice Brown based on her
broad range of experience, personal integrity, good standing
in the community and dedication to public service. Justice
Brown's powerful and exhilarating display of jurisprudence
exhibited in the written legal opinions she has issued as a
California Supreme Court justice, is respected by all,
regardless of race, political affiliation, or religious
background. Justice Brown is a fair and just person with
impeccable honesty, which is the standard by which justice is
carried out.
In many conversations with Justice Brown, I have discovered
that she is very passionate about the plight of racial
minorities in America, based on her upbringing in the south.
Justice Brown's views that all individuals who desire the
American dream, regardless of their race or creed, can and
should succeed in this country are consistent with MILE's
mission to ensure brighter futures for disadvantaged youth of
color.
It is with great honor and pleasure that MILE and our
members urge you to confirm President Bush's nomination of
California Supreme Court Associate Justice Janice Rogers
Brown to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia.
Respectfully submitted,
Regis Lane,
Executive Director.
Mr. HATCH. Well, she is not, as represented, a radical revolutionary
bent on undoing the American dream. Who are you going to believe? I say
you should believe those who served with her on the bench in
California, and that is over a period of years.
Because of the astonishing failure to give Justice Brown an up-or-
down vote, I have had ample time to review her record, and it is clear
to me, without any doubt, that those who worked with her every day on
these courts have it right. She is a model jurist. You cannot have
anybody who has been in court as long as she has that somebody cannot
pluck cases out of the air and distort them or find some fault with
them. I am sure I can find fault with some of her cases. But the point
is, this is a woman who does what is right.
Justice Brown would be a welcome addition to the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals. I look forward to finally closing the debate on this
nomination, bringing her nomination to a vote, and seeing her on the
Federal bench.
Now, let me close by saying that voting for cloture is the right
thing to do on the nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown and the
rest of the President's judicial nominees. Allowing an up-or-down vote
on these nominees will return us to the Senate's 214-year tradition. So
I ask my colleagues to vote yea on cloture, and hopefully we can have
an up-or-down vote in a short time after that.
Mr. President, again, I thank my colleague and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, there is 7 minutes
remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself all 7 minutes, and I ask
if the Chair will be kind enough to let me know when there is 1 minute
left.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think it is important for those
watching the debate to understand this decision is not a decision about
the life history of Janice Rogers Brown. What we are voting on in this
particular decision is, on the DC Circuit Court, whether the nominee is
going to speak for the struggling middle class of Americans, whether
they are going to speak for minorities who have been trying to be a
part of the American dream, whether they are going to speak for the
rights and liberties of working families, particularly those who are
covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act who work hard every
day and have had their lives threatened with inadequate kinds of
protection, whether that voice is going to be standing up for children
whose lives are going to be affected by the Clean Air Act, or whether
they are going to stand up for the children whose lives will be
affected by the Clean Water Act.
So many of the important decisions that we have addressed in the
Senate over the last 30 years, in order to make this a fairer country,
a more just Nation, to advance the cause of economic progress and
social justice, ultimately come to the DC Circuit. In many instances,
the DC Circuit is the final arbiter of these issues. That is why this
is so important. Any judge is important, but I think, for most of us,
we raise the level when we consider who is going to serve on the
Supreme Court, since that will be a defining aspect of the laws of this
country, and a defining voice in terms of the rights and liberties of
this Nation as defined in the Constitution of the United States.
It seems to me it is fair enough to ask someone who wants a job on
the DC Circuit whether they have a core commitment to these fundamental
acts of fairness and justice and basic liberty, and if there are
indications during their service on the court that this jurist has
demonstrated a hostility toward these basic principles.
That is really the basic issue. I am going to have more time this
afternoon to get into the particulars, but it is enormously important
that the American people understand that this is not just another
circuit court, as important as that is. This is the very specialized DC
Circuit Court that has special responsibilities in interpreting the
laws, many cases of which never go to the Supreme Court, and,
therefore, we should take a careful view of this nominee. When we take
a careful view of the nominee, we find that this nominee fails the
standard by which we ought to judge advancement to the second most
important and powerful court in the land, and that is the DC Circuit
Court.
That is true on the issue of civil rights. No one can seriously
contend that the overwhelming opposition to her nomination from the
African-American community is motivated by bias against Blacks. She is
opposed by respected civil rights leaders, including Julian Bond,
Chairman of the NAACP; by Dorothy Height, President Emeritus of the
National Council of Negro Women, a leader in the battle for equality
for women and African Americans over her lifetime, an outstanding
[[Page 11687]]
and distinguished American who happens to be Black but has struggled to
make this a fairer and more just country--for Black women in
particular--for all Americans. She is universally admired and respected
by Republicans and Democrats. She believes that we would make a major
mistake by promoting this nominee to the DC circuit.
She is opposed by the Reverend Joseph Lowery, President Emeritus of
the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, who was there with Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr., during the most difficult and trying times in
the late 1950s and the early 1960s. I believe, unless I am wrong, he
was there at the time of Dr. King's death. He is one of the giants in
awakening America to be America by knocking down walls of
discrimination. Joseph Lowery believes we should not promote this
individual. He has been a leader in the civil rights movement and has
worked tirelessly for many years to make civil rights a reality for all
Americans.
She is opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus, the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights, and many others concerned with the rights
of minorities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will have the opportunity to go into
the reasons these individuals and organizations take exception to this
nominee. It isn't just those I have mentioned but other important
leaders who have a keen awareness and understanding of the record and
history of the decisions of this jurist. I do not believe she has
demonstrated the kind of core commitment to constitutional values which
are so essential on such a major and important court. She fails that
test. She should not be promoted. There are other distinguished jurists
across the country of all different races, religions, and ethnic
backgrounds who have demonstrated a core commitment to these values
over a long time and are in the mainstream of judicial thinking. We
ought to have such a nominee. This nominee does not meet that criteria
and, therefore, should not be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the minority has expired. Who
yields time?
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, it is often said that politicians are out
of touch with the average citizen. In fact, media outlets have been
reporting that Congress's approval ratings are at record lows. I am not
one to put much stock in one poll or another, but I do believe
Americans are frustrated with politics here in our Nation's Capital.
Americans are dealing with record gas prices, yet Congress can't find
the time to debate and pass an energy bill that was proposed years ago.
Americans see weekly reports about scandals and backroom deals at the
United Nations, yet we can't find the time to vote yes or no on the
President's nominee to the United Nations. And a strong majority of
Americans who just elected President Bush to a second term now cannot
understand why his judicial nominees can't get a timely up-or-down
vote.
A perfect example of the frustration the American people have with
Congress can be found in the nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown.
Justice Brown is the daughter of a sharecropper who grew up in rural
Alabama and attended segregated schools. She went on to become the
first African-American woman to serve on the California Supreme Court
after being overwhelmingly elected by more than three-quarters of
California voters. Despite this extraordinary success story, Democrats
have used filibusters for more than a year and a half to deny Justice
Brown a simple and fair vote.
I am pleased that a few of my colleagues on the other side choose to
allow a vote on Justice Brown. Now I hope we can give her actual record
a fair assessment instead of relying on the heated rhetoric of the past
year and a half.
Justice Brown recently stated:
It may sound odd to describe a judge as both passionate and
restrained, but it is precisely this apparent paradox--
passionate devotion to the rule of law and humility in the
judicial role--that allows freedom to prevail in a democratic
Republic.
This paradox is a good description of our Nation's leading jurists,
including, in my opinion, Justice Brown. I believe men and women of
intellectual and judicial passion are necessary to the continued
strength of our legal system. Those jurists whose names still ring
through history--Marshall, Holmes, Cardozo--suffered no shortage of
passion. Yet, as Justice Brown reminds us, such passion would corrupt
the very system it sustains were it not tempered by restraint and
humility.
The tension between passion and restraint has been a feature of our
legal system since its beginning. In fact, it was enshrined in the
Constitution itself. The Founders created the framework for a Federal
judiciary that would be unaffected by the political storms raging at
any given time. Thanks to their lifetime appointment, Federal jurists
are free to interpret and apply the laws of this land without fear of
political repercussions. At first glance, such an arrangement places a
great deal of power in the hands of a select few who attain the Federal
bench. The Founders, however, were mindful of such concerns. They
placed two popularly elected institutions at the gates of the Federal
bench so that admission would be denied to those who would use their
judicial power to override Congress's exclusive power to create the
law. They invested the President with the power to nominate individuals
worthy of the Federal bench. They endowed Congress's deliberative body,
this very Senate, with the responsibility to review the President's
nominees and consent to the confirmation of only those with properly
restrained judicial passions.
When in the past a President has nominated an individual of unchecked
passion, it has fallen to the Senate to deny his or her confirmation.
This is how our constitutional system has functioned for over 200
years. Unfortunately, the nomination and appointment of Federal jurists
has recently become a game of political dodge ball, with Democrats
throwing heated rhetoric at nominees, hoping to take them out of the
game.
As the deliberation over judicial nominees has boiled over, the term
``judicial activist'' has surfaced as the preferred slur used by
critics harboring political animosity toward a particular nominee,
regardless of whether that nominee is objectively qualified for the
job. In my mind, the term ``judicial activist'' signifies one who has
or would use the bench as a platform for promoting their own agenda and
personal opinions. Such a person is in need of the restraint identified
by Justice Brown and is, therefore, unsuited for the Federal bench. The
nomination of a judicial activist is a nomination that deserves the
opposition of every Member of this body, regardless of the political
connection between the nominee and any particular Member. According to
the Constitution, we as Senators stand here to guard the Federal bench
from the confirmation of any judicial activist who would seek to
infringe upon our constitutional role.
I believe Justice Brown has proven she is not an activist judge. Her
critics have labeled her such simply because she has deeply held
personal beliefs that are not shared by many Democrats. This is
precisely the type of partisan game that is causing Americans to become
disinterested and disillusioned with politics in Washington. Americans
fairly elected President Bush, and his nominations deserve a fair
debate and a fair vote.
People sitting at home watching the nomination process on TV see that
it has gotten out of control. If we allow the President's judicial
nominees to continue to be blocked and delayed because they have deeply
held beliefs, many good judges will be disqualified, and many more will
refuse to be considered. A person with strong beliefs and personal
convictions should not be barred from being a judge. In fact, I would
rather have an honest liberal serve as a judge than one who has been
neutered by fear of public opinion. We need judges who have
demonstrated integrity in how they live their lives as well as
consistency in how they interpret the law.
Justice Brown has demonstrated this kind of integrity. I believe she
should
[[Page 11688]]
be confirmed immediately. Some Democrats may enjoy calling Justice
Brown an activist for the media sound bite it creates, but calling the
Earth flat does not make it so. There is overwhelming evidence that
during her time on the California Supreme Court, Justice Brown has
exercised her judicial authority with restraint and humility. While she
would likely describe herself as a person who believes in small
government and limited regulations, she regularly votes against her
personal beliefs when justice and legal precedent require her to do so.
For example, Justice Brown has voted consistently to uphold economic,
environmental, consumer, and labor regulations. She joined in an
opinion upholding the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of
1986 and interpreted the act to allow the plaintiffs to proceed with
their case. She upheld the right of a plaintiff to sue for exposure to
toxic chemicals using the Government's environmental regulations. She
joined in an opinion validating State regulations regarding overtime
pay. She upheld California's very stringent standards for identifying
and labeling milk and milk products, thereby ensuring that the
government has a role in protecting the safety of children.
It is fundamental to the judicial structure to have judges who
respect the Constitution and judicial precedent. Justice Brown believes
that the role of courts and the rule of law are deeply rooted in the
Constitution.
In a recent column, law professor Jonathan Turley, a self-described
pro-choice social liberal, points out that ``Brown's legal opinions
show a willingness to vote against conservative views . . . when
justice demands it.''
In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 12 bipartisan judges
who served on the bench with Justice Brown said the following:
We who have worked with her on a daily basis know her to be
extremely intelligent, keenly analytical, and very hard
working. We know that she is a jurist who applies the law
without favor, without bias, and with an even hand. Because
of these qualities, she has quickly become one of the most
prolific authors of the majority opinions on the California
Supreme Court.
Arguments that Justice Brown is a judicial activist amount to nothing
more than empty rhetoric. She is a jurist of great intelligence and
achievement, with views about interpreting the law that are sensible
and reliable.
After many hours of debate, the main criticisms I have heard of
Justice Brown have nothing to do with her judicial decisions but with
her personal beliefs that have been expressed in speeches and comments
outside the courtroom. This Senate should not confirm or reject judges
based on their personal beliefs. We should confirm Justice Brown based
on the fact that her judicial performance has been documented by
colleagues and critics alike and because she understands that her job
is to interpret the law, not to invent the law.
Americans are tired and frustrated with Congress spending its time on
partisan games. They want the Senate to give the President's judicial
nominees a timely up-or-down vote.
Justice Brown's nomination has been pending for more than a year and
a half without any evidence that she lacks integrity, intellect, or
experience. There has been plenty of time for debate, and now it is
time to vote.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Janice Rogers
Brown to the DC Appellate Court. I also rise today as a proud North
Carolinian of those who served in this Chamber before me. In the heat
of debate, Senator Schumer from New York suggested that Senator Helms,
our former Member from North Carolina, was a racist; that, in fact, he
objected to the nomination of Roger Gregory to the appellate court, the
Fourth Circuit Court in Richmond, because he was a minority.
It is unfair to characterize that of Senator Helms. I am personally
offended by the comments of Senator Schumer, and so are North
Carolinians.
At the time of Roger Gregory's nomination to the Fourth Circuit Court
in Richmond, the Fourth Circuit Court had the largest makeup of
minorities of any appellate court in the country. The seat for which
Roger Gregory was nominated was intended to be filled by a North
Carolinian. There is only one problem--Roger Gregory was from Virginia,
and he was so thought of that he was even introduced by Senator George
Allen in his first speech on the Senate floor.
Roger Gregory was not from North Carolina, he was from Virginia.
Senator Helms argued that North Carolina was underrepresented on the
Fourth Circuit Court and that if any nominee was necessary for the
Fourth Circuit Court, he or she should come from North Carolina.
Senator Helms opposed Roger Gregory because Senator Helms had nominated
Terrance Boyle, and that nomination had been blocked for several years
at that time by Democrats. Terrance Boyle was originally nominated by
George H. W. Bush, 41, long before Roger Gregory was nominated.
I might add, Terrance Boyle still is a judicial nominee judge for the
Fourth Circuit Court. He has never made it through this process.
Former Judiciary Chairman Hatch, who spoke earlier, maintained at the
time that judicial nominees favored by each party should have to move
forward together and that political games should not be played with
judicial nominees. Senator Helms agreed there should be no movement on
other judges until Judge Boyle received the attention of this body, the
Senate.
How did it end up? President Clinton, bypassing Congress, made a
recess appointment of Roger Gregory, and it was seen as a swipe to
Senator Helms.
I am not here today to suggest Roger Gregory was not a good pick. I
am here to tell you we have an obligation on this floor to speak
factually. History does not prove that Senator Helms' objection was
over anything other than to receive the attention of his nominee to the
Fourth Circuit Court, to allow North Carolina, which was
underrepresented, to be represented fully on the Fourth Circuit Court.
Today I am proud to suggest that we should all support Janice Rogers
Brown. We should have her confirmed, not because she is minority, but
because she is qualified, because she meets the threshold of what
America expects out of the judges who sit on the bench.
I am confident this body will do the right thing on cloture, and I am
confident she will serve on the DC Circuit Court.
I thank the President, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. 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.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, recently 14 of our colleagues brought to us
a bipartisan plan to avoid what I thought was the majority leader's
shortsighted bid for one-party rule. As part of the plan to avert the
nuclear option, which would have changed more than 200 years of Senate
tradition and precedent, rules protecting minority rights and checks
and balances, those Senators have agreed to vote for cloture on this
controversial and divisive renomination. I have no doubt they will
follow through on their commitment, but in all likelihood, it is going
to result in the appointment for life of a judge for Court of Appeals
for the DC Circuit whose disturbing view of the Constitution would set
back life for American workers and consumers more than 100 years and
remove protections for people and their communities we now take for
granted. The preservation of our system of checks and balances in
connection with the appointment of
[[Page 11689]]
lifetimers to the Federal judiciary requires that all Senators, both
Republicans and Democrats, take seriously the Senate's constitutionally
mandated role as a partner in making these determinations.
So again I urge all Senators of both parties to take these matters
seriously and vote their conscience. Senators need to evaluate with
clear eyes the fitness of Justice Janice Rogers Brown for the lifetime
appointment. My opposition to her, as it has always been, has been
based on her long and troubling record. I will be speaking about this
more in the future, but apparently she will be treated far more fairly
than President Clinton's nominees to the court.
The Senate has already considered one of the three controversial
nominees mentioned in part IA of the Memorandum of Understanding our
colleagues brought us. We are now beginning consideration of the
second, and I expect the third will follow shortly. What I do not
expect is any repeat by Democrats of the extraordinary obstruction by
Republicans of President Clinton's judicial nominees. For example, I do
not expect any of the tactics used by Republicans during the extensive
delay in Senate consideration of the Richard Paez nomination. Judge
Paez waited more than 4 years before we were able to get a vote on his
confirmation, and even then Republicans mounted an extraordinary motion
after the filibuster of his nomination was broken to indefinitely
postpone the vote--a last-ditch, unprecedented effort that was
ultimately unsuccessful.
More than 60 of President Clinton's moderate and qualified judicial
nominations were subjected to a Republican pocket filibuster, including
nominees to the DC Circuit. First we were told by the Republicans that
we do not need more judges added, but that changed dramatically once
they had a Republican President in power. But they also blocked by
committee filibusters highly qualified people for that circuit. Allen
Snyder, for example, who was nominated by President Clinton, was a
former clerk to Chief Justice Rehnquist--no wide-eyed liberal, he--and
he was a widely respected and highly regarded partner at the law firm
of Hogan & Hartson. He was filibustered by pocket filibuster by the
Republicans and not allowed to come to a vote. Elena Kagan was pocket
filibustered by the Republicans, not allowed to have a vote for the DC
Circuit. Her qualifications: She is now a dean of the most prestigious
law school in this country, Harvard Law School. They were each
nominated to vacancies on the DC Circuit. They were not allowed to have
either a committee vote or Senate consideration.
The bipartisan coalition of Senators who joined together last month
to avert an unnecessary showdown in the Senate over the White House-
inspired effort to invoke the nuclear option was right to include in
the agreement the following provision:
We believe that under Article II, Section 2, of the United
States Constitution, the word ``Advice'' speaks to
consultation between the Senate and the President with regard
to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We
encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with
members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior
to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for
consideration.
Such a return to the early practices of our government may
well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately
accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.
We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the
traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators
seek to uphold.
I agree with their fundamental point. I have served here with six
Presidents. Five of them did consult on major judicial nominations.
They consulted with members of both parties. That included President
Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, former President Bush, and
President Clinton. In this case, there was no meaningful consultation
with the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown. Maybe that is one reason
neither of her home State Senators support her. In the past,
Republicans always said if home State Senators do not support a
nominee, we cannot go forward. All of these rules changed with a
different President. There was no consultation with these Senators in
this case.
But I am hoping things may be better. I was pleased to see President
Bush respond to a question in a news conference last week. He has
agreed to consult with the Senate about his nomination should a vacancy
arise in the Supreme Court. I see that as a positive development, and I
am hoping that now that he has been reelected, he may take the
opportunity to be a uniter and not a divider on these issues. Certainly
I, as one on this side of the aisle, will be happy to work with him in
that regard. If he does, as the other five Presidents I have served
with have done, I believe it would be a good sign for the country but
especially for our Federal judiciary.
In advance of any vacancy on the Supreme Court, I would urge the
President to follow through on his commitment to consult with the
Senate. In the next few weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will complete its
current term. Speculation will soon accelerate, again, about the
potential for a Supreme Court vacancy this summer. In advance of any
such vacancy, I urge the President to follow through on his commitment
to consult with the Senate. As I said, previous Presidents of both
parties have set constructive and successful examples by engaging in
meaningful consultation with the Senate, including both Republicans and
Democrats, no matter who was in the majority or the minority, before
deciding on nominees. It would be shortsighted to ignore such an
established and successful precedent.
It would be wise for the President to follow the precedent set by
distinguished Presidents of both parties, and I stand ready to work
with him in that regard. I stand ready to work with the President to
help select a nominee to the Supreme Court who can unite Americans. I
know that the Democratic leader is likewise ready to be helpful. After
all, Senator Reid and I joined in an April 11 letter to the President
offering our help in facilitating his identification, selection, and
nomination of lower court judges to the 28 vacancies without a nominee
that then existed throughout the Federal judiciary. Regrettably, the
President did not respond to our previous offer, and the vacancies
without a nominee have since grown to 30.
Some Presidents, including most recently President Clinton, found
consultation with the Senate in advance of a nomination most beneficial
in helping pave the way for a smooth and successful process. President
Reagan, on the other hand, disregarded the advice offered by Senate
Democratic leaders and chose a controversial, divisive nominee who was
ultimately rejected by the full Senate.
In his book ``Square Peg,'' Senator Hatch tells how, in 1993, as the
ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he advised
President Clinton about possible Supreme Court nominees. In his book,
Senator Hatch recounts that he warned President Clinton away from a
nominee whose confirmation he believed ``would not be easy.'' Senator
Hatch goes on to describe how he suggested the names of Stephen Breyer
and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom were eventually nominated and
confirmed ``with relative ease.'' Indeed, 96 Senators voted in favor of
Justice Ginsburg's confirmation, and only 3 Senators voted against;
Justice Breyer received 87 affirmative votes, and only 9 Senators voted
against.
In its report on the Supreme Court appointment process, the
Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress has long
noted:
It is common practice for Presidents, as a matter of
courtesy, to consult with Senate party leaders as well as
with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee before
choosing a nominee.
What I am suggesting has been standard and accepted practice.
Thorough bipartisan consultation would not only make the choice a
better one, it would also reassure the Senate and the American people
that the process of selecting a Supreme Court Justice has not become
politicized. The Supreme Court often serves as a final arbiter and
protector of our individual rights and freedoms. Decisions regarding
nominees
[[Page 11690]]
are too important to all Americans to be unnecessarily embroiled in
partisan politics.
Though the landscape ahead is sown with the potential for controversy
and contention over vacancies that may arise on the Supreme Court,
confrontation is unnecessary and consensus should be our goal. I would
hope that the President's objective will not be to send the Senate
nominees so polarizing that their confirmations are eked out in narrow
margins. This would come at a steep and gratuitous price that the
entire Nation would have to pay in needless division. It would serve
the country better to choose a qualified consensus candidate who can be
broadly supported by the public and by the Senate.
The process begins with the President. He is the only participant in
the process who can nominate candidates to fill Supreme Court
vacancies. If there is a vacancy, the decisions made in the White House
will determine whether the nominee chosen will unite the Nation or will
divide the Nation. The power to avoid political warfare with regard to
the Supreme Court is in the hands of the President. No one in the
Senate is spoiling for a fight. Only one person will decide whether
this will be a divisive or unifying process and nomination. If
consensus is a goal, bipartisan consultation will help achieve it. I
believe that is what the American people want and what they deserve.
Over the last several years I have stressed the need for consultation
and moderation as two guiding principles for selecting judicial
nominees. I have been largely disappointed up to this point, but if
there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States, I hope
that the President will live up to his pledge to consult with Senators
of both parties to identify consensus nominees who will unite us
instead of divide us. There is no need to pit Republicans against
Democrats or to divide the American people.
This is a difficult time for our country and we face many challenges.
Providing adequate health care for all Americans, improving the
economic prospects of Americans, defending against threats, the
proliferation of nuclear weapons, the continuing upheaval and American
military presence in Iraq, are all fundamental matters on which we need
to improve. It is my hope that we can work together on many issues
important to the American people, including our maintaining a fair and
independent judiciary. I am confident that a smooth nomination and
confirmation process can be developed on a bipartisan basis if we work
together. The American people we represent and serve are entitled to no
less.
The decisions of the Supreme Court have a lasting effect on the
meaning of the Constitution and statutes intended by Congress to
protect the rights of all Americans, such as the right to equal
protection of the laws and the right to privacy, as well as the best
opportunity to have clean air and clean water ourselves and in future
generations. This is the forum where Federal regulations protecting
workers' rights will be upheld or overturned, where reproductive rights
will be retained or lost and where intrusive Government action will be
allowed or curtailed. This is the Court to which thousands of
individuals will appeal in matters affecting their health, their lives,
their liberty, and their financial well-being.
If the President chooses a Supreme Court nominee because of that
nominee's ideology or record of activism in the hopes that he or she
will deliver predetermined political victories, the President will have
done so with full knowledge that he is starting a confirmation
confrontation. The Supreme Court should not be an arm of the Republican
Party, nor should it be a wing of the Democratic Party. If the right-
wing activists who were disappointed that the nuclear option was
averted convince the President to choose a divisive nominee in order to
tilt the ideological balance on the Supreme Court, they will not
prevail without a difficult Senate battle. And if they do, what will
they have wrought? While they would celebrate the ideological takeover
of the Supreme Court, the American people will be the losers: The
legitimacy of the judiciary will have suffered a damaging blow from
which it may not soon recover. Such a contest would itself confirm that
the Supreme Court is just another setting for partisan contests and
partisan outcomes. People will perceive the Federal courts as places in
which ``the fix is in.''
Our Constitution establishes an independent Federal judiciary to be a
bulwark of individual liberty against incursions or expansions of power
by the political branches. The independence of our Federal courts has
been called by Chief Justice Rehnquist the crown jewel of our justice
system, but that independence is at grave risk when a President seeks
to pack the courts with activists from either side of the political
spectrum. One of the most serious mistakes a President can make is the
partisan engineering to take over the Supreme Court. Even if
successful, such an effort would lead to decision-making based on
politics and forever diminish public confidence in our justice system.
I urge, respectfully but emphatically, that the President in advance
of any nomination consult with Senators from both parties and seek
consensus. The American people will cheer if the President chooses
someone who unifies the Nation. This is not the time and a vacancy on
this Supreme Court is not the setting in which to accentuate the
political and ideological division within our country. In our
lifetimes, there has never been a greater need for a unifying pick for
the Supreme Court. The independence of the Federal judiciary is
critical to our American concept of justice for all. We should expect
and accept nothing less. We all want Justices who exhibit the kind of
fidelity to the law that we all respect. We want them to have a strong
commitment to our shared constitutional values of individual liberties
and equal protection. We expect them to have had a demonstrated record
of commitment to equal rights. There are many conservatives who can
meet these critieria and who are not rigid ideologues.
Two years ago, I was invited to address the National Press Club on
this topic and noted that the Supreme Court confirmation process does
not have to be a political Armageddon. I continue to believe that and I
urge the President to take the course that would better serve the
American people and the Supreme Court. I was encouraged by the
President's recent statement indicating he will consult with leaders in
the Senate on both sides of the aisle in advance of a nomination. That
should allow him to bring forward a consensus nominee able to unite all
Americans and who could be confirmed by the Senate with 95 to 100
votes. At a time when too many partisans seem fixated on devising
strategies to force the Senate to confirm the most extreme candidate
with the least number of votes possible, I have been urging cooperation
and consultation to bring the country together. There is no more
important opportunity than this to lead the Nation in a direction of
cooperation and unity. I hope this President heeds the lesson of
history set by his predecessors who chose the good of the country over
the good of a political party.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a few moments, we will vote to conclude
debate on the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to serve on the Court
of Appeals for the DC Circuit. I do want to thank the chairman and
ranking member for getting us to this point. It has taken awhile for us
to reach this point, and I am pleased that in an orderly process and
regular order, we are on the way to getting an up-or-down vote for
Janice Rogers Brown.
It has been nearly 2 years since President Bush first nominated
Justice Brown as a Federal judge. During those 2 years, she has been
thoroughly debated, exhaustively investigated in committee and on the
Senate floor. She has endured more than 5 hours of committee hearings,
answered more than 180 questions, submitted 33 pages of responses to an
additional 120 written questions, has set aside weeks at a time to
personally meet with individual Senators, has waited patiently while
the Judiciary Committee debated
[[Page 11691]]
and voted on her nomination. On the Senate floor, we have debated her
nomination for over 50 hours. That is more time than the Senate debated
any one of the current Supreme Court Justices, but still as of yet she
has not received an up-or-down vote on her nomination on the floor, not
one. Why? Because of an orchestrated campaign of obstruction that has
denied her that up-or-down vote until now. So she has been waiting for
far too long for a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. As a
matter of principle, as a matter of fairness, as a matter of our
constitutional duties as Senators to give up-or-down votes, it is time
to bring the debate to a close and to vote.
Fairness is not just about the process of a vote. It is about
treating a good, decent, hard-working American with the respect and the
dignity she deserves.
Justice Brown is an inspiration. All of us have heard her story, how
she was born the daughter of an Alabama sharecropper and educated in
segregated schools; how she worked her way through college and law
school; how she has dedicated her life to public service and to others,
having spent all but 2 years of her 26-year legal career as a public
servant; how she is the first African-American woman to serve as an
associate justice on the California Supreme Court, the State's highest
court. We have heard about her exemplary qualifications and
credentials, including her 8 years of experience on the California
appellate bench. We have heard about her impressive record and her
commitment to judicial restraint and the rule of law. We have heard the
bipartisan praises of Justice Brown from those who know her best: her
current and former colleagues on the California Supreme Court and
California Court of Appeals. They agree that Janice Rogers Brown is a
superb judge and have said she is a jurist who applies the law without
favor, without bias, and with an even hand.
We have heard the people of California speaking with their votes. As
a justice on the California Supreme Court, she was retained by 76
percent of the electorate, the highest vote percentage of all justices
on the ballot. If 76 percent of the people of California voted for
Janice Rogers Brown, how can she be considered out of the mainstream,
as some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
suggested? Are 76 percent of the California voters out of the
mainstream? Janice Rogers Brown is in the mainstream.
The overwhelming support of the people of California and the support
of her colleagues proves her nomination transcends partisan labels and
ideology. Janice Rogers Brown is a distinguished mainstream jurist. She
deserves to be treated fairly. She has been investigated and debated
thoroughly. Now she deserves the courtesy of a vote. Vote yes or no.
Vote to confirm or reject, but let us vote.
I remain optimistic the Senate is moving in a new direction on
judicial nominees, rejecting the partisan obstructionism of the past
and embracing the principle that all judicial nominees deserve a fair
up-or-down vote. I urge my colleagues to join me in bringing debate on
this nomination to a close and ensuring that Judge Brown will get an
up-or-down vote.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Under the previous
order, the hour of 12 noon 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 Senate, do
hereby move to bring to a close debate on Executive Calendar
No. 72, the nomination of Janice R. Brown, of California, to
be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia.
Bill Frist, Arlen Specter, Trent Lott, Lamar Alexander,
Jon Kyl, Jim Talent, Wayne Allard, Richard G. Lugar,
John Ensign, C.S. Bond, Norm Coleman, Saxby Chambliss,
James Inhofe, Mel Martinez, Jim DeMint, George Allen,
Kay Bailey Hutchison, John Cornyn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of Senate that debate on Executive
Calendar No. 72, the nomination of Janice R. Brown, of California, to
be the U.S. circuit judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, shall
be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords),
the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), and the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 65, nays 32, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 130 Ex.]
YEAS--65
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Salazar
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--32
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Clinton
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Jeffords
Kohl
Lautenberg
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 65, the nays are
32. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The Republican whip.
____________________
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
stand in recess until 2:15 today and that the time during the recess
count under the provisions of rule XXII; provided further that the vote
on the confirmation of the Brown nomination occur at 5 p.m. tomorrow,
Wednesday, with all time until then equally divided in the usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RECESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:31 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Thune).
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF JANICE ROGERS BROWN TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
National Hunger Awareness Day
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, for the past two years I have come to the
Senate floor on National Hunger Awareness Day to talk about the battle
against hunger, both here in America and around the world. In fact, I
reserved my maiden speech for this topic--one of my top priorities as a
U.S. Senator. I have stated over and over again that the battle against
hunger is one that can't be won in a matter of months or even a few
years but it is a victory that we can claim if we continue to make the
issue a priority.
[[Page 11692]]
As Washington Post columnist David Broder said about hunger,
``America has some problems that seem to defy solution. This one does
not. It just needs caring people and a caring government, working
together.'' I could not agree more.
Last year on Hunger Awareness Day, Senators Smith, Durbin, Lincoln,
and I launched the Senate Hunger Caucus, with the express purpose of
providing a bi-partisan forum for Senators and staff to engage each
other on national and international hunger and food insecurity issues.
By hosting briefings and disseminating information, the caucus has been
striving to bring awareness to these issues, while at the same time
finding ways to collaborate on legislation. I want to thank 34 of my
colleagues for joining the Senate Hunger Caucus and their staffs for
their diligent work. In addition, I am excited to see our friends in
the House of Representatives start their own Hunger Caucus and I look
forward to working with them as both houses of Congress continue to
find solutions to eliminating hunger.
It is truly astounding how so many of our fellow citizens go hungry
or are living on the edge of hunger each and every day. Thirteen
million of these hungry Americans are deemed to be children.
As we know, when children are hungry they do not learn. This is a
travesty that can and should be prevented. Currently over 90,000
schools and 28 million children participate each school day in the
School Lunch Program. The children of families whose income levels are
below 130 percent of poverty are eligible for free school meals and
those families whose income levels are between 130 percent of poverty
and 185 percent of poverty are eligible for reduced price meals.
Unfortunately, many State and local school boards have informed me
that parents are finding it difficult to pay the reduced fee, and for
some families the fee is an insurmountable barrier to participation.
That is why I am a strong supporter of legislation to eliminate the
reduced price fee and harmonize the free income guideline with the WIC
income guideline. I am proud to say that a pilot program to eliminate
the reduced price fee in up to five states was included in last year's
reauthorization of Child Nutrition and WIC. I have encouraged the
Appropriations Committee to include funding for this pilot program, and
I look forward to working with them on this very important issue which
touches so many families going through difficult times.
In my home State of North Carolina, more than 900,000 of our 8.2
million residents are dealing with hunger, according to the most recent
numbers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Our State has faced
significant economic hardship over the last few years as once thriving
towns have been hit hard by the closing of textile mills and furniture
factories. And this story is not unlike so many others across the
country.
Many Americans who have lost their manufacturing jobs have been
fortunate enough to find new employment in the changing climate of
today's workforce. Simply being able to hold down job doesn't
necessarily guarantee your family three square meals a day. But there
are organizations who are addressing this need as a mission field.
Groups like the Society of St. Andrew, the only comprehensive program
in North Carolina that gleans available produce from farms, and then
sorts, packages, processes, transports and delivers excess food to feed
the hungry. In 2004, the Society gleaned more than 4.2 million pounds
of food--or 12.8 million servings. Incredibly--it only costs one penny
a serving to glean and deliver this food to those in need. And all of
this work is done by the hands of the 9,200 volunteers and a tiny
staff.
Gleaning is a practice we should utilize much more extensively today.
It's astounding that the most recent figures available indicate that
approximately 96 billion pounds of good, nutritious food--including
that at the farm and retail level--is left over or thrown away. A
tomato farmer in western North Carolina sends 20,000 pounds of tomatoes
to landfills each day during harvest season.
This can't be good for the environment. In fact, food is the single
largest component of our solid waste stream--more than yard trimmings
or even newspaper. Some of it does decompose, but it often takes
several years. Other food just sits in landfills, literally mummified.
Putting this food to good use through gleaning will reduce the amount
of waste going to our already overburdened landfills. And I am so
appreciative of my friends at Environmental Defense for working closely
with us on this issue.
Like any humanitarian endeavor, the gleaning system works because of
cooperative efforts. Clearly private organizations and individuals are
doing a great job, but they are doing so with limited resources. It is
up to us to make some changes on the public side and help leverage
scarce dollars to feed the hungry.
I continue to hear that transportation is the single biggest concern
for gleaners. I am proud to say that with the help of organizations
such as the American Trucking Association, the Society of Saint Andrew
and America's Second Harvest, we are taking steps to ease that
transportation concern. In February of this year, I reintroduced a bill
that will change the tax code to give transportation companies tax
incentives for volunteering trucks to transfer gleaned food. I am proud
to have the support of my colleagues, Senators Dodd, Burr, Lugar,
Alexander, Santorum, Durbin, Lautenberg, and Lincoln, original
cosponsors, and I look forward to working with them on passage of this
important bill.
I am also privileged to work with Senators Lincoln and Lautenberg on
a soon-to-be-introduced bill to provide up to $200,000 per fiscal year
to eligible entities willing to carry out food rescue and job training.
Entities like the Community Culinary School of Charlotte, a private,
non-profit organization in my home State that provides training and job
placement in the food service industry for people who are employed or
underemployed.
Here is how it works. The Community Culinary School recruits students
from social service agencies, homeless shelters, halfway houses and
work release programs. They then work in collaboration with food rescue
agencies in the area to provide meals to homebound individuals and to
local homeless shelters. The food they rescue is donated and picked up
from restaurants, grocers and wholesalers. The students then prepare
nutritious meals using the donated food while at the same time
developing both culinary and life skills.
Take a young lady from this program named Sibyl. After years of
drugs, prisons and unplanned pregnancies, Sibyl entered the Community
Culinary School of Charlotte. Her willingness and determination made
her the top student of her class and she is today working full time as
a chef.
Or take Bobby, who also graduated from the program. Bobby went from
unemployment and homelessness to becoming a top graduate, now working
two jobs and living independently. Our bill is intended to complement
these kinds of private efforts that support food rescue and job skills
that can make the greatest impact on individual lives.
In Deuteronomy 15:7, the Bible tells us, ``If there is among you a
poor man, one of your brethren, in any of your towns within your land
which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not harden your heart or
shut your hand against your poor brother.'' So, as our fellow citizens
in the private sector continue to be a giving people, let us find ways
as public servants to once again harness the great public-private
effort, and fight as one to end hunger in America. I again thank my
colleagues who have worked so hard to build these partnerships. And I
implore our friends on both sides of the aisle--as well as the good
people throughout this great country--to join in this heartfelt
mission--this grassroots network of compassion that transcends
political ideology and will provide hope and security not only for
those in need today--but for future generations as well. I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
[[Page 11693]]
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, due to his graciousness, I ask unanimous
consent that Senator Kennedy be allowed to speak directly after I
complete my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I want to pay a tremendous compliment
with a huge sense of gratitude to my colleague from North Carolina for
her tirelessness with regard to this issue. She has been such an
incredible fighter against the issue of hunger among Americans and
really among her fellow man globally. I compliment her and thank her so
much for the opportunity to work with her on something in which she has
been a true leader. I am looking forward to many more things that we
can do together, but she has made a huge effort in eliminating hunger.
We are here today to refocus ourselves and rededicate ourselves to
bringing about a tremendous awareness to hunger as it exists in our
Nation and certainly as it exists among our fellow man across the
globe. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for all of her hard
work.
I do come to the floor to join my colleague from North Carolina on an
issue that I take very seriously. Thirty-six million Americans,
including 13 million children, live on the verge of hunger. It is
absolutely phenomenal to me, growing up as a farmer's daughter in the
Mississippi Delta where there was such plenty in the fields, as I drive
past them, to think that there are Americans, particularly American
children, who go hungry every day not because we don't have the means
but because we don't organize ourselves and set the priority of making
sure these future generations, the future leaders of this great Nation,
can at least have their tummies full enough that they can pay attention
in school, grow healthy to become the kind of leaders that we want and
need for our great Nation.
Today is National Hunger Awareness Day. It is a time when Americans
are called to remember the hungry children and adults living across our
Nation. We have all just come from our weekly caucus lunches. We have
had plenty at this time. We are thinking about the opportunities that
lie ahead of us, particularly the fun things that children do in the
summertime. Yet we forget that there are many who have not had a good
lunch today, or perhaps we forget that as school is letting out, those
children who normally get a nutritious meal at school will not be
getting those nutritious meals during the summertime while school is
out.
Most importantly, it is a day when we are called to put our words
into action, to help end hunger in our communities and across this
great land.
At this time last year, Senators Smith, Durbin, Dole, and myself
formed the Senate Hunger Caucus to forge a bipartisan effort to end
hunger in our Nation and around the world. I am so proud to be working
with these three other Senators in moving this caucus forward. Our
staffs have worked tirelessly in bringing us together, along with the
other Members of the Senate, in order to make a difference. We are
working with local, State, and national antihunger organizations to
raise awareness about hunger, build partnerships, and build solutions
to end hunger.
We have many challenges that face our Nation, and so many challenges
that face this body itself. Yet this is one problem we know has an
answer. And we know how to end hunger.
Recently I introduced, with Senators Durbin, Smith, and Lugar, the
Hunger-Free Communities Act of 2005. This bill calls for a renewed
national commitment to ending hunger in the United States by 2015,
reaffirms our congressional commitment to protecting the funding and
integrity of Federal food and nutrition programs, and it creates a
national grant program to support community-based antihunger efforts. I
urge all of our colleagues to support this worthy and commonsense
legislation. It sets a goal for a monumental concern and problem that
we have in this Nation. It presents the answer, and it sets the time in
which we want to reach that goal.
Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to talk about the 36
million Americans, including 13 million children, who live on the verge
of hunger.
Some people may ask--what can I do to help end hunger in America? I
want to talk about some of the ways Americans can help join the hunger-
relief effort. Acting on this call to feed the hungry requires the
effort of every American and every sector of the economy.
The backbone of this effort is the willingness of Congress and the
American people to support the Federal food and nutrition programs.
These programs provide an essential safety net to working Americans,
preventing the most vulnerable among us from suffering, and even dying,
from malnutrition. Our continued investment in these programs is vital
to the health of this nation.
The most significant of these programs, the Food Stamp Program,
provides nutritious food to over 23 million Americans a year. More
Americans find themselves in need of this program every year. Despite
this growing need, the Administration proposes to cut the Food Stamp
Program by $500 million over the next 5 years by cutting more than
300,000 low-income people off the program in an average month.
I understand our current budget constraints. However, even in these
tight fiscal times, I believe that we must maintain our commitment to
feed the hungry.
Therefore, we must first protect programs like the Food Stamp
Program, the National School Breakfast and Lunch Program, Summer
Feeding Program, WIC, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program. I urge
Americans to contact their congressional representatives to voice their
support for these programs. I urge my colleagues to support these
programs and protect them from cuts and structural changes that will
undermine their ability to serve our Nation's most vulnerable citizens.
In addition to the Federal food programs, eliminating hunger in
America requires the help of community organizations. Government
programs provide a basis of support, but they cannot do the work alone.
Community and faith-based organizations are essential to locating and
rooting out hunger wherever it persists. We rely on the work of local
food banks, food pantries, soup kitchens, and community action centers
across America to go where government cannot. I will do all I can to
provide the resources these community organizations need to continue
with the difficult but necessary work they perform.
Private corporations and small businesses also have a role to play in
eliminating hunger in America. Our corporations and small businesses
generate most of our Nation's wealth and have throughout history
supported many of our greatest endeavors. Many corporations and
businesses already contribute to efforts to eliminate hunger, and I
hope others will begin to participate as opportunities to do so present
themselves in the future.
A great example of how businesses and non-profits can partner to feed
hungry people occurred this past Friday in Little Rock. Arkansas-based
Tyson Foods and Riceland Foods, along with Jonesboro's Kraft Foods Post
Division and Nestle's Prepared Foods Facility, donated truck loads of
food as a special donation in honor of National Hunger Awareness Day.
This food will go to the Arkansas Rice Depot, Potluck, Inc. and the
Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance, which represents six food banks
located across Arkansas. These organizations will in turn use the food
to help feed hungry Arkansans. I am grateful to these companies and
non-profit organizations for their leadership in this effort to feed
the over 450,000 Arkansans who have limited access to food.
Ending hunger in America requires the commitment of individual
Americans. Our greatest national strength is the power that comes from
individual initiatives and the collective will of the American people.
I believe we are called by a higher power to care for our fellow men
and women, and as a part of my Christian faith I know we are called to
serve the poor and the hungry. I know it is a common denominator among
almost all of our faiths
[[Page 11694]]
that it is those, the poor and the hungry, the orphaned and the
widowed, whom we are here, as our fellow man, to take care of, to help
to lift them up.
If we believe in this call, we must live it every day--in our schools
and in our homes, in our workplaces, our places of worship, in our
volunteering, and, yes, in our prayers. This personal responsibility is
a great one, but it holds tremendous power. It is a common denominator
that can bring us together, the one problem that we all agree on and to
which we know there is a solution. For as we have seen throughout
American history, when individuals in this Nation bind together to
serve a common cause, they can achieve the greatest of accomplishments.
By sharing the many blessings and resources our Nation provides, I am
confident that we can alleviate hunger at home and abroad.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today is National Hunger Awareness Day,
and it is an opportunity for all of us in Congress to pledge a greater
effort to deal effectively with this festering problem that shames our
Nation and has grown even more serious in recent years. It is a chance
to live out our moral commitment to care for our neighbors and fellow
citizens who have fallen on hard times.
The number of Americans living in hunger, or on the brink of hunger,
now totals 36 million, 3 million more since President Bush took office.
That total includes 13 million children, 400,000 more since 2001.
Day in and day out, the needs of millions of Americans living in
hunger are widely ignored, and too often their voices have been
silenced. Their battle is a constant ongoing struggle. It undermines
their productivity, their earning power, and their health. It keeps
their children from concentrating and learning in school. We all need
to do more to combat it--government, corporations, communities, and
citizens must work together to develop better policies and faster
responses.
In Massachusetts, organizations such as the Greater Boston Food Bank,
Project Bread, the Worcester County Food Bank, and many others serve on
the frontlines every day, and they deserve our full support, but they
should not have to wage the battle alone.
In 1996, the Clinton administration pledged to begin an effort to cut
hunger in half in the United States by 2010, and the strong economy
enabled us to make significant progress toward that goal. Hunger
decreased steadily through 2000. We now have 5 years left to fulfill
that commitment.
The fastest, most direct way to reduce hunger in the Nation is to
improve and expand current Federal nutrition programs. Sadly, the
current Administration and the Republican Congress propose to reduce,
not increase, funds for important programs such as Food Stamps, and the
Community Nutrition Program.
The Food Stamp Program is designed to be available to all eligible
individuals and households in the United States. It provides a basic
and essential safety net to millions of people. In 2003, on average,
over 21 million Americans received food stamp benefits. Over half of
all food stamp recipients are children.
Now, the administration plans to reduce, or even cut off, food stamps
for recipients who rely on Medicare to afford the prescription drugs
they need.
That is why I have introduced legislation to ensure that individuals
who receive Medicare prescription drug benefits do not lose their food
stamps. This legislation ensures that seniors do not have to choose
between food and medicine. I urge my colleagues to support this
important legislation.
It is time to do more for the most vulnerable in our society.
National Hunger Awareness Day is our chance to pledge to eradicate
hunger in America and to mean it when we say it.
Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Senator Dole and Senator
Lincoln for giving focus and attention to National Hunger Awareness Day
and for all they do on this particular issue. I had the opportunity
yesterday to visit The Greater Boston Food Bank in Massachusetts--a
successful food bank. We have 517,000 people who are hungry in eastern
Massachusetts alone, over 173,000 of those individuals are children,
and over 50,000 are elderly.
One thing we know how to do in this country is grow food. We can do
that better than any other place in the world. Secondly, we know how to
deliver packages of food with Federal Express, other kinds of delivery
services, virtually overnight. The fact that we have hunger in this
Nation, we have children who are hungry, frail elderly who are hungry,
working families who are hungry, or other homeless people who are
hungry, we as a nation are failing our humanity. We know what can be
done. It needs the combination of a governmental framework, private
framework, and a very important involvement from the nonprofit
framework and other groups at the local level, religious groups that
have done such important work.
So I commend my friends and colleagues for bringing focus and
attention to this issue. It has enormous implications. We find out in
terms of education provided to the children, the needy children at
breakfast for them early in the morning, the results in terms of their
willingness, ability, and interest in cooperating with their teacher
and learning go up immensely. We have information that documents all of
that. Try to teach a hungry child to learn, and any teacher will tell
you the complexities and difficulties and the frustrations in doing
that.
I thank my two friends and others who are part of this movement. I
look forward to working with them on a matter of enormous importance
and consequence.
Mr DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to note National Hunger
Awareness Day.
I am meeting today with 35 people here from Illinois who came to
Washington to remind us that hunger is not a Democratic or Republican
issue.
Basic sustenance ought to be a guarantee in a civilized society, not
a gamble.
If children--or adults--are hungry in America, that's a problem for
all of us. And it is a problem we can do something about.
For instance, we know that Federal nutrition programs work. WIC, food
stamps, school lnch and breakfast programs, and other Federal nutrition
programs are reaching record numbers of Americans today, and making
lives better.
The problem is we are not reaching enough people. There are still too
many parents in this country who skip meals because there is not enough
money in the family food budget for them and their children to eat
every night.
There are still too many babies and toddlers in America who are not
getting the nutrition their minds and bodies need to develop to their
fullest potential. There are still too many seniors and children who go
to bed hungry.
There are 36 million Americans who are hungry or at risk of hunger.
In the richest Nation in the history of the world, that is
unacceptable.
Last week, I joined with several of my Senate colleagues to introduce
the Hunger-Free Communities Act.
The bill is designed to promote local collaboration in the fight
against hunger. But it also reminds us that we as a country are
committed to ending hunger. We know how. We need to muster the
political will.
We started this week by challenging our own offices to participate in
a Senate food drive. I commend Senators Lincoln, Smith, and Dole for
their help in collecting food that will be donated to the Capitol Area
Community Food Bank.
I look forward to working with people in the anti-hunger community
and with my colleagues to eliminate domestic hunger in our lifetime.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to commend the efforts of our
Nation's civic, business and faith leaders to call attention to the
increasing number of Americans who are unable to put food on their
tables. Today, on National Hunger Awareness Day, I am proud to join
with communities in every region of my State that are taking on the
charge to end hunger in the United States.
Growing up in Colorado's San Luis Valley, one of the poorest regions
in
[[Page 11695]]
the country, my family did not have electricity or running water in our
home. But our family farm ensured that my brothers and sisters and I
never went to bed hungry or arrived at school on an empty stomach. My
classmates were not always as fortunate. Sadly, not much has changed
since my youth.
Currently, in Conejos County, where my family's farm is located, one
in four residents are living in poverty. That is twice the national
average, and three times our State poverty rate. And increasingly, the
stories behind these numbers are of working poor households who
struggle to pay their mortgages, escalating electricity bills and fuel
costs. In Colorado Springs, the Care and Share Food Bank estimated that
close to 50 percent of the households receiving their emergency food
assistance last year had at least one working parent. More and more,
these families need to turn to their local food bank or church pantry
in the very same communities where food is harvested; serving as a sad
reminder that there is much more work to be done.
When speaking with hunger relief organizations throughout Colorado,
they express concern when forced to turn families away, and the number
of people they cannot help continues to grow. For example, the Marian
House, which is operated by Catholic Charities of Colorado Springs,
serves approximately 600 meals. Over the past several years, they have
seen the daily number of people coming into food banks nearly double.
Unfortunately, their stories of growing demands reflect the problems
facing much of the rural West. In fact, according to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 16 percent of households in this region did
not know where their next meal would come from--that is the highest
rate of so-called ``food insecurity'' in any region of the country.
In the face of these staggering statistics, Coloradans are doing
their part to eliminate hunger. Whether it is organizing a food drive
in their school or office, volunteering at a soup kitchen, or donating
to their local food bank, they are answering the call to reduce the
number of hungry Americans. In Denver, where poverty is also on the
rise, groups like the Food Bank of the Rockies have stepped up their
food distribution. In 2004, hard-working, committed workers and
volunteers distributed over 16 million pounds of food and essential
household items, more than ever before.
However, today is a special day, where national, regional and local
organizations collectively are raising awareness of hunger in America.
I am particularly proud that National Hunger Awareness Day events have
been organized in communities throughout Colorado, including Colorado
Springs, Denver, Fort Collins, Grand Junction, Greeley, and Hot Sulphur
Springs. I applaud Coloradans involved in these activities, and all
those participating in the day's related events. I look forward to
working with the Senate Hunger Caucus and the Senate Agriculture
Committee in the movement to end hunger.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a problem
impacting communities across the United States and throughout the
world. As many of my colleagues know, today is National Hunger
Awareness Day. It is a day meant to focus our attention on those for
whom putting food on the table continues to be a daily struggle.
For the last several years, my home State of Oregon has been at or
near the top of repeated nationwide studies of hunger and food
insecurity in the United States. While we have made some progress in
fighting hunger in Oregon, there is still a long way to go to ensuring
that children and families in my State and around the country do not go
to bed hungry. According the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic
Research Service, in 2003, approximately 36.3 million Americans lived
in households that at some point during the year did not have access to
enough food to meet their basic needs. Of those 36.3 million, 3.9
million were considered hungry.
In 2003, Oregon State University published a study on food insecurity
and hunger in Oregon. The study found that pressures related to the
high-cost of housing, health care, and the high-level of unemployment
all contribute to food insecurity and hunger in our State. One of the
more striking findings in the report is that underemployment is also a
major factor leading to hunger and food insecurity; working families
throughout Oregon are having a difficult time accessing food.
On the horizon, Oregon's economy appears to be brightening. While
there are no quick fixes, I believe that solving hunger is within our
grasp. Federal nutrition programs certainly serve an important safety
net role in combating hunger; however, they are only one piece of the
puzzle. Community organizations, churches, business groups, and private
citizens all have a part to play. Ultimately, winning the fight against
hunger in Oregon and around the country requires that families are able
to provide for themselves--that means having access to living wage
jobs.
Many of my colleagues will remember that last year I asked them to
join me in forming a Senate caucus devoted to raising awareness of the
root causes of hunger and food insecurity. I appreciate very much the
work of my Senate Hunger Caucus cochairs Senator Lincoln, Senator Dole,
and Senator Durbin--in helping to get the caucus off the ground. I am
proud to say that today, the Senate Hunger Caucus counts 34 members,
with both Republicans and Democrats.
This is clearly not a battle that will be won overnight, but it is
something about which our conscience calls us to act. If we are to end
hunger, we must work to address its root causes. Being successful in
this mission will require that we are innovative and find new ways of
doing things. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues
in Congress and groups in Oregon to win this fight.
Upward Mobility
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before speaking on what I want to address
to the Senate, and that is the pending business on the nominee, I want
to bring to the attention of my colleagues an excellent editorial in
the New York Times today: ``Crushing Upward Mobility.'' It is basically
an analysis of a regulation that was put forward by the Department of
Education that will save the Department of Education some resources,
but at the cost of those middle-class families, working families, who
are eligible for student loan programs. That is not the direction in
which we should be going.
At the current time, we have a number of these young students who are
paying 9.5 percent on guaranteed student loans. Can you imagine having
a deal like that? You put out money and the Federal Government
guarantees that you have nothing to lose, and it still costs these
students 9.5 percent. We ought to be doing something about that, like
taking the profits and making a difference in terms of lowering the
burden on working families and middle-income families who are trying to
help their children go on to college, rather than put more burden on
them.
This is an excellent article. I ask unanimous consent that the
editorial be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times]
Crushing Upward Mobility
The United States is rapidly abandoning a long-standing
policy aimed at keeping college affordable for all Americans
who qualify academically. Thanks to a steep decline in aid to
poor and working-class students and lagging state support for
the public college systems that grant more than two-thirds of
the nation's degrees, record numbers of Americans are being
priced out of higher education. This is an ominous trend,
given that the diploma has become the minimum price of
admission to the new economy.
Greg Winter of The Times reported yesterday that the
federal government has rejiggered the formula that determines
how much families have to pay out of pocket before they
become eligible for the student aid package, which consists
of grants and low-interest loans. The new formula, which will
save the government about $300 million in federal aid under
the Pell program, will cause some lower-income students to
lose federal grants entirely. The families of others will
have to put up more money before they can qualify for
financial aid. Perversely, single-parent households will have
[[Page 11696]]
to pay more than two-parent households before they become
eligible.
The federal Pell Grant program, which is aimed at making
college possible for poor and working-class students, has
fallen to a small fraction of its former value. The states,
meanwhile, have trimmed aid to public colleges, partly as a
consequence of soaring Medicaid costs. The states have
deepened the problem by shifting need-based tuition to
middle-class and upper-class students under the guise of
handing out so-called merit scholarships.
The political clamor around the new formula is likely to
lead to changes, but they will be aimed at upper-income
families who are most able to pay. Tinkering with formulas in
Washington will not solve this problem. The nation as a whole
has been disinvesting in higher education at a time when
college has become crucial to work force participation and to
the nation's ability to meet the challenges of global
economic competition.
Until the country renews its commitment to making college
affordable for everyone, the American dream of upward
mobility through education will be in danger of dying out.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I intend to introduce later on in the
afternoon the technical language and legislation that will block that
particular provision by the Department of Education from going into
effect.
Mr. President, Janice Rogers Brown's nomination to the DC Circuit is
opposed more strongly by civil rights organizations than almost any
other nominee I can recall to the Federal courts of appeals.
She is opposed by respected civil rights leaders, including Julian
Bond, the chairman of the NAACP, and Reverend Joseph Lowery, president
emeritus of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, who worked
with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in the civil rights movement, and who
has fought tirelessly for many years to make civil rights a reality for
all Americans.
Her nomination is also opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus, the
National Bar Association, the Coalition of Black Trade Unions, the
California Association of Black Lawyers, and Delta Sigma Theta
Sorority, the second oldest sorority founded by African-American women.
Justice Brown's nomination is opposed by Dorothy Height, president
emeritus of the National Council of Negro Women, and a leader in the
battle for equality for women and African Americans. Dr. Height has
dedicated her life to fighting for equal opportunities for all
Americans. She is universally respected by Republicans and Democrats,
and last year she received the Congressional Gold Medal, and President
Bush joined Members of Congress in honoring her service.
In opposing Justice Brown's nomination, Dr. Height says:
I have always championed and applauded the progress of
women, and especially African American women; but I cannot
stand by and be silent when a jurist with a record of
performance of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers
Brown is nominated to a Federal court, even though she is an
African American woman. In her speeches and decisions,
Justice Janice Rogers Brown has articulated positions that
weaken the civil rights legislation and progress that I and
others have fought so long and hard to achieve.
Justice Brown's nomination is opposed equally strongly by over 100
other organizations, including 24 in California, representing seniors,
working families, and citizens concerned about corporate abuses and the
environment.
Some of Justice Brown's supporters suggest that she should be
confirmed because she is an African-American woman with a compelling
personal story. While all of us respect her ability to rise above
difficult circumstances, we cannot confirm nominees to lifetime
positions on the Federal courts because of their backgrounds. We have a
constitutional duty to confirm only those who would uphold the law and
would decide cases fairly and reject those who would issue decisions
based on personal ideology.
It is clear why this nomination is so vigorously opposed by those who
care about civil rights. Her record leaves no doubt that she would
attempt to impose her own extreme views on people's everyday lives
instead of following the law. The courts are too important to allow
such persons to become lifetime appointees as Federal judges.
Janice Rogers Brown's record makes clear that she is a judicial
activist and would roll back not only civil rights but laws that
protect public safety, workers' rights, and the environment, as well as
laws that limit corporate abuse, which are precisely the cases the DC
Circuit hears most often.
Our decision on this nomination is profoundly important to America's
everyday life. All Americans, wherever they live, should be concerned
about such a nomination to the DC Circuit, which interprets Federal
laws that protect our civil liberties, worker safety, our ability to
breathe clean air and drink clean water in our communities.
The DC Circuit is the crown jewel of Federal appellate courts and has
often been the stepping stone to the Supreme Court. It has a unique
role among the Federal courts in interpreting Federal power. Although
located here in the District of Columbia, its decisions have national
reach because it has exclusive jurisdiction over many laws that protect
consumers' rights, employees' rights, civil rights, and the
environment. Only the DC Circuit can review the national drinking water
standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure clean water for
our children. Only the DC Circuit can review national air quality
standards under the Clean Air Act to combat pollution in our
communities. This court also hears the lion's share of cases involving
the rights of workers under the Occupational Safety and Health Act
which helps ensure that working Americans are not exposed to hazardous
conditions on the job. It has a large number of cases under the
National Labor Relations Act. As a practical matter, because the
Supreme Court can review only a small number of lower court decisions,
the judges on the DC Circuit often have the last word on these
important rights.
Because of the court's importance to issues that affect so many
lives, the Senate should take special care in appointing judges for
lifetime positions on the DC Circuit. We must be completely confident
that appointees to this prestigious court have the highest
qualifications and ethical standards and will fairly interpret the
laws, particularly laws that protect our basic rights.
The important work we do in Congress to improve health care, reform
public schools, protect working families, and enforce civil rights is
undermined if we fail in our responsibility to provide the best
possible advice and consent on judicial nominations. Needed
environmental laws mean little to a community that cannot enforce them
in Federal courts. Fair labor laws and civil rights laws mean little if
we confirm judges who ignore them.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the DC Circuit expanded public access to
administrative proceedings and protected the interests of the public
against the egregious actions of many large businesses. It enabled more
plaintiffs to challenge agency decisions. It held that a religious
group, as a member of the listening public, could oppose the license
renewal of a television station accused of racial and religious
discrimination. It held that an organization of welfare recipients was
entitled to intervene in proceedings before a Federal agency. These
decisions empowered individuals and organizations to shine a brighter
light on governmental agencies. No longer would these agencies be able
to ignore the interests of those they were created to protect.
But in recent years, the DC Circuit has begun to deny access to the
courts. It held that a labor union could not challenge the denial of
benefits to its members, a decision later overturned by the Supreme
Court. It held that environmental groups are not qualified to seek
review of Federal standards under the Clean Air Act. These decisions
are characteristic of the DC Circuit's flip-flop.
After decades of landmark decisions allowing effective implementation
of important laws and principles, the court now is creating precedence
on labor rights, civil rights, and the environment that will set back
these basic principles for years to come. It is,
[[Page 11697]]
therefore, especially important to ensure that judges appointed to this
important court will not use their position to advance an extreme
ideological agenda.
Janice Rogers Brown would be exactly that kind of ideological judge.
How can we confirm someone to the DC Circuit who is hostile to civil
rights, to workers' rights, to consumer protections, to governmental
actions that protect the environment and the public in so many other
areas--the very issues that predominate in the DC Circuit? How can we
confirm someone who is so deeply opposed to the core protections that
the DC Circuit is required to enforce? It is hard to imagine a worse
choice for the DC Circuit.
Perhaps most disturbing is the contempt she has repeatedly expressed
for the very idea of democratic self-government. She has stated that
where government moves in, community retreats, and civil society
disintegrates. She has said that government leads to families under
siege, war in the streets. In her view, when government advances,
freedom is imperiled, and civilization itself is jeopardized. These
views could hardly be further from legal mainstream. They are not the
views of someone who should be confirmed to the second most important
court in the land and the court with the highest frequency of cases
involving governmental action. Congress and the White House are the
places you go to change the law, not the Federal courts.
She has criticized the New Deal which gave us Social Security, the
minimum wage, and the fair labor laws. She questioned whether age
discrimination laws benefit the public interest. She has even said that
today's senior citizens blithely cannibalize their children because
they have the right to get as much free stuff as the political system
will permit them to extract. No one with these views should be
confirmed to any Federal court, and certainly not to the Federal court
most responsible for cases respecting governmental action. It is no
wonder that an organization seeking to dismantle Social Security is
running ads supporting her nomination to the second most powerful court
in the country.
Of course, like every nominee who comes before the Senate, Justice
Brown assures us that she will follow the law. But merely saying so is
not enough when there is clear and extensive evidence to the contrary.
The Senate is more than a rubberstamp in the judicial confirmation
process. We must examine the record and vote our conscience.
Justice Brown and her supporters ask us to believe that her contempt
for the role of government and government regulation and her opinions
against workers' rights and consumer protections are not an indication
of how she would act as a Federal judge. It is hard to believe that
anyone would repeatedly use such extreme rhetoric and not mean it. It
is even harder to believe that her carelessness and intemperance
somehow qualify her to be a Federal judge.
Moreover, Justice Brown's decisions match her extreme rhetoric. She
has written opinions that would undermine these basic protections. I
was especially troubled by her opinion in a case in which ethnic slurs
have been proven to create hostile working conditions for Latino
workers. Justice Brown wrote that the first amendment prevents courts
from stopping ethnic slurs in the workplace even when those slurs
create a hostile work environment, in violation of job discrimination
laws.
Her opinion even went beyond the State law involved in the case and
suggested that title VII and other Federal antidiscrimination laws may
not prohibit this kind of harassment in the workplace. Her opinion
contradicts decades of precedent protecting workers from harassment
based on race, gender, ethnicity, and religion. Fortunately, a majority
of California's Supreme Court disagreed with her views.
We cannot risk giving Justice Brown a lifetime appointment to a court
on which she will have a greater opportunity to apply her extreme views
on our Federal civil rights laws. This Nation has made too much
progress toward our shared goal of equal opportunity to risk appointing
a judge who will roll back civil rights.
Other opinions by Justice Brown would have prevented victims of age
and race discrimination from obtaining relief in State court. She
dissented from a holding that victims of discrimination may obtain
damages from administrative agencies for their emotional distress. Time
and again, she has issued opinions that would cut back on laws that
rein in corporate special interests. When there is a choice between
protecting the interests of working Americans and siding with big
business, Janice Rogers Brown sides with big business, and she does so
in ways that go far beyond the mainstream conservative thinking.
She wrote an opinion striking down a State fee requiring paint
companies to pay for screening and treating children exposed to lead
paint. Most of us are familiar with the dangers of lead paint. It is a
contributing cause to mental retardation with regards to children. Many
of the older communities all over this country have paint that has a
lead content, and children have a habit of picking off the pieces. Even
if it is in playgrounds, they have a way of ingesting these pieces. We
find that children develop severe illness and sickness and in too many
instances mental retardation. We tried here for years to eliminate the
issues of lead in paint. We have made some important progress.
As I understand it, one of the proposals was a small State fee
requiring paint companies to pay for screening and treating children
exposed to lead paint, and she struck down that State fee. Fortunately,
she was unanimously reversed by the California Supreme Court. But
because the United States Supreme Court hears so few cases, there is no
guarantee that her mistakes will be corrected if she receives a
lifetime position on the DC court.
In another case, she wrote a dissent urging the California Supreme
Court to strike down a San Francisco law providing housing assistance
to low-income elderly and disabled people.
Justice Brown has also clearly demonstrated her willingness to ignore
established precedent. She wrote a dissent, arguing that the California
Supreme Court ``cannot simply cloak ourselves in the doctrine of stare
decisis,'' which is the rule that judges should follow the settled law.
That is the basic concept of upholding the law, interpreting law, stare
decisis, following the law which currently exists.
She wrote a dissent urging the California Supreme Court, saying we
cannot simply cloak ourselves in that doctrine.
She again showed her willingness to disregard legal precedent just
this year. In People v. Robert Young, Justice Brown tried to overturn a
precedent protecting the rights of racial minorities and women not to
be eliminated from juries for discriminatory reasons. In a concurring
opinion not joined by any of her colleagues, she criticized the
precedent stating that for the purposes of deciding whether a
prosecuting attorney had discriminated in selecting a jury, black women
could not be considered a separate group. The California Supreme Court
had held two decades ago that prosecutors may not exclude jurors solely
because they are black women.
Justice Brown argued that this precedent should be overruled because
she saw no evidentiary basis that black women might be the victims of a
unique type of group discrimination justifying their designation as a
cognizable group.
It is not just Senate Democrats who are troubled about the record of
Janice Rogers Brown. Conservatives have also expressed concern about
the judicial activism of Janice Rogers Brown. The conservative
publication National Review had this to say:
Janice Rogers Brown . . . has said that judicial activism
is not troubling per se; what matters is the ``worldview'' of
the judicial activist. If a liberal nominee to the courts
said similar things, conservatives would make short work of
her.
Even conservative columnist George Will has said that Janice Rogers
Brown is out of the mainstream.
[[Page 11698]]
In the past, some members of the press, and even some in Congress,
have accused us of bias when we raise questions about a nominee. That
is nonsense. Justice Brown has received the same treatment as other
nominees. We have asked about her record, looked at her statements, and
reviewed her opinions. We have raised questions when her record cast
doubt on her commitment to the rule of law.
During the recent debate on judicial nominees, almost all of us,
Republicans and Democrats, have emphasized that we want an independent
judiciary. If that is truly what we believe, we must vote no on the
nomination of Janice Rogers Brown. She opposes many of our society's
most basic values shared by both Republicans and Democrats.
Throughout its history, America has embraced the ideals of fairness,
opportunity, and justice. We all believe our laws are there to help
ensure everyone can share in the American dream and that everyone
should be free from discrimination. Janice Rogers Brown has expressed
hostility to some of the protections most important to the American
people, including those that protect workers, civil rights, and the
environment. We believe that judges should be impartial, not beholden
to powerful corporate interests. If we believe in these basic
protections, it makes no sense to confirm a judge who would undermine
them and turn back the clock on many of our most basic rights.
The Senate's role in confirming judges to the Federal courts is one
of our most important responsibilities under the Constitution. We count
on Federal judges to be openminded, fair, and respect the rule of law.
Despite what Justice Brown thinks, laws passed by Congress to give
Government a role in protecting the environment, immigrants, workers,
consumers, public health and safety, have helped to make America a
stronger, better, and more fair country. A nominee so deeply hostile to
so many basic laws does not deserve to be appointed to such an
important Federal court.
Last month, we celebrated the 51st anniversary of the Supreme Court's
landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Nothing can be a more
important reminder of the role of our courts in upholding individual
rights. In confirming Federal judges, we must ensure that they will
uphold the progress our country has made in so many areas, especially
in civil rights.
Justice Brown's record and her many intemperate statements give me no
confidence that she will do so, and I urge my colleagues to vote
against her nomination.
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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Birth Control
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today is a very important day in American
history. On June 7, 1965, 40 years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court
struck down a Connecticut law making it a crime to use or prescribe any
form of birth control or even to give advice about birth control. Forty
years ago it was a crime to prescribe any form of birth control in the
State of Connecticut, or to use it, or to give advice about it: 40
years ago.
It is hard to imagine, isn't it? Even married couples in Connecticut
could be convicted of a crime, fined, and sentenced to up to a year in
prison for using forms of birth control. Doctors who prescribed
contraceptives, pharmacists who filled the prescriptions, even people
who simply provided advice about birth control, could be charged with
aiding and abetting a crime, fined, and sent to prison for up to a
year.
But 40 years ago today, just across the street, by a vote of 7 to 2,
the Supreme Court struck down the Connecticut law. The case was called
Griswold v. Connecticut, a famous case. The Court's ruling held for the
first time in our Nation's history that the Constitution guarantees all
Americans the right to privacy in family planning decisions. Such
decisions were so intensely personal, their consequences so profound,
the Court said the State, the Government, may not intrude, it may not
impose its will upon others.
You can search our Constitution, every single word of it, as short a
document as it is, and never find the word ``privacy'' in this
document. Yet the Supreme Court said they believed the concept of our
privacy was built into our rights, our individual rights and liberties.
I referred briefly to this landmark ruling earlier today in remarks
opposing the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to serve as a Federal
circuit court judge in the District of Columbia. That nomination is
before the Senate at this moment. It is for a lifetime appointment.
Janice Rogers Brown is a justice in the California Supreme Court who
has stated explicitly her own personal philosophy, her own judicial
philosophy, and it runs counter to many of the concepts and values I
will be discussing as part of this commemoration of the Griswold
decision.
I am glad there is a bipartisan resolution sponsored by my colleague
from Illinois, Senator Barack Obama, and Senator Olympia Snowe of
Maine, calling on the Senate to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the
Griswold decision. In that resolution, my two colleagues, one Democrat,
one Republican, ask the Senate to renew its commitment to make sure
that all women, including poor women, have access to affordable,
reliable, safe family planning.
Right at the heart of the Griswold decision, the right to make the
most intimate personal decisions about our lives in private, without
Government interference, we find the foundation for future decisions
that expanded reproductive rights. In 1972, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, the
Supreme Court granted unmarried people in America access to family
planning and contraception--1972--and, in 1973, the famous case, Roe v.
Wade, a 7-to-2 decision by the Supreme Court said that women have a
fundamental right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy, depending
on the state of the pregnancy. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun was
nominated to serve on the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon--obviously a
Republican President. Justice Blackmun had been on the Court less than
a year and a half when he was assigned to write the majority opinion in
Roe v. Wade.
There is a brilliant new biography called ``Becoming Justice
Blackmun'' by Linda Greenhouse. I finished it and recommend it to my
colleagues. Justice Blackmun served on the Court at several different
levels and kept copious notes. From those notes, which were donated,
they have derived this biography, which I recommend to anyone,
regardless of your political background, to understand what happens
behind those closed doors at the Supreme Court.
Justice Blackmun revealed in this book how he struggled with the
assignment of writing the majority opinion on Roe v. Wade. You see, he
had been the general counsel for the Mayo Clinic, one of the most
outstanding hospitals in America, which happens to be in the State of
our Presiding Officer, Minnesota, in Rochester. So Justice Blackmun
left Washington and went back to the library of the Mayo Clinic as he
wrote this decision. He worked for long periods of time, plowing
through books and articles on the whole question of abortion. He
listened to a lot of people, including his own daughter, who dropped
out of college in her sophomore year after becoming pregnant.
In his notes for the Roe decision, Justice Blackmun made two
predictions. Here is what he said. The Court will be excoriated at
first for its decision. Then, he went on to say, there will be an
unsettled period for a while as States brought their laws into
compliance with the Roe v. Wade decision.
The first prediction proved accurate; the second, overly optimistic.
Thirty-two years after the Roe decision, 40 years after the Griswold
decision, America today remains unsettled, not only about reproductive
rights, but
[[Page 11699]]
about many other fundamental matters of conscience as well. We are
struggling today with a question that is as old as our democracy
itself: What is the appropriate, what is the proper relationship
between personal religious belief and public policy? How many battles,
how many debates do we struggle through that go to that single issue?
When should one group in America be able to impose its own moral code
on the rest of society?
It is worth remembering that the Griswold decision overturned
Connecticut's version of a Federal law called the Comstock Act. In 20
years on Capitol Hill, I have never heard anyone refer to the Comstock
Act. Listen to the history. This law was named after its author,
Anthony Comstock, a morals crusader and a zealot anti-abortion
advocate.
In 1868, Anthony Comstock was the driving force behind a State anti-
obscenity law in New York. In 1873, he brought his crusade to
Washington. He lobbied Congress to pass a Federal law making it a crime
to advertise or mail not only ``every lewd, lascivious, or filthy book,
pamphlet, picture, paper, letter, writing, print, or other publication
of an indecent character'' but also any information ``for preventing
conception or producing abortion.''
Congress passed the Comstock law unanimously, with little debate. It
then commissioned--this is something I find almost hard to believe--it
commissioned Anthony Comstock as a special agent of the U.S. Post
Office, gave him the power under the law to define what should be
banned in America, and also vested in Mr. Comstock the power of arrest
and gave him a huge travel budget. Imagine that: Mr. Comstock spent the
next 30 years crisscrossing America, enforcing his law as he saw fit.
Two years before he died in 1915, Anthony Comstock bragged that he
had been personally responsible for the criminal conviction of enough
people to fill a 61-car passenger train. He prosecuted Margaret Sanger,
the family planning pioneer, on eight counts of obscenity because she
published articles on birth control. Druggists were punished and
criminalized for giving out information to Americans about family
planning and contraception. Publishers revised their texts and books so
as to avoid the wrath of Mr. Comstock and his law, deleting banned
words such as ``pregnant,'' and Americans lived with his censorship of
the mail.
The Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw dismissed the Comstock Act
as ``a standing joke at the expense of the United States.'' There was
nothing funny about the Comstock Act, nothing funny to those who were
forced by the law to conform with Anthony Comstock's rigid personal
moral code. The penalty for violating the Comstock Act was up to 5
years in prison at hard labor and a fine of up to $2,000. For every
victim who was prosecuted, there were untold others whose lives,
health, and family suffered as a result of being denied basic
information about family planning.
Linn Duvall Harwell is one of those who suffered. Miss Harwell now
lives in New Hampshire. She is 82 years old. In 1929, when she was 6
years old, her mother, who was then 34 and pregnant for the eighth
time, lost her life. She tried to abort her own pregnancy using
knitting needles and bled to death, leaving behind a husband and five
small children. Linn Duvall Harwell has spent her life trying to spare
other women her mother's fate by protecting women's right to safe and
legal contraception and abortion.
In 1958, Linn Harwell moved to Connecticut. A woman at her church
asked her to volunteer for Planned Parenthood. She and other young
mothers were trained in medical understanding of birth control by
Estelle Griswold, the director of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut,
and Charles Lee Buxton, the league's medical director. These were the
two people who brought the lawsuit that later became the Griswold case
before the Supreme Court. Years before the Court struck down
Connecticut's Comstock law, Linn Duvall Harwell defied the law to teach
poor women in housing projects about birth control and family planning.
Yesterday, the Chicago Sun-Times carried an article written by Miss
Harwell about her life's work and the renewed threats today to the
rights identified in Griswold and Roe. In her op-ed, Miss Harwell
recalled a woman she met in 1968 named Rosie. Rosie was 32 years old.
She and her husband, a short-order cook, were the parents of 11
children.
Miss Harwell wrote:
By the time I met Rosie and her family, I could not help
her, for she had so many children already. She and her family
were imprisoned in poverty because she was unable to access
the preventive medicine that I easily obtained.
She added:
The Comstock law denied health care to millions of Rosies
because of religious bigotry, legalized injustice and
ignorance.
Today, it is estimated that 95 percent of American women will use
birth control during their childbearing years. Reliable birth control
is now a critical part of preventive health care for women. And Roe,
although it has been weakened, is still the law of the land.
The widespread use of birth control has helped reduce maternal and
infant mortality by an astonishing two-thirds in the last 40 years.
Since Griswold, we have reduced infant and maternal mortality in
America by two-thirds. In 1999, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention included family planning on the list of ``Ten Great
Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century.''
But Comstockery seems to be making a return. You can see it in
efforts to impose gag rules on doctors and other measures designed to
make it harder for women to get information and services related to
family planning and abortion. You can see it in the stories of women
who are harassed by pharmacists when they attempt to fill prescriptions
for contraceptives--in some cases, even after these women have been
victims of sexual assault.
A chill wind blows for reproductive rights and possibly other issues
of conscience as well. You can hear that wind in the rhetoric of
extremists who rail about the ``culture war'' in America and
misrepresent legitimate political debate as attacks on people of faith.
We heard the chill wind of religious intolerance in some of the sad
debate over the tragedy of Terri Schiavo. We heard it in the dangerous,
vitriolic condemnations of judges, like George Greer, the judge in the
Schiavo case, who dared to enforce the law as he believed the
Constitution required.
We can hear that chill wind of religious and social intolerance today
in the debate over stem cell research. Once again, as with the Comstock
laws, a passionate group who sees itself as the moral guardians of
America would use the power of our Government to deny life-saving
medical care to those who need it. They believe that a cell blastocyst
deserves the same legal standing and protections as a full-grown child
or adult suffering from Parkinson's or diabetes or terrible injury to
their spinal cords. I respect their opinion. I respect their religious
beliefs. In most cases, I don't share them. Neither do most Americans.
I don't believe this vocal minority, no matter how well intentioned
they may be, no matter how moral they believe themselves to be, should
have a veto power over medical research that offers apparently
unlimited potential to heal broken bodies and minds and save lives.
Will our courts continue to recognize the constitutional right to
privacy on family planning and other profoundly personal issues? Or
will we fill the Federal bench with judicial activists who see
themselves as soldiers in a cultural war, who want to put their own
agendas ahead of the Constitution? That is one of the questions that is
at the heart of the debate on the Federal judges.
The filibuster debate is not about old Senate rules. It is about
whether self-described cultural warriors can use our Government to
impose their personal moral agenda on America.
In April, a group of organizations held a televised rally to condemn
the Senate filibuster rule as a weapon against people of faith. They
called it ``Justice Sunday.'' That day, Janice
[[Page 11700]]
Rogers Brown, the nominee now before the Senate, gave a speech in which
she argued that ``people of faith are embroiled in a war against
secular humanists.'' According to newspaper accounts, she went on to
say:
[T]here seems to have been no time since the Civil War that
this country was so bitterly divided. It's not a shooting
war, but it's a war.
Mr. President, Americans are not at war with one another. We are at
war in Afghanistan and Iraq, wars, sadly, fueled by religious extremism
in many respects. Expressing honest, fundamental differences of opinion
on political and social questions here at home is not an act of war. It
is an act of democracy. It is our democratic process and our
Constitution at work.
I respect the right of every person to express his or her beliefs
about religion or anything else. That is part of the beauty of being a
citizen in this great Nation. But we cannot allow the beliefs of a
majority, or even a vocal minority, to determine moral choices for
every American. As the Supreme Court ruled so wisely 40 years ago,
there are decisions that are so intensely private that the Government
has no right to intrude.
Soon I hope we take up the issue which the House considered just
several days ago on stem cell research. It strikes me as strange, maybe
unfair, that some believe we should oppose in vitro fertilization in
every circumstance. I have friends of my family, friends for years, who
have spent small fortunes in the hopes that a mother and father who
cannot conceive by natural means can use this process to have a child
whom they will rear and love all of their lives. One of my friends has
spent $80,000 in two separate, thank goodness successful, efforts, and
she has two beautiful children to show for it.
I cannot imagine why that is an immoral act, when a husband and wife
will go to those extremes to bring a life into this world that they
will love and nurture. But we know, just as in normal conception, there
will be, during the process, some of the fertilized eggs that will not
lodge in a mother's womb and lead to human life. That is the natural
thing that occurs.
The same thing happens during in vitro fertilization. If they are
successful in creating this fertilized egg, and then implanting it in a
woman's womb so she can have a baby, it is a miracle, but as part of
that miracle there will be some of these fertilized eggs which cannot
be used.
So the question before us in stem cell research is very clear: Should
stem cells from blastocysts be used to save others' lives, to prevent
disease, to give someone hope and a future? That is what it is about.
There are some who say no, some who would say we should not allow in
vitro fertilization, and others who say, if you allow it, you should
never allow those discarded blastocysts to be used for medical
research.
The position of the Bush administration is close to that. The
President, in August of 2001, said he would approve certain stem cell
lines being used for research but no others. Well, it turns out those
stem cell lines were very limited in their number and quality, and
scientists and medical researchers have told us that the President's
approach is not going to give us the opportunity we need to develop
these stem cells into cures for diseases. So many of us believe we
should move forward.
We should have strict rules against cloning. I do not know of a
single Member of Congress, of either political party, who supports
human cloning. We are all opposed to that. It should be condemned, and
we should have strict ethical guidelines on the use of these stem cells
so that they are used legitimately for research, not for profit or
commercialization, but legitimately used for research to try to find
the cures to these vexing diseases.
Many of us believe that this is as pro-life as it gets. If you can
take stem cells that would be otherwise discarded and never used for
any purpose and use them for the purpose of giving a youngster who has
to inject with insulin three times a day a chance to be rid of
diabetes, if you can use it for a person afflicted in their forties or
fifties with Parkinson's disease, which is a progressively degenerative
disease in most instances, if you can use it to try to regenerate the
spinal column and all the things that are necessary so someone can walk
again after a spinal cord injury--how in the world can that be wrong?
That strikes me as promoting life. Yet some will come to the floor,
even threatening a filibuster, saying that we cannot do this because it
violates their personal moral and religious beliefs. Well, I understand
that. And that is how they should vote. But to stop the rest of the
Nation--because of their personal moral and religious beliefs--from
this type of medical research seems to me to be counterproductive, if
you are truly committed to life and the health of those who surround
us.
Forty years ago, the decision was made across the street that there
are certain elements of privacy, there are certain elements of personal
decisions made by individuals and families which the State, the
Government cannot overrule because of anyone's personal religious,
moral belief. They said that privacy is critically important in
America. Those private decisions should be protected.
Every nominee for the Supreme Court I have heard in recent times has
faced a Judiciary Committee question from some member, Democrat or
Republican: Do you still agree with the Griswold v. Connecticut
decision? Do you still believe that, even though this Constitution does
not include the word ``privacy,'' that is part of what we have as
Americans as part of our individual rights and liberties? The only one
who tried to, I guess, split the difference and find some way to argue
around it was Robert Bork. His nomination was ill-fated after he made
some of those statements.
I believe most Americans feel we should be personally responsible,
that we should be allowed to have our own personal religious beliefs,
but they also think we should stay away from the Government imposing
religious beliefs on one group or the other. That is what happened with
the Comstock laws. That is what led to the laws in Connecticut, which
were stricken in Griswold. Sadly, that is part of the debate today when
it comes to stem cell research.
I am urging Senator Frist, a medical doctor, one I greatly respect,
to bring this bill up and bring it up quickly. I know there is a
feeling by the White House, and maybe even by some in Congress, that we
should avoid this stem cell research debate. But when you think of the
millions of Americans and their families who are counting on us to move
medical research forward, is there anything more important on our
political agenda?
I sincerely hope President Bush, who made an exception for some stem
cell lines for research, will understand that you cannot take an
absolute position on this issue. It is a tough issue. It is one where
we should draw good, ethical guidelines for the use of this research,
but not prohibit it, not close the door to this research and the cures
that could emanate from it. That, I think, would be a lesson well
learned, a lesson consistent with the decision made by the Supreme
Court 40 years ago today.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to get us back on the
topic at hand. It is a topic that has been denied for some period of
time. It is the Honorable Janice Rogers Brown nomination to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. ``Justice delayed is justice
denied'' is an old saying under the law. This lady has been delayed a
long time. It is time to get this nomination through.
I am glad to see the cloture vote move us forward. She is going to be
now approved, I believe, by a majority vote and a majority opinion. And
I think if the country had to vote on Janice Rogers Brown, it would be
a 90-plus percent vote for this lady, given her background, given her
judicial expertise, given her demeanor, given her nature.
I think the country would look at this lady, whom I have a picture of
[[Page 11701]]
here, and say: That is the type of person I want on the bench. This is
a good, honorable person, with a great heart, a well-trained mind, who
is thoughtful, with great experience. This is the type of person we
ought to have on the bench. Yet we have just heard litany after litany
of excuses, the dissecting of cases that you try to then parse to say
she should not be on the bench for whatever reason.
I want to go through some of what has been stated previously. I want
to go through, again, her background to get us back on topic. And then
I want to go through some of the specifics.
She is currently serving as an associate justice on the California
Supreme Court. She has held that position since 1996. She is the first
African-American woman to serve on the State's highest court. She was
retained with 76 percent of the vote in the last election. Certainly,
that does not seem to be the sort of extreme case anyone can come up
with; that 76 percent of Californians think she should be retained on
the court. If she is so extreme, if she is so off the mark, if she is
so out of the mainstream, why, in California, wasn't she voted off the
bench?
Why didn't at least 24 percent of Californians or more than 24
percent vote her off the bench? Why didn't she have a much closer
election than that? Where is the beef, an old advertising phrase?
In 2002, Justice Brown's colleagues relied on her to write the
majority opinion for the court more times than any other justice. Prior
to appointment and confirmation to the California Supreme Court,
Justice Brown served from 1994 to 1996 as an associate justice on the
Third District Court of Appeals, an intermediate State appellate court.
Justice Brown enjoys bipartisan support from those in California who
know her best. A bipartisan group of 15 California law professors has
written to the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of Justice Brown.
The letter notes that:
We know Justice Brown to be a person of high integrity,
intelligence, unquestioned integrity, and evenhandedness.
Since we have differing political beliefs and perspectives,
Democratic, Republican and Independent, we wish especially to
emphasize what we believe is Justice Brown's strongest
credential for appointment on the D.C. Circuit Court: her
open-minded and thorough appraisal of legal argumentation--
even when her personal views may conflict with those
arguments.
This is a bipartisan group that says she is open-minded and thorough
in her appraisal of legal arguments.
A bipartisan group of Justice Brown's current and former judicial
colleagues has also written a letter in support of her nomination.
Twelve current and former colleagues noted in a letter to the committee
that:
Much has been written about Justice Brown's humble
beginnings, and the story of her rise to the California
Supreme Court is truly compelling. But that alone would not
be enough to gain our endorsement for a seat on the Federal
bench. We believe that Justice Brown is qualified because she
is a superb judge. We who have worked with her on a daily
basis know her to be extremely intelligent, keenly
analytical, and very hard working. We know that she is a
jurist who applies the law without favor, without bias and
with an even hand.
This doesn't sound like the same lady who is being discussed on this
floor by some of my colleagues on the other side.
Ellis Horvitz, a Democrat and one of the deans of the appellate bar
in California, has written in support of Justice Brown noting that:
. . . in my opinion, Justice Brown [possesses] those
qualities an appellate jurist should have. She is extremely
intelligent, very conscientious and hard working,
refreshingly articulate, and possessing great common sense
and integrity. She is courteous and gracious to the litigants
and counsel who appear before her.
Regis Lane, director of Minorities in Law Enforcement, a coalition of
ethnic minority law enforcement officers in California, wrote:
We recommend the confirmation of Justice Brown based on her
broad range of experience, personal integrity, good standing
in the community, and dedication to public service . . . In
many conversations with Justice Brown, I have discovered that
she is very passionate about the plight of racial minorities
in America, based on her upbringing in the south. Justice
Brown's views that all individuals who desire the American
dream regardless of their race or creed can and should
succeed in this country, are consistent with [that group's]
mission to ensure brighter futures for disadvantaged youth of
color.
These are some of the people who know her the best. These are the
statements they make about her. This is why she should be on the DC
appellate court.
Justice Brown is an outstanding and highly qualified candidate as
evidenced by her background, credentials, and training. This has been
covered and covered. But she is a sharecropper's daughter, born in
Greenville, AL, in 1949. During her childhood she attended segregated
schools, came of age in the midst of Jim Crow policies in the South.
She grew up listening to her grandmother's stories about NAACP lawyer
Fred Gray, who defended Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks.
Her experience as a child of the South motivated her desire to be a
lawyer. Her family moved to Sacramento, CA, when Justice Brown was in
her teens. She later received a B.A. in economics from California State
in Sacramento in 1974, and her J.D. from UCLA School of Law in 1977.
She also received honorary law degrees from Pepperdine University Law
School, Catholic University, and Southwestern University School of Law.
She has dedicated all but 2 years of her 26-year legal career to
public service. For only 2 years has she not been in public service, 24
years of public service. Where is the person who is out of the
mainstream? Where is the person who is irrational? Where is the person
who doesn't hold or have the judicial temperament or doesn't have the
intellect or the open-mindedness to be a judge in all of this? She has
dedicated most of her life, 24 years, to public service.
Prior to more than 8 years as a judge in State courts, Justice Brown
served from 1991 to 1994 as legal affairs secretary to California
Governor Pete Wilson where she provided legal advice on litigation,
legislation, and policy matters. From 1987 to 1990, she served as
deputy secretary and general counsel to the California Business,
Transportation, and Housing Agency where she supervised the State
banking, real estate, corporations, thrift, and insurance departments.
From 1972 to 1987, she was deputy attorney general of the Office of
the California Attorney General where she prepared briefs and
participated in oral arguments on behalf of the State in criminal
appeals, prosecuted criminal cases, and litigated a variety of civil
issues. She began her legal career in 1977, when she served 2 years as
deputy legislative counsel in the California Legislative Counsel
Bureau. She has a broad base of experience from which to draw to be an
excellent person to sit on the Federal appellate court bench.
She has participated in a variety of statewide and community
organizations dedicated to improving the quality of life for all
citizens of California. Justice Brown has served as a member of the
California Commission on the Status of African-American Males--the
commission was chaired by now-U.S. Representative Barbara Lee--and made
recommendations on how to address inequalities in the treatment of
African-American males in employment, business development, the
criminal justice, and health care systems.
She is a member of the Governor's Child Support Task Force, which
reviewed and made recommendations on how to improve California's child
support enforcement laws. She serves as a member of the Community
Learning Advisory Board of the Rio Americano High School and developed
the Academia Civitas Program to provide government service internships
to high school students in Sacramento. She has also assisted in the
development of a curriculum to teach civics and reinforce the values of
public service.
She has volunteered time with the Center for Law-Related Education, a
program that uses moot courts and mock trials to teach high school
students how to solve everyday problems. She has taught Sunday school
class at Cordova Church of Christ for more than 10 years. That is
Justice Janice Rogers Brown. Those are the facts. That is who she
actually is.
[[Page 11702]]
So why has it taken that long a period of time for us to be able to
get her to the floor? Why is there such consternation about her
becoming a DC appellate court judge? Why have we spent years to get her
to the point where we will vote on--I would love to see it today, but
at least this week--her approval to the DC appellate court bench? I
think it goes to the fact that she is a lady, nominated by President
Bush, who will strictly construe the Constitution, stay within the
bounds of the document, not try to write new opinion as to a new
constitutional right or a new issue that is not within the Constitution
or not within the law. She is what lawyers would call a strict
constructionist. She says if the law says this--and it was passed to
say that--that is what we enforce, if that is what the Constitution
says.
It is not the living, breathing document of let's try to create
another right or privilege here and take three or four of the
amendments to the Constitution, provisions of the Constitution, frame
them together, and then let's find a new right in the Constitution
because we think this is good for the country. If it is a change to the
Constitution that needs to happen, then it should happen. And it should
go through this body with a two-thirds vote. It should go through the
House with a two-thirds vote. It should go to the State legislatures
for a three-fourths vote. It should not be a majority opinion of a
bench somewhere.
She says she will stay within the confines of the law. That is what
the President is trying to nominate, judges who will stay strict
constructionists within the confines of the law and be what judges
should be, interpreters of the law, enforcers of the Constitution as it
is written, not as they wish it were written. That is what this
nomination is about.
Others want to see a court that will expand and look and read
different things in, even if it doesn't pass through this body or
doesn't pass through the legislature or isn't signed into law by the
President. We really are at a point of what it is that the judiciary is
to be about in America. You are seeing the face of somebody who is a
strict constructionist, saying that this is what it is about.
The judiciary has a role. It has a constitutional role. It is an
extraordinarily important role. But it is defined and it is set. She
believes it should stay within. That is why we have had so much trouble
with so many of these judicial nominations.
During the first 4 years of the Presidency of George W. Bush, the
Senate accumulated the worst circuit court confirmation record in
modern times, thanks to partisan obstruction. Only 35 of President
Bush's 52 circuit court nominees were confirmed, a confirmation rate of
67 percent. To give you a comparison on that:
People have said that is not so low; we approved a number of these
lower court judges. But let's take President Johnson's term in office.
There was a Democrat Senate and a Democrat President. What was his
circuit court nomination rate? It was 95 percent.
President Bush: Republican Senate, Republican Presidency, 67 percent.
What about President Carter? Democratic President, Democratic Senate,
and 93 percent of his circuit court nominees were approved.
President Bush: 67 percent.
What has taken place is a filibuster of good people, such as Janice
Rogers Brown, who has served honorably most of her professional career
in public service but does believe there are confines within which they
rule. It is in the Constitution or it is not; it is in the law or it is
not; it is constitutional or it is not. It is not what I wish it were,
it is what is actually there. It is what the precedents have said that
matters.
The average American may not be familiar with Senate rules on cloture
or on the unprecedented low confirmation rate of President Bush's
circuit court nominees, but the average American can tell you one
thing: that the Constitution and common sense require the Government to
be accountable to the people for its actions. This is especially the
case of what we do in the House and the Senate as we move forward in
this country.
I want to address some of the items that have been coming up in some
of these debates. Various Members have raised specific points, and I
want to address a few of those points.
Certain liberal special interest groups have tried to distort Janice
Rogers Brown's decision when she served on the State court of appeals
in the case of Sinclair Paint Company v. Board of Equalization. They
claimed she was insensitive to the legislature's desire to protect
children from lead poisoning.
What was really at issue in the case was the respect for the will of
the California voters who wanted to make it more difficult for the
California Legislature to raise taxes.
California proposition 13--people remember that--enacted in June of
1978, requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature to increase State
taxes. That is what proposition 13 did. In 1991, the California
Legislature voted by a simple majority to assess fees on manufacturers
engaged in commerce involving products containing lead in order to fund
a program to provide education, screening, and medical services for
children at risk for lead poisoning. Justice Brown simply held for a
unanimous court of appeals--a unanimous court of appeals--in affirming
the judgment of the trial court that the assessment constituted a tax
within the meaning of proposition 13 and thus had to be passed by a
two-thirds vote.
That seems to be pretty basic and pretty common sense and not about
her insensitivity to cases involving lead poisoning but simply what her
role is under the law and her role as a jurist.
Under applicable California case law where payment is exacted solely
for revenue purposes and its payment gives the right to carry on the
business without any further conditions, the payment constitutes a tax.
The Childhood Lead Poisoning Protection Act did not require the
plaintiff to comply with any other conditions. It was merely required
to pay its share of the program cost. Justice Brown reasonably
concluded the assessment was a tax.
There are several other cases that have been brought up that I want
to address.
Several liberal interest groups have attacked Justice Brown's dissent
in Aguilar v. Avis Rent-a-Car Systems in which she argued racial
discrimination in the workplace, even when it rises to the level of
illegal race discrimination, cannot be prohibited by an injunction
under the first amendment. I want to talk about this.
Justice Brown, as I have cited, is the daughter of a sharecropper
from rural Alabama. She grew up under the shadow of Jim Crow laws. I
think she understands the lingering effects of racial classification.
In light of her personal history, the allegation she is insensitive to
discrimination is absurd.
Notwithstanding her personal experiences with racism, Judge Brown's
role as a judge has been to apply the law which she has done faithfully
and rigorously. As I discussed earlier, it is the role of the judge to
apply the law and apply the Constitution, not rewrite the law the way
they wish it were, not to rewrite the Constitution the way they think
it ought to be, but to apply it in a particular case. And this is a
case she could have looked at from her background and said: I
understand this situation. I have been in this situation. Yet what does
the law itself say?
Judge Brown's opinions demonstrate her firm commitment to the bedrock
principle of civil rights. Discrimination on the basis of race is
illegal, it is immoral, unconstitutional, inherently wrong, and
destructive of a democratic society. Those are her statements.
In the Aguilar case, Justice Brown described the defendants' comments
as disgusting, offensive, and abhorrent, and she voted to permit a
large damage award under California's fair employment law to stand. Her
dissent only pertained to an injunction that placed an absolute
prohibition on speech. This is commonly called a prior restraint which
most free speech advocates strenuously oppose.
Justice Brown's opinions demonstrate her firm commitment to the first
amendment. She cited a long line
[[Page 11703]]
of Supreme Court cases for the proposition that speech cannot be banned
simply because it is offensive.
Justice Brown's opinions also demonstrate her commitment to equality
in the workplace. Justice Mosk and Justice Kennard, considered one of
the most liberal members of the California Supreme Court, also
dissented on first amendment grounds.
Here we see the core of the person, the commitment to the law and to
the rule of law. Here was something she had experienced, she
understood, and yet had to say: OK, what does the law actually say, and
what are the first amendment rights? Then she applied them in the case.
That is the type of justice who looks at what is their role and what is
it that they are required to do under the Constitution.
Judge Brown's opinion was so powerful that it prompted one member of
the U.S. Supreme Court to take the unusual step of publishing an
opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari.
I find it amazing that the very same liberal outside groups who never
hesitate to level accusations of censorship, perhaps, against the
administration or even Congress are attacking Justice Brown for
standing up for what she interpreted and looked at clearly as a first
amendment issue which she had to stand by even though she found the
comments herself so offensive and wrong.
Justice Brown has been attacked as being insensitive on women's
issues because she has voted to strike down a State antidiscrimination
law that provided a contraceptive drug benefit to women. Some have
claimed her to be hostile to these women's issues.
What one has to do is look at the actual case, the actual facts, the
actual law in front of her because her role as a justice is to take the
law and the facts applied in this particular case, not what she wished
it was, not what she hoped it would be, not what she thinks it should
be in a perfect world, but what is it.
The law involved in the case actually required health and disability
insurance policies to cover contraceptives. Justice Brown did not vote
to strike down the law, she simply argued that the law should not be
applied to force a religious institution--here Catholic Charities of
Sacramento--to do something that violated its religious beliefs. This
case was about religious freedom under the first amendment, not about
gender discrimination or revisiting the right to contraceptives. It is
about discrimination based on religion, and Justice Brown stood against
this discrimination. Telling us about this case without saying a word
about religious freedom on the issue misinforms people totally about
this particular case and this person.
Justice Brown has been attacked for rendering opinions that have been
considered outside the mainstream. These allegations are spurious. As I
have stated, she has been affirmed by the population, the public voting
in California, with a 76-percent approval rating. If her opinions are
so out of the mainstream and so wrong, why weren't more Californians
than roughly 25 percent concerned about this?
The flip side of this is that I have never won an election by a 75-
percent margin. I would love to win an election by that margin. This is
a confirmation election. It is different than what we face in the
Senate.
Still, as somebody who has run for elections, when you get up to that
three-fourths mark, that is really good, standing in front of the
public and asking them to endorse your status, endorse your position,
particularly if this allegation were true. If it were true that she is
way out of the mainstream of public opinion in California and she is
way out, on a consistent basis, so that her opinions are in the paper
all the time and they are way out there, contrary to California public
opinion, would you not think more than 25 percent of Californians would
say, I am going to vote against confirming this lady?
I think probably a lot of people would look down the ballot box on
judges and say, Which ones can I vote against because I am used to
voting for all of them, particularly if somebody was so out of the
mainstream on such a consistent basis that she is in the papers all the
time about being in this dissent or being overruled in this case, that
there would be some recognition of her and more people would be
concerned. Yet that is not the case. I submit it is because it is just
not true. She is not outside the mainstream.
I believe the criticism is utterly baseless. Among the eight justices
who served on the California Supreme Court between 1996 and 2003,
Justice Brown tied with another judge as the author of the second most
majority opinions for the court. Only the chief justice wrote more
majority opinions. Now, those are her colleagues on the bench saying:
We think you are the right person to write this opinion. You are
expressing the opinion for most of us. You are a hard worker. You are
intelligent. You are an excellent wordsmith. These are all traits we
would want in a justice.
Justice Brown also ranked fourth among the eight justices for the
number of times she dissented alone. This puts her squarely in the
middle, certainly not on either fringe in that category. It is wrong
for Justice Brown's opponents to throw out numbers without offering any
basis for comparison on her court.
I wish to talk about a particular case, the case of People v. McKay.
Justice Brown stood alone among her colleagues in arguing for the
exclusion of evidence of drug possession that was discovered after the
defendant, Conrad McKay, was arrested for riding his bicycle the wrong
way on a residential street. Her dissent is remarkable for its pointed
suggestion of the possibility that the defendant was a victim of racial
profiling.
Justice Brown commented:
Questions have been raised about the disparate impact of
stop-and-search procedures of the California Highway Patrol.
The practice is so prevalent, it has a name: ``Driving While
Black.''
This is somebody who is insensitive? I do not think that is the case
with Justice Brown.
I will go on and read from the conclusion of her dissent. She added
the following stirring comments:
In the spring of 1963, civil rights protests in Birmingham
united this country in a new way.
This is a native of Alabama.
Seeing peaceful protesters jabbed with cattle prods, held
at bay by snarling police dogs, and flattened by powerful
streams of water from fire hoses galvanized the nation.
Without being constitutional scholars, we understood
violence, coercion, and oppression.
These are the words of Justice Janice Rogers Brown. And I continue:
We understood what constitutional limits are designed to
restrain. We reclaimed our constitutional aspirations. What
is happening now is more subtle, more diffuse, and less
visible, but it is only a difference in degree. If harm is
still being done to people because they are black, or brown,
or poor, the oppression is not lessened by the absence of
television cameras.
I do not know Mr. McKay's ethnic background. One thing I
would bet on: he was not riding his bike a few doors down
from his home in Bel Air, or Brentwood, or Rancho Palos
Verdes--places where no resident would be arrested for riding
the ``wrong way'' on a bicycle whether he had his driver's
license or not. Well . . . it would not get anyone arrested
unless he looked like he did not belong in the neighborhood.
That is the problem.
That was her dissenting opinion, a stirring opinion, quoting things
that in her growing up and in her childhood she had witnessed. She is
very sensitive on racial issues.
Last month, Ginger Rutland, who is on the editorial board of the
Sacramento Bee, wrote this in her newspaper about Justice Brown's
judicial courage:
I know Janice Rogers Brown, and she knows me, but we're not
friends. The associate justice on the California Supreme
Court has never been to my house, and I've never been to
hers. Ours is a wary relationship, one that befits a
journalist of generally liberal leanings and a public
official with a hard-right reputation fiercely targeted by
the left. . . . I find myself rooting for Brown. I hope she
survives the storm and eventually becomes the first black
woman on the nation's highest court.
In describing Justice Brown's position in the McKay case that I
quoted Justice Brown earlier, Rutland, the editorialist from the
Sacramento Bee, says the following:
[[Page 11704]]
Brown was the lone dissenter. What she wrote should give
pause to all my friends who dismiss her as an arch
conservative bent on rolling back constitutional rights. In
the circumstances surrounding McKay's arrest, the only black
judge on the State's highest court saw an obvious and grave
injustice that her fellow jurists did not. . . . In her
dissent, Brown even lashed out at the U.S. Supreme Court
and--pay close attention, my liberal friends--criticized an
opinion written by its most conservative member, Justice
Antonin Scalia, for allowing police to use traffic stops to
obliterate the expectation of privacy the Fourth Amendment
bestows.
This is an admitted liberal editorial writer talking about Brown's
courage.
This is a lady who is going to do an outstanding job on the DC
Circuit Court of Appeals. The only tragedy is that she has not been
there years earlier. The tragedy is that she has been held up because
she looks at doing her job for what it is, which is staying within the
Constitution and enforcing it, looking at the law and enforcing it; or
if it goes against what is in the Constitution, ruling it
unconstitutional, but not looking at the Constitution as she hoped it
would be or mixing together a series of ideas in the Constitution and
finding a new right; or looking at the law and thinking it should be
this way or that and expanding it that way. This is a person who looks
at her job as being a judge, in an honorable role, but it is a role
that has a set to it and a way, and she is upholding that.
I believe that is really what is at the cornerstone of this debate.
Unfortunately, we get it mired so often in personalities and
accusations and hyperbole, comments of a personal nature toward an
individual that are simply not true, when really what we are talking
about is the role of courts.
Courts, like every institution, are people. People are on the courts.
We have judges who are appointed to the courts, and they have their
views and they have a way of looking at the Constitution or they have a
way of looking at various documents or laws. She looks at it as more of
a strict constructionist. That is an honorable way to look at it. I
believe it is the right way to look at it. Yet she gets painted with
all the other sorts of accusations that are simply not based on fact
but are a disguise for what the real debate is about, which is the role
of the judiciary in America today.
We are having a rolling debate about that issue. We are having a lot
of discussion about that. We are having discussions in various States
and in the Nation about what is the appropriate role of the judiciary.
I believe this is a lady who would stand by that role.
Those are a series of issues. I may visit some others later on, but
this is a lady who is eminently qualified, will do a wonderful job. I
support her nomination, and I hope we can get to a strong vote fairly
soon on it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is a debate that is worth having.
There has been a great deal of discussion about this nominee for the
lifetime appointment to the Federal bench.
There is no entitlement, of course, to a lifetime appointment to the
Federal bench. The Constitution provides how this is done. First, the
President shall nominate a candidate for a lifetime service on the
Federal courts, and, second, the Congress shall provide its advice and
consent, and determine whether to confirm the nominee. So the President
nominates, sends a name, and the Congress does what is called in the
Constitution advise and consent, says yes or no.
In most cases, the Congress says yes. This President, President
George W. Bush, has sent us 218 names of people he wanted to send to
the Federal courts for a lifetime. This Congress has said ``yes'' to
209 of the 218. That is pretty remarkable, when you think about it--209
out of 218 we have said ``yes.'' There are a few we have delayed and
held up and have been subject to cloture votes. Some have said they
haven't gotten a vote. Yes, they have gotten a vote. The procedure on
the floor, of course, is there is a cloture vote, and they didn't get
the 60 votes, but 60 votes is what requires consensus in the Senate. It
has been that way for decades and decades.
I have voted for the vast, vast majority of the 209 Federal judges
that the President has nominated, including, incidentally, both of the
Federal judgeships in North Dakota which were open. Both of which are
now filled with Republicans. I was pleased to support them. I think
they are first-rate Federal judges. I am a Democrat. The names that
came down from the President to fill the two judgeships in North Dakota
were names of Republicans. I am proud of their service. I testified in
front of the Judiciary Committee for both of them and introduced both
of them.
So the fact is this is not about partisanship. It is about nominating
good people, nominating people in the mainstream of political thought
here in this country.
I take no joy in opposing a nominee, but I do think that if Members
of the Senate will think carefully about the views of this nominee,
they will decide that she really ought not be put on the second most
important court in this country for a lifetime of service. Let me go
through a few things that this nominee, Janice Rogers Brown, has said.
Let me say to my colleague who was speaking when I came in, this is
not innuendo, not argumentative; these are quotes from the nominee.
Facts are stubborn things. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but
we are not all entitled to our own set of facts. Let me read the facts,
and let me read the quotes that come from this nominee.
This nominee, Janice Rogers Brown, says that the year 1937 was ``the
triumph of our own socialist revolution.'' Why? In 1937, that is when
the courts, including the Supreme Court, upheld the constitutionality
of Social Security and the other major tenets of the New Deal. The
triumph of socialism? I don't think so. What planet does that sort of
thinking come from, a ``triumph of socialism''?
This nominee says that zoning laws are a ``theft'' of property, a
taking, under the Constitution; therefore, a theft of property. Well,
we have zoning laws in this country for a reason. Communities decide to
establish zoning laws so you don't build an auto salvage yard next to a
church, and then have somebody move in with a porn shop next to a
school and a massage parlor next to a funeral home. But this nominee
thinks zoning is a theft of property. It is just unbelievable, it is so
far outside the mainstream thought.
Here is what she says about senior citizens in America.
Today's senior citizens blithely cannibalize their
grandchildren because they have a right to get as much free
stuff as the political system will permit them to extract.
I guess she is talking about maybe Social Security and Medicare. I
don't know for sure. All I know is that a good many decades ago, before
there was Social Security and Medicare, fully one-half of all elderly
in this country lived in poverty.
Think of that. What a wonderful country this is. This big old planet
spins around the Sun, we have 6 billion neighbors inhabiting this
planet called Earth, and we reside in the United States of America.
What a gift and blessing it is to be here. But think, in 1935, one-half
of America's elderly, if they were lucky enough to grow old, to age to
the point where they were called elderly, one-half of them lived in
poverty. One-half of them lived in poverty. So this country did
something important, very important. We put together a Social Security
Program and a Medicare Program. What did this nominee say about that?
She said:
Today's senior citizens blithely cannibalize their
grandchildren because they have a right to get as much free
stuff as the political system will permit them to extract.
Really? I wish perhaps she could have been with me one evening at the
end of a meeting in a small town of about 300 people. A woman came up
to me after the meeting and she grabbed a hold of my elbow. She was
probably 80 years old. She said: Mr. Senator, can you help me?
I said I would try.
Then her chin began to quiver and her eyes welled up with tears and
she said: I live alone. And she said: My doctor says I have to take
medicine for my
[[Page 11705]]
heart disease and diabetes, and I can't afford it. I don't have the
money. Then she began to get tears in her eyes.
I wish perhaps Janice Rogers Brown understood something about that.
She thinks this old lady, this elderly woman, struggling to find a way
to pay for medicine to keep her alive, is cannibalizing somebody? I
don't think so. I think it is incredible that someone would say this.
Now the President wants to put this nominee on the second highest
court in the land for a lifetime of service.
She says again:
We are handing out new rights like lollipops in the
dentist's office.
I guess I never thought the basic rights that we have in this country
ought to be antithetical to what we believe is most important in
America. I have traveled over most of this world and been in countries
where there aren't rights. I have been in a country where, if people
have the wrong piece of paper in their pocket and they are picked up,
they are sent to prison for 12 years. I have seen the tyranny of
dictatorships and the tyranny of communism. I happen to think basic
rights that exist in this country for the American people are
critically important; that ``We the people,'' the first three words of
that document that represents the constitutional framework for this
country's governance, is not something that ought to be taken lightly.
Let me read a couple of other things that this nominee has said. She
was the only member of the California Supreme Court to conclude that
age discrimination victims should not have the right to sue under
common law. Age discrimination victims should not have the right to
sue?
She was the only member of the California Supreme Court who voted to
strike down a San Francisco law that provided housing assistance to
displaced and low-income and disabled people.
I don't understand the President sending us this nominee. Is it the
case that this administration really wants to put on the Federal bench
for a lifetime someone who is opposed to the basic tenets of the New
Deal that have lifted so many people out of poverty in this country,
that represents, in many cases, some of the best in this country--
telling old folks that when you reach that retirement age you don't
have to lay awake at night worrying about whether you are going to be
able to go to the doctor when you get sick because there will be
Medicare; or telling people that Social Security will be there when you
need it--you work, you invest in it, when you retire, you can collect
it. Do we really want to put someone on this circuit court who believes
that is a triumph of socialism? I don't think so.
There is a kind of arrogance here these days that is regrettable. I
was here in the 1990s, and I watched 60 Americans who were nominated
for judgeships never even have the courtesy of a day of hearings, let
alone get to the floor of the Senate for a cloture vote or a vote up or
down--60 of them. We are not even given the courtesy of a day of
hearings. The President sends the name down in the 1990s. The majority
party said, tough luck, we don't intend to do anything about it; you
will not have a hearing; you will not have a vote. This name will not
advance.
We did not do that. This caucus has not done that; in fact, just the
opposite. Of the 218 names that have been sent to this Congress from
this President, the Senate has approved 209 of them. Those who did not
get confirmed had a cloture vote in the Senate. They had a day of
hearings. They had an opportunity to testify before the Judiciary
Committee. Their name was brought to the floor. We had cloture votes.
Now we have Members coming to the Senate on the other side saying,
look, our policy is, everyone needs an up-or-down vote; not a cloture
vote, an up-or-down vote. These Members did not hold that view at all
in the 1990s. In fact, they did exactly the opposite. There are terms
for that which I shall not use here.
The fact is, we are proceeding on the Janice Rogers Brown nomination
because of an agreement made 2 weeks ago. I hope, however, having read
what I have read about her views on a wide range of issues, that we
will have sufficient colleagues in the Senate to say to this President,
this is so far outside the mainstream, we will not approve this
nominee.
It is not unusual for a political party to tell its President that
you cannot pack the court. The members of Thomas Jefferson's own
political party told Thomas Jefferson that. Members of the political
party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt did the same thing, in his attempt
to pack the Court.
My hope with respect to this nominee is that we will have sufficient
numbers on the majority side--moderates and others--who will take a
look at this record and say this is not the kind of record that we
believe should commend someone for a lifetime of service on the DC
Circuit. This is not what we should be doing.
I conclude as I started. I take no joy in coming to the Senate and
opposing someone. I would rather be here speaking for a proposition,
speaking for someone. It was Mark Twain who once was asked if he would
engage in debate. He said, sure, as long as I can take the negative
time. He was told, we didn't tell you the subject. He said, the
negative side will take no preparation.
I am mindful that it is very easy to oppose. Let me say this: On this
issue, on this nominee, this is not a close call. This is not a close
call. I wish I could be here to support this nomination. I will not
support the nomination of someone who believes the elements of that
which has made this country such a wonderful place in which to work and
live represents a triumph of socialism. It is not the triumph of
socialism. It is a reflection of the interests of this country, we the
people of this country who said we will lift the senior citizens of
this country out of poverty. And we have done that. We went from 50
percent in poverty to less than 10 percent in poverty. Why? Because we
did something important in this country, Social Security and Medicare.
With respect to environmental issues, with respect to workers'
rights, with respect to a whole series of issues, this nominee is
profoundly wrong. She has a record, a long record, an aggressive record
of activism in support of what are, in my judgment, outdated and
discredited concepts.
My hope is that in the remaining hours in this debate--I think we
will vote on this tomorrow--my hope is there will be sufficient
moderates on the other side who will understand this record does not
justify confirmation to the Federal bench for a lifetime. I hope the
next time I come to the Senate to speak on a judicial nomination, I
will be able to speak in favor of a nomination that is a strong
candidate.
This President has nominated some good people. I mentioned two from
my State. I will say it again: both Republicans, both terrific people,
both people I was proud to introduce to the Judiciary Committee and
proud to support. While we might disagree on some issues, these are
extraordinary jurists. I am proud they are Federal judges in my State.
I felt the same way about some of the other nominees.
But this President has sent us a handful of nominees who do not
deserve the backing and support of this Congress. It is long past the
time for this Congress to stand up and speak with an independent voice.
This Congress is not some sort of subsidiary of the White House. It is
not an adjunct to the Presidency. This Congress is a separate branch of
Government under this Constitution. The President nominates but we
advise and consent. It is up to the Senate to determine whether
judicial nominees are confirmed or not. My hope is we will make the
right decision with this nomination.
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. THOMAS. 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. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to
[[Page 11706]]
speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Role of the Federal Government
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I know it has been a busy day and we are
very much involved, of course, in moving forward with the judge
arrangement, as we should be.
I spent a week in my home State. I guess we always come back with
different ideas. I spent the whole time talking with people and having
town meetings and those kinds of things, and in certainly a little
different atmosphere.
People see a great deal in the news media about what is happening
here, but, of course, what they get is what the media is intending for
them to get, and somehow it is a little bit different. So frankly,
people are a little impatient that we are not moving forward as much as
we might. Certainly, we are working hard here, but the fact is, we have
not moved to many different issues. I believe many of us want to do so.
I think we have spent an awful lot of time on internal kinds of
issues that do not mean a lot to people out in the country. I
understand that. I realize the way things are done here is important to
us, such as changing procedures and all those things. But folks are
talking about energy, folks are interested in a highway bill, people
are interested in health and the cost of health care, such as what you
do in rural areas with health care. There are a lot of these things
that are so very important to people on the ground, and here we are
continuing to talk about how we are going to vote on judges. So they
get a little impatient. I understand that. So I hope we are in the
process of doing something about that.
There is also a great deal of concern, of course, in Government
spending and the deficit. I certainly share that concern. I have been
more and more concerned about it as time has gone by. We have Social
Security before us, about which we need to continue to do something.
Interestingly enough, the issue that came up most often when I was
home in Wyoming is the idea of illegal aliens and illegal immigration
and the great concern about that. I share that concern. Most people
here do. Of course, we are seeking to do something. But perhaps we need
to focus on some of those issues a little more.
I particularly will talk a little bit about spending and about the
deficit. I think that is one of our most important issues. In relation
to that, it seems to me we need to get some sort of an idea of what we
think the role of the Federal Government is. We have kind of gotten in
the position that for anything that is wanted by anyone, why, let's get
the Federal Government to do it. Then we have somebody here on the Hill
who will introduce a bill to do that, and perhaps it has very little
relationship to what we normally think is the role of the Federal
Government.
I think most people would agree with the notion we want to limit the
size of the Federal Government, that we, in fact, want Government to be
as close to the people as can be, and that the things that can be done
at the State level and the county level, the city level, should be done
there, the things that can be done in the private sector should be done
there. I would hope we could come up with some kind of general idea, an
evaluation, of what we think the role of the Federal Government
specifically should be.
The other thing I will comment on a little bit is having some kind of
a system for evaluating programs. We have programs we put into place
when there is a need. Hopefully, there is a need for them. I think it
is also apparent that over a period of time that need may change. But
yet, once a program is in place and people are involved, they build a
constituency around it. It stays in place without a good look at it to
see whether it still belongs there.
These are some of the issues of concern. I think the first step
toward reducing the $400 billion deficit is eliminating waste. Of
course, what is waste to one person may not be waste to another. But
there has to be, again, some definition as to how important things are
relative to our goals and to assess programs that stay in place because
they are there or that are not managed as well as they might be. I
think we have some responsibility to try to ensure that we take a look
at that issue.
There are serious problems facing our Nation today, of course. The
President's budget that he put out proposes eliminating 150 inefficient
and ineffective Government programs. You can imagine what that is going
to mean to people who are involved. ``Something in my town? Something
in my State? We are not going to mess around with that.''
There needs to be some kind of a relatively nonpolitical idea as to
how you do that and what the purposes are. Of course, I see some of
that right now in the military changes that obviously need to be made.
They are difficult to make. So I hope the administration will pursue
this idea of setting up some kind of a program--and I am here to
support it--that evaluates those programs that are in place to see if,
indeed, they are still as important as they were in the beginning.
We have to even go further than that, of course, to curb runaway
spending. I think we can consolidate a number of the duplicative
programs that are out there and save money and make it more efficient
in their services. There are organizations that could manage a number
of programs, each of which now has its own bureaucracy, and to put them
together to make it efficient. I know you will always have people who
say: Well, you are taking away jobs. That is not the purpose of
programs. The purpose of programs is to deliver a service, and to do it
in a way that is as efficient as it can be.
Of course, there are programs that should be eliminated. They have
accomplished what they were there for. We need to have a system. I hope
and I am interested in helping to put together a program that would do
that. There is probably some merit in having a termination to a program
so that after 5 or 10 years, it has to be reevaluated to be extended.
That is one way of doing it. I don't know if it is the only way. That
is something we are going to do, and I would like to do some of that.
The role of the Federal Government, again, if you talk in
generalities, if you talk to people in terms of philosophy, most would
say, we want to keep the Federal Government small. How many times do
you hear people saying: Keep the Federal Government out of my life? Yet
at the same time we have created this kind of culture where whenever
anything is needed or wanted, mostly money, then let's get the Federal
Government to do it.
If we step back and take a look at it and say: Wait a minute, is this
the kind of thing the Federal Government should be involved in or is
this something that could be done more efficiently by a government
closer to the people, I believe we ought to do that.
Some lawmakers here believe the Government is the solution to all of
society's ills. I don't agree with that. I don't believe that. Our role
in the Federal Government is a limited role. Our role is to provide
opportunities, not to provide programs for everything.
Ronald Reagan said: Government is not the solution to our problem.
Government often is the problem. That is true. That doesn't mean there
isn't a role. There is a role, an important role. But we need to help
define that somehow. That vision of limited government has, to a large
extent, been lost. We need to debate. We need to have some discussion,
some idea as to what that role is.
Unfortunately, sometimes the politics of government are are you going
to do everything for everybody because it is good politics. Politics is
not our only goal here. Our goal is to limit government, to provide
services, to provide them efficiently, and to evaluate them as time
goes by.
Unfortunately, when a program gets put into place, it becomes
institutionalized. It is there often without sufficient change. It is a
real challenge. Something we need to do is to develop a plan, a
consistent and organized plan to evaluate programs, to determine
whether they are outdated, to determine whether they are still
necessary,
[[Page 11707]]
to determine if they could be done in a little different way to be more
efficient and more effective.
Clearly the Federal Government does have a role. It has a role in
many matters. So our challenge is to determine what the roles are and
then to set it up so that we are as efficient as can be. I know I am
talking in generalities, but I believe these are some things that are
basic to some of the ideas we ought to be talking about and evaluating.
I sense that doesn't happen very much. We sort of are challenged to see
how many programs we can get going. We seem to be challenged to see how
much money we can spend.
I appreciate what the administration is seeking to do to try and
reduce some of the spending. That is very difficult. You can see what
kind of reaction you get cutting back on programs or changing them. Our
budget group is working on doing some of that. We need to be more
involved in that.
As I mentioned, evaluating programs is something we should do. We
have a constitutional obligation to appropriate hard-earned tax dollars
in the most efficient manner we possibly can. New government programs
get institutionalized. They go on forever. So I think there are some
things we could do that would be important, and that we should.
There will be some proposals coming from OMB. I intend to seek to
help put them into place if we can and have a system that deals with
efficiency, a system that deals with identifying what the proper role
of the various levels of government is. We will hear the States saying:
We need more money. That is probably true. But nevertheless, we ought
to have some other definitions besides where the money will go.
I hope we have one where we can review some things. I know these are
general ideas. I have not gotten into the specifics. But from time to
time, I think we have to look at ourselves and say: How do we deal with
some of these issues? Clearly, everyone would agree we have to do
something about spending. We have to do something about the deficit. We
have to look at the future as to how we are going to make this thing
work.
You can take a look at Social Security. In about 10 years, we will
have to take trillions of dollars out of the general fund to put them
back where they belong in the Social Security fund. That is going to be
very difficult. It is a tremendous amount of money. But that is what we
have done, of course, and it is reasonable because that money has to be
drawing interest and it is drawing interest. But those things are going
to be more and more difficult.
We are seeking to try and review and renew the Tax Code so it can be
simpler and more efficient and hopefully provide better opportunities
for the economy to grow and have incentives for growing by being able
to put that money into developing jobs as opposed to coming into the
Federal Government.
These are real challenges, but they are worthwhile: the challenge of
evaluating government programs to see if they are still important, to
see if they are still being done the way they were designed to meet the
needs they were designed to meet when they were first there, to do
something about the idea of controlling spending and the size of the
Federal Government so that doesn't continue to expand into every area
that is open. We ought to take a look at all the programs that are in
place, that we are talking about putting in place, all the bills that
are brought in here, and see what a wide breadth of subjects we talk
about. Some you could make a pretty good case are not within the area
of normal recognition of Federal Government activity.
I hope the role of the Federal Government is something we could talk
about. We ought to talk about it with the State leadership and get a
little clearer idea of how we define these things and get some kind of
a measurement against these roles.
There are lots of challenges. I will be happy when we can move on
through this judicial debate. It is very important, but we should not
be spending all this much time on it in terms of how we do these things
and get on with the things that have an impact on what we are doing out
in the country.
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. BROWNBACK. 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. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to take up the discussion of
Justice Janice Rogers Brown and her qualifications for serving on the
DC Circuit Court of Appeals and some of the accusations and charges
that have been brought against her. There have been a number that have
been put forth. I had a lengthy discussion earlier about what I think
this is really about, that it is about her being a strict
constructionist, wanting to stay within the confines of the
Constitution and the law and her interpretation rather than an
expansive reading of it. I think that is really what is at the root of
this, but people bring forth all sorts of allegations and charges, and
I want to address some of them.
One of them is on a particular case, the Lochner case. As it might be
described, this is getting into the weeds and details of some items,
but I think it is meritorious to raise. She has been charged by some of
our colleagues that in the Santa Monica Beach v. Superior Court case
that Justice Brown called the demise of the Lochner decision, which was
overruled in 1937, the revolution of 1937, and ``she wants to undo''
this overruling. A couple of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle said that Justice Brown believes in Lochner and wants the New
Deal undone. That is the charge against Janice Rogers Brown. I want to
talk about that particular charge because the opposite is what is
actually true. This is the opposite of what Justice Brown said, and I
want to go through her words of what she said to refute that particular
case.
They are accusing her of wanting to undo the New Deal and the
legislation that has been in place surrounding and regarding the New
Deal.
In the Santa Monica case, which is the case that is cited for her
opinion that she wants to undo the New Deal legislation of Roosevelt--
FDR--she clearly criticized Lochner as wrongly decided:
[T]he Lochner court was justly criticized for using the due
process clause as though it provided a blank check to alter
the meaning of the Constitution as written.
It was in the very next sentence that Justice Brown mentioned
``revolution of 1937.'' In context, it is clear that Brown felt the end
of Lochner was a good thing, that the end of Lochner was a good thing,
and she says that. Moreover, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary
Committee flatly asked Justice Brown at the hearing--we are at her
confirmation hearing--this issue has been put forward. This charge has
been made that you want to undo the New Deal legislation, that you want
to overturn FDR, and the legacy of FDR. That is what you want to do.
The ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee flatly asked
Justice Brown at her confirmation hearing:
Do you agree with the holding in Lochner?
She answered just as directly, ``No.'' This evidence is out there for
all to see.
Why pretend it is not there is what I would say. She says no, she
does not want to undo the New Deal legislation. She said it in sworn
testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee. She says that in her
opinion in the Santa Monica Beach case. She does not want to overrule
the case.
Others have attacked Justice Brown's speech to the Federalist Society
when she lamented the demise of the Lochner era, in which the Supreme
Court violated property or other economic rights. That is the
allegation.
Justice Brown's speeches illustrate her personal views. To suggest
that her critique of the Holmes dissent in Lochner is evidence of how
she would rule in a certain case belies the facts.
[[Page 11708]]
Indeed, Justice Brown has taken issue with the Lochner decision,
criticizing the Supreme Court's ``usurpation of power,'' stating the
Lochner court was justly criticized for using the due process clause:
. . . as though it were a blank check to alter the meaning
of the Constitution as written.
That is what she actually said.
Discussing the history of the judiciary, which Hamilton stated was to
be the branch ``least dangerous to the political rights of the
Constitution,'' Justice Brown has stated her personal views that judges
too often have strayed from this framework and engaged in judicial
activism.
That is something we have talked about a lot, about judicial
activism. She believes that too often judges have strayed from this
framework and engaged in judicial activism. It was in this context that
Justice Brown stated the standards of scrutiny employed by the
judiciary, which are not enumerated in the Constitution, often are used
by judicial activists to reach the results they want.
Justice Brown's record shows she is committed to following precedent,
even when she might personally disagree with it. Partisan attack
groups, lacking evidence that Brown is unable to follow precedent, have
indicated their opposition stems from Justice Brown's supposed
incorporating her personal views into judicial decisionmaking. They
assert she injected her personal views on property rights into judicial
opinions, but nothing could be further from the truth.
The two cases cited by the attack groups in this context deal with
the Takings clause. The groups fail to point out the Supreme Court
itself expressed the view that Justice Brown herself is now accused of
advocating, that property rights were intended to carry the same import
as other rights in the Constitution.
In Dolan v. City of Tigard, the Supreme Court majority wrote:
We see no reason why the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment, as much a part of the Bill of Rights as the First
Amendment or Fourth Amendment, should be relegated to the
status of a poor relation in these comparable circumstances.
That is a 1994 case.
The reason I point these out is I want people to know the factual
setting here, that she does not support an opinion to overrule New Deal
legislation.
She has been attacked on her judicial qualifications, which I covered
in an earlier presentation, but I want to also state here clearly and
for the record, the ABA recently found Justice Brown qualified and
concluded--this is from the ABA, the American Bar Association--that
Justice Brown:
. . . meets the Committee's very high standards with respect
to integrity, professional competence and judicial
temperament and that the Committee believes that the nominee
will be able to perform satisfactorily all of the duties and
responsibilities required by the high office of a federal
judge.
If we are going to consider outside evaluations of judges, I would
think the ABA's assessment that she is fit to serve on the DC Circuit
is far more relevant than any others that might come forward.
I mentioned these to address some of the attacks on her that I think
are based on her more limited strict constructionist view than on what
others are basing their attacks, by trying to piece things together.
Justice Brown is enormously qualified by her set of personal
experiences, public service, good legal mind, good legal temperament,
sound training and abilities to serve on the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals. She will make an outstanding judge on that court of appeals.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, while I commend my colleagues for the
compromise that momentarily spared this body from the so-called nuclear
option, their agreement did nothing to change the fact that several of
President Bush's judicial nominees fall well outside the mainstream and
the parameters of what is an acceptable jurist. This nominee in
particular, Janice Rogers Brown, has shown a disdain for the rule of
law and precedent and is undeserving of lifetime tenure on the Federal
bench.
The administration's agenda has become evident throughout the course
of the debate over judicial nominees. The President, the Republican
leaders, and their supporters have turned our Federal judiciary into
their own personal political battleground. To satisfy the demands of
their most ardent right wing supporters, the Republicans have not
chosen to appoint capable Federal jurists but rather the political
activists willing to contort the law, precedent, and the Constitution
in order to promote their own conservative political agenda.
Our Federal courts have drifted well to the right in the past two or
three decades. Today's so-called moderates would have been called
conservatives in the 1970s. And while I personally think that this
drift is not in the best interest of our country, I understand and
accept that the President is certainly entitled to nominate
conservatives to the bench. In fact, I have voted for the vast majority
of this President's judicial nominees despite the fact that they
maintain a conservative philosophy and support positions on issues that
I do not necessarily agree with. I have done so because these nominees
have demonstrated a respect for justice and the rule of law.
But even accounting for this drift, some of his nominees, such as
Janice Rogers Brown, are far outside of even today's conservative
mainstream.
Justice Brown is an agenda driven judge who, usually as a lone
dissenter, shows little respect for the considered policy judgments of
legislatures, repeatedly misconstrues precedent and brazenly criticizes
U.S. Supreme Court rulings. She has a record of routinely voting to
strike down property regulations, invalidate worker and consumer
protections and restrict civil rights laws.
What makes Justice Brown particularly ill suited for a lifetime
appointment to District of Columbia Court of Appeals is her disdain for
Government. Among other things, she has long advocated for the demise
of the New Deal. She equates democratic Government with ``slavery,''
claims that the New Deal ``inoculated the federal Constitution with a
kind of collectivist mentality,'' calls Supreme Court decisions
upholding the New Deal ``the triumph of our own socialist revolution,''
accuses social security recipients of ``blithely cannibaliz[ing] their
grandchildren because they have a right to get as much `free' stuff as
the political system permits them to extract,'' and advocates returning
to the widely discredited, early 20th century Lochner era, where the
Supreme Court regularly invalidated economic regulations, like
workplace protections.
``Where government moves in,'' Justice Brown has stated, ``community
retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our
own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the
streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous
decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of
civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched
culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue
contemptible.'' Justice Brown's contempt for government runs so deep
that she urges ``conservative'' judges to invalidate legislation that
expands the role of government, saying that it ``inevitably
transform[s] . . . democracy . . . into a kleptocracy.''
Furthermore, Justice Brown takes issue with one of the basic tenets
of our entire judicial system--precedent. When she does not like the
result established case law dictates, Justice Brown tries single-
handedly to change it. In one dissent, she proclaimed, ``(w)e cannot
simply cloak ourselves in the doctrine of stare decisis.''
These and other comments have prompted her colleagues on the
California Supreme Court to criticize her for ``imposing . . . [a]
personal theory of political economy on the people of a democratic
state.'' Her fellow justices have taken her to task for asserting ``an
activist role for the courts.'' They have noted that she ``quarrel[s] .
. . not with our holding in this case, but with this court's previous
decision . . . and, even more fundamentally, with the Legislature
itself.'' And finally, they contend that Justice Brown's brand of
[[Page 11709]]
judicial activism, if allowed, would ``permit a court . . . to reweigh
the policy choices that underlay a legislative or quasi-legislative
classification or to reevaluate the efficacy of the legislative
measure.''
Justice Brown's nomination makes clear that we have entered an era in
which conservative politicians are seeking to nominate and confirm
judges who read the Constitution and the law to coincide with the
Republican Party's platform. The expectation is that these judicial
appointees will toe the party line. This politicization of the
judiciary carries disastrous consequences. Because when our judges are
viewed as politicians, it diminishes the influence and the respect
afforded our courts, which is the lifeblood of their efficacy. Our
independent judiciary is the most respected in the world, and our
courts' ability to reach unpopular but just decisions is made possible
only because of the deep wells of legitimacy they have dug.
I urge my colleagues to take the longer view for the good of the
American people. Think carefully about what the result to our judiciary
will be if we continue to pack our courts with extremists who ignore
justice and the law. I implore my colleagues to take seriously their
constitutional charge of advice and consent and to reject the
nomination of Janice Rogers Brown.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to President
Bush's nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to be United States Circuit
Court Judge to the Court of Appeals for the DC. Circuit.
This morning, the Washington Post editorialized against the
nomination of Justice Brown, writing that she ``is that rare nominee
for whom one can draw a direct line between intellectual advocacy of
aggressive judicial behavior and actual conduct as a judge,'' I agree
with this respected newspaper's assessment and ask unanimous consent
that this editorial be printed in the Record at the end of my
statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. JOHNSON. I have several concerns about Justice Brown's ability to
serve on this important court. On the California Supreme Court, Justice
Brown has proven to be an activist judge when it suits her political
agenda. Consistently, and despite precedent to the contrary, Justice
Brown has ruled on the side of corporations. For example, in a
cigarette sales case, she ignored relevant law and protected
corporations in lieu of protecting minors. In other cases she has
placed corporate interests above law that intended to shield consumers
and women.
Justice Brown has also attempted to remove protections for teachers,
and has been hostile to such New Deal era programs as Social Security.
She has called government assistance programs ``[t]he drug of choice
for . . . Midwestern farmers, and militant senior citizens.'' These
views are out of touch with most Americans and South Dakotans.
During today's debate, colleagues argued that because Justice Brown
has been reelected by California voters by a 76 percent margin, she
should not be considered ``out of the mainstream.'' This argument is
misplaced. First, many other judges get reelected at a higher rate. It
should also be noted that her retention reelection took place only 1\1/
2\ years into her tenure on the California Supreme Court, at a time
before her extreme views and activist agenda could have been known by
voters.
Both the American Bar Association and the California Judicial
Commission have questioned Justice Brown qualifications to serve on the
bench. The California Judicial Commission specifically noted questions
about her deviation from precedent and her ``tendency to interject her
political and philosophical views into her opinions.'' We should note
their concerns and seriously consider them.
Justice Brown's views and history of judicial activism is especially
dangerous in the DC Circuit. She is a nominee who is far outside of the
mainstream. For these reasons, I stand in opposition of the
confirmation and lifelong appointment of Janice Rogers Brown.
Reject Justice Brown
[From the Washington Post, June 7, 2005]
The Senate filibuster agreement guaranteeing up-or-down
votes for most judicial nominees creates a test for
conservatives who rail against judicial activism. For
decades, conservative politicians have objected to the use of
the courts to bring about liberal policy results, arguing
that judges should take a restrained view of their role. Now,
with Republicans in control of the presidency and the Senate,
President Bush has nominated a judge to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit who has been more open about her
enthusiasm for judicial adventurism than any nominee of
either party in a long time. But Janice Rogers Brown's
activism comes from the right, not the left; the rights she
would write into the Constitution are economic, not social.
Suddenly, all but a few conservatives seem to have lost their
qualms about judicial activism. Justice Brown, who serves on
the California Supreme Court, will get her vote as early as
tomorrow. No senator who votes for her will have standing any
longer to complain about legislating from the bench.
Justice Brown, in speeches, has openly embraced the
``Lochner'' era of Supreme Court jurisprudence. During this
period a century ago, the court struck down worker protection
laws that, the justices held, violated a right to free
contract they found in the Constitution's due process
protections. There exist few areas of greater agreement in
the study of constitutional law than the disrepute of the
``Lochner'' era, whose very name--taken from the 1905 case of
Lochner v. New York--has become a code word for judicial
overreaching. Justice Brown, however, has dismissed the famed
dissent in Lochner by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, saying
it ``annoyed her'' and was ``simply wrong.'' And she has
celebrated the possibility of a revival of ``what might be
called Lochnerism-lite'' using a different provision of the
Constitution--the prohibition against governmental
``takings'' of private property without just compensation.
In the context of her nomination, Justice Brown has
trivialized such statements as merely attempts to be
provocative. But she has not just given provocative speeches;
``Lochnerism-lite'' is a fairly good shorthand for her work
on the bench, where she has sought to use the takings
doctrine aggressively. She began one dissent, in a case
challenging regulation of a hotel, by noting that ``private
property, already an endangered species in California, is now
entirely extinct in San Francisco.'' Her colleagues on the
California Supreme Court certainly got what she was up to. In
response, they quoted Justice Holmes's Lochner dissent and
noted that ``nothing in the law of takings would justify an
appointed judiciary in imposing [any] personal theory of
political economy on the people of a democratic state.''
Justice Brown is that rare nominee for whom one can draw a
direct line between intellectual advocacy of aggressive
judicial behavior and actual conduct as a judge. Time was
when conservatives were wary of judges who openly yearned for
courts, as Justice Brown puts it, ``audacious enough to
invoke higher law''--instead of, say, the laws the people's
elected representatives see fit to pass. That Justice Brown
will now get a vote means that each senator must take a stand
on whether some forms of judicial activism are more
acceptable than others.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. FRIST. 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.
____________________
PENSION SECURITY
Mr. REID. Mr. President, throughout this Congress, I have argued that
the Senate ought to spend less time debating radical judges and more
time focusing on issues that can improve the lives of working
Americans. One such issue is the gradual erosion of retirement
security. Instead of working to replace Social Security's guaranteed
benefit with a risky privatization scheme, we should work to strengthen
retirement by shoring up our pension system. In no industry is this
looming pension crisis more acute than the airline industry. The
Finance Committee
[[Page 11710]]
held a hearing on pension problems facing the airline industry this
morning, and I hope that the committee will move soon on legislation to
fix those problems.
Last month we learned just how worrisome this issue is, as the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and United Airlines agreed to
terminate the four pension plans maintained by the airline as that
company struggles to emerge from bankruptcy. At the same time,
Northwest, Delta and American Airlines face similar pension liabilities
and are requesting Congress' help so that they can avoid bankruptcy. To
their credit they are fighting to preserve their workers' pensions but
need some time to allow them to recover from the effects of the post-9/
11 travel downturn.
While the pension funding problems facing the airline industry are
substantial, the industry is not alone in inadequately funding their
employee pension plans. Congress needs to carefully review the rules
that apply to the broad spectrum of employers that offer pension plans
to their employees. Congress needs to make sure that those rules are
strengthened to require greater funding for the pension promises being
made. Let me be very clear about one thing; the pension promises made
by companies to their employees carry with them an obligation to make
sure those promises are kept. An employer's obligation is to have
sufficient funds set aside to meet the pension promises it has made,
not merely to have met the minimum funding requirements of the tax code
or ERISA.
As Congress strengthens the pension funding rules, we also need to be
cognizant of the potential negative consequences of these changes.
Pension plans, like all employee benefits, are voluntarily offered by
employers. Congress created tax and other incentives that encourage
companies to offer pension plans because it believes these are
important benefits for employees. Many of the administration's
proposals go too far and will discourage companies from maintaining and
offering these important benefits. The proposal Congress considers must
be more balanced. We should join together to enhance retirement
security for all Americans by strengthening Social Security, shoring up
our pension system and encouraging more Americans to save.
____________________
ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS AND PATRIOT ACT REAUTHORIZATION
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I understand that the senior Senator from
Oregon, Mr. Wyden, spoke yesterday regarding the reauthorization of the
USA PATRIOT Act. I look forward to the Senate acting later this year on
PATRIOT Act reauthorization, but today I just want to address one
aspect of the Senator's speech, his opposition to administrative
subpoena power.
In his speech, the Senator argued that any reauthorization should not
extend those subpoena powers to FBI terrorism investigators. He
correctly noted that Intelligence Committee Chairman Roberts has held
hearings about extending this authority, which is common within the
Government, to FBI agents investigating terrorism. I was happy to see
Chairman Roberts do this because last year I cosponsored S. 2555, the
Judicially Enforceable Terrorism Subpoenas Act. On June 22, 2004, I
chaired a hearing in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Technology, and Homeland Security that examined this subpoena power and
heard testimony regarding how the subpoenas work and how the government
protects civil liberties when using them.
One of the things that struck me as I learned about administrative
subpoena power was how widespread it is in our Government and how
unremarkable a law enforcement tool it really is. It was for that
reason that I asked the Senate Republican Policy Committee, which I
chair, to examine this issue in greater detail, to study the
constitutional and civil liberties questions that critics have raised,
and to identify the other contexts where the Federal Government has
this power. The resulting report was consistent with my previous
research and the testimony that I had heard during my subcommittee
hearings. We give this subpoena power to postal investigators and Small
Business Administration bank loan auditors and IRS agents, and we do
not have a problem with Government abuse or deprivation of civil
liberties. Shouldn't we also give it to those who are charged with
rooting out terrorism before it strikes our neighborhoods?
I look forward to the upcoming debate on PATRIOT Act reauthorization,
and I certainly intend to support it. At the same time, I commend
Chairman Roberts for his efforts and hope that we will have the
opportunity to ensure that our FBI terrorism investigators are not
hamstrung as they continue to work to protect our Nation.
I ask unanimous consent that this policy paper, dated September 9,
2004, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Should Postal Inspectors Have More Power Than Federal Terrorism
Investigators?
Introduction
Congress is undermining federal terrorism investigations by
failing to provide terrorism investigators the tools that are
commonly available to others who enforce the law. In
particular, in the three years after September 11th, Congress
has not updated the law to provide terrorism investigators
with administrative subpoena authority. Such authority is a
perfectly constitutional and efficient means to gather
information about terrorist suspects and their activities
from third parties without necessarily alerting the suspects
to the investigation. Congress has granted this authority to
government investigators in hundreds of other contexts, few
of which are as compelling or life-threatening as the war on
terror. These include investigations relating to everything
from tax or Medicare fraud to labor-law violations to Small
Business Administration inquiries into financial crimes.
Indeed, Congress has even granted administrative subpoena
authority to postal inspectors, but not to terrorism
investigators.
This deficiency in the law must be corrected immediately.
Postal inspectors and bank loan auditors should not have
stronger tools to investigate the criminal acts in their
jurisdictions than do those who investigate terrorist acts.
The Senate can remedy this deficiency by passing legislation
like the Judicially Enforceable Terrorism Subpoenas (JETS)
Act, S. 2555. The JETS Act would update the law so that the
FBI has the authority to issue administrative subpoenas to
investigate possible terrorist cells before they attack the
innocent. The Act would ensure more efficient and speedy
investigations, while also guaranteeing that criminal
suspects will have the same civil liberties protections that
they do under current law.
Terrorism Investigators' Subpoena Authority is Too Limited
Federal investigators routinely need third-party
information when attempting to unravel a criminal enterprise.
In the context of a terrorism investigation, that information
could include: financial transaction records that show the
flow of terrorist financing; telephone records that could
identify other terrorist conspirators; or retail sales
receipts or credit card statements that could help
investigators uncover the plot at hand and capture the
suspects. When third parties holding that information decline
to cooperate, some form of subpoena demanding the information
be conveyed must be issued. The Supreme Court unanimously has
approved the use of subpoenas to gather information,
recognizing that they are necessary and wholly constitutional
tools in law enforcement investigations that do not offend
any protected civil liberties. [See unanimous decision
written by Justice Thurgood Marshall in SEC v. Jerry T.
O'Brien, Inc., 467 U.S. 735 (1984).]
There are different kinds of subpoenas, however, and under
current law, the only way that a terrorism investigator
(typically, the FBI) can obtain that third-party information
is through a ``grand jury subpoena.'' If a grand jury has
been convened, investigators can usually obtain a grand jury
subpoena and get the information they need, but that process
takes time and is dependent on a number of factors. First,
investigators themselves cannot issue grand jury subpoenas;
instead, they must involve an assistant U.S. Attorney so that
he or she can issue the subpoena. This process can be
cumbersome, however, because assistant U.S. Attorneys are
burdened with their prosecutorial caseloads and are not
always immediately available when the investigators need the
subpoena. Second, a grand jury subpoena is limited by the
schedule of a grand jury itself, because the grand jury must
be ``sitting'' on the day that the subpoena demands that the
items or documents be returned. Grand juries do not sit at
all times; indeed, in smaller jurisdictions, the only
impaneled grand jury may meet as little as ``one to five
consecutive days per month.''
[[Page 11711]]
[See United States Dept of Justice, Federal Grand Jury
Practice, at Sec. 1.6 (2000 ed.). For example, in Madison,
Wisc., the federal grand jury only meets a few days every
three weeks. See Clerk of the Court for the Western District
of Wisconsin, ``Grand Jury Service,'' revised April 15,
2004.]
The following hypothetical illustrates the deficiency of
current law. Take the fact that Timothy McVeigh built the
bomb that destroyed the Oklahoma City Federal Building while
he was in Kansas; and take the fact that under current
practices, grand juries often are not sitting for 10-day
stretches in that state. If FBI agents had been tracking
McVeigh at that time and wanted information from non-
cooperative third parties--perhaps the supplier of materials
used in the bomb--those agents would have been unable to move
quickly if forced to rely on grand jury subpoenas. McVeigh
could have continued his bomb-building activities, and the
FBI would have been powerless to gather that third-party
information until the grand jury returned--as many as 10 days
later. [Information on Kansas federal grand jury schedules
provided to Senate Republican Policy Committee by Department
of Justice. In addition, Department of Justice officials have
testified to another scenario: even where grand juries meet
more often (such as in New York City), an investigator
realizing she urgently needs third-party information on
Friday afternoon still could not get that information until
Monday, because the grand jury would have gone home for the
weekend. See Testimony of Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General Rachel Brand before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee
on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security on June 22,
2004.]
The current dependence on the availability of an assistant
U.S. Attorney and the schedule of a grand jury means that if
time is of the essence--as is often the case in terrorism
investigations--federal investigators, lacking the necessary
authority, could see a trail turn cold.
The Better Alternative: Administrative Subpoena Authority
The deficiency of grand jury subpoenas described above can
be remedied if Congress provides ``administrative subpoena''
authority for specific terrorism-related contexts. Congress
has authorized administrative subpoenas in no fewer than 335
different areas of federal law, as discussed below. [See U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Report to
Congress on the Use of Administrative Subpoena Authorities by
Executive Branch Agencies and Entities, May 13, 2002, at p. 5
(hereinafter ``DOJ Report'').] Where administrative subpoena
authority already exists, government officials can make an
independent determination that the records are needed to aid
a pending investigation and then issue and serve the third
party with the subpoena. This authority allows the federal
investigator to obtain information quickly without being
forced to conform to the timing of grand jury sittings and
without requiring the help of an assistant U.S. Attorney.
And, as simply another type of subpoena, the Supreme Court
has made clear that it is wholly constitutional. [See Jerry
T. O'Brien, 467 U.S. at 747-50.]
The advantages of updating this authority are substantial.
The most important advantage is speed: terrorism
investigations can be fast-moving, and terrorist suspects are
trained to move quickly when the FBI is on their trail. The
FBI needs the ability to request third-party information and
obtain it immediately, not when a grand jury convenes.
Moreover, this subpoena power will help with third-party
compliance. As Assistant Attorney General Christopher Wray
stated in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
``Granting [the] FBI the use of [administrative subpoena
authority] would speed those terrorism investigations in
which subpoena recipients are not inclined to contest the
subpoena in court and are willing to comply. Avoiding delays
in these situations would allow agents to track and disrupt
terrorist activity more effectively.'' [Assistant Attorney
General Christopher Wray, in testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, October 21, 2003.] Thus, Congress will
provide protection for a legitimate business owner who is
more than willing to comply with law enforcement, but who
would prefer to do so pursuant to a subpoena rather than
through an informal FBI request.
Constitutional Protections
It is important to note that nothing in the administrative
subpoena process offends constitutionally protected civil
liberties, as has been repeatedly recognized by the federal
courts.
First, the government cannot seek an administrative
subpoena unless the authorized federal investigator has found
the information relevant to an ongoing investigation. [See S.
2555, Sec. 2(a) (proposed 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2332g(a)(1)). The
Attorney General has the authority to delegate this power to
subordinates within the Department of Justice. See 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 510.] The executive branch--whether Republican or
Democrat--carefully monitors its agents to ensure that civil
liberties are being protected and that authorities are not
being abused. [See, for example, Executive Order Establishing
the President's Board on Safeguarding Americans' Civil
Liberties (August 27, 2004), detailing extensive interagency
oversight of civil liberties protections for Americans.]
Second, the administrative subpoena is not self-enforcing.
There is no fine or penalty to the recipient if he refuses to
comply. Thus, if the recipient of an administrative subpoena
believes that the documents or items should not be turned
over, he can file a petition in federal court to quash the
subpoena, or he can simply refuse to comply with the subpoena
and force the government to seek a court order enforcing the
subpoena. And, as one federal court has emphasized, the
district court's ``role is not that of a mere rubber stamp.''
[Wearly v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 616 F.2d 662, 665 (3rd Cir.
1980).] Just as a grand jury subpoena cannot be unreasonable
or oppressive in scope [Federal Grand Jury Practice, at
Sec. 5.40], an administrative subpoena must not overreach by
asking for irrelevant or otherwise-protected information.
The Supreme Court has addressed the standards for enforcing
administrative subpoenas.
In United States v. Powell, the Supreme Court held that an
administrative subpoena will be enforced where (1) the
investigation is ``conducted pursuant to a legitimate
purpose,'' (2) the subpoenaed information ``may be relevant
to that purpose,'' (3) the information sought is not already
in the government's possession, and (4) the requesting
agency's internal procedures have been followed. [379 U.S.
48, 57-58 (1964); see also EEOC v. Shell Oil, 466 U.S. 54, 73
n.26 (1984) (citing Powell in EEOC context and adding that
the request for information cannot be ``too indefinite'' or
made for an ``illegitimate purpose''); Jerry T. O'Brien, 467
U.S. at 747-48 (reaffirming Powell in context of SEC
administrative subpoena).] In addition, the Supreme Court has
stated that the recipient may challenge the subpoena on ``any
appropriate ground'' [Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S. 440, 449
(1964)]. which could include a privilege against self-
incrimination, religious freedom, freedom of association,
attorney-client privilege, or other grounds for resisting
subpoenas in the grand jury context. [See cases collected in
Graham Hughes, Administrative Subpoenas and the Grand Jury:
Converging Streams of Civil and Compulsory Process, 47 Vand.
L. Rev. 573, 589 (1994), cited in DOJ Report, at p. 9 n.19.]
This ``bifurcation of power, on the one hand of the agency to
issue subpoenas and on the other hand of the courts to
enforce them, is an inherent protection against abuse of
subpoena power.'' [United States v. Security Bank and Trust,
473 F.2d 638, 641 (5th Cir. 1973).]
Third, where the authorized agent has not specifically
ordered the administrative subpoena recipient not to disclose
the existence of the subpoena to a third party, the recipient
can notify the relevant individual and that individual may
have the right to block enforcement of the subpoena himself.
[In Jerry T. O'Brien, the Supreme Court noted that a ``target
may seek permissive intervention in an enforcement action
brought by the [Securities & Exchange] Commission against the
subpoena recipient'' or may seek to restrain enforcement of
the administrative subpoena. 467 U.S. at 748.] In many cases
the ``target'' (as opposed to the recipient) will have full
knowledge of the subpoena.
However, this is not always the case; sometimes the
administrative subpoena authority includes a provision
prohibiting the recipient from discussing the subpoena with
anyone other than his or her attorney. Some critics have
argued that federal investigators should not be able to
gather information related to an individual without notifying
that individual, and that every person has an inherent right
to know about those investigations. [See generally Jerry T.
O'Brien, 467 U.S. at 749-50 (rejecting demand that SEC must
notify any potential defendant of existence of pending
administrative subpoena).] But, as the Supreme Court has
held, there is no constitutional requirement that the subject
of an investigation receive notice that the administrative
subpoena has been served on a third party. Justice Thurgood
Marshall wrote for a unanimous Court that a blanket rule
requiring notification to all individuals would set an unwise
standard. [Id. at 749-51. The issue in that case was the
nondisclosure provisions of the administrative subpoena
authority used by the SEC when investigating securities
fraud.] He explained that investigators use administrative
subpoenas to investigate suspicious activities without any
prior government knowledge of who the wrongdoers are, so
requiring notice often would be impossible. [Id. at 749.]
Moreover, granting notice to individuals being investigated
would ``have the effect of laying bare the state of the
[government's] knowledge and intentions midway through
investigations'' and would ``significantly hamper'' law
enforcement. [Id. at 750 n.23.] Providing notice to the
potential target would ``enable an unscrupulous target to
destroy or alter documents, intimidate witnesses,'' or
otherwise obstruct the investigation. [Id. at 750.] The Court
further emphasized that where ``speed in locating and halting
violations of the law is so important,'' it would be
foolhardy to provide notice of the government's
administrative subpoenas. [Id. at 751.]
most government agencies have administrative subpoena authority
Given these extensive constitutional protections, it is
unsurprising that Congress has
[[Page 11712]]
extended administrative subpoena authority so widely. Current
provisions of federal law grant this authority to most
government departments and agencies. [DOJ Report, at p. 5.
See appendices A-C to DOJ Report that describe and provide
the legal authorization for each of these administrative
subpoena powers.] These authorities are not restricted to
high-profile agencies conducting life-or-death
investigations. To the contrary, Congress has granted
administrative subpoena authority in far less important
contexts. For example, 18 US.C. Sec. 3061 authorizes postal
inspectors to issue administrative subpoenas when
investigating any ``criminal matters related to the Postal
Service and the mails.'' One can hardly contend that federal
investigators should be able to issue administrative
subpoenas to investigate Mohammed Atta if they suspect he
broke into a mailbox but should not have the same authority
if they suspect he is plotting to fly airplanes into
buildings.
It is not just postal inspectors who have more powerful
investigative tools than terrorism investigators. Congress
has granted administrative subpoena authorities for a wide
variety of other criminal investigations. A partial list
follows:
Small Business Administration investigations of criminal
activities under the Small Business Investment Act, such as
embezzlement and fraud. [Congress granted administrative
subpoena authority to the Small Business Administration
through section 310 of the Small Business Investment Act of
1958. Delegation to investigators and other officials is
authorized by 15 U.S.C. Sec. 634(b). Relevant criminal
provisions also include the offer of loan or gratuity to bank
examiner (18 U.S.C. Sec. 212), acceptance of a loan or
gratuity by bank examiner (18 U.S.C. Sec. 213), and receipt
of commissions or gifts for procuring loans (18 U.S.C.
Sec. 215).]
Internal Revenue Service investigations of such crimes as
tax evasion. [Congress granted administrative subpoena
authority to the Small Business Administration through
section 310 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958.
Delegation to investigators and other officials is authorized
by 15 U.S.C. Sec. 634(b). Relevant criminal provisions also
include the offer of loan or gratuity to bank examiner (18
U.S.C. Sec. 212), acceptance of a loan or gratuity by bank
examiner (18 U.S.C. Sec. 213), and receipt of commissions or
gifts for procuring loans (18 U.S.C. Sec. 215).]
The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
investigations of violations of immigration law. [See 8
U.S.C. Sec. 1225(d)(4) (granting administrative subpoena
power to ``any immigration officer'' seeking to enforce the
Immigration and Naturalization Act).]
Federal Communications Commission investigations of
criminal activities, including obscene, harassing, and
wrongful use of telecommunications facilities. [See 47 U.S.C.
409(e) (granting subpoena authority to FCC); 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 155(c)(1) (granting broad delegation power so that
investigators and other officials can issue administrative
subpoenas); 47 U.S.C. Sec. 223 (identifying criminal
provision for use of telecommunications system to harass).]
Nuclear Regulatory Commission investigations of criminal
activities under the Atomic Energy Act. [See 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 220l(c) (providing subpoena authority to Nuclear
Regulatory Commission); 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2201(n) (empowering
the Commission to delegate authority to General Manager or
``other officers'' of the Commission).]
Department of Labor investigations of criminal activities
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
[See 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1134(c) (authorizing administrative
subpoenas); Labor Secretary's Order 1-87 (April 13, 1987)
(allowing for delegation of administrative subpoena authority
to regional directors).]
Criminal investigations under the Export Administration
Act, such as the dissemination or discussion of export-
controlled information to foreign nationals or
representatives of a foreign entity, without first obtaining
approval or license. [See 50 App. U.S.C. Sec. 2411 (granting
administrative subpoena authority for criminal
investigations).]
Corporation of Foreign Security Holders investigations of
criminal activities relating to securities laws. [See 15
U.S.C. Sec. 77t(b) (granting administrative subpoena
authority in pursuit of criminal investigations).]
Department of Justice investigations into health care fraud
[See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3486(a)(1)(A)(i)(I) (granting
administrative subpoena authority).] and any offense
involving the sexual exploitation or abuse of children. [See
18 U.S.C. Sec. 3486(a) (granting administrative subpoena
authority).]
Moreover, Congress has authorized the use of administrative
subpoenas in a great number of purely civil and regulatory
contexts--where the stakes to the public are even lower than
in the criminal contexts above. Those include enforcement in
major regulatory areas such as securities and antitrust, but
also enforcement for laws such as the Farm Credit Act, the
Shore Protection Act, the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act, and
the Federal Credit Union Act. [DOJ Report, App. A1 & A2.]
Nor are these authorities dormant. The Department of
Justice reports, for example, that federal investigators in
2001 issued more than 2,100 administrative subpoenas in
connection with investigations to combat health care fraud,
arid more than 1,800 administrative subpoenas in child
exploitation investigations. [DOJ Report, at p. 41.] These
authorities are common and pervasive in government--just not
where it arguably counts most, in terrorism investigations.
s. 2555 would update the administrative subpoena authority
S. 2555, the Judicially Enforceable Terrorism Subpoenas Act
of 2004 (the ``JETS Act''), would enable terrorism
investigators to subpoena documents and records in any
investigation concerning a federal crime of terrorism--
whether before or after an incident. As is customary with
administrative subpoena authorities, the recipient of a JET
subpoena could petition a federal district court to modify or
quash the subpoena. Conversely, if the JET subpoena recipient
simply refused to comply, the Department of Justice would
have to petition a federal district court to enforce the
subpoena. In each case, civil liberties would be respected,
just as they are in the typical administrative subpoena
process discussed above.
The JETS Act also would allow the Department of Justice to
temporarily bar the recipient of an administrative subpoena
from disclosing to anyone other than his lawyer that he has
received it, therefore protecting the integrity of the
investigation. However, the bill imposes certain safeguards
on this non-disclosure provision: disclosure would be
prohibited only if the Attorney General certifies that
``there may result a danger to the national security of the
United States'' if any other person were told of the
subpoena's existence. [S. 2555, Sec. 2(a) (proposed 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 2332g(c)).] Moreover, the JET subpoena recipient would
have the right to go to court to challenge the nondisclosure
order, and the Act would protect the recipient from any civil
liability that might otherwise result from his good-faith
compliance with such a subpoena.
Given the protections for civil liberties built into the
authority and its widespread availability in other contexts,
there is little excuse for failing to extend it to the FBI
agents who are tracking down terrorists among us.
Conclusion
Congress is hamstringing law enforcement in the war on
terror in failing to provide a proven tool--administrative
subpoena authority--for immediate use for the common good.
Federal investigators should have the same tools available to
fight terrorism as do investigators of mail theft, Small
Business Administration loan fraud, income-tax evasion, and
employee-pension violations. S. 2555 provides a means to
update the law and accomplish that worthy goal.
____________________
40TH ANNIVERSARY OF GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 40th
anniversary of the Supreme Court's crucial decision in Griswold v.
Connecticut.
Forty years ago, Estelle Griswold and Dr. Lee Buxton were arrested
and convicted for counseling married couples on birth control methods,
and prescribing married couples contraceptives. They challenged their
convictions, and the Supreme Court overturned them, ruling that the
Connecticut law under which they were charged was unconstitutional. The
Court found that the Government had no place in interfering in the
intimately private marital bedroom. Justice William O. Douglas, in
writing the Court's opinion, scoffed at the notion of police searching
private bedrooms for evidence of contraceptive use. This landmark
decision, cited in countless numbers of decisions since then on the
constitutional right to privacy, guarantees the right of married
couples to use birth control.
Yet the relevance of this decision goes far beyond contraceptive use.
In rendering its decision, the Court recognized a ``zone of privacy''
arising from several constitutional guarantees. The Court acknowledged
that while the right of privacy is not enumerated specifically in
anyone place, it is inherent in several areas within the Bill of Rights
and throughout the Constitution. This very American notion of privacy
served as a cornerstone of precedent, paving the way for other
decisions and further solidifying as established law the constitutional
right to privacy. Roe v. Wade, guaranteeing a woman's right to choose,
was a logical application of Griswold.
Today, Americans' privacy rights are threatened on many fronts. The
Government is asserting greater and greater investigative powers. Some
pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for legal
contraceptives. The anniversary of Griswold gives us all an
[[Page 11713]]
opportunity to reflect on the importance of preserving our privacy
rights. The Court recognized that we are born with privacy rights as
Americans, and we have a particular responsibility as Senators to
protect these rights for our constituents.
____________________
MORT CAPLIN ON THE NATION'S TAX SYSTEM
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier this year, Mort Caplin, a
founding partner of the law firm Caplin & Drysdale in Washington, DC,
and the outstanding IRS Commissioner under President Kennedy, delivered
the Erwin Griswold Lecture at the annual meeting of the American
College of Tax Counsel, which was held in San Diego.
In his eloquent and very readable address, Mr. Caplin summarizes the
evolution of our modern tax system, the current challenges it faces,
the recent efforts by Congress to achieve reform, the alarming drop in
compliance and revenue collection, and the ethical responsibilities of
the tax bar.
Mr. Caplin's remarks are especially timely today as Congress
struggles to deal with its own responsibility for the effectiveness,
integrity and fairness of our tax laws. All of us in the Senate and
House can benefit from his wise words, and I ask unanimous consent that
his lecture be printed at this point in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Virginia Tax Review, Spring 2005]
The Tax Lawyer's Role in the Way the American Tax System Works
(By Mortimer M. Caplin)
It is a high privilege to be asked to deliver this Erwin N.
Griswold Lecture and a treat too to see so many old friends
and meet so many new ones. In honor of our namesake, I would
like to touch on four matters of relevance: (1) Dean
Griswold's impact on the tax law, (2) the role of the U.S.
Tax Court, (3) the role of the IRS, and (4) the tax lawyer's
role in the way the American tax system works.
My first contact with the Dean was in my early days as a
young law professor at the University of Virginia School of
Law--struggling in the classroom using Griswold, Cases and
Materials on Federal Taxation. Not that the casebook was
entirely new to me; for, with the good help of the G.I. bill,
I'd become well-acquainted with it at N.Y.U. in my post-World
War II doctoral efforts. It's hard to believe, but the
Griswold casebook was the first ever devoted entirely to
federal income taxation; and it proved a godsend to me as I
segued from New York law practice to teaching at UVA in the
fall of 1950.
Erwin Griswold and I met at law professor gatherings and
bar meetings, especially in the early 1950's at American Law
Institute sessions in Washington as members of ALI's Tax
Advisory Group. We both were hard at work on its
comprehensive tax report, which later became part of the 1954
Code. Never did I tell him though that, in using his
casebook, my custom was to try a personal touch by
distributing mimeograph materials that totally rearranged the
order of presentation and reading assignments. Nor did I ever
hint that, after a year or two, I switched entirely to his
major competitor, the more comprehensive Surrey and Warren.
He probably learned about it faster than I thought skimming
through his royalty reports--reports which he undoubtedly
scrutinized with great care.
He had graduated from Harvard Law School in 1929, and his
first real contact with the tax law was during his five-year
stint as a fledgling attorney in the Office of the Solicitor
General of the United States. Federal tax rates and tax
receipts were at a low point then and handling tax cases was
not the most sought after assignment. By default, he soon
became the office's tax expert, arguing the bulk of its tax
cases both in the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Courts of
Appeals. I should mention that, just before leaving the
S.G.'s office, he was instrumental in the rule change that
allowed appeals in tax cases to be made under the general
title ``Commissioner of Internal Revenue,'' without the need
to specify the name of the incumbent. That's why you see
older tax cases bearing the names of particular
Commissioners--David Burnet or Guy T. Helvering, for
example--and, later, hardly any with names like Latham,
Caplin, Cohen, Thrower and the like. Let me mournfully add:
``Sic transit gloria mundi''--so passes away the glory of
this world!
Erwin Griswold left the S.G.'s office in 1934 to become a
Harvard Law School professor for 12 years, and then dean for
the next 21. He had a major influence on tens of thousands of
law students as well as lawyers throughout the world. As
years went by, he reminisced that he found ``less
exhilaration'' in teaching the federal tax course as ``the
tax law had become far more technical and complicated . . .
In the early days, the statute was less than one hundred
pages long and the income tax regulations . . . were in a
single, rather slight, volume.'' Oh, for the good old days!
In the fall of 1967, he returned to the S.G.'s office, but
this time as the Solicitor General of the United States--a
position he held for six years. He'd been appointed by
President Lyndon B. Johnson during the last years of his
administration, and in 1969 was reappointed by President
Richard M. Nixon. President Nixon for his second term,
however, preferred as his S.G. a Yale law professor, Robert
H. Bork, someone more closely in tune with his philosophy.
Erwin Griswold's duties ended in June 1973, at the close of
the Supreme Court's term, well in time to avoid the heavy
lifting of Watergate and the ``Saturday Night Massacre.''
Although, he later said that he would not have followed
Solicitor General Bork in carrying out the President's order
to fire Special Watergate Prosecutor Archibald Cox.
Shortly after leaving office, he joined Jones, Day, Reavis
& Pogue as a partner and engaged in law practice and bar
activities for some 20 years, until his death in 1994 at the
age of 90. Erwin Griswold was honored many times over, not
only for his innumerable contributions to the law, but for
``his moral courage and intellectual energy . . . meeting the
social responsibilities of the profession.''
I always suspected that any special feeling the Dean may
have had for me had roots in my strong backing of his plea
for a single federal court of tax appeals--to resolve
conflicts and provide ``speedier final resolution of tax
issues.'' He observed, ``The Supreme Court hates tax cases,
and there is often no practical way to resolve such
conflicts''; and he anguished over the practicing bar's
opposition to his proposal, convinced that ``the real reason
is that tax lawyers find it advantageous to have uncertainty
and delay''--a preference for forum-shopping, if you will.
But in the end, in his 1992 biography, Ould Fields, New
Corne, he sounded a bit more hopeful: ``Eventually, something
along the lines proposed will have to come as it makes no
sense to have tax cases decided by thirteen different courts
of appeals, with no effective guidance on most questions from
the Supreme Court.''
One Supreme Court Justice, who'd had hands-on experience in
tax administration, and well understood weaknesses in our
appellate review system, was former Justice Robert H.
Jackson. The Court's most informed member on taxation, he had
previously served successively as ``General Counsel'' of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (succeeding E. Barrett Prettyman),
Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Tax Division,
Solicitor General, and then Attorney General of the United
States. In 1943, in his famous Dobson opinion, Justice
Jackson made a determined effort to strengthen the Tax
Court's status in the decision-making process so as to
minimize conflicts and attain a greater degree of uniformity.
To these ends, he laid down a stringent standard in appellate
review of Tax Court decisions:''
[W]hen the [appellate] court cannot separate the elements
of a decision so as to identify a clear-cut mistake of law,
the decision of the Tax Court must stand . . . While its
decisions may not be binding precedents for courts dealing
with similar problems, uniform administration would be
promoted by conforming to them where possible.''
The message was straightforward and seemingly clear; but it
didn't cover District Court decisions or those of the Court
of Federal Claims. Also, other problems were encountered by
judges and members of the bar, and dissatisfaction was high.
Ultimately this led to the 1948 statutory reversal of Dobson
by enactment of the review standard now in the Internal
Revenue Code, which requires U.S. Courts of Appeals to review
Tax Court decisions ``in the same manner and to the same
extent as decisions of the district courts in civil actions
tried without a jury.'' And that's where the situation lies
today--save for those still aspiring, as Erwin Griswold did
for the rest of his life, for greater uniformity and earlier
resolution of conflicts.
Justice Jackson never did change his view about the
critical importance of the Tax Court. In his 1952 dissent in
Arrowsmith v. Commissioner, he underscored this in strikingly
poignant fashion, saying: ``In spite of the gelding of Dobson
v. Commissioner . . . by the recent revision of the Judicial
Code . . . I still think the Tax Court is a more competent
and steady influence toward a systematic body of tax law than
our sporadic omnipotence in a field beset with invisible
boomerangs.''
Members of the tax bar readily endorse this strong vote of
confidence in the role of the Tax Court. As our nationwide
tax tribunal for over 80 years, it has served effectively and
with distinction as our most important court of original
jurisdiction in tax cases.
Today's tax system has its genesis in World War II when
income taxes rapidly expanded from a tax touching the better
off only, to a mass tax reaching out to the workers of
America. Revenue collection was turned upside down with
Beardsley Ruml's
[[Page 11714]]
``pay-as-you-go,'' collection-at-the-source, withholding and
estimated quarterly payments, and floods of paper filings.
Commissioner Guy Helvering said it couldn't be done. And, in
fact, the old Bureau of Internal Revenue, with its
politically-appointed Collectors of Internal Revenue, was not
fully up to the task. Subcommittee hearings chaired by
Congressman Cecil R. King, D-California, revealed
incompetence, political influence and corruption; and
directly led to a total overhaul under President Harry
Truman's 1952 Presidential Reorganization Plan. New district
offices and intermediate regional offices, replaced the old
Collectors' offices; and, except for the Commissioner and
Chief Counsel, who still require presidential nomination and
Senate confirmation, the entire staff was put under civil
service. The last step a year later was the official name
change to ``Internal Revenue Service.''
The new IRS made remarkable headway turning itself
completely around by the end of the 1950's; and it was not
long before it was recognized as one of government's leading
agencies. In the early 1960's, new heights were reached
through a fortunate confluence of events, strong White House
endorsement and unflagging budgetary support. President John
F. Kennedy had a special interest in tax law and tax
administration and almost immediately called on Congress for
anti-abuse tax legislation and strengthening of tax law
enforcement, including Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's
drive against organized crime. Of key importance was the
final congressional go-ahead for installing a nationwide
automatic data processing system (ADP), backed by approval of
individual account numbers and a master file of taxpayers
housed in a central national computer center. IRS had entered
the modern age. But it is this same ADP design, now badly
out-of-date, which is still in use, albeit patched with
additions and alterations. And it is the dire need to
modernize this 44-year old system which is IRS' chief
challenge today.
Starting in the 1970's, IRS began to encounter its present
serious difficulties. A series of complex legislative
changes, tightened budgets, an exploding workload, and
expensive failures to complete its ``tax systems
modernization'' (TSM) project-- all contributed to weakened
performance and heightened congressional oversight. In 1995
and 1996, Congress created the National Commission on
Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service ``to review the
present practices of the IRS, and recommend how to modernize
and improve the efficiency and productivity of the IRS while
improving taxpayer services.'' A year later, the Commission
issued its report, ``A Vision for a New IRS,'' which led to
the enactment of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring
and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 98).
The report centered chiefly on governance and managerial
type changes, including IRS modernization, a publicly-
controlled Oversight Board, a business-type Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, electronic filing and a paperless tax
system, taxpayer rights, and finally--and of primary
importance--changing IRS' culture and mission so as to place
emphasis on enhanced ``customer service'' and functioning
like ``a first rate financial institution.'' Congress was
asked to do its part too: simplified tax legislation;
complexity analyses reports; multiyear budgeting; joint
hearings and coordinated reports of the different oversight
committees. To the more sophisticated, the suggestions to
Congress appeared more aspirational than realistic.
The House largely followed the Commission's recommendations
(H.R. 2676). But the legislation found itself pending at a
tumultuous time, when the air was filled with words of U.S.
Senators--if you can believe it--like: ``end the IRS as we
know it,'' ``tear the IRS out by the roots,'' ``drive a stake
in the heart of the corrupt culture at the IRS,'' and ``stop
a war on taxpayers.'' At this point, Senator William V. Roth,
Jr., R-Delaware, Senate Finance Committee Chairman, took over
and ran a series of dramatic, highly televised hearings,
carefully prepared by his staff, and featuring a handful of
allegedly abused taxpayers and IRS employees who gave
testimony that shocked the nation. Never at the time did the
IRS have the opportunity to tell its side of the story; nor
was the testimony tested for accuracy or placed in proper
context. Later, however, after enactment of RRA 98, court
proceedings and various government reports by the GAO and
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)
clearly established that much of the testimony was not only
misleading but false; IRS may have made mistakes, but they
were not malicious or systemic. Numerous corrective news
stories began to appear with sharp headlines like the
following: ``IRS Abuse Charges Discredited''; ``Highly
Publicized Horror Story That Led to Curbs on IRS Quietly
Unravels''; ``IRS Watchdog Finds Complaints Unfounded'';
``Court is Asked to Block False Complaints against IRS'';
``Secret GAO Report is Latest to Discredit Roth's IRS
Hearings.'' But publication came too late; the damage was
already done.
Congress, the public and ultimately the Clinton
administration had all been outraged by the Senate testimony
and, almost overnight, sweeping support was given to Senator
Roth's proposed highly stringent treatment of the IRS. His
Senate version added some 100 new provisions to the House
bill. Some are praiseworthy and reasonably protective of
taxpayer rights, but others step over the line, unduly
micromanaging IRS daily operations and laying the groundwork
for serious delaying tactics by taxpayers and damage to the
administrative process. In the end, the legislation was
adopted by an overwhelming vote. One of the most criticized
provisions is the ``10 Deadly Sins'' sanction in section 1203
of RRA 98. This peremptory discharge procedure, which directs
the Commissioner to terminate an employee for any one of
certain specified violations, is deeply disturbing to IRS
personnel. Some hesitate to enforce the tax law because of
possible unfair exposure to complaints by disgruntled
taxpayers. Both Commissioner Mark W. Everson and former
Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti have noted this erratic
impact and have requested modification. In my mind, there is
little doubt that section 1203 should be totally repealed.
Commissioner Rossotti very ably captained the transition to
the new culture. But with Congress' continuing emphasis on
the ``customer service'' aspect of tax administration, it was
not until his last years that the word ``enforcement'' began
to trickle out, along with warnings of the ``continuing
deterioration'' and ``dangerous downtrend in the tax
system.'' This shift in emphasis was quickly hastened by new
Commissioner Mark Everson, who early announced: ``At the IRS
our working equation is service plus enforcement equals
compliance.'' (This to me is the basic ``S-E-C of
taxation.'') He underscores repeatedly the significant
``diminution of resources''; the continuing fall in audits,
collection, notices to non-filers; the 36 percent drop in
enforcement personnel since 1996; and, since 1998, the audit
rate drop of 57 percent!
Perhaps of even greater importance is the negative impact
this weakened enforcement has had on compliance and self-
assessment. Commissioner Everson often quotes President
Kennedy's admonition: ``Large continued avoidance of tax on
the part of some has a steadily demoralizing effect on the
compliance of others.'' Indeed, the annual tax gap continues
to grow: Last reported as a $311 billion tax loss each year--
from underreporting, nonpayment and non-filing--new findings
of a major increase are anticipated in the IRS study now
underway
With repeated annual deficits and a burgeoning national
debt, the Commissioner recently confessed: ``The IRS, frankly
speaking, needs to bring in more money to the Treasury.'' The
White House had confirmed this by supporting a 2005 budget
increase and allocating to enforcement alone an increase of
11 percent. But this was not to be. For in the cut-back in
the increase, House majority leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas,
commented rather imprudently: ``I don't shed any tears for
the IRS. Our priority as far as the IRS is concerned is to
put them out of business.'' So much for the looming crisis in
meeting the revenue needs of our democracy!
IRS' final 2005 appropriation reflected hardly a one
percent increase--an overall grant of $10.3 billion, almost
$400 million below the President's request. This tight
squeeze tells clearly why IRS went along with outsourcing to
private debt-collection agencies the collection of certain
delinquent tax accounts. The statutory authorization to pay
outsiders up to 25 percent of tax debts collected is
technically ``off-book''; and through this backdoor
financing, IRS' appropriations takes no direct hit.
This then is the very serious state of affairs confronting
those directly concerned with the fair and balanced
administration of our tax law.
The proper functioning of our tax system is largely
dependent upon the quality and responsible involvement of
well-trained tax practitioners, primarily tax lawyers and tax
accountants. Well over half the public seeks their help for
tax advice and return preparation--inquiring, time and again,
about the ``rules of the road,'' what's right and what's
wrong, what's lawful and what's not. The integrity and
standards of these tax professionals serve as the nation's
guideposts, with direct impact on taxpayer compliance and the
self-assessment concept itself. The significance of their
good faith practices cannot be overstated.
Recent congressional and IRS investigations, however, have
identified an alarming spread of extremely questionable
practices, some approaching outright fraud, by a number of
previously well-regarded tax practitioners. The Senate
Finance Committee has zeroed in directly on practitioners as
a whole, emphasizing the ``important role tax advisors play
in our tax system.'' Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa,
caustically observed: ``At the heart of every abusive tax
shelter is a tax lawyer or accountant.'' In full agreement,
Senator Max Baucus, D-Montana, the committee's ranking
minority member, added: ``Let's stop these unsavory practices
in their tracks by restoring integrity and professionalism in
the practitioner community.'' In their follow-up letter to
the Treasury Secretary John N. Snow, they called for
reinvigoration of IRS' Office of Professional Responsibility
(OPR), for its proper funding, and for extension of the
authority of its new head, Cono Namorato.
[[Page 11715]]
Much has happened since, legislatively and administratively.
Taking the lead, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004
greatly enhances OPR's effectiveness through a series of new
provisions that expand Circular 230's reach: (1) confirming
authority to impose standards on tax-shelter opinion writers,
(2) clarifying authority to ``censure'' practitioners, as
well as to suspend or disbar them, (3) granting authority,
for the first time, to impose monetary penalties on
individual practitioners, as well as on employers or entities
for which they act, and (4) granting injunction authority,
for the first time, to prevent recurrence of Circular 230
violations.
In turn, publication of Treasury's long-awaited Circular
230 amendments on tax-shelter opinion writing puts OPR's
momentum in high gear. The official release advises that
these ``final regulations provide best practices for all tax
advisors, mandatory requirements for written advice that
presents a greater potential for concern, and minimum
standards for other advice.'' No doubt is left, however, that
the amendments' underlying intent is to ``Promote Ethical
Practice,'' ``improve ethical standards,'' and ``restore and
maintain public confidence in tax professionals.''
Highlighted too is the caution that ``one of the IRS' top
four enforcement goals'' is ``[e]nsuring that attorneys,
accountants and other tax practitioners adhere to
professional standards and follow the law.''
This is a harsh estimate of tax practitioners in general.
As members of the profession of tax lawyers, it is difficult
to ignore our collective responsibility to respond. What do
we do about it? Certainly the tax bar has not been asleep.
Both the ABA Tax Section and the AICPA separately have been
working on standards of practice for over 40 years; and each
has published a series of guiding principles which continue
as works in progress. The issue remains, however, whether the
tax bar has probed deeply enough.
Have we been willing to grapple with more subtle, more
difficult issues? Have we articulated what we regard as
``best practices'' for tax lawyers, keeping in mind that
Circular 230 applies to a broad range of ``practitioners''?
Tax lawyers are clearly quite distinguishable from other
``practitioners'' and, indeed, from lawyers in general. And
it seems fair to ask: Which practices are acceptable to the
tax bar, and which are not? At what point does the tax bar
regard tax advice or tax practice as crossing the line? As
``too aggressive''? As ``things that are not done''?
These questions, of course, transcend the current concern
with tax shelters only. It may not be long, in my view,
before we will be asked to revisit a broader question:
``Whether, in a system that requires each taxpayer to self-
assess the taxes that are legally due, a tax lawyer can
properly advise a client that he or she may take an
undisclosed tax return position absent the lawyer's good
faith belief that the position is `more likely than not'
correct?'' In considering the issue some 20 years ago, ABA
Formal Opinion 85-352 crafted as a more flexible answer the
``realistic possibility of success'' test, which later became
a touchstone used by Congress and the Treasury in assessing
certain penalties. In light of unacceptable developments
since then, it would seem timely for the entire subject
matter to undergo a thorough review.
In his speech on The Public Influence of the Bar, Supreme
Court Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone addressed the same theme
of lawyers' ethics in relation to the great Wall Street stock
market crash. Critical of ``clever legal devices,'' and
critical of lawyers having done ``relatively so little to
remedy the evils of the investment market,'' he observed that
``whatever standards of conduct in the performance of its
function the Bar consciously adopts must at once be reflected
in the character of the world of business and finance.'' In
his view, ``the possibilities of its influence are almost
beyond calculation''; and he went on to advise, ``It is
needful that we look beyond the club of the policeman as a
civilizing agency to the sanctions of professional standards
which condemn the doing of what the law has not yet
forbidden.''
The point is: Though we are a long-recognized profession,
allowed the privilege of autonomy and essentially self-
regulation, no insurmountable barriers exist to prevent
encroachment on this privilege, or even its end, if our
practices or standards are regarded as inadequate or
unrealistic. Today, we already see a gradual erosion flowing
from a series of new governmental rules--by Congress, for
example through the Internal Revenue Code or legislation like
Sarbanes-Oxley, or by the SEC or Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (``Peekaboo''), or by Treasury through
Circular 230 or other regulations.
Our profession of tax lawyers must take the initiative and
become more intently involved--more proactive and not simply
defensive. Problems need be identified and solutions
developed by ourselves, and where necessary recommended for
implementation by the bar in general or by appropriate
governmental bodies. We cannot wait for others to compel
answers. Nor can we move at the pace of the ALI project that
required 13 years to complete a two-volume Restatement of the
Law Governing Lawyers. Ours would naturally be more immediate
in time and focus, and might well look to the leadership of
the ABA Section on Taxation, this organization, the American
College of Tax Counsel, or some other concerned and qualified
group.
As tax lawyers, we face many different responsibilities
daily--to our clients, to the profession, to the public, to
ourselves. How we maintain our own self-respect as lawyers;
how we desire to be viewed by others; and how we use our
special skills to improve the nation's revenue raising
system--are all questions crossing our minds every day, some
at times in conflict and in need of balancing as we confront
different tasks. In this regard, Dean Griswold counseled us
to preserve our ``independence of view''--separating our
representation of clients from our role as public citizens
seeking to improve the functioning of government.
The one exemplar he acclaimed is Randolph E. Paul,
Treasury's General Counsel and tax policy leader during World
War II, whom the Dean refers to as ``one of the early giants
in the tax field.'' Randolph, with whom I practiced during my
beginning days as a lawyer, asserted this individual
independence throughout his entire career, while he developed
a remarkable tax practice. In the closing lines of his
classic Taxation in the United States, he makes these seminal
observations on ``the responsibilities of tax experts'':
``The most I can say is that I do not think surrender needs
to be unconditional . . . I know tax advisers who accomplish
the double job of ably representing their clients and
faithfully working for the tax system taxpayers deserve . . .
At another level I venture the opinion that they lead a more
comfortable life than do many of their colleagues. Of one
thing I am very sure--that both taxpayers and the government
need many more of these independent advisers.''
Tonight this room is filled with many of these independent,
responsible advisers--some surely to become the giants we
will salute in the future. I am certain that together we will
overcome our present challenge ``to restore and maintain
public confidence in tax professionals.'' At the same time, I
have no doubt too that we will not fail in our ongoing
commitment to better the way in which our nation's needs for
revenue are fulfilled, fairly and honorably.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
RETIREMENT OF 10 UTICA COMMUNITY SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize
10 individuals in Michigan for their dedication and service to public
education. The Utica Community School District can be proud of these
men and women for their devotion to improving the lives of countless
young people.
The Utica Community School District encompasses Utica, most of
Sterling Heights, Shelby Township and parts of Ray, Washington, and
Macomb Townships. It is the second largest school district in Michigan,
with a current enrollment of over 29,000 students. Utica takes pride in
its educational standards, dedication, and service to its students.
These goals would not have been possible without the efforts of the
following 10 school administrators who have a combined 300-plus years
of service and have collectively touched the lives of more than 500,000
children over the course of their careers. The accomplishments and the
impacts on public education these individuals have had over the years
are numerous and impressive.
Each of these individuals has played a vital role in building strong
relationships with students, parents, teachers, and the community at
large in this diverse and vibrant region of southeast Michigan. They
exemplify the necessary dedication, determination, and professionalism
to foster individualized attention to each student. I am pleased to
honor each of them:
David A. Berube, Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources; Vivian
V. Constand, Director of Elementary Education; Joseph F. Jeannette,
Assistant Director of Elementary Education; Susan E. Meyer, Director of
Secondary Education; Glenn A. Patterson, Director of Human Resources;
Diane M. Robinson, Supervisor of Employee Benefits; Nancy M. Searing,
Assistant Director of Secondary Education; Linda M. Theut,
Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent, Judith M. Wagner,
Supervisor of Special Education; and John S. Zoellner, Director of
Fiscal Services.
On July 1, 2005, these individuals will retire from their respective
careers in
[[Page 11716]]
education, and their leadership and talents will surely be missed. I
know my Senate colleagues join me in congratulating these 10
distinguished individuals for their many efforts throughout the years,
and to recognize their record of service to the Utica community schools
and to the surrounding community.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO GEORGE DEMENT, MAYOR OF BOSSIER CITY, LOUISIANA
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize George
Dement, mayor of Bossier City, LA. Mayor Dement will retire from office
on June 30, 2005, after 16 years of service to northwest Louisiana.
Mayor Dement is retiring from public service on the same date he was
inaugurated 16 years earlier. Today, I take a moment to offer warm
thanks for his years of service to Bossier City and best wishes for his
coming commendation ceremonies.
A native of Princeton, LA, Mayor Dement served in the U.S. Submarine
Service in both the Atlantic and Pacific Theaters during WorId War II
and was present when the Japanese surrendered at Tokyo Bay. After 5
years of military service, he attended Centenary College and Louisiana
State University Shreveport. Upon completing his studies, Mayor Dement
began a 22-year tenure with Holiday Inn and was named Innkeeper of the
Year in 1976. In 1989, he was elected mayor of Bossier City where he
has been reelected three times--all with large margins of victory.
As mayor, Mr. Dement will be remembered for his leadership and
accessibility. During his tenure, Mayor Dement led the way on four
different phases of the Arthur Ray Teague Parkway and also poured large
amounts of energy into revitalizing key areas of Bossier City.
Fondly referred to as ``the people's mayor,'' Mr. Dement is known for
his honesty and commonsense approach to governing. I come to the Senate
floor today to join the residents of Bossier City in personally
commending, honoring, and thanking him for his 16 years of service to
northwest Louisiana.
____________________
RESCUE AND RESTORE PROGRAM
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to mark the occasion of
the 500th nonprofit and faith-based group joining Rescue & Restore
Victims of Human Trafficking, an initiative by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. Rescue & Restore is a project to help
protect the victims of trafficking in human beings.
After years of working on a bipartisan level with colleagues to pass
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, it is my distinct
pleasure to commemorate this landmark achievement. Rescue & Restore is
a multicity, decentralized national coalition to find, identify and
rescue victims of human trafficking in the United States and restore
them to a condition of human dignity. The program does this through the
engagement of thousands of individuals and hundreds of government and
community organizations. TVPA was designed to protect the victims of
involuntary servitude, sexual exploitation, forced labor and other
forms of a contemporary slave trade.
Since the launch of the first Rescue & Restore city coalition in
2004, the rate of trafficking victims rescued has more than doubled
over the previous reporting period--from 107 victims receiving
certification letters, to 224. More victims are being identified every
day. There are now more than 10,000 ``boots on the ground'' in 14
cities and trained advocates actively seeking out trafficking victims.
Today, June 7, a statewide Rescue & Restore coalition is set to be
launched in Illinois in cooperation with the administration of Governor
Rod Blagojevich. The Chicago rollout is a true watershed in the mission
to locate, identify, rescue, and restore trafficking victims to a
condition of human dignity. This is a statewide endeavor, the first of
its kind, involving the full panoply of Illinois state and local
government law enforcement and health and human welfare agencies
working in a coalition with more than 60 nongovernmental and social
welfare organizations, child advocates, and health care professionals
mobilized to combat trafficking. Other coalition launches are planned
for Long Island NY, Houston, and Los Angeles later this year for a
total of 17 geographical regions to be served.
Human trafficking is the fastest growing criminal industry in the
world today, affecting as many as 900,000 victims worldwide. The CIA
estimates that as many as 17,500 men, women and children are brought
into the U.S. annually by force, fraud or coercion as victims of human
trafficking. Others are victimized right here in America, trafficked
into prostitution or forced labor. Many of the victims are women or
children who are forced into prostitution; others are pressed into
labor slavery such as sweatshops, peonage, or domestic servitude.
Rescue & Restore coalition partners are using their existing channels
of communication and growing public awareness to help Americans
recognize the existence of human trafficking. They are educating their
associates and constituents on how to identify and assist trafficking
victims. We now have taken vital steps toward wiping the scourge of
human trafficking from our shores.
____________________
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-2452. A communication from the Director, Office of
Executive Secretariat, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department
of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Conforming Amendments to Implement the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2000'' (RIN1076-AE54) received on
June 6, 2005; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
EC-2453. A communication from the Director, Regulations
Management, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of
Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of a rule entitled ``Veterans Education: Non-payment of VA
Educational Assistance to Fugitive Felons'' (RIN2900-AL79)
received on June 3, 2005; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
EC-2454. A communication from the Chairman, National
Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and
the Humanities, transmitting, the Foundation's Annual report
on the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Program for Fiscal Year
2004; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
EC-2455. A communication from the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
entitled ``Testing for Rapid Detection of Adulteration of
Food''; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
EC-2456. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Department of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Oregon State Plan; Final Approval
Determination'' (RIN1218-AC13) received on June 2, 2005; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-2457. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulations, Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers
Programs--Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers''
received on June 1, 2005; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-2458. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulations, Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects--Knowledge
Dissemination and Utilization Projects'' (RIN1820-ZA36)
received on June 1, 2005; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-2459. A communication from the Chief of Staff,
Comptroller of the Currency, Administrator of National Banks,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the Agency's annual reports
for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, four issues of the Quarterly
Journal of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
(OCC) for calendar year 2003 and one for calendar year 2004;
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-2460. A communication from the Deputy General Counsel
for Equal Opportunity and Administrative Law, Office of
General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a vacancy in the
position of Assistant Secretary for Community Planning
[[Page 11717]]
and Development, received on June 3, 2005; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-2461. A communication from the Deputy General Counsel
for Equal Opportunity and Administrative Law, Office of
General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a vacancy in the
position of Assistant Secretary for Housing/Federal Housing
Commissioner, received on June 3, 2005; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-2462. A communication from the Under Secretary,
Emergency Preparedness and Response, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
that funding for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a
result of the record/near record snow on January 22-23, 2005,
has exceeded $5,000,000; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-2463. A communication from the Under Secretary,
Emergency Preparedness and Response, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
that funding for the State of Indiana as a result of the
record/near record snow on December 21-23, 2004, has exceeded
$5,000,000; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
EC-2464. A communication from the Secretary of the
Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to the National Emergencies
Act, a report relative to the national emergency that was
declared in Executive Order 13047 of May 20, 1997 with
respect to Burma; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
EC-2465. A communication from the Director, Financial
Crimes Enforcement Network, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; Anti-Money Laundering
Programs for Dealers in Precious Metals, Stones, or Jewels''
(RIN1506-AA58) received on June 6, 2005; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-2466. A communication from the Administrator, Energy
Information Administration, Department of Energy,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
country of origin and the sellers of uranium and uranium
enrichment services purchased by owners and operators of U.S.
nuclear power reactors for 2004; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
EC-2467. A communication from the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Standards for Business
Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines'' (RIN1902-
AC63) received on June 6, 2005; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
EC-2468. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for
Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Amendment of Lower St. Johns River
Manatee Refuge in Florida'' (RIN1018-AU10) received on May
26, 2005; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-2469. A communication from the Staff Director, United
States Commission on Civil Rights, transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report relative to probable violations of the
Antideficiency Act; to the Committee on Appropriations.
EC-2470. A communication from the Administrator, General
Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on violations of the Antideficiency Act; to the
Committee on Appropriations.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. STEVENS, from the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation, with amendments:
S. 714. A bill to amend section 227 of the Communications
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227) relating to the prohibition on
junk fax transmissions (Rept. No. 109-76).
____________________
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. DeMINT:
S. 1173. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act
to ensure the right of employees to a secret-ballot election
conducted by the National Labor Relations Board; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
S. 1174. A bill to authorize the President to posthumously
award a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Robert M. La
Follette, Sr., in recognition of his important contributions
to the Progressive movement, the State of Wisconsin, and the
United States; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
S. 1175. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to
mint coins in commemoration of Robert M. La Follette, Sr., in
recognition of his important contributions to the Progressive
movement, the State of Wisconsin, and the United States; to
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 1176. A bill to improve the provision of health care and
services to veterans in Hawaii, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 1177. A bill to improve mental health services at all
facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. MARTINEZ:
S. 1178. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow individuals a refundable credit against income tax
for the purchase of private health insurance; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. KENNEDY:
S. 1179. A bill to amend title SVIII of the Social Security
Act to ensure that benefits under part D of such title have
no impact on benefits under other Federal programs; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. OBAMA:
S. 1180. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
reauthorize various programs servicing the needs of homeless
veterans for fiscal years 2007 through 2011, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Feingold,
and Mr. Alexander):
S. 1181. A bill to ensure an open and deliberate process in
Congress by providing that any future legislation to
establish a new exemption to section 552 of title 5, United
States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of
Information Act) be stated explicitly within the text of the
bill; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 1182. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
improve health care for veterans, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Roberts,
Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Allen):
S. 1183. A bill to provide additional assistance to
recipients of Federal Pell Grants who are pursuing programs
of study in engineering, mathematics, science, or foreign
languages; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Mr. BIDEN:
S. 1184. A bill to waive the passport fees for a relative
of a deceased member of the Armed Forces proceeding abroad to
visit the grave of such member or to attend a funeral or
memorial service for such member; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
By Mr. DODD:
S. 1185. A bill to protect United States workers from
competition of foreign workforces for performance of Federal
and State contracts; to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Cochran,
Mr. Allard, and Mr. Coleman):
S. 1186. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide the same capital gains treatment for art and
collectibles as for other investment property and to provide
that a deduction equal to fair market value shall be allowed
for charitable contributions of literary, musical, artistic,
or scholarly compositions created by the donor; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. ALLEN:
S. 1187. A bill for the relief of James Symington; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. ALLEN:
S. 1188. A bill for the relief of Fereshteh Sani; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. SALAZAR:
S. 1189. A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to publish a strategic plan for long-term care, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. SALAZAR:
S. 1190. A bill to provide sufficient blind rehabilitation
outpatient specialists at medical centers of the Department
of Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. SALAZAR:
S. 1191. A bill to establish a grant program to provide
innovative transportation options to veterans in remote rural
areas; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. SALAZAR:
S. 1192. A bill to amend section 51 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to expand the eligibility for the work
opportunity tax credit to all disabled veterans; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Schumer):
S. 1193. A bill to direct the Assistant Secretary of
Homeland Security for the Transportation Security
Administration to issue regulations requiring turbojet
aircraft of air carriers to be equipped with missile defense
systems, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
[[Page 11718]]
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
S. Res. 161. A resolution honoring the life of Robert M. La
Follette, Sr., on the sesquicentennial of his birth; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Obama, Mr. Corzine, Mrs.
Boxer, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Reid, Mr. Feingold, and
Mr. Jeffords):
S. Res. 162. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate concerning Griswold v. Connecticut; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 65
At the request of Mr. Inhofe, the names of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and the
Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) were added as cosponsors of S. 65, a
bill to amend the age restrictions for pilots.
S. 98
At the request of Mr. Allard, the name of the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. Sessions) was added as a cosponsor of S. 98, a bill to amend the
Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 and the Revised Statutes of the United
States to prohibit financial holding companies and national banks from
engaging, directly or indirectly, in real estate brokerage or real
estate management activities, and for other purposes.
S. 104
At the request of Mr. Talent, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Thune) was added as a cosponsor of S. 104, a bill to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax-exempt financing of
highway projects and rail-truck transfer facilities.
S. 151
At the request of Mr. Pryor, the name of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 151, a bill to amend title
38, United States Code, to require an annual plan on outreach
activities of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
S. 181
At the request of Mr. Ensign, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Burr) was added as a cosponsor of S. 181, a bill to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against income tax
for taxpayers owning certain commercial power takeoff vehicles.
S. 340
At the request of Mr. Lugar, the name of the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 340, a bill to maintain
the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for
the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons
connected with the news media.
S. 350
At the request of Mr. Lugar, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 350, a bill to amend the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide assistance for orphans and
other vulnerable children in developing countries, and for other
purposes.
S. 369
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Lieberman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 369, a bill to establish
protections against compelled disclosure of sources, and news
information, by persons providing services for the news media.
S. 390
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Obama) was added as a cosponsor of S. 390, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage of ultrasound
screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms under part B of the medicare
program.
S. 392
At the request of Mr. Levin, the name of the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Corzine) was added as a cosponsor of S. 392, a bill to authorize
the President to award a gold medal on behalf of Congress,
collectively, to the Tuskegee Airmen in recognition of their unique
military record, which inspired revolutionary reform in the Armed
Forces.
S. 438
At the request of Mr. Ensign, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Warner) 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 West
Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 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. 489
At the request of Mr. Alexander, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Ms. Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 489, a bill to amend
chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, to limit the duration of
Federal consent decrees to which State and local governments are a
party, and for other purposes.
S. 549
At the request of Mr. Allard, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 549, a bill to
extend a certain high priority corridor in the States of Colorado,
Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
S. 580
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning) was added as a cosponsor of S. 580, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain modifications to be made
to qualified mortgages held by a REMIC or a grantor trust.
S. 603
At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. 603, a bill to
amend the Consumer Credit Protection Act to assure meaningful
disclosures of the terms of rental-purchase agreements, including
disclosures of all costs to consumers under such agreements, to provide
certain substantive rights to consumers under such agreements, and for
other purposes.
S. 614
At the request of Mr. Specter, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 614, a bill to amend title
38, United States Code, to permit medicare-eligible veterans to receive
an out-patient medication benefit, to provide that certain veterans who
receive such benefit are not otherwise eligible for medical care and
services from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other
purposes.
S. 619
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 619, a bill to
amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government
pension offset and windfall elimination provisions.
S. 647
At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Harkin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 647, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to authorize physical therapists to
evaluate and treat medicare beneficiaries without a requirement for a
physician referral, and for other purposes.
S. 750
At the request of Mr. Kyl, the name of the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
Bunning) was added as a cosponsor of S. 750, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow look-through treatment of
payments between related foreign corporations.
S. 756
At the request of Mr. Bennett, the names of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) were added
as cosponsors of S. 756, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act
to enhance public and health professional awareness and understanding
of lupus
[[Page 11719]]
and to strengthen the Nation's research efforts to identify the causes
and cure of lupus.
S. 828
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 828, a bill to
enhance and further research into paralysis and to improve
rehabilitation and the quality of life for persons living with
paralysis and other physical disabilities, and for other purposes.
S. 853
At the request of Mr. Lugar, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mr.
Cornyn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 853, a bill to direct the
Secretary of State to establish a program to bolster the mutual
security and safety of the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and for
other purposes.
S. 859
At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Inouye) was added as a cosponsor of S. 859, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an income tax credit for the
provision of homeownership and community development, and for other
purposes.
S. 863
At the request of Mr. Conrad, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 863, a bill to require the
Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the
centenary of the bestowal of the Nobel Peace Prize on President
Theodore Roosevelt, and for other purposes.
S. 877
At the request of Mr. Hagel, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
877, a bill to provide for a biennial budget process and a biennial
appropriations process and to enhance oversight and the performance of
the Federal Government.
S. 980
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the name of the Senator from
New York (Mrs. Clinton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 980, a bill to
provide state and local governments with financial assistance that will
increase their ability and effectiveness in monitoring convicted sex
offenders by developing and implementing a program using global
positioning systems to monitor convicted sexual offenders or sexual
predators released from confinement.
S. 1002
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1002, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to make improvements in payments to
hospitals under the medicare program, and for other purposes.
S. 1022
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
DeWine) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1022, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow for an energy efficient
appliance credit.
S. 1057
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1057, a bill to
amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to revise and extend that
Act.
S. 1062
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Byrd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1062, a bill to
amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase
in the Federal minimum wage.
S. 1076
At the request of Mr. Talent, the names of the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. Bayh) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1076, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend the excise tax and income tax credits for the production
of biodiesel.
S. 1104
At the request of Mrs. Clinton, the name of the Senator from Ohio
(Mr. DeWine) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1104, a bill to amend
titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to provide States with
the option to cover certain legal immigrants under the medicaid and
State children's health insurance programs.
S. 1123
At the request of Mr. Levin, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1123, a bill to suspend
temporarily the duty on certain microphones used in automotive
interiors.
S. 1160
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Schumer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1160, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore, increase, and make permanent
the exclusion from gross income for amounts received under qualified
group legal services plan.
S.J. RES. 12
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 12, a joint resolution
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag
of the United States.
S. CON. RES. 16
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the names of the Senator from
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski)
were added as cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 16, a concurrent resolution
conveying the sympathy of Congress to the families of the young women
murdered in the State of Chihuahua, Mexico, and encouraging increased
United States involvement in bringing an end to these crimes.
S. CON. RES. 24
At the request of Mr. Graham, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Allard) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 24, a concurrent
resolution expressing the grave concern of Congress regarding the
recent passage of the anti-secession law by the National People's
Congress of the People's Republic of China.
S. RES. 39
At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the names of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the
Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Craig), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) and the Senator from
Washington (Mrs. Murray) were added as cosponsors of S. Res. 39, a
resolution apologizing to the victims of lynching and the descendants
of those victims for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching
legislation.
S. RES. 42
At the request of Mr. Lugar, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
DeWine) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 42, a resolution expressing
the sense of the Senate on promoting initiatives to develop an HIV
vaccine.
S. RES. 134
At the request of Mr. Smith, the names of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) were added
as cosponsors of S. Res. 134, a resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate regarding the massacre at Srebrenica in July 1995.
S. RES. 155
At the request of Mr. Biden, the names of the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Bingaman), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), the Senator
from Washington (Ms. Cantwell), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper)
and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) were added as cosponsors
of S. Res. 155, a resolution designating the week of November 6 through
November 12, 2005, as ``National Veterans Awareness Week'' to emphasize
the need to develop educational programs regarding the contributions of
veterans to the country.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DeMINT:
S. 1173. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to ensure
the right of employees to a secret-ballot election conducted by the
National Labor Relations Board; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, today I introduce the Secret Ballot
Protection
[[Page 11720]]
Act, a measure that would amend the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA,
to ensure the right of employees to a secret ballot election conducted
by the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, when deciding whether to
be represented by a labor organization.
The legislation would prohibit a union from being recognized based on
a ``card check'' campaign. Under a card check system, a union gathers
authorization cards purportedly signed by workers expressing their
desire for the union to represent them. By their very nature, card
checks strip employees of the right to choose freely, safely, and
anonymously, whether to unionize and leave them open to harassment,
intimidation, and union pressure.
The bill also addresses the increasing pressure faced by employers
from union bosses to recognize unions based on a card check campaign
and forego the customary secret ballot election supervised by the
National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, which gives workers the ability
to vote their conscience without fear of reprisal.
Under current law, employers may voluntarily recognize unions based
on these card checks, but are not required to do so. However, threats,
boycotts, and other forms of public pressure are increasingly being
used to force employers to recognize unions based on a card-check
rather than the customary secret ballot election. The need for
legislation to protect workers' rights could not be more clear.
It is no secret that hostile campaigns against American businesses to
discredit employers have become a key organizing tactic used by union
bosses across the country. These and other pressure tactics are often
designed to hurt employers, their workers, and the economy, unless the
demands of union leaders are met. It is wrong that union bosses are
using these types of tactics at the expense of secret ballot elections,
depriving rank-and-file workers of the ability to freely vote their
conscience without fear of retaliation.
The Secret Ballot Protection Act will preserve the integrity of
workers' freedom of choice and the right to a secret ballot election;
it will protect workers from fear, threats, misinformation, and
coercion by a union or coworkers to sign union authorization cards; and
it will eliminate a union's ability to coercively terrorize an employer
into recognition under duress. These fundamental protections can be
achieved by simply requiring unions to win a majority of worker support
in an anonymous, secret ballot election which eliminates the shroud of
union intimidation tactics.
Supporting the right to a private vote and outlawing the corrupt card
check practice of allowing union thugs to bully, harass, and scare
workers who object to union membership is absolutely critical to
democracy and freedom of choice.
Secret ballots are an absolutely essential ingredient for any
functioning democratic system. The lack of secret ballot elections is
how oppressive regimes manage to stay in power without majority
support. Repelling such oppression hinges on the ability to walk into a
voting booth, pull the curtain, and vote for anyone or anything we
please with confidence the vote will be counted but never revealed to
anyone who could use the knowledge to retaliate.
Evidence clearly demonstrates that secret ballot elections are more
accurate indicators than card checks of whether employees actually wish
to be recognized by a union. Numerous court decisions echo this fact.
For example, in the case NLRB v. S.S. Logan Packing Co., the court
said:
It would be difficult to imagine a more unreliable method
of ascertaining the real wishes of employees than a card
check, unless it were an employer's request for an open show
of hands. The one is no more reliable than the other.
There is no question that card checks leave employees open to
harassment, intimidation, and union pressure. Workers' democratic
rights should be protected, and the Secret Ballot Protection Act will
make sure that happens by preserving the secret ballot election
process. This important measure would guarantee workers the right to an
anonymous, secret ballot election conducted by the NLRB and eliminate
the use of intimidation and threats by organizers to coerce workers
into joining a union.
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. 1173
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 ``Secret Ballot Protection Act
of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The right of employees under the National Labor
Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) to choose whether to be
represented by a labor organization by way of secret ballot
election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is
among the most important protections afforded under Federal
labor law.
(2) The right of employees to choose by secret ballot is
the only method that ensures a choice free of coercion,
intimidation, irregularity, or illegality.
(3) The recognition of a labor organization by using a
private agreement, rather than a secret ballot election
overseen by the National Labor Relations Board, threatens the
freedom of employees to choose whether to be represented by a
labor organization, and severely limits the ability of the
National Labor Relations Board to ensure the protection of
workers.
SEC. 3. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.
(a) Recognition of Representative.--
(1) In general.--Section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor
Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(a)(2)) is amended by inserting
before the colon the following: ``or to recognize or bargain
collectively with a labor organization that has not been
selected by a majority of such employees in a secret ballot
election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board in
accordance with section 9''.
(2) Application.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall
not apply to collective bargaining relationships in which a
labor organization with majority support was lawfully
recognized prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Election Required.--
(1) In general.--Section 8(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(b)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to recognize
or bargain collectively with a representative of a labor
organization that has not been selected by a majority of such
employees in a secret ballot election conducted by the
National Labor Relations Board in accordance with section
9.''.
(2) Application.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall
not apply to collective bargaining relationships that were
recognized prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Secret Ballot Election.--Section 9(a) of the National
Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(a)), is amended--
(1) by striking ``Representatives'' and inserting ``(1)
Representatives'';
(2) by inserting after ``designated or selected'' the
following: ``by a secret ballot election conducted by the
National Labor Relations Board in accordance with this
section''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) The secret ballot election requirement under
paragraph (1) shall not apply to collective bargaining
relationships that were recognized before the date of the
enactment of the Secret Ballot Protection Act of 2005.''.
SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.
Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the National Labor Relations Board shall review and
revise all regulations promulgated prior to such date of
enactment to implement the amendments made by this Act.
______
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 1176. A bill to improve the provision of health care and services
to veterans in Hawaii, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Neighbor
Islands Veterans Health Care Improvements Act.'' My State of Hawaii is
home to 115,000 veterans, nearly 18,000 of whom avail themselves of VA
health care. Unfortunately, the level of care provided to those living
on Oahu and the Neighbor Islands--Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the
Big Island--is not at the optimal level. My legislation would
significantly improve the level of care the veterans residing in Hawaii
have so bravely earned.
Hawaii is undoubtedly an exceptional place to make one's home, and
its population continues to grow each year.
[[Page 11721]]
As such, the number of veterans seeking VA health care has grown.
However, the level of services provided to Hawaii's veterans has failed
to keep pace. Additionally, each day more veterans are returning home
to Hawaii from the Global War on Terror, including Operations Enduring
and Iraqi Freedom. It is critical that these brave men and women
receive adequate care. It is equally critical that today's veterans
receive needed long-term care and mental health care.
My bill would ensure that care and facilities are optimized, that the
burden of VA personnel is diminished, and that veterans throughout the
state receive specialized care. Specifically, my legislation calls for
new Community Based Outpatient Clinics and Vet Centers in areas that
desperately need additional health care facilities, as well as
expanding services at those already in existence. Satellite clinics
providing both medical care and mental health counseling would be
opened on the islands of Molokai and Lanai, which currently lack VA
facilities. Staff levels at existing clinics and Vet Centers would be
increased to compensate for these new clinics and to provide needed
community-based long-term care, such as home care. My legislation also
authorizes the construction of a $10 million mental health center on
the grounds of Tripler Army Medical Center, which will include an
inpatient Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder residential treatment program.
That our veterans receive the long-term care to which they are
entitled is of major concern to me. In fact, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, of which I am Ranking Member, held a hearing on the potential
demand for long-term care just this May. I would like to point out that
the VA Center for Aging in Honolulu--the only VA nursing home in the
State--has a mere 60 beds. This is nowhere near sufficient to care for
the number of veterans who reside there. Furthermore, community nursing
home beds are limited. Given the dearth of nursing home beds, both VA
and community, the Neighbor Islands Veterans Health Care Improvements
Act authorizes a medical care foster program on the Island of Oahu.
Modeled on the successful Medical Care Foster Program at the Central
Arkansas Veterans Health Care System, such a system places veterans in
a permanent foster home, allowing them to remain in the community while
receiving the care they need.
Because I believe specialized care, such as orthopedics and
opthamology, are limited on the neighbor islands, the bill directs that
VA fully study the provision of such care. VA would then be required to
make a formal determination as to the adequacy of specialized care. I
may seek to direct improvements in this area at a later date.
This bill is vital to those veterans residing in Hawaii. Though they
may live far from the other veterans on the mainland, they are just as
entitled to quality health care.
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. 1176
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 ``Neighbor Islands Veterans
Health Care Improvements Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. VET CENTER ENHANCEMENTS.
(a) Additional Counselors for Certain Clinics.--The
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall assign an additional
counselor to each vet center as follows:
(1) The vet center on the Island of Maui, Hawaii.
(2) The vet center in Hilo, Hawaii.
(b) Establishment of New Vet Center.--The Secretary shall
establish and operate a new vet center on the Island of Oahu,
Hawaii, at a location to be selected by the Secretary.
(c) Vet Center Defined.--In this section, the term ``vet
center'' means a center for the provision of readjustment
counseling and related mental health services for veterans
under section 1712A of title 38, United States Code.
SEC. 3. HEALTH CARE CLINICS.
(a) Establishment of Clinics.--
(1) Satellite clinics.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall establish and operate a satellite health care clinic at
a location selected by the Secretary on each island as
follows:
(A) The Island of Lanai, Hawaii.
(B) The Island of Molokai, Hawaii.
(2) Medical care clinic.--The Secretary may establish and
operate a medical care clinic at a location selected by the
Secretary on the west side of the Island of Kauai, Hawaii.
(b) Elements of Satellite Clinics.--Each satellite clinic
established under subsection (a)(1) shall include--
(1) a vet center, which shall provide readjustment
counseling and related mental health services for veterans
under section 1712A of title 38, United States Code; and
(2) a community based outpatient clinic (CBOC), which shall
provide to veterans--
(A) the medical services and other health-care related
services provided by community based outpatient clinics
operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs; and
(B) such other care and services as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(c) Staffing and Other Resources.--
(1) Satellite clinics.--(A) The staff of the satellite
clinics established under subsection (a)(1) shall be derived
from staff of the vet center, and of the community based
outpatient clinic, on the Island of Maui, Hawaii, who shall
be assigned by the Secretary to such satellite clinics under
this section. In making such assignments, the Secretary may
not reduce the size of the staff of the vet center, or of the
community based outpatient clinic, on the Island of Maui
below its size as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
(B) Each satellite clinic established under subsection
(a)(1) shall have a computer system of nature and quality
equivalent to the computer systems of the community based
outpatient clinics operated by the Department, including the
capability to conduct medical tracking.
(C) Each satellite clinic established under subsection
(a)(1) shall have appropriate telemedicine equipment.
(2) Medical care clinic.--The medical care clinic
established under subsection (a)(2) shall have such staff as
the Secretary considers appropriate for its activities.
(d) Hours of Operation.--
(1) Satellite clinics.--Each satellite clinic established
under subsection (a)(1) shall have hours of operation each
week determined by the Secretary. The number of hours so
determined for a week shall consist of a number of hours
equivalent to not less than three working days in such week.
(2) Medical care clinic.--The medical care clinic
established under subsection (a)(2) shall have such hours of
operation as the Secretary considers appropriate for its
activities.
SEC. 4. LONG-TERM CARE.
(a) Medical Care Foster Program.--The Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall establish and operate on the Island of Oahu,
Hawaii, a medical care foster program. The program shall be
established utilizing as a model the Medical Care Foster
Program at the Center Arkansas Veterans Health Care System of
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
(b) Additional Clinical Staff for Non-institutional Long-
term Care.--
(1) Assignment of staff.--The Secretary shall assign to the
community based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) of the Department
of Veterans Affairs referred to in paragraph (2) such
additional clinical staff as the Secretary considers
appropriate in order to ensure that such clinics provide non-
institutional long-term care for veterans in accordance with
the provisions of subtitle A of title I of the Veterans
Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act (Public Law 106-117)
and the amendments made by such provisions. Such additional
clinical staff shall include a home health nurse.
(2) Covered community based outpatient clinics.--The
community based outpatient clinics referred to in this
paragraph are the community based outpatient clinics as
follows:
(A) The community based outpatient clinic in Hilo, Hawaii.
(B) The community based outpatient clinic on the Island of
Kauai, Hawaii.
(C) The community based outpatient clinic in Kona, Hawaii.
(D) The community based outpatient clinic on the Island of
Maui, Hawaii.
SEC. 5. MENTAL HEALTH CARE.
(a) Establishment of Mental Health Center.--The Secretary
of Veterans Affairs shall establish and operate in Hilo,
Hawaii, at an appropriate location selected by the Secretary,
a new center for the provision of mental health care and
services to veterans.
(b) Care and Treatment Available Through Center.--The
mental health center established under subsection (a) shall
provide the following:
(1) Day mental health care and treatment.
(2) Outpatient mental health care and treatment.
(3) Such other mental health care and treatment as the
Secretary considers appropriate.
(c) Staff.--The mental health center established under
subsection (a) shall have as its staff a drug abuse
counselor, a nurse practitioner, and such other staff as the
Secretary considers appropriate for its activities.
[[Page 11722]]
SEC. 6. STUDY ON ACCESS TO SPECIALIZED CARE AND FEE-BASIS
CARE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
carry out a study of the demand for, and access to,
specialized care and fee-basis care from the Department of
Veterans Affairs for veterans on the neighbor islands of
Hawaii, including whether or not the specialized care or fee-
basis care, as the case may be, available to veterans from
the Department on the neighbor islands is adequate to meet
the demands of veterans for such care.
(b) Report.--Not later than six months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House
of Representatives a report on the study required by
subsection (a). The report shall set forth the results of the
study and include such recommendations for legislative or
administrative action as the Secretary considers appropriate
in light of the study.
SEC. 7. CONSTRUCTION OF MENTAL HEALTH CENTER AT TRIPLER ARMY
MEDICAL CENTER, HAWAII.
(a) Authorization of Major Medical Facility Project.--The
Secretary of Veterans Affairs may carry out a major medical
facility project for the construction of a mental health
center at Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii, in the amount
of $10,000,000.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2006 for
the Construction, Major Projects, account, $10,000,000 for
the project authorized by subsection (a).
(2) Limitation.--The project authorized by subsection (a)
may only be carried out using--
(A) funds appropriated for fiscal year 2006 pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in paragraph (1);
(B) funds appropriated for Construction, Major Projects,
for a fiscal year before fiscal year 2006 that remain
available for obligation; and
(C) funds appropriated for Construction, Major Projects,
for fiscal year 2006 for a category of activity not specific
to a project.
(c) Facilities.--The facilities at the mental health center
authorized to be constructed by subsection (a) shall include
residential rehabilitation beds for patients with Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and such other facilities as
the Secretary considers appropriate.
SEC. 8. FUNDING.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for
fiscal year 2006 such sums as may be necessary to carry out
sections 2 through 6.
(b) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in subsection (a) shall be
available only to carry out sections 2 through 6.
(c) Construction With Other Funding for Health Care for
Veterans in Hawaii.--It is the sense of Congress that the
amount authorized to be appropriated by subsection (a) for
fiscal year 2006 should--
(1) supplement amounts authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs for that fiscal year for health
care for veterans in Hawaii for activities other than those
specified in sections 2 through 6; and
(2) not result in any reduction in the amount that would
have been appropriated to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
for that fiscal year for health care for veterans in Hawaii
for such activities had the amount in subsection (a) not been
authorized to be appropriated.
______
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 1177. A bill to improve mental health services at all facilities
of the Department of Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise proudly today to introduce
legislation that would enhance the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA)
ability to provide mental health and other specialized services to its
patients. At a time when our Nation is at war, it is imperative that we
ensure that all veterans have access to top quality mental health care,
whether they visit a VA hospital or clinic.
At the time of its creation, the VA health care system was tasked
with meeting the special needs of its veteran patients. Those veterans
who suffered from spinal cord injuries, amputations, blindness, Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder, substance abuse, and homelessness required
unique forms of treatment and rehabilitation. During the past few
decades, VA has emerged as the industry leader in providing specialized
services to these types of patients. Much of VA's expertise in these
areas remains unparalleled in the larger health care community--
particularly with regard to mental health care.
However, it is with great dismay that I rise today, as VA's
specialized programs are in jeopardy due to budget constraints.
Increased demand and flatline budget increases over the past few years
have literally starved the system. Sadly, this problem is not a new
one. Back in 1996, Congress recognized the merits of these specialized
programs and that they could be vulnerable to cuts because of their
smaller scale. As such, we enacted legislation that required VA to
retain its capacity to provide specialized services at the levels in
place at the time of the bill's passage in 1996, and to annually report
as to the status of its compliance with this requirement.
Despite this effort by Congress and the actions of my predecessors on
this Committee to subsequently strengthen the original legislation to
protect VA's specialized services, VA continues to underfund and cut
back resources for these vital programs. Additionally, VA has employed
measures such as counting dollars according to 1996 levels to appear as
if they are in compliance. In the area of mental health care, this has
been especially true. My proposed legislation amends the statute to
ensure that capacity funding levels are adjusted for inflation. We need
to be talking about real dollars--not 1996 dollars--to get a true sense
of VA's capacity to care for veterans with mental health needs.
This legislation would also mandate that VA carry out a number of
measures designed to improve mental health and substance abuse
treatment capacity at Community-Based Outpatient Clinics and throughout
the VA system. Currently, many clinics do not even provide mental
health services at all. My bill would ensure that at least 90 percent
of all clinics can provide mental health services, either onsite or
through referrals. Furthermore, it would establish more comprehensive
performance measures to provide incentives for clinics to maintain
mental health capacity, for primary care doctors to screen patients for
mental illness, and require that every primary health care facility be
able to provide at least five days of inpatient detoxification
services.
Finally, the bill seeks to foster greater cooperation between VA and
the Department of Defense (DoD) in treating servicemembers and
subsequently veterans who suffer from some form of mental health or
readjustment disorder. It has been estimated that anywhere from 20 to
30 percent of the men and women who are currently serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan will require treatment for a mental health issue. The bill
would direct the two Departments to agree upon standardized separation
screening procedures for sexual trauma and mental health disorders, as
well as establish a joint VA-DoD Workgroup to examine potential ways of
combating stigma associated with mental illness, educate
servicemembers' families, and make VA's expertise in the field of
mental health more readily available to DoD providers.
We still have much work to do in the area of mental illness
associated with service in the armed forces. But this bill is a step in
the right direction. I ask my colleagues for their support of this
bill, for it not only seeks to combat disorders that can be very
debilitating, but it also would protect specialized services that are
at the heart of VA's mission.
I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 1177
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Mental Health Care
Capacity Enhancement Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Mental health treatment capacity at community-based
outpatient clinics remains inadequate and inconsistent,
despite the requirement under section 1706(c) of title 38,
United States Code, that every primary care health care
facility of the Department of Veterans Affairs develop and
carry out a plan to meet the mental health care needs of
veterans who require such services.
(2) In 2001, the minority staff of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the Senate
[[Page 11723]]
conducted a survey of community-based outpatient clinics and
found that there was no established systemwide baseline of
acceptable mental health service levels at such clinics.
(3) In 2004, the Department of Veterans Affairs workgroup
on mental health care, which developed and submitted a
Comprehensive Mental Health Strategic Plan to the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs, found service and funding gaps within
the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system, and
made numerous recommendations for improvements. As of May
2005, Congress had not received a final report on the
workgroup's findings.
(4) In February 2005, the Government Accountability Office
reported that the Department of Veterans Affairs had not
fully met any of the 24 clinical care and education
recommendations made in 2004 by the Special Committee on
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder of the Under Secretary for
Health, Veterans Health Administration.
SEC. 3. REQUIRED CAPACITY FOR COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT
CLINICS.
(a) Strengthening of Performance Measures for Mental Health
Programs.--Section 1706(b)(6) of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(D) The Under Secretary shall include, as goals in the
performance contracts entered into with Network Directors to
prioritize mental health services--
``(i) establishing appropriate staff-patient ratio levels
for various programs (including mental health services at
community-based outpatient clinics);
``(ii) fostering collaborative environments for providers;
and
``(iii) encouraging clinicians to conduct mental health
consultations during primary care visits.''.
(b) Inflationary Indexing of Capacity Requirements.--
Section 1706(b) of title 38, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(7) For the purposes of meeting and reporting on the
capacity requirements under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall ensure that the funding levels allocated for
specialized treatment and rehabilitative services for
disabled veterans are adjusted for inflation each fiscal
year.''.
(c) Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services.--Section
1706(c) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) The Secretary shall ensure that not less than 90
percent of community-based outpatient clinics have the
capacity to provide onsite, contract-referral, or tele-mental
health services--
``(A) for at least 10 percent of all clinic visits by not
later than September 30, 2006; and
``(B) for at least 15 percent of all clinic visits by not
later than September 30, 2007.
``(3) The Secretary shall ensure that not less than 2 years
after the date of enactment of this paragraph--
``(A) each primary care health care facility of the
Department has the capacity and resources to provide not less
than 5 days of inpatient, residential detoxification services
onsite or at a nearby contracted or Department facility; and
``(B) a case manager is assigned to coordinate follow up
outpatient services at each community-based outpatient
clinic.''.
(d) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than January 31,
2008, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit a report
to Congress that--
(1) describes the status and availability of mental health
services at community-based outpatient clinics;
(2) describes the substance of services available at such
clinics;
(3) includes the ratios between mental health staff and
patients at such clinics; and
(4) includes the certification of the Inspector General of
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
SEC. 4. COOPERATION ON MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS AND
PREVENTION.
(a) Agreement.--The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs shall enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding--
(1) to ensure that separating service-
members receive standardized individual mental health and
sexual trauma assessments as part of separation exams; and
(2) includes the development of shared guidelines on how to
conduct the assessments.
(b) Establishment of Joint VA-DOD Workgroup on Mental
Health.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall establish a joint
workgroup on mental health, which shall be comprised of not
less than 7 leaders in the field of mental health appointed
from their respective departments.
(2) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the establishment
of the workgroup under paragraph (1), the workgroup shall
analyze the feasibility, content, and scope of initiatives
related to--
(A) combating stigmas and prejudices associated with
servicemembers who suffer from mental health disorders or
readjustment issues, through the use of peer counseling
programs or other educational initiatives;
(B) ways in which the Department of Veterans Affairs can
make their expertise in treating mental health disorders more
readily available to Department of Defense mental health care
providers;
(C) family and spousal education to assist family members
of veterans and service-
members to recognize and deal with signs of potential
readjustment issues or other mental health disorders; and
(D) seamless transition of servicemembers who have been
diagnosed with mental health disorders from active duty to
veteran status (in consultation with the Seamless Transition
Task Force and other entities assisting in this effort).
(3) Report.--Not later than June 30, 2007, the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit a
report to Congress containing the findings and
recommendations of the workgroup established under this
subsection.
SEC. 5. PRIMARY CARE CONSULTATIONS FOR MENTAL HEALTH.
(a) Guidelines.--The Under Secretary for Health, Veterans
Health Administration, shall establish systemwide guidelines
for screening primary care patients for mental health
disorders and illnesses.
(b) Training.--Based upon the guidelines established under
subsection (a), the Under Secretary for Health, Veterans
Health Administration, shall conduct appropriate training for
clinicians of the Department of Veterans Affairs to carry out
mental health consultations.
______
By Mr. OBAMA:
S. 1180. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to reauthorize
various programs servicing the needs of homeless veterans for fiscal
years 2007 through 2011, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, the Department of Veterans Affairs
estimates that on any given day, as many as 200,000 veterans are
homeless. That is 200,000 men and women who have fought for this
country who will go without the comfort of knowing that they will have
a roof over their head and a place to call home.
If 200,000 of our Nation's veterans will go homeless tonight, the VA
estimates that about twice as many veterans will experience
homelessness this year. Again, that is 400,000 men and women who
defended this great Nation, who will be left out on the streets at some
point this year.
I hope my colleagues are as distressed as I am by these numbers, and
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the bill I introduce
today--the Shelter All Veterans Everywhere or ``SAVE'' Reauthorization
Act of 2005.
This bill reauthorizes many of the soon-to-expire homeless veterans
programs currently serving this needy population, including the
Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program and the Homeless Veterans
Reintegration Program. These programs work to provide much-needed
services to homeless veterans so that they can find jobs and ultimately
find a stable home. These programs deserve to be continued. The SAVE
Reauthorization Act actually expands the reach of the Homeless Veterans
Reintegration Program, which provides job placement and training
assistance, to include those veterans at risk of homelessness as well
as those actually homeless, so that we can work to prevent homelessness
before it happens.
At a time when so many of my colleagues are working to ensure that
our Nation's veterans receive the benefits and services they have
earned and deserve, we cannot forget the neediest of our veterans--the
homeless veterans. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting
these worthy programs.
______
Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Feingold, and Mr.
Alexander):
S. 1181. A bill to ensure an open and deliberate process in Congress
by providing that any future legislation to establish a new exemption
to section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as
the Freedom of Information Act) be stated explicitly within the text of
the bill; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on February 16, shortly before the
President's Day recess, the Senator from Vermont and I introduced the
OPEN Government Act of 2005 (S. 394)--bipartisan legislation to promote
accountability,
[[Page 11724]]
accessibility, and openness in government, principally by strengthening
and enhancing the Federal law commonly known as the Freedom of
Information Act.
When I served as Attorney General of Texas, it was my responsibility
to enforce Texas's open government laws. I am pleased to report that
Texas is known for having one of the strongest sets of open government
laws in our Nation. And since that experience, I have long believed
that our Federal Government could use ``a little Texas sunshine.'' I am
thus especially enthusiastic about the OPEN Government Act, because
that legislation attempts to incorporate some of the most important
principles and elements of Texas law into the Federal Freedom of
Information Act. And I am gratified that Senators Alexander, Feingold,
Isakson, and Nelson of Nebraska are cosponsors of the bipartisan
Cornyn-Leahy bill.
This legislation enjoys broad support across the ideological
spectrum. Indeed, since its introduction on February 16, the
legislation has attracted additional support. In particular, I am
pleased to report the endorsements of three conservative public
interest groups--one devoted to the defense of property rights,
Defenders of Property Rights, led by Nancie G. Marzulla, one devoted to
the issue of racial preferences in affirmative action programs, One
Nation Indivisible, led by Linda Chavez, and one devoted to the
protection of religious liberty, Liberty Legal Institute, led by Kelly
Shackelford. I ask unanimous consent that their endorsement letters be
printed in the Record at the close of my remarks. The point of
including these letters in the Record, of course, is not that these
groups are right or wrong in the pursuit of their respective causes,
but that the cause of open government is neither a Republican nor a
Democrat issue--neither a conservative nor a liberal issue--rather, it
is an American issue.
I would like to take a few moments to emphasize one particular
provision of the Cornyn-Leahy bill--section 8. It is a common sense
provision. This provision should not be at all controversial, and
indeed, I am not aware of any opposition whatsoever to it. The
provision would simply help to ensure an open and deliberate process in
Congress, by providing that any future legislation to establish a new
exemption to the Federal Freedom of Information Act must be stated
explicitly within the text of the bill. Specifically, any future
attempt to create a new so-called ``(b)(3) exemption'' to the Federal
FOIA law must specifically cite section (b)(3) of FOIA if it is to take
effect. The justification for this provision is simple: Congress should
not establish new secrecy provisions through secret means. If Congress
is to establish a new exemption to FOIA, it should do so in the open
and in the light of day.
A recent news report published by the Cox News Service amply
demonstrates the importance of this issue, and specifically emphasizes
the need for section 8 of the Cornyn-Leahy bill. I ask unanimous
consent that a copy of this news report be printed at the close of my
remarks.
Senator Leahy and I firmly believe that all of the provisions of the
OPEN Government Act are important--and that, as the recent Cox News
Service report demonstrates, section 8 in particular is a worthy
provision that can and should be quickly enacted into law. We note that
July 4 is the anniversary of the 1966 enactment of the original Federal
Freedom of Information Act. Accordingly, we plan to devote our efforts
this month to getting section 8 approved by Congress and submitted to
the President for his signature by that anniversary date.
Toward that end, we rise today to introduce separate legislation to
enact section 8 of the OPEN Government Act into law. We ask our
colleagues in this chamber to support this measure, first in the Senate
Judiciary Committee, and then on the floor of the United States Senate.
And we look forward to working with our colleagues in the House--
including Representative Lamar Smith, the lead sponsor of the OPEN
Government Act in the House, H.R. 867, as well as Chairman Tom Davis,
who leads the House Committee on Government Reform, and Chairman Todd
Platts, who leads the House Government Reform subcommittee that
recently held a hearing to review the Federal FOIA law.
Section 8 of the Cornyn-Leahy bill is a common-sense, uncontroversial
provision that deserves the support of every member of Congress. It
simply provides that, when Congress enacts legislation--specifically,
legislation to exempt certain documents from disclosure under FOIA--it
do so in the open. After all, if documents are to be kept secret by an
act of Congress, we should at least make sure that that very act of
Congress itself not be undertaken in secret.
A Senate Judiciary subcommittee held a hearing on the OPEN Government
Act on March 15. I hope that at least section 8 of the legislation can
be enacted into law quickly, and that Congress will then move to
consider the other important provisions of the bill.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
May 25, 2005.
Hon. John Cornyn,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cornyn: On behalf of the Defenders of Property
Rights, I would like to commend you on your introduction of
the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National
Government Act of 2005 (OPEN Government Act). With this
legislation, Americans can have confidence that their
government is operating honestly and efficiently.
This proposed bill would be invaluable in aiding our quest
to protect the private property rights of all Americans. The
bill is beneficial for property rights plaintiffs--it puts
teeth into the requirement that the government timely respond
to requests while still protecting private property rights.
For instance, under the bill, if an agency does not respond
within the required 20 days, the agency may not assert any
exemption under subsection (b) of the bill unless disclosure
would endanger national security, ``disclose personal private
information protected by section 552a or proprietary
information,'' or would otherwise be prohibited by law. The
bill also provides for better review of agencies' responses
to FOIA requests and for disciplinary actions for arbitrary
and capricious rejections of requests. If passed, this bill
would surely help private property owners obtain faster
access to information regarding actions that have taken their
property--and provide better enforcement if they do not.
Your bill has our full and enthusiastic endorsement. We
thank you for your steadfast commitment to liberty, open
government, and constitutionally guaranteed property rights.
Yours truly,
Nancie G. Marzulla,
President.
____
One Nation Indivisible,
May 19, 2005.
Senator John Cornyn,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cornyn: I am writing to tell you that One
Nation Indivisible supports the OPEN Government Act of 2005.
Good luck with its passage.
Sincerely,
Linda Chavez.
____
Liberty Legal Institute,
June 1, 2005.
Re: ``OPEN Government Act'' bill
Hon. John Cornyn,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cornyn: We are fully on board with your
efforts on Freedom of Information Act improvements. The
government should be open to its people. This is a core
requirement in any free society.
FOIA currently has little enforcement capability and was
also hurt by the wrongly decided Buckhannon decision.
Citizens deserve the protection of FOIA and the changes you
are proposing.
Please put us on your endorsement list for the ``OPEN
Government Act'' bill. In fact, we strongly believe the
Buckhannon error needs to be corrected for all Sec. 1983
cases.
Last, even more abusive recently is the abuse of Rule 68 to
threaten and intimidate citizens already victimized once by
government officials. The idea that civil rights victims, who
win their suit (usually for just nominal damages), may have
to pay the government's costs is obscene and a complete
violation of Congressional intent. I hope we can fix this as
well.
Thank you for your service to all Texans.
Sincerely,
Kelly Shackelford,
Chief Counsel, Liberty Legal Institute.
There being no objection, the news report was ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:
[[Page 11725]]
[From the Cox News Service, June 3, 2005]
Congress Cloaks More Information in Secrecy
(By Rebecca Carr)
Washington.--Few would argue with the need for a national
livestock identification system to help the federal
government handle a disease outbreak such as mad cow.
But pending legislation calling for the nation's first
electronic livestock tracking system would prohibit the
public from finding out anything about animals in the system,
including the history of a cow sick with bovine spongiform
encephalopathy.
The only way the public can find out such details is if the
secretary of agriculture makes the information public.
That's because the legislation, sponsored by Rep. Collin C.
Peterson, D-Minn., includes a provision that exempts
information about the system from being released under the
Freedom of Information Act.
Formally called the ``third exemption,'' it is one of nine
exemptions the government can use to deny the release of
information requested under the FOI Act.
Open government advocates say it is the most troubling of
the nine exemptions because it allows Congress to cloak vital
information in secrecy through legislation, often without a
public hearing or debate. They say Congress frequently
invokes the exemption to appease private sector businesses,
which argue it is necessary to protect proprietary
information.
``It is an easy way to slap a secrecy stamp on the
information,'' said Rick Blum, director of
openthegovernment.org, a coalition of more than 30 groups
concerned about government secrecy.
The legislative intent of Congress is far more difficult to
challenge than a federal agency's denial for the release of
information, said Kevin M. Goldberg, general counsel to the
American Society of Newspaper Editors.
``This secrecy is often perpetuated in secret as most of
the (third exemption) provisions consist of one or two
paragraph tucked into a much larger bill with no notice that
the Freedom of Information Act will be affected at all,''
Goldberg said.
There are at least 140 cases where congressional lawmakers
have inserted such exemptions, according to a 2003 Justice
Department report.
The report notes that Congress has been ``increasingly
active in enacting such statutory provisions.''
The exemptions have become so popular that finding them in
proposed legislation is ``like playing a game of Wackamole,''
one staffer to Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., joked. ``As soon as
you handle one, another one pops up.''
Congress used the exemption in its massive Homeland
Security Act three years ago, granting businesses protection
from information disclosure if they agreed to share
information about the vulnerabilities of their facilities.
And in another twist on the exemption, Congress inserted a
provision into the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004
that states that ``no funds appropriated under this or any
other act may be used to disclose'' records about firearms
tracking to the public.
Government agencies have also sought protection from
information disclosure.
For example, Congress passed an amendment to the National
Security Act in 1984 that exempted the CIA from having to
comply with the search and review requirements of the FOI Act
for its ``operational files.''
Most of the information in those files, which included
records about foreign and counterintelligence operations was
already protected from disclosure under the other exemptions
in the FOI Act.
But before Congress granted the exemption, the agency had
to search and review each document to justify withholding the
information, which cost time and money.
Open government advocates say many of the exemptions
inserted into legislation are not justified.
``This is back door secrecy,'' said Thomas Blanton,
executive director of the National Security Archive at George
Washington University, a nonprofit research institute based
in Washington.
When an industry wants to keep information secret, it seeks
the so-called third exemption, he said.
``It all takes place behind the sausage grinder,'' Blanton
said. ``You don't know what gristle is going through the
sport, you just have to eat it.''
But Daniel J. Metcalfe, co-director of the Justice
Department's Office of Information and Privacy, said the
exception is crucial to the FOI Act's structure.
In the case of the animal identification bill, the
exemption is critical to winning support from the cattle
industry and on Capitol Hill.
``If we are going to develop an animal ID system that's
effective and meaningful, we have to respect participants'
private information,'' said Peterson, the Minnesota lawmaker
who proposed the identification system. ``The goal of a
national animal I.D. system is to protect livestock owners as
well as the public.''
As the livestock industry sees it, it is providing
information that will help protect the public health. In
exchange for proprietary information about their herds, they
believe they should receive confidence that their business
records will not be shared with the public.
``The producers would be reluctant to support the bill
without the protection,'' said Bryan Dierlam, executive
director of government affairs at the National Cattleman's
Beef Association.
The animal identification on bill provides the government
with the information it needs to protect the public in the
event of an disease out break, Dierlam said. ``But it would
protect the producers from John Q. Public trying to willy-
nilly access their information.''
Food safety experts agree there is a clear need for an
animal identification system to protect the public, but they
are not certain that the exemption to the FOI Act is
necessary.
``It's sad that Congress feels they have to give away
something to the cattle industry to achieve it,'' said
Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of the food safety program at
the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit
organization based in Washington.
Slipping the exemption into legislation without notice is
another problem cited by open government advocates!.
It has become such a problem that the Senate's strongest
FOI Act supporters, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Sen.
Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., proposed that lawmakers be required to
uniformly identify the exemption in all future bills.
``If Congress wants to create new exemptions, it must do so
in the light of day,'' Cornyn said. ``And it must do so in a
way that provides an opportunity to argue for or against the
new exemption--rather than have new exemptions creep into the
law unnoticed.''
Leahy agreed, saying that Congress must be diligent in
reviewing new exemptions to prevent possible abuses.
``In Washington, loopholes tend to beget more loopholes,
and it's the same with FOI Act exemptions,'' Leahy said.
``Focusing more sunshine on this process is an antidote to
exemption creep.''
Mr. LEAHY. For the third time this year, Senator Cornyn and I have
joined to introduce common sense proposals to strengthen open
government and the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. The Senator
from Texas has a long record of promoting open government, most
significantly during his tenure as Attorney General of Texas. He and I
have forged a valuable partnership in this Congress to support and
strengthen FOIA. We introduced two bills earlier this year, and held a
hearing on our bill, the Open Government Act, issues during Sunshine
Week in March.
The bill we introduce today is simple and straightforward. It simply
requires that when Congress sees fit to provide a statutory exemption
to FOIA, it must state its intention to do so explicitly. The language
of this bill was previously introduced as section eight of S. 394, the
Open Government Act.
No one argues with the notion that some government information is
appropriately kept from public view. FOIA contains a number of
exemptions for national security, law enforcement, confidential
business information, personal privacy, and other matters. One
provision of FOIA, commonly known as the (b)(3) exemption, states that
records that are specifically exempted by statute may be withheld from
disclosure. Many bills that are introduced contain statutory
exemptions, or contain language that is ambiguous and might be
interpreted as such by the courts. In recent years, we have seen more
and more such exemptions offered in legislation. A 2003 Justice
Department report stated that Congress has been ``increasingly active
in enacting such statutory provisions.'' A June 3, 2005, article by the
Cox News Service titled, ``Congress Cloaks More Information in
Secrecy,'' pointed to 140 instances ``where congressional lawmakers
have inserted such exemptions'' into proposed legislation. I commend
this article to my colleagues and understand that Senator Cornyn has
placed a copy in the Record.
Our shared principles of open government lead us to believe that
individual statutory exemptions should be vigorously debated before
lawmakers vote in favor of them. Sometimes such proposed exemptions are
clearly delineated in proposed legislation, but other times they amount
to a few lines within a highly complex and lengthy bill. These are
difficult to locate and analyze in a timely manner, even for those of
us who stand watch. As a result, such exemptions are often enacted with
[[Page 11726]]
little scrutiny, and as soon as one is granted, others are requested.
The private sector has sought many exemptions in exchange for
agreeing to share information with the government. One example of great
concern to me is the statutory exemption for critical infrastructure
information that was enacted as part of the Homeland Security Act of
2002, the law that created the Department of Homeland Security. In this
case, a reasonable compromise, approved by the White House, to balance
the protection of sensitive information with the public's right to know
was pulled out of the bill in conference. It was then replaced with
text providing an overly broad statutory exemption that undermines
Federal and State sunshine laws. I have introduced legislation, called
the Restoration of Freedom of Information Act, to revert to that
reasonable compromise language.
Not every statutory exemption is inappropriate, but every proposal
deserves scrutiny. Congress must be diligent in reviewing new
exemptions to prevent possible abuses. Focusing more sunshine on this
process is an antidote to exemption creep.
When we introduced the Open Government Act in February, we addressed
this matter with a provision that would require Congress to identify
proposed statutory exemptions in newly introduced legislation in a
uniform manner. Today, we introduce that single section as a new bill
that we hope can be enacted quickly.
I want to thank the Senator from Texas for his personal dedication to
these issues. I urge all members of the Senate to join us in supporting
this bill.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 1182. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve
health care for veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce
legislation that will expand the services available to our Nation's
veterans and their dependents, and improve the ability of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide health care services to
this same group of deserving Americans. I take a few moments now to
explain the provisions of this legislation.
First, the bill would, in section 2, exempt veterans enrolled for VA
care from all copayments for hospice care services provided by VA. Over
the past several years, VA has greatly expanded its efforts to provide
compassionate end-of-life care for our Nation's heroes. Last year,
Congress made efforts to ensure that the surviving spouses and children
would not receive bills for such services following the deaths of such
veterans who were in the hospice program. Unfortunately, last year's
legislation did not go far enough, and today some veterans' families
are still paying for this care. This provision would end that practice
in all hospice care settings.
Section 3 of the bill would exempt former Prisoners of War from
copayments that are applicable to care in a VA extended care facility.
Congress has already exempted this deserving group of veterans from
other VA medical copayments, and this provision would complete the
range of services available to these veterans free of charge. In
addition, this section bill would remove the requirement that VA
maintain the exact number of nursing home care beds in VA facilities as
it had during fiscal year 1998. Now before some suggest that I am
advocating the reduction in services available to veterans, I'd like to
explain how the current requirement came about and why I believe it
should be reconsidered.
The requirement that VA maintain a specified level of nursing home
beds was inserted into the law in 1999 when Congress enacted
legislation to expand options for non-institutional, long-term care
services available to veterans. At that time, some felt that by growing
the non-institutional care program, VA would seek simply to shut all of
its institutional care capacity. So in a compromise, Congress decided
that fiscal year 1998 would be the year against which changes in the
institutional care program would be measured. And then it required that
VA maintain all of the beds it had in 1998.
Since 1998, VA has increased the number of veterans it treats by
nearly 2 million. Yet, year after year, VA reports to Congress that it
does not need to maintain the number of nursing home beds required by
law. Does that mean VA is closing beds unnecessarily? No. It means VA
has followed the progress of medicine and is offering tens-of-thousands
of veterans non-institutional care services while keeping them at home
rather than in VA nursing home beds. I do not believe that Congress
should continue to mandate the maintenance of an arbitrarily-determined
number of beds in a system that is trying to effectively use every
dollar it can to provide real and needed services to our veterans. This
provision reflects that belief.
The fourth section of the legislation, if enacted, would ensure that
veterans who seek emergency medical services at the nearby community
medical facilities are treated no differently financially than if the
care had been provided at a VA medical facility. This is an important
issue in the provision of quality health care for our veterans. VA has
some evidence that veterans who need emergency services are bypassing
local medical facilities, and are attempting to ``make it'' to a VA
facility even in the face of an emergency, because of concerns that
VA's reimbursement policies for non-VA provided emergency care will
result in the veteran paying more out-of-pocket costs. Clearly, that is
not the kind of behavior Congress wants to encourage in our veterans.
Nor is it good medicine. This provision would clarify once and for all
that veterans will be treated equally regardless of where emergency
care treatment is sought.
Section 5 of the bill would authorize VA to provide or pay for up to
the first fourteen days of care for a newborn child of an enrolled
female veteran who delivers her baby under VA provided, or VA financed,
care. As most of my colleagues know, VA provides what it calls a
``comprehensive package of health benefits for eligible veterans.''
Unfortunately, for the increasing number of female veterans enrolling
for VA care, the word ``comprehensive'' does not include coverage for a
newborn's first few days of needed care. This type of arrangement is
common in the private sector. In my judgment, this is an issue we must
address to assure our female service members that, as more and more of
them join the service and change the face of the American military, we
will make certain that the face of VA changes right along with it.
Section 6 would allow private health care providers to recoup costs
for care provided to children afflicted with spina bifida of Vietnam
veterans--children who are, by law, entitled to VA-provided care--when
the costs are not fully covered by VA reimbursements. This so-called
``balance billing'' authority would prohibit charging individual
patients or veterans themselves. Only a beneficiary with private
insurance could have his or her insurance cover charges not covered by
VA. This provision is important because it will provide a financial
incentive to many providers who, unfortunately in some cases today, are
not willing to provide the very specialized services needed by these
children because some costs are not reimbursed by VA at a sufficient
rate.
Section 7 of this bill would increase the authorized level of funding
for the Homeless Grant and Per Diem Program at the Department of
Veterans Affairs. I know all of my colleagues would agree that any man
or woman who served this country in uniform should not be among the
unfortunate Americans who find themselves on the street without
shelter. VA has made tremendous strides in this area by providing grant
programs, health care services, mental health treatment, and other
assistance to those veterans who do find themselves on the street. This
provision would ensure that good programs remain on track for the
foreseeable future.
The eighth section of this bill would authorize VA medical centers to
employ Marriage and Family Therapists. I realize that to some of my
colleagues
[[Page 11727]]
this may sound as though VA is beginning to become a family health care
system and not a veterans' health care system. I want to assure any who
harbor such concerns that this is not the intention or the purpose of
this proposed authority. Rather, this proposal seeks to recognize that
for some veterans, the trauma and experiences of war may lead to
troubles at home. Often in these situations, treatment as a family is
more effective for the betterment of the veteran. Of course,
preservation of the family is an extremely important byproduct of this
treatment approach as well. I do not believe it is incompatible with
the mission of treating our veterans to focus on their family well-
being when it is appropriate. The military is offering many of these
services already to those who are returning from overseas. These
programs are receiving good reviews from those in the mental health and
counseling professions. It seems only logical that we extend successful
ideas from the military experience to our veterans.
Section 9 would provide pay equity for the national Director of VA's
Nursing Service. Currently, this position is paid at a rate that is
less than all of the other service chiefs at VA's Central Office. I
believe correcting this inequity is not only a matter of fairness, but
a long overdue recognition that VA's nursing service is just as
important to the provision of health services for our veterans as the
pharmacy service, the dental service, and other such services within
VA.
Section 10 of this bill would allow VA to conduct cost-comparison
studies within its health care system. Mr. President, such studies are
invaluable tools for government to measure whether its current
workforce has identified the most efficient and effective means of
delivering services to our veterans, and value to the taxpayers. In my
opinion, any organization that fails to measure its performance against
others in the same field will quickly cease to be an effective
organization. VA is--and it must continue to be--an effective and
efficient health care provider. This small change in the law will
provide one additional tool to ensure that is the case far into the
future.
Section 11 of my legislation would focus on an area of great
importance to many members of the Senate: The treatment of mental
health issues for those returning from service in Operations Iraqi
Freedom and Enduring Freedom. I know many of us have read reports that
estimate that as many as 20 percent of those serving overseas will need
some mental health care services to cope with the stress of serving in
a war zone. First, I want to say to my colleagues that the Department
of Veterans Affairs already has in place numerous programs and services
to respond to the needs of those veterans seeking care for mental
health issues. Still, as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I
believe it is important that we assure our brave servicemen and women,
and the American people, that we are not satisfied with merely
maintaining VA's ability to provide mental health services. Rather, we
must assure that VA continues to improve and expand the treatment
options available.
This section of the bill would authorize $95 million in both fiscal
years 2006 and 2007 to improve and expand the mental health services
available to our Nation's veterans. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
would be required to devote specific resources to certain important
areas of treatment including, but not limited to $5 million to expand
the number of clinical teams devoted to the treatment of Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder; $50 million to expand the services available to
diagnose and treat veterans with substance abuse problems; $10 million
to expand tele-health capabilities in areas of the country where access
to basic mental health services is nearly impossible; $1 million to
improve educational programs available for primary care providers to
learn more about diagnosing and treating veterans with mental illness;
$20 million to expand the number of community-based outpatient clinics
with mental health services; and $5 million to expand VA's Mental
Health Intensive Case Management Teams.
I want to make it clear to my colleagues that I am taking this
approach because I am concerned about the availability of these
services as much as anyone in the Senate. But, I am also concerned
about recent moves to ``micro-manage'' the VA health care system by
requiring, for example, that certain percentages of VA's budget be
spent on one service or another, or that every VA facility have some
certain clinical service available. These approaches, while well-
intentioned, run the risk of diverting important resources away from
services that are extremely important to our veterans. My approach is
to put Congress on record as expecting improvements and expansion in
certain important programs, attaching a reasonable amount of money to
those efforts, and then monitoring the progress closely from the
Veterans' Committee.
Section 12 addresses a point of legal contention that has restricted
the sharing of medical information between the Department of Defense
and VA. As a result, record transfers for patients who would be VA
patients are not arriving in VA hands as quickly and as seamlessly as
they should. This provision would make clear that DoD and VA may
exchange health records information for the purpose of providing health
care to beneficiaries of one system who seek to quickly move to the
other for services.
Section 13 of the bill would direct VA to expand the number VA
employees dedicated to serving the Veterans Readjustment Counseling
Service's Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) Outreach Program. The
Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing earlier this year at
which two GWOT counselors testified on the numerous services their
program provides to returning service members, specifically Guardsmen
and Reservists coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. In many cases,
these GWOT counselors are the first VA officials to welcome home our
troops at the airport, provide them with their first briefing on VA
benefits and services, and steer those in need to counseling services
and health care centers. This is a creative, vibrant program with only
50 employees that is just now beginning to reach its peak effect on
returning combat veterans. I believe VA should expand its efforts in
this area to ensure we are reaching everyone we can.
Section 14 of this bill would require VA to expand the number of Vet
Centers capable of providing tele-health services and counseling to
veterans returning from combat. Currently there are 21 Vet Center
facilities that maintain this capability. And while that is a laudable
effort, I believe we can do better. Tele-medicine offers a tremendous
opportunity to bring many health services, particularly mental health
services, to veterans who reside in areas of the country where those
services would not otherwise be available. Practitioners are showing
great results with tele-health services for mental health treatment,
and our veterans are getting the services they need, closer to home, in
a more timely fashion. Expansion of such success only seems logical.
Finally, section 15 of this bill would require the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to submit a report on all of the mental health data
maintained by VA, including the actual geographic locations of
collection and whether all of these points of data should continue to
be collected.
Over the next several weeks, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will
be taking testimony on this bill and other legislation introduced by
Senators to improve the range of services and benefits available to our
Nation's veterans. I look forward to working with my colleagues
throughout the rest of this session of Congress on these and other
important efforts.
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. 1182
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page 11728]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES TO TITLE 38, UNITED STATES
CODE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans
Health Care Act of 2005''.
(b) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided,
whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in
terms of an amendment or repeal to a section or other
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of title 38, United States Code.
SEC. 2. COPAYMENT EXEMPTION FOR HOSPICE CARE.
Section 1710 is amended--
(1) in subsection (f)(1), by inserting ``(other than
hospice care)'' after ``nursing home care''; and
(2) in subsection (g)(1), by inserting ``(other than
hospice care)'' after ``medical services''.
SEC. 3. NURSING HOME BED LEVELS; EXEMPTION FROM EXTENDED CARE
SERVICES COPAYMENTS FOR FORMER POWS.
Section 1710B is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (b);
(2) by redesignating subsections (c) through (e) as
subsections (b) through (d), respectively; and.
(3) in subsection (b)(2), as redesignated--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as
subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) to a veteran who is a former prisoner of war;''.
SEC. 4. REIMBURSEMENT FOR CERTAIN VETERANS' OUTSTANDING
EMERGENCY TREATMENT EXPENSES.
(a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 17 is amended
by inserting after section 1725 the following:
``Sec. 1725A. Reimbursement for emergency treatment expenses
for which certain veterans remain personally liable
``(a)(1) Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary may
reimburse a veteran described in subsection (b) for expenses
resulting from emergency treatment furnished to the veteran
in a non-Department facility for which the veteran remains
personally liable.
``(2) In any case in which reimbursement is authorized
under subsection (a)(1), the Secretary, in the Secretary's
discretion, may, in lieu of reimbursing the veteran, make
payment--
``(A) to a hospital or other health care provider that
furnished the treatment; or
``(B) to the person or organization that paid for such
treatment on behalf of the veteran.
``(b) A veteran referred to in subsection (a) is an
individual who--
``(1) is enrolled in the health care system established
under section 1705(a) of this title;
``(2) received care under this chapter during the 24-month
period preceding the furnishing of such emergency treatment;
``(3) is entitled to care or services under a health-plan
contract that partially reimburses the cost of the veteran's
emergency treatment;
``(4) is financially liable to the provider of emergency
care treatment for costs not covered by the veteran's health-
plan contract, including copayments and deductibles; and
``(5) is not eligible for reimbursement for medical care or
services under section 1725 or 1728 of this title.
``(c)(1) Any amount paid by the Secretary under subsection
(a) shall exclude the amount of any payment the veteran would
have been required to make to the United States under this
chapter if the veteran had received the emergency treatment
from the Department.
``(2) The Secretary may not provide reimbursement under
this section with respect to any item or service--
``(A) provided or for which payment has been made, or can
reasonably be expected to be made, under the veteran's
health-plan contract; or
``(B) for which payment has been made or can reasonably be
expected to be made by a third party.
``(3)(A) Payment by the Secretary under this section on
behalf of a veteran to a provider of emergency treatment
shall, unless rejected and refunded by the provider within 30
days of receipt, extinguish any liability on the part of the
veteran for that treatment.
``(B) The absence of a contract or agreement between the
Secretary and the provider, any provision of a contract or
agreement, or an assignment to the contrary shall not operate
to modify, limit, or negate the requirement under
subparagraph (A).
``(4) In accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Secretary, the Secretary shall--
``(A) establish criteria for determining the amount of
reimbursement (which may include a maximum amount) payable
under this section; and
``(B) delineate the circumstances under which such payment
may be made, including requirements for requesting
reimbursement.
``(d)(1) In accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Secretary, the United States shall have the independent right
to recover any amount paid under this section if, and to the
extent that, a third party subsequently makes a payment for
the same emergency treatment.
``(2) Any amount paid by the United States to the veteran,
the veteran's personal representative, successor, dependents,
or survivors, or to any other person or organization paying
for such treatment shall constitute a lien in favor of the
United States against any recovery the payee subsequently
receives from a third party for the same treatment.
``(3) Any amount paid by the United States to the provider
that furnished the veteran's emergency treatment shall
constitute a lien against any subsequent amount the provider
receives from a third party for the same emergency treatment
for which the United States made payment.
``(4) The veteran or the veteran's personal representative,
successor, dependents, or survivors shall--
``(A) ensure that the Secretary is promptly notified of any
payment received from any third party for emergency treatment
furnished to the veteran;
``(B) immediately forward all documents relating to a
payment described in subparagraph (A);
``(C) cooperate with the Secretary in an investigation of a
payment described in subparagraph (A); and
``(D) assist the Secretary in enforcing the United States
right to recover any payment made under subsection (c)(3).
``(e) The Secretary may waive recovery of a payment made to
a veteran under this section that is otherwise required under
subsection (d)(1) if the Secretary determines that such
waiver would be in the best interest of the United States, as
defined by regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
``(f) For purposes of this section--
``(1) the term `health-plan contract' includes--
``(A) an insurance policy or contract, medical or hospital
service agreement, membership or subscription contract, or
similar arrangement, under which health services for
individuals are provided or the expenses of such services are
paid;
``(B) an insurance program described in section 1811 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c) or established by
section 1831 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 1395j);
``(C) a State plan for medical assistance approved under
title XIX of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.); and
``(D) a workers' compensation law or plan described in
section 1729(A)(2)(B) of this title;
``(2) the term `third party' means--
``(A) a Federal entity;
``(B) a State or political subdivision of a State;
``(C) an employer or an employer's insurance carrier; and
``(D) a person or entity obligated to provide, or pay the
expenses of, such emergency treatment; and
``(3) the term `emergency treatment' has the meaning given
such term in section 1725 of this title.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 17 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 1725 the following:
``Sec. 1725A. Reimbursement for emergency treatment expenses for which
certain veterans remain personally liable.''.
SEC. 5. CARE FOR NEWBORN CHILDREN OF WOMEN VETERANS RECEIVING
MATERNITY CARE .
(a) In General.--Subchapter VIII of chapter 17 is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1786. Care for newborn children of women veterans
receiving maternity care
``The Secretary may furnish care to a newborn child of a
woman veteran, who is receiving maternity care furnished by
the Department, for not more than 14 days after the birth of
the child if the veteran delivered the child in a Department
facility or in another facility pursuant to a Department
contract for the delivery services.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 17 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 1785 the following:
``Sec. 1786. Care for newborn children of women veterans receiving
maternity care.''.
SEC. 6. ENHANCEMENT OF PAYER PROVISIONS FOR HEALTH CARE
FURNISHED TO CERTAIN CHILDREN OF VIETNAM
VETERANS.
(a) Health Care for Spina Bifida and Associated
Disabilities.--Section 1803 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c)(1) If a payment made by the Secretary for health care
under this section is less than the amount billed for such
health care, the health care provider or agent of the health
care provider may, in accordance with paragraphs (2) through
(4), seek payment for the difference between the amount
billed and the amount paid by the Secretary from a
responsible third party to the extent that the provider or
agent would be eligible to receive payment for such health
care from such third party.
``(2) The health care provider or agent may not impose any
additional charge on the beneficiary who received the health
care, or the family of such beneficiary, for any service or
item for which the Secretary has made payment under this
section;
[[Page 11729]]
``(3) The total amount of payment a health care provider or
agent may receive for health care furnished under this
section may not exceed the amount billed to the Secretary.
``(4) The Secretary, upon request, shall disclose to such
third party information received for the purposes of carrying
out this section.''.
(b) Health Care for Birth Defects and Associated
Disabilities.--Section 1813 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c)(1) If payment made by the Secretary for health care
under this section is less than the amount billed for such
health care, the health care provider or agent of the health
care provider may, in accordance with paragraphs (2) through
(4), seek payment for the difference between the amount
billed and the amount paid by the Secretary from a
responsible third party to the extent that the provider or
agent would be eligible to receive payment for such health
care from such third party.
``(2) The health care provider or agent may not impose any
additional charge on the beneficiary who received health
care, or the family of such beneficiary, for any service or
item for which the Secretary has made payment under this
section;
``(3) The total amount of payment a health care provider or
agent may receive for health care furnished under this
section may not exceed the amount billed to the Secretary;
and
``(4) The Secretary, upon request, shall disclose to such
third party information received for the purposes of carrying
out this section.''.
SEC. 7. IMPROVEMENTS TO HOMELESS PROVIDERS GRANT AND PER DIEM
PROGRAM.
(a) Permanent Authority.--Section 2011 (a) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1)''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2).
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 2013 is
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2013. Authorization of appropriations
``There are authorized to be appropriated $130,000,000 for
fiscal year 2006 and each subsequent fiscal year to carry out
this subchapter.''.
SEC. 8. MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS.
(a) Qualifications.--Section 7402(b) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph (11); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
``(10) Marriage and family therapist.--To be eligible to be
appointed to a marriage and family therapist position, a
person must--
``(A) hold a master's degree in marriage and family
therapy, or a comparable degree in mental health, from a
college or university approved by the Secretary; and
``(B) be licensed or certified to independently practice
marriage and family therapy in a State, except that the
Secretary may waive the requirement of licensure or
certification for an individual marriage and family therapist
for a reasonable period of time recommended by the Under
Secretary for Health.''.
(b) Report on Marriage and Family Therapy Workload.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary for Health,
Department of Veterans Affairs, shall submit to the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on
the provisions of post-traumatic stress disorder treatment by
marriage and family therapists.
(2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include--
(A) the actual and projected workloads in facilities of the
Veterans Readjustment Counseling Service and the Veterans
Health Administration for the provision of marriage and
family counseling for veterans diagnosed with, or otherwise
in need of treatment for, post-traumatic stress disorder;
(B) the resources available and needed to support the
workload projections described in subparagraph (A);
(C) an assessment by the Under Secretary for Health of the
effectiveness of treatment by marriage and family therapists;
and
(D) recommendations, if any, for improvements in the
provision of such counseling treatment.
SEC. 9. PAY COMPARABILITY FOR CHIEF NURSING OFFICER, OFFICE
OF NURSING SERVICES.
Section 7404 is amended--
(1) in subsection (d), by striking ``subchapter III'' and
inserting ``paragraph (e), subchapter III,''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) The position of Chief Nursing Officer, Office of
Nursing Services, shall be exempt from the provisions of
section 7451 of this title and shall be paid at a rate not to
exceed the maximum rate established for the Senior Executive
Service under section 5382 of title 5 United States Code, as
determined by the Secretary.''.
SEC. 10. REPEAL OF COST COMPARISON STUDIES PROHIBITION.
Section 8110(a) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (5); and
(2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (5).
SEC. 11. IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION OF MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans affairs shall--
(1) expand the number of clinical treatment teams
principally dedicated to the treatment of post-traumatic
stress disorder in medical facilities of the Department of
Veterans Affairs;
(2) expand and improve the services available to diagnose
and treat substance abuse;
(3) expand and improve tele-health initiatives to provide
better access to mental health services in areas of the
country in which the Secretary determines that a need for
such services exist due to the distance of such locations
from an appropriate facility of the Department of Veterans
Affairs;
(4) improve education programs available to primary care
delivery professionals and dedicate such programs to
recognize, treat, and clinically manage veterans with mental
health care needs;
(5) expand the delivery of mental health services in
community-based outpatient clinics of the Department of
Veterans Affairs in which such services are not available as
of the date of enactment of this Act; and
(6) expand and improve the Mental Health Intensive Case
Management Teams for the treatment and clinical case
management of veterans with serious or chronic mental
illness.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated in each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007,
$95,000,000 to improve and expand the treatment services and
options available to veterans in need of mental health
treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs, of which--
(1) $5,000,000 shall be allocated to carry out subsection
(a)(1);
(2) $50,000,000 shall be allocated to carry out subsection
(a)(2);
(3) $10,000,000 shall be allocated to carry out subsection
(a)(3);
(4) $1,000,000 shall be allocated to carry out subsection
(a)(4);
(5) $20,000,000 shall be allocated to carry out subsection
(a)(5); and
(6) $5,000,000 shall be allocated to carry out subsection
(a)(6).
SEC. 12. DATA SHARING IMPROVEMENTS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department
of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense may
exchange protected health information for--
(1) patients receiving treatment from the Department of
Veterans Affairs; or
(2) individuals who may receive treatment from the
Department of Veterans Affairs in the future, including all
current and former members of the Armed Services.
SEC. 13. EXPANSION OF NATIONAL GUARD OUTREACH PROGRAM.
(a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
expand the total number of personal employed by the
Department of Veterans Affairs as part of the Readjustment
Counseling Service's Global War on Terrorism Outreach Program
(referred to in this section as the ``Program'').
(b) Coordination.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall coordinate participation in the Program by
appropriate employees of the Veterans Benefits Administration
and the Veterans Health Administration.
(c) Information and Assessments.--The Secretary shall
ensure that--
(1) all appropriate health, education, and benefits
information is available to returning members of the National
Guard; and
(2) proper assessments of the needs in each of these areas
is made by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
(d) Collaboration.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
collaborate with appropriate State National Guard officials
and provide such officials with any assets or services of the
Department of Veterans Affairs that the Secretary determines
to be necessary to carry out the Global War on Terrorism
Outreach Program.
SEC. 14. EXPANSION OF TELE-HEALTH SERVICES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall increase the number of
Veterans Readjustment Counseling Service facilities capable
of providing health services and counseling through tele-
health linkages with facilities of the Veterans Health
Administration.
(b) Plan.--The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives a plan to
implement the requirement under subsection (a), which shall
describe the facilities that will have such capabilities at
the end of each of fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007.
SEC. 15. MENTAL HEALTH DATA SOURCES REPORT.
(a) In General.--Not less than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall submit a report to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the
House of Representatives describing the mental health data
maintained by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
(b) Contents.--The report submitted under subsection (a)
shall include--
[[Page 11730]]
(1) a comprehensive list of the sources of all such data,
including the geographic locations of facilities of the
Department of Veterans Affairs maintaining such data;
(2) an assessment of the limitations or advantages to
maintaining the current data configuration and locations; and
(3) any recommendations, if any, for improving the
collection, use, and location of mental health data
maintained by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
______
By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Roberts, Ms.
Stabenow, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Allen):
S. 1183. A bill to provide additional assistance to recipients of
Federal Pell Grants who are pursuing programs of study in engineering,
mathematics, science, or foreign languages; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important
bill related to education and our national, homeland, and economic
security. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort with
Senators Lieberman, Roberts, Stabenow, Allen, and Durbin. I am grateful
to each of them for working closely with me in crafting this
legislation.
Our ability to remain ahead of the curve in scientific and
technological advancements is a key component to ensuring America's
national, homeland and economic security in the post 9/11 world of
global terrorism. Yet alarmingly, the bottom line is that America faces
a huge shortage of home-grown, highly trained scientific minds.
The situation America faces today is not unlike almost fifty years
ago. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the
first man-made satellite into space, Sputnik. The launch shocked
America, as many of us had just assumed that we were preeminent in the
scientific fields. While prior to that unforgettable day America
enjoyed an air of post World War II invincibility, afterwards our
nation recognized that there was a cost to its complacency. We had
fallen behind.
In the months and years to follow, we would respond with massive
investments in science, technology and engineering. In 1958, Congress
passed the National Defense Education Act to stimulate advancement in
science and math education. In addition, President Eisenhower signed
into law legislation that established the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA). And a few years later, in 1961, President
Kennedy set the Nation's goal of landing a man on the moon within the
decade.
These investments paid off. In the years following the Sputnik
launch, America not only closed the scientific and technological gap
with the Soviet Union, we surpassed them. Our renewed commitment to
science and technology not only enabled us to safely land a man on the
moon in 1969, it spurred research and development which helped ensure
that our modern military has always had the best equipment and
technology in the world. These post-Sputnik investments also laid the
foundation for the creation of some of the most significant
technologies of modern life, including personal computers and the
Internet.
Why is any of this important to us today? Because as the old saying
goes--he or she who fails to remember history is bound to repeat it.
The truth of the matter is that today, America's education system is
coming up short in training the highly technical American minds that we
now need and will continue to need far into the future.
The 2003 Program for International Student Assessment found that the
math, problem solving, and science skills of fifteen year old students
in the United States were below average when compared to their
international counterparts in industrialized countries.
While slightly better news was presented by the recently released
2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), it
is still nothing we should cheer about. TIMSS showed that eighth grade
students in the U.S. had lower average math scores than fifteen other
participating countries. U.S. science scores weren't much better.
Our colleges and universities are not immune to the waning
achievement in math and science education. The National Science
Foundation reports the percentage of bachelor degrees in science and
engineering have been declining in the U.S. for nearly two decades. In
fact, the proportion of college-age students earning degrees in math,
science, and engineering was substantially higher in 16 countries in
Asia and Europe than it was in the United States.
In the past, this country has been able to compensate for its
shortfall in homegrown, highly trained, technical and scientific talent
by importing the necessary brain power from foreign countries. However,
with increased global competition, this is becoming harder and harder.
More and more of our imported brain power is returning home to their
native countries. And regrettably, as they return home, many American
high tech jobs are being outsourced with them.
The effects of these educational trends are already being felt in
various important ways. For example: according to the National Science
Board, by 2010, if current trends continue, significantly less than 10
percent of all physical scientists and engineers in the world will be
working in America. The American Physical Society reports that the
proportion of articles by American authors in the Physical Review, one
of the most important research journals in the world, has hit an all
time low of 29 percent, down from 61 percent in 1983. And the U.S.
production of patents, probably the most direct link between research
and economic benefit, has declined steadily relative to the rest of the
world for decades, and now stands at only 52 percent of the total.
Fortunately, we already have an existing Federal program up and
running that, if modified, can help. Under current law, the $14 billion
a year Pell Grant program awards recipients grants regardless of the
course of study that the recipient chooses to pursue. So, under current
law, two people from the same financial background are eligible for the
same grant even though one chooses to major in the liberal arts while
the other majors in engineering or science.
While I believe studying the liberal arts is an important component
to having an enlightened citizenry, I also believe that given the
unique challenges we are facing in this country, it is appropriate for
us to add an incentive to the Pell Grant program to encourage
individuals to pursue courses of study where graduates are needed to
meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs.
That is why today I am introducing this legislation. The legislation
is simple. It provides that at least every two years, our Secretary of
Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary
of Homeland Security, and others, should provide a list of courses of
study where America needs home-grown talent to meet our national,
homeland, and economic security needs. Those students who pursue
courses of study in these programs will be rewarded with a doubling of
their Pell Grant to help them with the costs associated with obtaining
their education.
We in the Congress have an obligation when expending taxpayer money,
to do so in a manner that meets our nation's needs. Our Nation
desperately needs more highly trained domestic workers. That is an
indisputable fact. And, in the Pell Grant program, we have
approximately $14 billion that is readily available to help meet this
demand.
In closing, our world is vastly different today than it was when the
Pell Grant program was created in 1972. My legislation is a common-
sense modification of the Pell Grant program that will help America
meet its new challenges. I hope my colleagues will join me in this
endeavor.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1183
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page 11731]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``21st Century Federal Pell
Grant Plus Act''.
SEC. 2. RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL PELL GRANTS WHO ARE PURSUING
PROGRAMS OF STUDY IN ENGINEERING, MATHEMATICS,
SCIENCE, OR FOREIGN LANGUAGES.
Section 401(b)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1070a(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(C)(i) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A) and subject to
clause (iii), in the case of a student who is eligible under
this part and who is pursuing a degree with a major in, or a
certificate or program of study relating to, engineering,
mathematics, science (such as physics, chemistry, or computer
science), or a foreign language, described in a list
developed or updated under clause (ii), the amount of the
Federal Pell Grant shall be the amount calculated for the
student under subparagraph (A) for the academic year
involved, multiplied by 2.
``(ii)(I) The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary
of Defense, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security, and the Director of the National Science
Foundation, shall develop, update not less often than once
every 2 years, and publish in the Federal Register, a list of
engineering, mathematics, and science degrees, majors,
certificates, or programs that if pursued by a student, may
enable the student to receive the increased Federal Pell
Grant amount under clause (i). In developing and updating the
list the Secretaries and Director shall consider the
following:
``(aa) The current engineering, mathematics, and science
needs of the United States with respect to national security,
homeland security, and economic security.
``(bb) Whether institutions of higher education in the
United States are currently producing enough graduates with
degrees to meet the national security, homeland security, and
economic security needs of the United States.
``(cc) The future expected workforce needs of the United
States required to help ensure the Nation's national
security, homeland security, and economic security.
``(dd) Whether institutions of higher education in the
United States are expected to produce enough graduates with
degrees to meet the future national security, homeland
security, and economic security needs of the United States.
``(II) The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security, and the Secretary of State, shall develop, update
not less often than once every 2 years, and publish in the
Federal Register, a list of foreign language degrees, majors,
certificates, or programs that if pursued by a student, may
enable the student to receive the increased Federal Pell
Grant amount under clause (i). In developing and updating the
list the Secretaries shall consider the following:
``(aa) The foreign language needs of the United States with
respect to national security, homeland security, and economic
security.
``(bb) Whether institutions of higher education in the
United States are currently producing enough graduates with
degrees to meet the national security, homeland security, and
economic security needs of the United States.
``(cc) The future expected workforce needs of the United
States required to help ensure the Nation's national
security, homeland security, and economic security.
``(dd) Whether institutions of higher education in the
United States are expected to produce enough graduates with
degrees to meet the future national security, homeland
security, and economic security needs of the United States.
``(iii) Each student who received an increased Federal Pell
Grant amount under clause (i) to pursue a degree, major,
certificate, or program described in a list published under
subclause (I) or (II) of clause (ii) shall continue to be
eligible for the increased Federal Pell Grant amount in
subsequent academic years if the degree, major, certificate,
or program, respectively, is subsequently removed from the
list.
``(iv)(I) If a student who received an increased Federal
Pell Grant amount under clause (i) changes the student's
course of study to a degree, major, certificate, or program
that is not included in a list described in clause (ii), then
the Secretary shall reduce the amount of Federal Pell Grant
assistance the student is eligible to receive under this
section for subsequent academic years by an amount equal to
the difference between the total amount the student received
under this subparagraph and the total amount the student
would have received under this section if this subparagraph
had not been applied.
``(II) The Secretary shall reduce the amount of Federal
Pell Grant assistance the student is eligible to receive in
subsequent academic years by dividing the total amount to be
reduced under subclause (I) for the student by the number of
years the student received an increased Federal Pell Grant
amount under clause (i), and deducting the result from the
amount of Federal Pell Grant assistance the student is
eligible to receive under this section for a number of
subsequent academic years equal to the number of academic
years the student received an increased Federal Pell Grant
amount under clause (i).''.
______
By Mr. BIDEN:
S. 1184. A bill to waive the passport fees for a relative of a
deceased member of the Armed Forces proceeding abroad to visit the
grave of such member or to attend a funeral or memorial service for
such member; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to remedy a small
gap in our passport laws. The change that I propose could be important
to family members of servicemembers who lose their lives in service of
their country.
Under current law, the State Department may not charge a fee to issue
a passport to relatives of a deceased member of the Armed Forces who
are proceeding abroad to visit the grave of such a member. But the law
as applied requires that the family be visiting an official gravesite
overseas.
The law does not, however, allow the waiver of passport fees if the
family is attending a funeral or memorial service for a servicemember
killed in action, but who is buried or memorialized overseas. The need
for such a waiver probably does not occur often, but it happens. Last
year, a servicemember from my home State of Delaware was killed in
action in Iraq. The servicemember was stationed in Germany and his wife
was German. She wished for him to be buried in Germany. So all of his
relatives in the United States needed to travel quickly, and many of
them did not have passports. At a time of such grieving for a lost
servicemember, the family of the fallen hero should not have to worry
about paying passport fees, which can add up quickly for a family,
Waiving the fee in such cases is the least that we can do.
I hope we can approve such a minor change in the law quickly. I urge
my colleagues to support this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed at this
point in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1184
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PASSPORT FEES.
Section 1 of the Act of June 4, 1920 (41 Stat. 750, chapter
223; 22 U.S.C. 214) is amended in the third sentence by
striking ``or from a widow, child, parent, brother, or sister
of a deceased member of the Armed Forces proceeding abroad to
visit the grave of such member'' and inserting ``or from a
widow, widower, child, parent, grandparent, brother, or
sister of a deceased member of the Armed Forces proceeding
abroad to visit the grave of such member or to attend a
funeral or memorial service for such member''.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Cochran, Mr.
Allard, and Mr. Coleman):
S. 1186. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
the same capital gains treatment for art and collectibles as for other
investment property and to provide that a deduction equal to fair
market value shall be allowed for charitable contributions of literary,
musical, artistic, or scholarly compositions created by the donor; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce again
legislation to eliminate one of the great inconsistencies in the
Internal Revenue Code.
The bill I am introducing today with Senator Schumer is designed to
restore some internal consistency to the tax code as it applies to art
and artists. No one has ever said that the tax code is fair even though
it has always been a theoretical objective of the code to treat similar
taxpayers similarly.
The bill I am introducing today would address two areas where
similarly situated taxpayers are not treated the same.
Internal inconsistency number one deals with the long-term capital
gains tax treatment of investments in art and collectibles. If a person
invests in stocks or bonds and sells at a gain, the tax treatment is
long term capital gains. The top capital gains tax rate is 15 percent.
However, if the same person invests in art or collectibles the top rate
is hiked up to 28 percent. Art for art's sake should not incur a higher
tax rate simply for revenue's sake. That is
[[Page 11732]]
a big impact on the pocketbook of the beholder.
Art and collectibles are alternatives to financial instruments as an
investment choice. To create a tax disadvantage with respect to one
investment compared to another creates an artificial market and may
lead to poor investment allocations. It also adversely impacts those
who make their livelihood in the cultural sectors of the economy.
Santa Fe, NM, is the third largest art market in the country. We have
a diverse colony of artists, collectors and gallery owners. We have
fabulous Native American rug weavers, potters and carvers. Creative
giants like Georgia O'Keeffe, Maria Martinez, E.L. Blumenshein, Allan
Houser, R.C. Gorman, and Glenna Goodacre have all chosen New Mexico as
their home and as their artistic subject. John Nieto, Wilson Hurley,
Clark Hulings, Veryl Goodnight, Bill Acheff, Susan Rothenberg, Bruce
Nauman, Agnes Martin, Doug Hyde, Margaret Nez, and Dan Ostermiller are
additional examples of living artists creating art in New Mexico.
Art, antiques, and collectibles are a $12 to $20 billion annual
industry nationwide. In New Mexico, it has been estimated that art and
collectible sales range between $500 million and one billion a year.
Economists have always been interested in the economics of the arts.
Adam Smith is a well-known economist. He was also a serious, but
little-known essayist on painting, dancing, and poetry. Similarly,
Keynes was both a famous economist and a passionate devotee of
painting. However, even artistically inclined economists have found it
difficult to define art within the context of economic theory.
When asked to define jazz, Louis Armstrong replied: ``If you gotta
ask, you ain't never going to know.'' A similar conundrum has
challenged Galbraith and other economists who have grappled with the
definitional issues associated with bringing art within the economic
calculus. Original art objects are, as a commodity group, characterized
by a set of attributes: every unit of output is differentiated from
every other unit of output; art works can be copied but not reproduced;
and the cultural capital of the nation has significant elements of
public good.
Because art works can be resold, and their prices may rise over time,
they have the characteristics of financial assets, and as such may be
sought as a hedge against inflation, as a store of wealth, or as a
source of speculative capital gain. A study by Keishiro Matsumoto,
Samuel Andoh and James P. Hoban, Jr. assessed the risk-adjusted rates
of return on art sold at Sotheby's during the 14-year period ending
September 30, 1989. They concluded that art was a good investment in
terms of average real rates of return. Several studies found that rates
of return from the price appreciation on paintings, comic books,
collectibles and modern prints usually made them very attractive long-
term investments. Also, when William Goetzmann was at the Columbia
Business School, he constructed an art index and concluded that
painting price movements and stock market fluctuations are correlated.
I conclude that with art, as well as stocks, past performance is no
guarantee of future returns, but the gains should be taxed the same.
In 1990, the editor of Art and Auction asked the question: ``Is there
an `efficient' art market?'' A well-known art dealer answered
``Definitely not. That's one of the things that makes the market so
interesting.'' For everyone who has been watching world financial
markets lately, the art market may be a welcome distraction.
Why do people invest in art and collectibles? Art and collectibles
are something you can appreciate even if the investment doesn't
appreciate. Art is less volatile. If buoyant and not so buoyant bond
prices drive you berserk and spiraling stock prices scare you, art may
be the appropriate investment for you. Because art and collectibles are
investments, the long-term capital gains tax treatment should be the
same as for stocks and bonds. This bill would accomplish that.
Artists will benefit. Gallery owners will benefit. Collectors will
benefit. And museums benefit from collectors. About 90 percent of what
winds up in museums like New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art comes
from collectors.
Collecting isn't just for the hoity toity. It seems that everyone
collects something. Some collections are better investments than
others. Some collections are just bizarre. The Internet makes
collecting big business, and flea market fanatics are avid collectors.
In fact, people collect the darndest things. Books, duck decoys, chia
pets, snowglobes, thimbles, handcuffs, spectacles, baseball cards, and
guns are a few such ``collectibles.''
For most of these collections, capital gains isn't really an issue,
but you never know. You may find that your collecting passion has
created a tax predicament to phrase it politely. Art and collectibles
are tangible assets. When you sell them, capital gains tax is due on
any appreciation over your purchase price.
The bill provides capital gains tax parity because it lowers the top
capital gains rate from 28 percent to 15 percent.
Internal inconsistency number two deals with the charitable deduction
for artists donating their work to a museum or other charitable cause.
When someone is asked to make a charitable contribution to a museum or
to a fund raising auction, it shouldn't matter whether that person is
an artist or not. Under current law, however, it makes a big
difference. As the law stands now, an artist/creator can only take a
deduction equal to the cost of the art supplies. The bill I am
introducing will allow a fair market deduction for the artist.
It's important to note that this bill includes certain safeguards to
keep the artist from ``painting himself a tax deduction.'' This bill
applies to literary, musical, artistic, and scholarly compositions if
the work was created at least 18 months before the donation was made,
has been appraised, and is related to the purpose or function of the
charitable organization receiving the donation. As with other
charitable contributions, it is limited to 50 percent of adjusted gross
income (AGI). If it is also a capital gain, there is a 30 percent of
AGI limit. I believe these safeguards bring fairness back into the code
and protect the Treasury against any potential abuse.
I hope my colleagues will help me put this internal consistency into
the Internal Revenue Code.
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. 1186
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 ``Art and Collectibles Capital
Gains Tax Treatment Parity Act''.
SEC. 2. CAPITAL GAINS TREATMENT FOR ART AND COLLECTIBLES.
(a) In General.--Section 1(h) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to maximum capital gains rate) is amended
by striking paragraphs (4) and (5) and inserting the
following new paragraphs:
``(4) 28-percent rate gain.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `28-percent rate gain' means the excess
(if any) of--
``(A) section 1202 gain, over
``(B) the sum of--
``(i) the net short-term capital loss, and
``(ii) the amount of long-term capital loss carried under
section 1212(b)(1)(B) to the taxable year.
``(5) Reserved.--.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2004.
SEC. 3. CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF CERTAIN ITEMS CREATED BY
THE TAXPAYER.
(a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 170 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain
contributions of ordinary income and capital gain property)
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Special rule for certain contributions of literary,
musical, artistic, or scholarly compositions.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a qualified artistic
charitable contribution--
[[Page 11733]]
``(i) the amount of such contribution taken into account
under this section shall be the fair market value of the
property contributed (determined at the time of such
contribution), and
``(ii) no reduction in the amount of such contribution
shall be made under paragraph (1).
``(B) Qualified artistic charitable contribution.--For
purposes of this paragraph, the term `qualified artistic
charitable contribution' means a charitable contribution of
any literary, musical, artistic, or scholarly composition, or
similar property, or the copyright thereon (or both), but
only if--
``(i) such property was created by the personal efforts of
the taxpayer making such contribution no less than 18 months
prior to such contribution,
``(ii) the taxpayer--
``(I) has received a qualified appraisal of the fair market
value of such property in accordance with the regulations
under this section, and
``(II) attaches to the taxpayer's income tax return for the
taxable year in which such contribution was made a copy of
such appraisal,
``(iii) the donee is an organization described in
subsection (b)(1)(A),
``(iv) the use of such property by the donee is related to
the purpose or function constituting the basis for the
donee's exemption under section 501 (or, in the case of a
governmental unit, to any purpose or function described under
section 501(c)),
``(v) the taxpayer receives from the donee a written
statement representing that the donee's use of the property
will be in accordance with the provisions of clause (iv), and
``(vi) the written appraisal referred to in clause (ii)
includes evidence of the extent (if any) to which property
created by the personal efforts of the taxpayer and of the
same type as the donated property is or has been--
``(I) owned, maintained, and displayed by organizations
described in subsection (b)(1)(A), and
``(II) sold to or exchanged by persons other than the
taxpayer, donee, or any related person (as defined in section
465(b)(3)(C)).
``(C) Maximum dollar limitation; no carryover of increased
deduction.--The increase in the deduction under this section
by reason of this paragraph for any taxable year--
``(i) shall not exceed the artistic adjusted gross income
of the taxpayer for such taxable year, and
``(ii) shall not be taken into account in determining the
amount which may be carried from such taxable year under
subsection (d).
``(D) Artistic adjusted gross income.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `artistic adjusted gross income' means
that portion of the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for
the taxable year attributable to--
``(i) income from the sale or use of property created by
the personal efforts of the taxpayer which is of the same
type as the donated property, and
``(ii) income from teaching, lecturing, performing, or
similar activity with respect to property described in clause
(i).
``(E) Paragraph not to apply to certain contributions.--
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any charitable
contribution of any letter, memorandum, or similar property
which was written, prepared, or produced by or for an
individual while the individual is an officer or employee of
any person (including any government agency or
instrumentality) unless such letter, memorandum, or similar
property is entirely personal.
``(F) Copyright treated as separate property for partial
interest rule.--In the case of a qualified artistic
charitable contribution, the tangible literary, musical,
artistic, or scholarly composition, or similar property and
the copyright on such work shall be treated as separate
properties for purposes of this paragraph and subsection
(f)(3).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after the date of the
enactment of this Act in taxable years ending after such
date.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Schumer):
S. 1193. A bill to direct the Assistant Secretary of Homeland
Security for the Transportation Security Administration to issue
regulations requiring turbojet aircraft of air carriers to be equipped
with missile defense systems, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Commercial
Airline Missile Defense Act. This legislation is designed to ensure
that our commercial aircraft are protected against the threat posed by
shoulder-fired missiles.
I first introduced this legislation in February 2003 in response to
two separate attacks attributed to al Qaeda terrorists. The first
attack was the attempted shoot down of a U.S. military aircraft in
Saudi Arabia. The second attack was against an Israeli passenger jet in
Kenya. Fortunately, there were no casualties in either case.
But make no mistake, the threat posed by these weapons--also known as
man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS)--is very real. In May 2002,
the FBI said, ``. . . Given al Qaeda's demonstrated objective to target
the U.S. airline industry, its access to U.S. and Russian-made MANPAD
systems, and recent apparent targeting of U.S.-led military forces in
Saudi Arabia, law enforcement agencies in the United States should
remain alert to the potential use of MANPADS against U. S. aircraft.''
In February 2004, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency,
Admiral Lowell Jacoby, testified before the Senate Intelligence
Committee on current and projected national security threats. He stated
the following: ``A MANPAD attack against civilian aircraft would
produce large number of casualties, international publicity and a
significant economic impact on aviation. These systems are highly
portable, easy to conceal, inexpensive, available in the global weapons
market and instruction manuals are on the internet. Commercial aircraft
are not equipped with countermeasures and commercial pilots are not
trained in evasive measures. An attack could occur with little or no
warning. Terrorists may attempt to capitalize on these
vulnerabilities.''
It is estimated that there are between 300,000 and one million
shoulder-fired missiles in the world today--thousands are thought to be
in the hands of terrorist and other non-state entities.
Since I first introduced my legislation in 2003, progress has been
made in adapting countermeasures now being used by the military for use
on commercial aircraft. A special program office has been created
within the Department of Homeland Security that is working to
demonstrate and test two prototype countermeasure systems. Flight
testing is scheduled to begin in a matter of weeks.
This legislation, which I am again introducing with my primary
cosponsor, Senator Schumer, states that the installation of
countermeasure systems on commercial aircraft will begin no later than
6 months after the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the
countermeasure system has successfully completed a program of
operational test and evaluation.
We need to continue to move forward to ensure that commercial
aircraft are protected from the threat posed by shoulder-fired
missiles. I appreciate the hard work of my colleague in the House,
Congressman Steve Israel, who is a real leader on this issue.
I hope my colleagues will support this important legislation.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 161--HONORING THE LIFE OF ROBERT M. LA FOLLETTE, SR.,
ON THE SESQUICENTENNIAL OF HIS BIRTH
Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Kohl) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 161
Whereas Robert M. La Follette, Sr., better known as
``Fighting Bob'' La Follette, was born 150 years ago, on June
14, 1855, in Primrose, Wisconsin;
Whereas Fighting Bob was elected to 3 terms in the United
States House of Representatives, 3 terms as Governor of
Wisconsin, and 4 terms as a United States Senator;
Whereas Fighting Bob founded the Progressive wing of the
Republican Party;
Whereas Fighting Bob was a lifelong supporter of civil
rights and women's suffrage, earning respect and support from
such distinguished Americans as Frederick Douglass and
Harriet Tubman Upton;
Whereas Fighting Bob helped to make the ``Wisconsin Idea''
a reality at the Federal and State level, instituting
election reforms, environmental conservation, railroad rate
regulation, increased education funding, and business
regulation;
Whereas Fighting Bob was a principal advocate for the
Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which calls for the election of United States
Senators by popular vote;
Whereas Fighting Bob delivered an historic speech, ``Free
Speech in Wartime'', opposing
[[Page 11734]]
the public persecution of those who sought to hold their
Government accountable;
Whereas Fighting Bob played a key role in exposing the
corruption during the Teapot Dome Scandal;
Whereas Fighting Bob and his wife, Belle Case La Follette,
founded La Follette's Weekly, now renamed The Progressive, a
monthly magazine for the Progressive community;
Whereas Fighting Bob ran for the presidency on the
Progressive ticket in 1924, winning more than 17 percent of
the popular vote;
Whereas the Library of Congress recognized Fighting Bob in
1985 by naming the Congressional Research Service reading
room in the Madison Building in honor of both Robert M. La
Follette, Sr., and his son, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., for
their shared commitment to the development of a legislative
research service to support the United States Congress;
Whereas Fighting Bob was honored in 1929 with 1 of 2
statues representing the State of Wisconsin in National
Statuary Hall in the United States Capitol;
Whereas Fighting Bob was chosen as 1 of ``Five Outstanding
Senators'' by the Special Committee on the Senate Reception
Room in 1957;
Whereas a portrait of Fighting Bob was unveiled in the
Senate Reception Room in March 1959; and
Whereas Fighting Bob was revered by his supporters for his
unwavering commitment to his ideals, and for his tenacious
pursuit of a more just and accountable Government: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) celebrates the sesquicentennial of the birth of Robert
M. La Follette, Sr.;
(2) recognizes the important contributions of Robert M. La
Follette, Sr., to the Progressive movement, the State of
Wisconsin, and the United States of America; and
(3) directs that the Secretary of the Senate transmit an
enrolled copy of this resolution to the family of Robert M.
La Follette, Sr., and the Wisconsin Historical Society.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the extraordinary
life of Robert M. La Follette Sr. Next week, on June 14th, people
around my home State of Wisconsin will mark the 150th anniversary of La
Follette's birth. Throughout his life, La Follette was revered for his
tireless service to the people of Wisconsin and to the people of the
United States. His dogged, full-steam-ahead approach to his life's work
earned him the nickname ``Fighting Bob.''
Robert Marion La Follette, Sr., was born on June 14, 1855, in
Primrose, a small town southwest of Madison in Dane County. He
graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1879 and,
after being admitted to the State bar, began his long career in public
service as Dane County district attorney.
La Follette was elected to the United States House of Representatives
in 1884, and he served three terms as a member of that body, where he
was a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
After losing his campaign for reelection in 1890, La Follette
returned to Wisconsin and continued to serve the people of my State as
a judge. Upon his exit from Washington, DC, a reporter wrote, La
Follette ``is popular at home, popular with his colleagues, and popular
in the House. He is so good a fellow that even his enemies like him.''
He was elected the 20th Governor of Wisconsin in 1900. He served in
that office until 1906, when he stepped down in order to serve the
people of Wisconsin in the United States Senate, where he remained
until his death in 1925.
As a founder of the national progressive movement, La Follette
championed progressive causes as governor of Wisconsin and in the U.S.
Congress. As governor, he advanced an agenda that included the
country's first workers compensation system, direct election of United
States Senators, and railroad rate and tax reforms. Collectively, these
reforms would become known as the ``Wisconsin Idea.'' As governor, La
Follette also supported cooperation between the State and the
University of Wisconsin.
His terms in the House of Representatives and the Senate were spent
fighting for women's rights, working to limit the power of monopolies,
and opposing pork barrel legislation. La Follette also advocated
electoral reforms, and he brought his support of the direct election of
United States Senators to this body. His efforts were brought to
fruition with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.
Fighting Bob also worked tirelessly to hold the government accountable,
and was a key figure in exposing the Teapot Dome Scandal.
La Follette earned the respect of such notable Americans as Frederick
Douglass, Booker T. Washington and Harriet Tubman Upton for making
civil rights one of his trademark issues. At a speech before the 1886
graduating class of Howard University, La Follette said, ``We are one
people, one by truth, one almost by blood. Our lives run side by side,
our ashes rest in the same soil. [Seize] the waiting world of
opportunity. Separatism is snobbish stupidity, it is supreme folly, to
talk of non-contact, or exclusion!''
La Follette ran for President three times, twice as a Republican and
once on the Progressive ticket. In 1924, as the Progressive candidate
for president, La Follette garnered more than 17 percent of the popular
vote and carried the State of Wisconsin.
La Follette's years of public service were not without controversy.
In 1917, he filibustered a bill to allow the arming of United States
merchant ships in response to a series of German submarine attacks. His
filibuster was successful in blocking passage of this bill in the
closing hours of the 64th Congress. Soon after, La Follette was one of
only six Senators who voted against U.S. entry into World War I.
Fighting Bob was outspoken in his belief that the right to free
speech did not end when war began. In the fall of 1917, La Follette
gave a speech about the war in Minnesota, and he was misquoted in press
reports as saying that he supported the sinking of the Lusitania. The
Wisconsin State Legislature condemned his supposed statement as
treason, and some of La Follette's Senate colleagues introduced a
resolution to expel him. In response to this action, he delivered his
seminal floor address, ``Free Speech in Wartime,'' on October 16, 1917.
If you listen closely, you can almost hear his strong voice echoing
through this chamber as he said: ``Mr. President, our government, above
all others, is founded on the right of the people freely to discuss all
matters pertaining to their government, in war not less than in peace,
for in this government, the people are the rulers in war no less than
in peace.''
Of the expulsion petition filed against him, La Follette said:
I am aware, Mr. President, that in pursuance of this
general campaign of vilification and attempted intimidation,
requests from various individuals and certain organizations
have been submitted to the Senate for my expulsion from this
body, and that such requests have been referred to and
considered by one of the Committees of the Senate.
If I alone had been made the victim of these attacks, I
should not take one moment of the Senate's time for their
consideration, and I believe that other Senators who have
been unjustly and unfairly assailed, as I have been, hold the
same attitude upon this that I do. Neither the clamor of the
mob nor the voice of power will ever turn me by the breadth
of a hair from the course I mark out for myself, guided by
such knowledge as I can obtain and controlled and directed by
a solemn conviction of right and duty.''
This powerful speech led to a Senate investigation of whether La
Follette's conduct constituted treason. In 1919, following the end of
World War I, the Senate dropped its investigation and reimbursed La
Follette for the legal fees he incurred as a result of the expulsion
petition and corresponding investigation. This incident is indicative
of Fighting Bob's commitment to his ideals and of his tenacious spirit.
La Follette died on June 18, 1925, in Washington, DC, while serving
Wisconsin in this body. His daughter noted, ``His passing was
mysteriously peaceful for one who had stood so long on the battle
line.'' Mourners visited the Wisconsin Capitol to view his body, and
paid respects in a crowd nearing 50,000 people. La Follette's son,
Robert M. La Follette, Jr., was appointed to his father's seat, and
went on to be elected in his own right and to serve in this body for
more than 20 years, following the progressive path blazed by his
father.
La Follette has been honored a number of times for his unwavering
commitment to his ideals and for his service to the people of Wisconsin
and of the United States.
Recently, I was proud to support Senate passage of a bill introduced
in the
[[Page 11735]]
other body by Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin that will name the post
office at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard in Madison in La
Follette's honor. I commend Congresswomen Baldwin for her efforts to
pass this bill.
The Library of Congress recognized La Follette in 1985 by naming the
Congressional Research Service reading room in the Madison Building in
honor of both Fighting Bob and his son, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., for
their shared commitment to the development of a legislative research
service to support the United States Congress. In his autobiography,
Fighting Bob noted that, as governor of Wisconsin, he ``made it a . . .
policy to bring all the reserves of knowledge and inspiration of the
university more fully to the service of the people. . . . Many of the
university staff are now in state service, and a bureau of
investigation and research established as a legislative reference
library . . . has proved of the greatest assistance to the legislature
in furnishing the latest and best thought of the advanced students of
government in this and other countries.'' He went on to call this
service ``a model which the federal government and ultimately every
state in the union will follow.'' Thus, the legislative reference
service that La Follette created in Madison served as the basis for his
work to create the Congressional Research Service at the Library of
Congress.
The La Follette Reading Room was dedicated on March 5, 1985, the
100th anniversary of Fighting Bob being sworn in for his first term as
a Member of Congress.
Across this magnificent Capitol in National Statuary Hall, Fighting
Bob is forever immortalized in white marble, still proudly representing
the State of Wisconsin. His statue resides in the Old House Chamber,
now known as National Statuary Hall, among those of other notable
figures who have made their marks in American history. One of the few
seated statues is that of Fighting Bob. Though he is sitting, he is
shown with one foot forward, and one hand on the arm of his chair, as
if he is about to leap to his feet and begin a robust speech.
When then-Senator John F. Kennedy's five-member Special Committee on
the Senate Reception Room chose La Follette as one of the ``Five
Outstanding Senators'' whose portraits would hang outside of this
chamber in the Senate reception room, he was described as being a
``ceaseless battler for the underprivileged'' and a ``courageous
independent.'' Today, his painting still hangs just outside this
chamber, where it bears witness to the proceedings of this body--and,
perhaps, challenges his successors here to continue fighting for the
social and government reforms he championed.
To honor Robert M. La Follette, Sr., on the sesquicentennial of his
birth, today I am introducing three pieces of legislation. I am pleased
to be joined in this effort by the senior Senator from Wisconsin,
Senator Kohl. The first is a resolution celebrating this event and
recognizing the importance of La Follette's important contributions to
the Progressive movement, the State of Wisconsin, and the United States
of America.
I am also introducing a bill that would direct the Secretary of the
Treasury to mint coins to commemorate Fighting Bob's life and legacy.
The third bill that I am introducing today would authorize the
President to posthumously award a gold medal on behalf of Congress to
Robert M. La Follette, Sr. The minting of a commemorative coin and the
awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal would be fitting tributes to
the memory of Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and to his deeply held
beliefs and long record of service to his State and to his country. I
hope that my colleagues will support all three of these proposals.
Let us never forget Robert M. La Follette, Sr.'s character, his
integrity, his deep commitment to Progressive causes, and his
unwillingness to waver from doing what he thought was right. The Senate
has known no greater champion of the common man and woman, no greater
enemy of corruption and cronyism, than ``Fighting Bob'' La Follette,
and it is an honor to speak in the same chamber, and serve the same
great State, as he did.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 162--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING
GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT
Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Obama, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs.
Murray, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Reid,
Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Jeffords) submitted the following resolution;
which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 162
Whereas June 7, 2005, marks the 40th anniversary of the
United States Supreme Court decision in Griswold v.
Connecticut (1965) in which the Court recognized the
constitutional right of married couples to use
contraception--a right that the Court would extend to
unmarried individuals within less than a decade;
Whereas the decision in Griswold v. Connecticut paved the
way for widespread use of birth control among American women;
Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
recognized family planning in its published list of the ``Ten
Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century'';
Whereas the typical woman in the United States wants only 2
children and therefore spends roughly 30 years of her life
trying to prevent pregnancy;
Whereas birth control is a critical component of basic
preventive health care for women and has been the driving
force in reducing national rates of unintended pregnancy and
the need for abortion;
Whereas the ability of women to control their fertility and
avoid unintended pregnancy has led to dramatic declines in
maternal and infant mortality rates and has improved maternal
and infant health;
Whereas in 1965, there were 31.6 maternal deaths per
100,000 live births and in 2000 there were 9.8 maternal
deaths per 100,000 live births;
Whereas in 1965, 24.7 infants under 1 year of age died per
1,000 live births and in 2003 this figure had declined to 7
infant deaths per 1,000 live births;
Whereas the ability of women to control their fertility has
enabled them to achieve personal educational and professional
goals critical to the economic success of the United States;
Whereas in 1965, 7 percent of women completed 4 or more
years of college compared to 26 percent in 2004;
Whereas in 1965, women age 16 and over constituted 39
percent of the workforce compared to 59 percent in 2004;
Whereas publicly-funded family planning programs have
increased the ability of women, regardless of economic
status, to access birth control and experience the resulting
health and economic benefits;
Whereas public investment in this most basic preventive
health care is extremely cost effective--for every dollar
spent on publicly funded family planning, $3 is saved in
pregnancy-related and newborn care cost to the Medicaid
program alone;
Whereas Congress had repeatedly recognized the importance
of a women's ability to access contraceptives through support
for Medicaid, title X of the Public Health Service Act, and
the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program;
Whereas 40 years after the Griswold decision, many women
still face challenges in accessing birth control and using it
effectively;
Whereas the United States has one of the highest rates of
unintended pregnancy among Western nations and each year,
half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended,
and nearly half of those end in abortion;
Whereas teen pregnancy rates have dramatically declined,
still, 78 percent of teen pregnancies are unintended and more
than one-third of teen girls will become pregnant before age
20; and
Whereas publicly funded family planning clinics are the
only source of healthcare for many uninsured and low-income
women:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) forty years ago the United States Supreme Court in
Griswold v. Connecticut held that married people have a
constitutional right to use contraceptives, a right that the
Court would extend to unmarried individuals within less than
a decade;
(2) the ability of women to control their fertility through
birth control has vastly improved maternal and infant health,
has reduced national rates of unintended pregnancy, and has
allowed women the ability to achieve personal educational and
professional goals critical to the economic success of the
United States; and
(3) Congress should take further steps to ensure that all
women have universal access to affordable contraception.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today we mark forty years since a momentous
Supreme Court decision. It is difficult for many young Americans to
imagine that in the not too distant past, the provision of
contraceptives was illegal.
[[Page 11736]]
In the 1965 landmark decision of Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme
Court recognized the right of married couples to obtain contraception
and reproductive counseling. This was a watershed moment in public
health--indeed such that the CDC has recognized that our subsequent
progress in family planning constitutes one of the ten greatest public
health achievements of the last century.
Women have faced great obstacles in family planning. While the
average woman desires two children, with more than thirty years of
fertility a woman's health and the welfare of her family is compromised
without modern contraception.
We know that family planning has been practiced throughout history,
but the methods used were certainly not always safe and effective.
Today we take for granted both the access to modern contraceptives and
the individual's right to make reproductive decisions. Among our
noblest intentions is that every child is wanted, and that parents will
have the resources to ensure their child's health and success.
Following the Griswold decision, we have come far closer to that goal.
We certainly can see the results. The maternal death rate in the U.S.
is only one third what is was back in 1965. The same is true for infant
survival. The health outcomes are indisputable.
The lives of women have also been improved in so many ways. Four
times more women are now college educated. This is so vital in an age
where a more competitive world demands so much more of American
families. It is essential that women can better themselves and ensure
the security of their families.
As we commemorate the recognition by the Supreme Court that
individuals have a right to that most basic part of life--the planning
of their families--we recognize that there is still a great deal of
progress to be made. Legal access does not equate to affordability.
Certainly we must adequately fund Medicaid, title X, and other programs
which provide family planning services. Such access reduces unwanted
pregnancies, promotes the economic stability of families, and improves
the health of both mother and child, yet we need to do more.
We simply must assure that access to contraceptives is equitable--
that a lack of coverage by health plans does not place one of our most
effective public health measures out of reach for millions of women. To
achieve this aim, I will again introduce the Equity in Prescription
Insurance and Contraceptive Act with Senator Reid later this week. I
invite my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation to
realize the full promise of Griswold v. Connecticut--healthier mothers,
healthier children, and healthy, stable families.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today marks the 40th anniversary of the
U.S. Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck
down Connecticut laws that prohibited reproductive counseling and the
use of contraception. In recognizing a constitutional right to privacy,
this landmark decision secured the right of married women to use
contraception and laid the groundwork for widespread access to birth
control for all American women.
The availability and use of contraceptives has had a profound impact
on the health and lives of women across the Nation. Widespread use of
birth control has led to dramatic reductions in national rates of
sexually transmitted infections, unintended pregnancies, and abortion.
Contraceptive use has also significantly improved maternal and infant
health outcomes, and reduced maternal and infant mortality rates. Since
1965 maternal and infant mortality rates have declined by more than
two-thirds.
The impact of contraception on the professional lives of women has
been equally profound. The ability of women to control fertility has
allowed them to successfully achieve educational and career goals that
would've been impossible a century ago. Women are critical to this
nation's economic success, comprising up to one half of the total U.S.
labor force.
In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognized
the significant impact of birth control on American society and
included family planning in their list of the ``Ten Great Public Health
Achievements in the 20th Century.'' However, despite considerable
progress in this area, much work remains. The United States has one of
the highest rates of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted
infections among industrialized nations, which in part reflects lack of
access to basic preventive health care, including contraception.
A growing number of women--almost 17 million currently--must rely on
publicly supported contraceptive care. Between 2000 and 2002, this
number increased by 400,000 alone, because of the rising number of
uninsured women. Yet, even those women with health insurance are not
guaranteed access to contraceptives because some health plans choose
not to cover these medications and procedures as they would other basic
preventive health measures. And we are increasingly hearing about
pharmacists and other providers who refuse to prescribe or fill
contraceptive prescriptions, or refer women to those who will, because
of their own personal beliefs.
This 40th anniversary of the Griswold decision provides a perfect
opportunity to reflect upon the critical importance and impact of this
decision on the health and professional lives of millions of women. We
must ensure that policy decisions about contraception services remain
health decisions and not political ones, and work to ensure that all
women have access to contraception when they need it.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a
hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 at
9:30 a.m. in SD-106. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the
Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement: Potential
Impacts on the Agriculture and Food Sectors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on armed services
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on June 7, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive
testimony on the Department of Defense Inspector General's Management
Accountability Review of the Boeing KC-767A Tanker Program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs
Mr. DeMINT. 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 June 7, 2005, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing
on ``International Monetary Fund Oversight.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on finance
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday June 7,
2005, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Preventing the Next Pension
Collapse: Lessons from the United Airlines Case''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on foreign relations
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on
Nominations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on foreign relations
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
[[Page 11737]]
Senate on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on
China.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
select committee on intelligence
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on June 7, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a mark-up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on retirement security and aging
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Retirement Security and Aging, be authorized to hold a
hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 at 10
a.m. in SD-430.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on terrorism, technology and homeland security
subcommittee on Immigration, border security and citizenship
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security and the
subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship be
authorized to meet to conduct a joint hearing on ``The Southern Border
in Crisis: Resources and Strategies to Improve National Security'' on
Tuesday, June 7, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. in Dirksen 226.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mike
Carney, Megan Martin, and Charles Kane, interns on my Judiciary
Committee staff, be granted floor privileges for the duration of
today's proceedings.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
APPOINTMENTS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on behalf of the Vice President,
pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 276h-276k, as amended, appoints the following
Senators as members of the Senate Delegation to the Mexico-U.S.
Interparliamentary Group during the First Session of the 109th
Congress: the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, and the Senator from
Idaho, Mr. Crapo.
The Chair, on behalf of the Vice President, pursuant to 22 U.S.C.
276h-276k, as amended, appoints the following Senator as a member of
the Senate Delegation to the Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group
during the First Session of the 109th Congress: the Senator from Rhode
Island, Mr. Reed.
____________________
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 2005
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes the
nomination at 10 a.m. tomorrow morning, the time from 10 to 11 be under
the control of the majority leader or his designee, the time from 11 to
noon be under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee,
provided further that the time rotate in that order until the hour of 4
p.m. I further ask that the time from 4 to 4:10 be under the control of
Senator Leahy or his designee, from 4:10 to 4:20 reserved for Senator
Specter or his designee, 4:20 to 4:40 for the Democratic leader, and
4:40 to 5 be reserved for the majority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its
business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday,
June 8. I further ask that, following the prayer and pledge, the
morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved
to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and that the Senate
then return to executive session and resume consideration of the
nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to be a U.S. circuit judge for the DC
Circuit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will resume
consideration of the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to be a U.S.
circuit judge for the DC Circuit. Earlier today, cloture was invoked by
a vote of 65 to 32, and under an earlier agreement we will have an up-
or-down vote at 5 p.m. tomorrow. Therefore, tomorrow we will continue
with debate on the nomination as provided under the previous agreement.
Following that vote, we will immediately proceed to the cloture vote on
the nomination of William Pryor to be a U.S. circuit judge for the
Eleventh Circuit. We will also consider additional nominations during
this week, so Senators can expect votes each day until our executive
business is finished.
____________________
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in
adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of the
Senator from South Carolina for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from South Carolina.
____________________
NOMINATION OF JANICE ROGERS BROWN
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for allowing
me to have this time. I acknowledge all his hard work to bring us to
having votes. And that is true of the minority leader. The Senate is
back in business and we are voting in the fashion of 214 years of our
history and some good people are getting voted on. That is all we can
ask or hope for.
I rise to speak on behalf of Justice Janice Rogers Brown. I intend to
vote for her tomorrow when the vote is called. Being from the South,
being from South Carolina, about to turn 50, I can say it is a long way
from Greenville, AL, as a daughter of a sharecropper to the Supreme
Court of California; an African-American female who grew up in the
segregated South, daughter of a sharecropper in Greenville, AL, growing
up, listening to stories from a grandmother about famous NAACP lawyer
Fred Gray, who defended Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks.
It is a long way--and most of it is uphill. But she made it. And we
ought to all be proud of the fact that someone such as Janice Rogers
Brown has accomplished so much in her life. Not only did she go from
Greenville, AL, to the Supreme Court of California, she served with
distinction.
California has a unique system in the sense that the voters can
decide whether they want to retain a judge. The last time she was up
for retention vote in California she received 76 percent of the vote.
We can talk about this as long as we would like, and apparently 30
hours is as long as we are going to talk about it. I find it hard to
believe that someone could be out of the mainstream to the point they
are a rightwing judicial fanatic and still get 76 percent of the vote
in California. The last time I checked, it is not exactly the haven of
rightwing people.
The reason she received 76 percent of the vote in California is
because nobody made a big deal about her being a judge. The fact is,
she decided a lot of cases with a variety of issues and a consistent
manner that made it so that people who came before her did not feel the
need to go out and try to get her beat. Only after the fact, only when
she gets in this political whirlwind we are in now, where every Federal
court nominee is getting attacked in a variety of different ways,
mainly on the lines that you are out of the mainstream because you
happen to be conservative, only then has she gotten to be a problem.
This is politics, pure and simple, because if it was about
competency, if it was about professional qualifications, she would
never have been on the Supreme Court in California to start
[[Page 11738]]
with. She would not have stayed 7 or 8 years, and she would not have
gotten 76 percent of the vote. To say otherwise defies common sense.
We are going to take a vote tomorrow. She is going to be confirmed to
the Federal bench on the court of appeals. She is a good candidate for
that position. Not only is the California Supreme Court a good training
ground for such a position, her story as a person is a great reservoir
for her to call upon.
The idea that she cannot relate to people who suffer and who have
been dealt a difficult time is absurd given her life circumstance. She
will be an ideal court of appeals judge because she was a very solid
supreme court justice.
Is she conservative? You better believe it. The last time I checked,
that is not a disqualifier. As a matter of fact, I think that is
exactly what the country needs right now. We need Federal judges who
will interpret the law and not make it. The Federal judiciary has lost
its way on many occasions. She will be part of the solution, not the
problem.
For 25 years she has been a public servant. She has worked for the
legal assistance folks in California doing things for people who are
less fortunate. She has been an outstanding jurist. She is a smart
lady. She graduated near the top of her class and has given back more
than she has taken.
The road from Greenville, AL, to the Supreme Court of California now
leads to the Federal bench. We all should be proud of the fact that
someone like this has done so much for so many people. Instead of
picking apart every word she said, we should celebrate her success
because come tomorrow, she will be a Federal judge. The country will be
better off for it. We will be a stronger nation having someone like her
on the Federal bench.
I am very proud of what she has accomplished as a person. I am very
supportive of her judicial tenure, her judicial reasoning. She will
bring out the best in our Nation's legal system.
One final thought: Politicians live in a world of 50 plus 1. We think
of the most awful things we can say about each other just to get these
jobs and to hold on to them sometimes. More and more people are turned
off by politics because it is 24/7, running each other down. I wish we
could stop.
Let me tell you about the present Presiding Officer. He has the
perfect demeanor, as far as I am concerned, about a political figure.
The Presiding Officer has had many jobs, and he has carried himself
well. But we are adrift in politics. We are trying to find who is the
least bad among us. By the time we get through with each other, nobody
wants to vote for anybody. That needs to be corrected. At least we
volunteer for this. We go in it with our eyes wide open. If we continue
to do to judges what we have embarked on for the last 15 or 20 years,
we will do great damage to the judiciary.
This lady has been called a Neanderthal. She has been called some
names you would not call your political opponent. There is a lot that
has been said about Janice Rogers Brown that is over the top and is
unfair. But she stuck it out and she will have her vote and she will
win.
Let me state to all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle,
whatever our Democrat friends have done, we are capable of doing the
same on our side. If we do not slow down, take a deep breath and
reassess what we are doing to judicial nominees, we will destroy the
independence of the judiciary because it has become another form. If
you have ever had a thought in your life and you have expressed it, it
will be used against you in a political fashion, not a qualification
fashion.
I hope we will learn from the past 15 or 20 years and declare a
cease-fire on the judiciary. If you do not like people, vote against
them. If they have bad character or bad ethics, bring it up and we will
come together and deal with that. I hope we will stop declaring war on
these people in such a personal fashion because the downside of this is
good men and women of the future who would want to be judges are going
to take a pass. Who in their right mind in the future is going to put
their family and themselves through what these nominees have gone
through? They do not have to. They have decided not to get in the
political arena. They decided to devote themselves to the rule of law.
The difference between my business and the courtroom is the
difference between very loud and very quiet. Pack your political agenda
at the courthouse door, at the courthouse steps. The courtroom is a
quiet place where you are judged based on what you do, not who you are.
You do not have to pay in the American legal system because you have a
big wallet. In the American political system, we hit the rich pretty
routinely. In the American political system, the unpopular have zero
chance because they do not poll well.
In a courtroom, we do not take any polls. We look at what you do, not
where you came from, and we let your peers, the citizens of the
community, decide your fate, with somebody presiding over the trial
with no ax to grind. What a marvelous system.
The jury is not special interest groups. They are not out raising
money. They do not get rewarded or punished. They leave when the case
is over, and they get a few dollars for their time. And do you know
what. It works marvelously well. And that person in a black robe is
nobody's campaign manager. They are there to call the balls and the
strikes. This has worked well for 214 years. And if we do not watch it,
we are going to ruin it.
Hopefully, over the next coming weeks, we can get back to the
traditions of the Senate, treat people with the courtesy they deserve,
and if you do not think they will be a good judge, vote against them. I
think that is your obligation. The name-calling needs to stop.
So come tomorrow, at 5 o'clock, Janice Rogers Brown is going to
continue her journey from Greenville, AL, and she is going to wear the
robe of a Federal court judge. I think that is something we all should
celebrate.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate stands in adjournment until 9:30
a.m. tomorrow.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 5:20 p.m., adjourned until Wednesday, June
8, 2005, at 9:30 a.m.
[[Page 11739]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, June 7, 2005
The House met at 2 p.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mrs. Biggert).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
June 7, 2005.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Judy Biggert to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
Lord God, infinite and almighty, as Eternal Being You have no
beginning, no end. In You there is no past or future; You are simply
present.
Without a future, as a people we are doomed, depressed, and limited
in creative imagining. Without a past, we are bereft of history,
inexperienced and lost forever between success and failure.
Be as present to this Nation today as You were to our Founders. As
the Creator and Providential Lord, guide the Members of the House of
Representatives and all their efforts to uphold the Constitution and
have it interface with present realities until true priorities arise as
the Nation's agenda.
Stir within all Americans a solidarity that will always unite and
never divide us. Renew in us a spirit that will enable this country to
be a righteous leader into a bold future, shaping a new culture of
collaboration and understanding for the 21st century.
Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House her approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs.
Miller) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan 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.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 27, 2005.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
The Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message
from the Secretary of the Senate on May 27, 2005 at 12:26 pm:
That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 1760
That the Senate insists on amendment, agrees to conference
H.R. 3
That the Senate agreed to without amendment H. Con. Res.
167
Appointments: Chair of the Board of Directors of the Office
of Compliance Board of Director of the Office of Compliance.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Jeff Trandahl,
Clerk of the House.
____________________
SUMMER AGENDA
(Mr. DeLAY asked and was given permission to address the House.)
Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, this week the House will begin its summer
session by hitting the ground running.
Between now and the August recess, the House will take up several
major pieces of legislation that will touch every piece of our national
agenda.
We will consider bills that will help us continue to fight and win
the war on terror.
Among these security proposals will be a bill to reform the
institution and the programs of the United Nations, to help begin to
make it possible for this vital international organization to meet its
global responsibilities.
We will also reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, the anti-terrorism
legislation passed after 9/11 that has provided our law enforcement
community with the tools they need to combat the unique threats
presented by international terror.
We also hope to take up the final conference report on the long-
overdue national energy policy that President Bush and the American
people have been calling and waiting for since 2000.
By reducing our dependence on foreign oil, the energy bill will
provide the United States greater flexibility in dealing with the
tumultuous Middle East region, and it is a huge jobs-creation bill.
The energy bill will also empower our national economy, creating jobs
and, over the long run, lowering gas prices for American consumers.
The long-awaited conference report on the highway funding bill, which
we also hope to take up before the August recess, will improve our
national infrastructure, provide greater mobility for the American
people, and create millions of new jobs across our country.
Just as important to our economy as our infrastructure is
international trade, which will be greatly enhanced in every region of
our Nation and every sector of our economy by passage of the Central
American Free Trade Agreement, another item we hope to have on our
summer agenda.
CAFTA will lower prices for American consumers while opening vast new
markets for American businesses, which in turn will create jobs, good
high-paying jobs, here at home.
Finally, while we improve our security and bolster our economy, we
will serve the pressing interests of individual families by moving a
broad agenda to reform our health care system. And all the while, we
will continue our work on the President's call to strengthen and
improve retirement security for all Americans and complete our work
before the Fourth of July on funding the Federal Government within the
limits of our budget.
All in all, a busy summer of heavy lifting awaits, Madam Speaker, but
the American people demand and deserve nothing less.
____________________
DEFEAT CAFTA
(Mr. BROWN of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, we just returned from 10 days in
our district, and we found the opposition to the Central American Free
Trade Agreement is even greater than before we left. People at home in
our districts recognize our trade policy is not working.
Just look at this chart. The first year I ran for Congress, our trade
deficit was $38 billion. Today after NAFTA and PNTR and a series of
trade agreements, our trade deficit is $618 billion.
These trade agreements cost jobs. They hurt our families. They hurt
our communities. They hurt our schools.
[[Page 11740]]
Madam Speaker, we should renegotiate the Central American Free Trade
Agreement; defeat this bill when it comes to Congress; renegotiate a
new Central American Free Trade Agreement, one that lifts up workers in
all seven countries.
____________________
RX FOR AMERICAN COMPANIES
(Mrs. MILLER of Michigan asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, American businesses are faced
with increasing pressure from foreign competitors and skyrocketing
health care costs. But they are also faced with the weight placed on
them not by the marketplace or their competitors, but by the government
itself. Burdensome, duplicative, and outdated regulations cost American
businesses literally billions of dollars annually and stifle new job
creation.
Many of these regulations do little to improve workplace safety,
protect our environment or improve the safety of our workers, but are
simply on the books because no one has bothered to review their
effectiveness.
Common sense by the government must come into play to help relieve
this burden and to improve the environment for job creation. We must do
more to make American companies more competitive in the global
marketplace and to give our job providers and our workers much needed
relief. We must and we will do more.
____________________
BAKASSI PENINSULA BELONGS TO CAMEROON
(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, Nigeria is deservedly
working hard to secure a permanent seat on the Security Council of the
United Nations. But in the meantime, Nigeria is holding territory known
as the Bakassi Peninsula, which rightfully belongs to the Republic of
Cameroon.
The International Court of Justice, in settling a dispute between
Nigeria and Cameroon, there is a decree that the territory belongs to
Cameroon. Cameroon is a developing democracy which is achieving
economic success for its people.
President Obasanjo of Nigeria in his effort to secure a permanent
seat on the Security Council should set an example for the
international community. I urge President Obasanjo, in the interest of
regional harmony for mutual benefit, to remove troops and government
personnel from the Bakassi Peninsula and to pursue positive relations
with his neighbors, especially the dynamic Republic of Cameroon.
In conclusion, God bless our troops and we will never forget
September 11.
____________________
MEDICAL LIABILITY INSURANCE CRISIS
(Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, the smallest State in the Union has now
replaced the biggest State in the Union as one of those States in a
crisis state in its medical liability insurance. Okay, there may be
those in this body who would argue that Texas is no longer the largest
State in the Union; but, Madam Speaker, the good news is that 2 years
ago Texas faced up to the challenge of medical liability reform and
passed a law on the State level, affirmed it with a constitutional
amendment that put a cap on non-economic damages and medical liability
lawsuits. This allowed more insurance to come to the State, and, more
importantly, Texas Medical Liability Trust, the largest medical
liability writer in the State of Texas, has reduced liability fees by
17 percent.
But in the State of Rhode Island, which recently joined the other
States in the Union that are in crisis, doctors there are experiencing
liability insurance premium increases from 175 to 200 percent since
2002 and fully one-half of their physicians, 48 percent, responded to a
recent survey saying they were thinking about doing something else.
Madam Speaker, we passed a good bill in this House 2 years ago that
nationwide put a cap on non-economic damages of medical liability
lawsuits. I urge this body to take it up, and I urge the other body to
pass it as well.
____________________
HONORING CHERI REZAK
(Mr. KLINE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the efforts of a
constituent who looked at tragedy and saw an opportunity to improve
lives.
In the wake of last December's tsunami in southeast Asia, Cheri Rezak
and a group of like-minded Minnesotans volunteered their time and
resources to travel between Sri Lanka and the United States every 6 to
8 weeks to provide medical care, food, and encouragement to affected
communities.
Under the name HelpSriLanka.US, these individuals have already helped
the men and women of Sri Lanka to build houses and establish and
operate a soup kitchen which feeds nearly 500 people each day. They are
also purchasing boats, taxis, and sewing machines to re-establish
fishing, transportation and garment industries. Their goal is to repeat
this community revitalization in villages throughout Sri Lanka.
In addition, Cheri has personally dedicated herself to providing a
temporary home, and much needed respite, to children directly affected
by the tsunami. Thanks to her diligence in securing temporary visas,
the first of her charges is currently living with her family in
Minnesota.
Cheri and her fellow volunteers rose above this disaster to help
create a better life for the people of Sri Lanka. I commend them for
their work and wish them much continued success.
____________________
UNFRIENDLY SKIES
(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the airline pension crisis has
proven that the skies are not so friendly for many airline employees
getting ready to retire.
Retirement plans that included dreams prepared for over a lifetime
are now replaced with just trying to make ends meet. An airline dumping
their pension plan is not a solution. This jeopardizes the retirement
for thousands and maybe millions of hard-working Americans and
increases the burden on our government and taxpayers.
Over the past 2 years, the PBGC and the American taxpayers have
assumed close to $10 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, $10
billion.
Is this a winning formula? I do not think so. Just ask over 100,000
United employees having to plan for a future that looks much cloudier
today.
H.R. 2106 allows airline carriers to adopt new funding rules for
their defined pension benefit systems. This plan, a solution, requires
airline carriers to meet their obligations and decreases the need for a
taxpayer bailout.
Madam Speaker, this is a solution that could not come at a better
time. This legislation is a win-win-win solution, for the airlines, for
airline employees, and most importantly, for the American taxpayer.
____________________
{time} 1415
JOINT REAPPOINTMENT OF INDIVIDUALS TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OFFICE
OF COMPLIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Pursuant to section 301 of
the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1381), amended
by Public Law 108-329, and the order of the House of January 4, 2005,
the Chair announces on behalf of the Speaker and Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the
United States
[[Page 11741]]
Senate their joint reappointment on May 26, 2005, of the following
individuals to a 5-year term to the board of directors of the Office of
Compliance:
Ms. Barbara L. Camens, Washington, D.C.
Ms. Roberta L. Holzwarth, Rockford, Illinois
And, in addition,
their joint redesignation of Ms. Susan Robfogel, Rochester, New York,
Chairman.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules
on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which
the vote is objected to under clause 6 of rule XX.
Record votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m.
today.
____________________
AUTHORIZING NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY TO AWARD DEGREE OF MASTER OF
SCIENCE IN JOINT CAMPAIGN PLANNING AND STRATEGY
Mrs. DRAKE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1490) to amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize
the National Defense University to award the degree of Master of
Science in Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy, and for other
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1490
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY AWARD OF
DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN JOINT CAMPAIGN
PLANNING AND STRATEGY.
(a) Joint Forces Staff College Program.--Section 2163 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2163. National defense university: master of science
degrees
``(a) Authority to Award Specified Degrees.--The President
of the National Defense University, upon the recommendation
of the faculty of the respective college or other school
within the University, may confer the master of science
degrees specified in subsection (b).
``(b) Authorized Degrees.--The following degrees may be
awarded under subsection (a):
``(1) Master of science in national security strategy.--The
degree of master of science in national security strategy, to
graduates of the University who fulfill the requirements of
the program of the National War College.
``(2) Master of science in national resource strategy.--The
degree of master of science in national resource strategy, to
graduates of the University who fulfill the requirements of
the program of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.
``(3) Master of science in joint campaign planning and
strategy.--The degree of master of science in joint campaign
planning and strategy, to graduates of the University who
fulfill the requirements of the program of the Joint Advanced
Warfighting School at the Joint Forces Staff College.
``(c) Regulations.--The authority provided by this section
shall be exercised under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 2163
in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 108 of
such title is amended to read as follows:
``2163. National Defense University: master of science degrees.''.
(c) Effective Date.--Paragraph (3) of section 2163(b) of
title 10, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a),
shall take effect for degrees awarded after May 2005.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Mrs. Drake) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
General Leave
Mrs. DRAKE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 1490, the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mrs. DRAKE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1490, offered today
by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking Democrat on
the House Committee on Armed Services and a long-time advocate of the
necessity for joint professional military education for Armed Forces
personnel.
Today, America's Armed Forces successfully operate together, and with
allies, across the globe in incredibly complex wartime undertakings
that would not have been possible if it were not for an underlying
system to educate military officers and other national security leaders
in joint, multinational and interagency operational-level planning and
warfighting.
For nearly 60 years, the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk,
Virginia, which I proudly represent, has been a critically important
part of that joint professional military educational system. This week,
the Joint Forces Staff College achieves another educational milestone
with the graduation of the first class to complete the requirements for
the Master of Science Degree in Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy.
These graduates of the Joint Advanced Warfighting School will be
assigned to critical roles on the Joint Staff and in the joint
warfighting commands. These graduates will bring with them a high
degree of skill in joint planning, as well as capability for critical
analysis that will allow them to be effective, creative, conceptual and
innovative planners and commanders.
This bill, H.R. 1490, provides the statutory authorization to the
Department of Defense to award these and future graduates of the Joint
Advanced Warfighting School their masters-level degrees. It is a
milestone not only for these first graduates but also for the Nation.
These officers and those who follow are certain to be our future senior
military leaders. Their success will be America's success.
I thank the Member from Missouri for his enduring commitment to the
education of America's military leaders and urge all my colleagues to
vote yes on H.R. 1490.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume; and I thank the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) for her
support for this very, very important bill and thank her for her keen
interest in professional military education.
I rise today to support H.R. 1490, which would award a masters of
science degree to the officers who complete the Joint Advanced
Warfighting School at the Joint Forces Staff College. As the
gentlewoman from Virginia noted, this bill will give the Department of
Defense the authority to award graduates of the Joint Advanced
Warfighting School their masters-level degrees. I also urge my
colleagues to vote yes on this bill.
It is important that Congress pass the bill and the President sign it
so that we can present those men and women with the accolades that they
have earned when the first class of that program graduates this coming
Thursday at 9 o'clock in the morning.
Madam Speaker, as my colleagues know, I have spent a great deal of my
career promoting the need for a rigorous program of joint professional
education. We have two missions as I see it: to fight the war that we
are fighting today and to prepare for the next. It was the professional
military education system that sustained the warfighting competency
during the lean years between the First World War and Second World War.
Men like General Troy Middleton, who went on to command an Army corps
during the Battle of the Bulge, spent years and years in the school
system studying the art and science of war. Warfare is becoming more
complex at lower and lower levels, and our professional military
education system must continue to evolve to develop the thinking
warriors the future will require.
The Joint Advanced Warfighting School, or JAWS as it is called, at
the Joint Forces Staff College is a wonderful example of how joint
professional
[[Page 11742]]
military education has grown to meet the new and unique challenges
military professionals face. This first class of JAWS has given its
graduates the tools to be able to create campaign-quality concepts,
employ all elements of national power, and succeed as joint force
operational and strategic level planners as well and commanders. These
graduates will populate the Joint Staff and Combatant commands with
officers expert in the joint planning processes and capable of critical
analysis in the application of all aspects of national power across the
full range of military operations.
The student of the JAWS program have spent the past year immersed in
a rigorous course of study. They have completed a curriculum focused on
``high end'' operational art consisting of courses such as Foundations
in Theory of War, Strategic Foundations, and Operational Art and
Campaigning, all of which blend theory foundations and historical
evidence to provide them with a developmental framework. They have
honed their decision-making, problem-solving, and planning skills using
seminar exercises, war games, as well as simulations.
Additionally, the JAWS course included several field research trips.
The students participated in a comprehensive historical staff ride to
Gettysburg, for example. They also traveled here to Washington and
spent a week with senior military and governmental policymakers as well
as practitioners.
Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleagues will agree that joint
professional military education is so very important. Sir William
Francis Butler put it very well when he said, years and years ago,
``The Nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation
between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its
fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards.''
That is why I believe, Madam Speaker, that Congress should vote to
support H.R. 1490 so we may recognize the students of the Joint
Advanced Warfighting School with a degree they have properly earned.
Madam Speaker, having no further speakers, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mrs. DRAKE. Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1490, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF SUN SAFETY
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree
to the resolution (H. Res. 169) recognizing the importance of sun
safety, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 169
Whereas Americans of all ages cherish the pleasures of
outdoor activities, and too few recognize that overexposure
to the sun and its ultraviolet radiation, classified by the
Department of Health and Human Services as a known
carcinogen, is the leading cause of skin cancer;
Whereas it is critically important to be safe in the sun
because skin cancer is the fastest growing cancer in our
country today, affecting 1 in 5 Americans during their
lifetimes and killing 1 person every hour of every day;
Whereas more than 1,000,000 new cases of skin cancer will
be diagnosed in the United States this year, accounting for
nearly half of all new cases of cancer and exceeding the
incidence of breast, prostate, lung, and colon cancer
combined;
Whereas most people receive approximately 80 percent of
their lifetime sun exposure by age 18, setting the stage for
skin cancer later in life;
Whereas skin cancer is highly preventable by taking simple
precautions when engaged in outdoor activities;
Whereas research demonstrates that practicing good sun
safety has the potential to significantly reduce the risk of
skin cancer;
Whereas the Sun Safety Alliance and its members have
dedicated themselves to promoting sun safety, eliminating
skin cancer from excessive sun exposure, and encouraging sun
protection practices, especially among children; and
Whereas the Sun Safety Alliance has designated the week of
June 5, 2005, to June 11, 2005, as National Sun Safety Week:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the importance of sun safety;
(2) encourages all Americans to protect themselves and
their children from the dangers of excessive sun exposure;
(3) congratulates organizations like the Sun Safety
Alliance for their efforts to promote sun safety and prevent
skin cancer; and
(4) supports the goals and ideals of National Sun Safety
Week.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
General Leave
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam 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. Res. 169.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, today the House is considering H. Res. 169, a
resolution that I have introduced with the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Eshoo), our colleague, to encourage sun safety. I want to thank
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gene Green), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), who also have cosponsored this
resolution.
H. Res. 169 is a straightforward resolution which encourages all
Americans to protect themselves and their children from the dangers of
excessive sun exposure. Most of us, especially those of us from the
Sunshine State, enjoy the outdoors, though too few of us protect
ourselves and our children from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays when
engaged in outdoor activities.
Skin cancer, Madam Speaker, is the fastest-growing cancer in our
country today. One in five Americans will get some form of skin cancer
during their lifetimes. More than one million new cases of skin cancer
will be diagnosed in the United States this year, accounting for nearly
half of all new cancer cases and exceeding the combined number of
breast, prostate, lung and colon cancers that will be diagnosed in the
coming year.
Many people are surprised to learn that most of us receive nearly 80
percent of our lifetime sun exposure by age 18, exposure which sets the
stage for cancer later in life; and I would like to repeat that, Madam
Speaker. Many people are surprised to learn that most of us receive
nearly 80 percent of our lifetime sun exposure by age 18, exposure
which sets the stage for cancer later in life. Therefore, it is
critically important that we teach our children that sunburns are more
than just the painful remnants of staying in the sun too long. They are
potential killers that can cut short promising lives.
The good news is that skin cancer is highly preventable by practicing
good sun safety. Good sun safety means using sunscreen, wearing
protective clothing and limiting sun exposure, especially during the
hottest times when the sun's rays are at their most dangerous. Failing
to do so, as we have heard, can have serious and deadly consequences,
especially for children.
I hope and believe that passage of this resolution will raise
awareness about sun safety, encourage people to protect themselves and
their children from excessive sun exposure, help reduce health care
costs and save lives.
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the Committee
on Energy and Commerce chairman, and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Deal), the Subcommittee on Health chairman, for moving this resolution
expeditiously through our committee and to the House floor. I certainly
want to thank the gentleman from
[[Page 11743]]
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), ranking member of the full committee, and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Subcommittee on Health's ranking
member, for their support of this measure. I encourage all of our
colleagues to join us in approving this simple but important
resolution.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I
may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), my friend from
the Sunshine State, and encourage people to travel to my State more
often perhaps.
As we head into summer months, it is crucial that Americans be aware
of the risks involved in seemingly everyday activities: a day at the
beach, a jog in the park, an afternoon out working in the yard.
Overexposure to the sun's dangerous ultraviolet rays is a major risk
and, largely because of increasing ozone depletion brought on in part
by global warming, a bigger threat than ever to the public health.
Every year in the United States there are nearly 60,000 new cases of
melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer. Nearly 8,000 die every
year from this disease.
{time} 1430
When it comes to risk factors for skin cancer, and I quote from the
American Cancer Society's list, ``unprotected and/or excessive exposure
to ultraviolet radiation'' is at the top of that list. The sun's UV
rays have been officially classified as a carcinogen by the United
States Department of Health and Human Services.
Yet a national survey released yesterday shows that the number of
people using sunscreen declined by over 10 percent last year even as
skin cancer diagnoses continue to rise. In light of these troubling
statistics, I am happy to support this resolution introduced by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo). The resolution supports outreach and education
efforts like National Sun Safety Week and the groups like the Sun
Safety Alliance which work to keep the public informed of the risks of
UV exposure.
Sun Safety Alliance teams up health care professionals, educators,
and corporate partners to focus on conveying this risk. When it comes
to something as basic as being out in the sun, effective public
awareness strategies are critical. One of the alliance's priorities is
outreach to the youngest Americans. Children are at the highest risk of
overexposure to UV rays. Most people receive some 80 percent of their
lifetime sun exposure before their 18th birthday. It is essential that
we shape and reinforce the right habits early.
Madam Speaker, this resolution is an important step toward stopping
an entirely preventable killer. Thousands of lives can be saved with
the right understanding of what that prevention entails. I am pleased
to support my colleagues and this resolution.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, kill, or however else we may want to look at it.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown)
supporting this legislation. We worked together for a number of years
when I chaired that particular subcommittee; and there were times when
we disagreed, but I enjoyed working with the gentleman. I appreciate
the gentleman always being helpful and courteous and open-minded most
of the time, not always open-minded, but most of the time. I appreciate
the gentleman supporting this legislation.
Madam Speaker, we have a lot of legislation on this floor, I suppose
some Members would say much more impacting than this legislation is.
Certainly a lot more high profile, if you will, and that sort of thing.
But, honestly, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) agreed with me,
what this can do to our children and grandchildren. My daughter-in-law
has four sons, and she takes my four grandchildren to the beach a lot.
They like the beach, and I caution them and remind her about the fact
that 80 percent of these skin cancers are really developed before one
reaches age 18 and the potential hazards of sun exposure.
It is critical that the American people will be listening to us
through this legislation, if you will, on the significance of being
just as careful as we possibly can be regarding this disease. I have
had two or three skin cancers, if you will, taken off my face over the
years. I suppose many of us have. It is critical that we remember that
and we educate the American people on this particular issue.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for
the good years when we were colleagues on the Subcommittee on Health
when he was the chairman and I was the ranking member and the good work
we were able to do on most days.
This resolution, as the gentleman points out, is not as important as
some things. I would like to go a little further and talk about what
all of this means in terms of global warming and some issues like that.
I understand today is not the day to do that on this resolution.
Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution
169, ``Recognizing the importance of sun safety.'' As incidences of
skin cancer continue to rise, now affecting one out of every five
people in the United States, sun safety is increasingly important to
keeping Americans healthy.
I would like to applaud the Sun Safety Alliance for its efforts to
enhance national awareness of the importance of sun safety and the need
for early childhood protection. I support the efforts by the Sun Safety
Alliance to motivate the public to take necessary and appropriate
actions to protect themselves and members of their family, especially
young children from the dangers of developing skin cancer from over
exposure to the sun's UV radiation.
I hope that the designation of the week of June 5-11, 2005, to
National Sun Safety Week will remind Americans of the dangers of over
exposure to the sun and to encourage safe sun practice. Skin cancer can
be a preventable disease if sun safety precautions are followed.
Mr. CASE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support for H. Res.
169, which recognizes the importance of sun safety and encourages all
of us to protect ourselves and our children from the dangers of
excessive sun exposure.
As kids growing up in Hawaii, many of our best memories are tied to
our world-renowned oceans and beaches and other outdoor environments:
from catching waves to having pot-luck dinners or enjoying concerts or
hiking. Given what we now know about the dangers of overexposure to
ultraviolet radiation and its link to skin cancer, I believe that it is
imperative that we stress sun safety as we continue to enjoy these
outdoor activities with our families and friends.
I have included an op-ed from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, written by
my wife, Audrey, also a Hawaii native, which details the importance of
early detection of preventable skin cancers--specifically skin cancers.
Her thoughts say what we all need to know.
Mahalo (thank you) for this opportunity to express support for H.
Res. 169.
[From the Honolulu Star Bulletin, May 23, 2005]
Protect Your Skin Early and Often With Sunscreen
(By Audrey Case)
Hawaii is a special place, where we spend time with family
and friends or just by ourselves enjoying wonderful outdoor
activities so much a part of our islands and culture.
My earliest childhood memories are of Sundays after my dad,
an Episcopal minister, and my mom were pau with their duties
and would take all five of us kids to the beach for a swim
and a picnic dinner. We'd all come home sunburned and happily
tired. And my teen years with my friends were beach years as
well.
We know so much more now about the sun's power than we did
even a decade ago. We know, for example, that the sunburns of
our childhood can lead to the skin cancer of our adulthood.
We also know that all ethnicities can be affected by skin
cancer, not just fair-skinned people like my husband Ed! Our
family has seen some brushes with skin cancer and gets
checked by a doctor regularly, including Ed and me.
May is Melanoma/Skin Cancer Detection and Prevention Month.
As a member of Congressional Families Action for Cancer
Awareness, I have joined with the spouses of
[[Page 11744]]
other members of the U.S. House of Representatives to spread
the message of early detection of preventable cancers--
specifically skin cancers.
Today, skin cancer is the most common and fastest-growing
form of cancer in the United States, affecting more than 1
million people each year. One person dies every hour from
melanoma, the deadliest form of the disease. The American
Cancer Society estimates that in Hawaii there will be 150 new
cases of melanoma of the skin this year. And, the fact is,
many of these cancers could be prevented.
Of course, we know now that we should protect our skin by
using sunscreen--SPF 15 or higher--and wearing protective
clothing. Don't forget your hat, lip protection and
sunglasses! And, we need to protect our skin in all weather--
not just the summer.
Perhaps our greatest opportunity for changing skin cancer
statistics rests with our children. Although most skin
cancers are diagnosed when people are older than 50, the
damage that causes skin cancer is done at an early age. Just
one blistering sunburn can double a child's lifetime risk of
developing skin cancer. If you are a parent, grandparent,
aunt, uncle, caregiver or friend, make sure the kids in your
life are protected.
Help your teenagers understand the dangers of tanning beds,
which are at least as dangerous as the sun, and some studies
suggest they are more damaging. There are safer
alternatives--such as sunless tanning products and bronzers--
if your teen insists on being tanned for prom night.
Encourage your children's schools, health teachers and
school nurses to allow students to apply sunscreen before
recess. Encourage sports programs and coaches to have kids
apply sunscreen before practice and games.
Examine your skin and your loved ones' skin monthly. Look
for: brown or black irregularly pigmented spots with uneven
margins; a slow-growing, raised, translucent, pearly nodule
that may crust, ulcerate or bleed; a change in sensation,
itchiness, tenderness or pain from a mole; a small, smooth,
shiny, pale or waxy lump on the skin; and any new mole.
And remember the ABCD rule: Asymmetry, Border irregularly,
Color that is not uniform and Diameter greater than 6
millimeters--about the size of a pencil eraser.
If you discover a suspicious growth while conducting your
monthly self-examination, have it checked by your doctor.
Because your risk of developing skin cancer increases as you
age, annual clinical exams are even more important after you
reach age 50.
So by all means enjoy the sun and outdoors, but have a
healthy regard for the sun's strength and protect yourself
and those you love. Sun safety should not be neglected by
anyone. If we all take responsibility for ourselves and our
children, we can change skin cancer from being the fastest-
growing cancer to one that is rare in future generations.
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of H.
Res. 196, which encourages the importance of sun safety and supports
the designation of June 5th to June 11th as Sun Safety Week.
Skin cancer is the most commonly occurring cancer in the U.S. and 90
percent of all skin cancers can be attributed to the sun. This year
it's estimated that there will be 1.3 million skin cancer cases in the
U.S., exceeding the number of breast, lung, prostate and colon cancers
combined.
More alarming is that 50 percent of lifetime exposure to UV light
occurs during childhood and adolescence, and it can take less than 1O
minutes for a child's skin to burn. Failing to take appropriate steps
such as using sunscreen, wearing protective clothing, and limiting sun
exposure can have serious and deadly consequences, especially for
children. Practicing sun safe behaviors during childhood is the first
step in reducing the chances of getting skin cancer later in life.
A new survey released on Monday by the nonprofit Sun Safety Alliance
shows a 12-point decline in the percentage of Americans who report
using sunscreen when outdoors, from 72 percent to 60 percent.
H. Res. 169 recognizes that skin cancer is highly preventable and
urges parents to practice good sun safety for their children, which
will dramatically reduce its risk.
I urge the entire House to vote yes on this important Resolution.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Brown) who is usually much more verbose in subcommittee than here
today. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mrs. Biggert) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 169, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution, as amended, was
agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
RECOGNIZING HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MEXICAN HOLIDAY OF CINCO DE
MAYO
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 44) recognizing the
historical significance of the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res 44
Whereas May 5, or Cinco de Mayo in Spanish, is celebrated
each year as a date of great importance by the Mexican and
Mexican-American communities;
Whereas the Cinco de Mayo holiday commemorates May 5, 1862,
the date on which the Battle of Puebla was fought by Mexicans
who were struggling for their independence and freedom;
Whereas Cinco de Mayo has become one of Mexico's most
famous national holidays and is celebrated annually by nearly
all Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, north and south of the
United States-Mexico border;
Whereas the Battle of Puebla was but one of the many
battles that the courageous Mexican people won in their long
and brave struggle for independence and freedom;
Whereas the French, confident that their battle-seasoned
troops were far superior to the almost amateurish Mexican
forces, expected little or no opposition from the Mexican
army;
Whereas the French army, which had not experienced defeat
against any of Europe's finest troops in over half a century,
sustained a disastrous loss at the hands of an outnumbered,
ill-equipped, and ragged, but highly spirited and courageous,
Mexican force;
Whereas after three bloody assaults upon Puebla in which
over a thousand gallant Frenchmen lost their lives, the
French troops were finally defeated and driven back by the
outnumbered Mexican troops;
Whereas the courageous and heroic spirit that Mexican
General Zaragoza and his men displayed during this historic
battle can never be forgotten;
Whereas many brave Mexicans willingly gave their lives for
the causes of justice and freedom in the Battle of Puebla on
Cinco de Mayo;
Whereas the sacrifice of the Mexican fighters was
instrumental in keeping Mexico from falling under European
domination;
Whereas the Cinco de Mayo holiday is not only the
commemoration of the rout of the French troops at the town of
Puebla in Mexico, but is also a celebration of the virtues of
individual courage and patriotism of all Mexicans and
Mexican-Americans who have fought for freedom and
independence against foreign aggressors;
Whereas Cinco de Mayo serves as a reminder that the
foundation of the United States is built by people from many
nations and diverse cultures who are willing to fight and die
for freedom;
Whereas Cinco de Mayo also serves as a reminder of the
close spiritual and economic ties between the people of
Mexico and the people of the United States, and is especially
important for the people of the southwestern States where
millions of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans make their homes;
Whereas in a larger sense Cinco de Mayo symbolizes the
right of a free people to self-determination, just as Benito
Juarez once said, ``El respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz''
(``The respect of other people's rights is peace''); and
Whereas many people celebrate during the entire week in
which Cinco de Mayo falls: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress recognizes the historical
struggle for independence and freedom of the Mexican people
and requests the President to issue a proclamation
recognizing that struggle and calling upon the people of the
United States to observe Cinco de Mayo with appropriate
ceremonies and activities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
General Leave
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam 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 concurrent
resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen)?
There was no objection.
[[Page 11745]]
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), and I commend the gentleman from
Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for helping to bring this measure to the floor
of the House today.
The Cinco de Mayo holiday commemorates May 5, 1862, the date on which
the battle of Puebla was fought by the Mexicans against an invasion of
their country by France. Led by Mexican General Ignacio Zaragoza
Seguin, a lightly armed group of Mexican patriots, estimated at 4,500
men, was able to stop and defeat a well-outfitted French army of 6,500
soldiers. Although President Abraham Lincoln was sympathetic to
Mexico's cause, the U.S. was fighting our Civil War and was unable to
provide any direct assistance. After the Civil War ended, however, the
U.S. began to provide more political and military assistance to Mexico,
which finally succeeded in expelling the French in 1867.
Celebrating Cinco de Mayo has become increasingly popular along the
Mexico-U.S. border and in parts of the U.S. where Americans of Mexican
heritage live. This holiday is a celebration of Mexican culture, food,
music, and customs unique to Mexico.
Increasingly, people across our country are joining our countrymen of
Mexican descent in celebrating Cinco de Mayo. Not unlike St. Patrick's
Day, which has become a popular celebration of Irish heritage, Cinco de
Mayo is a day in which we can all join in celebrating Mexican heritage.
It is very fitting that Congress here in the United States should
approve this measure. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this
resolution which recognizes the historical significance of the Mexican
holiday of Cinco de Mayo.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and first
want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), my good
friend and colleague, and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen) for expediting the consideration of this resolution both
through the committee and onto the floor of the House. I also applaud
the author of the resolution, my neighbor, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca) who is the first vice chairman of the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, for his leadership on issues which
affect our friends and neighbors of Hispanic descent.
Madam Speaker, the Cinco de Mayo holiday commemorates the May 5,
1862, victory of an ill-equipped and vastly outnumbered Mexican army
under the command of General Ignacio Zaragoza over Napoleon III's
regiments at the Battle of Puebla. Although Napoleon III eventually
installed Archduke Maximilian of Austria as a puppet regent over
Mexico, the triumph of the Mexican people over the French in this
battle has come to symbolize the fight for freedom and justice, not
only in Mexico, but throughout the entire western hemisphere.
To many of us, and particularly along the border with Mexico, this
holiday is mostly expressed through the enjoyment of Mexican and
Mexican-American culture, music, food, and customs.
Cinco de Mayo celebrations are also well-deserved tributes to the
many contributions that Mexicans and Mexican-Americans have made and
continue to make in the world and across our Nation.
It is a time to take pride in these significant achievements as well
as the continuing dedication to the patria of thousands of Hispanic men
and women in uniform.
Finally, Madam Speaker, Cinco de Mayo reminds us that our Mexican-
American neighbors strive, as we all do, to live a life filled with
faith, family, and the hope of sharing in a stronger America and a
freer world.
Madam Speaker, as we commemorate the defeat of French colonial
oppression by an unrelenting, passionate, and brave band of brothers
some 150 years ago, our resolve to stand shoulder to shoulder with the
fighters for democracy today around the globe must never waiver.
In our own hemisphere, our dedication to democratic institutions and
processes as well as the rule of law is being challenged from the
streets of Ecuador to the hills of Bolivia to the presidential palace
of Venezuela. We must not, we cannot, fail to take up the banner of
freedom against the increasingly authoritarian regimes.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 44.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), a distinguished member of the
Committee on International Relations.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I certainly would like to extend my
appreciation and gratitude to our senior ranking member, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos), for allowing me this opportunity to share
some thoughts concerning this important resolution. I certainly also
want to thank our chairman of the Committee on International Relations,
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for his support and leadership
and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her management
of this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 44,
recognizing the historical significance of the Mexican holiday well
known as Cinco de Mayo. I commend my colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca), for introducing this legislation certainly as a
tribute in his capacity as vice chairman of the Hispanic Congressional
Caucus.
This resolution recognizes the significance of Cinco de Mayo, as it
truly does serve as a reminder that the United States is a country
built by people of many nations and diverse cultures who are willing to
fight and die for freedom. To truly appreciate the importance of this
holiday to the good people of Mexico, we can compare it to the level of
importance we place when our own Nation was divided on the issue of
slavery, hence the Civil War. In the same way, Cinco de Mayo
commemorates the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862, fought by the Mexican
people against a transferred ruler by the name of Maximilian from
Austria.
Madam Speaker, I want to especially share with my colleagues in the
House of Representatives the life and history of a leader who, in my
humble opinion, is the greatest hero in Mexico's history, a true
statesman, whose name is inextricably linked with the name Cinco de
Mayo.
{time} 1445
His name is Don Benito Juarez, president of Mexico from 1861 to 1863
and 1867 to 1872. President Juarez led the Mexican people in their
fight for independence during this crucial period of their history.
Unbeknownst to many of our fellow Americans, President Juarez was the
first Mexican president of indigenous Indian descent. His parents were
members of the Zapotec tribe prevalent in the province or state of
Oaxaca in Mexico. When he went to Oaxaca City at the age of 13, he
could not read, write or speak Spanish. He was adopted by lay members
of the Franciscan Order, who taught the young Juarez reading, writing,
arithmetic and Spanish grammar. He later entered the Franciscan
seminary in Oaxaca and studied Aquinas and other great Catholic
philosophers, eventually turning his attention instead to the study of
law.
President Juarez was educated in the law in preparation for a
political career. In his first political position as a city councilman,
he was noted as a strong defender of Indian rights. He participated in
the revolutionary overthrow of Santa Anna in 1855, becoming the
minister of justice and instituting reforms that were embodied in the
constitution of 1857. During the Reform War of 1858 to 1861, President
Juarez led the liberals against the conservative faction of Mexico's
government. The liberals succeeded only through popular support and the
unwavering
[[Page 11746]]
determination of President Juarez, and he was elected president in
1861.
Madam Speaker, to fully understand the quality of the leadership of
Mexico at the time in the person of President Don Benito Juarez, one
can compare him to, arguably perhaps, the greatest President in our own
country's history, President Abraham Lincoln. Both leaders, in fact,
presided over their countries in times of crisis, exhibiting great
courage and perseverance in the fight for self-determination. Both grew
up in poverty and studied law. Both fought against bigotry and racism.
In fact, President Lincoln and President Juarez were contemporaries
who held each other in high regard. In fact, in 1858, upon hearing of
Juarez's struggles in Mexico, President Lincoln sent him an encouraging
message expressing hope, and I quote, for the liberty of your
government and its people. Even in the midst of our own Civil War,
President Lincoln provided arms and munitions to President Juarez to
support the Mexican people in their fight against France. When the U.S.
Confederacy sent an emissary to Mexico to enlist support for their
cause, President Juarez jailed the man for 30 days before sending him
away, a clear sign of support for President Lincoln's cause.
Madam Speaker, today, the United States and Mexico share close ties.
We also share the ideals of freedom and independence. Because of our
shared values and the tremendous contributions made by Mexican
Americans, I think it is fitting and most proper for us here in
Congress to recognize the historical struggle of the Mexican people for
independence and freedom as called for in this concurrent resolution. I
urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend
my remarks.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 44, which recognizes
the historical significance of the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo.
Every year thousands of Americans mistakenly refer to Cinco de Mayo
as Mexico's Independence Day. That is why I introduced this resolution,
to draw attention to the historical context of Cinco de Mayo.
On May 5th, 1862, the Mexican army defeated the French at the battle
of Puebla, fighting that day for the values of freedom and liberty, the
same values that we celebrate today in the United States.
Cinco de Mayo has come to represent a celebration of the
contributions that Mexican Americans and all Hispanics have made to
America. Many Mexicans and Mexican Americans have made the United
States their homes, especially in the Southwestern United States. Their
rich culture is one of the threads woven into the blanket of American
society and their contributions to our Nation have shaped what we
consider to be American culture today.
Today there are nearly 40 million Latinos living in the United
States. Latinos are the fastest growing minority population in the
United States. Latinos have made great contributions in all aspects of
American life--the arts, sports, the corporate world, science, and much
more. Latinos have fought in all of America's wars, beginning with the
Revolutionary War. Many Latinos are fighting and dying for our country
today in Iraq, just as several of their ancestors fought for freedom in
Mexico over a century ago.
Though the battle was a Mexican event, the commemoration of this date
has become an American Tradition. It serves as a reminder that the
foundation of our Nation was built by people from many nations and
diverse cultures that were willing to fight and die for freedom.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H. Con. Res. 44.
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
resolution and would like to thank my good friend from California, Mr.
Baca, for introducing this resolution.
Cinco de Mayo represents many things, to Mexicans and Americans
alike. To Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, Cinco de Mayo is a
celebration of courage, patriotism, and Mexican unity. Cinco de Mayo
honors all of the brave soldiers who successfully fought off foreign
aggressors, in the town of Puebla, Mexico on May 5, 1862.
Outnumbered, the Mexican Army willingly gave their lives in support
of Mexican independence and justice. The battle that ensued in Puebla
was instrumental in fighting of French aggressors.
To Americans, Cinco de Mayo is a reminder of how our two nations
strive for the same ideals and principles, freedom, justice and unity.
It also marks the last time that a foreign power was the aggressor on
North American soil. Both of our countries fought for their freedom in
the face of great opposition. As a result of our struggles the United
States and Mexico share a unique history that strengthens our unity.
Millions of Mexican-Americans work, live, and contribute to our
country every single day. Cinco de Mayo is a celebration of the rich
culture, heritage, and tradition that Mexican-Americans have brought to
the United States.
This resolution recognizes our Mexican-American community and the
close spiritual and economic ties the United States has with the people
of Mexico.
In honor of their accomplishments and unity, I urge all of my
colleagues to support this resolution honoring Cinco de Mayo.
Mr. ORTIZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Resolution
supporting the ideals of Cinco De May, a day that holds much meaning
for many people in the South Texas Congressional district I represent.
For many Hispanic Americans, we celebrate Independence Day on July 4,
and Cinco de Mayo on May 5. Independence Day celebrates our Nation; and
Cinco de Mayo celebrates our spirit.
On the eve of May 5, 1862, the commander of the French forces in
Mexico sent this message to Napoleon: ``We have such superiority over
the Mexicans that tomorrow, at the helm of my troops, I will attack,
and I will consider that Mexico is mine.'' He was wrong. When he
attacked the forts of Loreto and Guadalupe on May 5, his 8,000 troops
were beaten back by 2,000 Mexicans.
It is important to note why we celebrate this day--we celebrate the
courage and the strength of a people who will fight against all odds
for the things they cherish--freedom, independence and democracy. The
lessons of the French commander should not be lost on us today.
I often tell schoolchildren in South Texas to adopt a new take on the
French commander's arrogance by saying: ``I will go to school, I will
study hard, and I will consider that the marketplace is mine, and we
will not be beaten.''
We must continue to fight in that same spirit that the Mexicans
fought the French. Our young people today must fight to learn--fight
for the ability to get good jobs--and fight to go further than the
previous generation.
I am pleased the House is moving this resolution, albeit just over a
month late for Cinco de Mayo celebrations this year. Nevertheless, this
is a good opportunity for many of us in the House of Representatives to
explain to our colleagues and our countrymen why this celebration means
so much to so many of us.
Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I have no additional requests for time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I have no additional requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) that the
House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con.
Res. 44.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. LANTOS. Madam 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 and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
EXPRESSING SENSE OF HOUSE REGARDING MANIFESTATIONS OF ANTI-SEMITISM BY
UNITED NATIONS MEMBER STATES
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution (H. Res. 282) expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives regarding manifestations of anti-Semitism by United
Nations member states and urging action against anti-Semitism by United
Nations officials, United Nations member states, and the Government of
the United States, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 282
Whereas the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
Rights recognizes that
[[Page 11747]]
``the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of
all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom,
justice and peace in the world'';
Whereas United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379
(1975) concluded that ``Zionism is a form of racism and
racial discrimination'' and the General Assembly, by a vote
of 111 to 25, only revoked Resolution 3379 in 1991 in
response to strong leadership by the United States and after
Israel made its participation in the Madrid Peace Conference
conditional upon repeal of the resolution;
Whereas during the 1991 session of the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights, the Syrian Ambassador to the
United Nations repeated the outrageous ``blood libel'' that
Jews allegedly have killed non-Jewish children to make
unleavened bread for Passover and, despite repeated
interventions by the Governments of Israel and the United
States, this outrageous lie was not corrected in the record
of the Commission for many months;
Whereas in March 1997, the Palestinian observer at the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights made the
contemptible charge that the Government of Israel had
injected 300 Palestinian children with HIV (the human
immunodeficiency virus, the pathogen that causes AIDS)
despite the fact that an Egyptian newspaper had printed a
full retraction to its earlier report of the same charges,
and the President of the Commission failed to challenge this
baseless and false accusation despite the request of the
Government of Israel that he do so;
Whereas Israel was denied membership in any regional
grouping of the United Nations until the year 2000, which
prevented it from being a candidate for any elected positions
within the United Nations system until that time, and Israel
continues to be denied the opportunity to hold a rotating
seat on the Security Council and it is the only member of the
United Nations never to have served on the Security Council
although it has been a member of the organization for 56
years;
Whereas Israel continues to be denied the opportunity to
serve as a member of the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights because it has never been included in a slate of
candidates submitted by a regional grouping, and Israel is
currently the only member of the Western and Others Group in
a conditional status limiting its ability to caucus with its
fellow members of this regional grouping;
Whereas the United Nations has permitted itself to be used
as a battleground for political warfare against Israel led by
Arab states and others, and 6 of the 10 emergency sessions of
the United Nations General Assembly have been devoted to
criticisms of and attacks against Israel;
Whereas the goals of the 2001 United Nations World
Conference Against Racism were undermined by hateful anti-
Jewish rhetoric and anti-Israel political agendas, prompting
both Israel and the United States to withdraw their
delegations from the Conference;
Whereas in 2004, the United Nations Secretary General
acknowledged at the first United Nations-sponsored conference
on anti-Semitism, that: ``It is clear that we are witnessing
an alarming resurgence of this phenomenon in new forms and
manifestations. This time, the world must not--cannot--be
silent.'';
Whereas in 2004, the United Nations General Assembly's
Third Committee for the first time adopted a resolution on
religious tolerance that includes condemnation of anti-
Semitism and ``recognized with deep concern the overall rise
in instances of intolerance and violence directed against
members of many religious communities . . . including . . .
anti-Semitism . . . '';
Whereas in 2005, the United Nations held an unprecedented
session to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation
of the Auschwitz concentration camp;
Whereas democratic Israel is annually the object of nearly
two dozen redundantly critical resolutions in the United
Nations General Assembly, which rarely adopts resolutions
relating to specific countries; and
Whereas the viciousness with which Israel is attacked and
discriminated against at the United Nations should not be
allowed to continue unchallenged: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) the House of Representatives--
(A) welcomes recent attempts by the United Nations
Secretary General to address the issue of anti-Semitism;
(B) calls on the United Nations to officially and publicly
condemn anti-Semitic statements made at all United Nations
meetings and hold accountable United Nations member states
that make such statements; and
(C) strongly urges the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to develop and
implement education awareness programs about the Holocaust
throughout the world as part of an effort to combat the rise
in anti-Semitism and racial, religious, and ethnic
intolerance; and
(2) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
(A) the President should direct the United States Permanent
Representative to the United Nations to continue working
toward further reduction of anti-Semitic language and anti-
Israel resolutions;
(B) the President should direct the Secretary of State to
include in the Department of State's annual Country Reports
on Human Rights Practices and annual Report on International
Religious Freedom information on activities at the United
Nations and its constituent bodies relating to anti-Semitism
by each of the countries included in these reports; and
(C) the President should direct the Secretary of State to
use projects funded through the Middle East Partnership
Initiative and United States overseas broadcasts to educate
Arab and Muslim countries about anti-Semitism, religious
intolerance, and incitement to violence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
General Leave
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to thank the leadership, the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, as
well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), our wonderful
ranking member, for their efforts in bringing to the floor House
Resolution 282.
The resolution, Madam Speaker, expresses the sense of the House of
Representatives regarding manifestations of anti-Semitism by United
Nations member states and urges action against anti-Semitism by United
Nations officials, United Nations member states, and the government of
the United States, and for other purposes.
My utmost appreciation goes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International
Relations, for his work on this resolution, for his commitment to
combating the scourge of anti-Semitism, and for being an example of
courage in the face of the most deplorable anti-Semitic acts. I thank
the gentleman from California.
As we prepare to consider U.N. reform legislation, Madam Speaker,
before the full Committee on International Relations tomorrow, the
discussion of this measure is timely and it illustrates an important
component of our multilateral strategies. For far too long, the United
Nations has permitted itself to be used as a battleground for political
warfare against Israel led by Arab states and others. Six of the 10
emergency sessions of the United Nations General Assembly have been
devoted to criticisms of and attacks against Israel.
During the 1991 session of the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights, for example, the Syrian representative to the U.N. repeated the
outrageous blood libel that Jews have killed Christian and other non-
Jewish children to use their blood to make Matzoth.
In 1997, another terrible example, the Palestinian observer at the
Human Rights Commission charged that the Israeli government had
injected 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus. This baseless
charge was not challenged by the president of the Human Rights
Commission or any other U.N. official.
Another example, the goals of the 2001 U.N. World Conference Against
Racism were undermined by hateful anti-Jewish rhetoric and anti-Israel
political agendas, prompting both Israel and the United States to
withdraw their delegations from the conference.
While recent efforts have been made to address this problem, Madam
Speaker, such as the U.N.-sponsored conference on anti-Semitism or the
session earlier this year to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the
liberation of Auschwitz, much more needs to be done.
In response, the resolution before us, Madam Speaker, calls for the
United Nations to officially and publicly condemn anti-Semitic
statements in all
[[Page 11748]]
U.N. meetings and hold accountable member states who make such
statements.
It calls for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organizations, known as UNESCO, to develop and implement Holocaust
education programs throughout the world as part of an effort to combat
the rise in anti-Semitism.
Further, Madam Speaker, it calls for the United States Ambassador to
the United Nations to continue working toward further reduction of
anti-Semitic language and anti-Israel resolutions.
House Resolution 282 requests the Secretary of State to include in
the Department of State's annual Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices and annual Report on International Religious Freedom
information on activities regarding anti-Semitism at U.N. bodies by
each of the countries included in these reports; and, further, it
requests that projects under the Middle East Partnership Initiative and
that U.S. overseas broadcasts include programs that educate Arab and
Muslim countries about fighting anti-Semitism, about fighting religious
intolerance and fighting incitement to violence.
As we have witnessed, historically and in today's world, such charged
rhetoric as anti-Semitism invites violent action. There must,
therefore, be renewed vigilance against purveyors of anti-Semitism, and
the United Nations must be an integral component of any comprehensive
strategy. It must help build a culture of tolerance. The United Nations
must hold countries and their representatives accountable. It must make
hateful rhetoric and incitement politically and culturally
unacceptable, instead of offering an environment that enables the
proliferation of anti-Semitism.
As was noted in a meeting last month with Natan Sharansky, strong
U.S. leadership in placing human rights front and center on the
diplomatic agenda has the potential to bring about dramatic political
and social change. We must be willing to take a similar stance
regarding anti-Semitism at the United Nations.
Let us begin by rendering our unequivocal support to this resolution
and send a clear message to the United Nations and to its member
countries that we are resolute in our commitment to fighting this evil.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, first I want to thank my good friend and
colleague from Florida for her extraordinarily gracious and generous
observations.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on
International Relations, who does such an extraordinary job and who
knows firsthand the extraordinarily adverse consequences of racism and
anti-Semitism and other ``isms'' wrought against human beings.
I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen)
for her sponsorship of this resolution and for her leadership on these
issues.
Madam Speaker, intolerance based upon one's religious beliefs,
ethnicity and race is a poison that has coursed throughout the body of
human history; and it has caused untold pain, suffering and strife.
Unfortunately, that is not on the ash bin of history. It is present
today.
The Members of this House, the elected representatives of the
strongest and freest nation on Earth, have a moral responsibility to
expose and combat such intolerance and prejudice wherever it rears its
head, whether it rears its head in the United States, in the United
Nations, or any other place in the world. That is precisely what this
important resolution seeks to do.
This resolution calls on the United Nations to officially and
publicly condemn anti-Semitic statements made at U.N. meetings and by
U.N. member states. It is to the discredit of the United Nations that
anti-Semitism continues to find a forum in that body. This resolution
also calls on the U.N. to create worldwide programs about the Holocaust
in an effort to reduce anti-Semitism, and it directs the Secretary of
State to report on anti-Semitic activities by the U.N. and its member
countries.
Let me add, Madam Speaker, that last year I strongly supported
language included in the omnibus appropriation act that directs the
State Department to report on votes in the General Assembly concerning
Israel. I regret to inform you, Madam Speaker, that there are nations,
many nations, indeed the overwhelming majority of nations, who fail to
support the United States and its positions on Israel more than 10
percent of the time, the majority of nations in the United Nations.
The disturbing, undeniable truth, Madam Speaker, is that rank anti-
Semitism continues today in the world body ostensibly dedicated to
peace, understanding and tolerance.
Israel, Madam Speaker, is the only member of the U.N. to never have
served on the Security Council. It is denied the opportunity to serve
on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, while well-known human rights
abusers, Syria, Sudan, Libya and countless others, serial abusers of
human rights in their own countries, have served on that body. And each
year, Madam Speaker, Israel is singled out for criticism nearly two
dozen times in the general assembly, each year, while Sudan, who has
seen the murder of thousands of people, or Rwanda, millions, or at
least over a million, receives not the attention that it should.
{time} 1500
Madam Speaker, too many U.N. members believe that they can make anti-
Semitic statements and take anti-Semitic actions with impunity. This
Nation ought to send a very loud, a very clear, a very definitive
message that that is not the case. Anti-Semitism is unacceptable in any
corner of the world, in any forum in the world, but particularly so in
the forum committed to world peace, to world understanding.
Members who believe that they can act with impunity are wrong, and
they must be held accountable. They must know that their anti-Semitic
statements and actions not only affect their relationship with this
Nation but also eviscerate their credibility in the family of civilized
nations.
Again I congratulate the gentlewoman from Florida and the gentleman
from California for their leadership, not just on this resolution,
Madam Speaker, but every day of every week of every month of every year
because that is what it takes to ensure that anti-Semitism, racism,
sexism, and every other kind of prejudice and bigotry is rejected in
this body and in every place that we find men and women of goodwill.
Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland for his
powerful and eloquent statement.
I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I want to begin by
commending the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for bringing
this resolution to the floor today. I also want to thank the
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her
outstanding leadership on this issue.
Madam Speaker, it is high time to eradicate a sickening deficiency of
the United Nations: its pathological persecution of one member, the
democratic State of Israel, whose performance and standards are vastly
superior to those of most of its nondemocratic detractors.
Over the years, the United States has occasionally used diplomacy at
the United Nations to address this sickness, especially during the
tenure of our distinguished Ambassadors Daniel Patrick Moynihan and
Jeanne Kirkpatrick.
Recently, a renewed spasm of anti-Israeli activism has polluted
critical United Nations mechanisms such as the General Assembly and the
so-called Commission on Human Rights.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most disturbing experiences I personally have
[[Page 11749]]
had during my service as a Member of Congress took place in August of
2001 when I was a member of the United States delegation to the United
Nations World Conference against Racism at Durban, South Africa.
Secretary General Kofi Annan was anxious to use this conference as an
opportunity to reinvigorate the world community in the fight against
racism, bigotry, discrimination, and religious and ethnic intolerance.
But, instead, we witnessed the hijacking of the conference by those who
turned it into a vile outpouring of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel
sentiment. This conference was one of the most vicious anti-Semitic
displays I have seen since I witnessed the Holocaust in Hungary in the
1940s.
The draft document presented to the conference included phrases such
as the ``racist practices of Zionism'' and where the Holocaust had been
cited as an example of racism taken to extremes, Arab and Muslim states
proposed replacing it with the term ``holocausts'' in the plural and
lower case, which was yet another manifestation of propaganda to deny
and to diminish the unique character of the Holocaust in which 6
million innocent human beings perished.
Despite repeated efforts of the United States and some other
delegations to work with the problematic countries at Durban, South
Africa, the underlying anti-Semitism, disguised as criticism of Israel,
could not be resolved; and it was my privilege to lead the walk-out of
the U.S. delegation from that conference. What could have been an
important effort to revitalize the fight against racism and intolerance
was turned into a lost opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, it is time once and for all for our diplomats to apply
themselves in a sustained manner to defeating the absurd series of
anti-Israeli resolutions that continue to crowd the agenda of the
United Nations, pushing aside long overdue consideration of critical
issues such as terrorism, AIDS, climate change, poverty, human rights
abuses, and famine. Our resolution takes note of the efforts of some
U.N. member countries to delegitimize the State of Israel by denying
its opportunity to participate in U.N. organizations including the
Security Council and the Human Rights Commission. It also notes that
the United Nations has been used to attack the State of Israel. For
example, of the emergency sessions of the General Assembly that have
been called, six of the 10 were devoted solely to attacks against the
State of Israel.
Our resolution, Mr. Speaker, commends recent examples of outstanding
leadership in the fight against anti-Semitism. I want to single out
Secretary General Kofi Annan, who led the effort to call an
unprecedented special session of the General Assembly this past January
to mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz
concentration camp during World War II.
At that special session, Kofi Annan said, ``The United Nations must
never forget that it was created as a response to the evil of Nazism,
or that the horror of the Holocaust helped to shape its mission. That
response is enshrined in our Charter and in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. Such an evil must never be allowed to happen again. We
must be on the watch for any revival of anti-Semitism and ready to act
against the new forms of it that are happening today.'' From Secretary
General Kofi Annan.
Mr. Speaker, our resolution urges the member states of the United
Nations and our own government to step up the fight against anti-
Semitism, religious intolerance, and incitement to violence. In keeping
with the original mission and the enduring vision of the United Nations
as a beacon for humanity's potential at its best, I strongly urge all
of my colleagues to support our resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos) and ask unanimous consent that he be
permitted to control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bishop of Utah). Is there objection to
the request of the gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her usual
gracious, generous gesture.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lantos) for his leadership on this issue and so many other issues
that are important to human rights around the world, and the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her leadership on the
committee and in bringing this resolution forward and dealing with
human rights issues in the Middle East.
I also want to identify myself with the statements made by my
colleagues, including the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
The rise of anti-Semitism globally is undisputable and it is
unacceptable. As the ranking Democrat on the Helsinki Commission, I
have worked with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), our
chairman, to bring up anti-Semitism and fighting anti-Semitism as one
of the highest priorities of our Helsinki Commission. I am pleased that
as a result of the priority of our delegation, we are now having our
third international meeting on anti-Semitism. That will be taking place
this week in Spain.
In the second meeting that took place in Berlin, we were able to come
out with a Berlin document, a declaration which stated unequivocally
the condemnation by all 55 countries in the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe to condemn anti-Semitism and develop an
action plan to fight anti-Semitism. It deals with law enforcement and
sensitizing law enforcement. It deals with educating our children in
Holocaust education. It deals with respect and understanding of people
who have different religious beliefs.
Mr. Speaker, it is very wrong when individuals commit anti-Semitic
actions. It is even worse when it is sponsored by a government or by
international organizations. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased that we have the resolution before us today that speaks to the
United Nations and to the actions within the United Nations. It must
clean up its act in regards to its actions of discrimination and anti-
Semitism. It is unacceptable, and this resolution speaks to that. And I
urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 282, regarding
manifestations of anti-Semitism by United Nations member states, and
urging action against anti-Semitism by United Nations officials. We
must not allow anti-Semitism to become a part of the leading
international organization that proclaims ``the inherent dignity and
equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world''.
I commend the International Relations Committee for acting on this
resolution condemning the resurgence of anti-Semitism around the globe.
As Ranking Member of the Helsinki Commission, I believe we must
recognize that despite great achievements with respect to human rights
around the world, much more can still be done.
The history of anti-Semitism is indisputable. Today, though, I want
to discuss trend of a growth of anti-Semitism throughout the world
today.
In the last Congress, to address this new wave of discrimination, I
was pleased to join with Congressman Lantos and Helsinki Commission
Chairman Chris Smith in working to enact the Global Anti-Semitism
Review Act of 2004. The State Department then issued its first-ever
global report on anti-Semitism, giving us a roadmap to build upon for
the future.
Last year I traveled as part of the U.S. Delegation of the Helsinki
Commission, with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, to attend a
special conference in Berlin addressing anti-Semitism, held under the
auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE). During the course of the trip I went to visit Auschwitz for the
first time. That factory of death reaffirmed to me how we must
tirelessly work to build understanding and respect between different
communities to prevent future acts prejudice, discrimination, and
ultimately violence.
At the Berlin Conference, I gave the official U.S. statement in the
session on tolerance,
[[Page 11750]]
and the meeting ended with the issuance of the Berlin Declaration of
Action. The Declaration laid out a number of specific steps for states
to take to combat the rising tide of anti-Semitism, including specific
actions regarding Holocaust education, data collection and monitoring
of hate crimes against Jews, and improved coordination between non-
governmental organizations and European law enforcement agencies.
As the leading international organization in the world, the United
Nations must make it clear that anti-Semitism has no place within its
walls. It must condemn anti-Semitic statements made at all meetings and
hold accountable the United Nations member states that make such
statements. This is the first step of many that will discourage anti-
Semitic sentiment from having any place with United Nations members.
Unfortunately, the United Nations has a long history of failing to
aggressively combat instances of anti-Semitism within its institution.
In 1975, the U.N. General Assembly concluded that ``Zionism is a form
of racism and racial discrimination,'' and this resolution was not
revoked until 1991, after strong leadership from the U.S., and Israel's
refusal to participate in the Madrid Peace Conference unless the
resolution was repealed.
Until the year 2000, Israel was denied membership in any regional
grouping of the United Nations. It continues to be denied the
opportunity to hold a rotating seat on the Security Council, making it
the only member to have never served on the Security Council despite
being a member of the UN for 56 years. Lastly, Israel continues to be
denied the opportunity to serve as a member of the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights. These anti-Israeli actions must cease if we
are serious about stopping anti-Semitism.
However, I am glad to note that the United Nations Secretary General
has recently spoken out on the issue of anti-Semitism. In addition, in
2004 the General Assembly's Third Committee adopted a resolution on
religious tolerance for the first time, which states in part its ``deep
concern the overall rise in instances of intolerance and violence
directed against members of many religious community . . . including .
. . anti-Semitism.'' As Israeli President Moshe Katsav reminded us at
our Berlin conference last year, anti-Semitism should indeed receive
special attention from the civilized world.
While I welcome these recent steps forward, the United Nations still
has a long way to go to combat anti-Semitism. As this resolution
states, we must implement awareness programs about the Holocaust
throughout the world. This will promote more than just tolerance; it
will help the world to achieve racial, religious, cultural, and ethnic
acceptance and diversity, leading to a more peaceful and just society.
This resolution also requests that the United States Permanent
Representative to the United Nations continue working toward further
reduction of anti-Semitic language and anti-Israel resolutions. It also
asks the Department of State to include information on activities at
the United Nations relating to anti-Semitism in its reports on Human
Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom. Finally, it asks
the Secretary of State to fund projects that educate Arab and Muslim
countries about religious intolerance.
We must combat this rising tide of anti-Semitism in all of its forms,
and ensure that it has no place anywhere in the world, especially the
United Nations. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), my good friend and a
very important member of the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the gentleman
from California, our senior ranking member, for yielding me this time
to say a few words concerning this resolution.
I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida representing the
majority and especially the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for
his support and leadership in getting this resolution to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, in my visit to the Holocaust Museum here in our Nation's
capital, I always come away with this great lesson that I learned about
the suffering of some 6 million Jews in that terrible period during
Nazi rule by Adolph Hitler. The words that come to my mind every time I
visit that museum are the words ``never again.'' ``Never again.'' And I
cannot help but express my sense of gratitude to the gentleman from
California, not only as a child of the terrible conflict that occurred
to his family but certainly who has been a great teacher and a mentor
to me in understanding and appreciating what racism and bigotry and
hatred is. And the fact that he has had to live that in his own life
and has certainly been a great champion not only of the issues
affecting the good people of the State of Israel, I want to thank the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for being that leader whom I
admire and respect very much.
Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the resolution speaks for itself. It
is time for the United Nations to give serious attention to this
problem. Year after year, the only democratic government in the Middle
East has been ostracized, condemned, vilified, falsely accused of so
many things. I simply say, enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. I sincerely
hope that copies of this resolution will be served to every ambassador
from every country represented in the United Nations.
{time} 1515
We will let them know that the will of the Congress is expressly
stated to this effect in the provisions of the resolution, that enough
is enough.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for his eloquent and strong
statement.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this resolution reflects the values
of this body and of the American people, and I urge all of my
colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank our wonderful friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his leadership on this
resolution, as well as the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde). I urge all of our colleagues to adopt this resolution today.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today in strong support of
the resolution regarding the manifestations of anti-Semitism by United
Nations member states.
I would like to praise Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for her tireless efforts as
the chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia. Her
commitment to fighting anti-Semitism is unparalleled and she has raised
awareness of the issue both within the United Nations and throughout
the world.
The state of Israel ardently strives to attain equality of rights
which the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights recognizes as the
best hope for freedom throughout the world.
However, the past actions of many United Nations member states have
challenged this equality through many of their anti-Semitic
resolutions, actions, and statements.
The regular manifestations of this blatant anti-Semitism occur
throughout the course of the United Nation's history. Included in these
acts are statements by members of the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights, those individuals who should be acting upon anti-Semitism
rather than participating in it.
I commend the UN for increasing awareness in the past few years of
anti-Semitism and refusing to remain silent on this growing global
problem. The recent session commemorating the 60th anniversary of the
liberation of Auschwitz marks a keystone in the United Nations' efforts
to promote awareness of anti-Semitism.
Nevertheless, members states annually remain critical of Israel and
refuse to allow Israel equal rights and opportunities within the United
Nations. Israel should have the same chance to participate in the
United Nations, rather than be ignored by those states which would seek
to spread hateful anti-Jewish and anti-Israel agendas.
I believe that the United Nations should implement measures which:
Publicly condemn those United Nations member states who make anti-
Semitic and racial remarks, hold those same member states who make
anti-Semitic remarks accountable, and promote awareness of anti-
Semitism.
The United States must take a firm stand on this issue today. We must
declare that neglecting the problem of anti-Semitism is unacceptable.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 282, which
calls on the President to take steps to stem the ugly tide of anti-
[[Page 11751]]
Semitism at the United Nations and in the Middle East.
The hijacking of the United Nations by some member states is an
attack against international peace and the founding principles of the
U.N. The use of blood libels by representatives of member states, in
reports, and by NGOs, is unacceptable and a betrayal of the U.N.'s
mission.
The U.N. is robbed of its moral authority when member states hijack
it for illicit purposes. Slandering an entire people, their aspirations
for self-determination, and their homeland, is not acceptable.
Excluding a member state from the community of nations because of
ancient hatreds and slanders is unworthy of an organization founded to
promote world peace and end human suffering.
Holding one nation to a standard no other nation is held to is,
whether people wish to admit it or not, bigotry at its worst. No other
nation would be denounced for taking steps to protect its citizens from
acts of terror aimed intentionally at civilians. No nation has
exercised as much restraint as Israel, yet no nation has been subjected
to condemnation, indeed vilification and demonization, including those
countries that practice slavery, torture, and genocide, some of whom
have been privileged to sit on the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights--a right denied to Israel in the more than half-century it has
been a member.
Mr. Speaker, the United Nations is only as strong and decent as its
member nations. That is both its greatest strength and its greatest
weakness. When the nations of the world stand by, or worse, participate
in, the vilification of the Jewish people, it is a reflection not just
on the institution, but on the failings of its members.
I believe it is time for the President to do more to press the U.N.,
and its member states, to bring an end to institutionalized anti-
Semitism. It is not enough to criticize the U.N. It is not enough to
denounce anti-Semitism.
This administration must exert pressure on those countries that have
gotten a pass on their efforts both in the U.N. and in other forums.
Countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who distort the mission of the
U.N., must be held to account for their actions.
The United Nations is capable of good and important work, in the
eradication of disease, in alleviating poverty. It can and should do
more, but it can never live up to its potential and its mission unless
it sheds the stain of anti-Semitism.
The United States must take the lead in this important effort. I
support this resolution. I hope that the President heeds its message
and does what he must do to end the bitter reign of anti-Semitism at
the U.N.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues in
support of House resolution 282 and encourage members of the
International community to continue to aggressively condemn anti-
Semitic actions and statements.
For over sixty years, world history and international perspectives
have been shaped by the painful reminders of the events of World War
II. Blind eyes could not hide the effect racism had during the
Holocaust that affected millions of Jewish men, women and children. And
now, many years later, I join with others to continue to remind the
world community to resist the small seeds of hate that once led to the
attempted annihilation of an entire race of people.
More now than ever, we must all take a proactive stance against views
that promote racial, religious and ethnic intolerance. America's past
is certainly imperfect. However, the lessons of the past remind us that
through these imperfections we were able to unite and build alliances
that promoted a stronger and wiser nation. I now call upon the
International community to also build alliances and word for peace by
actively condemning the increasing culture of anti-Semitic views and
religious intolerance.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives voted to
urge the United Nations to take bold action against anti-Semitism and
anti-Israel sentiment. I commend my colleagues for keeping the U.N.'s
feet to the fire on an issue of such great importance. And I thank
Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen for introducing this bill and for her
continued vigilance in support of America's greatest ally in the Middle
East.
The U.N. is supposed to be a neutral authority working towards global
unity. But in fact, it has helped the enemies of Israel
internationalize their war against the Jewish state.
Many people know about the 1975 U.N. resolution equating Zionism with
racism. Sadly, that is only 1 of the 322 resolutions condemning Israel
that the U.N. has passed since 1948.
The U.N. issued Resolution 476 in 1980 declaring Israel's claim to
Jerusalem ``null and void.'' It passed Resolution 487 in 1981 to
``strongly condemn'' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility.
And in 2003, the U.N. condemned Israel for building its security
fences. These are the same fences that have cut suicide bombings by 75%
and Israeli fatalities by 55%.
The U.N. is routinely silent on deadly suicide attacks--like the
Hamas Passover massacre that killed 30 people at an Israeli hotel. But
it will loudly condemn Israel for its military response to such terror.
Remarkably, the U.N.'s balance sheet defends countries like Lebanon,
Iraq, and Syria, while attacking Israel as a regional aggressor.
This imbalance is unreasonable. But it is hardly the U.N.'s worst
masquerading. The U.N. pretends to give a voice to all countries. But
when it comes to offering countries a seat on the Security Council,
only Israel is barred.
And while 4 of the 7 stage sponsors of terror--Cuba, Libya, Sudan,
and Syria--are members of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, Israel
cannot even be a candidate. The commission spends 26% of its
resolutions condemning Israel, yet Israel doesn't even have a forum to
respond.
The news gets worse. The U.N. has decided that its Commission on
Human Rights is good enough for all the world's refugees, except the
Palestinians. They get their own organization--the U.N. Relief Works
Agency (UNRWA).
And instead of being resettled like the rest of the world's 20
million refugees, the Palestinians are kept in camps. It is no surprise
that the result has been a breeding ground for violence. More than 48
terrorist operatives have been educated in UNRWA schools. And this past
January, the head of UNRWA acknowledged that members of Hamas are on
his payroll. Since 1950, UNRWA has been bad for Israelis and
Palestinians alike, and it is time the U.N. took responsibility for
solving the problem.
Earlier this year, Kofi Annan made a move towards accountability by
publicly outlining a series of proposed U.N. reforms. Some of the
suggested shakeups of discredited U.N. bodies like the Human Rights
Commission are steps in the right direction. But it is hard to trust a
Secretary General who spent part of a trip to the Middle East placing a
wreath on Yasser Arafat's grave. And even harder to overlook 50 years
of U.N. antagonism against Israel.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 282, which
expresses the sense of the House of Representatives regarding
manifestations of anti-Semitism by United Nations member states and
urges action against anti-Semitism by United Nations officials, United
Nations member states, and the Government of the United States.
As we commemorate the invasion of Normandy this week, it is important
to remember that the evil the world was fighting then persists today.
Recent accounts of anti-Semitic assaults are reminiscent of those
encountered before and during World War II. In the suburbs of Antwerp,
Belgium, four youths were assaulted on their way home from their Jewish
school by a group of men yelling anti-Semitic insults. One of the
students was stabbed and seriously injured. In Toulon, France a
synagogue and a community center were set on fire. In Dusseldorf,
Germany, an ancient Jewish cemetery was desecrated with swastikas and
SS symbols. In the United Kingdom, a Jewish woman was beaten severely
by three of her neighbors because her mail was written in Hebrew, and
they suspected her of being Israeli.
The United Nations and the international community must act swiftly
and address this immediate threat. The United Nations and world leaders
must shake themselves out of indifference and rise above political
considerations that have blinded them to the magnitude of rising anti-
Semitic assaults. The international community must remember its
commitment to prevent a recurrence of horrors the world witnessed 60
years ago and take meaningful actions to combat this rise in anti-
Semitism.
In the last few years, the United Nations and Secretary General Kofi
Annan have begun to formally recognize and address this rise in anti-
Semitism. Just last year, the United Nations sponsored a conference on
anti-Semitism and for the first time the United Nations General
Assembly's Third Committee adopted a resolution that condemns anti-
Semitism.
Although these recent actions by the United Nations are positive
steps, I believe that the United Nations must do more to combat this
evil. The United Nations should first begin within its own organization
and end the practice of tolerating hateful rhetoric. The United Nations
must go further in condemning member nations and United Nations
officials that use anti-Semitic language. Additionally, the
[[Page 11752]]
United Nations should acknowledge the detrimental effects of anti-
Israel resolutions and work towards reducing their frequency.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation and to
remain committed to combating the evil of anti-Semitism.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) that
the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 282.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. LANTOS. 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 and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until approximately 6:30 p.m.
Accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 17 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess until approximately 6:30 p.m.
____________________
{time} 1830
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon) at 6 o'clock and 30 minutes
p.m.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
H. Con. Res. 44, by the yeas and nays; and
H. Res. 282, by the yeas and nays.
____________________
RECOGNIZING HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MEXICAN HOLIDAY OF CINCO DE
MAYO
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
suspending the rules and agreeing to the concurrent resolution, H. Con.
Res. 44.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 44, on which
the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 405,
nays 0, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 228]
YEAS--405
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
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
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
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
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
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
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
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
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
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
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
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)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--28
Andrews
Brown, Corrine
Conyers
Cubin
Delahunt
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Honda
Hyde
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Lucas
McCollum (MN)
Nussle
Otter
Oxley
Payne
Platts
Rothman
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Stark
Weldon (PA)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon) (during the vote).
Members are advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1851
Mr. KINGSTON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 228, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 228, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea''.
[[Page 11753]]
____________________
EXPRESSING SENSE OF HOUSE REGARDING MANIFESTATIONS OF ANTI-SEMITISM BY
UNITED NATIONS MEMBER STATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 282.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 282, on which the yeas and
nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 409,
nays 2, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 229]
YEAS--409
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
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
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
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
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
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
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
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
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
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
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
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
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
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
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--2
McKinney
Paul
NOT VOTING--22
Andrews
Brown, Corrine
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Honda
Hyde
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Kennedy (RI)
McCollum (MN)
Nussle
Otter
Oxley
Payne
Platts
Rothman
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott (GA)
Stark
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon) (during the vote).
Members are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1908
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed two votes on June 7,
2005. Had I been present I would have voted yea on rollcall 228 and
229.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the floor during today's
rollcall votes on H. Con. Res. 44 (recognizing the importance of Cinco
de Mayo) and H. Res. 282 (expressing the sense of the House regarding
anti-Semitism by United Nations members). Had I been present, I would
have voted yea on each of these measures.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 65
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name
removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 65.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Rhode Island?
There was no objection.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
____________________
THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, once again I rise tonight to talk about
what Americans pay for prescription drugs compared to what the rest of
the industrialized world pays for those same prescription drugs.
And for those who were watching on Sunday night the television show
``60 Minutes,'' there was a very interesting segment, and it featured
Dr. Peter Rost, who is both an M.D. and a VP of a very large
pharmaceutical company. And what Dr. Rost talked about last night on
``60 Minutes'' is the same subject that I and many Members of this
House have been talking about for several years, and that is that
Americans pay by far and away much more for prescription drugs than
consumers in any other industrialized country.
I do not know how well Members can see this, but this chart has five
of the
[[Page 11754]]
most commonly prescribed prescription drugs today; and it has prices
from London, from Athens, and from the United States. And what we see
on these charts is we really have three different price levels. We see
the price, for example, of Lipitor in London is $40.88. That same
Lipitor, which incidentally Dr. Rost talked about and is made in
Ireland, all of it is imported somewhere because it is all made in
Ireland; but in London, $40.88; in Athens, $55.65; but a month's supply
in the United States is $76.41.
{time} 1915
You look at the entire list and then you total them up, the five most
commonly prescribed drugs. In London, those five drugs are $195 U.S. In
Athens, they are $231 in American dollars. Here in the United States,
$507.
Mr. Speaker, the chart can get worse, too. If you look at what we
see, for example, in Germany, and these numbers again are from earlier
this year, when you compare on this chart we have 10 of the most
commonly-prescribed drugs brought at the Metropolitan Pharmacy in
Frankfort, Germany, and this is essentially just coming in off the
street, not expecting any special discount either in the United States
or here, but those 10 in the United States total $1,040. In Germany,
you can buy the same drugs for $455.57.
Mr. Speaker, it really is time that we do what they do in Europe. It
is called parallel trading. For Members, if we can work out the
legalities, we are going to try to make available to Members a copy of
that 60 Minutes segment so people can see for themselves and hear from
somebody who is actually a pharmaceutical insider.
As I say, he is now a VP of marketing of one of the largest
pharmaceutical companies in the world. He formerly though worked in
Europe for a big pharmaceutical company, and he was involved in what is
called parallel trading. That creates a competitive marketplace.
Because, at the end of the day, we Americans understand it does cost
money to develop these new drugs, and we are willing to pay our fair
share. We ought to be willing to subsidize the starving people in Sub-
Saharan Africa. We should not be forced to subsidize the starving
Swiss.
Americans deserve world-class drugs at world market prices. The time
has come to open up markets and allow Americans to have access to these
drugs. When we do, you will see the prices balanced so that the prices
in Europe are probably going to go up a little, but the prices here in
the United States will go down dramatically.
Please join me in this important effort.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO PRIVATE FIRST CLASS WESLEY ROBERT RIGGS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE. ``I don't do it for the money . . . I don't do it for the
glory . . . Providing for our future is my responsibility . . . I can't
call in sick on Mondays when the weekend has been too strong. I just
work straight through the holidays and sometimes all night long. You
can bet that I stand ready when the wolf growls at the door . . . I am
solid . . . I am steady . . . I am true down to the core . . . I'm an
American soldier.''
Words from Toby Keith's ``American Soldier.''
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of a young American soldier,
Private First Class Wesley Robert Riggs, who died serving our Nation in
Iraq. Private First Class Riggs, in only 19 years, had exhibited a
lifetime of dedication and duty. He was killed during a patrol on May
17, 2005, near Tikrit, Iraq, when a roadside bomb exploded.
He was a native of Baytown/Beach City, Texas. Wesley graduated in 3
years from Barbers Hill High School in 2003. He was active in the
Future Farmers of America. To Wesley's Ag teachers, he was well devoted
to the curriculum and is remembered for his skills in Ag Mechanics and
Meats Technology. They recall his love of fishing, hunting and anything
outdoors.
Before enlisting in the United States Army in 2004, Wesley spent his
days like many other young Texans. He enjoyed hanging around with
friends and working on cars. He liked four-wheeling and camping. He was
also a member of the Houston Olympic weight lifting team.
He attended Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Mt. Belvieu, Texas.
Reverend Andrew Moore, Wesley's Pastor at Holy Trinity, recalls a
dedicated young man that was extremely motivated and driven. He dreamed
of a career in law enforcement after his years in the military.
A number of his band of brothers in the military paid tribute to
Wesley at his funeral service. Others commemorated him at his memorial
service that I was able to attend this past Memorial Day weekend. They
all spoke of a comrade who illustrated exemplary service.
To date, Mr. Speaker, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, our United States
Army alone has lost 93 Texans in combat-related casualties. It is
interesting to note that one out of every ten Americans in the United
States military comes from the Lone Star State.
Our military cannot replace individuals of such exceptional character
as Private First Class Riggs. However, his service will provide a
stirring example for the men and women who carry forward his tenacious
fight against tyranny, terror and treachery.
Moreover, Private First Class Riggs helped to establish a democracy,
the historic start of which I was privileged to witness in Iraq this
past January. Freedom does not come, Mr. Speaker, because somebody
carries a sign in protest. It comes because of sacrifice.
So if today we could hear from Private First Class Wesley Riggs
himself, as a member once and always of the United States Army, as a
member of the Infantry, called ``the Queen of Battle,'' he would
resonate the remainder of Toby Keith's ``American Soldier:''
``And I always will do my duty, no matter what the price. I have
counted up the cost, I know the sacrifice . . . I don't want to die for
you, but if dying is asked of me, I will bear that cross with honor,
cause freedom don't come free . . . I am out here on the front line.
Sleep in peace tonight . . . I am an American Soldier, an American, an
American Soldier.''
Private First Class Riggs might also hear the words that were spoken
many years ago regarding the band of brothers in Henry V. He could say,
inspired by Shakespeare, ``For he that sheds his blood with me is my
brother. From this day to the ending of the world. But we in it shall
be remembered, we few, we happy few, we band of brothers.''
Private First Class Riggs, we will not forget you, an Army of one. He
received the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, National Defense Service Medal,
Global War on Terrorism Medal and the Army Service Ribbon. We thank
you, Private First Class Riggs, for your service, your dedication and
sacrifice to your country.
____________________
HEARING FROM AMERICA ON UNITED AIRLINES PENSION COLLAPSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to hear
from America about the severe loss of private pensions. Tonight, I
would like to share with my colleagues some of the testimony my
Democratic colleagues and I have received through the first-ever
congressional E-hearing.
It is clear from United Airlines' attempt to dump $6.6 billion onto
the Federal pension agency known as the Pension Benefit Guarantee
Corporation and to cut over $3 billion in pension benefits from its
employees that the Federal pension laws are seriously broken.
Like United, other large companies have also abused Federal law to
terminate their employees' pension plans and to deeply reduce the
retirement security that hard-working Americans had every right to
expect to have. These runaway pension terminations threaten employees,
investors and taxpayers.
In the case of United, if it is allowed to dump all of its pension
obligations
[[Page 11755]]
onto the Federal Government, then its competitor airlines will seek to
do the same. This is a real crisis, and it demands action. This crisis
is about hard-working employees who in many cases will lose half or
even more than half of the nest egg promised by their employers.
United failed to put away enough for the hard times, but it is the
employees and taxpayers that are suffering the consequences. Congress
needs to hear from United employees and from other Americans suffering
from the collapse of private pension plans.
But, as with so many other important pocketbook issues, this
Congress, under the Republican leadership, does not listen. It does not
afford average Americans an opportunity to be heard.
Democrats are listening, and we want to hear from America.
To do that, my Democratic colleagues and I on the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, and also with the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), held the first-ever congressional E-hearing.
We set up an online forum to hear from experts on the United pension
crisis and from the employees and the retirees themselves.
The response has been overwhelming. We have received some 2,000
heartbreaking e-mails. These statements demonstrate what a real crisis
looks like. I want to share with my colleagues and the public some of
these e-mails. On my Web site you can read all of the testimony at
house.gov/georgemiller.
Here is the testimony of Mynette Wijnveldt, of Mililani, Hawaii, who
writes: ``My husband and I were both employed as United Airlines flight
attendants for 27 years. In 2001, he was diagnosed with a rare illness
and became totally disabled. At age 50, he had to medically retire
because he was no longer able to work. While I am still employed by
United, I am seriously concerned about our future.
``If United is allowed to dump this pension our family will be hit
very hard. My husband's medical retirement was severely reduced due to
the early retirement factors, and I have lost 35 to 40 percent because
of cuts in the plans resulting from the negotiated changes to our
contract.
``If United is able to dump our pensions on the PBGC and walk away
from its promise, we stand to lose our home and I will be working until
I can no longer do so.''
Here is another testimony, from Proctor Lucius in Carlsbad,
California: ``I sit in jeopardy of losing over 70 percent of my monthly
income and with financial obligations not only for my immediate family
but assisted living care for my elderly mother. Our future is very
ominously bleak. As you are well aware, the costs for everything,
especially medical care, are increasing astronomically and Social
Security is pitifully inadequate to compensate. Now Social Security is
in jeopardy of being thrown into the giant casino of Wall Street. Where
does it end?''
Mrs. E.L. Smith of Hanover, Pennsylvania, wrote: ``My husband is a
retired United Airline pilot with 33 years of loyal service to the
company. He also is a two-tour veteran of the Vietnam War with service
to his country. I am a second generation, former United Airlines
customer service employee. We have an 18-year-old son starting college
and a 9-year-old daughter. The loss of my husband's pension will be
very difficult for our family, but the loss of medical care will
cripple us. Many retirees are in this position, and due to preexisting
medical conditions, they will not be able to afford coverage.
``It is frightening to know that the company that has been the
backdrop of our lives for decades would do this to us. For many, this
is a life-threatening situation.
``My husband was diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma and had a heart
attack in 2002. I was diagnosed with cancer 2 years before that. We
have significant out-of-pocket medical expenses at this time, and the
pension loss will put us in a very precarious position. We will not be
able to afford coverage. Please pass legislation to ensure that they do
not terminate our pension.''
These and many other statements, over 2,000, were submitted to our
congressional E-hearing at the Committee on Education and Workforce.
This is what a real crisis looks like. Now is the time for Congress to
act. Now is the time to do that.
I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 2327, a bill that
would put a 6-month moratorium on the pension terminations currently
planned by United Airlines. During this 6-month period, Congress must
act to stop companies from unfairly dumping their pension losses. This
will allow United and its employees to negotiate a solution through the
collective bargaining process. We must not let these hard-working
Americans down. We must listen to these Americans. We must understand
the tragedy that has befallen them and the financial situations that
they have been thrust into after a lifetime of hard work on behalf of
United Airlines.
____________________
KEEPING MARINES LIKE SECOND LIEUTENANT ILLARIO PANTANO
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this past Friday I had the
pleasure of attending an American Legion fund-raiser in Wilmington,
North Carolina, where the guest of honor was Marine Second Lieutenant
Illario Pantano. As you know, I have spoken at great length about Lt.
Pantano and his dedication and service to the Marine Corps and to our
Nation.
Friday was a day of excitement and disappointment for me. I shared in
the joy with his family as they celebrated the dismissal of the charges
against him. But it was also a bittersweet celebration as Lt. Pantano
announced his resignation from the Marine Corps.
I know the future will bring much happiness for him and his beautiful
family, but I was saddened to think that the Marines were losing such
an outstanding officer because of such an unfortunate situation.
Mr. Speaker, I was overcome with emotion as Lt. Pantano gave me his
officer's sword after he announced his resignation. I cannot bring the
sword on the floor of the House because of the rules, which I
understand. It is an honor I unwillingly accepted but will always
treasure.
As I look at the sword, I cannot help but think that this whole
matter could have been avoided by a more thorough investigation and
appraisal of the charges before an Article 32 hearing was held.
All along, I had confidence that the Marine Corps would ultimately
come to the right conclusion and exonerate Lt. Pantano of all charges,
and, thankfully, that has indeed happened. My only hope is that, in the
future, if any other such allegations are to come forward about another
member of our Armed Services, a more efficient and complete
investigation will take place before this situation ever gets to the
seriousness of an Article 32 hearing.
Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform are our Nation's defenders
and heroes. We are blessed to have so many young, brave Americans
willing to risk their lives in the name of freedom.
Lt. Pantano was an outstanding leader that I would be proud to call
my son or son-in-law.
{time} 1930
I believe his resignation is a great loss for the Marine Corps and a
great loss for America.
Let us make sure that in the future we do not lose any more of our
Nation's defenders the way we have lost Lieutenant Pantano.
Mr. Speaker, I will close by asking God to bless our men and women in
uniform, I will ask God to please bless the families of our men and
women in uniform, and I will ask God to please bless America and the
future of this great Nation.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I am sure that the
[[Page 11756]]
good lieutenant has recognized what a wonderful advocate he has had
here on the floor of the House. I think that the gentleman should be
commended for his perseverance, for his integrity, and for all that he
did, not just for this particular young man, but what the gentleman
does in terms of the moral integrity of this institution. I
congratulate the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is extremely
kind, I thank him very much, and may God bless America.
____________________
THE NICS IMPROVEMENT ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mack). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, the NICS system, the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System, is the database used to check
potential firearm buyers for any criminal record or history of mental
illness.
In large part, NICS has been a success. Since 1994, more than 700,000
individuals were denied a gun for failing the background check.
However, the NICS system is only as good as the information States
provide. Twenty-five States have automated less than 60 percent of
their felony convictions into the NICS system. In these States, many
felons will not turn up on the NICS system and would be able to
purchase guns with no questions asked. In 13 States, domestic violence
restraining orders are not accessible through the NICS system. Common
sense would dictate that you do not sell a gun to someone who has been
served with a restraining order. Thirty-three States have not automated
or do not share mental health records that could disqualify certain
individuals from buying a gun.
Sadly, this particular loophole in the NICS system cost two of my
constituents their lives. On March 8, 2002, Peter Troy purchased a .22
caliber semiautomatic rifle. He had a history of mental health
problems, and his own mother had a restraining order against him as a
result of his violent background. It was illegal for him to purchase a
gun; but like so many others, he simply slipped through the cracks of
the NICS system. Four days later, Peter Troy walked into Our Lady of
Peace Church in Lynbrook, New York, opened fire, and killed the
Reverend Lawrence Penzes and Eileen Tosner.
Peter Troy had no business buying a gun, and the system created to
prevent him from doing so failed. It is only a matter of time before
the system's failings provoke larger tragedies. We must fix the NICS
system now.
While we lay the responsibility for the NICS system on the States,
many State budgets are already overburdened, which is why I introduced
H.R. 1415, the NICS Improvement Act. This legislation would provide
grants to States to update the NICS system. States would be able to
update the NICS databases to include felons, people with certain mental
and emotional disabilities, and domestic abusers. It is actually
enforcing the 1962 gun control law.
We need the NICS Improvement Act to become law, and we need more
bills like this to be passed. These are ideas that impose no new
restrictions on gun owners, but give the government the tools to ensure
existing laws are effective and enforceable.
In fact, the NICS Improvement Act already passed the House in the
107th Congress by a voice vote. The bill had the endorsement of the
National Rifle Association. Unfortunately, the other body never acted
on the bill.
This is commonsense gun legislation we can all agree on. This bill
will save lives while not infringing on anybody's second amendment
rights.
Mr. Speaker, I call on the Congress to act quickly on H.R. 1415. If
we can prevent a tragedy like the one that occurred at the Our Lady of
Peace Church with a simple voice vote, why should we not do it right
away?
____________________
HOWARD DEAN AND WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I had planned to come down to the floor
tonight and talk a little bit about some of the things that I had heard
from the constituents in my district; but before I get to that, I have
to address some of the comments that have been made by Democratic
National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.
Everyone knows that Mr. Dean has a reputation for making outrageous
and inaccurate statements, and that is really no secret. But one would
think he would have toned down the false statements and the unfounded
insults, given his new role as leader of the Democratic Party.
In the past month, Mr. Dean has said the House majority leader ought
to ``go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence.'' Mr.
Speaker, that is despite the fact that the leader has not been accused
or convicted of a crime.
This past week, Mr. Dean said, Republicans never made an honest
living in their lives. He actually thought that was a reasonable,
responsible comment. And this is just so asinine, so juvenile, that it
is hard to believe that the Democratic Party would choose him to lead
their party.
Mr. Speaker, the next example is so awful and so incredibly sad, I
really hate to repeat it, but sometimes it is the light of truth that
is the only thing that will stop people from saying things like this.
In February, while addressing a group of African American Democrats,
Mr. Dean said, ``You think the Republican National Committee could get
this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel
staff in here.''
I cannot fathom what is going through his head when he makes comments
like these. It is increasingly apparent that he is out of touch with
America and with people who do not march in lockstep with his view. We
should not just let these comments slide. He is speaking for one of the
Nation's major political parties, and his comments are out of line. I
am glad to see that several Democratic Members in the House and Senate
have disavowed his remarks, and I would hope that minority leaders
Pelosi and Reid would join them.
If Mr. Dean would like, maybe we should introduce him to plenty of
good, hard-working conservatives who have never been given a single
solitary thing, people who have made it on their own; people who have
built a business, who talk about the sweat equity that is in their
business, because they have not only built it with their heart, they
have built that business with their hands. They deserve the same
respect any other American deserves, regardless of the party, because
they know what a hard day's work is all about.
Mr. Dean's attitude and his comments are exactly why his party has
failed for a decade to win back either the White House or Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to end my comments today without
discussing some of the things my constituents and I have been talking
about back in Tennessee. Like many of my colleagues, I have spent a
great week talking with people in my district and getting their take on
what we are doing or not doing here in Washington. This is one of the
very best parts of my job.
I learned so much from the listening sessions in my district. We
talked about our military; we honored our veterans; and, Mr. Speaker,
we talked about issues like government spending, illegal immigration,
and waste, fraud, and abuse, which are at the top of the list. And it
is waste, fraud, and abuse that I want to touch on tonight for just a
few minutes.
I have been working over the past months to target the tremendous
number of taxpayer dollars that get wasted each and every year right
here in Washington, and I want my colleagues to know that the folks
back home are talking about this issue. They want to remind us that
government has a spending problem, and that when we spend wisely, we
spend less. I heard time and again from my constituents,
[[Page 11757]]
it is a spending problem, it is a spending problem that you folks in
Washington have. You do not know how to say no. They know that when we
spend less and when we spend wisely, everybody benefits, especially
future generations; and they know there is plenty of room, ample room
for reform when it comes to government spending. They support the
President's plan to reduce and eliminate underperforming programs and
agencies, and they support the budget that this Congress passed that
reduces by nearly 1 percent discretionary nonhomeland, nondefense
spending. They want us to make even larger strides in that same
direction.
We know that rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse is not going to be
an easy project; it will be a long-term project, but over the next few
months, we will be coming back to the floor to talk just about that
issue, and I invite my colleagues to join me.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2744,
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
Mr. PUTNAM, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 109-105) on the resolution (H. Res. 303) providing
for consideration of 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.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 27,
WITHDRAWING THE APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE AGREEMENT
ESTABLISHING THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Mr. PUTNAM, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 109-106) on the resolution (H. Res. 304) providing
for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 27) withdrawing
the approval of the United States from the Agreement establishing the
World Trade Organization, which was referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed.
____________________
UNITED AIRLINES PENSION CRISIS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will submit for the
Record an article in the New York Times entitled, ``Pension Loopholes
Helped United Hide Troubles.''
The article, by Mary Williams Walsh, discusses loopholes in the
current laws that allow corporations to grossly underfund their
employees' pensions, and to do so legally. They use accounting tricks
to give the appearance of healthy financial standing; and as Senator
Grassley says, ``We saw similar practices and events at Enron but,
unfortunately, this time it is perfectly legal.''
These companies keep the poor health of their pension funds hidden
from the public until they decide to terminate them, as United Airlines
currently is doing. United knowingly underfunded its pension fund as it
faced bankruptcy, shielding from its workers the truth about their
retirement futures.
I would like to share two statements from hard-working people in
Illinois who are personally affected by pension-accounting sleight of
hand. These statements are from the more than 2,000 dedicated United
Airlines employees and retirees who submitted testimony to the online
hearing that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I
held highlighting the United pension crisis and clearly showed just how
devastating losing one's retirement security can be.
The first letter is from Joseph Krist, Jr., Schaumburg, Illinois: ``I
am 68 years old and worked for United Airlines at O'Hare Field as an
aircraft mechanic from September 1959 until October 2000. I was an
aircraft mechanic in the United States Air Force from 1954 to 1958.
``My job at United Airlines was very challenging. We accomplished
much work outside in all kinds of weather. In the winter months, if the
hangars were full, the work was done outside with one man working while
another would hold a heater on his hands. We worked with all kinds of
hazardous fluids, which has given me and many of my fellow mechanics
cancer and other medical problems. My oldest son was a mechanic for
United for 11 years when he came down with leukemia and died 9 weeks
later at the age of 34.
``Now that the pensions are being dropped by United Airlines, dumping
it on the PBGC, we will be losing more of the money promised to us. I
do not live high on the hog. We have two older cars and a 28-year-old
house in Schaumburg, Illinois, which still carries a $124,000 mortgage
on it. We presently have this house on the market, as we will not be
able to afford the mortgage and the real estate taxes with the
estimated reduction in our pension. How will we pay for the increased
cost of gas and other living expenses in the years ahead? How will we
pay for medical insurance, treatments, and prescriptions?
``The thousands of people and their families who are being hurt by
allowing United Airlines to terminate our pensions will surely snowball
and affect everyone in the country as more companies shirk their
responsibilities. We need someone to support us and give the retirees
who sacrificed and dedicated their lives to making this airline and
country great the money they earned by the sweat of their brow.''
Another one from Karen Harvey-Kincaid of Streamwood, Illinois, and
she writes to Congressman Miller:
``I have been a United flight attendant for 20\1/2\ years, never
missing a trip, never being late for check-in. I have truly been the
friendly skies. I am now 46 years old, not old enough to retire from
United, and not young enough to start over at another company. The
truth is I do not want to work anywhere but United. But will I be able
to afford to work there? I am not talking about the financial toll this
has taken on me. It's the emotional roller coaster they have put us
through for the last 2\1/2\ years. I honestly believe my health,
sleeping, and eating habits have all suffered.
``I am now divorced after 12 years of marriage. I didn't take half of
my husband's pension because I wanted to keep mine. If I only would
have known. I lie in bed at night worrying if I will lose my house,
thinking how many more trips can I pick up this month, knowing that I
am paid $9 per hour less, paying for all of my benefits, losing
thousands in vacation pay, and now, a reduced pension.
``I implore you to use this letter as part of your Congressional
Record. I have tears in my eyes as I write this. I got up at 4:15 a.m.
and walked into my house at 7:21 p.m. tonight, after going to San
Francisco and back. I welcomed and made happy all 694 passengers today.
I only wish I was welcomed and happy at work.''
That is again from Karen Harvey-Kincaid from Streamwood, Illinois,
one of the more than 2,000 people who wrote to tell their personal
stories, how they are being affected by the loss of their pensions.
This may only be the beginning, Mr. Speaker, of what we hope will not
be the opening of a floodgate of companies that want to escape their
pension responsibilities.
[From the New York Times, Jun. 7, 2005.]
Pension Loopholes Helped United Hide Troubles
(By Mary Williams Walsh)
Loopholes in the federal pension law allowed United
Airlines to treat its pension fund as solid for years, when
in fact it was dangerously weakening, according to a new
analysis by the agency that guarantees pensions. That
analysis is scheduled to be presented at a Senate Finance
Committee hearing today.
A second report, by the comptroller general, found that
most companies that operate pension funds are using the same
loopholes. Those loopholes give companies ways--all perfectly
legal--to make their pension plans look healthier than they
really
[[Page 11758]]
are, reducing the amount of money the companies must
contribute.
United's pension fund failure is now the biggest since the
government began guaranteeing pensions 30 years ago. Most
companies are able to keep their pension plans going, despite
the chronic, hidden weakness, because they are generating
enough cash to meet their obligations to current retirees.
Only when a company files for bankruptcy, as United did in
December 2002, and terminates its pension plan, as United
has, does the government step in and make the plan's true
economic condition apparent.
``We saw similar practices and events at Enron, but
unfortunately, this time it's perfectly legal,'' said Senator
Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who is chairman of
the finance committee. He said he had scheduled today's
hearing because he wanted to find ways to keep pension
disasters like the $10 billion failure at United from
happening at other companies.
``The rules are full of serious holes that need to be fixed
as soon as possible,'' Senator Grassley said. ``No on should
make the mistake that this is an airline-only problem. The
reality is that companies everywhere have used the same
arcane pension-funding rules'' to shrink their contributions.
Many analysts believe that the federal Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation will one day require a bailout because
it has been forced to pick up a number of large failed
private pension plans. The more big defaults there are in the
meantime, the more the eventual bailout will cost.
The federal pension law was enacted in 1974 after a number
of scandals in which companies went bankrupt and their
workers discovered there was little or nothing set aside to
pay the pensions they had been promised. The law was supposed
to make pension failures a thing of the past by requiring
companies to set aside money in advance--enough each year to
pay the benefits the work force earned that year.
The law also required that if a pension fund got into
trouble, its sponsor was to quickly pump in more money, warn
its employees about the problem and pay higher premiums to
the federal pension insurance program.
United did none of those things, even as its pension fund
withered, because its calculations were making the fund look
healthy. The fund is made up of four individual plans for
various groups of employees.
United's calculations followed the letter of the law until
July 2004, when the airline announced that it owed $72.4
million to its pension fund but would not make the
contribution. By that time, the company had filed for
bankruptcy protection.
The $72.4 million would have done little good by then,
because the pension guaranty agency told the bankruptcy court
that the pension fund had a shortfall of $8.3 billion.
In its analysis, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
found that in 2002, when United was determining how much it
had to contribute to its four plans, it calculated that the
plans for its pilots and its mechanics each had more money
than needed. It further calculated that the plans for its
flight attendants and its managerial workers were close to
being fully funded, and did not need any special attention.
On the basis of those calculations, United, a unit of the
UAL Corporation, made no pension contributions that year.
Those numbers are on file with the Labor Department. But
they do not square with the pension numbers United provided
to the Securities and Exchange Commission. That agency
requires companies to calculate pension values in a different
way. At United, that method showed the four pension plans to
be only 50 percent funded; that is, they had only half as
much money as they needed to make good on United's promises
to its workers.
Pension calculations done for S.E.C. filings have nothing
to do with the rules for calculating contributions. But had
United been required to use the S.E.C. pension numbers to
determine its contribution that year, it would have had to
pump money into the plans quickly. The pension law requires
companies to make special catch-up contributions any time
their pension funds fall below an 80 percent funded level, or
even when they fall below 90 percent funded, if they stay at
those levels for several years. A plan that was only 50
percent funded would be considered a real emergency.
But the law allowed United to say its pension plans were
fully funded, or nearly so, and, therefore, no more money was
needed. United's employees were not informed that anything
was amiss, as the law requires of badly weakened plans. Nor
did United have to pay the higher premiums to the pension
guaranty agency that the law expects.
The discrepancy between a company's pension report to the
S.E.C. and the Labor Department is but one example of the
problems. At today's Senate hearing, David M. Walker, the
comptroller general, is expected to testify that companies
have so many ways of tweaking their pension calculations that
they almost never have to make the special catch-up
contributions that Congress required of plans that are
slipping.
A recent study by the Government Accountability Office,
which Mr. Walker runs, examined eight years of records for
the nation's 100 largest pension funds, and found that only
six plans in the entire group ever had to pay the special
contributions in that period.
For two of the plans, it was already too late by the time
the special contributions came due. Years of insufficient
contributions had taken their toll, and those plans collapsed
and were taken over by the government.
The G.A.O. study attributes some of the misleading pension
math to the use of inappropriate actuarial assumptions in
projections and some to a process called ``smoothing,'' in
which actuaries attempt to eliminate short-term volatility by
spreading changes over several years.
But the pension agency's analysis of United's case shows
that the rules for tracking contributions made in prior years
have also caused a great deal of trouble. The rules allow
companies that put in more than the required minimum in any
given year to keep the excess amount on their books and to
use it to offset their required contributions in years when
cash is tight.
These excess contributions from the past are kept in a
running tab called a credit balance.
The trouble is that at United, as at many companies, money
contributed in the 1990's was invested in assets that lost
value during the bear market that began in 2000. But the
pension rules allow companies not only to keep their pension
credit balances on the books at the original amount, but they
are even permitted to allow their credit balances to compound
in value at some interest rate determined by the plan's
actuary.
When United's calculations finally began to show that
contributions were quickly needed, in 2003, the airline was
able to satisfy the requirement with just a small amount of
cash and lots of bookkeeping entries from its credit balance.
Senator Grassley said he believed many companies were
``booking phony investment gains to hide that workers'
pensions are going down the tubes.''
He said he hoped the hearing would lead to legislation that
would eliminate the loopholes that made such maneuvers
possible.
In a later session today, the finance committee is
scheduled to hear from executives of some of the major
airlines, and from the leaders of some of the unions for
airline employees.
____________________
{time} 1945
SALUTING THE DOC AND JOHNNY SHOW
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mack). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to two central
Floridians marking a special anniversary. Doc Holliday and Johnny Magic
have been a team on the Orlando airwaves for 15 years now.
In an industry where many hear the words ``you are fired'' more often
than Donald Trump's would-be apprentices, the Doc and Johnny Show on XL
106.7 has stood the test of time. These guys are like gum under a bus
seat. They have survived four presidents, three hurricanes, and have
gotten themselves in trouble too many times to count.
The idea for the Doc and Johnny show came the way many great ideas in
this country come about, over a beer. Doc Holliday is a huge sports fan
with a reputation for enjoying the big game with a big beverage. Johnny
Magic is a single guy in his 40s, loved by the station's female fans,
which sort of makes him the Fonz of Orlando.
They have worked together 15 years and are still going strong. And
behind one of the most successful morning radio shows in Central
Florida are two men who have shown a strong commitment to making my
home town of Orlando a better place. Let me give you three examples.
First, in 1991, Doc and Johnny helped 30 needy families make sure
they had Christmas presents under the tree for their children. Last
year, the Baby DJ Program help make sure 5,000 kids had toys at
Christmas. It is a program I am proud to have personally donated to.
Second, after the events of September 11, 2001, Doc and Johnny broke
from their regular format and instead had numerous elected and law
enforcement officials on their radio show to make sure the people of
Orlando had the very latest information on the war in terrorism in what
was a very uncertain time for our Nation.
Finally, when my State was hit last summer with hurricane after
hurricane, Doc and Johnny's Neighbor Helping Neighbor program set up
shop at a
[[Page 11759]]
local mall and gave listeners a place to donate and pick up hurricane
relief supplies, all free of charge.
When I asked their long term sidekick, Grace Vazquez, her favorite
memory about Doc and Johnny, she wrote about a time when the show was
on the road in Key West. Grace fell off a moped and broke her arm.
Through it all she writes, ``One, they never left my side. Two, they
still made me laugh. Or maybe it was the painkillers''.
Mr. Speaker, Doc may be a fast-talking guy from New Jersey, and
Johnny may be a southerner from North Carolina, but my home town of
Orlando, Florida, is a better place because they decided to make their
home there. I wish them a happy 15th anniversary on their radio show.
____________________
SMART SECURITY AND THE CASE FOR LEAVING IRAQ
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, the common theme to the war in Iraq has
been the Bush Administration's ability and willingness to mislead the
American people. First, they misled about weapons of mass destruction.
Then, nearly 2 years ago, they falsely declared the end of major combat
operations.
Now they are openly declaring success of the mission, and President
Bush regularly speaks of an increasingly democratic Iraq. This
assessment suggests the degree to which the President fails to
comprehend the disastrous lack of security that has plagued Iraq over
the last 2 years. Personally, I am frightened that our own President
has such a failed understanding about the reality of the war that he
started.
Just as disturbing were recent comments by the Vice President, Dick
Cheney. In an interview, he said that the Iraqi insurgency was in its
last throes. I am not sure which press reports the Vice President has
been reading, but somehow I do not think his optimistic assessment of
Iraq's insurgency is grounded in fact.
Unfortunately, misleading assessments of the war like these do not
magically secure Iraq from the true threats that it faces; and the true
threats are an increasingly strengthened Iraqi insurgency, encouraged
by the continued U.S. military occupation.
On the ground, a violent wave of car bombings and other attacks
killed 80 U.S. soldiers and more than 700 Iraqis in the month of May
alone. Vice President Cheney calls this the last throes?
At some point, the Bush Administration needs to admit what the rest
of the American people know, that its current strategy in Iraq is
failing. Recent pools show that 58 percent of Americans disapprove of
the President's handling of the situation. Now it is time for the
President to start listening to the American people.
Members of Congress in both parties understand that our Iraq policy
is a disaster. When the House recently debated the Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006, 122 Democrats, 5 Republicans
and 1 Independent, totaling 128 Members of Congress, voted in favor of
my amendment expressing the sense of Congress that the President should
establish a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, Americans are less secure, not more secure as a result
of the war in Iraq. This war has created a whole new generation of
terrorists whose common bond is their hatred for the United States and
our aggressive militarism.
Unfortunately, we do not follow a smart plan, but fortunately there
is a plan that would secure America for the future, the Smart Security
Resolution, H.Con Res 158, which I recently re-introduced with the
support of 49 of my House colleagues. Smart is a sensible, multilateral
American response to terrorism for the 21st century; and it will help
us address the threats we face as a Nation. Smart security will prevent
acts of terrorism in countries like Iraq by addressing the very
conditions which allow terrorism to take root: poverty, despair,
resource scarcity, and lack of educational opportunities, as starters.
Instead of rushing off to war under false pretenses, smart security
encourages the United States to work with other nations to address the
most pressing global issues, dealing with global crises diplomatically
instead of resorting to armed conflict.
Instead of maintaining a long-term military occupation in Iraq, our
future efforts to help the Iraqi people should follow the smart
approach: humanitarian assistance, coordinated with our international
allies, to rebuild Iraq's war-torn physical and economic
infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, the President must create a plan to bring home the
hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq, helping to
secure Iraq by giving Iraq back to the Iraqis and saving the lives of
thousands of American troops. We must end this long and destructive
war.
____________________
RENEGOTIATING CAFTA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, at a White House news conference last
week President Bush, called on this Congress to pass the Central
American Free Trade Agreement this summer.
This morning in this Chamber, next to me, the most powerful
Republican in the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), once
again promised a vote, this time by July 4. Actually, a month or so ago
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) promised that there would be a
vote in May, but this time he says he actually means it.
Mr. Speaker, those of us who have been speaking out against the
Central American Free Trade Agreement have a message in return. Let us
scrap this agreement. Clearly, this Congress does not support it. And
let us renegotiate a better Central American Free Trade Agreement.
President Bush signed this agreement fully 1 year and 2 weeks ago.
Every trade agreement negotiated by this administration, Morocco,
Singapore, Chile, Australia, all trade agreements negotiated by this
administration have been ratified by Congress within 65 days of the
President affixing his signature to them. CAFTA has languished in
Congress now for 54 weeks without a vote because this wrong-headed
trade agreement offends Republicans and Democrats alike.
Just look at what has happened with our trade policy in the last
decade. 1992, the year I ran for Congress, we had a trade deficit in
this country of $38 billion. Today, a dozen years later, last year
actually, in 2004, our trade deficit was $618 billion.
From $38 billion, when the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and
others of us in this Chamber opposed the North American Free Trade
Agreement, from $38 billion a dozen years ago to $618 billion today.
It is clear our trade policy is not working. Mr. Speaker, opponents
of CAFTA know that it is simply an extension of the North American Free
Trade Agreement, actually a dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA, which
clearly did not work for our country.
Look at the chart. Look at the number of jobs we have seen lost in
this country as a result of trade policy.
In the last 5 years, not all of these jobs are trade policy, but many
of them are. In the last 5 years, the States in red have lost more than
20 percent of their manufacturing jobs. New York, 222,000. Pennsylvania
200,000. Ohio, 217,000. Michigan, 210,000. North and South Carolina,
306,000 combined. Alabama and Mississippi, another 125,000. State after
State after State has lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs.
It is the same old story. Every time there is a trade agreement,
every time there is a trade agreement, the President says it will mean
more jobs for Americans, it will mean more exports for the U.S., it
will mean more manufacturing done in our country and selling those
products overseas, and the President promises it will be better wages
for workers in the developing countries.
Mr. Speaker, Ben Franklin said the definition of insanity is doing
the same
[[Page 11760]]
thing over and over and over again and expecting a different outcome.
The President makes the same promises on NAFTA, on PNTR, on trade
promotion authority, the same promises, every trade agreement. And
every time it comes out exactly the opposite. That is why there is
overwhelming bipartisan opposition to the Central American Free Trade
Agreement.
Since then, the administration and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay) and Republican leadership have tried every trick in the book to
pass CAFTA. The administration started off by linking CAFTA to helping
democracy in the developing world. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy
Secretary of State Zoellick both have said CAFTA will help on the war
on terrorism. I am not really sure why, but they said that we need to
pass this agreement with Central America to help us in the war on
terrorism. But we know 10 years of NAFTA has done nothing to improve
security between Mexico and the United States, so that argument simply
does not sell.
In May, then, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce set up a junket for the
six presidents from Central America and the Dominican Republic, taking
them to Cincinnati and Los Angeles and Washington and Albuquerque and
around the United States, hoping they might be able to sell the
American people the press and the Congress on CAFTA. Again they failed.
Earlier this year, the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay), and the Ways and Means Chairman, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas), said there would be a vote on CAFTA by Memorial Day.
Memorial Day came and went without a vote. Why? Because they did not
have the votes.
Now we have a new deadline for this failed trade agreement. It is
July 4th.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans and Democrats, business and labor groups,
farmers, ranchers, faith-based groups, the National Council of
Churches, the Latin American Council of Churches, churches, business
groups, religious leaders environmental groups, all have said, if CAFTA
countries and the U.S. renegotiate CAFTA, we can get a better agreement
next time.
____________________
{time} 2000
KORNER'S FOLLY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mack). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a unique historic home
located in Kernersville in North Carolina's fifth district. It is
called Korner's Folly.
Some folks call Korner's Folly the strangest house ever built. Others
say they are amazed at its resemblance to a small castle one would more
likely find on the banks of the Rhine River. Everyone is certain that
few houses equal its unique nature.
Upon entering the building, one walks past the ``witch's corner''
which is complete with fireplace and chimney. Soon, however, one learns
that he or she is welcome as the house is square with entrances on each
side for visitors to come and go as they wish.
Built first as a carriage house with stables, bachelor's quarters and
studio, Korner's Folly stands proudly on Main Street in Kernersville,
North Carolina. It was built by Jules Gilmer Korner, an artist and
interior designer, who is credited with painting Bull Durham Tobacco
signs in many areas of the country.
Although 1880 is given as the completion date, Mr. Korner's zeal for
decorating and altering the house is evident. The stables were soon
turned into a library. The reception, or ballroom, on an upper level
with a 20-foot ceiling is decorated with fresco-type pictures and
features two magnificent fireplaces. At the very top, one is amazed to
find a theater named Cupid's Park for the paintings of cherubs on the
ceiling. With 22 rooms, which have ceiling heights from under 6 feet to
over 20 feet, a tour brings many surprises and attests to the
creativity of the builder.
This unique building was saved from deterioration in 1971 by a group
of public-spirited Kernersville citizens who purchased it and began the
process of preservation and restoration. They understood the importance
of preserving this unique building as the cornerstone for tourism in
the town of Kernersville. They later gave it to the North Carolina
Historical Preservation Society which organized Korner's Folly,
Incorporated, in order to continue its preservation.
The home now serves as a wonderful museum and a great place to visit.
As the words inscribed on the sidewalk by Mr. Korner say, ``Come in,
you are at home.''
I am proud that Korner's Folly is located in Kernersville, North
Carolina, and in the Fifth Congressional District which I now
represent.
____________________
MISMANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS
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, there is a major political scandal that is
unfolding in the State of Ohio; and I am sure Americans remember how
important Ohio was in this recent Presidential election.
If citizens wish to know more about it, they should go to the Toledo
Blade Web site, the major newspaper that has been involved in helping
to put information out to the public and help Ohioans and, indeed,
people in this country, understand what is happening.
In Ohio what is happening is that the Governor of our State has
permitted millions and millions of dollars of workers' money from the
Ohio Workers Compensation Fund to be invested in high-risk instruments,
coins and we think perhaps what is called collectibles, although we are
not sure yet. And these investments are ones that no other State in the
Union has allowed. But what happened was that some of these so-called
high-risk investments when they went to try to find them, it appears as
though millions of dollars of these coins are now missing.
There is a grand jury that has been seated in Ohio now that is
beginning to call people forward because some of these same individuals
involved in this scandal were used to channel money to the Bush
campaign in Ohio. In fact, the President of the United States has
already returned $4,000 to one of the givers. We do not know where this
is all going to lead, but it is a huge, huge story.
Our Governor, when asked, what do you think about this, that the
State of Ohio has taken all of this money, over $50 million initially
and given it to this coin dealer to put into these high-risk
investments, what do you think of it, the Governor of Ohio said, hey,
we are making money on that. I think it is a pretty good idea.
He thought he was making money on it? Well, think about it. How is it
secured? No other State in the Union permitted investments in coins and
collectibles. He was only looking at what he thought was yield. But the
cardinal rules of investing public money are safety first; liquidity,
can you get it back over night if you need it; and only running a
distant third, yield.
This is a very serious issue and yesterday in the State of Colorado
there was a search warrant that was issued on one of the related
individuals involved in this scandal, and they were in his house for
over 12 hours pulling out investments in cigars, wine, over half a
million dollars of wine I guess in that house alone.
The State of Ohio is now, through the Inspector General of Ohio,
trying to find where is the workmen's compensation money that was
improperly invested by those responsible, who had public responsibility
for this.
Then today a story broke in Ohio that this same Bureau of Workers
Compensation admitted it has lost $215 million in a high-risk fund that
few people knew about. The bureau had invested $355 million with a
Pittsburgh investment firm called MDL Capital Management beginning in
1998. But last year after diverting $225 million into a fund that works
like a hedge fund, the fund itself lost $215 million. And although
[[Page 11761]]
the bureau says it knew about the loss since last year, Governor Taft
was only notified about it today.
There are investigations going on, including the Ohio Inspector
General, the bureau spokesman, Jeremy Jackson told the Toledo Blade
today. But the news came to light as a handful of agencies are looking
into the bureau and its dealings with the Toledo area coin dealer, Mr.
Tom Noe, who is one of the people that took some of this $50 million
and put it into coins and purportedly collectibles.
The Ohio Ethics Commission on Monday said it was looking into other
investments held by the bureau, the agency charged with providing
assistance to injured workers.
This is where I want to say in my district, the ninth district of
Ohio, we have had four deaths of people, iron workers trying to build
the largest transportation project in Ohio history over the Meumee
River. These were unnecessary deaths because the State of Ohio was not
inspecting the project properly. In fact, though the project was a year
and a half ahead of schedule, they signed an acceleration agreement
with the company to try to make the workers finish the project faster,
even though it was a year and a half ahead of schedule. And the cranes
that were used in this project collapsed because the company was not
securing the foot of the cranes properly.
So the State of Ohio not only has taken workers' compensation money
and misinvested it, they have not even done their job in protecting the
lives of citizens who are trying to build Ohio forward in a very rough
economy. It is unbelievable what is going on in our State.
At the center of this new loss of money was a man named Terry Gasper
who was the former chief financial officer for Ohio's Bureau of Workers
Compensation that is supposed to be there for the workers. The money is
set aside by the companies for the workers, not to be put in these
crazy investments that can never be recovered, but for workers who are
injured on the job.
By the way, on that transportation project in our district, we have
many injured workers who would benefit from that money. I will be
submitting for the Record the most recent article about additional
losses from the State of Ohio.
Shame on the Governor of Ohio. Shame on the State officials of the
State of Ohio. What a tragedy they have perpetrated on the people of
our State.
[From the Blade. June 7, 2005]
(By Mike Wilkinson and James Drew)
Columbus.--The Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation
admitted today that it lost $215 million in a high-risk fund
that few people knew about.
The bureau had invested $355 million with a Pittsburgh
investment firm, MDL Capital Management, beginning in 1998.
But last year, after diverting $225 million into a fund
that works like a hedge fund, the fund lost $215 million.
Although the bureau has known about the loss since last year,
Gov. Bob Taft was notified about it today.
``There are investigations going on, including the [Ohio]
Inspector General,'' bureau spokesman Jeremy Jackson told The
Blade.
The news came to light as a handful of agencies are looking
into the bureau and its dealings with Toledo-area coin dealer
Tom Noe. The Ohio Ethics Commission on Monday said it was
looking into other investments held by the bureau, the agency
charged with providing assistance to injured workers.
At the center of the MDL deal were Terry Gasper, the former
chief financial officer for the bureau, and Jim McLean, the
chief investment officer. In a memo to the governor, Tina
Kielmeyer, acting bureau administrator, said Mr. Gasper did
not notify former bureau Administrator James Conrad about the
investment.
In the wake of the growing Noe scandal, Mr. Conrad resigned
two week ago and left the agency on Friday. Mr. McLean was
put on paid administrative leave today pending a management
review of the situation.
The bureau last year asked the Ohio Attorney General to
appoint special counsel in the case and ordered Mr. Gasper to
either resign or be fired. He resigned Oct. 6, 2004.
____________________
MEDAL OF HONOR FOR DICK WINTERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to
introduce legislation to authorize and request the President of the
United States to award the Medal of Honor to Richard D. Winters of
Hershey, Pennsylvania, for acts of valor on June 6, 1944, in Normandy,
France while an officer in the 101st Airborne Division.
Mr. Speaker, I do not take this issue lightly. It is with extreme
concern that I had to resort to taking this action to right a wrong
that occurred 61 years ago. 61 years ago, Mr. Speaker, on D-Day at a
placed called Brecourt Manor, Dick Winters led an ad hoc group of
paratroopers, mostly from E Company, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment,
against a numerically superior force of German defenders, manning a
battery of four 105-millimeter guns.
These guns were zeroed in on firing on Utah Beach during the initial
D-Day seaborne landings. With only 12 men, Dick Winters led the attack
that destroyed the German battery, killed 15 Germans, wounded many
more, and took 12 prisoners.
The base-of-fire technique that Dick Winters used would become a
textbook case for assault on a fixed site and is still taught at West
Point.
Winters and his men destroyed these guns during a vicious engagement,
lasting over 2 hours against heavy machine gun and infantry fire. This
action saved countless American lives on Utah Beach. Dick would later
be wounded, refused to be evacuated, maintaining that he would stay
with his company.
He was nominated for the Medal of Honor by Colonel Robert Sink, his
commanding officer of the 506th Regiment, a West Point graduate. His
application for denial of the medal was based on an utterly arbitrary
reason. The division commander directed that only one Medal of Honor
was permitted to be awarded in the 101st Airborne Division for the
Normandy campaign.
Mr. Speaker, it was never the intent of Congress to have an
artificial limitation imposed on a solder who committed acts of heroism
and bravery as documented by his colleagues, by his subordinates, and
by his leaders. Winters was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross,
the Nation's second highest military award for his actions. This is a
high honor, but he deserves the Medal of Honor as recommended by his
commanding officer.
The Army has reviewed the matter and maintains that the Distinguished
Service Award is appropriate. Thousands of people worldwide disagree.
Again, Mr. Speaker, because of an artificial limitation imposed by the
commander of the 101st Airborne that only one medal be given for the
Normandy campaign, Dick Winters' recognition and the recognition of
those who served with him have been denied.
Dick Winters was immortalized by HBO in the miniseries ``Band of
Brothers,'' produced by Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg. Andy Ambrose,
the son of Stephen Ambrose who wrote ``Band of Brothers,'' has publicly
supported Winters for the Medal of Honor, and so have thousands of
other people all across the country, including every military person
that served with Dick Winters and observed his heroism.
The entire Pennsylvania congressional delegation, all 19 members,
Democrats and Republicans, including the gentleman from Hershey,
Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), where Dick Winters resides, have signed on
as original co-sponsors of this legislation. Both chambers of the
Pennsylvania State legislation having agreed and have publicly
supported and passed legislation encouraging Congress to take this
action.
Dick Winters is a humble man. He did not want this kind of attention.
In fact, those who have supported this effort who came to me have said
that Dick Winters did not want this to take place. But all of those
people who served with Dick Winters, all of those soldiers who were
there, who saw, who observed, and who realized his heroism in landing
on D-Day and taking Easy Company all the way in to Hitler's
headquarters, understand that Dick Winters deserves the Congressional
Medal of Honor.
Again, Mr. Speaker, when Congress enacted the legislation creating
the
[[Page 11762]]
Medal of Honor, it did not allow artificial imposition of limitations.
It said whatever soldier under any condition that is recognized by his
or her peers for their actions should be eligible to receive this
commendation.
In the case of Dick Winters, because of an artificial limitation, he
has been denied that solemn honor of our country.
My bill does not mandate that the President award this Medal of
Honor. It simply authorizes and allows the President to make this honor
if he so chooses.
{time} 2015
Mr. Speaker, we just celebrated D-Day. Sixty-one years later, when
hundreds and thousands of American men stormed the beaches to liberate
Europe, one of those bravest heroes, one of those extraordinary of the
ordinary people who responded was Dick Winters. I encourage my
colleagues to sign on and join us in righting this wrong and providing
the support for the President to give Richard D. Winters the Medal of
Honor.
____________________
THE FUTURE OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I address the body tonight about the future
of this great country, and the previous speaker said we did just have a
chance to celebrate Memorial Day.
In the district that I was in, we recognized the anniversary of the
D-Day landing, and we understand that it is with the sacrifices of
brave young men and women throughout history that a nation is able to
sustain itself, and it is only through those sacrifices in each
generation. One generation cannot pay for the next generation.
But, tonight, I would like to look a little bit at the economic
future that faces us, both in the world and in this country, and would
like to have a discussion about what it is that will allow America to
offer its promise into the future so that our sons and daughters, our
children and grandchildren, would have the opportunities that our
generation has seen.
I am the second-oldest year of the baby boom generation, and I will
tell my colleagues that my mother and father grew up in very difficult
circumstances in West Texas. When my father graduated from high school,
he went to work for a cousin of his farming and actually in the role as
a sharecropper.
I recently had a chance to visit with my mom and dad in the place
where I was born and lived the first 2 years of my life. They were in
circumstances that not many Americans would look to these days and find
satisfactory, and yet I had parents that were willing to work through
all of the circumstances that faced them to raise six children, to give
every one of them the opportunity to attend college and graduate from
college.
My mother went back to school when I was starting college. She
graduated summa cum laude in 3 years, and I graduated somewhat below
that in four and a half years, but their sacrifices in my parents'
generation made possible the potentials in my generation. Now then we
must look beyond our current circumstances into the future, and that is
the discussion that I would like to have tonight.
When I am discussing that, I would, first of all, like to keep track
with numbers on the chart and do some recognition there. So we will
continue the discussion here much like a chalkboard discussion.
The first number I would put on the chalkboard is the number 2.55.
That is the approximate size of our outlays, the approximate size of
the budget that the United States has every year. It is the approximate
size of the government spending. Now if we need a benchmark, and all
numbers are relative, and so a benchmark that is very handy to the
2.55, that is trillion, is also then $11 trillion, and that is the
approximate size of our economy. So 2.55 is our government size. Eleven
is the size then of our economy.
The important thing to understand about those two numbers is the
relationship, and I simply divide the 11 into 2.55, and that equals
about 23 percent. The 23 percent then is the most important number in
the whole relationship. That is the percent of the 2.55 of our overall
budget, and we, in fact, as people in our individual households are
concerned about that same relationship.
If we want to know how much money that we are saving, we simply take
the amount of money that we earn, we subtract the amount of money that
we spend, and then we would have the rest available either for
discretionary spending or for savings.
If the United States has one weakness going into the future, it is
our savings rate, and that rate generally is about 1 percent. For
instance, in comparing that, if one looked into mainland China, we
would find that the people there, according to recent reports, save
almost 60 percent of their total income. That tells us that there is
much money available for reinvesting. There is much money available in
times of economic downturns. There is much money there for education.
There is much money there for the future.
So as we consider the U.S., we are right now the world's leading
economy. We are, in fact, one-quarter of the entire world's whole
economy, and so we would say that, with that information, that the U.S.
is poised for a good future, and I do not doubt that.
As a business owner, as a person who made payroll checks, who looked
into the future to ensure that I could write the payroll checks the
next 2 weeks and the next month, I always liked to do forecasting. It
is at this point, where we begin to examine some of the relationships
that exist, some of the pressures in our economic system, that we begin
to have deep understandings about things that we should be doing right
now.
Always, wisdom is the taking of a current situation, adding time to
it, extending it as far into the future as possible and discerning
those things, those outcomes from current situations or current
activities.
As we begin to take a look at the competitive pressures that we face
in the world, all of us know and we recognize that our $11 trillion
economy is under duress. Some would say a lot of duress, some would say
less duress. But we would know that China, for instance, is causing
great trade to occur between the U.S. and China. When any one of us go
to the store, we find certain numbers of goods on the store shelves
that actually only originate in China, and we know that with each $15
purchase or each $150 purchase that that money goes towards China. So
we would say that China represents a downward pressure on our $11
trillion.
Let us say that the 11 becomes 10. Then the important thing is to
understand that we still must do the division. If we have a $10
trillion economy, then our relationship here is 2.55. That is, over 25
percent of our economy at that point would be government spending. So
anything that drives our overall economic size, the $11 trillion of our
economy, to a lower point are things that put us on an unstable ground.
Anything that causes this top figure, the numerator, to increase also
are things that push us in an unstable direction.
As we consider the effects, we must understand the relationship of
what happens when this number begins to increase and what happens when
this number begins to decrease. As the 2.33 gets larger, then we can
understand, and economists of all kinds agree, that we move toward
stagnation if our relationship gets too large.
We have stagnation if the number becomes larger, and if the number
becomes smaller, then we have vitality and growth. So if this number is
lesser on the scale of vitality, if this number begins to get larger
and larger, then we would see stagnation occur.
There are examples of that in the world right now. Our number is .25;
and, of course, we must add State and local taxes, State and local
governments. Because the effect is cumulative. That as we consider
adding
[[Page 11763]]
about 16 percent State and local, then our number is actually converted
to about .40. Since those State and local taxes and spending are beyond
the capabilities of the Federal Government to affect, we simply
understand that as we approach .25 in this Nation, we move towards
stagnation. As we make the number smaller, we move toward vitality and
growth; and so .25, according to many economists, is an extremely
important position for us.
Now as we look around the globe, we might want to consider other
countries, just to verify the example. Germany is an example, and
Germany at this current point has a relationship not of .23 but of .52.
If the relationship is actually .52, we would say, well, if this theory
holds true, if this economic premise holds true, that we would think
that Germany has a more stagnant economy, one that is less vital, one
that has less potential to create jobs. The Germans themselves say that
they have not created a job in 10 years.
They have economic spending of the government that is too high a
relationship to the overall economy, and what that does is it begins to
soak out the reinvestment dollars. It soaks away the potential for
companies to grow and reinvest in research and development. It soaks
away the pay raises so that even the people are stagnant in their
incomes, and there is not a growth potential.
So we find that, in fact, this number got larger for the European
countries, and Germany is just one of the many European countries that
is stuck at a low growth rate and with very limited capability to
produce jobs and new industries.
If we look even closer, we would have to consider the former Soviet
Union. What Ronald Reagan understood was that the Soviet Union had a
number that was very high. It was almost a fully controlled state
economy, and he understood that, with just a little bit of pressure,
the Soviet Union's economic system would simply collapse. He began to
arm us, watching them arm in return, watching them drive their
government spending higher and higher, knowing that we could sustain it
because we had low percentages and they could not sustain it because
they had high percentages. In fact, during Ronald Reagan's tenure as
President, the economy in the Soviet Union collapsed, the Wall fell
down, and freedom moved to many people.
While an astute observer would ask at this point, what about mainland
China? Mainland China has got a state economy that has the Communist
Party that runs that government exactly the same way as the Soviet
Union. But, in fact, what has happened is that the Chinese have
recognized, after the mistakes the Soviets have made, they have, in
fact, privatized pieces of their economy. So the estimate for China is
actually about .40. Estimates range as high .60, which is not much
above Germany, and not everything is known about the Chinese economy,
but the estimate is that where we are at .23 and, adding in our State
and local economies, about .40, the estimation is that China is very
similar to that .40.
So one would ask, what about their economy? The Chinese economy is
performing very well. There are pockets of poverty throughout China,
but the Chinese economy is growing strongly. They are producing jobs.
They are, in fact, showing that this relationship between government
spending and the entire economic size is, in fact, a very important
measure.
It is not enough to simply know right now what the situation is. We
must look forward into the future. We must forecast where we are going,
and if we allow our economy to decrease down to 10 or 9 because of the
competitive pressures of China, the competitive pressures of the
European Union are also well-known, the competitive pressures of India,
providing much software, those competitive pressures are all realized
as taking pieces of our economy because they are providing as good a
product as we are at a better price. Then we realize that the downward,
the long-term trend is for this economy size to decrease, increasing
the relationship of government spending to our economy, moving us
towards stagnation, moving us toward a point where our children might
not have the hopes and the dreams fulfilled that our generation has
had.
{time} 2030
Now, if the economic size is sustained and we are able to continue
our growth and continue to build our economy against this worldwide
competition, we also have to worry about the size of our government
spending. If we maintain this $11 trillion or even grow it, our number
here could increase simply by increasing the size of our government
spending. That is a very important function as we consider our
relationships right now. We are fighting currently on the Republican
side to hold spending back. We are somewhat hampered because of the
mandatory spending programs which are allowed to escalate without us
being able to give comment on those each year. In this year's budget
process, though, those mandatory programs, welfare, Social Security,
Medicaid, Medicare, those mandatory programs are actually coming to
review to see if we cannot begin to dampen this down because there is
great understanding we are facing increasing economic pressures. Also
there is understanding if we can reduce spending, there is movement
here toward a smaller relationship and toward a more vital economy,
giving promise for the future.
So we have to answer the questions, how are we spending the money and
to what purpose, and are we actually achieving anything. One of the
more distressing things as I look through many of the programs, we are
spending lots of money but we are not coming out with outcomes. The
outcomes desired maybe are never measured by the bureaucracy that puts
the money in. There is not a relationship between money spent and
outcomes, so we have to ask ourselves how can we convert to that sort
of a system.
There are considerations in this Congress that would allow us to
measure benefit for dollars spent and not just talk about the dollars
spent. Many times we in this body are simply urged to spend more money
to cure the problem. The problem is not that we do not spend enough
money, the problem is that we do not always get the outcomes that we
would like.
For instance, there are welfare-to-work programs that for $50 per
person operate and there are programs that for $500 per person operate,
and then we have some programs trying to put some people back to where
the expenditure is $30,000 per person. At some point we can no longer
just throw money at the $30,000-per-person program saying that it is
worth any cost to put people back to work. Instead, we need to put the
most people back to work the most effectively for the fewest number of
dollars. Those are business decisions that anyone in business would
have to make, and they are business decisions that we in this country
are going to have to make. We are either going to make those decisions
while we have a nice future looking at us, or we are going to wait
until we move into stagnation and then try to correct it from a point
of weakness.
For myself as a former business owner, I wish we would go ahead as a
Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, and recognize that
Republicans and Democrats are not enemies of each other. The enemies of
the country are those who would decrease our economic size; they are
those who would force us into greater spending for no greater output;
and they are those, as the terrorists say their ambition is, who would
annihilate America. Those are the enemies of America. Republicans and
Democrats have different philosophies and different points of view, but
in my mind those are simply tensions on the system to pull us back and
forth. But we are not enemies; we each want to see our kids and
grandkids have a future that we ourselves have seen. That is my
commitment in coming to Congress, to see what we can do to ensure that
the future of this great country has the vitality and the vibrancy to
continue to offer promise for new generations.
If we are going to consider the spending, we have to understand the
competitive models of government. We
[[Page 11764]]
often are very familiar with competitive models in companies. Formerly,
much of the retail buying in this country was done at Montgomery Wards,
maybe Wacker's if we went back far enough. Today, the great amount of
retailing is done by large chains like Wal-Mart and Target. They
provide great avenues for shoppers to go and satisfy their daily needs;
but those companies came about, replacing other companies that did not
see the efficiencies of greater distribution points, the efficiencies
of computerization. So each one of us in our own way is familiar with
competition that occasionally will drive one company out of business
while raising up a new replacement in its place.
If we are familiar with competition among companies, we also to an
extent have seen competition among States. One State will offer
incentives so that a company would come in and provide jobs in that
State. We find States that will simply bid away jobs from another State
by offering greater incentives. So in our mind-set, we are very
familiar with competition among companies.
We are somewhat familiar with competition among States. What we must
begin to be aware of is that there is competition among countries.
Entire nations are beginning to compete the cost of government. They
are saying we can regulate you in the same way except at a better
price. Large international companies are beginning to move around. They
have flexibility. The Internet allows the exchange of data freely; and
if a company can find a nation that charges a lower tax rate, they are
just as liable to go there to find their home as they are to go to a
nation that provides higher tax rates.
Now, that all needs to be considered in this entire economic
discussion, and so we will flip the chart here. We will begin to look
at one nation. Many of us are aware of the Irish miracle, that is the
miracle of Ireland where they went from an economy of one size and grew
it proportionally larger. What Ireland did was no miracle at all. What
Ireland did was they just recognized that companies are looking for
competitive governments. Their tax rate internally was very similar to
ours, about 36 percent for domestic corporations. They were after the
corporations that would come from outside Ireland, and so they offered
a 10 percent rate of tax to foreign companies. Foreign companies saw
where they could move from the United States, which has a 36 percent
Federal tax rate, plus the local and State rates, so companies from
many nations began to move to Ireland to take advantage of this low tax
rate that was offered to foreign companies.
The European Union saw this as messing up their economic model, and
so they browbeat the Irish and said they needed to review that 10
percent tax rate; that 10 percent tax rate needs to be changed. That
is, we do not want you competing with us, us European nations. You need
to come up to match us, not us begin to figure out how to offer
government cheaper.
The Irish, being the Irish, looked at the proposition that they
should reconsider their tax rate, and they did. They actually were very
accommodating. They went up and said you are correct, the 36 percent is
far too high, and they made that 12 percent, creating an economic boom
on domestic corporations; and they went to 12 percent here. So we now
have, again, the Irish miracle of domestic growth as well as still
being extremely competitive with their foreign corporation rate. In
fact, this past year, just 5 to 10 miles north of my district in New
Mexico, the Irish have come in and are reinvesting in America by
building a cheese plant in the area of Portales and Clovis, New Mexico.
Now, the idea that government can and should operate cheaper, just
like any company can, is one that is going to affect us. If we as a
Nation do not realize that we cannot sustain the high 36 to 45 percent
tax rates that we are charging, if we do not realize that and begin to
lower this number here, we are going to face a future that moves us
toward stagnation and away from economic vitality.
That is extremely important for the next generation, but it is also
important for our generation because as 40 million baby boomers move to
retirement and we begin to retire in 4 years, 3\1/2\ years now, as we
begin to move to retirement, we have to understand that Social Security
is a pay-as-you-go system, that we do not actually have money in the
bank. We simply have those bonds; but if we do not have workers in the
system here providing the jobs locally, then we are going to see that
pay-as-you-go system under great duress.
If Social Security comes under duress, it is going to have to be
bailed out with more government spending which is going to increase
this number. It is going to increase this number, and we are going to
move toward stagnation just as the Europeans have and just as the
Soviet Union did. The stakes are extremely high for this country to
begin to realize that it must know how its money is spent, and it must
get the value for the dollars that we spend. No company can stay alive
and afloat indefinitely by misspending its money, and now we are into a
situation worldwide where governments will compete; and we in the
United States have to be willing to compete also. Our government has to
run more efficiently, more effectively, and with lower tax rates.
Many of my friends have asked why in the world in a period of
deficits did the Congress offer tax cuts. Again, it is very simple. The
Democrat Governor of New Mexico said it best, tax cuts create jobs. As
we cut the taxes, we were looking at the fact that we only had a couple
of options. If we want to change this relationship and run a deficit,
we either need to cut spending or increase the size of this economy.
That 11 needs to become 12 or 13 or 14. Those are really the primary
objectives. Anything else is simply window dressing.
The hope is that in cutting taxes we make this relationship less, it
moves us toward vitality growth and gives companies and individuals
more income of their own to put back into ventures that are most
promising and into ventures that can sustain research and development
and growth; and so we gave the tax cuts with the anticipation that we
would establish a rate of growth.
The rate of growth that we intended to get was we had hoped for a
sustained 4 percent. Now, if this were the target, it would be nice to
know exactly what kind of growth rate we did get. It is almost 2\1/2\
years since the tax cuts, and the first quarter out after the tax cuts
was about 8.25 to 8.5 percent rate of growth. There was understanding
there was pent-up demand, so we thought this number would actually
settle down; and over time it has settled down into the 4 percent
range.
As we face the elapsing, or the phasing out, while the tax cuts were
temporary, they expire at the end of the year, as we face those
expiring tax cuts, we realize that we are going to have pressure for
this number to decrease back down. What we as a Congress need to do is
be willing to go ahead and continue to extend the tax cuts in order to
give our economy the vitality and the growth that we have seen with the
tax cuts.
Now, you would ask what is happening in some of the rest of the
world. Again if we look at Europe, all of industrialized Europe is
about at the 2 percent range.
{time} 2045
So we have been for the last year and a half almost double the rate
of growth of the industrialized countries in Europe.
Another factor would have to be the job creation. Initially, our
recovery, there was concern that we were not producing enough jobs.
That is a valid concern, and so you would have to look at a couple of
things. Why did we not create jobs at the beginning of the recovery?
Again, as a business owner, I would tell you that the last thing I
wanted to do was hire permanent employees because permanent employees
might have to be laid off. As we went through periods of expansion, the
first thing we as a company would do was we began to extend overtime
hours and asked people to just come in and work a couple of hours a day
extra and we will be okay, we will be able to meet the increased demand
with that sort of expansion of labor.
[[Page 11765]]
When we could no longer ask our employees to work overtime, they all
would like to spend time with their families, then the next step that
we would do is to hire temporary people, hire people to come in on a
part-time basis, people that if the economy began to slow back down,
you really have not given them the full promise that they were going to
be here for you.
As we then would work our way through temporary employment and still
find that we could not solve the demand with overtime and temporary
employment, then my wife and I would go out looking for new employees;
and then the third step that we would take would be to hire full-time
employees.
We were able to do that over a period of years. When we bought the
company, we had four employees. We sold the company in late 2003 and we
had almost 50 employees. So we had judiciously expanded ourselves
through 14 years, one small increment at a time.
One of the most critical times in our business life occurred in the
1999 to 2000 range. We were in the oil and gas business. We did down
hole repairs in oil wells. We did not actually own any of the oil
wells. We simply repaired them. In 1999 and 2000, the price of oil and
gas dropped tremendously. The price of oil in our location had fallen
from about $25 down to about $6. Our revenues as a company at one point
fell 80 percent. We were working at 20 percent the income rate that
previously we had.
It was not just our company. Many companies that were competitors and
friends of ours worked in the same industry, and they saw the same 70
and 80 percent declines in their revenues.
We made a decision, my wife and I, that we could not lay off
employees, that we would sacrifice the company, if need be, in order to
keep the people who had made a promise with us. They had invested their
lives with us. We had, in turn, invested our lives with them. So we
said, we are not going to lay you off; we will give you 60 days' notice
before we actually begin to lay people off or give pay cuts. We
continued that line of thinking for almost 11 months.
If companies will take care of their cash, if companies will live
within their means, then you have got the capability to do that. But if
you have expended every single dime all the way through, then you do
not have the means to withstand these deep drains when they
occasionally occur.
A nation is exactly the same way. A nation must carefully guard its
cash, its reserves. It must carefully, carefully spend its money and
understand that it is getting value for every dollar spent, that we are
building infrastructure, that we are making our Nation more competitive
as a nation and as a government with other governments, because we will
at some point in the near future be held to a standard of competing
with nations.
Our rate of growth at this point is good, but if we look into the
future and see the threats to our economic size, to see the pushes to
increase our government spending, then we will understand that there
are some dynamics that we must be very aware of because they affect the
outcomes of this Nation. Literally the military sacrifices, the
sacrifices of our young men and women who are soldiers and who are
fighting for freedom, who have fought for freedom in the past, their
sacrifices will be somewhat less useful if government does not
adequately spend its resources. We must understand that we have got to
progress on all fronts and that we simply do not have a path into the
future based on what we have done in the past.
If we are to consider another one of the dynamics that is loose in
the world today, one of the competitive measures that we have to be
concerned with is governments who begin to review their entire
government spending, who begin to make changes and make their
government more effective. Again, those are competitive pressures from
one nation to another. Because a nation that adapts itself to a more
lean government, producing the same results with fewer dollars, is
going to be a nation that has economic vitality; and a nation that does
not carefully marshal its own spending, its own government spending,
will be a nation that is moving toward stagnation and toward a
noncompetitive situation into the future.
As we consider that particular ramification, one must look at the
example of New Zealand. The government in New Zealand several years ago
decided to really carefully look at their own situation. As they
reviewed industrial economies throughout the world, they said, our
economic vitality is not so great. We would like to improve our lot.
And they set about having deep discussions internally about what
functions should be in government and what functions should not be in
government.
That is a discussion that this Nation needs to engage in heartily. I
do not know exactly where the balance is. Government always has a
function. There is always the need for regulation. There is always the
need for oversight. But sometimes I think that our government is
delving into things that are not inherently governmental, and other
nations are beginning to sort through those pieces, and we will face
the competition.
So New Zealand began to look and in their own circumstance, at the
time I forget, the numbers are maybe not exactly correct, but they are
close enough. They had between 50 and 60,000 people in the Department
of Labor. I often ask my audiences, and I did just this last week when
I spoke about this in New Mexico, if you think of a government agency
that began to trim away fat, began to push nongovernmental projects
outside the government back into the private sector where they
belonged, how deeply do you think they would cut? How deep do you think
that New Zealand went?
Mr. Speaker, that is a question that we must ask ourselves. I will
tell you that the answer is New Zealand cut from between 50 and 60,000
employees in the Department of Labor to one. That, by the way, was the
individual doing the study. I suspect if he were not getting his own
paycheck he might have even eliminated that. When governments begin to
get so efficient that they move from 50,000 down to one, I will tell
you that the United States in the long term has to answer that same
question. Because if we do not recognize that we are under competitive
pressure from other nations, if we do not recognize that and begin to
lower our government spending, keeping us in a position of vitality,
then we are going to be moved by other nations into stagnation, and our
children and grandchildren will find that they just do not have the
opportunities that we in my generation have had.
If New Zealand can offer those kinds of benefits, we have to ask
ourselves what are we doing in the United States. I will tell you that,
in my district, there are many national forests. New Mexico is not
often identified as a State with water and forests, but we actually do
have many national forests. As I go into the Forest Service and I look
and I talk to people who are retired and I talk to current people, I
think that we have got great people in the field, but we have adopted
and adapted programs and philosophies in our Forest Service that make
us not so lean as this.
In fact, if we are to look at one particular office that operates in
my district to see the relationship that is going on in the United
States, and I have been told by a retired forest ranger, he says that I
used to work this whole forest. I cut timber, I provided the
restoration, I had projects that would clean up streams, clean up the
forest, I had some economic enterprises that were going on in and
around that I supervised, and I handled all the grazing. He said, it
was myself and one person half time in addition to me.
Now, that was maybe 30 years ago. To find out the benefit that we are
reaping today from our efforts to control or not control the size of
government, you would ask today what are we doing and how many people
is it taking. I would tell you that that gentleman says in the area
that he and one half-time person formerly operated that now then there
are 142.
So when New Zealand went from 50 to 60,000 down to one, in the U.S.
we went from one up to 142, and that has occurred over and over and
over again
[[Page 11766]]
throughout many agencies. So that you can see that maybe we are not 142
times a larger government overall, but we are moving and trending in
the wrong way.
If we have gone from one to 142, you would think, well, we are
running our forests much better, that our forests now are just the
examples of forestry that we would like to have. But I will tell you
that the exact opposite is true. That when this gentleman was in
charge, we were not burning hundreds of thousands and millions of acres
of forest land, but we are today. It is not because we are not spending
enough money. It is because we have adopted a philosophy that says that
we can no longer cut a tree.
At one point in New Mexico 20 years ago, there were 22 lumber mills;
and today there are two. Many of the forests in New Mexico have not had
a timber sale in decades. If you have not had a timber sale, that means
you have not cut timber. So you would think, well, those trees are out
there growing and we are not cutting, so they are probably now becoming
crowded and, in fact, that assumption is entirely accurate and valid.
The historic function of New Mexico forests had fire cleaning out the
forest every 8 years. If we look at the tree rings, you will see about
every 8 years a very hot fire would come through and with our arid
climate and the fires, we would find that New Mexico generally hosted
between 30 and 50 trees per acre.
If New Mexico's 142:1 relationship were to be looked at and you think
if we are doing a better job or a worse job, you would want to know how
our forests are growing, so historically our arid climate would relate
to 30 to 50 trees per acre. And again I ask my constituents when I am
in New Mexico, what do you think is the population of trees per acre
now? We have got 142 people in this one circumstance to 1\1/2\. Are we
doing a better job?
Now, then, the average number of trees per acre, 1,500, whereas
nature by itself kept that number around 30 to 50. We can look at
pictures from 100 years ago and realize that nature had a size or had a
population density of trees that its area and its climate would
support. But we have now, because we have stopped putting out all
forest fires and we have stopped cutting trees, 1,500 trees per acre
average and some areas are up to 2,500.
If you had people in the same circumstance crowding in like that, you
would expect a couple of things. You would expect nutrition to be
decreasing. If we had in the same place 30 people per acre used to live
and now 1,500 to 2,500, you would expect that disease would be somewhat
more prevalent and you would expect catastrophes to be always on the
edge. The same is true with our forests. We have now the threat of
disease. We have the threat of malnutrition. The trees are starved for
light, so they stay small diameter and they grow toward the same height
as the big mature trees; and as they get very tall and very small, they
do not have enough nutrients to grow larger and they, in fact, are
susceptible to insects, to disease.
But the worst susceptibility that they have is to fire. Previously, a
fire that would burn along in the grass underneath and char the trees
and leave the tree rings, it showed us that every 8 years a hot fire
would come, those trees now have enough kindling, they have enough
small diameter trees that any fire becomes explosive. The fire spreads
up those small diameters. It burns in the top of the trees now, not in
the bottom. So that we have the cap fires that run across the top of
the forest killing the green part while leaving the tree standing and
we have burned millions of acres.
{time} 2100
We are succeeding in this example to make our forests less healthy
with 142 workers where formerly we had one. Those kinds of
inefficiencies must be dealt with in the long term because as we grow
to this proportion and we are finding the New Zealand model that pushes
away from 50,000 to one, the relationships back here are influenced and
affected so that if we cannot control these costs, we have no economic
future. It all begins to relate at some point.
The discussion needs to be even far more complete than this. As we
consider the effect of our economic size, we must take a look at the
number of workers that we have available. Again, we have got about $11
trillion in our economic size right now. We must understand that 40
million workers, baby boomers, are on the verge of or beginning to
retire. As we retire, we have to ask ourselves what about the
replacements; do we have enough replacements. I will tell the Members,
Mr. Speaker, that everywhere I go, I hear the same comment: we need
workers. We need workers who will show up tomorrow. We need workers who
can pass a drug screen. We need workers who can read and write, and we
need workers who are productive. If we are not able to provide those
workers or if the workers are not capable of doing the jobs and
competing with other nations, our 11 becomes smaller, our relationship
becomes larger, and stagnation and even economic collapse are all in
the potential field of vision.
So as I go around my district, we begin then to talk where are the
workers coming from. Now, we have a great discussion right now about
immigration, and I have got good conservative friends who say we need
to stop the borders, we need to plug off the borders. For me, I am
simply looking at our economic future and saying we have got to replace
these 40 million workers. We are about 5 percent unemployment right
now, and 5 percent unemployment leaves employers everywhere telling me,
Please, Congressman, we need workers, we need people who can show up,
people who can be productive, people who can reason and think.
If we do not bring workers in, that is called immigration, I will
tell the Members that we have one other choice, and we will do that if
we do not bring workers in. The other choice is to send the jobs to
where the workers are. Companies cannot work without employees. So we
understand if we begin to export jobs to where the workers are, our 11
becomes 10, becomes nine, becomes eight; and again the economic promise
of our future is limited because we have a budget right now that is
providing very much inflexibility and decreasing. We have shown very
little capability to decrease this number.
In my freshman year, the first month we were here, Republicans
suggested a 1 percent decrease in the discretionary spending, which
would not have even been nearly 1 percent of this overall figure, and
the outcry from the American public was tremendous: please cut someone
else's program; do not cut mine. We have shown a very deep
incapability, either Democrats or Republicans, of reducing the size of
the budget. If we also begin to export our jobs to where our jobs go to
where the employees are rather than bringing employees into this
country and providing jobs, our economic life is equally very
difficult.
It is not just that we are needing the workers. We do desperately
need them. But the new thoughts, the new ideas, the new inventions,
that this Nation was built on immigrants and this Nation will continue
to be built on fresh, innovative ideas that come in to us, it is that
understanding that must drive us to the final conclusion: that for our
economic vitality, for our economic future, this Nation must be open to
immigration.
Again, looking at the German models, the European models, immigration
is not a word that is friendly there. We find that their societies are
not replacing themselves any better than we are. Our birth rate is
about .8 for every couple of two. We are not even getting the 50
percent replacement rate in our growth, and the European countries are
doing somewhat worse, and they are affected with the problem even worse
than we are so that their aging generations do not have the hope,
unless they change their immigration policies, that they will actually
be able to sustain the high cost of retirees, the high cost of the
aging on a decreasing economic pie.
As we then look into the future, we see the need for our economy to
sustain or to grow. We need the vitality of
[[Page 11767]]
new ideas and new workers coming into the system. We must explore the
ways that we can restrain our spending. We must look at the ways to
make departments more effective and efficient. We must realize the
mistakes that we are currently making in our policies that move us
toward stagnation, and we must differentiate those policies from the
ones that would move us toward vitality.
We need to recognize that nations begin to compete with nations. We
need to realize the economic model of Ireland in lowering its tax rates
to both domestic and external corporations, creating a tremendous boom
there. We must understand that if we cut taxes, it helps us to create
growth and jobs; and if we raise taxes, it actually decreases our
capability to grow the economy and create jobs.
We must look at the economic models of other nations who are
beginning to see how they can run government more effectively than any
other nation is operating government. Nations will compete just as
States have competed, just as companies have competed. This Nation must
understand that it will compete. We need to be able to move to that
model of competition before we move into stagnation, before we run into
the deep budget problems that come if we allow our jobs to continue to
be taken away by high tax policies, by anti-growth policies. Finally,
we must understand that the climate for businesses is one that is
extremely critical.
I met recently in this building with foreign economic chairmen,
chairmen of boards, CEOs of nations from outside this country that are
operating in this country. They said that the factors that affect them
are overregulation, overtaxation; but one of the most important things
they said and the most destructive thing they find is the
overlitigation, that in this Nation they will find their litigation
costs to be tremendously higher. So we as a Nation must look to the
economic numbers. We must look to the relationship between the size of
government and the size of our economy. But we must also be aware of
those factors that would cause people to say, Even in the stable
environment of the United States, I am going to operate somewhere else
because of the fear of litigation.
And not litigation to hold them responsible for things that they have
done wrong. Many times the class action lawsuits are not intended to
stop anything. Class action lawsuits have been in order to create a
litigation solution. That is, they did not create a solution in
operation, but they simply brought an economic solution, which then
generally the trial lawyers have benefited from to the tremendous
disadvantage of the people for whom they are suing.
That is one reason this body did two things in the early part of this
year that have helped the business climate tremendously: we reformed
the class action task load. We have reformed the way that class action
lawsuits are allowed to come to the courts. We have given people the
capability to present their problems without allowing the abuse of the
process. And the second thing that we did that is so pro-business is we
began to reform bankruptcy. No longer can people hide assets inside
their estates and preserve mansions while not paying their bills. These
are two things that generally have great effect on the economic promise
of this Nation, two changes that were made by this Republican Congress
in this year, both of which have been signed by the President.
We have got more work to do. We must deal with health costs, with
both health insurance and with the cost of health care in the Nation. I
think that we have committees that are working on that. We must deal
with the question of extending the tax cuts if we are going to make the
tax cuts permanent or if we are going to allow them to phase out and to
realize that we are tampering with the future of the economic vitality
of this Nation if we do not recognize the value of lower tax rates.
We need to understand that we also should deal with the regulation.
Every day I talk to business owners. They tell me that they are
overwhelmed with the paperwork of simply meaningless documents that
many times are filled out and sent in and sometimes no one ever looks
at them.
These are functions that we must review. We must review the cost of
our government. We must review the effectiveness of our government.
There are always things that we will do by government and we should do
by government, but we must understand that we are going to be competing
and that those functions must be done properly and with the best
resources available, without waste in the governmental process. And at
the end of the day I think all of us have the same ambition: to pass
along a Nation that is just as vital as the Nation that we inherited.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this body
tonight. I appreciate the indulgence in allowing me to speak on such
important matters.
____________________
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dent). 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 be
before the House of Representatives. I would also like to thank the
Democratic leader for allowing the 30-something Working Group to
reappear on the floor again for another week to talk about issues that
are facing 30-somethings throughout this country and are also facing
Americans in general.
When we talk about issues such as Social Security, the debt, national
security, health care, education, those are issues that we all care
about. And for the last couple of weeks, we have been talking about
Social Security, talking about strengthening Social Security, talking
about making sure that Social Security is there for not only the 30-
somethings but the 20-somethings, those that are receiving survivor
benefits, retirees that are receiving benefits from Social Security,
the 48 million Americans that we speak of, and also those that are
receiving disability because of an injury while they were working.
But it is an honor being here once again with the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Ryan).
Last week we recessed for Memorial Day, or Memorial week, and I had
an opportunity to go to Puerto Rico to speak, along with the Senate
president of the Puerto Rican Senate, to put 20-plus names on the wall
of proud Puerto Ricans that died in the line of duty defending our
great country.
{time} 2115
They are great Americans, and I was glad to be there. It was really a
moving event for me. They even added the name of a fallen hero from
World War II. In Puerto Rico it is kind of hard. Here in the United
States they usually say that a person is from the place that they
trained or the base where they were assigned, not necessarily where
they came from. So the family went through a lot of trouble in trying
to get this information up and finally were able to place him on
Memorial Wall there by the state capital for Puerto Rico, the capital
of that territory.
It is good to see the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back.
Memorial Day is one of the special days. Memorial Day, the 4th of
July, Veterans' Day, those are some of the great moments to be a Member
of Congress, because you get to go to all the different parades and all
the different events and meet some of the great heroes from communities
in Florida and Ohio, those people who were just from average homes,
average families, and just went and did their duty. I think it is good
that several times a year we remind ourselves.
One of the things that I think that generation of soldiers from World
War II gave us was a real spirit of what it is like and what it means
to be an American. It was great over the past week to have these
experiences, because I think in many ways we are losing that, that
[[Page 11768]]
sense of community, that sense of we are all in this together.
During the war, and I am sure the gentleman has heard stories, as I
have, of the kind of sacrifices that each community made, each family
made. Some would send soldiers off to fight, some would send soldiers
off to be a part of support units, some would serve here at home. But
then the women and the mothers had their own roles to play back here at
home. Whether it was going to the factory or working in the house or
working on the farm or wherever it was, everyone in the country made
that sacrifice to have the kind of success we had.
I think if there is one governmental program that is indicative of
that spirit, it is the Social Security program. We have been focusing
on this for many, many months now, really since the beginning of this
Congress, and just trying to hammer away at this issue and trying to
get our arms around it.
I think we have come to grips with the fact that this program is not
in a crisis state. It is the greatest program that this country runs.
It runs at a 1 percent administrative cost. Ninety-nine percent of the
money that goes into the system gets back out into the pockets of
beneficiaries. Only 1 percent is administrative costs. Even those folks
out there that may say government does not run efficiently, and I would
agree that there are cases throughout government where programs do not
run as efficiently as they should, would say this is efficient.
I think part of what we need to talk about from the Democratic side
is about reforming government, about making it run efficiently, about
how it should run in an age based on information, with technology and
knowledge and communication abilities that we have today. How do we
make this government run more efficiently? There is no question that we
need to address that problem. Social Security is not one of those
programs. Ninety-nine percent of what goes in comes back out and goes
to the beneficiary.
One of the kind of myths that we are trying to fight here with our
30-something Working Group is that this program is not in a crisis
state. We kind of just want to start the debate from there. We are kind
of reacquainting ourselves with this.
Here is a chart for the folks at home to look at. It starts in 2005
and continues to 2070. It basically in the navy blue here, from 2005 to
about 2047, 2048, if we do not do anything with Social Security at all,
we will still be able to pay 100 percent of the benefits, 100 percent
of the benefits. If we do not touch this program, if we do not
implement anybody's reform package, we will still be okay until 2047.
Then even after that, to the late 2040s, until 2075 where the light
blue is, we are still able to pay 80 percent of the benefits that
beneficiaries should be receiving. If we do not touch it, we are 100
percent until 2047 and then still good until 2075.
For the people at home, you make the judgment. Is that a crisis? Is
this program being solvent until 2047, 2048, a crisis? That is the real
question.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this is very
interesting. I am so glad. For us, we hear it, we know it here in the
Halls of this Congress. That is what we were elected for here, to find
out this information, to not only share this information with our
colleagues in this Chamber and Democrats and Republicans and the one
Independent we have here in this House, to share that information with
them, but it is important that we do not allow some of these statements
that are being made while the President and others are flying around
burning all kind of Federal jet fuel saying otherwise, that it is a
crisis.
I think the American people know exactly what is going on. It is our
job to make sure that in the minority, since we talk about this, we
have to explain what the minority-majority issue means. It is important
for everyone to know that Democrats, we are in the minority in this
House. We cannot agenda bills to come to the floor. We cannot call
hearings or committee meetings. All of these privileges are left to the
majority, which is the Republican Party at this particular time.
We also have to remember that for many of the issues we are talking
about here there are alternatives to those issues. We will be talking
about those tonight.
This Federal debt that you have here on the chart right beside you,
every American's share of that debt that is on that chart, we had a
solution for it and it worked. We were dealing with surpluses. Now we
are dealing with that large number.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. In 1993, a Democratic House, Democratic Senate and
Democratic President passed a bill that balanced the budget; and we
began to pay down the debt in the country because we were running at
the surplus level.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I will say this: When we
balanced the budget, we did it without one Republican vote in this
House. Our children did not have to pay $26,349.67. Someone who was
just born when we started this Special Order already owes that to the
Federal Government. Those are the issues we talk about.
But as relates to Social Security, one may say, what are Democrats
standing for? We are standing for strengthening Social Security, bottom
line. We stand for what happened when Tip O'Neill was in that Chair and
Ronald Reagan was in the White House and how they came together and
came up with the bipartisan bill without privatization. That is what we
stand for.
We look to go back to the days when we saw the Senate, the other
body, voting to adopt a Social Security plan 58 to 14. That is
bipartisan, Democrats and Republicans. In 1983, when this House voted
to put Social Security where it is now, because, as you mentioned, into
40-plus years, and I would just say 40-plus, even though we know it is
higher, 100 percent of the benefits will be provided and then 80
percent after that. But in 1983 this House, and it was a Democratic
House at that time, but that did not matter, because we moved in a
bipartisan way, some 243 Members of the House versus 102 voted for
Social Security. If you want to break it down at the partisan level, it
was 80 Republicans that voted for, 48 against; 163 Democrats voted for,
54 against. That is a bipartisan bill that passed this House. The
discussion that is going on today is far from that.
To start talking about, well, Democrats, they do not want to do
anything, or they just want to keep things in the status quo, well,
guess what? My constituents are not calling me complaining about Social
Security. I do not think the gentleman's constituents are calling him
either. Because it is one of the best Federal programs and initiatives
that has ever been launched in this country.
We want to strengthen it. We want to strengthen it without going to
privatization. From the beginning they are saying benefits will be cut
even if you are not part of the privatization program. If you opt not
to be a part of the majority side privatization plan, you still lose
benefits. So I do not understand the logic there.
But when I started looking at the information and we started looking
at the Congressional Budget Office and what they are saying, the only
plus benefit I can see here is $940 billion to Wall Street.
Guess what? I care about the folks that sent me up here from Florida.
I care about their well-being. I care about them receiving 100 percent
of their benefits versus 70 percent. They paid into it, and they have
the right to have their benefits.
Now I just want to say this again, because I want to make sure there
is no confusion in this House: To the Members that are watching us, to
make sure that they understand that we want to strengthen Social
Security without taking us further into debt, and if we have to deal
with the whole issue of borrowing the money, at least have a plan to
pay it back. That is how we got to that number; not ``we,'' but the
majority side, because we have been voting against the budget that they
put forth. We have just been spending on a credit card. Where is my
credit card? If I can have it, this is the congressional spending
credit card right here.
I do not consider myself a hard partisan, because I have some good
friends
[[Page 11769]]
on the other side of the aisle that care about this, that care about
this Federal debt. They do not believe in using a credit card to give
out all kind of cake and ice cream when we do not need it as relates to
the Federal dollar. I am using ``cake and ice cream'' as a metaphor.
Because if I was to feed my kids only cake and ice cream, what kind of
health will they be in?
If we just spend and borrow and allow foreign countries to hold 44
percent of our debt and say we are a financial superpower, that is a
misstatement, because soon it is going to be over 50 percent, if some
of the Members of Congress, and I mean some of our Members on the
majority side, if they do not go see the wizard and say, ``you know
something? I came here as a fiscal conservative and I want to leave
here as a fiscal conservative.''
But I can tell you one thing. The leadership on the other side is
damaging that image of those individuals that came here. So, obviously,
we are in a Federal debt situation, and growing.
We are going to have to make one of two things happen: Either the
American people are going to have to rise up and say, enough is enough,
we are saying we are going to deal with Social Security for future
generations and then we hand our children a debt that as far as the eye
can see and say you handle it? When the President marched down this
aisle here, went up to the podium and said, if you are over 55, do not
worry about it? So now grandparents and parents over 55 are supposed to
say to their kids and grandchildren, good luck?
That is the reason why I believe we do not have a bill coming to this
floor on Social Security. Yes, there is some discussion, but I believe
as long as the majority side leadership and the President are talking
about the privatization, the gamble of Social Security, and if you look
at some of the articles that are coming out now on this whole issue,
you have to be very skeptical of what the President is talking about.
Even the poll that came out, the Washington Post-ABC News poll, I
wanted to talk about that, because we are not talking about issues
facing Americans.
Health care. When a company's employees come in and start looking at
the benefit package, and the small business owner says you will be
better off getting Medicaid versus the plan that we offer because the
premiums are too high, that is not health care.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further,
as the gentleman is saying that, this survey that the gentleman was
just talking about, the Washington Post-ABC News poll said that 58
percent of those interviewed said that the President is concentrating
mainly in his second term on problems and partisan squabbles that these
respondents said were unimportant to them. Four in ten, 41 percent,
said the President was focused on important problems, a double-digit
drop from 3 years ago.
The people are speaking. They are saying that, as the gentleman said,
like this chart that we went over a few weeks ago showed, giving our
debt over to these foreign countries, reducing the independence of this
country, pushing the burden off on our children and grandchildren, the
next generation, and asking them to foot the bill, that is the issue.
Health care. We have had a health care crisis in this country for how
many years now? How many years? And now we are talking about an issue
that does not present itself for another 40 years?
These are the issues that we need to begin to talk about. We need to
begin to talk about the escalating costs of health care, year in and
year out, 15 percent, 20 percent; the rising, skyrocketing costs of
prescription drugs, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 percent. The most profitable
industry in the world, and we are not talking about it?
These are the issues that we need to focus on. And to have this
charade going on on the side, this dog-and-pony show about an issue
that does not present itself for another 40 years I think is misleading
and not the proper execution of I think the top leader in the country.
I just really believe that.
{time} 2130
It is time for some real leadership in the country, and we just do
not seem to be getting it now. The poll is absolutely right. We get
into these partisan squabbles. We want to work. We want to solve some
of these problems. We know there are different philosophies, and it is
okay to have a fight about it, but at the end of the day, do what is
best for the country.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with stating
your opinion or my opinion or the gentlewoman from Florida's (Ms.
Wasserman Schultz) opinion or anyone in the 30-something Working
Group's opinion, as long as they have merit and foundation, and that it
is meaningful and that it is fair play.
And there is nothing personal about what we are talking about. I
mean, one may speak of the President, but the bottom line is that the
President is term-limited out. There is not anyone who thinks there is
some political motivation here to try to make the President look bad;
this is not the intent here. The intent is saying that there are
leaders in this House, may they be Democrat or Republican, who are
going to have to rise up and say, you know, you are wrong, I am sorry.
We are going to talk a little further about young people and dealing
with debt; but before the gentleman takes that chart down, I want to
make sure, because we are both on the Committee on Armed Services and
we are dealing with the issue of national security, and we are dealing
with making sure that our democracy stays strong and we protect the
homeland. So I think that chart there is very appropriate that the
gentleman has up there.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we went over this a few weeks ago, and
this is a portion of foreign-owned debt. It rose to 41 percent under
the Bush administration. In the far left corner here, we have the year
2000 and over here, 2004. The purple is the debt held by foreigners.
The aqua, turquoise, either/or, is domestically held debt and the
billions of dollars, which comes to about the trillions. And in the
blue, as my colleagues can see, the portion of the debt held by
domestic banks, domestic concerns, domestic interests, has flat-lined.
The purple is the foreign-held debt, and it begins to increase; it is
starting to move up into the main and starting to even break through
the border here.
We can see that increase right there, and that is what worries us. It
is that increase right there that says we are losing a portion of our
independence, because when the Chinese, for example, own a higher and
higher and higher portion of our debt, then we have to begin to factor
that concern in when we are dealing with North Korea, when we are
dealing with the situation in Iraq, when we are dealing with the way
they are manipulating their currency.
Right now, the Chinese are manipulating their currency, some say up
to 40 percent. And why is the U.S. not taking a stronger stand? Why are
we not being firm with the Chinese? Well, it is tough to play hardball
with the bank when they are funding your debt; and that is really what
is happening right now, is that the bank is becoming China and they are
funding our debt, so we have less leverage over them as they begin to
wipe out the manufacturing.
So here we go, here is our debt, here is the chart that we are
becoming way too familiar with, the national debt of $7.79 trillion,
and each person shares $26,000. This is the issue. This is the crisis
in this Chamber, and this is the crisis that the country needs to come
to grips with.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure because, once
again, I believe in third-party validators, and I believe that it is
important that if folks want the current number as we stand right now
as it relates to the Federal debt and where these numbers come from, I
think it is important. I just want to make sure that the Members
understand. The U.S. Treasury Web site will give this information also;
you can go to www.house.gov/budget/democrats_, just to make sure that
you are able to get that information and pull it up for yourselves and
[[Page 11770]]
share it with your family and friends, and I do mean that in the most
serious way. I think it is important that we share that information.
Mr. Speaker, one other thing that the gentleman mentioned before I
yield back; there are a number of things that are going on in the
economic sense. We talk about Social Security, because it is economics
for families. And I think that it really, really hits home when
families are going to have to find a way, how they are going to make up
for that 30 percent that they are going to lose under the President's
plan and the majority's plan.
A part of this effort of coming to the floor every week, our working
group meets and we talk about these issues, are for the following
reasons: one, we want to let folks know that we want to strengthen
Social Security. I do not think there is a Member on the Democratic
side, and I will even add some of my friends on the Republican side,
who do not want to strengthen Social Security. Folks get elected
protecting Social Security. But for the life of me, I do not understand
why we do not have more of our Republican colleagues letting the
President know we appreciate you on their side of the aisle, we voted
for you, but you are wrong. And, I mean, that takes courage, and it
takes leadership. I think it is important so that we can move on to
issues of dealing with Social Security so we are not stuck in neutral
or in park on Social Security because someone has said that is the only
way we will deal with Social Security unless the private sector gets
its cut. So I think it is important that we understand that.
There is an article today in The Washington Post that is talking
about ``big pension plans fall further behind,'' and this is exactly
what the President is talking about. I have airline pilots, I fly back
and forth from Miami to here, and they are telling me, they used to get
$12,000 in pension a month on their pension plans. Now it is down to
$2,000. That is what we are going to do with Social Security, which is
security, the word security, saying that it will be there for you. So I
think that is important.
But I just wanted to share that piece, because I think it is
important that we add that information in so folks do not feel that
this is the Tim Ryan philosophy or the Kendrick Meek philosophy. This
is a bipartisan effort here as it relates to getting the information,
especially from the Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman is absolutely
right. When we check and verify our own statistics here that we are
using, again, the poll that we had mentioned talking about really what
the main issues facing the people of the country are, a strong majority
of self-described political Independents, and this is the ABC News
Washington Post poll, 68 percent of self-described Independents say
they disagree with the President's priorities. Sixty-eight percent. The
hard-core numbers on Social Security and the President's priorities are
30, 35, maybe 40 percent in the grand scheme of things. So we are
talking about 60 percent of the country not agreeing with the
priorities of the President.
As we talk about what the crises are in the country, one thing that I
think ties into what we are talking about, the national debt, the
annual deficits, the $26,349 that each citizen owes to that debt, the
$500 billion annual deficit that we are running, plus, it kind of feeds
into a notion in the whole country about debt. So what the 30-something
Group wants to talk about a little bit tonight is the issue of young
Americans dealing with debt. Because we are really, by the decisions we
are making, putting a $26,000 bounty on the heads of young people, tax
bounty on the heads of young people, the minute they are born; and they
owe the government that much. Then we begin to look at, project that
$26,000 out for another 22 years from the day they were born, and then
we begin to deal with young Americans in college. And this was a very
interesting statistic that we were able to find in an article last
week.
According to a survey released by Sallie Mae, the Nation's largest
provider of student loans, college seniors expected to graduate this
year, probably right around now, with $28,953 in debt; basically
$29,000; $26,000 of it is going to be student loans, and another $2,800
of it is going to be credit card debt. So if you are graduating from
college today, you owe the 26 grand already from the debt that we need
to pay off, which each citizen owes, and then they owe another $28,000,
$29,000 basically in student loans and credit card debt.
And that feeds into a real problem that we have in this country. It
is a disincentive to go to school, it is a disincentive for college,
and really it traps a young man or a young woman coming out of college
with a good education, and all this debt. That is not freedom. And we
hear freedom, freedom, freedom, freedom in this Chamber time and time
and time again.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there are even some folks who would
start a freedom caucus in the Congress.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We have freedom french fries down in the House
diner. We do not have French fries, we have freedom fries. Freedom. Is
this freedom? Is owing $29,000 when you get out of college freedom? Is
owing the government $27,000 freedom? Is that freedom? That is not
freedom. So we cannot really just apply freedom to little areas that
are convenient. And freedom is economics too, and I believe that we are
beginning to get into a situation by letting the credit cards run
rampant through this Chamber, letting the spending get out of control
in this Chamber, and it takes away the freedom for our young men and
women.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, and I am
glad that the gentleman shared that information as it relates to the
debt that young people are in now. But guess what? Who is going to help
them pay that debt? Nine times out of 10 they are going to come out and
try to get a job and I guarantee you, dealing with that kind of debt,
and we want them to be able to move into a home, I mean they are going
to be living with their parents writing their name on orange juice
saying that they will get out of the house some day because they owe so
much.
Now, I am going to talk about what Democrats are doing to put money
into the pockets of Americans who are going to educate themselves,
making this country strong. Are you ready?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Ready. Let us do it.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. We spend a lot of time making sure we have
answers to problems, and I think it is important that the Members
understand, if this was a Democratic House, as it stands now, this
would not even be a discussion, this would already be an action, or
some of the stuff that is happening to Americans would not be
happening.
Now, Democrats in this House, we introduced a bill that would help
over 1.3 million Americans as it relates to not losing money in their
student loans and Pell grants. We talk about the Bush administration
and the majority. Well, I can tell my colleagues that late last year in
the 108th Congress, 1.3 million college students will lose Federal
scholarships, will be unfairly reduced, their scholarship money will be
reduced starting in the 2005-2006 school year due to congressional
change that the Bush administration and the majority side made to the
formula. And what Democrats are doing, we have put forth a bill to
replace those dollars to make sure that young people who are trying to
go to college, they will have an opportunity to go and not come out in
that kind of debt.
It is going to get worse. Those are numbers under the present
situation. The debt ratio on those kids and those young people that are
trying to educate themselves, some are men and women that are serving
in uniform, some are individuals that are trying to better themselves,
these cuts will make over $300 million in a reduction in their
scholarship money. So we have legislation that is on the floor now to
replace those dollars.
Now, all we can do as Democrats is try to fight through the tall
bushes here in the House, here in Washington, D.C., to try to replace
that money for
[[Page 11771]]
these young people. The gentleman talks about freedom. That is
definitely not financial freedom, I say to the gentleman.
I will tell my colleague another thing on top of that: we are not
only working with what we have and putting forth legislation, but we
are also urging young people now, today, now, and parents and Members
of this House that have children that have college debt or loans that
they owe, to consolidate those loans now before July 1, because on July
1, the interest rate will go up 2 percentage points.
{time} 2145
Mr. MEEK of Florida. So you have the opportunity to do it now and
work very hard. If you have a problem in getting good information on
how to consolidate, there is information on line that they can use to
be able to consolidate that information. You can go on the
www.pirg.org/consolidation. That is pirg.org/consolidation to learn
more. Or you can go on the House Democrat's Web site, which is
www.house.gov/Georgemiller, who is our ranking member on education and
workforce. That is house.gov/georgemiller.gov.
I think that is important, to be able to share that information.
Because this is for real. This is what everyday Americans are facing.
This is not fiction. This is not what we should do or what we want to
do. This is exposing what is going on here in Washington, D.C., $300
million to kids and young people that are trying to educate themselves.
Better yet, the President comes up here, tells folks over 55, do not
worry about the Social Security issue. You will not be affected. We are
doing this for future generations. And this is what we are doing to
future generations.
So I would say this again to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) who is here, that
when the rubber meets the road this is what we are doing. Well, when it
does meet the road, and which it has met the road now, we have this
kind of scenario for young people, coming out with not only student
loan debts, but only a Federal debt to the Federal Government, so you
might as well make that a little under $50,000, when they come out of
college in what they owe.
I am so happy that that my colleague from Florida (Ms. Wasserman
Schultz) is fighting these battles, who used to be chair of the
education, higher education committee in the House of Representatives
when we were in the Florida House of Representatives a couple of years,
well more than a couple of years ago, but dealt with these issues that
are facing young people. And I am so glad you are here.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am so glad to be here; and I appreciate the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi's) willingness to put this
group together of the members of the 30-something, 10-year period. We
each have a few more years to go.
I want to piggyback on something you were just talking about related
to the eligibility bar for financial aid. I can tell you just from
personal experience all of the way back to when I was entering college
and my parents were applying for financial aid for me; and the
calculation, even back then, as to what we were eligible for and what
the formula said that my parents could afford to pay and lay out that
would come out of their pocket for college costs was unbelievable then.
And now, with the changes in the financial aid formula today, I mean,
even, I grew up in a middle-class family, you know, regular, average
middle-class family, you know, not wealthy at all, parents who
certainly did not live paycheck to paycheck but had a mortgage and car
payments and credit card debt and, you know, pretty significant month-
to-month bills. And none of that is taken into consideration when you
calculate financial aid.
I mean, those major expenses, other than your income, have nothing to
do with the formula. So when they say, and back then the numbers were
something like, my parents, based on their income, could be expected to
pay $16,000 a year for my college education. Now, given all of the
bills that they were struggling to pay for, there was no way.
Now, fast forward to 2005; and the bar has been raised even higher.
And add the credit card debt that has drastically increased, with the
bar on the graph at a steep incline. You add that to parents' credit
card debt, you have kids now who are starting out with credit card debt
even in high school.
I mean, that was unheard of when we were in high school. I mean, kids
did not start college with credit card debt. They certainly did not
begin having credit card debt as early as they do now, with credit card
companies literally preying on brand-spanking-new college students with
offers and, you know, kids who are willing to sign up to get a credit
card just to get a cool t-shirt.
These are students that are not financially sophisticated enough to
make the kinds of decisions that they are going to have to make so that
they will understand the ramifications for themselves financially for
themselves down the road. And we have got to have policies that are
going to be able to help them get along in the years to come.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Another part of the Democratic platform, one that
we will be issuing in the next few months, is financial literacy.
Combat this at a young age, combat this. These kids are in grade school
and high school and teach them about the stock market and compounding
interest and all of the different aspects to managing money and being
debt free, if you save now, and what it turns into 30 years from now.
That is another part of the Democratic proposal. We need to teach these
kids how not to get in this position here. We need to teach many
leaders in the Congress here how not to get ourselves in this position
here as well.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Or allow Americans to get themselves in that
position. I know that this is a country based on freedom but not based
on ignorance. It is important that we share this information. If we
know better, we will do better.
And the bottom line is, if the leadership was in place here in this
House, the $300 million that I spoke of that took place in the 108th
Congress in the closing days of the Congress has reduced the amount of
money that students are able to get as it relates to their Pell Grants,
it never would have happened if we were in control, if this was a
Democratic House.
So the challenge has to be there for the majority side to do better;
and the bottom line is, better is not happening when it comes down to
those kinds of statistics that you have there, Mr. Ryan, that the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) just spoke about. I
think it is important that we remember.
So we talk about solutions. Solutions is making sure that we make
good decisions and we have good leaders in place that will allow
legislation to either be stopped that is bad, coming from the other
body, or recommendations from the White House, just say no, this will
not happen. We are looking for future generations, and we are here to
protect future generations.
But the bottom line is, if we continue to do this kind of rubber-
stamping that is going on here on Capitol Hill, we are going to
continue to go on a downward spiral. The deficit will continue to get
higher. In the 108th Congress, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I said, well,
this is the highest debt in the history of the Republic. How could it
get worse? It is worse now, and it will continue to get worse until
something different happens here in this Chamber and in this Capitol
and in this city. So it is important that we look at these issues.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. One of the comments that a previous speaker made
here not too long ago was that we do not have many options. You can
raise taxes or you cut spending or you grow the economy. Well, you
cannot grow the economy if you are putting this tremendous burden on
students, the next generation of people who are going to go out and
create things and not making the proper investment into education as we
have talked about before. A lot of our urban areas and a lot of our
rural areas, where many of those
[[Page 11772]]
kids go to school in poverty, do not have health care, are not getting
the kind of education that they get in some of the suburban areas.
Those are the kids that we need to fund, educate, and let them go out
and create and grow the economy. But you cannot do that by tying a ball
and chain around their neck and throwing them over the river, because
they sink, and at the same time not make the kind of investments.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You talk about financial literacy. You are
absolutely right. What is happening now, number one, we are not setting
the example at the top of the mountain. I mean, what we are doing here
is adding to our deficit month after month, year after year.
What kind of message are we sending to generations that are going to
come behind us about the importance of minimizing your debt? I mean, we
are deficit spending. So why would most Americans think that that is
not a normal way, a responsible way to live?
Most Americans, let me not overstate it, many, many Americans live
paycheck to paycheck, and they live right to their means. This is a
society where, no, I cannot have that now because I cannot afford it
right now, is not instilled in people from the time that they are
young. That is why financial literacy is so important.
We have a Financial Literacy Caucus. I am on the Financial Services
Committee, and we have begun an effort, especially on the Democratic
side, to try to educate generations coming up through life that at some
point you have to decide what you can afford to have, and there has to
be a now and a someday and not everything can be in the now.
That is also a lesson that Congress and the President could learn,
too: Not everything can be in the now. Sometimes we have to make some
financial decisions that will say, well, it would be nice if we could
afford that humongous tax break for the wealthiest few, but in order to
be fiscally responsible we cannot have that now.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And patriotic. Quite frankly, tell the wealthiest
people in the country, we would love to give you a tax cut. Who would
not? Who in politics would not like to tell a really rich person I want
to give you a tax cut? I mean, that would be great.
But you have to do the right thing, and you have to say, you have to
meet your responsibility to society. We cannot afford to give you a tax
cut right now, because we have a $7.79 trillion debt. Now you can be
selfish and still want one. Why not give the middle-class guy the tax
cut, who has all of this debt burden, who is trying to send their kids
to school? We cannot afford to give Warren Buffet a tax cut. I am
sorry, Warren.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I represent a district with a pretty sizable
percentage of wealthy individuals. And when I am home, I cannot tell
you the numbers of people who come up to me and say, you know, I would
love to have a tax break, but I care about my children's education a
lot more. I care about the Nation's financial and fiscal health a lot
more. Keep your tax break. I barely felt it, and it really is not going
to make that much difference in my life.
Many, many people who are wealthy and qualify for those tax breaks
understand where their priorities are and should be. It seems that only
the administration and the leadership of this Congress does not have
their priorities straight.
I mean, even Mr. Obey, when we were considering the Defense
Appropriations Bill in the last couple of weeks, when he offered an
amendment to reduce the tax break for the wealthiest few Americans, I
think it was half a percent. I think it was an incredibly small amount
of money, just a little bit less of a tax break, that the wealthiest
few would have received in order to expand the inspections, the
percentage of inspections that we perform at our ports, for the cargo
in ports, and that, even that amendment was rejected.
We chose tax breaks for the wealthy over our homeland security. Now
if that is not priorities being out of whack, then I do not know what
is.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I remember last year as well, we did the same thing
for veterans benefits. It was an increase of, I do not remember how
many billions of dollars, but it basically made it full funding. But it
had to reduce in kind dollar for dollar what would be needed for the
veterans from the tax cut that went to the top 1 percent. Voted right
down, party line.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. You know, what is very disturbing is when we
commemorate or recognize or reflect on those that have fallen for our
democracy, our veterans or our past veterans or those that did not even
get an opportunity to be a veteran because they were an enlisted person
and they died. Right down the street from here is Arlington Cemetery.
When their colleagues or comrades that served with them, you know, side
by side, and they come to Washington, D.C., to remember those that have
fallen and to know when we honor them on one day, even on Veterans Day,
we honor them on two days, their sacrifice to our country, and better
yet on that next day, that Tuesday, they are waiting 6 months to see
the ophthalmologist or they have to pay more on a copayment.
We did not keep up with our end of the promise. You know something,
it is even harder to keep up with it because of this Federal debt. But
we would much rather make those that have been extremely, extremely
successful in this country to save a few more dollars.
There is actually another article that I am going to bring up a
little later, but I just want to share this with you all. My uncle
served in Korea, and he took a bus up here with some other veterans
when we dedicated the World War II Memorial out in the Mall here.
{time} 2200
It was a well-attended event, very historic. My mother came, a past
Member of this Congress. We sat out there. And they had all the World
War II veterans and veterans in general stand up. Some of them could
stand. Some of them could only put their hand up in the air.
When you look at what is happening here with the Federal debt, taking
this Federal credit card that I keep pulling up and charging it to the
American people and to their future for many of the wrong reasons, it
cannot help but make you very upset with the individuals that are
making the decisions. And that is where the rubber meets the road.
When you start looking at those who have served, who allow us to
celebrate the very freedom that we live under right now, and they are
having to run around here worrying about if they can make a co-payment
or not. You go to the VA hospital, they do not treat. There are not a
lot of veterans, unfortunately, that are Members of Congress, or maybe
it would be a lot different in this town. They are waiting and waiting.
And some of them call my office. Congressman, this is all I need. Can
you help me?
It should not be an act of Congress to get what they need to get out
of the VA or veteran benefits in general. And we are about to have a
whole other crop of veterans after this war or after some of them leave
the military that are going to need those services. And I guarantee you
right now there is not an American that I run into that says,
Congressman, we are giving the veterans too much. If anything, can you
do something. There is a veteran next to me, he is not even part of a
meal program because he or she cannot afford to get it.
So I would just leave it at that because I am getting upset talking
about it.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Look at the numbers here. The reason the gentleman
is upset here in trillions of dollars over 10 years, we have a graph.
We have to have a graph for everything. Permanent tax cuts, 1.18
trillion over 10 years. Tax cuts for top 1 percent 800 million; VA
budget, .3, 300 million. When we need to fully fund this everyone says
we do not have the money, but we have the money for this, and we have
the money for that. So this is the question.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I do not want to be greedy on the time, but I
just have to say this to my colleagues, what
[[Page 11773]]
happened? Was it the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) that
stood up and said, we are going to do the right thing. A Republican
chairman. We are going to do the right thing by our veterans, and I am
going to pass a budget that is going to help the veterans.
You know what happened to him. They moved him off the committee. He
lost his chairmanship. This is not the Wasserman Schultz/Ryan/Meek
story. This happened and veterans throughout this country know it
happened.
So when we start talking approximate issues such as Social Security;
we start talking about Medicare when we were told $350 billion and now
it is up to $724 billion; when we start talking about issues such as
Leave No Child Behind authorization bill far beyond what the
appropriations actually is, folks have to pay attention to this. And I
will guarantee you this, if we had the opportunity to run this House,
this would be a nonissue. As a matter of fact, we would be working in a
bipartisan way to correct some of these issues. We are not saying
Democrats will do it. No. Democrats and Republicans and the one
Independent in this House will do it. So this is so very, very
important.
You know something, I do not care. I hope that there is a Member in a
leadership position right now that is listening that is saying we have
got to change this because the pressure is being applied by the
Democratic side of this aisle. And if they do not take the leadership
responsibility to do what they have to do on behalf of these Americans,
then guess what, they may be making a career decision. That is what
democracy is all about. So I feel in no way sorry by pointing out the
blatant inequities in leadership and being able to provide for those
veterans and being able to provide for future veterans when we start
talking about Social Security and what we should be doing here in
Washington.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, we cannot emphasize enough, this
is just another example of how the priorities here are out of whack. We
had an opportunity a few weeks ago to visit our troops who were injured
in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan at Walter Reed Army Medical
Hospital. These were young men, about a dozen of them, that I had an
opportunity to visit, the most heart-wrenching stories, many of whom
lost their limbs, mostly lost their legs, had their limbs obliterated,
defended our country. Every single one of them said to me that all they
wanted to do was to go back and they were so sorry to leave their
buddies behind.
These are people that when they become veterans we slap them with a
disabled veterans tax. We say to them that for every dollar that they
earn in disability payments, we are going to deduct a dollar from their
pension. That is the reward we are giving them for serving our country
and for becoming injured in the line of duty.
Then we are saying to our members from the National Guard that unless
you are within, I think it is, 90 or 180 days of being activated for
duty, we are not going to pay for your health care. We do not provide
health care to our members of National Guard who we know now are going
to be activated at some point, who we know are giving up the salaries
that they earn in their regular jobs, who are sometimes covered,
sometimes not covered by health insurance at their regular jobs. But
one of the things that members of the National Guard have to have to
worry about is how to even pay for health care for themselves and their
families. Yet we are still providing tax break after tax break for the
wealthiest few Americans.
I mean, it just is shocking that the top of the priority list is tax
breaks and this trickle-down concept that does not ever seem to go away
when it comes to the Republican leadership in this Congress, that if we
give the tax breaks to the wealthiest few that somehow their investing
and spending is going to flow down and help all the little people.
We are at the point in our lives where we are real live grown-ups
now. Has it worked in our lifetime? It still is not working, and we are
still not providing for the people who really need the help, who are
defending our country. Instead, we are taking money back from them.
We talk about the death tax. We should be talking about the disabled
veteran tax, because that is what we are doing to our veterans'
pensions when they have been injured in the line of due, and it is
absolutely unconscionable.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) offered
a motion here to recommit a couple of weeks ago.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What happened?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. A party-line vote went down. And that was on the
health care side of it. That was on making sure our Guards and
Reservists have coverage regardless. And the gentleman brought out the
numbers and it was maybe a billion dollars, but these men and women are
picking up and they are in all our districts, and they pick up and they
leave their families and come back and leave and come back.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They spent 1.8 on tax cuts.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Exactly. And we have the money if we wanted it, if
we wanted to ask the top 1 percent to make a sacrifice to help fund
this. That money will work its way back into the economy anyway. The
fact that that is bad for the economy is an argument that I have never
bought into. It is the voodoo economics, the trickle-down economics
theory. I would rather have it in the hands of people who are making
50, 60, 70, $80,000 a year that go out and invest in their kids and
those kinds of things. But to say we do not have the money, I think, is
shameful.
These are good people. These are not bad people. But to choose them
when you have to make decisions based on the whole society right now
over this group, I think, is shameful.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let us get into some closing comments because we
have about 5 minutes left.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I have a couple of e-mails that I would like to
share from last week. We asked everyone 2 weeks ago to e-mail us in
what they thought their priorities were in the country. If it was
Social Security, they could say it was Social Security. If not, tell us
what you think the real crises are in the country.
We have Jim Munroe and Nancy Grover from Albuquerque, New Mexico:
``The number one priority has to be turning the deficit around while
making the tax system fair and equitable.''
Mari Howells from Erie, Pennsylvania, a 30-something Dem who saw us a
couple of weeks ago: ``Health Insurance! Our health care system is
awful. It is bringing the whole country down. Number 2: the war. What a
mess. Number 3: poorly funded schools.''
I am going to take a minute here to read a beautiful e-mail that we
received a couple of weeks ago from a man who saw us three on C-SPAN.
He was laid off on September 11, 2002, from a Fortune 500 company in
Dallas, Texas. Informed that his position had been dissolved, ``and
since I was one of the highest paid, 38,000 a year, on their help desk,
that I had to be one of the first ones to go. I was given 2 weeks
severance pay and found out through my network that the company had
outsourced the help desk to an overseas vendor. I am a proud veteran of
the U.S. Air Force where I served 8 years and received an honorable
discharge. Before being unemployed I had great health insurance and I
am in fact a cancer survivor, but after losing my job and not being
able to afford the $340 monthly payment to COBRA to keep my health
insurance, I had no other choice but to go to the Dallas VA hospital to
register for my health care.
``I am 41 years young and I have now been unemployed for almost 3
years. My father was forced into early retirement because of his heart
and my mother just recently lost her job of many years at a local bank.
They could barely make it on their mediocre salary and his Social
Security. I do not know what they are going to do now and now I have
nothing to help them with because I do no have a savings, checking
account or 401(k).
[[Page 11774]]
``When I was working, I used to send my mother $250 a month to help
her and my father out a little bit, but I cannot do that any more. He
has a temporary job at the bank that pays $13 an hour with no benefits,
a lot less than I used to make but I am very happy just to be working
again. God bless you.''
So these are the real people that I think we need to begin helping.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There is not a lot more that can be said other
than that I think that we need to continue to come to this floor every
week and I can commit to you that I will join you and make sure that we
can continue to highlight the direction that they are taking this
country and the increased debt and the selection of the people who need
the least over the people who need the most. And I am not talking about
people who are struggling to make ends meet.
You have average working families in America whose priorities include
health care and quality education and just making sure that they can
stay out of debt. And, instead, the wealthiest few are the priority of
the leadership in this Congress.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The e-mail is [email protected]. That
is [email protected]. Send us an e-mail. Tell us what you
believe to be the main crises facing this country.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Www.pirg.org/consolidation. Student loans, get
them consolidated before the interest rate goes up almost 2 percent by
the first of next month. And 70 percent of our troops are under the age
of 30, which is a younger generation right now fighting in Iraq.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mack). The Chair would like to remind
Members that their remarks in debate should be addressed to the Chair
and not to the television audience.
____________________
STEM CELL RESEARCH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago on this
floor there was a very prolonged and serious debate on stem cells. Now
that we have had time for emotions to subside, I thought it might be
productive to spend a little while this evening talking about the
subject of stem cells and why there is so much interest in it across
the country.
A few months ago there was so much interest in this subject in
California, for instance, that the voters voted favorably for a
resolution that would make $3 billion from California taxpayers
available to do research on embryonic stem cells.
What are stem cells? We have a chart here which kind of shows this.
{time} 2215
There are fundamentally two types of stem cells. There are adult stem
cells and there are embryonic stem cells.
I guess the ultimate stem cell is the fertilized ovum, which is
referred to here as a zygote, because from that cell develops all the
cells of the body. That single cell, produced from the union of the egg
and the sperm, divides and divides again and again until finally it is
a blastocyst; and then it goes to the gastrula stage, and at that stage
the three germ layers begin to sort out the cells that are already
differentiating, is the technical term that is used for that.
Every cell in our body, of course, has all of the same gene
complement. And by mechanisms that are not clearly understood, during
the embryonic process genes get turned on and get turned off, and the
cells that are destined to produce your skin, for instance, the genes
that are producing all the other tissues of the body are turned off,
and only those genes necessary for producing the skin are still active.
Here we have the three germ layers: The ectoderm, which is the outer
layer, and from that will develop your skin and your nervous system.
Then we have the mesoderm, that will be the middle layer, meso
meaning middle, and from that will develop most of the weight of your
body, all of your skeletal muscle, your cardiac muscle, much of the
kidney, the blood cells, the smooth muscle in your intestines and
stomach and so forth.
Then from the innermost layer of this inner cell mass as it is called
here, the mass of cells that differentiates into these three germ
layers, the endoderm, the internal layer, produces not very much of the
mass of your body, the pancreatic cell and the thyroid gland and the
line of the things like your lung and intestines and so forth are
produced from the endoderm.
Then, of course, there are the unique germ cells produced, the sperm
in the male and the egg or the ova in the female.
The reason for the intense interest in these stem cells is because of
the perceived potential for affecting the course of many diseases and
hopefully curing many of our diseases.
We have fundamentally two kinds of problems with our health. One is
from tissue deficiencies when the tissue no longer does the kind of
thing that it was destined to do and this embryonic development is
wearing out or diseased. Then we have diseases from pathogens. These
are organisms that can be outside that invade us.
Primarily, the hope is that stem cells will be useful in treating
diseases of tissue deficiency. Although if the pathogens have destroyed
a tissue and then the body has marshaled its resources with the help of
the doctors with the antibiotics and so forth so that the pathogen is
destroyed, then there is some hope that through the use of stem cells
that you might be able to repair or replace the tissue damaged by the
pathogen.
There are a lot of examples of diseases that might be amenable to
cure or at least assistance through these stem cells. One is diabetes,
which is a deficiency of insulin. Insulin is produced by some little
cells that look like islands under the microscope because they are very
dissimilar to the cells that they find themselves in. These cells are
distributed through the tissue of the pancreas.
The pancreas is a big gland that produces a lot of enzymes. When the
food leaves the stomach and goes into the small intestine, the pancreas
produces enzymes for the digestion of fats, carbohydrates and proteins.
So it is a very important digestive gland.
There is no real reason why these little islands of tissues, called
the islets of Langerhans, named for the person who first described
them, need to be in the pancreas, but that is where they are. They
could, in fact, be any part of your body and do the same thing, which
is secreting insulin.
We use insulin to treat persons with diabetes, but everyone knows,
particularly the family of those and the patients who have diabetes,
that insulin does not cure the disease. It simply prolongs life, but,
ultimately, even with insulin, many of the people who have diabetes
will end up having peripheral vascular problems with maybe amputation
of toes or limbs, usually the lower limb, have problems in the eyes
with the peripheral vascular there in the eyes and have vision
problems.
Diabetes is the most expensive disease that we have. It costs more to
maintain and treat the people with diabetes than any other disease.
There is the hope that if we could generate islets of Langerhans cells
from these stem cells that you could eradicate diabetes, that you could
implant these cells in the body, and it could be in any tissue. It
could be in muscle tissue or under the skin. You could implant these
islets of Langerhans cells there that produce insulin and whatever else
these cells do that is not done simply by replacing the insulin which
is lost. We might be able to eradicate diabetes, which, of course,
would be an enormous contribution.
This is one of the most heart-wrenching things that the congressmen
see, is when these little kids come to your office, they have to prick
their finger maybe a dozen times a day, and they need insulin so
frequently that they
[[Page 11775]]
have an embedded little pump under their skin, about the size of a
hockey puck. They may have to wake up during the night and prick their
finger so that they can set the pump so it produces the right amount of
insulin.
This is just one of many diseases that authorities in medicine and
the general public believes might be helped with stem cell research:
multiple sclerosis, lateral sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease.
That is one that I am personally very familiar with. My grandmother
died from that disease. This was a long time ago, and it took quite a
long time to diagnose that disease. She was falling. For quite a while
they did not know why, and finally they diagnosed it as Lou Gehrig's
disease, as was the common name for it then. I remember watching my
grandmother deteriorate until the only motion that she had left, that
she could communicate with us, was blinking her eyes: once for yes and
two for no. Then she slowly died when she could no longer eat or drink.
She did not want to be force fed.
We did not have any dream then of stem cells and what they might do
for that disease, but I can understand the hope that families have who
have a loved one who has a disease like this and the hope that they
have that there may be a medical advance and a miracle cure for the
disease.
Alzheimer's disease, my mother had Alzheimer's disease. How nice it
would have been to have turned back the clock in her mind so that she
was the mother that I spent the first 60 years with.
Then, of course, there is a very large category of autoimmune
diseases. I have a list here of 63 autoimmune diseases. That is an
interesting type of disease. When we are developing in our mother's
womb very early and our heart is beating and we have a circulatory
system and we have white cells, there is a particular kind of white
cell called the T cells. Very early in our embryonic development those
T cells are imprinted with who we are, and that is very necessary
because they have to understand who we are, who you are, who I am, so
that if some foreign invader comes in there or virus or bacterium or
something, they recognize that as being foreign so that they can reject
it.
For reasons that we do not understand, occasionally our autoimmune
mechanisms get confused, and they see some of us as not being us, as
being foreign, and so they attack it. We call those autoimmune
diseases, and there are a lot of those autoimmune diseases: Addison's
disease, autoimmune hemolytic anemia, autoimmune hepatitis. It goes on
for 63 of these diseases.
Multiple sclerosis is one of those, by the way. Lupus was one of the
first of these diseases that was identified as an autoimmune disease.
There is a hope that stem cells could be useful in treating all of
these diseases.
Then, of course, there are the injuries of central nervous tissue. We
have two kinds of nervous tissue in our body, the central nervous
tissue that is in our brain and spinal cord and then the peripheral
nerves. That is the nerves that run to and from the brain and spinal
cord. For reasons that is difficult to understand, they have two very
different responses to injury.
Peripheral nerves regrow very easily. There is a classic phenomenon
known as Wallerian degeneration and then regeneration of the nerve. If
you cut a nerve well up in your leg that goes to your toe, it may be a
long while before you get feeling back to your toe, almost always,
unless a lot of scar tissue develops where the nerve was cut.
But for some reason that we do not yet understand central nervous
tissue has no power to regenerate. Of course, what we are trying to do
medically is to find out why central nervous tissue is different than
peripheral nervous tissue, but absent finding out why so that you can
turn that around there is the hope that with these stem cells we could
grow nerve tissue that could then be placed in the body, injected in
the body to help repair.
So there are a lot of diseases out there that medical specialists and
the public generally believe could be cured or at least the course of
the disease quite favorably changed with the use of stem cell
technology.
There are, of course, two kinds of stem cells: embryonic stem cells
and adult stem cells. Most of the work that we have done so far is with
adult stem cells because we have been working with them for over three
decades. We have been working with embryonic stem cells just a little
over 6 years, and so the techniques for using adult stem cells are far
better developed.
So there are more medical applications from adult stem cells than
there are from embryonic stem cells, but we have not had enough time
working with embryonic stem cells to determine whether or not they have
the increased potential that most people believe they should have. The
medical specialists believe this. The general public understands this.
If you are dealing with a cell that is not differentiated, that is,
that it has not developed far enough along so that genes are turned
off, a lot of leads are turned off, it could then develop into anything
and everything with proper manipulation in the laboratory. So that if
you are using embryonic stem cells there is the hope that they should
have a wider application than adult stem cells.
{time} 2230
There is another interesting characteristic of embryonic stem cells,
and I do not know how important it will be. Only research will
determine that.
At least 50 years ago, embryologists had determined that you could
take a mother white mouse and a mother black mouse, each of which was
pregnant and they have multiple babies in their uterus, and you could
go into the uterus of the black mouse and take a little patch of skin
out of the black mice, you could sew it into the skin of one of the
white mice. When the white mouse is born, it has a little patch of
black skin. Quite amazingly, it is not rejected.
Everybody knows when you transplant an organ from one person to
another, there is a big rejection reaction to that. So we have a lot of
anti-rejection drugs that we give. The person who gets that organ
transplant must take those anti-rejection drugs. As soon as they stop
taking them, the T-cells recognize this thing as foreign and start to
attack it. Its use in the body is destroyed.
I do not know whether this little mouse experiment, whether the
miracle of no rejection is a donor phenomenon or host phenomenon; but
when you take skin from one embryo to another, there is no rejection.
So using embryo stem cells, they might be less rejected. That would be
good news.
I would like to spend just a couple of moments reflecting on some of
the elements of a debate here in this Chamber. These debates are a bit
like a battle. They are a battle; you are fighting for your position.
Like all battles, emotions rise and sometimes things are exaggerated a
little by one side or another. Now that emotions have subsided and we
are dealing with other issues, I thought it might be instructive to
look at some of the arguments made on both sides.
The argument on the pro-life side was that life is sacred, that these
little embryos are human life, and the President has a position which I
very strongly support, that it is just morally wrong to take one life
hoping you can help another life. There has got to be another way to do
it.
The bill we were debating said we should take some of those 400,000
surplus embryos that were produced in the in vitro fertilization
clinics that were going to be discarded anyhow, we should take those
embryos and use them to produce embryonic stem cell lines. For the last
4 years we have been dealing with what started out as maybe 60 cell
lines, which has now dwindled down to 22, all of them contaminated with
mouse feeder cells so they are only good for research. They would not
be good for medical use so there is a need for additional embryo stem
cell lines. These are the only stem cell lines we can use Federal money
exploring. The private sector can destroy all of the embryos they wish;
there is no prohibition. You just cannot use Federal money so there are
only 22 cell lines we can use Federal money to explore.
The argument on the pro-life side, and I subscribe to that argument,
that
[[Page 11776]]
for any one embryo, there is no certainty that embryo is going to be
destroyed, that it is going to be abandoned. The argument on the other
side is there are 400,000 of them. Of course they are, you cannot keep
them frozen forever, and by and by they will be discarded. But not all
of them, because we now have, I understand, over 100 babies who have
been born from adoption of these snowflake embryos.
We have surplus embryos because when you go for in vitro
fertilization, under hormone stimulation the mother produces more than
one ovum; and they are put in a petri dish and exposed to sperm and
fertilized. Then the doctor watches their growth, and the doctor
chooses generally several because they do not all adhere to the uterus
and grow to become babies, and so he wants to be sure there will be at
least a baby. So he implants several in the uterus, and there are
several left over that are then frozen in the event none of those take
or the mother wants to have a baby later.
I remember when I was running a farm several years ago, I was
breeding cattle to a bull that had been dead for 8 years. I do not know
how long the sperm and the ovum or these embryos will survive frozen,
but they will survive for quite a long time.
The argument on the pro-life side is that for any one of those
embryos, it could be adopted; and that is true. If you have a reverence
for life, as I do, you need to find another way to pursue embryonic
stem cell research without destroying embryos, and we have a bill that
does just that. We have talked to experts from NIH and others around
the country, and in a few moments I will be talking about that bill.
One of the arguments made by the pro-life people is we have had 58
medical applications from adult stem cells and none from embryonic stem
cells, and that is true. But as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the
story is maybe the reason it is true because we have spent 3 decades
working with adult stem cells and only about 6 years working with
embryonic stem cells, and you will not know if they have the same
potential until you have an equivalent amount of time to work with
them.
The arguments on the other side were that these cells are going to be
thrown away anyhow and why not get some use from them. I have just
reiterated my argument, which is the argument of the pro-life
community, which is for any one of those embryos, they could be
adopted. In fact, some of these snowflake babies came to the White
House during this debate, so they can be adopted.
There was another bill that we voted on that night and that was the
umbilical cord blood bill which many mothers are now having frozen
because there are some stem cell-like cells there that might be useful.
But the argument is although they might be useful, they would not be as
useful as the embryonic stem cells themselves.
``As a physician-scientist,'' and this is a direct quote from Curt
Civin, co-director, Division of Immunology and Hematopoiesis Sydney
Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, one of the centers at John Hopkins
University School of Medicine, and we are fortunate in our State to
have one of the best universities and one of the best medical schools
in the world, that is Johns Hopkins, he says, ``As a physician-
scientist who has done research involving umbilical blood cord stem
cells for over 20 years, I am frequently surprised by the thought from
nonscientists that cord blood stem cells may provide an alternative to
embryonic stem cells for research. This is simply wrong,'' he says.
By the way, all of the 58 diseases that have had applications from
adult stem cells, all of them are represented by organizations that
support embryonic stem cell research because the general belief is
there ought to be more potential from embryonic stem cells than from
adult stem cells.
Just a little history why I am standing here this evening and how I
got involved in this. I did not come to this Congress until, and this
was 13 years ago, until I was 66 years old, and so I had a former life.
In that former life, I was a scientist. I have a Ph.D. in human
physiology. I taught medical school and postgraduate medicine and spent
a number of years doing research at medical schools and at the National
Institutes of Health.
Several years ago, in 2001, I believe it was, there was a little like
symposium at the National Institutes of Health where staff and members
went out. I went out with a fairly large number of staff members where
the experts from NIH were briefing the staff and members who were there
on stem cell research. This was just before the President came down
with his executive order on stem cells, and this was kind of an
educational activity on the part of NIH. There were several researchers
there; and as we can see in the next chart, I suggested it ought to be
possible to take cells from an early embryo without hurting the embryo
and that was because of my knowledge of what happens in twinning.
Now, the first chart here shows the usual type of twinning. That is
where you have two zygotes. That is the mother sloughed two ovum, not
just one, and both were fertilized and both came down and were
implanted in the uterus and they grew two fetuses, and they are called
womb mates because they share the womb.
Well, we also can have twins, and the next chart shows identical
twins and what happens with identical twins.
This can occur apparently in at least two different stages in the
development of the embryo. Here we have the zygote, which is the union
of the egg and the sperm, and that then divides to two cells; and they
have left out a lot of stages here because there is a lot of stages
between the two cell and the inner mass cell stage.
These embryos can split at the two-cell stage or later on when they
grow two inner cell masses. You can tell at what time they split by how
they present themselves. If they are presented in two placenta, they
split early and they go their separate ways. If they split later, they
are generally presented at birth in a single placenta so the doctor
knows the approximate time they split.
I recognized what was really happening here was in a sense you were
taking half of the cells away from the original embryo, and both halves
went on to produce a perfectly normal baby. So it seemed perfectly
logical to me that you ought to be able to take a cell or two from an
early embryo without hurting the embryo. There has been a lot of
research since that.
By the way, the experts at NIH said, yes, that should be feasible. I
mentioned this to the President at an event where we had just a few
moments to talk about it, and he turned the pursuit of this over to
Karl Rove who went to NIH and asked them about my suggestion that you
might be able to take cells from an early embryo, and he came back and
called me and said they tell me they cannot do that.
I said either they did not understand the question or there is some
confusion, because these are the same people that can take a single
cell and take the nucleus out of that cell and put another one in it.
That is what you do in cloning. If you can do that in a single cell,
obviously you have the capability of taking a single cell out of a
fairly large mass of cells.
So he went back a second time and asked them and they told him the
same thing, and so the President came down a few days later with his
executive order that all the stem cell lines we have produced by
destroying embryos; and since he was opposed to taking one life with
the hope that you might help another life, he could not support the
destruction of any additional embryos, but that Federal money could be
used in pursuing research and medical applications using what he was
told was roughly 60 lines of stem cells that were in existence at that
time.
{time} 2245
Several years later in my office, just this year, as a matter of
fact, talking with the people from NIH, they explained how this
misunderstanding occurred. It is awfully easy to have misunderstandings
when your backgrounds are very different, which is one of the problems
we have in dialogues, of
[[Page 11777]]
course. You can think that you are carrying on a dialogue when you are
really carrying on simultaneous monologues, which was apparently sort
of what happened in this discussion between Karl Rove and NIH. Because
what they had really told him was that they did not know if they could
make a stem cell line from such an early embryo, and that is true, and
that is why I wanted animal experimentation to determine whether you
could do that or not.
Our next chart shows some of this progression, and it shows what we
are talking about and what we were talking about there. This is half of
the reproductive life of a mother. It shows an ovary, and there is one
on each side, of course. Then it shows a funnel-like thing that sweeps
over the ovum, it is called the infundibulum, and then the fallopian
tube and down to the uterus. This shows just half of the tract. There
is a mirror image of this over on the other side.
By the way, there is an interesting thing that sometimes happens.
These sperm are very energetic. They are released, of course, in the
vagina of the mother, and they then make their way up into the uterus,
through the cervix into the uterus, and then they swim all the way up
the fallopian tube, and they can swim out through the end of the
fallopian tube out into the body cavity. Sometimes the egg is not
picked up by the cilia in the fallopian tube, and it also floats out
into the body cavity, and the egg can be fertilized there. We call this
an ectopic pregnancy and, of course, the baby cannot grow there, so
that has to be removed.
The ovum starts down the fallopian tube and very high up in the
fallopian tube, it is fertilized. Then it divides into two cells and
four cells and eight cells. It is at the eight-cell stage in the
laboratory. This same process of fertilization and growth occurs in the
petri dish in the laboratory, and it is at the eight-cell stage in the
laboratory that they ordinarily implant the embryos. This goes on, of
course, to produce the inner cell mass that we saw in the earlier chart
there which then differentiates into the germ layers. It is at these
later stages that it actually implants in the mother's uterus.
The convention is ordinarily that implantation is done at the eight-
cell stage. So my suggestion was that you could take a cell from the
eight-cell stage, and it would not harm the embryo. As a matter of
fact, if the embryo splits at this stage or at the two-cell stage or
down here at the inner cell mass stage of the two inner cell masses,
both groups of cells go on to produce a perfectly normal baby. So,
obviously, there was the potential that you could take a cell from an
early embryo without harming the embryo.
I have been carrying on this dialogue with the pro-life community and
with the scientists at NIH now for these 4 years. During one of these
discussions, the representative of the Catholic bishops, Mr.
Dorflinger, made a suggestion. There are some things that you see in
life that are just so obvious that you say, gee, why didn't I think of
that. His contribution was just that kind of thing. He said, in
addition to taking a cell out of that inner cell mass, and, by the way,
this is now done more than a thousand times around the world. We do not
know how many more than a thousand times. But in the laboratory they
want to know that this embryo they are going to implant in the mother
does not have any genetic defects so that they are going to have a
healthy baby. So they take a cell out of the eight-cell stage and they
do a preimplantation genetic diagnosis on it and then they implant
those remaining cells in the mother and more than a thousand times they
have had a normal baby born.
Mr. Dorflinger's suggestion was, and in addition to doing that
preimplan-
tation genetic diagnosis that you also establish a repair kit. That is
kind of what you hope you are doing when you freeze umbilical cord
blood. You hope that there are some stem-cell-like cells in there, that
if there are future medical problems and stem cell research development
has gone on to the point that you can make some meaningful applications
that you could then be using tissues that would not be rejected like
the tissues from an embryonic stem cell from another person.
But clearly if the repair kit was established from a cell taken from
an early embryo, it would be exactly the genetic composition of the
child, of the person, of the adult as they grew, and so any defect
could then be very effectively treated with tissues that would not be
rejected.
The President has a group of people, the President's Council on
Bioethics, and because of the enormous expected potential from stem
cell research, they have been looking at alternatives for embryonic
stem cell research that might be ethically acceptable and they have
just fairly recently issued a report, Alternative Sources of Human
Pluripotent Stem Cells. It is called a white paper. In the body of that
white paper they describe four different techniques.
The next chart shows a little paragraph from that, and I have
highlighted a part of it.
It says it may be some time before stem cells can be reliably derived
from single cells extracted from early embryos and in ways that do no
harm to the embryo, thus biopsied. But the initial success of the
Verlinsky's Group's efforts at least raises the future possibility that
pluripotent stem cells could be derived from single blastomeres. A
blastomere is simply a cell from the blastula. It merely means a cell
removed from the early human embryos without apparently harming them.
Then there is a little asterisk. If you go to the bottom of the page
you see, ``A similar idea was proposed by Representative Roscoe
Bartlett of Maryland as far back as 2001.'' This is the proposal that I
made to the President that was pursued by Karl Rove with the
misunderstandings that we talked about a few minutes ago.
In the body of their paper, they talk about four different
approaches. One of the approaches is to use embryos that obviously are
not going to live because they are really bad and they are going to
die. You could take cells from them like taking an organ from a person
who is brain dead. I would have a little concern, Mr. Speaker, about
how good a stem cell I was getting from an embryo that was dead.
Another suggestion is to manipulate the genes of the cells so that if
they develop they will never produce a baby. It would be kind of a
freak, I guess, and since it is not going to be a baby, then you could
take cells from that. Again, I would have a little concern, was I
really getting a normal cell when I was taking it from something that
was genetically engineered so that it was not going to grow to be a
baby?
In the text of their white paper, they do a very good job of talking
about developing the repair kit and the fact that the cells could
probably be taken without hurting the embryo. They look at all of the
pluses and minuses of this.
But then it looks like almost, Mr. Speaker, that somebody else wrote
the recommendations, because let me read from the recommendations here.
The recommendations say, the second proposal, blastomere extraction
from living embryos, we find this proposal to be ethically unacceptable
in humans owing to the reasons given in the ethical analysis: We should
not impose risk on living embryos destined to become children for the
sake of getting stem cells for research.
I agree. That is not what they talked about in the text of their
white paper. There they talked about preimplan-
tation genetic diagnosis. This clearly has to be for the benefit of the
baby. The mother does not want to have a baby that is going to have a
less than optimum opportunity for a good life with a genetic defect,
and she has the opportunity to determine that and so she does it. And
then they also talk about developing the repair kit.
So what we were proposing is that there would be cells made
available, surplus cells from the repair kit, only after the parents
had made three decisions which were in the interest of their baby. The
first decision was to do in vitro fertilization. I know that there are
those who do not believe that we ought to be doing in vitro
fertilization. They kind of think that is like playing God. But there
is an old axiom that I
[[Page 11778]]
really subscribe to, Mr. Speaker, and that is that man's extremity is
God's opportunity and God is not going to do for us what we can do for
ourselves. And these parents have made the decision they want a baby
and in vitro fertilization is the only way they are going to get one,
so they have made the decision.
Then they have made the decision they really want a healthy baby, so
they are going to do preimplantation genetic diagnosis. And, by the
way, they refreeze the embryo that was defective. It could be adopted.
There are some families and, God bless them, that are really fulfilled
by taking into their home handicapped babies, babies with defects, that
they are going to be with them for a lifetime and these people feel
fulfilled in taking these children into their homes, children who have
HIV, crack cocaine babies and so forth and so these embryos could be
adopted.
By the way, this is not genetic engineering. There have been some
suggestions that this is an unacceptable technique. Just looking at
what kind of genes are there, Mr. Speaker, that is not genetic
engineering. That is not a very believable argument against this.
Then the parents have made a third choice, and that is to establish a
repair kit for their baby. And only after the parents have made those
three what I think are ethical choices, they want to have their own
baby, they do not want their baby to have a genetic defect and they
want their baby to have a repair kit and only after they have made
those three decisions, then we would ask for some surplus cells from
the repair kit to establish a new stem cell line.
There are two things that I want to refer to here. One is a letter
from Dr. Battey, who is the spokesperson at NIH for stem cell research.
He wrote me on May 23, fairly recently, a three-page letter in which he
says, live births resulting from embryos which undergo preimplantation
genetic diagnosis and are subsequently implanted seem to suggest that
this procedure does not harm the embryo. At least for a thousand times
we have had a normal baby. They are not adults yet, and so the clock
has to run for a while before we determine whether there is any defect.
I would be very surprised, Mr. Speaker, if there is a defect. Because
you can take half the cells away from an early embryo to produce
identical twins, and both halves produce what looks like perfectly
normal people. So I would be surprised if there is any long-term
effects from this.
Also, it is not known if the single cell removed from the eight-cell
stage human embryo has the capacity to become an embryo if cultured in
the appropriate environment.
Then I would like to turn, Mr. Speaker, to the Science section,
Monday, June 6, just yesterday, Stem Cell Advances May Make Moral Issue
Moot. A Dr. Lanza, and our office has spoken to Dr. Lanza, he is
publishing a paper imminently. Some of the details could not be in this
article because he was holding those for his paper.
In one approach pioneered by Robert Lanza and colleagues at Advanced
Cell Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts, researchers plucked single
cells from eight-cell embryos, embryos so young they do not have stem
cells yet. Stem cells are ordinarily derived from inner cell mass. I do
not understand saying that these are not the conventional stem cells
but they certainly, I think, have the capacity to produce stem cells.
Fertility doctors have known for years that early embryos seem
unfazed by the removal of any one of their eight virtually identical
cells called blastomeres. In fact, it is common today to remove a
single representative blastomere from a laboratory conceived embryo and
test that cell for diseased genes before deciding whether to transfer
that embryo into a woman's womb.
If this technique were applied to humans, and I skipped a couple of
paragraphs where he talks about work with animals, if this technique
were applied to humans, then a single cell taken from an eight-cell
fertility clinic embryo could give rise to a self-replicating line of
embryonic stem cells without compromising the donor embryo's odds of
someday growing into a baby.
So the thing that Dr. Battey said had not yet been, and he was
correct because this paper is yet to be published, I think it may be
published today or tomorrow, but he has now in mice, and if it is
doable in mice it is probably doable in higher animals, including
humans, that they have developed stem cell lines from a single cell
taken from an early blastomere.
I would just like to spend a few moments now talking about the bill
which we have filed. It has a number of cosponsors, and I am very
pleased that several doctors in the House have signed on to our bill.
{time} 2300
Our bill really has nothing to do with working on humans because we
think that we ought to do some animal experimentation before we start
working with humans. So what our bill does is simply to make some
moneys available for a several-year study, and we ought to go up to
nonhuman primates. These are animals like chimpanzees and the great
apes. To make sure that what has been done in mice and what has been
done more than 1,000 times in these clinics, and what has been done, of
course, is taking cells from an early embryo without apparently hurting
the embryo, that we could develop these cells into a stem cell line.
That has now been done, as was noted in the paper yesterday. This is
the science section of The Washington Post. So the potential is there
to do this. And all that our research does is to ask for animal
experimentation so that we can check and double-check and make really
sure that this is a safe procedure for humans.
I would like to put up the last chart that we are going to refer to
now. This is a little bit like one that we looked at previously. This
shows again half of the reproductive tract of the female; and, of
course, what we are talking about are procedures that are done in the
laboratory. But they are mimicking what happens in the body. By the
way, when the little baby girl is born, she has in her ovary all of the
ova that will ever be there, and they mature generally during her
reproductive life, which may span 30, 40 years. They generally mature
from one side or the other one a month. But they are all in there. And
this shows the development of these ovum. And finally they grow and
there is like a little blister on the side of the ovary, and then it
breaks and the ovum is free.
In the laboratory, of course, these have been washed out of the
reproductive tract of the female, and they are now put in petri dishes
and exposed to sperm. In the body, the sperm is deposited in the
vagina, makes its way through the cervix, up through the uterus, and
swims clear up through the Fallopian tube. In a laboratory, of course,
they simply with a pipette put the sperm in the petri dish with the
ovum. And there will be many sperm. There are millions of sperm. And
really quite a miraculous and very rapid transformation takes place. As
soon as one sperm enters the egg, the egg then sets up a defense so
that no more sperm can enter because if another sperm were able to make
its way in and they had three sets of chromosomes instead of two, that
would be fatal.
By the way, in flowers that is not fatal. That is called polyploidi,
and that is how we get bigger flowers and better smell and so forth.
But plants react very differently to extra hormones than humans do.
Tisomy-21 produces mongoloid babies. That is just having one extra of
one chromosome. So we do not react well to extra chromosomes; and so
the ovum, after one sperm has entered, it sets up this defense so that
no more sperm can enter.
The same thing happens in the laboratory. And then it divides, and
the doctor watches that division. And down at eight-cell stage, they
take a cell out and do preimplantation genetic diagnosis; and as recent
research has demonstrated, the paper that is going to be published very
shortly by Dr. Lanza, they have done this in mice, but if it is
possible there, it ought to be possible in higher animals, and our
research
[[Page 11779]]
would determine that. They have produced stem cell lines from a single
cell taken. What this means is, Mr. Speaker, that we now have been able
to produce, we will be able to produce, embryonic stem cell lines
without harming an embryo.
I have heard people say that they are just unalterably opposed to
embryonic stem cell research. I hope that is not what they mean. I hope
what they are mean is that they are unalterably opposed to embryonic
stem cell research if it means killing an embryo. I am unalterably
opposed to embryonic stem cell research if it means taking one life
with the hope that we will be able to help another life. But with these
recent advances in medicine and research in the laboratory, there is
the real hope that we can take cells from an early embryo to benefit
the embryo.
And I would like to say again the reasons that the parents are taking
cells from this early embryo, the fundamental reason they are taking
the cell is to do a preimplantation genetic diagnosis. And the
President's Council on Bioethics mentions the possibility of creating a
repair kit, which certainly would benefit the baby. So the parent has
now done three things which they think is ethical. I think that they
are ethical, and there ought to be surplus cells from the repair kit,
and it is those surplus cells that would be made available for
additional stem cell lines.
But I want to reiterate again that the bill which we have just looks
at animal experimentation. Although human research, human developments,
human applications have gone beyond some of the exploration that we
have done with animals, we still think that it is prudent to work with
animals where we can determine with more cases and more intense
experimental observation to make sure that there are no untoward
effects of doing this.
I hope that this research can bring the two sides together. We had a
couple of weeks ago a very heated debate. The emotions on both sides
were rather obvious: those who wanted to take some of these more than
400,000 frozen embryos that they said were going to be discarded anyhow
to get some good from them, and they were so convinced of this in
California that they voted for $3 billion to proceed with this. The
argument on the other side, which position I take, is that morally I
have big problems with taking one life, and this little embryo could
become under the right circumstances a baby. More than 100 times it
has. From these frozen 400,000, there are about 100 or so, we call
Snowflake babies, because this is a program to offer these embryos for
adoption, and more than 100 times they have been adopted, and the
President had some of those babies at the White House a couple of weeks
ago when we were having that debate, and they came to the Hill also
when we were having that debate here on the floor.
With the ability to take cells from an early embryo not to establish
a stem cell line, that is not why the parents took it. They took the
cell to do a preimplantation genetic diagnosis. They then would like to
establish a repair kit. We know they would like to do that because they
are more and more freezing umbilical cord blood, which, as the one
doctor I read from said, is a poor second choice to an embryonic stem
cell line, but it is better than nothing. So we know that parents would
like to do that. And it is only after that if the animal
experimentation supported by our bill shows that this is efficacious
and will not harm the baby, only after that would stem cell lines be
derived from surplus cells from repair kits that the parents had
decided to establish for the benefit of their baby.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this ought to remove all of the ethical
objections. But there is just one more, and I just want to spend a
moment talking about that, and this is a good chart to talk about it
from. Since these cells at the eight-cell stage are quite
undifferentiated, which means they have not really decided what they
are going to be, it is possible that they might take that one cell and
establish another embryo. The President's Council on Bioethics thinks
that is very unlikely. But what I would like to see them pursue is the
development of stem cell lines and the preimplantation genetic
diagnosis from the inner cell mass stage.
Now, that is the stage at which embryonic stem cells are ordinarily
taken from when the embryo is destroyed. That is before the embryo is
implanted in the normal process. Here is the inner cell mass, and here
is where it is implanted a couple of days later, 2 or 3 days later, in
the uterus.
{time} 2310
Ordinarily, and I am not sure why they use the eight cell stage in
the clinical laboratories, but I would like to see cells taken from the
inner cell mass. There is no ethical question involved there because
these cells in the inner cell mass cannot produce a baby because they
have already lost their ability to produce decidua. The decidua is the
amnion and chorion which is commonly known as the placenta, and they
have lost the ability to do that, so they cannot produce a baby, but
they can produce all of the tissues of a person, because these are what
produce, back to our first chart that shows the inner cell mass
differentiating into these three germ layers.
So the last possible ethical objection to deriving stem cells from
pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and the development of a repair kit
would be gone if we could take the cell from the inner cell mass,
because the inner cell mass, those cells could not possibly produce a
baby, because they are sufficiently differentiated that they cannot
produce the decidium.
I have used this term ``differentiation'' a number of times, and what
we try to do with adult stem cells, because they are already
differentiated, we try to de-differentiate them. We try to confuse them
with ques, with chemicals, with exposing them to other cells and the
products from other cells so that they can kind of forget their
development and they now go back to a prior less-differentiated state
where they could produce more variety of cells. But you avoid those
problems with the embryonic stem cell, because it has the capability to
produce any and every cell in the body.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that with these recent medical advances, with
the knowledge that we have, that it is perfectly feasible to ethically
develop embryonic stem cell lines from embryos which should have, in
the view of many of the experts, and clearly in the view of most
Americans if you poll them, should have more potential than adult stem
cells. Only research will tell that, and only time will tell whether or
not that is true.
But with the hope that these large numbers of diseases so devastating
to our people could be affected or maybe cured with embryonic stem
cells, we really must pursue this, and now we have the opportunity to
do that without offending those who have a problem with taking one life
so that we might help another life.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that we now are on the cusp of advances that
will bring these two sides together. We have enough things to be
concerned about and to discuss in our country, we do not need to be
discussing this, and I think the two sides with these present advances
can come together. I hope that we will have an early vote on our bill
and it will reach the President's desk so that he has a bill that he
can sign that will promote embryonic stem cell research.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Ms. McCollum of Minnesota (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today
and before 4:00 p.m. June 8 on account of official 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. Ryan of Ohio) to revise
and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Gutierrez, for 5 minutes, today.
[[Page 11780]]
Mr. George Miller of California, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. McCarthy, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Brown of Ohio, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Carson, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Millender-McDonald, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Holt, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Gutknecht) to revise
and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Gutknecht, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes, today and June 9.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina, for 5 minutes, today and June 8 and 9.
Mrs. Blackburn, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Norwood, for 5 minutes, June 9.
Mr. Keller, for 5 minutes, today and June 8.
Mr. Burton of Indiana, for 5 minutes, today and June 8, 9, and 10.
Mr. Simmons, for 5 minutes, June 9.
Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Osborne, for 5 minutes, June 8.
Ms. Foxx, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, for 5 minutes, June 8.
____________________
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
Mr. Trandahl, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly enrolled a
bill of the House of the House title, which was thereupon signed by the
Speaker:
H.R. 1760. an ACT to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr.
Boulevard in Madison, Wisconsin, as the ``Robert M. La
Follette, Sr. Post Office Building''.
____________________
A BILL PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT
Jeff Trandahl, Clerk of the House reports that on May 27, 2005 he
presented to the President of the United States, for his approval, the
following bill.
H.R. 2566. To provide an extension of highway, highway
safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs
funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a
law reauthorizing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 13 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 8, 2005, at
10 a.m.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
2223. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting notification of the intention to
reallocate funds previously transferred from the Emergency
Response Fund; (H. Doc. No. 109-31); to the Committee on
Appropriations and ordered to be printed.
2224. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting certification that the export to the
People's Republic of China of the specified items is not
detrimental to the United States space launch industry, and
that the material and equipment, including any indirect
technical benefit that could be derived from such exports,
will not measurably improve the missile or space launch
capabilities of the People's Republic of China, pursuant to
Public Law 105-261, section 1512; (H. Doc. No. 109-32); to
the Committee on International Relations and ordered to be
printed.
2225. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 16-73, ``Closing
of a Public Alley in Square 527, S.O. 03-1181, Act of 2005,''
pursuant to D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to the Committee
on Government Reform.
2226. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 16-74, ``Rental
Housing Act Extension Amendment Act of 2005,'' pursuant to
D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government
Reform.
2227. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 16-75, ``Closing
of a Public Alley in Square 342, S.O. 03-5369, Act of 2005,''
pursuant to D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to the Committee
on Government Reform.
2228. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 16-89, ``Rental
Housing Conversion and Sale Amendment Act of 2005,'' pursuant
to D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to the Committee on
Government Reform.
2229. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 16-76, ``Closing
of a Portion of Davenport Street, N.W., abutting Squares 1672
and 1673, S.O. 03-2366, Act of 2005,'' pursuant to D.C. Code
section 1-233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government Reform.
2230. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 16-84, ``Victims
of Domestic Violence Fund Establishment Temporary Act of
2005,'' pursuant to D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to the
Committee on Government Reform.
2231. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 16-85, ``Local,
Small, and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Certification
Temporary Amendment Act of 2005,'' pursuant to D.C. Code
section 1-233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government Reform.
2232. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
2233. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
2234. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
2235. A letter from the Assistant Director, Executive &
Political Personnel, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
2236. A letter from the Director, Office of White House
Liaison, Department of Education, transmitting a report
pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
2237. A letter from the Director, Office of White House
Liaison, Department of Education, transmitting a report
pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
2238. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Transportation, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
2239. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Transportation, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
2240. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Anchorage
Grounds; Baltimore Harbor Anchorage Project [CGD05-03-036]
(RIN: 1625-AA01) received June 7, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
2241. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200 and -300
Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2004-19525; Directorate
Identifier 2004-NM-18-AD; Amendment 39-14026; AD 2005-07-02]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received June 7, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
2242. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-
2005-20631; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-025-AD; Amendment
39-14012; AD 2005-06-04] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received June 7,
2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
[Pursuant to the order of the House on May 26, 2005 the following
reports were filed on June 2, 2005]
Mr. HOEKSTRA: Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
H.R. 2475. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2006 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of
the United States Government, the Community Management
Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and
Disability System, and for other purposes, with amendment
(Rept 109-101). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House
on the
[[Page 11781]]
State of the Union, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. BONILLA: Committee on Appropriations H.R. 2744. A bill
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. 109-102). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed.
[Filed on June 7, 2005]
Mr. BARTON: Committee on Energy and Commerce. House
Resolution 169. Resolution recognizing the importance of sun
safety, and for other purposes, with an amendment (Rept. 109-
103). Referred to the House Calendar.
Mr. BARTON: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1812. A
bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize a
demonstration grant program to provide patient navigator
services to reduce barriers and improve health care outcomes,
and for other purposes (Rept. 109-104). Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. PUTNAM: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 303.
Resolution providing for consideration of 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. 109-105). Referred to the House
Calendar.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington: Committee on Rules. House
Resolution 304. Resolution providing for consideration of
(H.J. Res. 27) withdrawing the approval of the United States
from the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization
(Rept. 109-106). Referred to the House Calendar.
discharge of committee
[The following action occurred on May 27, 2005]
Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XII the Committee on the Judiciary
discharged from further consideration H.R. 22 referred to the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. HYDE (for himself and Mr. Pence):
H.R. 2745. A bill to reform the United Nations, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. HOLT:
H.R. 2746. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to ensure that benefits under part D of such
title have no impact on benefits under other Federal
programs; 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. FILNER:
H.R. 2747. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
enhance military and veterans' life insurance programs
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2748. A bill to condition the minimum-wage-exempt
status of organized camps under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 on compliance with certain safety standards, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2749. A bill to require cigarette products to be
placed under or behind the counter in retail sales; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2750. A bill to amend section 502(h) of the Housing
Act of 1949 to improve the rural housing loan guarantee
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Financial Services.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2751. A bill to amend section 526 of the National
Housing Act to provide that any certification of a property
for meeting energy efficiency requirements for mortgage
insurance under such Act shall be conducted by an individual
certified by an accredited home energy rating system
provider; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2752. A bill to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United
States Code, to make available to Federal employees the
option of obtaining health benefits coverage for dependent
parents; to the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2753. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 to provide for public funding for House of
Representatives elections, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2754. A bill to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of
1974 to eliminate a limitation on benefits; to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2755. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide for the income tax treatment of legal fees
awarded or received in connection with nonphysical personal
injury cases; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2756. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to require the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Commissioner of Social Security to disclose certain taxpayer
returns and return information upon written request by an
order from a State or local court in a family law proceeding;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2757. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide an inflation adjustment of the dollar
limitation on the exclusion of gain on the sale of a
principal residence; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2758. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to provide for coverage under the Medicare
Program of infertility treatment services for individuals
entitled to health insurance benefits under that program by
reason of a disability; 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. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2759. A bill to assure equitable treatment of
fertility and impotence in health care coverage under group
health plans, health insurance coverage, and health plans
under the Federal employees' health benefits program; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committees on Education and the Workforce, 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 Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2760. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to require the preparation of audit reports
based upon the financial auditing of Medicare Advantage
organizations and to make such reports available to the
public; 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. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2761. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act
and Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to
require that group and individual health insurance coverage
and group health plans provide coverage for annual screening
mammography for any class of covered individuals if the
coverage or plans include coverage for diagnostic mammography
for such class and to amend title XIX of the Social Security
Act to provide for coverage of annual screening mammography
under the Medicaid Program; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Education and
the Workforce, 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. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2762. A bill to direct the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to establish a demonstration project for the
use of an Internet-based form for submission of certain
claims under the Medicare Program; to the Committee on Ways
and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mrs. CAPPS:
H.R. 2763. A bill to authorize the Director of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention to make grants to local
educational agencies to support the purchase or lease and use
of vending machines that offer for sale healthy foods and
beverages in schools; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. CLAY:
H.R. 2764. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 2 methyl 5 nitrobenzenesulfonic acid; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CLAY:
H.R. 2765. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on p-cresidine sulfonic acid; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. CLAY:
H.R. 2766. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 2,4 disulfo benzaldehyde; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
[[Page 11782]]
By Mr. CLAY:
H.R. 2767. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on n ethyl N (3- sulfobenzyl) aniline; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CLAY:
H.R. 2768. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on m-hydroxy benzaldehyde; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. CLAY:
H.R. 2769. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 2 amino 5 sulfobenzoic acid; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. CLAY:
H.R. 2770. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 2 amino 6 nitro phenol 4 sulfonic acid; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CLAY:
H.R. 2771. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 2,5 bis [(1,3 dioxobutyl) amino] benzene sulfonic
acid; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CLAY:
H.R. 2772. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 4 [(4 amino phenyl) azo] benzene sulfonic acid,
monosodium salt; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CLAY:
H.R. 2773. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
oleoresin turmeric; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CLAY:
H.R. 2774. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on basic
yellow 40 chloride based; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CLAY:
H.R. 2775. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on direct
yellow 119; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CLAY:
H.R. 2776. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on 4 [(4 amino phenyl) azo] benzene sulfonic acid; to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CLAY:
H.R. 2777. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
oleoresin paprika; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. DENT:
H.R. 2778. A bill to amend the National Voter Registration
Act of 1993 to permit a voting registrar to remove an
individual from the official list of registered voters for
elections for Federal office on the ground that the
individual no longer resides in the registrar's jurisdiction
if the individual fails to vote in any election held during 2
consecutive Federal election cycles, the registrar sends a
notice to the individual at the end of the second cycle, and
the individual fails to respond to the notice within 60 days;
to the Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. HERGER:
H.R. 2779. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of
1973 to enable Federal agencies responsible for the
preservation of threatened species and endangered species to
rescue and relocate members of any of those species that
would be taken in the course of certain reconstruction,
maintenance, or repair of Federal or non-Federal manmade
flood control levees; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. ISRAEL (for himself and Ms. Bean):
H.R. 2780. A bill to direct the Assistant Secretary of
Homeland Security for the Transportation Security
Administration to issue regulations requiring turbojet
aircraft of air carriers to be equipped with missile defense
systems, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland
Security, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, 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:
H.R. 2781. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Naugard 412S; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut:
H.R. 2782. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Triacetonamine; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut:
H.R. 2783. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Ipconazole; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut:
H.R. 2784. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Omite
Tech; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut:
H.R. 2785. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Pantera Technical; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. REYNOLDS (for himself and Mr. Thompson of
California):
H.R. 2786. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide the same capital gains treatment for art and
collectibles as for other investment property and to provide
that a deduction equal to fair market value shall be allowed
for charitable contributions of literary, musical, artistic,
or scholarly compositions created by the donor; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TIAHRT:
H.R. 2787. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
restore the mission of the Federal Aviation Administration to
promote civil aeronautics; to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
By Mr. WU (for himself, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Blumenauer,
and Ms. Hooley):
H.R. 2788. A bill to establish the Mark O. Hatfield-
Elizabeth Furse Scholarship and Excellence in Tribal
Governance Foundation, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Resources.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H. Res. 305. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals
of the National Congenital Heart Defect Awareness Week; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas:
H. Res. 306. A resolution to recognize and honor the
world's nearly 20,000,000 refugees; to the Committee on
International Relations.
____________________
PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 3 of rule XII, private bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. DENT:
H.R. 2789. A bill for the relief of Gabriella Dee; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania:
H.R. 2790. A bill to authorize and request the President to
award the Medal of Honor to Richard D. Winters, of Hershey,
Pennsylvania, for acts of valor on June 6, 1944, in Normandy,
France, while an officer in the 101st Airborne Division; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS TO PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolution as follows:
H.R. 13: Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Snyder.
H.R. 23: Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Costa, and Mr.
Oberstar.
H.R. 41: Mr. Young of Alaska.
H.R. 65: Mr. Reichert, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Foley, and
Mrs. Capito.
H.R. 111: Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr.
Goodlatte, and Mr. Gary G. Miller of California.
H.R. 115: Mr. Costello.
H.R. 176: Mr. Cox, Ms. Harman, and Ms. Zoe Lofgren of
California.
H.R. 195: Mr. Kolbe.
H.R. 216: Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California.
H.R. 224: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 282: Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Ms. Pelosi, Mr.
Gilchrest, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Daniel
E. Lungren of California, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Baird, and Mr.
Pearce.
H.R. 302: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 303: Ms. Eshoo, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Moran
of Virginia, Mr. Keller, and Mr. Norwood.
H.R. 328: Mr. Gilchrest.
H.R. 333: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California.
H.R. 363: Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Costello.
H.R. 371: Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire, Mr. Hinojosa, Ms.
Schwartz of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Larsen of Washington.
H.R. 389: Mr. Buyer.
H.R. 448: Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 457: Ms. Baldwin.
H.R. 463: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 468: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 503: Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mrs.
McCarthy, Mr. Weiner, Mrs. Myrick, and Mr. Neal of
Massachusetts.
H.R. 515: Mr. Sherman and Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 543: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 551: Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Sabo,
Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Moran of Virginia, and Ms. Carson.
H.R. 554: Mr. Price of Georgia.
H.R. 558: Ms. Kaptur.
H.R. 602: Ms. Solis, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Ms. Wasserman
Schultz, and Mr. Hayes.
H.R. 615: Mr. Rothman and Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 652: Mr. Ford, Mr. Herger, and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
H.R. 670: Mr. Cummings and Mr. Moore of Kansas.
H.R. 676: Ms. Carson, Mr. Evans, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Sanders,
and Mr. Engel.
H.R. 699: Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Bachus, Ms. Harman, Mr. Petri,
Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mrs. Jones
of Ohio, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Porter, Mr. Israel, and Mr.
Bishop of Utah.
H.R. 713: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Davis of Kentucky.
H.R. 736: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 747: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas and Mr.
Menendez.
H.R. 752: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 771: Mr. Van Hollen.
H.R. 780: Mr. Higgins and Mr. Israel.
H.R. 783: Mr. Conaway, Mr. Boren, Mr. Frelinghuysen, and
Mr. Bartlett of Maryland.
H.R. 800: Mr. LaHood and Mr. Stupak.
H.R. 801: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 818: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 820: Mr. Hinojosa.
[[Page 11783]]
H.R. 831: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 839: Ms. Schakowsky, Mrs. Christen-
sen, Mr. Tierney, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Filner, and
Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 864: Mrs. Maloney, Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Ramstad, and Mr. Baird.
H.R. 865: Mr. Putnam.
H.R. 869: Mr. Murphy.
H.R. 880: Mr. Whitfield.
H.R. 887: Mr. Berry, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Gordon,
and Mr. McNulty.
H.R. 896: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, and Mr.
Abercrombie.
H.R. 898: Mr. Boswell, Mr. Ruppersber-
ger, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Oberstar, Mr.
Israel, Mr. Putnam, and Mr. LaHood.
H.R. 916: Mr. Berry, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Marshall, and Mr.
Porter.
H.R. 923: Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Holden, Mr. McNulty, Mr.
Cummings, and Mrs. Capito.
H.R. 940: Mr. Wamp.
H.R. 945: Ms. McKinney.
H.R. 963: Ms. Roybal-Allard.
H.R. 968: Mr. Kildee, Mr. Ford, Mr. Rahall, Mrs. Davis of
California, Mr. Cun-
ningham, and Mr. Taylor of Mississippi.
H.R. 986: Mr. Davis of Tennessee.
H.R. 988: Mr. Allen and Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 997: Mr. Peterson of Minnesota.
H.R. 998: Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Lucas.
H.R. 1000: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 1010: Mr. Ramstad and Mr. Bachus.
H.R. 1020: Mr. Cummings and Mr. Conaway.
H.R. 1079: Mr. Boustany.
H.R. 1102: Mrs. Maloney.
H.R. 1124: Mr. Boozman.
H.R. 1155: Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 1156: Mr. Whitfield.
H.R. 1157: Mr. Doyle and Mr. Ford.
H.R. 1175: Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 1204: Mr. Rothman, Mr. Smith of Washington, Ms.
Roybal-Allard, Mr. Reyes, and Mr. Levin.
H.R. 1216: Mr. Gillmor and Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 1220: Mr. Udall of New Mexico.
H.R. 1288: Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Pickering, Mrs. Miller of
Michigan, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Mica, Mr. Calvert, Mr.
Marchant, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, Mr. McCrery, Mr. LaTourette,
and Mr. Barrow.
H.R. 1299: Mr. Wamp.
H.R. 1352: Mr. Inslee.
H.R. 1365: Mr. Clyburn.
H.R. 1376: Mr. Weller.
H.R. 1390: Mr. Israel.
H.R. 1409: Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr.
Andrews, and Mr. Meek of Florida.
H.R. 1424: Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 1471: Mr. Hobson, Mr. Rahall, and Mr. Shaw.
H.R. 1505: Mr. Israel and Mr. Shimkus.
H.R. 1510: Mr. Cannon.
H.R. 1511: Mr. Ramstad.
H.R. 1520: Mr. Walden of Oregon.
H.R. 1526: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 1547: Mr. Dreier and Mr. Ruppers-
berger.
H.R. 1558: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 1585: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida and Mr. Kennedy
of Minnesota.
H.R. 1592: Mr. Matheson.
H.R. 1606: Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota.
H.R. 1607: Mr. Weldon of Florida.
H.R. 1619: Ms. McCollum of Minnesota.
H.R. 1620: Mr. Green of Wisconsin.
H.R. 1642: Mr. Inglis of South Carolina.
H.R. 1652: Mr. Wexler, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Kolbe, and Mr.
Serrano.
H.R. 1671: Mr. Etheridge and Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.R. 1696: Ms. Norton, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Engel,
and Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 1704: Mrs. McCarthy.
H.R. 1744: Mr. Brown of Ohio.
H.R. 1748: Mrs. Musgrave.
H.R. 1791: Mr. Crowley and Mr. Cooper.
H.R. 1823: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California.
H.R. 1851: Mr. Doolittle.
H.R. 1861: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 1863: Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 1898: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Lewis of
Kentucky, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Norwood, and Mr. Linder.
H.R. 1955: Mr. Schiff and Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 1973: Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr. Wexler, Mr.
Cardoza, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
H.R. 2012: Mr. Feeney.
H.R. 2017: Mr. Cunningham.
H.R. 2044: Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Evans, Mr. McGovern, and Mr.
Wexler.
H.R. 2047: Mr. Ortiz and Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia.
H.R. 2061: Mr. McHenry, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Pence, Mr. Edwards,
and Mr. Conaway.
H.R. 2074: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 2076: Mr. Filner and Mr. Norwood.
H.R. 2106: Mr. Manzullo and Mr. Ramstad.
H.R. 2123: Mr. Murphy.
H.R. 2183: Mr. Menendez and Mr. Holt.
H.R. 2209: Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, Mr. Holden, and
Mr. Etheridge.
H.R. 2218: Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H.R. 2338: Mr. Pallone, Mr. Case, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Zoe
Lofgren of California, Mr. Ortiz, and Mr. Markey.
H.R. 2290: Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota.
H.R. 2327: Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr.
Honda, Mr. Schiff, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Baca, Mr.
Scott of Virginia, Mr. Weiner, Ms. Harman, Mr. Wolf, and Mr.
Tancredo.
H.R. 2328: Mr. Strickland, Mr. Davis of Illinos, and Mrs.
Lowey.
H.R. 2331: Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
H.R. 2350: Mr. Higgins.
H.R. 2355: Mr. Stearns.
H.R. 2363: Mr. Ramstad.
H.R. 2367: Mr. Towns, Mr. Honda, and Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas.
H.R. 2369: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 2370: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 2423: Mr. Kuhl of New York, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Boozman,
Mrs. Emerson, Ms. Herseth, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr.
Kildee, and Mr. Murphy.
H.R. 2427: Mr. Bass, Mr. Barrow, and Mr. Abercrombie.
H.R. 2429: Mr. Dingell.
H.R. 2457: Ms. Moore of Wisconsin and Mr. Owens.
H.R. 2500: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Neal of
Massachusetts, Mr. Payne, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Norton, Mrs.
Maloney, Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Brown
of Ohio, Ms. Eshoo, and Mr. Owens.
H.R. 2526: Mr. Engel, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Kuhl of
New York, Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Mr. Holden, and
Mr. Strickland.
H.R. 2533: Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Becerra,
and Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 2626: Mr. Stupak, Mr. Boswell, and Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas.
H.R. 2641: Mr. Scott of Georgia and Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 2646: Mr. Terry, Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire, Mr.
Cooper, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Otter, Mr. Paul, Mr. Wilson of
South Carolina, and Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
H.R. 2648: Mr. Barrow, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Burton of Indiana,
Mr. Bonner, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Paul, and Mr. Smith of New
Jersey.
H.R. 2658: Mr. Davis of Kentucky.
H.R. 2681: Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Farr, Ms. Norton,
and Mr. Dicks.
H.R. 2688: Mr. Weiner.
H.R. 2694: Mr. Strickland, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Langevin, Ms.
Lee, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Baca, and Mr. Larson of Connecticut.
H.R. 2717: Mr. Scott of Virginia, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of
California, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and Mr. Gerlach.
H.R. 2719: Ms. McKinney.
H.J. Res. 10: Mr. Tiberi, Mr. Bishop of Utah, and Mr. Moran
of Kansas.
H.J. Res. 22: Mr. Edwards and Mr. Brown of Ohio.
H.J. Res. 37: Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Higgins, and Mr. Peterson
of Minnesota.
H.J. Res. 38: Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
H. Con. Res. 71: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Fortuno, Ms. Zoe
Lofgren of California, and Ms. Bordallo.
H. Con. Res. 85: Mrs. Capito.
H. Con. Res. 154: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H. Con. Res. 159: Mr. Bilirakis.
H. Con. Res. 160: Ms. McKinney, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania,
Ms. Carson, and Mr. Moore of Kansas.
H. Con. Res. 162: Mr. Dent.
H. Con. Res. 164: Mr. Case.
H. Con. Res. 172: Mr. Sherman, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr.
Simmons.
H. Con. Res. 173: Mr. Kingston and Mr. Osborne.
H. Res. 121: Mr. Wexler.
H. Res. 146: Mr. Marchant.
H. Res. 175: Mr. McGovern.
H. Res. 189: Mr. McNulty.
H. Res. 199: Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Rush,
and Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California.
H. Res. 279: Mr. Shaw.
H. Res. 282: Mr. Miller of Florida and Mr. Schwarz of
Michigan.
____________________
DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills
and resolutions as follows:
H.R. 65: Mr. Langevin.
____________________
AMENDMENTS
Under clause 8 of Rule XVIII, proposed amendments were submitted as
follows:
H.R. 2744
Offered By: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey
Amendment No. 1: Page 51, line 21, insert the following
before the period at the end:
: Provided further, That none of the funds made available
under this heading may be expended in contravention of
section 213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1183a)
H.R. 2744
Offered By: Mr. King of Iowa
Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 19, after the dollar amount
insert the following: ``: Provided, That $875,000 of the
funds made available by this appropriation shall not be
available until the Secretary of Agriculture submits to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate, the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate a report on the National Animal
Identification Plan, including the lessons
[[Page 11784]]
learned and the effectiveness of the pilot programs funded in
fiscal year 2005, an analysis of the economic impact of the
proposed National Animal Identification System on the
livestock industry, and the expected cost of implementing the
National Animal Identification System''.
H.R. 2744
Offered By: Mr. King of Iowa
Amendment No. 3: At the end of the bill (before the short
title) insert the following new section:
Sec. __. Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
submit to Congress a report on the National Animal
Identification Plan, including--
(1) the lessons learned and the effectiveness of the pilot
programs funded in fiscal year 2005;
(2) an analysis of the economic impact of the proposed
National Animal Identification System on the livestock
industry; and
(3) the expected cost of implementing the National Animal
Identification System.
H.R. 2744
Offered By: Mr. Baca
Amendment No. 4: Under the heading ``Common Computing
Environment'', insert after the dollar amount the following:
``(reduced by $855,000)''.
Under the headings ``Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service'' and ``Research and Education
Activities'', insert after the first dollar amount, and after
the dollar amount relating to an education grants program for
Hispanic-serving Institutions, the following: ``(increased by
$855,000)''.
H.R. 2744
Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer
Amendment No. 5: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), add the following new section:
Sec. 7__. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel who make loans available under section
156 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
1996 (7 U.S.C. 7272) to processors of domestically grown
sugarcane at a rate in excess of 17 cents per pound for raw
cane sugar or to processors of domestically grown sugar beets
at a rate in excess of 21.6 cents per pound for refined beet
sugar.
H.R. 2744
Offered By: Mr. Chabot
Amendment No. 6: At the end of the bill (before the short
title) insert the following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to carry out section 203 of
the Agriculture Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623) or to pay
the salaries and expenses of personnel who carry out a market
program under such section.
H.R. 2744
Offered By: Mr. Platts
Amendment No. 7: Page 5, line 8, after the dollar amount
insert the following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
Page 5, line 13, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
Page 18, line 12, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $1,227,000)''.
H.R. 2744
Offered By: Mr. Rehberg
Amendment No. 8: Strike section 759 (page 80, lines 7
through 10), relating to the delay in country of origin
labeling for meat and meat products.
H.R. 2744
Offered By: Mr. Schwarz of Michigan
Amendment No. 9: Add at the end (before the short title)
the following new section:
Sec. 7__. It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of
Agriculture should use the transfer authority provided by
section 442 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7772) to
implement the strategic plan developed by the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service for the eradication of
Emerald Ash Borer in the States of Michigan, Ohio, and
Indiana.
H.R. 2744
Offered By: Mr. Sweeney
Amendment No. 10: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to pay the salaries or expenses of personnel to
inspect horses intended for slaughter, horse carcasses, or
horse meat under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C.
601 et seq.) or the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-127).
[[Page 11785]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
RECOGNITION OF TOP STUDENT HISTORIANS IN COLORADO HISTORY DAY
______
HON. THOMAS G. TANCREDO
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize Emily
Haskins, a student at Powell Middle School in Littleton, Colorado.
Emily created a museum-style exhibit entitled ``Nazi Communication:
Pompous Propaganda or Subtle Manipulation?'' and qualified to compete
at the National History Day competition by placing third in her
category at the Colorado History Day State Contest, where she was one
of 638 competitors.
Colorado History Day is the National History Day program affiliate
for the state of Colorado. National History Day is a year-long
education program that engages students in grades 6-12 in the process
of discovery and interpretation of historical topics. Students produce
dramatic performances, museum-style exhibits, multimedia documentaries,
and research papers based on their own research related to a broad
annual theme. Their projects are then evaluated in a series of local
and state competitions, culminating in an annual national competition.
Nationwide, more than 800,000 students are involved in the National
History Day program. More than 4,000 Colorado students participate in
History Day activities at the local level each year, and they represent
every type of Colorado community, from the cities and suburbs of the
Front Range, to rural plains towns and mountain communities. At the
Colorado History Day State Competition on April 23, 2005, held at the
University of Colorado at Boulder, 54 students qualified to represent
Colorado at the National History Day competition June 12-16 at the
University of Maryland, College Park.
This year's National History Day theme, ``Communication in History:
The Key to Understanding,'' encompasses endless possibilities for
exploration. Students embark on journeys of discovery that teach them
about various facets of world, national, regional, and local history as
they produce their original research projects. By encouraging young
Coloradoans to take advantage of the wealth of primary historical
resources available to them, students gain a richer understanding of
historical issues, ideas, people, and events. Students in this program
learn how to analyze a variety of primary sources such as photographs,
letters, diaries, magazines, maps, artifacts, sound recordings, and
motion pictures. This significant academic exercise encourages
intellectual growth while helping students to develop critical thinking
and problem-solving skills that will help them manage and use
information, now and in the future. For more than twenty-five years the
National History Day program has promoted systemic educational reform
related to the teaching and learning of history in America's schools.
The combination of creativity and scholarship built into the National
History Day program anticipated current educational reforms, making
National History Day a leading model of performance-based learning.
These impressive students represent educational excellence in
America. Every student in Colorado should have the opportunity to
participate in this enriching program.
These students' teachers also deserve our respect. They are fine
examples of the best in the teaching profession. Their encouragement
and dedication has encouraged these students to strive for excellence
and be successful in their endeavors. For this reason, I would also
like to recognize Emily's teacher, Denise Shaw-Paswaters.
____________________
HONORING BUSINESS FLOORING SPECIALISTS
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service and
commitment of Business Flooring Specialists which was recently honored
as the number 45 ``Fastest-Growing New Business in America'' by
Entrepreneur Magazine's Hot 100 list.
In 2002, relying on a combined 45 years of experience and knowledge,
President Jeff Bennett and Vice President Dale Walton established a
successful company that specializes in professional floor covering and
installation. Despite its rapid growth and new-found success, Bennett
and Walton still personally oversee every project to guarantee that
each project is done efficiently and with great detail. Just 3 years
later, with the effort and loyalty the two founders have instilled,
Business Flooring Specialists has become one of the premier flooring
companies in North-Central Texas.
As their Congressman, I am honored to represent a company and group
of individuals that are so strongly committed to instilling a tough
work ethic and satisfying its customers. I congratulate Business
Flooring Specialists for its dedication and wish them continued
success.
____________________
RECOGNIZING JEFFREY ``JEFF'' MARKHAM OF LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA
______
HON. MIKE THOMPSON
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize
Captain Jeffrey ``Jeff'' Markham of Lakeport, California as he retires
from the Lake County Sheriff's Department after serving and protecting
our community for the past 35 years.
Captain Markham has been an indispensable member of the Lake County
law enforcement team. Since 1969, he has wholeheartedly committed
himself to our community, working selflessly and relentlessly towards
bettering the lives of Lake County citizens. Whether out patrolling the
streets or supervising the office, Jeff has worked day and night to
protect Lake County.
A highly respected and revered man, Captain Markham has held many
other important positions throughout the county and state including law
enforcement liaison between the Lake County Board of Supervisors and
the Lake County Sheriff. In addition to his responsibilities in Lake
County he has served as the State of California Narcotics Agent for 18
Northern California counties.
Mr. Speaker, when not in uniform, Captain Markham is very active
throughout the community. While President of the local Little League he
helped lead the development of a new baseball field. He has served as
Head Cub Master for local Cub Scouts. For eight years he served on the
Konocti Unified School District Board of Trustees and taught police
science at Yuba College's Lake County campus in Clearlake. He has been
a member of various organizations including the Rotary Club, Kiwanis
Club, Elks Lodge, and the Old Car Club.
A native Californian, Captain Markham graduated with a Bachelor of
Arts from California State University at San Jose. He then earned his
Master's in public Administration from the University of Southern
California and later attended the FBI National Academy. Jeff and his
wife Jeanne have two sons, David who also lives in Lakeport and Stephen
who resides in nearby Clearlake where he is the Vice Mayor. Jeff and
Jeanne are also the proud grandparents of six.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, it is appropriate that we honor and thank
Captain Jeffrey Markham for his years of devotion to public service and
extend our best wishes to him as he retires.
[[Page 11786]]
____________________
HONORING JUDY GOFF
______
HON. BARBARA LEE
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraodinary career
and achievements of Judy Goff of Alameda, California. Judy has been a
dynamic and innovative leader in the labor community for more than 30
years, and today receives the Central Labor Council (CLC) of Alameda
County, AFL-CIO's Lifetime Achievement Award as Unionist of the Year.
Judy is currently the Executive Secretary Treasurer Emeritus of the
CLC of Alameda County, AFL-CIO, representing 135 unions and over
126,000 working families. She is known not only for her historic policy
reforms in favor of immigrants' and workers' rights, but has also made
a tremendous impact within and outside of the labor community as the
fIrst woman in California's history to hold many of the executive
positions in which she has served held throughout her career.
Judy is a graduate of Holy Names College in Oakland, where she earned
a degree in psychology. She is a former Alameda County social worker,
and has worked with the General Assistance Program, providing
assistance to single adults with substance dependency problems, and
also with the Children's Protective Services Program.
Judy's labor career began when she joined the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) Local 535 in 1972. She first ran for union
office in 1973, becoming a member of the Alameda County Chapter
Executive Board, a Delegate to the statewide Executive Board, and a
Delegate to the Central Labor Council of Alameda County.
In 1976, Judy made history by becoming the first woman elected as
statewide president of SEIU Local 535. In that capacity she worked
tirelessly to defend the rights of those in need, testifying before
Congress as well as the California State Legislature on welfare reform,
and advocating for increases in funding for programs that served youth,
the disabled, and older adults.
In another historic moment, Judy was elected as president of the
Central Labor Council of Alameda County, AFL-CIO in 1983, making her
the fIrst woman to serve in that position within any major labor
council in California history. Under her leadership, the CLC introduced
a resolution to the national AFL-CIO calling for major policy reforms
on immigration and workers' rights. Additionally, as part of the Labor
Immigrant Organizing Network, she worked to bring together union
organizers and community groups to advocate for immigrant rights.
During her tenure, the Central Labor Council was also successful in
working to pass living wage ordinances in the cities of Berkeley,
Oakland and Hayward, as well as at the Port of Oakland.
During the past three decades, Judy's leadership on labor issues has
also expanded to include a number of academic and community
organizations. She is a member of the California State Assembly
Speaker's Commission on Labor Education, and serves as a member of
various labor-related advisory committees at San Francisco State
University, Laney College and U.C. Berkeley. Judy serves on the board
of the Bay Area Economic Forum and the steering committee of the Bay
Dredging Action Coalition, and is a member of the Coalition on Labor
Union Women AFL-CIO.
On June 10, 2005, friends and members of the labor community will
gather to honor the contributions that Judy Goff has made to the
circumstances of working people in Alameda County and throughout the
State of California. Throughout the past three decades, Judy's work has
consistently served to support workers' rights, diversity, fairness,
and economic and social justice. The result has not only been a
consistent improvement in the lives of working people in Alameda
County, but an improvement in the quality of life for all people
throughout the Easy Bay. On behalf of the 9th Congressional District, I
salute Judy Goff for her immeasurable contributions to our community,
and thank her for fighting to protect the rights of workers of
generations past, present and future.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MOTHER ODESSA BONNER--USHER OF THE YEAR
______
HON. DONALD M. PAYNE
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in honor of Mother
Odessa Bonner who received the Life Time Achievement Award on June 5,
2005 at the Saint Paul's Calvary United Church of God's Joint Usher
Board's 36th Annual Day.
Mother Bonner has been a dedicated member of Saint Paul's Calvary
United Church of God's Usher Board for over 30 years. Her willingness
to lend a helping hand has made it easy for the Usher Board to declare
her 2005's Usher of the Year. She has devoted herself to assisting
those in need through her outreach work at community food banks,
various shelters and soup kitchens throughout Union and Essex counties.
Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues here in the US House of
Representatives to join me in honoring Mother Odessa Bonner as she
accepts the Life Time Achievement Award as Usher of the Year. I am
proud to have had her in my Congressional district and wish her never-
ending success in her future endeavors.
____________________
STATEMENT REGARDING THE DEATH OF CHARLIE BOINEAU
______
HON. JOE WILSON
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, Roxanne, our sons, and I
are deeply saddened to learn of the death on June 1st of Charlie
Boineau, who has been a lifetime hero to us for his courage to pioneer
the development of the two party system in South Carolina,'' said
Wilson.
``One of the most meaningful events of my life was to visit the State
House for the first time in August 1961 to witness Charlie's swearing
in as a member of the S.C. House of Representatives. After winning a
special election countywide in Richland County, he became the first
Republican of the twentieth century to be elected to the General
Assembly, an accomplishment that paved the way for the current
Republican legislative and Federal majorities in South Carolina.
``I was always grateful to recognize Charlie as a trailblazer of the
Republican Revolution, and I will always be proud he was my third
cousin. We were both proud of our French Huguenot heritage.
``Charlie Boineau will always be remembered as a political leader,
Rotarian, and Chamber official who made a difference for the people of
South Carolina.
``Our family extends its deepest sympathy to Betsy, Bonnie, Fred, and
the granddaughters.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following obituary is from
The State newspaper of Columbia, South Carolina, of June 3, 2005.
Charles Evans Boineau
Columbia.--Services for Charles Evans Boineau will be held
Saturday at 11 a.m. at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, 1100
Sumter Street. The family will receive friends Friday 5-7
p.m. at 1829 Senate Street, Dunbar Funeral Home, Devine
Street Chapel, is assisting the family.
Born in Columbia, Mr. Boineau was the son of the late
Bessie T. and Charles Evans Boineau. He was a graduate of
Camden High School and was a student at the Citadel in
Charleston when World War II began. In 1942, he volunteered
for the Naval Air corps and at the age of twenty, was a Navy
fighter pilot in the South Pacific aboard the aircraft
carrier Hornet (CV-12). He participated in carrier strikes
against Luzon, Formosa, South China Sea, French Indochina and
Okinawa.
After the war Mr. Boineau returned to Columbia and began
working for Boineau's Allied Van Lines. He was affiliated for
forty-three years with the moving company that was founded by
his father in 1931. He became president of the company in
1971. He had been with the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce
as Membership Ambassador since 1994.
Mr. Boineau was elected in 1961 as the first Republican to
the South Carolina Legislature since Reconstruction. He was a
charter member of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields Episcopal Church
where he served on the Vestry and taught Sunday School. He
served on the Board of Directors of the Columbia Rotary Club,
where he was a member for fifty-five years, the Columbia
Chamber of Commerce, The Columbia Navy League, The St.
Martin's Foundation, and as vice-president of the
Southeastern Warehouseman and Mover's Association. He was a
former president of the South Carolina Mover's Association.
Mr. Boineau was awarded the Order of the Palmetto, the
highest honor conferred by the State of South Carolina, by
Governor James B. Edwards. He was a member of The South
Carolina Republican Silver Elephant Club, and was Chairman of
the Platform Committee of the party in 1962, and in 1964 was
a delegate to the Republican National Convention. He was a
lifelong member of American Legion Post No. 6 and was a
member of the South Carolina Historical Society. He was a
communicant of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral. He held
memberships in Forest Lake Club, The Columbia Cotillion Club,
The Trantella, The Flamenco and was a charter member of The
Summit Club.
[[Page 11787]]
Mr. Boineau is survived by his wife, Betsy Boatwright
Boineau; daughter and son-in-law, Bonnie and Fred Crawford;
and granddaughters, Beverley and Mary Crawford and Jessica
Bacon.
Memorials may be made to Carolina Children's Home, Trinity
Cathedral Foundation or St. Martin's-in-the-Fields
Foundation.
____________________
HONORING JERI RICE
______
HON. JIM McDERMOTT
of washington
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jeri Rice, an
acclaimed entrepreneur in Seattle who personifies the spirit, courage,
and commitment to see peace in her ancestral homeland of Israel. Jeri
Rice is a distinguished Citizen Diplomat.
The Israel Policy Forum has selected Jeri Rice as a 2005 ``Focus on
the Future'' Honoree. It is a wise choice and speaks volumes about the
profound and positive impact one person can make in our world.
Jeri Rice is fearless in tackling tough issues. I know that
firsthand. With a self confidence rooted in faith and family, Jeri
guides everyone she comes in contact with toward a path of peace based
on mutual respect and moderation. She willingly--and often--opens her
home to promote peace in the Mideast. I've joined her personal peace
process, and I can affirm that Jeri's involvement is a shining example
of personal commitment and heroism.
Jeri's involvement in good and noble causes is well known and highly
regarded in Seattle. Jeri is a founding member of the University of
Washington Center for Women and Democracy. She is a strong advocate and
community leader in many organizations, including: United Way;
University of Washington Academic Medical Center; Harborview Medical
Center; and, PONCHO. She serves on the board of the Cornish College of
the Arts, and since 2000, Jeri has been involved with Steven
Spielberg's Shoah Foundation. She is also a member of the International
Women's Forum.
Jeri is a person of deep personal conviction and strong family bonds.
Without hesitation she proudly proclaims her mother as her heroine.
When asked who inspires her, Jeri quickly names her son. As to the
world leader she most admires, Jeri names Anwar Sadat.
It is, therefore, worth recalling a passage from the historic speech
that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat delivered to the Knesset on
November 20, 1977: ``I have come to you so that together we should
build a durable peace based on justice to avoid the shedding of one
single drop of blood by both sides. It is for this reason that I have
proclaimed my readiness to go to the farthest comer of the earth.''
I ask every American to join me in congratulating Jeri Rice on the
honor the Israel Policy Forum will bestow upon her. Her unwavering
optimism reminds me of the affirmation contained in the Book of
Ecclesiastes, ``To every thing there is a season, and a time to every
purpose under the heaven.''
This is the time for peace in Israel and throughout the Mideast.
People like Jeri Rice will do everything possible to make it so. We
honor them. We thank them.
____________________
HONORING BRANDON HOBON
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the service and
commitment of Mr. Brandon Hobon. Mr. Hobon has established himself as a
leader and true patriot to the community of Denton, Texas.
Mr. Hobon was recently recognized by the Denton Police Department as
``Volunteer Officer of the Year.'' After serving in the police
department for 11 years, Hobon has received one of the department's
most prestigious honors.
After graduating from college with a pre-law degree, Hobon turned
down a bright future as a lawyer to better serve and protect his
community. After graduation, Brandon Hobon entered the police academy
where he finished second in his class, and earned advanced
certifications and credentials in crime prevention, hazardous material
response and terrorism training. In addition to serving and protecting
our citizens, Mr. Hobon dedicates considerable amount of time mentoring
young school children, and visiting and assisting in senior citizen
programs.
It is with great honor that I stand here today to recognize an
individual who has dedicated his life to protecting and assisting
others. It is with the service and commitment of men such as Brandon
Hobon that ensure the continuing protection and prominence of our
communities and nation.
____________________
RECOGNIZING PROFESSOR MAU-
REEN STANTON, RECIPIENT OF THE 2005 UC DAVIS PRIZE FOR UNDERGRADUATE
TEACHING AND SCHOLARLY ACHIEVEMENT
______
HON. MIKE THOMPSON
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize
Maureen Stanton, Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University
of California, Davis as the 2005 recipient of the UC Davis Prize for
Undergraduate Teaching and Scholarly Achievement. The prestigious
$30,000 prize, funded by the UC Davis Foundation, is believed to be the
largest award of its kind in the nation. The winner is selected on the
recommendation of faculty members, students and research peers.
Professor Stanton has made significant contributions throughout her
years of University service. She served as the dynamic and
extraordinarily productive director of the Center for Population
Biology from 1993 to 1998. She frequently advises National Science
Foundation panels and has been a National Council member of the Society
for the Study of Evolution. She is also the Vice President of the
American Society of Naturalists and an elected member of the California
Academy of Sciences.
Dr. Stanton began her research of the interactions between plants and
insects as a sophomore at Stanford University. At Harvard University
she earned her Ph.D. in five years. Dr. Stanton then accepted a
position at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, but
missing the discovery of science, she soon relocated to Yale University
for post-doctoral research. Her findings on the underappreciated
importance of male characteristics in flowers lifted her into the top
ranks of evolutionary ecologists.
In 1982 she joined the UC Davis faculty as an assistant professor of
botany. At 28 she was younger than many of her doctoral students. In
her teaching role she continually reshapes course curricula to provoke
inquiry. She once stated, ``I want to build critical thinking skills.
That means I have to teach students to question pre-conceived ideas, to
ask `How confident are we of what we think we know?'''
Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate at this time that we recognize
Professor Stanton and her passion for scholarly achievement, university
service and undergraduate teaching.
____________________
HONORING DR. WADE W. NOBLES AND THE INSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCED STUDY OF
BLACK FAMILY LIFE AND CULTURE, INC.
______
HON. BARBARA LEE
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life
and achievements of Dr. Wade W. Nobles of Oakland California, and the
organization he founded, The Institute for the Advanced Study of Black
Family Life and Culture, Inc. This month our community comes together
to celebrate the Institute's 25th anniversary, and to recognize the
groundbreaking work of its founder.
Dr. Nobles is a prominent theoretical scientist in the field of
African Psychology and is one of the leading researchers in the area of
Black family life and culture. He holds a Ph.D. from Stanford
University, and has a special interest in the social, ethnic and
cultural relativity of social science, research and evaluation models.
Dr. Nobles is a full-time, tenured professor in the Department of
Black Studies in the School of Ethnic Studies at San Francisco State
University. He is also the founder and director of the Center for
Applied Cultural Studies and Educational Achievement (CACSEA), a
California State University System educational research center
dedicated to studying and developing models of culturally consistent
educational methods.
In 1980 Dr. Nobles founded the Institute for the Advanced Study of
Black Family Life and Culture, Inc. to address overarching issues of
human development and transformation, while simultaneously developing
and implementing educational and informational systems. As the
Institute's Executive Director, Dr. Nobles has written and conducted
over 67 funded, community-based research, training and development
projects, including the HAWK Manhood Development and Transformation
Rites of Passage Training Centers Program, which has over 15 sites
throughout the U.S.
[[Page 11788]]
Dr. Nobles' work is widely known and respected, and in recognition of
this he has been invited to serve on a number of advisory groups for
the California state and federal governments. He has served as a
delegate to the White House Conference on Families, and was also a
member of the President's Commission on Mental Health. Furthermore, Dr.
Nobles was appointed to serve on the California State Commission on the
Status of African-American Males, a commission I created and presided
over as a member of the California State Assembly in the mid-1990s.
Also contributing to the success and innovations of the Institute are
Dr. Nobles' various professional and international affiliations. He was
a founding member of the Association of Black Psychologists, an
organization in which he has served as President and received numerous
awards, such as Distinguished Psychologist of the Year. Furthermore, in
the course of his research he has traveled widely, particularly in
Africa. In 1996 he received the high honor of being enstooled as the
Nkwasohene of Akwasiho-Kwahu Region of Ghana in West Africa, where he
works very closely with the Akwasiho people on development issues.
On June 3, 4 and 5, 2005, we join together to celebrate the life and
accomplishments of Dr. Nobles, as well as the impact his work and the
work of the Institute have had on our society and institutions of
higher learning. Structuring our education and socialization systems in
a way that acknowledges the cultural background of the students that
are to benefit from them is crucial to the intellectual and social
development of our young people. Dr. Nobles' research, teachings and
programs have truly revolutionized the way that education and
development are now approached, and have made productive and happy
lives possible for countless students who would not otherwise have had
that opportunity. On behalf of the 9th Congressional District, I salute
and thank Dr. Wade W. Nobles for his service to the Bay Area, the State
of California, our country and the world.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO EARL PHILLIPS
______
HON. DONALD M. PAYNE
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to honor an
extraordinary public servant, Earl Phillips, as he says farewell to the
Peace Corps and embarks on a new life journey. Mr. Phillips has
diligently served as the Country Director for the United States Peace
Corps for the Eastern Caribbean for 6 years. However, his lifetime
achievements do not stop there.
Ranging from community revitalization to capacity building, Mr.
Phillips' incredible generosity has touched many lives. As his wife, 5
children and 7 grandchildren can attest, he has dedicated his life to
the betterment of others. So much so, that even after raising his
children, he and his wife Victoria decided to join the Peace Corps and
served as volunteers in Ghana, West Africa from 1996-1998. While at
that post, Mr. Phillips played a significant role in the planning of
President Bill Clinton and the First Lady's trip to Ghana--the first
leg on their historic tour of the African continent.
He also has incredible ties not only to the great State of New Jersey
but also my Congressional District. As a resident of Newark, he
excelled as an athlete at South Side High School. After attending
Howard University and serving in the military, he returned to our
hometown where in 1970, he became President of the Urban League. From
1972-1973, he served as the Director of the High Impact Anti-Crime
Commission. During his tenure, he designed and supervised a national
program that reduced street crime by 20%. Upon leaving the anti-crime
commission, he worked, for 5 years, as the Director of the
Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RHA), also in Newark. He later
went on to serve as the Executive Director of 4 additional housing
authorities in large metropolitan cities.
Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues here in the U.S. House of
Representatives to join me in honoring Mr. Earl Phillips, as he leaves
the United States Peace Corps, and in expressing appreciation to him
and his wonderful wife Victoria for their service to our Nation. During
his time in the Peace Corps, he served as an outstanding spokesman and
goodwill ambassador for his country. Beyond the Peace Corps, his life
achievements speak volumes about his generosity and dedication to a
cause bigger than himself. I am proud to have him as a dear friend and
wish him never-ending success in his future endeavors.
____________________
CONGRATULATING ALIYA ROBIN DERI'S EXCEPTIONAL SHOWING IN THE SCRIPPS
NATIONAL SPELLING BEE
______
HON. RICHARD W. POMBO
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Aliya Robin
Deri's exceptional showing in the Scripps National Spelling Bee. The
sharpest young minds in America gathered to compete in this contest
with 278 students competing in the 78th annual spelling bee. Overcoming
a litany of complex vocabulary, Aliya tied for second place after 18
rounds of careful spelling and concentration. A resident of Pleasanton,
California, Aliya is a champion of many skills. She plays violin,
viola, and piano and is a member of two orchestras. She also swims
competitively and also enjoys diving, Indian dance, and Tai Chi. While
most contestants in the spelling bee were from the United States and
its territories, fourteen were foreign students from Canada, Bahamas,
Jamaica and New Zealand. Aliya misspelled ``trouvaille,'' meaning
windfall, in the 18th round, but I want her to know that our windfall
is to have such a gifted and talented individual in California's 11th
Congressional District.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating the outstanding efforts
of this bright and gifted young woman. I would also like to include the
following article for the record.
[From the Associated Press, June 2, 2005.]
Kashyap Spelled ``Appoggiatura'' Right To Win
Washington.--Bursting into tears, eighth-grader Anurag
Kashyap of California became the U.S. spelling champ
Thursday, beating 272 other spellers in a tough two days of
competition. He said he felt ``just pure happiness.''
Anurag, 13, of Poway clinched ``appoggiatura,'' a melodic
tone, to take home some $30,000 in prizes. He won in the 19th
round of the 78th Annual National Scripps Spelling Bee.
Anurag, a straight-A middle-school student whose favorite
subject is science, tied for 47th in last year's spelling
bee. That experience ``helped me to know what I should study
to . . . like, win this thing,'' he said afterward,
repeatedly hiding his face behind his cardboard number.
Tied for second place were 11-year-old Samir Patel, who is
home-schooled in Colleyville, Texas, and Aliya Deri, 13, a
Pleasanton, California student.
Aliya was tripped up in the 18th round by ``trouvaille,''
meaning windfall. Just after, Samir fell to ``Roscian,''
meaning skilled in acting. Two years ago, when Samir tied for
third place, bee winner Sai Gunturi predicted that he would
be a force to be reckoned with in future contests.
When the sixth round ended in the early afternoon of the
second day, only 27 spellers remained, including a half dozen
home-schoolers. Home-schooled students have won twice before,
in 1997 and 2000.
After the 14th round, only three spellers still stood--
Anurag, Aliya and Samir.
During the day, Anurag whizzed through relatively easy
words such as prosciutto, an Italian dry-cured ham, and more
difficult ones like hodiernal, meaning ``of this day.''
Needing only one more correct spelling to win, he began
methodically, going faster and faster as he finished the long
word: ``A-P-P-O-G-G-I-A-T-U-R-A.'' He covered his face and
rushed to hug his father.
Most of the contestants at the bee's start were from the
United States and its territories, but 14 were foreign
students. There were 11 from Canada and one each from the
Bahamas, Jamaica and New Zealand.
It was in the fourth round Wednesday that Dominic Errazo
got a word he could relate to, ``emetic,'' which means
inducing one to vomit.
``It sounds like the nervousness I get up here,'' said the
seventh-grader from Goose Creek, SC. He spelled it correctly.
Each speller wins at least $50. The first-place winner gets
$28,000 in cash, scholarships and bonds, plus books from
Encyclopedia Britannica. That's about $10,000 more than in
previous years.
The contest is administered by E.W. Scripps Co. The
youngsters all won local contests sponsored by newspapers.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE MARRIAGE OF JOHN ROTHROCK AND GLYNDAL BRITT MOSES
______
HON. GARY G. MILLER
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is with heartfelt
joy that I rise today to offer my best wishes for the recent marriage
of John Rothrock and Britt Moses.
[[Page 11789]]
For the last 6 years, John Rothrock has served loyally and faithfully
as my Chief of Staff. In this capacity, I have witnessed firsthand the
depth of John's love for Britt and the strength of his commitment to
her. It has been my great fortune to personally observe the warm
affection and special bond they share.
Last Saturday, June 4, 2005, John and Britt took their vows,
expressing their mutual devotion and love for each other. I was
extremely proud to join their friends and family in celebrating this
special day.
Marriage is a wonderful institution and I am confident that the union
of John and Britt will be another lasting testament to the sanctity of
marriage. As they start their new life together, I trust John and Britt
will be a blessing to one another, partners in all aspects of life, and
forever mindful of the love they feel today.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the 109th Congress to join me in congratulating
Mr. and Mrs. Rothrock on their recent union and in wishing this couple
a lifetime of happiness together.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE COUNCIL OF COLLEGE PRESIDENTS ON THEIR BEING HONORED
BY LEADERSHIP WILKES-BARRE FOR THEIR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP EXAMPLE
______
HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask you and my esteemed
colleagues in the House of Representatives to pay tribute to the
Council of Presidents from the Wyoming Valley's five institutions of
higher education that includes King's College, Wilkes University,
College Misericordia, Penn State University and the Luzerne County
Community College.
In the mid 1980s, the presidents of these five institutions came
together upon realizing that although they compete for students and
funding, they are also an invaluable resource to the greater community
in which they are located. That realization prompted the formation of
the Council of Presidents as a vehicle to promote cooperation and
sharing of common goals in a manner that maximizes the effort involved.
Since then, the Council of Presidents has been a positive force in
downtown Wilkes-Barre economic development efforts, the formation of
the Diamond City Partnership, the Wilkes-Barre Innovation Center, the
Great Valley Technology Alliance, City Vest and the Joint Urban Studies
Center, to name just a few of their accomplishments.
The Council of Presidents stands as a beacon that focuses a bright
light on the positive things that can be achieved through cooperative
action. Not only has their outstanding leadership and example proven to
be a blueprint for success in the community arena, it has also paid
vast dividends to each of the schools the presidents represent.
Cooperation in designing and developing academic course offerings has
benefited from the Council of Presidents and their foresight and
collective zeal to improve educational opportunities for all students
attending their respective institutions.
The Council of Presidents has been especially sensitive to changing
elements in society and has responded promptly and efficiently to meet
those challenges. The Council of Presidents has worked cooperatively to
consolidate Spanish language development to accommodate a growing
Hispanic population in the region.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating the Council of
Presidents on this notable occasion. The people of the greater Wyoming
Valley are better served because of the work accomplished by this
dedicated group of men and women. And their cooperative example should
serve as a model for other groups, both public and private, who seek to
provide a higher level of service in the performance of their duties.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO KATHERINE McMONAGLE
______
HON. BETTY McCOLLUM
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to
honor and to recognize Katherine McMonagle--a devoted educator and a
life-long learner. Katherine has announced her plans to retire after
thirty-four year of service.
Katherine has dedicated her professional career to thousands of
students in the North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale school district,
located in Minnesota's Fourth Congressional District. From Carver
Elementary School to North Saint Paul High School, Kathie has been an
inspiring teacher to her students and a caring mentor to her
colleagues.
In her first year as a teacher she taught physical education to
elementary students and for the following eight years she continued in
this subject area and taught middle schoolers the benefits of physical
activity. As her portfolio changed to include health studies over 20
years ago, she became committed to helping students learn about the
dangers of smoking and helping student smokers to quit.
In fact, she developed a program in conjunction with the Ramsey
County chapter of the American Lung Association and her high school. A
few years later her idea expanded to include a district-wide K-12
program committed to smoking prevention. Her idea continued to grow as
the Lung Association started to move the program to other school
districts.
And her ideas and commitment didn't stop there. Kathie also developed
and implemented a service learning course where high school students--
freshmen through seniors--work with communities to identify and address
a need and develop a plan to solve the problem. The students use
marketing, communication, math and other skills to come up with an
implementation plan. This kind of creativity and innovation in
curriculum is admired and supported not only by the students, but also
by their parents, the communities, and other teachers who participate.
Kathie's skill and determination to create new and exciting
opportunities for students is a consistent theme in her esteemed
teaching career. She ensured that her school district would not be the
only one to not provide a competitive golf team for girls. She also
started up the high school's Knowledge and Quiz bowl teams and she's
been their coach for the past eight years.
Over the course of Katherine's career, she has grown and developed
confidence, grace, and skill in working with teenagers about personal
health and development issues--which can be difficult subjects to
broach with teens. Her desire to bring out the best in people and to
encourage them to find new ways to lead healthy, successful, and
enriching lives echoes through her work and will have a lasting impact
on all those lucky enough to have been her student. She has encouraged
mutual respect, honesty, and integrity in the classroom--important
attributes that students have taken with them.
It is with respect and thanks that I rise to salute a teacher who
will be missed, and whose legacy and ideas will continue long after she
says her goodbyes to her students and colleagues.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE LATE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE G. THOMAS VanBEBBER
______
HON. DENNIS MOORE
of kansas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the
life and career of Federal District Court Judge for the District of
Kansas G. Thomas VanBebber, who died on May 26th.
U.S. District Judge G. Thomas VanBebber, 73, died unexpectedly and
peacefully at home in Overland Park, Kansas. He was born to Roy
VanBebber and Anne Wenner VanBebber in 1931 and grew up in Troy,
Kansas, where he established a law practice after his graduation from
the University of Kansas and its School of Law in 1955. There, he was a
member of the editorial board of the Law Review and was a member of the
Order of the Coif. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for
the District of Kansas for 2 years, and he was the Doniphan County,
Kansas, Attorney for 6 years as he established a 25-year private
practice in Troy. Before he entered the judiciary, Judge VanBebber was
active in politics and was Chairman of the Doniphan County Republican
Central Committee. He served 2 terms in the Kansas House of
Representatives before being appointed chairman of the Kansas
Corporation Commission, the state's utility regulatory agency, by
Governor Robert Bennett. Among his memberships was tenure as a Director
of the Kansas State Historical Society. In 1982, he was appointed U.S.
Magistrate Judge for the District of Kansas, in Topeka, and he was
appointed as U.S. District Judge for the District of Kansas in 1989. He
sat in Kansas City, Kansas, and became Chief District Judge in April
1995, a position he held until he elected to assume Senior Judge status
in December 2000. He had continued to carry an active workload of
federal cases until his death.
[[Page 11790]]
Judge VanBebber was preceded in death by his parents and his sister,
Virginia Anne Henry. He leaves his wife, Alleen, at home; and his
stepson, David Castellani, of Los Angeles, California. He also leaves
his brother, John Gregory, and his wife, Vondell; his brother, William
and his wife, Yvonne; his brother-in-law Ward Henry, and many nieces,
nephews, grandnieces and grandnephews, and cousins. I have known Alleen
and the Judge for many years. They are wonderful people. We all will
miss Tom VanBebber.
On May 28th, the Lawrence Journal-World carried an article reviewing
the notable moments of Judge VanBebber's judicial career. I include it
with this statement and thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to
pay tribute to a jurist who was described in the Kansas City Star as a
man who ``forged a legal career that defines the principles of
fairness, courage and intelligence . . . He was known for his
gregarious warmth outside the courtroom, but when he put on the black
robe he was all business and expected litigants to have the same
attitude.''
[The Lawrence Journal-World, May 27, 2005]
Federal Judge VanBebber Dies at 73
Rulings included OKC bomb case, South Lawrence Trafficway, Phelps
U.S. District Court Judge G. Thomas VanBebber died
Thursday. He was 73.
``He was an indomitable spirit . . . a wonderful judge,''
said Steve McAllister, dean of the Kansas University School
of Law.
VanBebber, who lived in Overland Park, called in sick
Wednesday.
``He died peacefully in his sleep, sometime between 6 and
6:30 a.m.,'' said Ralph DeLoach, clerk/administrator for the
U.S. District Court of Kansas.
``He was respected not only by his peers, but by all court
staff who worked for him--highly respected,'' DeLoach said.
VanBebber was perhaps best known for sentencing Michael
Fortier, a key witness for the prosecution in the Oklahoma
City bombing trial that led to convictions of Timothy McVeigh
and Terry Nichols.
Fortier admitted knowing about the plot to bomb the Alfred
P. Murrah Federal Building and choosing not to warn
authorities.
VanBebber sentenced Fortier to 12 years in prison and
ordered him to pay $200,000 in fines.
Fortier's attorneys appealed the sentence, arguing it was
excessive given his cooperation with prosecutors. A federal
appeals court upheld the sentence.
Other VanBebber rulings:
1997--Issued an injunction halting work on the proposed
South Lawrence Trafficway until after completion of an
environmental impact statement.
1999--Denied the Rev. Fred Phelps' attempt to sue Shawnee
County Dist. Atty. Joan Hamilton for allegedly prosecuting
him in an attempt to limit his anti-homosexual picketing.
2004--Denied an attempt to force Washburn University to
remove a statue from campus that some considered anti-
Catholic.
The sculpture, entitled ``Holier Than Thou,'' depicted a
scowling, heavyset clergyman wearing ceremonial headgear that
some said was shaped like a penis.
``The court cannot conclude that a reasonable observer
would perceive the university's display of `Holier Than Thou'
as an attack on Catholics,'' VanBebber wrote in his ruling.
VanBebber grew up in Troy, Kan. (population 1,000). He
earned a bachelor's degree from Kansas University in 1953; a
law degree in 1955. In 2001, he received the KU Law Society's
distinguished alumnus award.
He practiced law in Troy until 1959, when he became an
assistant U.S. attorney. He returned to private practice in
Troy in 1961, serving as Doniphan County attorney from 1963
to 1969. He was elected to the Kansas House, serving one term
from 1973 to 1975.
He served on the Kansas Corporation Commission, from 1975
to 1979.
VanBebber was appointed a federal magistrate in 1982. Seven
years later, he was appointed to the federal bench by
President George H. W. Bush.
He served as chief judge from 1995 to 2000, assuming senior
judge status on Dec. 31, 2000.
``He was a wonderful judge and an even better person,''
said U.S. Chief Judge John W. Lungstrum, who lives in
Lawrence.
``He was a great student of history and literature,'' he
said. ``He had a tendency to relate to anecdotes and people
he knew while growing up in Troy--I say that not to imply
that he was homespun in character; I say it because he
related to small-town values in a way that brought a lot of
wisdom and common sense to the bench. He was truly
brilliant.''
Lungstrum succeeded VanBebber as the federal court's chief
judge in Kansas.
As a child, VanBebber contracted polio and often relied on
crutches and, in recent years, a wheelchair.
``He was in pain every day, but he never let on that there
was a problem,'' Lungstrum said. ``His courage and stoicism
were tremendously inspirational to the court.''
VanBebber is survived by his wife, Alleen, an attorney.
____________________
CONFERENCE ON THE DEEPENING CRISIS FOR HAITIANS
______
HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for an important
conference taking place today--the Conference on the Deepening Crisis
for Haitians. This conference will bring together members of the
Haitian American community, the academic sector, non-governmental
organizations, and representatives from the U.S. and Haitian
governments to discuss key issues facing Haitians.
While Haiti has recently celebrated more than 200 years of
independence from French colonial rule, the citizens of the island
remain vulnerable to poverty, poor health, and political chaos.
Tumultuous events in the past year and a half consisted of violent
uprisings, the departure of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, massive
floods in May displacing tens of thousands, and Tropical Storm Jeanne
in September leading to more than 3,000 deaths in the ensuing floods.
Sadly, Haiti has not been able to recover from these recent disasters
and many Haitians are living in terrible conditions. This is why I have
urged Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to grant Temporary
Protected Status to Haitian nationals living in the United States. With
thousands of people killed in the natural disasters and hundreds of
thousands left homeless, Haiti is temporarily unable to handle the
return of nationals. Haitians already in the U.S. should be allowed to
remain in peace and security in the U.S. while the island recovers.
Today, the Organization of American States General Assembly is
meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The Organization's Secretary
General, Jose Miguel Insulza, has pledged to raise the subject of Haiti
at the OAS during the session. While this is a welcome sign, it is the
least of what will be needed if Haiti is to emerge from its deepening
crisis. The international community and the United States must get
serious about finding a way out of the expanding abyss so that Haiti
can once again move forward.
We all would like to see a brighter future for Haiti, and I hope this
conference will serve to explore many views. Respect for human rights,
freedom, and the rule of law must be established in the poorest nation
in our hemisphere. Our Haitian constituents and their relatives are
counting on us to help bring Haiti out of its volatile situation. I am
pleased to support the Conference on the Deepening Crisis for Haitians,
and I commend the Conference for hosting this dialogue.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO ELIZABETH J. COLEMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND GENERAL
COUNSEL OF THE NEW YORK STATE TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
______
HON. JERROLD NADLER
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Elizabeth J. Coleman,
who has dedicated her life to the fight for civil rights, and has
broken down numerous barriers along the way. Ms. Coleman's legal career
has focused on ensuring access for all Americans to a fair and unbiased
justice system, one through which they can realize the entirety of
their constitutional rights. This principle has guided her throughout
her years of service, from work on behalf of indigent consumers in
Georgia to her national work for the Anti-Defamation League, and most
recently during her stint at the New York State Trial Lawyers
Association (NYSTLA), where she was an outstanding Executive Director
and General Counsel.
Ms. Coleman has also held many additional posts and has been involved
in many endeavors over the years. She was elected Chair of the Board of
the National Women's Law Center in 1996 and served in that capacity
until 2003. President Clinton appointed Ms. Coleman Vice-Chair of the
President's Export Council in 1994 and a United States Delegate to the
United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China, in
1995. More recently, the National Organization for Women's New York
City chapter honored her in 2003 as a Woman of Power and Courage. Last
year she was honored by New York Women's Agenda as a STAR, an honor
bestowed upon women who represent the spirit of New York, provide
leadership in business and in the community, and are role models for
other women. I can think of no more worthy
[[Page 11791]]
recipient of such recognition than Ms. Coleman.
As Elizabeth Coleman leaves NYSTLA, she embarks on a new mission, but
one with the same goals in mind. She will continue her advocacy for
civil and social justice through foundation work and community
organizing. As she begins the next chapter of her life, I thank her
wholeheartedly for her tireless work, and I wish her the very best in
the years to come.
____________________
HONORING MAYOR EULINE BROCK
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the service and
commitment of Mayor Euline Brock. Ms. Brock has established herself as
a leader and true servant to my hometown Denton, Texas.
Mayor Brock was recently presented the William J. Pitstick Regional
Cooperation Award from the North Central Texas Council of Governments.
The award recognizes individuals who have promoted good, strong
leadership and spirit of regionalism in solving multi-jurisdictional
problems.
Since first elected Denton's mayor in 2000, Mayor Brock has become a
lead spokesman for promoting regional and inter-jurisdictional
cooperation. In addition to her mayoral duties, Ms. Brock serves on the
prestigious Texas Municipal League's Legislative Committee and was
recently appointed by the U.S. Council of Mayors to serve on the Energy
and Environment Committee.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I stand here today to
recognize an individual, a friend, who has dedicated her time as the
Mayor of Denton not only to her constituents but also has reached out
and assisted those outside her district as well. It is with the service
and commitment of individuals such as Mayor Brock that ensure the
continual growth and close relationship of North Texas communities.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THOMAS ``TOM'' ENGSTROM OF LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA
______
HON. MIKE THOMPSON
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize
Chief of Police Tom Engstrom of Lakeport, California, as he retires
after 37 years of dedicated public service.
As a young man in his early 20s, Chief Engstrom was determined to
lead a life devoted to protecting his fellow citizens. He began his
service in 1968 when he joined the Phoenix, Arizona Police Department.
Several years later he moved to California and was promoted to Sergeant
with the City of Turlock Police Department. In 1980, at just 33 years
of age, Sergeant Engstrom was selected as Chief of Police for the City
of Newman becoming the youngest Chief of Police in the State of
California. Over a decade later, Tom and his family moved to Lakeport,
California where he was selected by the Lakeport City Council to serve
as Chief of Police.
For the past 11 years Chief Engstrom has made numerous contributions
to his community, enabling the people of Lakeport to live in a safe
environment. He has dedicated much of his time towards implementing
various educational programs throughout the community including Drug
Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) and Gang Resistance Education &
Training (G.R.E.A.T). With these outreach programs, Chief Engstrom has
been able to educate and promote awareness of these important issues to
Lakeport citizens of all ages.
Chief Engstrom has also played an active role in creating other law
enforcement programs and patrol units including the Canine Program,
School Resource Officer Program, Personal Watercraft Patrol and Bicycle
Patrol. He is responsible for the creation of the New Police Facility
and for raising $1.5 million in grants for the Lakeport Police
Department.
The Chief earned his Bachelor of Art's Degree from the University of
San Francisco in Public Administration. He continued his education and
graduated from the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia.
Tom and his wife of 38 years, Cindy, are the proud parents of seven
children and 12 grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, it is appropriate that we thank Police
Chief Tom Engstrom for all that he has done to protect the citizens of
Lakeport, California, and extend our best wishes to him in retirement.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE LATE MS. THELMA STINSON, PRINCIPAL OF LILLIE C. EVANS
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
______
HON. KENDRICK B. MEEK
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a truly
great role model and a truly great educator--the late Ms. Thelma
Stinson, former Principal of the Lillie C. Evans Elementary School
located in Miami's Liberty City community in my Congressional District.
Her passing away provides us with the sobering thought of the dignity
of the human spirit and the fragility of life. Even though she was sick
with cancer, Ms. Stinson often went straight from the hospital to her
school because she felt so deeply about helping her students. By every
measure, she was enormously successful.
Ms. Stinson started working for the Dade County School Board in 1968
as a librarian, then as a special-education teacher and assistant
principal before becoming Principal of Lillie C. Evans in late 2000.
Under her leadership at Lillie C. Evans, the school proudly rose from
an F-graded school in 2001-2002 to an A-graded school in 2003-2004.
``The school's turnaround is a testament to her leadership and her
commitment,'' said district spokesman Joseph Garcia. Ms. Stinson also
reached out to the community by ensuring that parents were also
schooled in the basic skills of reading, math and the sciences through
regular sessions at night. Simply put, Ms. Stinson literally bridged
the gap between her school and her students' homes, making parental
involvement an essential part of the teaching and learning process.
In spite of the odds, Ms. Stinson truly demonstrated to all those
called upon by public service that excellence and achievement are never
beyond the reach of those willing to make the commitment and dare to
dream what seems to most people to be the impossible. She was a source
of light--more like a beacon in the night--in our community and in the
lives of student and adults alike. It is impossible to measure the
impact of a person like Ms. Stinson, for her legacy will live on in all
the young lives she touched, for whom she created new possibilities and
new opportunities that, without her special touch, would never had
existed.
It is sadly inadequate to say that she will be sorely missed. I
extend my deepest condolences to her mother Ceola Thompson, brother
Errol Thompson, sister Esther Blackshear, daughter Twyla Hilton, her
grandsons, her friends and her students.
____________________
PENTAGON MEMORIAL FUND
______
HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the thanks of this body
to a democratic friend, Taiwan, the Republic of China, for their recent
generous gift to the Pentagon Memorial Fund.
9-11 scarred our souls and forever changed the way we view enemy
attack and the security of our Nation. The Pentagon is known globally
as the place our military policy is created and recommended for
implementation. It is a prominent part of the government commanded by
the Chief Executive and maintained by the United States Congress.
The targeted component of the surprise coordinated attack there
shocked and appalled the civilized nations and people on the planet.
This Nation lost 184 souls across the river on that day. The sight of
smoke coming from the Pentagon is a picture seared in my memory from
that day, seen as I ran out of the U.S. Capitol.
Part of the salve applied to our national injury is in honoring the
memory of the 184 men and women who perished on 9-11. So, as a member
of the House Armed Services Committee, I thank Taiwan for their part in
helping to immortalize their memory by contributing to the Pentagon
Memorial Fund. And I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the
Washington Post story announcing the generous contribution.
[From the Washington Post, May 5, 2005]
Taiwan Aids Pentagon Memorial Fund
The government of Taiwan has donated $1 million to the
Pentagon Memorial Fund, according to James L. Laychak, the
fund's president and chief executive. About $6.5 million has
been raised to finance the memorial,
[[Page 11792]]
which is to be built with private funds. Families of victims
of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the Pentagon began a
fundraising drive in April 2004 with a goal of $30 million--
$20 million for construction and $10 million for a
maintenance fund. Taiwan's gift is the second for $1 million;
the first came from the Anheuser-Busch Foundation.
``The donation does not simply represent our offering of
support for the victims of
9-11,'' said David Tawei Lee, a government representative, in
a prepared statement, ``but also express our appreciation for
the symbols of freedom.'' The memorial on the Pentagon's west
lawn will have 184 cantilevered benches, one in memory of
each of the victims of the terrorist attack.
____________________
HONORING THE AVIATION FEATS OF ROBERT ``HOOT'' GIBSON
______
HON. BART GORDON
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding
accomplishments of Robert ``Hoot'' Gibson, a resident of my hometown of
Murfreesboro, Tennessee, who recently broke two aviation speed records.
Hoot flew a Raytheon Premier I jet into the record books on September
22, 2004, when he flew from Seattle, Washington, to Las Vegas, Nevada,
at 499.65 miles per hour and from Las Vegas to Wichita, Kansas, at
540.53 miles per hour. The previous records were set in a Cessna
Citation jet in 1991.
Hoot is a former astronaut who made 5 Space Shuttle flights and
commanded 4 of them. A retired Navy captain, he now flies commercial
jetliners for Southwest Airlines.
Hoot's accomplishments in the aviation arena are exceptional, as well
as inspirational. Once again, I congratulate him for an outstanding
military career and for his contributions to this Nation's space
program.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE REV. DR. FRANK REID III
______
HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the
outstanding accomplishments of the Rev. Dr. Frank Mason Reid III,
pastor of Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Baltimore,
Maryland.
Dr. Reid is a nationally recognized preacher, teacher and
motivational speaker who is dedicated to changing lives and rebuilding
communities. Since becoming spiritual leader of Baltimore's Bethel AME
Church, membership has swelled to 17,000, making it one of the largest
AME churches in the Nation. Bethel AME has 36 active ministries that
give hope and comfort to the people of the Baltimore community,
including cancer patients, drug addicts, and those who suffer from HIV/
AIDS.
Dr. Reid's message of hope has reached beyond the Baltimore
community. He has a weekly local television show on Sunday mornings,
and he has been broadcast nationally on the Armed Forces Network. Dr.
Reid also has preached in South Korea and South and East Africa.
During his college years at Yale University, Dr. Reid answered the
call to the ministry. After graduating from Yale in 1974 and the
Harvard Divinity School in 1978, Dr. Reid served congregations in
Charlotte, North Carolina and Los Angeles, California before being
called to service at Bethel AME Church in Baltimore, Maryland in the
late 1980s.
Dr. Reid has a loving and devoted family. His wife Marlaa Hall Reid
and three children--Franshon, Faith and Shane--are proud of his work in
helping others rebuild their lives.
Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding the
accomplishments of Dr. Reid on the eve of his 54th birthday. He has had
a remarkable career serving the people of Baltimore.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF LINDA LISS FINE
______
HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Linda
Liss Fine. Linda was a compassionate and courageous individual whose
dedication and service greatly enhanced the lives of many in Chicago's
elderly Jewish community.
Linda was respected and admired by her colleagues, friends and
family. Her creative and pioneering work as Director of Selfhelp, an
independent organization providing the residential and health care
needs of the Jewish elderly, has been recognized and greatly
appreciated by many. During her time with Selfhelp, Linda immersed
herself in community activities focusing on improving the quality of
life of everyone with whom she came in contact. Through her devotion
and extraordinary sense of caring, she transformed the institution into
a vibrant community where elderly residents would enjoy cultural events
such as classical music concerts, take part in educational events such
as computer classes and otherwise maintain active and full lives. She
was an outstanding member of Chicago's Jewish community and she
immeasurably improved many people's lives under her care. Her residents
viewed Linda not as merely an administrator, but as a cherished member
of the family.
Born in Chicago in 1942, Linda Liss Fine attended Chicago's public
schools before embarking on career in the health care profession. As a
registered nurse, she worked in a variety of hospital and home health
care positions. After work, and while raising three children, she
worked tirelessly and attended classes at night, completing her
university degree in health care administration.
Linda is survived by her husband, Bernard, son David, daughters Dawn
and Dana, sister Hedda, several grandchildren and many relatives across
the country.
Linda Liss Fine will be missed by all those whose lives she touched
and will be remembered affectionately by her many friends and
colleagues. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring an outstanding
individual, a loving wife and mother, selfless caretaker and innovative
director--Linda Liss Fine, a woman who brought joy and love into the
lives of so many.
____________________
HONORING LUCY BELLO AS SHE CELEBRATES HER 70TH BIRTHDAY
______
HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, It is with great pleasure that I rise today
to wish my dear friend, Lucy Bello, a very happy 70th birthday. This is
a remarkable milestone for an inspiring individual. Not only is she
celebrating 70 years of life, but she is also marking her 10th
anniversary of being cancer free!
This is a celebration of life. In her seven decades, Lucy has faced
many challenges, but none more so than her battle with cancer. As a
cancer survivor myself, I know only too well the fear, concern, and
obstacles this disease brings. Lucy faced these challenges with the
greatest of dignity and courage--serving as an inspiration to all of
those who know her story. Today, Lucy is proudly celebrating a decade
of remission and I would be remiss if I did not extend my sincere
congratulations to her on this very special occasion.
Throughout her life, Lucy has dedicated her time and energy to
enriching her community. Since she could first vote at age twenty-one,
she has been an active member of Branford's Democratic Town Committee.
For nearly fifty years she has offered her support and encouragement to
countless candidates. Candidates and committee members alike will tell
you that Lucy is their go-to person--always willing to do the grunt
work that no one else wants to do. In fact, I cannot recall an event in
Branford that Lucy was not involved in either as an organizer or
volunteer. It is because of individuals like Lucy--those who
participate in the process by simply being involved--that our
democratic process works. She herself served on the local
Representative Town Meeting for many years. I consider myself fortunate
to call her my friend and cannot thank her enough for all the good work
she has done.
Through the last five decades, her kind heart and endless generosity
have made all the difference. Later this month, Lucy will be honored by
the Democratic Town Committee for her many years of service and I
cannot think of a more deserving individual to pay tribute to. Through
her hardwork and commitment, Lucy has become a fixture in the Branford
community--a local treasure. Every community should be so fortunate!
For her years of outstanding service to the community and for her
very special friendship, I am proud to stand today to join the many
family, friends, and community leaders who have gathered to wish Lucy
Bello a very happy 70th birthday. May you enjoy many more years of
health and happiness.
[[Page 11793]]
____________________
IN HONOR OF OUR UNITED STATES VETERANS AND THE PARMA VETERANS CENTER
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of
all veterans of the 10th Congressional District of Ohio for their
service, bravery, and dedication on behalf of our country. Most
significantly, we stand in tribute and remembrance of those veterans
who have made the ultimate sacrifice when they answered the call to
duty.
The lives of many veterans and their families have been uplifted by
the outreach efforts of the Parma Veterans Center--a haven of services
and assistance focused on the emotional, psychological, medical,
financial, and employment needs of thousands of veterans and their
families.
The services and support provided by the Parma Veterans Center is the
least we can do on behalf of our veteran--our brothers, sisters, sons
and daughters, mothers, fathers and grandfathers--thousands of whom
have made significant sacrifices and suffered great losses during and
after their unwavering service to our country.
Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor, tribute and
gratitude to the men and women of our armed forces--let us forever
remember their service, sacrifice and sense of duty--yesterday, today,
and for generations to come.
____________________
HONORING THE RETIREMENT OF MAYOR THOMAS J. PELLEGRINO
______
HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the achievements
of a man who exemplifies the finest combination of civic consciousness,
personal achievement, and familial responsibility. Thomas J.
Pellegrino, Mayor of Port Washington North, has been a catalyst of
progress and success for the community he has served for more than
three decades.
Half a century ago, Thomas began his career as an advertising media
trainee. Fifty years later, he has directed campaigns for some of
America's greatest corporate luminaries, founded his own innovative
franchise, and supervised operations for three nationally successful
magazines.
Despite his national success, Thomas has never faltered in his
commitment to his local community. During his years as the Mayor of
Port Washington North, Thomas has overseen the construction of hundreds
of housing developments built for the elderly as well as the enactment
of important safety ordinances in the housing and public health
sectors. He has watched an entire generation grow into a thriving
community under his tenure. Thomas steps down from his municipal office
after thirty-four years as the longest-serving mayor in New York State.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize such an accomplished individual
and commend Mayor Thomas J. Pellegrino for his years of dedicated
service to his community. On behalf of his wife, his five children, his
fifteen grandchildren, and the Village of Port Washington North, I ask
my colleagues in the House of Representatives to please join me in
honoring Mayor Thomas J. Pellegrino and wishing him many years of
success as he celebrates his well deserved retirement.
____________________
HONORING THE STUDENTS OF HALF HOLLOW HILLS HIGH SCHOOL EAST
______
HON. STEVE ISRAEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the students
from Half Hollow Hills High School in Dix Hills, New York for their
hard work in the ``We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution''
national finals.
The students, Jason Albert, Matt Bernstein, Bryan Cowan, Jennifer
Crupi, Arielle Davidsohn, Danielle Gold, Chelsea Gordon, Brittnay
Hershkowitz, Joelle Lichtman, Priya Murthy, Lindsay Nussbaum, Liz Oren,
Josh Parker, Sylvia Qu, Beth Reisfeld, Dan Roberts, Jill Rubino, Alida
Salins, Aaron Schwartz, Ben Seleznow, Jen Signet, Soyoon Sung, Jessica
Wasserman, Matt Young, and Jen Zhao, led by their teacher Scott
Edwards, demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the fundamental
ideals and values of American constitutional government.
It is truly an honor to call these outstanding young Americans my
constituents. Their success in the competition is also a testament to
the excellent teachers at Half Hollow Hills East High School and
elsewhere on Long Island.
I offer my congratulations on their hard-won honorable mention and
commend these students on their dedication to the study of the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE 2005 NATIONAL PUERTO RICAN DAY PARADE
______
HON. JOSE E. SERRANO
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today
to pay tribute to the 47th annual Puerto Rican Day Parade, which will
be held on June 12, 2005 in New York City. This parade, which
celebrates the heritage of the Puerto Rican people, is one of the
largest outdoor events in the United States.
The first New York Puerto Rican Day parade, held on Sunday, April 12,
1958 in ``El Barrio'' in Manhattan was a wonderful event presented in
the heart of the city's Puerto Rican community. In 1995, the
overwhelming success of the parade prompted organizers to increase its
size, and transform it into a national affair now known as the National
Puerto Rican Day Parade. This magnificent New York institution now
includes participation from delegates representing thirty one states,
including Alaska and Hawaii and attracts over 3 million parade goers
every year.
The great success that this parade has enjoyed over the years is a
result of the tireless work of many individuals from all walks of
life--who are dedicated to preserving and celebrating Puerto Rican
heritage and culture. Leading this effort is the National Puerto Rican
Day Parade, Inc., a non-profit organization founded in 1995 with the
mission of increasing the self awareness and pride of the Puerto Rican
people in order to promote economic development, education, cultural
recognition, and advancement.
The Parade up New York's Fifth Avenue, while certainly the most
visible aspect of the celebration of the Puerto Rican people, is not
the only event associated with the National Puerto Rican Day Parade,
Inc.'s activities. More than 10,000 people each year attend a variety
of award ceremonies, banquets and cultural events which not only help
to highlight but also strengthen the special relationship shared by
Puerto Ricans and the City of New York. Over the years, the two have
developed a symbiotic relationship--Puerto Ricans sharing a vibrant and
beautiful culture and helping to turn New York into a bilingual city
and the City of New York helping Puerto Ricans to flourish
economically, politically and culturally. The annual parade captures
the spirit of this special relationship and celebrates its success.
Mr. Speaker, as a Puerto Rican, a New Yorker, and a Member of
Congress, it is an honor to participate in this national event every
year in which thousands of individuals march along Fifth Avenue in
celebration. The National Puerto Rican Day Parade is a communal
cultural treasure, national in scope and impact, and one that unites
all New Yorkers. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to
the Puerto Rican people and to all who have worked to ensure that the
upcoming parade is a success.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ROBERT O. BONNELL, JR.
______
HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to
Robert Bonnell, Jr. in recognition of his outstanding work at the
Educational Opportunities Program (EOP). A resident of Baltimore,
Maryland, he has worked tirelessly to ensure that Baltimore high school
students stay in school.
Robert Bonnell founded the EOP in 1986 with the goal of reducing the
high school dropout rate in Baltimore. His program assigns a counselor
to individual high school students starting in the 9th grade. The
counselor then works with that individual for four years to help them
overcome obstacles to graduation. In addition, his program encourages
students to further their education by attending college, enrolling in
a trade school, or seeking an apprenticeship.
[[Page 11794]]
Mr. Bonnell's efforts have resulted in a 73% high school graduation
rate for participants in the program. Sixty percent of EOP students are
accepted into college after matriculation. Other participants actively
seek postgraduate employment.
His commitment to his country did not begin with the EOP. He served
in the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Marine Corps from
1942-1953. He is a successful businessman, philanthropist, and patriot.
He and his wife Barbara have a large, loving family that includes five
children, ten grandchildren and six great grandchildren.
I urge my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me
in celebrating the work of Robert Bonnell, Jr. His commitment and
dedication to educating America's youth has been an inspiration to all
of us.
____________________
ANNOUNCING THE PUBLICATION OF AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF PASSAGE THROUGH
HELL: A MEMOIR
______
HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce the publication of an
English translation of Passage Through Hell: A Memoir. The original
version was written in 1955 by Armenian poet, educator and author Armen
Anush. It has been published by Hagop and Klar Manjikian on the
occasion of the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.
Armen Anush was an eyewitness to the deportation and massacre of
Armenians by the Turks during 1915-1916. On April 24, 1915, the Turkish
government began to arrest Armenian community members and political
leaders. Many were executed without ever being charged with crimes.
Then the government deported most Armenians from Turkish Armenia,
ordering that they resettle in what is now Syria. Many deportees never
reached that destination.
From 1915 to 1918, more than a million Armenians died of starvation
and disease on long marches, or were massacred outright by Turkish
forces. From 1918 to 1923, Armenians continued to suffer at the hands
of the Turkish military, which eventually removed all remaining
Armenians from Turkey. The Armenian Genocide was a tragedy not only for
the Armenian people but a tragedy for all humanity. Passage Through
Hell: A Memoir is critically important because it recounts the horrors
of genocide and the psychological impact it had on the survivors.
I hope the day will soon come when it is not just the survivors who
honor the dead but also when those whose ancestors perpetrated the
horrors acknowledge their terrible responsibility and commemorate the
memory of genocide's victims. This book should be read by all whose
ancestors were in any way involved and by everyone who cares about
understanding history.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute
to Hagop and Klar Manjikian for making this important book available in
English.
____________________
HONORING DR. BRUCE E. STORM, 2005 EDUCATIONAL LEADER OF THE YEAR
______
HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today
to join the Southern Connecticut State University's Department of
Educational Leadership and Policy Studies as they honor my good friend,
Dr. Bruce E. Storm with the 2005 Educational Leader of the Year Award.
Dedicating a lifetime to public education, this award is a true
reflection of the dedication and commitment Bruce has demonstrated
throughout his career.
I have often spoke of our Nation's need for talented, creative
educators ready to help our children learn and grow. With such an
extensive background in education, ranging from the elementary level to
the university setting, Bruce has been just that kind of teacher and
administrator. Beginning his career as an English teacher at the middle
and high school levels in Massachusetts and New York, Bruce has also
served as an assistant principal, principal as well as a lecturer and
teaching fellow at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. For the
last 13 years, he has served as Superintendent of Schools in Branford,
Connecticut--a district of over 3,700 students. Bruce has also served
as an adjunct professor at Southern Connecticut State University and as
a guest speaker and presenter at several local and national
conferences.
With so much recent attention given to the success of public
education in our country, it has always been a comfort to me to know
that our community has an individual like Bruce working diligently on
behalf of our children and our public school system. Teacher,
principal, lecturer, adjunct professor, and superintendent, Bruce has
prepared students at every educational level, ensuring that they have
the tools and skills they need to be successful. I have had several
opportunities to work with Bruce over the years and have always been in
awe of his energy, generosity and compassion--every community should be
so fortunate.
As the Chair of the South Central Area Superintendent's Association
and Treasurer and Executive Board Member of the Connecticut Association
of Public School Superintendents, Bruce has used his experience and
background to benefit school districts regionally and across the State.
In addition to these professional associations, he has also been an
active member of several local organizations in Branford. Bruce was
also recently recognized with the CABE Award for Excellence in
Educational Communication for his electronic newsletter, Across the
Fence. Though he will be leaving his position as Superintendent of
Schools at the close of this school year, the many invaluable
contributions he has made during his tenure will continue to enrich the
lives of students for years to come.
For his years of dedicated service and good work, I am proud to stand
today to join his wife, Mariah, son, Christian, family, friends and
colleagues in extending my sincere congratulations to Dr. Bruce Storm
as he is named the 2005 Educational Leader of the Year. He has left an
indelible mark on this community and I can think of no one who is more
deserving of this very special honor.
____________________
LETTER TO DR. MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on May 26, 2005, I sent the following
letter to Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Administrator National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA):
House of Representatives,
May 26, 2005.
Dr. Michael D. Griffin,
Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Washington, DC.
Dear Dr. Griffin: NASA is able to develop long term, high-
risk enabling aeronautics technologies that the private
sector is unwilling to develop because they are too risky or
too expensive. In fact, government funding of basic science
has historically been the major role of government-sponsored
research in aeronautics as well as the pharmaceutical,
defense, and energy industries. When that basic research
yields information that could lead to a service or product
with profit potential, the private sector transitions the
technology from research to development in order to bring it
to market.
It is clear that where there is no basic research, there
can be no development. Where there is no research and
development, there can be no competitive industry. Without a
thriving competitive aeronautics industry, we undermine our
economy, national security, and airline safety.
Any management decisions that significantly erode NASA's
aeronautics programs will require decades and billions of
dollars to replace. We urge you to take all possible steps to
preserve a robust aeronautics program at NASA.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich,
Member of Congress.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE EMMANUEL AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH ON THE
DEDICATION OF THEIR NEW EDIFICE
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Emmanuel African
Methodist Episcopal Church as they dedicate their new edifice.
The Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal (A.M.E.) Church has served
the San Antonio Community for more than 88 years. When first organized
in 1917, the church was comprised of a small shed. As membership grew,
the Emmanuel A.M.E. Church expanded, moving from building to building
to accommodate their ever-expanding group of churchgoers.
By putting the principles of true stewardship to work, the Emmanuel
A.M.E. Church has
[[Page 11795]]
grown substantially from their humble beginnings. For Church members,
the new edifice reflects God's goodness and grace, as well as their
Church's dedication and appreciation for the Lord. The congregation now
looks forward to worshipping in their new sanctuary.
I am honored to have had this opportunity to congratulate the
Emmanuel A.M.E. Church on the dedication of their new edifice. The
Emmanuel A.M.E. Church has provided the San Antonio area with guidance
and stewardship, helping nurture and enrich faith in their community.
____________________
HARLEM RENAISSANCE DAY OF COMMITMENT
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the hard work and
achievements of the Abyssinian Development Corporation and its Harlem
Renaissance Day of Commitment in which I was pleased and honored to
participate this morning. This organization has been a committed and
active champion of the Harlem community, has worked diligently to
promote the best of Harlem, and has created an environment that has
facilitated the new Harlem Renaissance.
The Abyssinian Development Corporation is a major not-for-profit
organization that works on housing development, family services,
economic revitalization, educational development, and civil engagement
in Harlem. Starting in the small basement office of the Abyssinian
Baptist Church, the Abyssinian Development Corporation has grown in
prominence and respect for its handling of complex issues of social,
economic, and political challenges facing Harlem. Today, the
organization boosts a dedicated staff of 95 employees and community
investment projects of over $300 million.
Under the auspice of Reverend Calvin O. Butts Ill, the Abyssinian
Development Corporation has been a faithful advocate for the Harlem
community. Through the Central Harlem Local Development Corporation, it
has promoted economic development and has attracted various businesses
and corporations into Harlem. It has also been mindful of the need to
provide essential services to the community and has addressed issues
such as the improvement of education. The Thurgood Marshall Academy for
Learning and Social Change has operated a successful Head Start
program. These programs have been beneficial to the development and
revitalization of Harlem and the Abyssinian Development Corporation
continues to defend the interests of the community,
Today, the Abyssinian Development Corporation hosted a day focused on
community leaders and Harlem culture. They paid tribute to the economic
work and leadership of several dignitaries and dedicate time to draw
attention to local and historical attractions within the community. A
street festival, gospel celebration, and neighborhood tour will further
highlight the various aspects of Harlem culture.
The Abyssinian Development Corporation has done a superb job of
standing up for the people of Harlem and fighting for their interests.
I hope that my colleagues here today will join me in applauding the
efforts of this group over the last two decades. I submit for the
Record the following CaribNews article on the work of the Abyssinian
Development Corporation in the Harlem Renaissance Day of Commitment.
Harlem Renaissance Day of Commitment
June 7, 2005.--The Abyssinian Development Corporation
(ADC), an innovative not-for-profit organization dedicated to
renewing and reclaiming the spirit of community in one of New
York City's oldest and storied neighborhoods, announces its
eleventh annual Harlem Renaissance Day of Commitment on June
7, 2005. The daylong celebration highlights ADC's
accomplishments, diverse programs and services while
showcasing the revival of Harlem.
This year's Renaissance Honorees include: Robert Rubin,
Chairman of the Executive Committee, Citi-group, Inc; Michael
Lee-Chin, Chairman and Chief Executive Office, AIC, Limited;
Ralph Lauren, Chairman & CEO of Polo Ralph Lauren
Corporation; and Paula Madison, President and General Manager
of NBC4 in Los Angeles.
The Leadership Breakfast is ADC's opportunity to honor
those who have continually and faithfully donated their time,
resources and efforts to furthering the growth and
revitalization of Harlem.
The day begins with a Leadership Breakfast, hosted by Rev.
Calvin O. Butts III. The breakfast features more than 700 of
New York's business, civic and political leaders and is held
at the beautiful Great Hall of Shepard Hall, City College in
the historic Hamilton Heights section of Harlem. The
Leadership Breakfast (set to begin at 7:30 a.m.) will be
preceded by a 7 a.m. VIP and press reception. Co-Chairs Rev.
Dr. Calvin O. Butts III, Pastor, The Abyssinian Baptist
Church; Edward Lewis, Co-founder, Publisher and CEO, Essence
Communications; Saundra Parks, Chairman and Creative
Director, The Daily Blossom; and Marianne Spraggins,
President, Buy Hold America will preside over both the
Leadership Breakfast and the presentation of the 2005
Renaissance Awards, during a celebration that will include
Gospel Music and Southern-infused Cuisine.
Following the Leadership Breakfast is a tour of Harlem's
historic neighborhoods, including Astor Row, Mt. Morris Park,
Sugar Hill, and Striver's Row. Guests will see first-hand the
various projects and programs of ADC throughout Harlem. The
tour concludes at Odell Clark Place and 138th Street,
allowing participants to visit Abyssinian Baptist Church. In
the afternoon, ADC hosts a Street Fair on Odell Clark Place,
complete with free food, music, games, amusement rides,
entertainment and health information. The culminating event
of the Harlem Renaissance Day of Commitment is an evening
reception, A Taste of Harlem by Candlelight, at the Great
Hall. The evening will feature entertainment from famed
rhythm revue DJ Felix Hernandez, live music from
``Soulnites,'' and a sample from some of Harlem's and New
York City's leading restaurants and caterers.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT ON ITS 40TH
ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today, we are fortunate to be able to say
that most Americans now take for granted the right to access and use
birth control. Yet, the 40th anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut,
which first legalized the use of contraceptives, reminds us that it was
not so long ago that this right was in great jeopardy. The importance
and impact of this landmark decision cannot be underestimated.
Ninety-five percent of women in the U.S. now use some form of birth
control during their childbearing years and the number of unintended
pregnancies has dropped significantly as a result of this widespread
use. Thanks to the many publicly funded programs, women in all socio-
economic groups have increased access to birth control. The ability to
control and plan for childbirth has also created considerable
improvements in the health and well-being of women, children, and
families. We have seen dramatic decreases in the rates of maternal and
infant mortality, and, at the same time, dramatic increases in maternal
and infant health. Women's ability to control their fertility has
enabled them to enter the workforce in unprecedented numbers which has
contributed to the overall prosperity of our national economy.
While these successes are certainly worthy of recognition, we cannot
lose sight of the challenges that remain. Despite the reductions in
unintended pregnancies we've seen, the U.S. continues to have one of
the highest rates of unintended pregnancies among Western nations.
Among teenage girls, the rate of unintended pregnancies remains above
75 percent and estimates show that more than one-third will become
pregnant before the age of 20. Many barriers to widespread access to
and use of contraceptives still exist. For instance, a number of states
have enacted laws that allow health care providers and pharmacists to
refuse to provide birth control. Unfortunately, under the current
administration's ``abstinence-only'' approach to sex education,
millions of children and adolescents each year are deprived of basic
facts on contraception, and are instead being taught misleading
information about reproductive health.
It is important to honor the 40th anniversary of Griswold not only to
recognize the many accomplishments we've made in the 40 years since
this landmark case, but also to remind ourselves of the work we have
yet to do. We must continue to be unrelenting in our pursuit of the
goal of creating unencumbered universal access to and use of
contraceptives. Given the numerous successes of the last 40 years, I'm
confident we can succeed.
[[Page 11796]]
____________________
KEEPING THE PROMISE TO OUR DISABLED VETERANS
______
HON. BOB FILNER
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to speak about
two bills that I have introduced to better the lives of our Nation's
disabled veterans. H.R. 1188, the ``Disabled Veterans Right to
Commissaries and Space Available Travel Act,'' will extend commissary
and exchange store privileges to service-disabled veterans with a
rating of 30% or more and to their families. Congress must do all we
reasonably can for the men and women who have become disabled in their
service to our Nation. Our disabled veterans are important members of
the greater military family, and they should be treated as such with
every available opportunity.
This bill will also authorize transportation on military aircraft on
a space-available basis to service-disabled veterans with a rating of
50% or more. Currently, members and retirees of the uniformed services
and the reserves may travel free on Department of Defense (DoD)
aircraft when space is available. This benefit is allowed when it does
not interfere with military missions, and it recognizes that military
careers are filled with rigorous duty.
But present policies do not extend this benefit to our disabled
veterans. What more rigorous duty can be imagined than to become
disabled in the service of our country? Why has the DoD chosen not to
recognize the brave men and women who sacrificed their health and well-
being while serving in uniform? This DoD policy needs to be corrected.
Space-available travel for these disabled veterans would cost the
Federal government nothing and would not interfere with active-duty
personnel. Current military is always given priority, and H.R. 1188
would do nothing to change that. What my bill will do is allow seats
that would otherwise go unused to be occupied by men and women who have
been disabled when serving their Nation.
I invite my colleagues to also support a second bill, H.R. 2747, the
``Disabled Veterans Life Insurance Enhancement Act.'' This legislation
will make improvements in insurance for veterans who are disabled in
their service to our country.
When the Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance (SDVI) began in 1951, it
was intended to provide service-disabled veterans with the ability to
purchase life insurance coverage at ``standard'' rates. Unfortunately,
these life insurance premiums are based upon mortality rates for 1940,
while current standard life insurance policies have premiums based upon
the 2001 mortality table. This means that service-disabled veterans are
being charged high premiums based on a table that is 60 years out of
date. The Independent Budget, prepared and endorsed by many veterans
service organizations, has recommended that the mortality table be
updated so that service-disabled veterans pay lower premiums for
insurance. My bill would provide insurance comparable to standard
policies, based on 2001 tables. Another change will increase the amount
of insurance available to $50,000, purchased in increments of $10,000.
Second, the VA provides mortgage life insurance (VMLI) to severely
service-disabled veterans who qualify for specially adapted housing
grants. Currently, this amount covers only about 55% of the outstanding
mortgage balances at the veteran's death because the maximum amount has
not been increased since 1992. We know how the cost of houses has
skyrocketed since then in many areas of our country. In May, 2001, an
evaluation by the Department of Veterans Affairs recommended that the
coverage be increased, and The Independent Budget has also recommended
that the coverage be increased. H.R. 2747 implements those
recommendations by increasing the maximum to $200,000 to cover 94% of
mortgage balances outstanding. Veterans can choose lower coverage, if
they wish.
These bills are the right steps to take for our disabled veterans.
They have sacrificed their health and well-being for their country, and
they have earned the right to these privileges. Please support these
bills and work with me for their passage.
____________________
RAINNIE DEANE: A FRIEND OF SMALL BUSINESS
______
HON. DONALD A. MANZULLO
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and thank a public servant
who dedicated a large part of her life to public service and in
particular to helping small businesses.
Lorraine ``Rainnie'' Deane began her Federal career in 1977, serving
as a staffer for the Committee on the Budget in the United States
Senate and then later as a staffer for the Senate Committee on Small
Business from 1981 to 1989. In 1989, ``Rainnie'' joined the Small
Business Administration (SBA) and began working with the Office of
Congressional and Legislative Affairs. Ms. Deane retired just recently
on May 31, 2005, after 28 years of distinguished service.
She has always been an outstanding help to us here in the Congress,
and especially to my staff and their predecessors on the Committee on
Small Business.
Prior to entering Federal service, ``Rainnie'' worked for the private
sector in the late 1960's to the late 1970's. In the mid to late
1960's, ``Rainnie'' was self-employed as a model in the metropolitan DC
area. As a take-off on Britain's Twiggy, ``Rainnie'' was named ``The
Face of '68'' and articles appeared in the London Financial Times and
the Washington Post. She also appeared on network TV doing fashion
shows. She was a true entrepreneur in her own right.
In addition to her work for small business ``Rainnie,'' a breast
cancer survivor, has been very active in raising funds for cancer
research. ``Rainnie's Dream Team'' of over 50 friends and colleagues
just participated in the June 3, 2005 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure
in Washington, DC, the most recent of her teams supporting this noble
cause.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate my
congratulations and gratitude to ``Rainnie'' for her excellent service
to the Federal government, small business, and society. I wish her a
happy and well-deserved retirement.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE CIGARROA FAMILY, LAREDO BUSINESS PERSONS OF THE YEAR
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Cigarroa Family,
Laredo Business Persons of the Year.
Joaquin Cigarroa Jr., along with his sons Ricardo, Carlos, Francisco,
Joaquin, and daughter Patricia comprise a unique group of medical
professionals and business entrepreneurs.
The Cigarroas have demonstrated a great ability to seek opportunity
and create enterprise within their community. The family has
consistently expressed their devotion to Laredo, dedicating their lives
to the education and health of their city.
The Cigarroa Family has contributed significantly to the development
of the healthcare industry in South Texas, partnering in 2004 with
others to create the Laredo Cardiac Rehabilitation and Wellness Center.
The family is currently developing the Cigarroa Heart and Vascular
Institute.
I am honored to recognize the Cigarroa Family, Laredo Business
Persons of the year. I applaud the Cigarroas for their commitment to
the medical industry and the positive impact they have had on their
local economy.
____________________
LESSONS FROM THE LIFE OF MALCOLM X
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw the attention of the 109th
Congress to the life of Malcolm X. Four months ago was the 40th
anniversary of the tragic assassination of Malcolm X. Last month, I
called on this body to recognize and commemorate the 80th birthday of
this brilliant man who rose from a life of crime and incarceration to
become a famed civil rights leader. Today, I ask this chamber to
reflect on the circumstances that led Malcolm X down the path he took
and to imagine how his life and our lives might have been different had
he lived into his 80s.
Despite much hardship and struggle in his life, he rose to be a
powerful voice of a disenfranchised Black America. His father, a
believer in Garveyism and a champion of Black Nationalism, was found
dead on the railroad tracks near his home. His mother quickly sank into
a deep depression and alcoholism. He was split from his brothers,
sisters, and mother shortly thereafter. Despite an impressive academic
record, he was discouraged
[[Page 11797]]
from pursuing a career in law by a favorite white teacher. By his 20s,
he had turned to a life of crime that appeared to offer more
opportunities for a young black man in the 1940s.
To young Malcolm, racism was at the heart of his family breakdown,
the barriers to his advancement, and the limitations of Black America.
All around him were examples of a system that discriminated against,
despised, and debilitated Black America. Crime, drugs, death, limited
opportunities, inadequate finances, segregation, and racism were facets
of his daily life. They framed his view of the world around him and of
the individuals within the political and economic hierarchy.
As a result of a religious conversion he experienced in jail, Malcolm
would join the Nation of Islam and become one of its most influential
ministers. Motivated by his spirit, pride, and desire to defend his
Black people, he would see the Nation of Islam as a voice for the
disenfranchised, the poor, and the discriminated. He would connect his
life story to the lives of those with whom he came in contact and
explain their story through his own experience. Their dismay with the
system was his dismay; their need for leadership was his strength. He
instilled in those he met in his journey a sense of pride that many had
lost. He restored their hope in themselves. He demanded more of himself
and more of them.
He told America about the oppression and racism that held his people
back and demanded that the injustices be undone. With that demand came
a call for Black America to stand up for themselves, to insist upon
their freedoms as men and women, and to settle for nothing less. He
became the voice for a segment of Black America that would no longer
accept the status quo. He became a champion for justice, equality, and
self-determination.
While many feared the hatred and determinism that underlined Malcolm
X, many also missed his transformation to EI-Hajj Malik EI-Shabazz. El-
Shabazz had traveled to Mecca and seen with his own eyes the kindness
of all people and the international extent of oppression. He saw that
injustices were not just a White-Black dynamic in the United States,
but a challenge that existed across the world, across races, and across
systems of government. He returned from his travels with a new
developing world philosophy.
Malcolm X was an influential leader of the Civil Rights Movement and
is an admired champion of current generations. His struggle is seen as
a universal struggle that groups the world over have fought. He
influenced change in the role of African-Americans in this country. His
thoughts still shape the ideas of the young and old today. This
Congress, this Nation, must come to terms with the meaning and
significance of this great man, as we advance into this new century.
I submit for the Record and for our reflection the following
CaribNews article by Michael D. Roberts on Malcolm X. It provides
further insight into the development of EI-Hajj Malik EI-Shabazz and it
offers a view of Black Moses.
Black Moses: The International Appeal for This Black Nationalist Still
Lives
May 31, 2005.--As we celebrate the 80th ``earthday'' of
legendary Black Nationalist leader, Malcolm X, he still
commands the attention and interest of millions of people--
Black, White, and others. And even now there are still
attempts to settle once and for all the circumstances
surrounding his untimely demise.
Malcolm's contribution to the development of Black people
and the Black race the world over serves as a timeless
positive lesson in today's troubled climate of racism, petty
prejudice and discrimination. His life and times also make
the translucent point that greatness can start from very
humble circumstances and that ultimately the power of
goodness must triumph over those of evil.
Indeed, his example, in so short a lifetime, is a
remarkable study in the metamorphosis from ordinary Malcolm
Little, born on May 19, 1925, to a Garveyite father and
Grenadian mother, to convicted felon and con man, to Malcolm
X, the top minister of the Nation of Islam (NOI) and finally
to EI-Hajj Malik EI-Shabazz, internationalist, Black
nationalist, and statesman. Incredibly all this was done in
less than four decades. To all that I would take the liberty
of adding: ``Black Moses martyred for the cause of Black
Liberation.''
But the events which would transform a disillusioned Black
street hustler known as ``Detroit Red'' into an international
symbol of Black pride provide serious and objective lessons
in today's hostile social and political climate. So, too, the
study of the public and international ministries of Malcolm X
should never be solely focused on his early radical
pronouncements as many of his detractors are wont to do.
After all his early, formative perceptions of society were
formed after he saw his father viciously murdered by the
racist, white supremacist Ku Klux Klan organization, and his
mother fall victim to the debilitating ravages of alcoholism
while still barely a teenager.
A young Malcolm witnessed the steady dysfuctionality of a
home broken up by the demise of the main breadwinner and the
rapid decline into depression and alcoholism of a mother
unable to cope with the sheer burden of raising a family
alone. The end result was that Malcolm's mother was forced to
parcel off the children to family and mends because she was
unable to adequately provide for them.
Of course, to many Black people around the world this
sounds very familiar and is a situation that has been
duplicated over and over again in the Black family even in
2005 on the anniversary of his birth.
But when all is said and done the reason why Malcolm X was
able to elevate himself from nonentity, ``Detroit Red,'' a
two-bit street hustler, to one of the most gifted and
eloquent leaders of the 20th century, was due mainly to his
conversion, while in jail, to the religion of lslam.
The early Malcolm, still bitter from his experiences with
racism, still hurting from being separated from his family
and in particularly his mother that he loved deeply, was a
narrow-minded bigot who saw the white man as ``a blond blue-
eyed devil.'' And even as he embraced the Quran and was
riding the wave to the top of the Black Muslim religious
hierarchy, Malcolm still believed that the problems facing
the Black race, especially in a still segregated and
prejudiced America, were the deliberate creation of ``evil''
individual White men.
That is why he uttered his famous epitaph on the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy calling it a case
of ``chickens coming home to roost.'' But while the statement
appeared to be fundamentally callous and insensitive to the
brutal slaying of a United States president, on closer
examination and analysis it could be interpreted to mean that
the climate of hostility and racial hatred which was
poisoning American society on November 22, 1963 spawned such
activities which resulted.
And although felled by several assassins' bullets in New
York's Harlem Audobon Ballroom on February 21, 1965, Malcolm
X's cultural currency has only increased in the last four
decades. Part of his appeal has to do with the controversial
figure that he was and his oftentimes uncompromising in-your-
face, no-sell-out stance that he took when dealing with white
American society and questions of Black oppression. It is
this militant revolutionary charisma that still finds
acceptance especially by inner city youths who are today
still struggling to be free.
Just as he was controversial in life, so too he is in
death. In 2005 there are still many unanswered questions
about just who was behind his assassination. Following
Malcolm's break with the Nation of Islam (NOI) in 1964,
enmity grew between him and the Nation of Islam leader Elijah
Muhammad. Most members of the group hated Malcolm for
``defaming'' Muhammad's name.
An FBI memo, uncovered during a congressional probe of the
agency's notorious COINTLPRO (Counter Intelligence Program)
program, suggests that it was the agency, which hated
Malcolm's guts, that used agent provocateurs planted inside
the NOI to fuel and foster factional disputes and nurture
hatred for Malcolm ultimately culminating in his killing. It
was no secret that FBI director, J. Edgar Hoover, wanted
Malcolm dead.
But no matter the circumstances of his untimely death, or
who was to blame, Malcolm X has left a towering legacy of
selfless sacrifice to the greater good of mankind. In less
than four decades he made the extraordinary journey from an
ordinary man to a leader with international standing
ultimately transformed by the power of his pilgrimage to
Mecca. It was this change and his new and profound
understanding of the root causes of oppression, exploitation
and racism that thrust him on a new path to liberating his
people. He became in the process, EI-Hajj Malik EI-Shabazz,
the liberated Black Moses of his people as he saw the
emancipation of Blacks in America as inextricably entwined
and linked with the liberation processes in the Caribbean, in
Europe and Africa. Malcolm X will be remembered as one of the
clear Black voices of reason whose every thought and action
was based on sound moral political principles. As we remember
him on his 80th Birthday and 40 years after he was brutally
murdered it is correct to say that his legacy still lives on.
Today, history looks kindly on Malcolm X and a generation
of young Black leaders all over the world remember him for
his militant activism and strong uncompromising leadership.
He was truly a ``Black Moses'' who chose his own path to lead
his people. Cut down before his mission was accomplished we
can only wonder at what this extraordinary model of human
transformation and sound moral principles would have
accomplished had he lived. We can only speculate. But Malcolm
X achieved in life what many, many would take two and even
three lifetimes to achieve. That is his legacy and his
lasting gift to his people.
[[Page 11798]]
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I regret that official business forced me
to miss rollcall votes 223-227 on May 26, 2005. Had I been present, I
would have voted as follows:
On rollcall vote No. 223, On Ordering the Previous Question providing
for consideration of H.R. 2528, the Military Quality of Life and VA
Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2006, I would have voted ``nay.''
On rollcall vote No. 224, On Agreeing to the Melancon Amendment to
H.R. 2528, I would have voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote No. 225, On Agreeing to the Blumenauer Amendment to
H.R. 2528, I would have voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote No. 226, passage of H.R. 2528, the Military Quality
of Life and VA Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2006, I would have
voted ``aye.'' .
On rollcall vote No. 227, On Agreeing to the Motion to Instruct
Conferees on H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,
I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________
TRIBUTE TO LAWSON AND JEANNE HAMILTON AS GRADUATES OF DISTINCTION
______
HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO
of west virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable
West Virginia couple, Lawson and Jeanne Hamilton, who are being honored
by The Education Alliance as Graduates of Distinction.
``Graduates of Distinction'' was established by The Education
Alliance to recognize and honor graduates of West Virginia public
schools who have attained national or international acclaim in their
professions and for their loyalty to West Virginia.
Lawson Hamilton graduated from Charleston High School and went on to
become the owner of Ford Coal Company, a major producer which provided
good jobs for West Virginians for decades.
Jeanne Hamilton graduated from Elkview High School and has been a
leader in many civic and community programs in addition to being named
``Mrs. West Virginia Mother of the Year.''
As testament to the value they have placed on their educations,
Lawson and Jeanne have sponsored wonderful reunions for graduates of
Charleston High School, keeping traditions and relationships strong and
vibrant even as the student body now enjoys grandchildren and great-
grandchildren. They are true believers in education and the arts.
Lawson and Jeanne Hamilton could have taken the skills they gained in
public school and launched successful careers anywhere, but chose to
put them to work putting West Virginians to work. Our State is
sincerely appreciative. Their bountiful nature and giving spirits are
unmatched.
We are taught always to leave a place better than we have found it.
Lawson and Jeanne have transformed our community in many ways
throughout their lives, and all West Virginians and Americans should
honor them today.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF H.R. 2746
______
HON. RUSH D. HOLT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, in his State of the Union address on February
27, 2001, President George W. Bush stood in these very chambers and
correctly stated, ``No senior in America should have to choose between
buying food and buying prescriptions.'' Unfortunately, two years later,
Congress passed a bill that did not solve that problem.
The Medicare Modernization Act fails to protect the eligibility of
low-income seniors for other Federal assistance programs. The statute
mandates that use of the transitional discount drug cards will not
affect eligibility for Federal assistance programs, like food stamps.
However, such protection is not extended to the permanent prescription
drug benefit, which will be fully implemented on January 1, 2006.
On May 4, 2005, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
notified potential beneficiaries of the Medicare low-income subsidy
that they may qualify for extra help paying prescription costs.
However, this potential extra help comes with a caveat: If you qualify
for extra help, your food stamps may decline. Recipients of the minimum
food stamp benefit will see their benefits end.
It is unconscionable to offer a ``low-income subsidy'' that is
contingent on beneficiaries forgoing another necessary commodity. The
lowest income seniors should not have to choose between getting help
with their expenses for prescription drugs or food.
Today, I introduced H.R. 2746, legislation that would fix this
problem with the Medicare Modernization Act. It is a simple correction
that extends to the permanent drug benefit the same protection for
Federal assistance program eligibility provided in the transitional
drug benefit. I encourage Members to support this bill.
Congress and the Bush Administration have repeatedly affirmed that
low-income seniors should not have to choose between food and
prescription drugs. Our actions as a body have not lived up to that
commitment. Congress should act quickly to fix this flaw in the
Medicare Modernization Act so that the most vulnerable among us are not
faced with an impossible choice.
____________________
CONGRATULATING ARACELI LOZA-
NO, SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCATE WOMEN CHAMPION OF THE YEAR
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Araceli Lozano, Small
Business Advocate Women Champion of the Year.
Araceli is the Director of the Laredo Development Foundation Small
Business Development Center (SBDC), which was established to provide
vision and leadership to develop, encourage, promote and protect the
business interests of the Laredo metropolitan area.
As Director, Araceli works to provide opportunities, motivation, and
guidance to current and potential small business owners. Under the
stewardship of Ms. Lozano, the SBDC team has achieved an outstanding
track record, meeting and exceeding each counseling and training goal.
Araceli has consistently reached out to small business owners in rural
communities, providing direction to enhance the business skills of
these blossoming entrepreneurs.
I am honored to recognize Araceli Lozano as the Small Business
Advocate Women Champion of the Year. Araceli's dedication and devotion
to the growth and success of small businesses is truly admirable.
____________________
CONGRATULATING ALICIA ESPINO-
ZA, SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCATE FINANCIAL CHAMPION OF THE YEAR
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Alicia Espinoza, Small
Business Advocate Financial Champion of the Year.
Alicia works as a Commercial Loan Officer for the Commerce Bank where
she makes and services all types of loans. With over 9 years banking
experience, Ms. Espinoza offers clients a wealth of banking knowledge
and financial understanding.
Alicia strives to provide personalized attention to her customers.
She knows them all by their names, not their account numbers. By
offering each customer individualized consideration and tailored
advice, she is able to maximize the success of her business
transactions. Alicia works hard to serve the needs of her clients,
often working beyond a banker's traditional hours.
I am honored to recognize Alicia Espinoza as the Small Business
Advocate Financial Champion of the Year. Alicia's exceptional efforts
continue to perpetuate the economic and social development of her
community.
[[Page 11799]]
____________________
THE COMMENCEMENT MESSAGE OF DR. DAVID JEFFERSON
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the success and
contributions of Dr. David Jefferson, Sr. A graduate of Grambling State
University, David has been a role model and example for a generation of
Grambling students and others who have met him.
In the last thirty years, David has risen up the ranks in the
business community and has developed an impressive reputation amongst
his colleagues as a fair and wise business leader. He currently serves
as the President and CEO of JNET Communications, LLC and is a member of
the board of directors of SBLI USA Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc.
He has succeeded in bringing the talents of a young Louisianan and the
lessons of a noteworthy academic institution into the decision-making
of two major corporations.
Beginning in 2003, JNET has provided a suite of technology and
technology-related services to telephone companies, cable television
systems, and other businesses. The company has created a number of job
opportunities in minority and low-income communities. Through its Up
the Ladder training program, it has trained individuals in these
communities to work as call center experts, customer acquisition and
expansion experts, and maintenance and installation experts. David has
been successful in managing an organization that creates jobs for the
community and the people that surround him.
Dr. Jefferson is also a senior pastor of the Metropolitan Baptist
Church of Newark. Founded in 1938, Metropolitan Baptist has one of the
largest congregations in Newark. It has over 80 ministries ranging from
choirs and church services to ecommerce and educational development.
David has effectively used the church to address the economic and
social needs of his congregation and has worked to improve the
livelihood of his community.
David is also a willing community activist. He divides his time with
a number of social and religious organizations dedicated to making an
impact on the community. He is enthusiastically involved in the actions
of civil rights organizations, legal associations, and a fraternal
order. In addition, David is the director and co-chair of 1,000
Churches Connected Initiative. His commitment to the community and
involvement in its development is a testament to the importance of
daily activism and individual responsibility.
Dr. Jefferson is a wonderful role model for generations of Americans.
He effectively combines the intuitiveness and aggressiveness of the
business community with the compassion and care of the neighborhood. He
is a dedicated leader to the economic and social fabric of this country
and should be recognized for his role in shaping and developing the
individual, the family, and the community.
Dr. Jefferson bestowed his sage advice on the graduating class of
Grambling State University Sunday, May 22. He advised the graduates of
his keys to success and reminded them of the importance of community
service, determination, and commitment to their life. I would like to
share with this body the thoughtful words of Dr. David Jefferson at the
commencement of Grambling State University. I submit for the Record the
prepared text of that commencement address.
``Achieving Your Dreams and Hopes''; Grambling State University
Commencement Address, May 22, 2005
To Dr. Judson, the president of this internationally
renowned, remarkable, historical institution; Chairman of the
Board of Trustees; faculty; administrators; staff; parents;
friends; loved ones; and last but certainly not least the
Graduating Class of 2005. When you travel and see the
condition of our young people . . . to see those who have
reached this level, they deserve a message from us that we
are proud of their accomplishments.
Today represents a major milestone and one of significant
meaning and enormous joy and fulfillment for all of us. For
the graduates and their families, because your hard work,
sacrifice and perseverance has finally yielded the first
installment of your dividends. It's significant for this
great institution because there is a spirit of revival and
rebirth in the air at GSU.
I am excited and encouraged about what is happening at my
Alma Mater. The campus is receiving a long overdue facelift,
buildings are being constructed, dorms are being renovated,
academic curriculums are being reevaluated, and there is a
vision and hope for tomorrow.
For me it's significant because I have been invited back to
my roots, the place where I started my journey and received
my foundation for higher academic training. This is the
institution that equipped me and prepared me for my MBA work
in finance at the University of Dayton. It is this
institution that also equipped me to pursue legal studies at
Capital Law School; a Master's of Theology at Drew
University; and another master's degree from one of the top
schools in the world--the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. It is this institution that paved the way for me
to become the Pastor of the Metropolitan Baptist Church in
Newark, N.J. which has nearly 6,000 members, and now the
President and CEO of JNET Communications. After 34 years I
have been invited back to give this commencement address and
that's a marvelous blessing. So do not let anyone tell you
Grambling is not a great school. Without this school I
wouldn't be where I am today.
I am very humbled and emotional, but very excited. And I
want to thank Dr. Judson for inviting me to address this
class. I've received a number of prestigious honors in my
life, many of which were absolutely outstanding. However, in
my estimation, this tops them all. To stand here today is
extremely significant to me. Everywhere I go young people
constantly inquire, ``Dr. Jefferson, how have you achieved
such significant accomplishments and what advice would you
give college students?'' And that's what I want to focus on
briefly: achieving your dreams and hopes.
The first thing I have to admit is it has not been easy--
you really do have to learn how to lean and depend on God.
But you also have to have a dream, some hope, some aspiration
that takes you beyond the present to what you want for your
future. It's called reaching beyond the present. I had and
still have a desire to achieve.
Even if you don't know exactly ``where'' you want to go,
you need to possess a desire to ``excel beyond your
present.'' Then you need to be inspired because aspiration is
not enough, you also need inspiration. I grew up in Doyline,
a small rural area just west of here--dirt roads, no running
water, outside bathrooms, and bathing in a #3 tub (something
many of you perhaps know nothing about). There are 15
children in our family. I'm #10 and nine of us graduated from
college. My father, a Baptist minister, was a strong man and
an outstanding role model. My mother, who is with me today,
is 89 years old and will be 90 in December. Neither of my
parents finished high school, but they understood the value
of a good education and inspired their children to be
somebody, to make something of themselves, to be their best.
Without aspiration and without inspiration there is no drive,
determination, or will to succeed. Success comes to those who
are willing to sweat. And then you need to work at it. It's
called preparation. And preparation involves perspiration.
Preparation and perspiration always precede realization.
Dreams and aspirations can never be achieved without
preparation and perspiration. And then you get to the moment
of celebration. That's where you are today. So graduates--it
is time to celebrate!
But today's accomplishments are to be celebrated with
commas, not periods. As a punctuation mark, the period says
``stop.'' It represents the end of a declarative statement.
But a comma says simply, ``pause,'' because there's more to
follow. I urge you to celebrate today with a comma, meaning
that there's more to follow! Seize the moment, but keep
going. Make the most of your life. Don't stop. Go for your
master's, go for your doctorate, take your life to the next
level. Do something that will make a difference, make your
mark in life, leave a legacy.
L. Frank Baum in his 1939 epic, ``The Wizard of Oz,''
starts the story when a nasty neighbor tries to have
Dorothy's dog put to sleep. Dorothy takes her dog, Toto, to
run away. A cyclone appears and carries her to the magical
land of Oz. Wishing to return, she begins to travel to the
city of Oz, where a great and powerful wizard lives. On her
way she meets a Scarecrow who needs a brain, a Tin Man who
wants a heart, and a cowardly Lion who desperately needs
courage. They all hope the Wizard of Oz will help them,
before the Wicked Witch of the West catches up to them. But
when they reach Oz and meet the magnificent Wizard they
encounter a remarkable discovery. And that is ``what they
were looking for on the outside was only to be found
within.'' What they wanted the Wizard to give them, they had
all along. You have within you brains, the courage and the
heart and the spirit to go the distance. Cultivate what you
have within! Sometimes up, sometimes down, it won't be easy
but go for it!
And perhaps that's what Langston Hughes had in mind when he
wrote the poem ``Mother to Son,'' where the mother says to
her son . . .
``Well, son, I'll tell you:
Life for me ain't been no crystal stair.
It's had tacks in it,
And splinters,
And boards torn up,
And places with no carpet on the floor--
Bare.
But all the time
I'se been a-climbin' on,
And reachin' landin's,
And turnin' corners,
And sometimes goin' in the dark
[[Page 11800]]
Where there ain't been no light.
So, boy, don't you turn back.
Don't you set down on the steps.
'Cause you finds it's kinder hard.
Don't you fall now--
For I'se still goin', honey
I'se still c1imbin',
And life for me ain't been no crystal stair.
So go for it graduates and one day you'll discover, like I
have, there is no place like home, no place like Doyline, no
place like Grambling State University! And although today is
a great accomplishment, your best is yet to come.
God bless you and God bless Grambling State University!
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE RETIREMENT OF de TEEL PATTERSON (PAT) TILLER
______
HON. JIM McCRERY
of louisiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize an
individual who has for the past 28 years been a thoughtful and
articulate advocate of historic preservation and cultural resources
programs serving the 388 national parks and the Nation's heritage
partnership programs.
de Teel Patterson (Pat) Tiller, the National Park Service's Deputy
Associate Director, Cultural Resources, will retire in June. Since 1999
he has served as both the Deputy and Acting Associate Director of the
National Park Service. A native of Washington, DC, Tiller worked as a
professional designer in television and regional theater before
receiving a Master's degree in Architectural History with a specialty
in historic preservation from the University of Virginia, College of
Architecture. He was in private practice in West Texas before joining
the National Park Service in 1977. Tiller has served in various adjunct
faculty positions in architectural history and historic preservation
policy and practice at the University of Wyoming, the University of
Virginia, Kansas State University, George Washington University in
Washington, DC, and Goucher College in Baltimore, Maryland. He received
an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters from Goucher in 2003.
In the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana, Pat Tiller has
been instrumental in nurturing and developing a unique relationship
among three National Park Service entities in Natchitoches. The synergy
of the Cane River Creole National Historical Park, the Cane River
National Heritage Area, the National Center for Preservation Technology
and Training and local partners is a model for cooperation and
productivity among federal agencies and local communities. The American
Planning Association recognized this achievement with a Federal
Planning Award for Partnerships in 2004.
The community has benefited from Tiller's guidance in two Save
America's Treasures awards, numerous visits by National Park Service
personnel, and the development of the Creole Heritage Center on the
campus of Northwestern State University. The Creole Heritage Center has
seen its mission and scope extend beyond a local community group to a
national constituency. Pat Tiller has been instrumental in formulating
the policies and funding to make this a reality.
Pat Tiller has been a man of vision during his tenure at the National
Park Service in improving the Nation's natural and historic resources.
He leaves behind a rich legacy, numerous contributions and very large
shoes to fill. My staff and I, and I dare say many other members and
staff on the Hill, will miss Pat's guidance, hard work, unfailing
courtesy, good humor and most of all dedication to his work in the
years ahead. But I know that I and many others in the Fourth District
will seek opportunities to keep Pat engaged and part of the larger
preservation community as he re-enters the private sector and begins
another phase of an already distinguished career.