[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Issue]
[Pages 3138-3282]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 3138]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, February 6, 2007
The House met at 10:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Mr. Johnson of Georgia).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
February 6, 2007.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson,
Jr. to act as Speaker pro tempore on this day.
Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
MORNING HOUR DEBATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 4, 2007, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour
debates. The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with
each party limited to not to exceed 30 minutes, and each Member, except
the majority leader, the minority leader, or the minority whip, limited
to not to exceed 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) for 5
minutes.
____________________
ORWELLIAN EARMARKING
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in his novel, 1984, George Orwell
presents this concept of doublethink, which is defined as, ``The power
of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously and
accepting both of them.''
I come to the floor today, Mr. Speaker, to review the repetitive lack
of openness and accountability that we have seen on this House floor
over the last month. Time and again, this new majority has governed on
the premise that if you simply just say it, it will become true. It is
Orwellian doublethink, an amazing concept.
They believe that if you simply just say you are lowering drug
prices, poof, it's done, ignoring the reality that prices really won't
be lowered and fewer drugs will be made available to our seniors.
They believe that if you just say you are implementing all of the 9/
11 Commission's recommendations, it changes the fact that the bill that
was passed here on the floor doesn't reflect the totality of those
recommendations.
They believe that if you just say you are cutting interest rates in
half for college students, it doesn't matter that in reality you've
pulled a bait-and-switch, with the rate cut lasting just 6 months.
Mr. Speaker, saying it doesn't make it so. And Democratic doublethink
does a disservice to this Nation.
Now this makes for great talking points and great press releases, but
yields very little for the people back home. Rather than bold policy
initiatives, people are starting to realize that the Democratic agenda
has been more pop than fizz. And now, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are
using this Orwellian newspeak, doublethink, in regard to spending
Americans' hard-earned tax dollars.
On December 11 of last year, 2006, the two chairmen of the
Appropriations Committee in the House and Senate, Obey and Byrd, said,
and I quote, ``There will be no congressional earmarks in the joint
funding resolution that we will pass.'' No earmarks. But sadly, once
again, the facts just don't match the promises. Democratic doublethink
is alive and well.
The majority used a loophole in the House rules to include millions
of dollars of earmarks by simply saying that there were none. Clause 9
of rule XXI of the House rules says that it shall not be in order to
consider a bill or joint resolution unless the chairman of each
committee of initial referral has a statement that the proposition
contains no congressional earmarks. So the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, conveniently submitted to the
record on January 29 that prior to the omnibus bill being considered,
quote, ``does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits.'' But, in fact, Mr. Speaker, this
omnibus spending bill that the Democrats passed last week contained
hundreds of millions of dollars of earmarks. Democrat doublethink.
If we follow this Democrat policy as long as you submit to the record
that there are no earmarks, you can feel free to just load up any
appropriations bill with as many earmarks as you like with absolutely
no accountability.
Their actions completely violate the spirit of our earmarking rule,
designed to bring greater transparency to our spending process. Rather
than take the new rule seriously, the Democrat majority has used this
sly interpretation that essentially allows for unlimited earmarks. In
this new Democrat majority, if you just close your eyes and say there
are no earmarks, miraculously millions of dollars of earmarks are
wasted on things like rain forests in Iowa.
This isn't the type of open and honest government that our
constituents expected in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, this doublethink
is unacceptable to the American people, who work hard every day to
provide for their families only to have Washington throw away their
money, unsupervised, on pork projects.
There was a positive and honest and principled alternative to this
spending injustice. Republicans offered an alternative eliminating
these earmarks and targeting funds for military housing and drug
enforcement. Our friends on the other side of the aisle chose to ignore
it and throw money at their pet earmark projects.
For 12 years our colleagues on the other side blamed Republicans for
every ill under the sun, and now that it is their time to govern, they
hide behind bumper sticker and press release politics. Never before has
such an enormous amount of taxpayer money been spent so quickly, over
$400 billion in one hour.
If our friends on the other side of the aisle truly desired to clean
up earmarks and bring greater transparency to our spending, why would
they then make this their first act? Their actions simply don't match
their rhetoric. The American people expect more than a wink and a nod
that they have gotten so far from this Democrat majority. Democrat
doublethink does a disservice to our Nation.
In George Orwell's 1984 Doublethink Newspeak, he said that the lie
always was one step ahead of the truth; but the American people are
catching up, Mr. Speaker. Just saying something doesn't make it so.
____________________
IT'S TIME FOR A NEW DIRECTION IN IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 4, 2007, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor with some
observations about Iraq, but I must comment on the presentation I just
heard from my friend from Georgia.
You know, Mr. Speaker, independent observers agree that Democrats
have moved quickly and aggressively to implement what we said we were
going to do in the first 100 hours. I find it disingenuous that our
friend was talking
[[Page 3139]]
about somehow the Democrats not dealing with its commitment on
earmarks, and mentioning the rain forest in Iowa. Mr. Speaker, again,
independent observers agree that Mr. Obey and Mr. Byrd did bring
forward a clean continuing resolution that didn't have any new
earmarks. It killed the earmarks that had been set aside in the failed
budget of the Republicans in the last session of Congress.
What my friend is talking about, the rain forest in Iowa, was an
earmark from several years ago, a Republican earmark, I might say, from
several years ago. And now he is suggesting that as we have moved
forward to clean up the budget mess left by the Republicans, failing to
meet their commitments to produce budgets in a timely fashion, that we
didn't go back and surgically remove earmarks that they had scattered
throughout the budget for years. Well, I'm sorry. With all due respect
to George Orwell and my friend from Georgia, I think that is
doublespeak. We did what we said we were going to do. The CR has come
forward without earmarks, and we have put in place a much more
transparent process so people will know who is doing what on whose
behalf.
But, Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor today to make a few comments
about the situation in Iraq. There is much ado in the other body to
work to catch up with the reality on the ground in Iraq and where the
American public is. This is not the time just to oppose escalation of
more troops in Iraq. We find that the 21,000 that the President
referred to is actually going to mean 50 additional thousand when you
put all the support in. It is time for Congress to deal in a
comprehensive fashion with what we need to do to make the best of this
tragically mismanaged situation, a war of choice that we didn't have to
do, sadly mismanaged by the administration. It is time for Congress to
rediscover our war powers with Iraq, and even more important, the saber
rattling that is directed now towards Iran. It is time for us to
rediscover the power of the purse, not provide an open-ended bank
account, but tighten down the resources that are provided by Congress
to the administration, and to rediscover oversight where there are
daily reminders in every major newspaper of where Congress in the last
few years has frankly been missing in action.
To be able to advance those goals in a comprehensive fashion, I have
introduced new directions for Iraq. It sets forth goals for United
States policy, supporting the Iraqi people, preventing greater
violence, reestablish our international credibility and military
readiness, and focusing on real national security threats. It calls not
for escalation, but prohibiting the escalation without specific
congressional approval, and for the redeployment of troops from Iraq to
be completed in approximately 1 year.
It calls for the United States to forswear the establishment of
permanent bases in Iraq, as well as U.S. control over Iraq's oil
infrastructure and economic policies. It redirects United States
reconstruction funding from large foreign contractors to Iraqi-owned
businesses to help create jobs in Iraq. It instructs the President to
nullify contracts where any company has not fulfilled an Iraq
reconstruction contract, and to recover lost funds.
We ought not to just stop the fraud in terms of the contracting, but
we ought to aggressively punish war profiteering, encouraging Congress
to investigate and the Attorney General to aggressively prosecute
profiteering and fraud.
It requires a regional diplomatic initiative because ultimately it is
going to require diplomacy on the part of the United States and all of
the surrounding countries to be able to turn this around.
I strongly urge my colleagues to look at the New Direction For Iraq
Act of 2007 as a comprehensive way to change the situation in Iraq.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 43 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess until noon.
____________________
{time} 1200
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order at noon.
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
Creator of the stars in the heavens and all upon Earth, the winter
sun You let shine upon our Nation is a great gift for which we give You
thanks.
In the midst of cold winds and uncertain and sometimes disastrous
weather patterns, the consistent warm rays of light fall upon the good
and the bad, the believers and unbelievers alike. Gradually, the days
are already growing longer but like the movement of Your grace often
unnoticed.
Lord, You are ever-present, especially to those most in need. Show
Your mercy to the most vulnerable, the children, the poor, the elderly,
the homeless. We commend them to You now and forever.
Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's
proceedings and announces to the House her approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) come forward
and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon 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.
____________________
PRESIDENT BUSH UNDERESTIMATES NUMBER OF TROOPS AND AMOUNT OF MONEY
NEEDED FOR TROOP ESCALATION PLAN
(Mr. WALZ of Minnesota asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, last week, the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office released a report saying that President
Bush is understating the number of troops and the amount of money
needed to move forward with his troop escalation plan.
While the President claims he plans to send 21,500 troops to Iraq,
the Congressional Budget Office says the number will be as high as
48,000. As any soldier like myself knows, that to put a combat unit on
the ground you need substantial support forces, including personnel to
staff headquarters, serve as military police, provide communications,
provide mess facilities, engineering and other services.
The Congressional Budget Office also said that the President has
seriously underestimated the cost of troop escalation. While President
Bush claims it should not cost any more than $5.6 billion, the
Congressional Budget Office says a 4-month deployment will cost between
$9 and $13 billion, 12 months between $20 and $27 billion. This is a
400 percent underestimate.
Madam Speaker, this is a serious report that cannot and will not be
ignored. President Bush cannot expect Members of Congress to support
his troop escalation plan when he is not telling us the whole story on
the number of troops and the funds involved to make it happen.
____________________
CONGRESSIONAL INACTION JEOPARDIZES HOOD RIVER COUNTY SEARCH AND RESCUE
(Mr. WALDEN of Oregon asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, the failure of Congress to
reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act
[[Page 3140]]
amounts to a breach of faith to the almost 600 forested counties across
America and 4,400 school districts.
Hood River County, Oregon, is my home and hosts two of Oregon's
icons: Mount Hood and the powerful Columbia River, both attractions for
outdoor recreation and the dangers that come with it. Surely you
remember the December search for the mountain climbers lost on Mount
Hood? This event unfolded just miles from my home.
The county paid for this rescue and recovery effort entirely with
county payment funds. This included the airplanes, snowcats and
equipment for volunteers, radios and medical supplies.
County Sheriff Joe Vampler says, ``We will do search and rescue on
Federal lands and waterways no matter what but the Nation must share
this cost.''
County payments also fund many other vital services like the County
Health Department's vaccination program for children.
County Commission Chair Ron Rivers says, ``The loss of these funds
will have a significant impact on all services, including those
provided to protect our most vulnerable citizens.''
Congress must keep the Federal Government's word to timbered
communities and pass H.R. 17. Time is running out.
____________________
CREATION OF A U.S. DEPARTMENT OF PEACE
(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to
express my strong support for H.R. 808, as it would create a U.S.
Department of Peace.
The importance of peace in the world today is often overlooked due to
the severity of constant conflict, but, as a mother and lawmaker, the
reality of war concerns me for the future of our Nation and this
planet. The promotion of peace, not violence, should be number one on
our agenda.
For years, I have worked to raise awareness in the women within our
society, and around the world, so that they can spread the word of
peace and build a culture of peace in this world.
Women in themselves are a powerful entity, and I believe by working
together we as a society can stop the escalation of violence. We can
prevail by joining together and building a U.S. Department of Peace.
War is not the way, but peace is.
I am proud to support this resolution, creating a U.S. Department of
Peace and urge my colleagues' support.
____________________
SUPPORT REPUBLICAN SENATORS
(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in disbelief at the actions of
the Democratic Senators' resolutions against the United States efforts
in Iraq. These very same Senators voted unanimously to confirm General
David Petraeus. It is unbelievably hypocritical to undermine the
efforts of the very man they confirmed, along with all the brave men
and women who serve with him.
The actions of these Senators will simply encourage the terrorists
and undermine the U.S. efforts to succeed in Iraq and the war on
terror. Republicans want to debate this issue, yet the Democrats only
want to pass a resolution. It is time to take a real stand on the
issue. If the Democrats want to end the war, then they should stand up
and call for it.
The hypocritical actions of the Democrats are wrong. They have
offered no plan for success in Iraq and are interfering with the
President's powers to execute a war that the Congress has already
approved. Democrats must realize there is only one commander-in-chief,
and it is his job and responsibility to manage the war as he sees fit.
Mr. Speaker, I support my Republican colleagues in the Senate who
want a real debate on this issue and victory in the central front on
the global war on terror.
____________________
NEED TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
(Mr. ELLISON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, soldiers don't choose to go to war.
Soldiers do not allocate funds for which they use to fight the war.
Soldiers may face danger, soldiers may risk their lives and sometimes
lose their lives, but the least a Nation can do that sends a young
person into harm's way is to fully support, fully equip and fully allow
that young person to be successful to protect their own lives.
And yet this administration has not done that. We failed in the early
part of this war to provide Kevlar. This administration has failed to
provide Humvees that were fully armored for our young people, and now
what we see is tens of billions in backlog on maintenance so that the
equipment that young people are relying on to protect their lives and
to fully do their duty is unavailable.
This is wrong, and we must call attention to this wrong, and we must
do something about it now.
____________________
NO END BUT VICTORY
(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as debate continues
surrounding President Bush's new way forward in Iraq, I hope all sides
are heard.
I am a 31-year veteran of the South Carolina Army National Guard. I
have four sons serving in the military, the eldest of whom served for a
year in Iraq. I sit on the Armed Services Committee, and I have visited
Iraq six times and Afghanistan twice. I am committed to my family and
our Nation's survival and prosperity, all of which will be threatened
should we not triumph in the global war on terrorism.
As elected public officials, Members of Congress have an obligation
to debate war strategy and exercise congressional oversight. If by
conscience they disagree with the President's direction, they have a
responsibility to put forth an alternative plan.
Political posturing in the form of nonbinding resolutions, however,
brings nothing to the debate regarding the protection of American
families.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September 11.
____________________
HONORING THE MEMORY OF POLICE OFFICER SHAWN JOSHUA DEAN WILLIAMS
(Mr. SHULER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. SHULER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the memory of
Police Officer Shawn Joshua Dean Williams. Officer Williams died while
responding to a fellow officer's call for assistance last Thursday
night in Old Fort, North Carolina. He was only 23 years old.
I offer my condolences to his wife, Shannon Kirby Williams; his young
daughter, Rye-Lee Alexis; his parents, Max Suttles and mother Holly
Williams; and all of his family and friends.
I also want to extend my thoughts and prayers to his fellow Old Fort
police officers and the entire law enforcement community in McDowell
County.
Mr. Speaker, Officer Williams' life was an example of service for all
of us to follow.
I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing remorse at all the
passings and the dedication of all law enforcement officers and
gratitude to all those who protect and serve our communities every day.
____________________
ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS' GRAFFITI
(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, a week ago, the anti-war rally in Washington
made headlines across America. Lost in most of the coverage, however,
was the complete lack of basic decency displayed by some of these
protesters. The anti-war protesters defaced our Capitol by
[[Page 3141]]
spray-painting graffiti on the Capitol's west terrace.
Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how nonpeaceful these so-
called peace protesters can be. There is no question that Americans
have a constitutional right to peaceably assemble, but when you
brazenly deface cherished public property, you are no longer assembling
peacefully. You are committing a crime.
Mr. Speaker, we can have a thoughtful public debate on our policies
overseas, but we must remember this. Our freedom was not earned by
protesters with poster paint. It was earned by the thousands of brave
men and women who courageously stand up to fight for it, many of whom
paid with their lives.
____________________
{time} 1215
DEPARTMENT OF PEACE BILL INTRODUCTION
(Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is time to make a real commitment to the
peace that we want to see in the world. That is exactly what H.R. 808,
introduced by Congressman Kucinich, with 52 cosponsors, would do by
creating the Department of Peace.
We are now spending $8 billion each month on the occupation of Iraq.
Imagine if a small portion of that money was invested, instead, in
conflict resolution, diplomacy, weapons reduction, and human rights. As
the drum beats of war against Iran are now heard, imagine if the debate
included not only the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, but
a Secretary of Peace. Guaranteed the military option would be taken off
the table and our world would not be led again into another useless,
senseless war.
Imagine if we were to direct a small portion of the $583 billion
Pentagon budget to promoting nonviolence here at home by investing in
efforts to stop domestic violence, gun violence, child abuse, gang
violence, violence in schools, hate crimes, racial violence, religious
intolerance and the mistreatment of the elderly.
Dr. King said that peace is not just the absence of tension; it is
the presence of justice. This isn't something we should just hope for,
but we must work for it.
____________________
RUSSIAN BORDER CONTROL
(Mr. POE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, a government spokesman has said ``people from
poor countries are taking jobs and giving nothing back to the
country.'' But the government spokesman was not from the United States,
but Russia.
Under a new Russian crackdown on illegal immigration, illegals are
being ordered out of the country and employers who hire them are being
prosecuted. Russia is also securing its visa program against fraud. All
of these actions are working. The illegals are leaving the country by
the thousands. No massive deportation is needed. No amnesty or path to
citizenship.
Similar to the United States, millions of illegals are crossing
Russian borders. They take government resources from legal citizens.
The Russian Government, however, unlike the U.S. Government, isn't
giving in to those who want cheap plantation labor. The Russian
Government doesn't care if illegals or businesses don't like the new
rules.
Russia is enforcing border security by prosecuting illegals and those
that hire them. The U.S. Government could learn something from Russia.
Prosecute businesses that knowingly hire illegals, and illegals will
leave. Russia has proven it. But does America have the moral will to do
the same? We shall see.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE
(Mr. HARE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that the situation on the
ground in Iraq is grave and rapidly deteriorating and therefore
deserves the immediate and undivided attention of this Congress.
Last week, the National Intelligence Estimate released a pessimistic
outlook on the future of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The NIE offers no
hope that under the likeliest of scenarios the level of violence in
Iraq will be significantly reduced between the next 12 to 18 months.
Additionally, the Iraq Study Group has identified the increase of
sectarian violence in Iraq as a principal challenge to stability in the
Middle East. In light of the current situation, a military approach is
no longer a viable solution to stabilizing Iraq. Our success in Iraq is
dependent upon a forward change in direction, which involves input of
Iraq's neighbors and the entire international community.
Through political and diplomatic engagement we have a serious chance
of reducing sectarian tensions, bringing our troops home, and
ultimately declaring victory in Iraq. I urge my colleagues in both
Houses to put aside partisan differences and honestly debate our
strategy in Iraq.
____________________
THE CONSTITUTION AND WAR
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. The father of our Constitution, James Madison, wrote,
``The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the legislature
the power of declaring a state of war. The separation of the power
declaring war from conducting it is wisely contrived to exclude the
danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.''
As we begin the process of hearing resolutions down the hall of this
Capitol in the United States Senate, nonbinding resolutions over the
way and the manner in which we would conduct our war, we would do well
to reflect on the wisdom of our Founders, who separated the article I
powers of this body from the article II powers of our Commander in
Chief.
Let us remember, as Franklin Roosevelt said, ``Hostilities exist,
there is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our
interests are in grave danger.'' Let this grave danger color our
debates. Provide the oversight that is our purview, but we have but one
Commander in Chief, and let him lead us to victory in Iraq.
____________________
CELEBRATING TONY DUNGY, THE FIRST AFRICAN AMERICAN COACH TO WIN A SUPER
BOWL
(Ms. CASTOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my district in the
Tampa Bay area to herald the terrific achievement of our hometown hero,
Tony Dungy. While Coach Dungy is the first African American coach to
win a Super Bowl title, he is also a living testimony to faithful
leadership.
Since Coach Dungy's 11-year path to the Super Bowl title came through
my hometown of Tampa, I think it is fair to say that everyone in the
Tampa Bay area feels attached to his win, and we are proud to claim him
as a resident. My friends and neighbors back home remember Coach Dungy
as the former coach of the Buccaneers, who in that capacity brought a
winning spirit and gracious leadership to that team and our community.
We watched with pride Sunday when this man showed that nice guys can
finish first. His team came from eight points behind, withstood the
weather and won the game. Coach Dungy, as the first African American
coach to win a Super Bowl, provides the perfect start to the month-long
celebration of Black History Month. His victory follows the march of
other men and women who have stood up for justice and opened doors for
others.
Congratulations to him and all that understand that perseverance and
teamwork is the best answer to life's obstacles.
[[Page 3142]]
____________________
HONORING DR. DARRELL JOHNSON, SUPERINTENDENT OF GREENWOOD SCHOOLS
(Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Darrell Johnson, the
superintendent of Greenwood School District 50 for South Carolina, was
quoted saying: ``I pledge to do the best I can and work together as a
team.''
I would like to honor Dr. Johnson during February's Black History
Month as a very notable and distinguished African American who has
heavily impacted the Third Congressional District of South Carolina.
Dr. Johnson's extensive background and his many leadership positions as
a teacher, coach and administrator has laid the groundwork for him
being named to the position of district superintendent.
Since 1991, Dr. Johnson worked for Rock Hill School District Three,
beginning as assistant principal at the Rock Hill High School. After
serving as assistant principal and principal for Sunset Park Elementary
School, he moved to the district office in 1998 as director of student
services. In 2001, he was named assistant superintendent.
His dedication to making a difference in education propelled him to
earn his superintendent position, and rightfully so. I congratulate
Darrell Johnson for being able to excel in this capacity where he may
apply his natural ability to lead those who are most important to our
future, our students.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
(Mr. MURPHY Connecticut asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to health care,
I agree with the President in one respect, it is time to start
redistributing resources within our health care system. The problem
comes when we talk about where we bring those resources from.
The President's plan that he put before us in his State of the Union
speech and in his budget presented to this House yesterday would take
resources from families who have good insurance and give it to families
who have no insurance.
I would propose instead, and many of my colleagues on this side of
the aisle would propose instead, that we take resources from the HMOs
that have enjoyed massive profits off our Medicare systems, to take
money from the drug companies who have enjoyed the pleasure of not
having to negotiate with the bulk purchasing power of the Federal
Government, and redistribute resources from those that are making
millions of dollars of profit off this system and put those resources
into the hands of those who have nothing.
We can agree on some things. We can agree that this health care
system has to be made better. It is just a matter of where we take and
who we give it to.
____________________
GO RED FOR WOMEN DAY AND THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION
(Mrs. CAPITO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize February as
National Heart Month. Heart disease is the number one killer of women
in America, taking the lives of nearly half a million women a year.
That is one per minute.
It claims the lives of more women than the next five causes of death.
In my home State of West Virginia, heart disease kills 12 women per
day. That is 31 percent of all female deaths between the years of 1999
to 2003.
On February 2, people from across the Nation participated in Go Red
for Women Day to support the fight against heart disease. Go Red for
Women is the American Heart Association's nationwide movement that
celebrates the energy, passion and power we have as women to band
together and fight this disease.
Too few people realize the threat associated with heart disease. The
good news is that heart disease can largely be prevented. By learning
all of the serious health threats such as high blood pressure, high
cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, we can work to reduce our risks.
Go Red for Women is an innovative way to raise awareness of heart
disease, and 64 percent of women who died of coronary heart disease had
no symptoms. We have to take action for our hearts. By joining together
across America, we can help support ongoing research and education
about women and heart disease. When we wear our red, it reminds us of
our responsibility.
I urge my colleagues to join together in celebrating National Heart
Health Month.
____________________
WASTEFUL SPENDING IN IRAQ
(Mr. GRIJALVA asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, as the President gets ready to ask this
Congress for an additional $145 billion to fund his efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan, a new report has come out showing tens of millions of
dollars in wasteful spending by our government in Iraq.
Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction,
released his quarterly report last week. It concluded that the $300
billion U.S. war and reconstruction effort is plagued with waste,
spiraling violence, and corruption. Among the worst misuses are $43.8
million for a residential training camp that stands empty, about $4.2
million for 20 VIP trailers and an Olympic-sized pool that was ordered
by the Iraqi ministry of interior.
Perhaps the most disconcerting, however, is that our government spent
$36.4 million for armored vehicles, body armor and communications
equipment that could greatly benefit our troops, but it is completely
unaccounted for. Mr. Speaker, this abusive spending in Iraq must stop
for the American taxpayer and for the troops.
____________________
LENAWEE COUNTY, ONE OF THE 100 BEST COMMUNITIES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
(Mr. WALBERG asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today to draw
attention to an honor recently received by my home community back in
Lenawee County, Michigan. America's Promise--The Alliance for Youth, a
foundation formed in 1997 to help children and youth from all
socioeconomic sectors in the United States, recently named Lenawee
County one of the 100 best communities for young people as part of its
10-year anniversary celebration.
The criteria for winning included strong community support of
children and youth, possessing valuable resources for children and
youth, youth and child outcomes, overall progress within communities,
and innovations in the areas of policy, practice, and resources.
Communities in 38 States received this award and Lenawee County is
one of the five communities in the Great Lakes State to be named a
winner. This recognition is a tribute to all of the police officers,
local officials, firefighters, outstanding teachers, community leaders
and civil servants that make Lenawee County and south-central Michigan
a great place to live.
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, yesterday a bill was introduced into the
House of Representatives that gives the promise of transforming our
country and the world. H.R. 808 creates a Department of Peace and
Nonviolence. It is now supported by 52 Members of the House of
Representatives, and it is supported by groups who yesterday came to
Washington representing 45 States. Last night, nearly 1,000 people
[[Page 3143]]
came to the George Washington University campus to hear about the
Department of Peace and the hope that it brings for America.
Mr. Speaker, if you were to look at this clerk's desk, just around
the corner you will see engraved right into the desk of the clerk of
the House of Representatives the word ``peace.'' Peace is a
foundational principle of this Congress and of this country, and the
bill gives it a chance to have an animating power in our civic life by
addressing the issues of domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse,
violence in the schools, racial violence, all of those concerns we have
both domestically and internationally.
Peace.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Baird). The Chair will remind all
persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House, and
that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of the proceedings or
other audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
____________________
CONTINUE FUNDING OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ
(Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in the other body yesterday, under the
leadership of Senator Reid, the gentleman from New Hampshire, Senator
Gregg, had a resolution supporting the funding of our troops, and the
Senate leadership prevented that resolution from being brought to the
floor under regular order because they wanted first to bring a
resolution condemning the President.
Now the Speaker of the House has announced that next week we will
have a resolution brought to the floor of this body condemning the
President's plan for a new way forward in Iraq.
I challenge the Speaker and the Democratic leadership, if that
resolution is on this floor, to bring forward also the resolution of a
true war hero, Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, supporting the
continued funding of the troops in Iraq.
We have heard Members on the other side of the aisle continue to say
we can and will, if necessary, cut off funding. This will give them an
opportunity to put their money where their mouth is.
____________________
SUPPORT AND FULLY FUND OUR TROOPS
(Mrs. BLACKBURN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, we do know that the war in Iraq will
come up for debate in this body, as it should. But the debate on this
floor should not be about partisan politics. It should be about doing
what is in the best interests of our troops, making certain that we win
in this global war on terror, and how we are going to keep this Nation
and our communities and our cities safe.
I recently read a quote from Specialist Tyler Johnson. He is serving
his first tour of duty in Iraq. When asked about the criticism back
home, he said that passing no-confidence resolutions does send a
message to our troops overseas: ``You may support or say we support the
troops, but you're not supporting what they do, what they're here
sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It all just doesn't
make sense to me.''
Mr. Speaker, I agree with Tyler and our troops. Passing no-confidence
resolutions does send a message, and it is not a message of courage, of
confidence and strength.
I agree, let's support Sam Johnson's House Resolution 511. Stand with
and fully fund our troops.
____________________
{time} 1230
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Baird). 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 later today.
____________________
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND JAPANESE AMERICAN MONUMENT ACT OF 2007
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 161) to adjust the boundary of the Minidoka Internment
National Monument to include the Nidoto Nai Yoni Memorial in Bainbridge
Island, Washington, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 161
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 ``Bainbridge Island Japanese
American Monument Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.
(a) In General.--The boundary of the Minidoka Internment
National Monument, located in the State of Idaho and
established by Presidential Proclamation 7395 of January 17,
2001, is adjusted to include the Nidoto Nai Yoni (``Let it
not happen again'') memorial. That memorial--
(1) commemorates the Japanese Americans of Bainbridge
Island, Washington, who were the first to be forcibly removed
from their homes and relocated to internment camps during
World War II under Executive Order 9066: and
(2) consists of approximately 8 acres of land owned by the
City of Bainbridge Island, Washington, as depicted on the map
titled ``Bainbridge Island Japanese American Memorial'',
numbered 194/80,003, and dated September, 2006.
(b) Map.--The map referred to in subsection (a) shall be
kept on file and made available for public inspection in the
appropriate offices of the National Parks Service.
SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATION OF MONUMENT.
(a) Administration.--The Secretary of the Interior
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the
``Secretary'') shall administer the Nidoto Nai Yoni Memorial
as part of Minidoka Internment National Monument in
accordance with--
(1) Presidential Proclamation 7395 of January 17, 2001;
(2) laws and regulations generally applicable to units of
the National Park System, including the Act of August 25,
1916 (popularly known as the ``National Park Service Organic
Act,''; 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq); and
(3) any agreements entered into pursuant to subsection (b).
(b) Agreements.--
(1) For the purposes of defining the role of the National
Park Service in administering the Nidoto Nai Yoni Memorial
owned by the City of Bainbridge Island, the Secretary is
authorized to enter into agreements with--
(A) the City of Bainbridge Island;
(B) the Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Park and
Recreational District;
(C) the Bainbridge Island Japanese American Community
Memorial Committee;
(D) the Bainbridge Island Historical Society;
(E) successor entities to the entities named in
subparagraphs (A) through (D); and
(F) other appropriate individuals or entities, at the
discretion of the Secretary.
(2) In order to implement an agreement provided for in
paragraph (1), the Secretary may--
(A) make grants to the City of Bainbridge Island for
development of an administrative and interpretive facility
for the Nidoto Nai Yoni Memorial;
(B) enter into a cooperative management agreement with the
City of Bainbridge Island, pursuant to section 3(l) of Public
Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-2(l); popularly known as the
``National Park System General Authorities Act''), for the
purpose of providing assistance with operation and
maintenance of the memorial;
(C) make grants to other non-Federal entities for other
infrastructure projects at the memorial, subject to a match
of non-Federal funding equal to the amount of a grant made
pursuant to this paragraph; and
(D) make grants or enter into cooperative agreements with
non-Federal entities to support development of interpretive
media for the memorial.
(c) Administrative and Visitor Use Site.--The Secretary is
authorized to operate and maintain a site in Seattle,
Washington, for administrative and visitor use purposes
associated with Minidoka Internment National Monument, using
to the greatest extent practicable the facilities and other
services of the Seattle unit of the Klondike Gold Rush
National Historical Park.
(d) Coordination of Interpretive and Educational Materials
and Programs.--
[[Page 3144]]
The Secretary shall coordinate the development of
interpretive and educational materials and programs for the
Nidoto Nai Yoni Memorial and the Minidoka Internment National
Monument site in the State of Idaho with the Manzanar
National Historic Site in the State of California.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs.
McMorris Rodgers) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
General Leave
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and exclude
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 161,
introduced by my colleague on the Natural Resources Committee, the
gentleman from Washington State, Representative Inslee.
This noteworthy legislation would authorize a memorial to commemorate
the Japanese Americans of Bainbridge Island, Washington, who were the
first Americans to be forcibly removed from their homes and relocated
in internment camps during World War II.
The new memorial will serve as an important remembrance of a sad
chapter in American history. Shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order
providing for the relocation of Japanese Americans living along the
west coast.
On March 30, 1942, the relocation began at the Eagledale Ferry Dock,
with 227 Bainbridge Island residents being forcibly removed to
internment camps away from the coast. Eventually, more than 12,000
Japanese Americans in Washington State and more than 110,000 Japanese
Americans along the west coast were relocated.
Public Law 107-363 directed the Secretary of the Interior to study
the Eagledale Ferry Dock on Bainbridge Island, Washington, to determine
the suitability of designing the site as a unit of the National Parks
System. The study was to include an analysis of the historical events
associated with the dock and the potential for preserving and
interpreting the site.
On May 1, 2006, the Department of Interior transmitted to Congress
the study report. The study recommended designating a memorial site on
Bainbridge Island, and that memorial will be managed as a satellite
site of the Minidoka Internment National Monument, an existing National
Park System unit in Idaho. H.R. 161 would implement the recommendations
contained in the study.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend and congratulate my colleague, Mr.
Inslee, for his commitment and leadership in this matter. A hearing was
held on a nearly identical measure last Congress, and Representative
Inslee arranged for the Subcommittee on National Parks to receive
moving testimony from an internee whose photograph showing her holding
her infant child has become a searing image of the internment.
I would also note that for most of us the internment of Japanese
Americans was a historical event that we read about in history books,
but for two of our colleagues it was part of their life experience. My
colleagues, Mike Honda and Doris Matsui, spent part of their childhoods
in internment camps. I want to acknowledge their experiences in this
unfortunate episode in history.
Mr. Speaker, we strongly support passage of H.R. 161 and urge its
adoption by the House today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 161 and
yield myself as much time as I may consume.
This legislation further recognizes a tragic period in our Nation's
history by designating the ``let it not happen again'' Memorial on
Bainbridge Island, Washington, as part of the Minidoka Internment
National Monument in the State of Idaho.
While a hearing was held on this legislation in the 109th Congress,
we are concerned that this bill has not gone through the markup
process, where issues in this bill, such as its inclusion of 8 acres of
land in the State of Washington in a monument over 700 miles away,
could have been discussed.
Additionally, it is critical to point out that the National Park
Service testified that this bill could divert scarce resources that are
needed for existing parks and programs.
That being said, we will not oppose the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Congressman Jay
Inslee of Washington for bringing forth H.R. 161 and yield to him as
much time as he may consume.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, today, when we pass the Bainbridge Island
Japanese American Monument Act of 2007, we will be making a strong
American statement. That statement will be that the power of fear will
never again be allowed to overcome the promise of liberty. These are
images we should never see again in America; and today, with the
passage of this bill, we will make a strong American statement that
they will not.
On March 30, 1942, the American Army, pursuant to an executive order
by an American President, rounded up 227 Americans living on Bainbridge
Island and marched them down the Eagledale Dock in Eagle Harbor of
Bainbridge Island, Washington, surrounded by American soldiers, some
having bayonets deployed. They were taken away to internment against
their will, without trial and without recognition of their rights as
citizens and their honor to serve America.
And now, today, when we are making the memorial on Bainbridge Island
at the site of this dock, which is now being prepared and is under
construction, we will be making an American statement that this cannot
happen again.
The saying is ``Nidoto Nai Yoni, never let it happen again,'' and by
making this part of our National Parks System, we will be making a
statement that these images will never happen to any generation of any
creed in America.
I want to note some of the people. This is a picture of a young
fellow at that time named Frank Kinamoto. In this picture, Frank had
his little tag. Everyone was given a little tag they had to wear with a
number on it. Frank grew up to be a respected dentist on Bainbridge
Island, and Frank has done personally what this legislation will do
nationally. He has spent many years going around showing a collection
of photographs telling young students why the protection of our civil
liberties is critical and why we should never be overcome by fear
again, and I pay respects to Frank and his efforts.
Another young woman at the time, who testified several months ago,
who has been pivotal in this effort, Fumiko Hayashida, shown with her
daughter here just before she was marched down that pier. Fumiko came
to town, who is 95 years young, who is the oldest internee that we are
aware of, to send Congress a message to make a national statement to
memorialize this.
Now, there are three reasons I think it is important that we pass
this bill.
First, although this was a tragic episode in American history, it was
an episode involving patriotism because, and this is incredible to me,
of the 227 people marched down that pier, 62 of them turned around and
volunteered to serve their nation in World War II, and 62 of these
people served with distinction. These people were the ultimate
patriots. Having been sent to camps by Uncle Sam, to turn around and
fight for the freedoms to which they were not entitled was the ultimate
act of patriotism, and we honor them as an act of patriotism in this
memorial.
Second, it is a memorialization of their neighbors. Many of their
neighbors rallied around them. Many of their neighbors guarded some of
their equipment to wait for them to come home. And Walt Widward, the
publisher of the Bainbridge Island Review,
[[Page 3145]]
was the only publisher on the western coast of the United States to
editorialize against this violation of American values. That is
something to memorialize.
But, most importantly, Nidoto Nai Yoni, never let it happen again.
And this will be a statement to ourselves, to our children, to our
grandchildren, that, when we are in fear in this country, we should
never lose that anchor of American civil rights and civil liberties in
respect to what we are as Americans.
We have gone through these days in the last several years. We have
experienced fear that sometimes has infected the discussion here in the
Chamber; and when we go through and deal with our fears today, I think
it is well that we take a lesson from history of 1942 to hew to the
power of liberty, rather than the power of fear.
So I am happy today that we will pass this bill that will make this
part of our National Parks System. I will invite all Americans to come
visit us in Bainbridge Island. We will invite the world to come see
that America is a country that makes mistakes but learns and improves.
And this is a continuation of that American tradition of improving the
American value system. So I am happy today this House will take this
step.
I want to thank the Bainbridge Island community and all of those who
worked on this project. Clarence Moriwaki, who has led the effort on
Bainbridge Island, congratulations. And congratulations to America for
always being an improving country.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to yield 6
minutes to my good friend and colleague from Oregon, Congressman Wu.
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 161, to expand the
Minidoka Internment National Monument to include the Nidoto Nai Yoni
Memorial, which commemorates the Japanese Americans of Bainbridge
Island, the Japanese Americans of Bainbridge Island, Washington, who
were interned during World War II.
On February 19, 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt signed an
executive order which forcibly removed approximately 120,000 Americans
of Japanese ancestry from their homes, their friends, and their
communities. They were incarcerated by this government for their
ancestry. Just over 1 month after the executive order was signed, 227
Bainbridge island men, women, and children were sent to internment
camps. They were the very first Japanese American families in the
United States to be incarcerated.
We in the Pacific Northwest would like to think that we live in a
better part of the country, in a part of the country where things are
the way they ought to be. But sometimes the way we want things to be is
not the way things happen or reality. Because these Japanese Americans
were taken from their homes in the heart of the Puget Sound. They were
sailed to Seattle. They were loaded onto trains for a 3-day journey to
Manzanar, a concentration camp in California's Mojave Desert. These
Americans were the very first Americans to be so detained, and the last
of the detainees were not released until October of 1946, 4\1/2\ years
after the signing of the executive order and over a year after the end
of World War II.
But this chapter of our history did not end there. Upon release from
the internment camps, Japanese Americans could not return to the lives
that they had led before the tragic and misled executive order. I would
like to submit further information about General DeWitt's decisions and
recommendations, and I will do that at a different time, but during the
period of internment, they had lost their homes, their businesses, and
their livelihoods.
By commemorating Japanese Americans who were so detained, we ensure
that this sad episode in our history will never be forgotten and
hopefully not repeated, because we need to learn from the mistakes of
the past.
Thirty years passed before the executive order was formally rescinded
in 1976. In 1988, a Presidential apology was issued internees.
This is not an abstraction. This is not a theoretical debate. The
Military Commissions Act passed by this Congress on September 30, 2006,
potentially puts American citizens at risk of military detention. That
is a plain reading of the Military Commissions Act. It was hotly
debated between the then chairmen of two committees and this Member. It
has been commented upon to a limited extent in the national press.
But I think that a fair reading of the Military Commissions Act would
show you that if a person is just walking down the street and is
detained by military authority for whatever reason, and we are not
talking about aliens in Afghanistan, we are talking about someone
walking down the streets of Portland, Oregon, or in Bainbridge Island.
What could potentially happen to that person?
The better course under the Military Commissions Act is that they are
subject to military justice, a very limited review by a military
tribunal, and the end of that appeal road is the Secretary of Defense.
That is actually the better course.
Now, I have to point out that there are 25 detainees in Guantanamo
who, after 5 years of detention, have not had their first review yet;
and I say that is the better course because the course that is actually
more troubling under the Military Commissions Act is that if there is
not a review, there is no appeal. There is no appeal to a civilian
court. There is no habeas corpus, a doctrine which has served Anglo
American societies well for almost a thousand years.
This memorial, which H.R. 161 helps us remember, is not an
abstraction. It was real suffering for the Japanese Americans, for the
Americans who were incarcerated. But it is also a reminder that, as was
said of the executive order much later, when actions are taken by this
government in an atmosphere of hysteria, great injustices can be
perpetrated; and we need to be careful in our era lest we be put in a
position to issue an apology decades from now.
Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii passed under
martial law, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended, and the
military police took several hundred suspected spies and
saboteurs of Japanese extraction into custody. But the very
size of the Japanese community in Hawaii (nearly half the
territory's population), and its vital importance to the
islands' economy, foreclosed any thought of wholesale
evacuation. The mainland community, however, was
proportionately much smaller (in California, barely 1 percent
of the population), more economically marginal and socially
isolated, and long buffeted by racist pressures. The mainland
Japanese for the most part kept warily to themselves, many of
them toiling with exemplary efficiency on their family fruit
and vegetable farms. Insular and quiescent, they were also
internally riven by age and legal status. Their elders, the
forty thousand first-generation immigrant Japanese, or Issei,
were generally over the age of fifty and debarred from
citizenship by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, a
statutory impediment that perversely exposed them to the
accusation that as non-citizens they were poorly assimilated
into American society. A majority of their children, the
eighty thousand second-generation Nisei, were under the age
of eighteen. Born in the United States, they were also
citizens. Alien and citizen alike, the peculiarly vulnerable
Pacific Coast Japanese community was about to feel the full
wrath of war-fueled hysteria.
Curiously, no clamor for wholesale reprisals against the
mainland Japanese arose in the immediate aftermath of the
Pearl Harbor attack. The Los Angeles Times soberly
editorialized on December 8 that most of the Japanese on the
Coast were ``good Americans, born and educated as such,'' and
serenely foresaw that there would be ``no riots, no mob
law.'' General John L. DeWitt, chief of the army's Western
Defense Command, at first dismissed loose talk of mass
evacuations as ``damned nonsense.'' He condemned any
broadside assaults on the rights of the American-born Nisei.
``An American citizen, after all, is an American citizen,''
he declared. Individual arrests were another matter.
Government surveillance, ongoing since 1935, had identified
some two thousand potentially subversive persons in the
Japanese community. Along with fourteen thousand German and
Italian security risks nationwide, they were quietly rounded
up in the last days of 1941. But those individual detentions
stopped well short of wholesale incarcerations. ``I was
determined,'' Attorney General Francis Biddle wrote, ``to
avoid mass internment, and the persecution of aliens that had
characterized the First World War.''
In fact, the immigrants whose loyalty had been questioned
during World War I had then
[[Page 3146]]
been freshly arrived and seemed to many observers unarguably
alien. But by 1941 those older European groups were settled
communities, well assimilated, their patriotism as well as
their political loyalty actively cultivated by Roosevelt's
New Deal. Though a surprising six hundred thousand Italians--
more than 10 percent of the entire Italian-American
community--remained Italian citizens and were automatically
labeled ``enemy aliens'' after Mussolini's declaration of
war, Roosevelt instructed Biddle to cancel that designation
in a joyfully received announcement at Carnegie Hall,
shrewdly delivered on Columbus Day 1942, just weeks before
the congressional elections.
The Japanese were not so fortunate. As war rumors took wing
in the weeks following Pearl Harbor, sobriety gave way to
anxiety, then to a rising cry for draconian action against
the Japanese on the West Coast. Inflammatory and invariably
false reports of Japanese attacks on the American mainland
flashed through coastal communities. Eleanor Roosevelt's
airplane, en route to Los Angeles on the evening of the Pearl
Harbor attack, was grounded in the Midwest while the first
lady telephoned Washington to check a radio message that San
Francisco was under bombardment. Painters at Stanford
University blacked out the skylight of the library's main
reading room so that it could not serve as a beacon to enemy
pilots. Carpenters hammered up dummy aircraft plants in Los
Angeles to decoy Japanese bombers away from the real
factories. Athletic officials moved the traditional New
Year's Day football classic from the Rose Bowl in Pasadena,
California; the game was played instead in North Carolina,
presumably safe from Japanese attack. Japan's astonishing
string of victories in the Pacific further unsettled American
public opinion. Hong Kong fell on December 2, Manila on
January 2, Singapore on January 25.
The release at the end of January of a government
investigation of the Pearl Harbor attack proved the decisive
blow. The report, prepared by Supreme Court Justice Owen J.
Roberts, alleged without documentation that Hawaii-based
espionage agents, including Japanese-American citizens, had
abetted Nagumo's strike force. Two days later, DeWitt
reported ``a tremendous volume of public opinion now
developing against the Japanese of all classes, that is
aliens and non-aliens.'' DeWitt himself, described by Biddle
as having a ``tendency to reflect the views of the last man
to whom he talked,'' soon succumbed to Rumor's siren. He
wildly declared to an incredulous Justice Department official
that every ship sailing out of the Columbia had been attacked
by submarines guided by clandestine radio operators near the
river's mouth. When evidence of actual attacks failed to
materialize, DeWitt invoked the tortured logic that the very
absence of any sabotage activity on the West Coast proved the
existence of an organized, disciplined conspiracy in the
Japanese community, cunningly withholding its blow until it
could be struck with lethal effect. In February the respected
columnist Walter Lippmann alleged that military authorities
had evidence of radio communications between ``the enemy at
sea and enemy agents on land''--a charge that FBI director J.
Edgar Hoover had already advised Biddle was utterly without
foundation. A radio technician from the Federal
Communications Commission reviewed DeWitt's ``evidence'' of
electronic signals and declared it hogwash. All 760 of
DeWitt's suspicious radio transmissions could be accounted
for, and not one involved espionage. ``Frankly,'' the
technician concluded, ``I have never seen an organization
[the U.S. Army's Western Defense Command] that was so
hopeless to cope with radio intelligence requirements. The
personnel is unskilled and untrained. Most are privates who
can read only ten words a minute. . . . It's pathetic to say
the least.''
But by this time facts were no protection against the
building gale of fear and prejudice. ``Nobody's
constitutional rights,'' Lippmann magisterially intoned,
``include the right to reside and do business on a
battlefield.'' Lippmann's colleague Westbrook Pegler echoed
him less elegantly a few days later: ``The Japanese in
California should be under armed guard to the last man and
woman right now,'' Pegler wrote in his widely read column,
``and to hell with habeas corpus until the danger is over.''
Unapologetically racist voices also joined the chorus.
``We're charged with wanting to get rid of the Japs for
selfish reasons,'' a leader of California's Grower-Shipper
Vegetable Association declared. ``We might as well be honest.
We do. It's a question of whether the white man lives on the
Pacific Coast or the brown man.'' Prodded by such sentiments,
in early February 1942 DeWitt officially requested authority
to remove all Japanese from the West Coast. It was impossible
he claimed, to distinguish the loyal from the disloyal in the
peculiarly alien and inscrutable Japanese community. The only
remedy was wholesale evacuation. The same man who had said a
month earlier, ``An American citizen, after all, is an
American citizen,'' now announced, ``A Jap's a Jap. . . . It
makes no difference whether he is an American citizen or not.
. . . I don't want any of them.''
At the Justice Department several officials, including
conspicuously Edward J. Ennis, director of the Alien Enemy
Control Unit, as well as Biddle's assistant James H. Rowe,
struggled to quell this irrationally mounting fury. Rowe
denounced Lippmann and Pegler as ``Armchair Strategists and
Junior G-Men'' whose reckless charges came ``close to
shouting FIRE! in the theater; and if race riots occur, these
writers will bear a heavy responsibility.'' Attorney General
Biddle informed Secretary of War Stimson ``that the
Department of Justice would not under any circumstances
evacuate American citizens.'' But at a fateful meeting in the
living room of the attorney general's Washington home on the
evening of February 17, the gentle and scholarly Biddle
buckled. Facing off against Assistant Secretary of War John
J. McCloy and two army officers, Ennis and Rowe argued
heatedly that DeWitt's request for evacuation orders should
be denied. Unknown to his two subordinates, however, Biddle,
new to the cabinet, unsure of his standing with Roosevelt,
and overawed by the Olympian figure of Stimson, had told the
secretary of war by telephone earlier in the day that he
would not oppose DeWitt's recommendation. When this became
clear, Rowe remembered, ``I was so mad that I could not
speak. . . . Ennis almost wept.'' Even Stimson had grave
misgivings. ``The second generation Japanese can only be
evacuated,'' he wrote in his diary, ``either as part of a
total evacuation, giving access to the areas only by permits,
or by frankly trying to put them out on the ground that their
racial characteristics are such that we cannot understand or
even trust the citizen Japanese. This latter is the fact but
I am afraid it will make a tremendous hole in our
constitutional system to apply it.'' Despite his own
reservations and the sputtering opposition of the Justice
Department officials, Stimson advised the president that
DeWitt should be authorized to proceed. The cabinet devoted
only a desultory discussion to the matter. On February 19
Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. It directed the War
Department to ``prescribe military areas . . . from which any
and all persons may be excluded.'' No explicit reference to
the Japanese was necessary. When Biddle feebly objected that
the order was ``ill-advised, unnecessary, and unnecessarily
cruel,'' Roosevelt silenced him with the rejoinder: ``[T]his
must be a military decision.''
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 16,
the Bainbridge Island Japanese American Monument Act of 2007. This
important legislation will expand the boundaries of the federally-
recognized Minidoka Internment National Monument to include the Nidoto
Nai Yoni `Let It Not Happen Again' Memorial in Bainbridge Island,
Washington.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 that
authorized the forcible removal and relocation of Americans of Japanese
ancestry from the western United States nearly 3 months after the
Imperial Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor precipitated the United
States' entrance into World War II. Under the authority of Executive
Order 9066, on March 24, 1942, Lieutenant General John DeWitt issued
Civilian Exclusion Order No. 1, forcing the removal of the 227 Japanese
Americans residing on Bainbridge Island.
This edict allowed Japanese Americans residing on Bainbridge Island
only 6 days to sell their belongings, close their businesses, and pack
up their lives before resettlement and internment in camps elsewhere in
the United States. These Americans endured the additional burden and
injustice of being congregated at Eagledale Ferry Dock under armed
guard before transport to the mainland. Friends and neighbors converged
as a symbolic gesture of unity and support for these Japanese Americans
who were involuntarily removed from the community. They left behind all
the belongings and possessions that they could not carry or wear. These
Americans of Japanese ancestry were the first of over 100,000 Japanese
Americans to be interned in remote and desolate camps. They were the
first group of Japanese Americans to be stripped of their rights as
American citizens under the authorities of Executive Order 9066.
Today, by authorizing this historical piece of land to be within the
boundaries of the Minidoka Internment National Monument, we memorialize
the sacrifices Japanese Americans made during World War II. We also
would acknowledge through the enactment of this legislation the
occurrence of an egregious infringement of American citizenship rights.
By adopting this legislation we would provide an official record of our
hope and determination that an act similar to this one is never
repeated in the future. This site marks the beginning of the forced
exodus of an entire ethnic minority from the western United States and
today we hope to transform it into a means of educating future
generations of the importance of civil liberties, especially in times
of war.
This memorial, a short ferry boat ride from Seattle, is a fitting
symbol of this disturbing
[[Page 3147]]
and unfortunate chapter in American history. While the internment camps
themselves are located in desolate areas, far away from everyday sight
and thought, this monument, in the heart of the Pacific Northwest, will
serve as a continual reminder of the patriotism of Japanese Americans
during the Second World War and the mistakes that we should never let
happen again. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
important legislation and I commend our colleague, the gentleman from
Washington, Mr. Inslee, for his sponsorship of this bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 161,
to adjust the boundary of the Minidoka Internment National Monument in
Idaho to include the Nidoto Nai Yoni (``Let it not happen again'')
memorial. This memorial commemorates the Japanese Americans of
Bainbridge Island, Washington, who were the first to be forcibly
removed from their homes and relocated to internment camps during World
War II.
In 1942, 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry were forcibly removed
from their homes and placed in internment camps--two-thirds of these
were American citizens, none of which had ever shown disloyalty to the
American cause. Forced to live under harsh conditions, the last
internment camp closed 4 long years later.
These innocent Americans were treated unjustly by their own
government during a time of war, simply because of their national
origin, and such a crime against them must not go unnoticed. The
memorial is rightly named with the words, ``Let it not happen again,''
for it is important to remember the past mistakes of our government in
an effort to avoid future ones.
As we recognize this, we must strive to ensure that all Americans
know about these mistakes to prevent their repetition. H.R. 161 helps
accomplish this by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to
coordinate the development of interpretive and educational materials
and programs regarding the Bainbridge Island Japanese Americans.
In times of war it may be easy to get carried away and put labels on
those around us, assuming what their political ideals are based solely
on their national origin or religious background. But as we have seen
in World War II, such assumptions are unjust and can lead to disastrous
consequences for a group of individuals.
I thank my colleague, Mr. Inslee, for introducing this important
legislation, to ensure that we never let such unjust practices occur in
this great Nation again. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
this resolution.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, the House unanimously passed H.R. 161, the
Bainbridge Island Japanese American Monument Act of 2007. This measure
would provide for the preservation of a historic site on Bainbridge
Island, WA, where the first Japanese Americans were assembled for
internment during World War II.
I thank my friend, Congressman Jay Inslee, for his heartfelt
commitment and leadership in introducing this legislation and working
so effectively through the years to provide for this historic site. As
an original cosponsor of this legislation and supporter of past
efforts, I am proud to see its passage in the House. In addition, I
wish to thank the Committee on Natural Resources and especially my
friend, Chairman Raul Grijalva of the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests and Public Lands for their support and quick action.
During the war hysteria in 1942, Executive Order 9066 was signed by
President Roosevelt which effectively trampled on the rights of U.S.
citizens by ordering the internment of approximately 120,000 Japanese
Americans.
Due to the military importance of Bainbridge Island, WA, lawful
Japanese American families of this community were the first to be
forcibly removed from their homes and sent to internment sites. These
families would not be able to return to the island for more than four
years. H.R. 161 would preserve their story.
H.R. 161 would enact recommendations from the National Park Service
by extending the boundary of the Minidoka Internment National Monument,
located in Idaho, to include the Bainbridge Island site as a satellite
location. The Minidoka internment camp was the final destination until
the end of the war for most of the families from Bainbridge Island.
Including the Bainbridge Island site into an existing national monument
would make it eligible to receive grants for funding.
Mr. Speaker, I am truly grateful for the support H.R. 161 enjoyed in
the House of Representatives, and I anticipate similar endorsement in
the Senate. Memorializing the Bainbridge Island site will preserve the
stories of injustice fallen on these innocent American families and
serve as a reminder of how easily the civil rights can be discarded in
guise of homeland security. Appropriately, the Bainbridge Island
Memorial will be named Nidoto Nai Yoni, which translated from Japanese
means ``Let It Not Happen Again.''
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 161.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. 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 question will
be postponed.
____________________
COMMISSION TO STUDY THE POTENTIAL CREATION OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF
THE AMERICAN LATINO ACT OF 2007
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 512) to establish the Commission to Study the Potential
Creation of the National Museum of the American Latino to develop a
plan of action for the establishment and maintenance of a National
Museum of the American Latino in Washington, DC, and for other
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 512
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Commission to Study the
Potential Creation of the National Museum of the American
Latino Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--There is established the Commission to
Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the
American Latino (hereafter in this Act referred to as the
``Commission'').
(b) Membership.--The Commission shall consist of 23 members
appointed not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act as follows:
(1) The President shall appoint 7 voting members.
(2) The Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority
leader of the Senate, and the minority leader of the Senate
shall each appoint 3 voting members.
(3) In addition to the members appointed under paragraph
(2), the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority
leader of the Senate, and the minority leader of the Senate
shall each appoint 1 nonvoting member.
(c) Qualifications.--Members of the Commission shall be
chosen from among individuals, or representatives of
institutions or entities, who possess either--
(1) a demonstrated commitment to the research, study, or
promotion of American Latino life, art, history, political or
economic status, or culture, together with--
(A) expertise in museum administration;
(B) expertise in fundraising for nonprofit or cultural
institutions;
(C) experience in the study and teaching of Latino culture
and history at the post-secondary level;
(D) experience in studying the issue of the Smithsonian
Institution's representation of American Latino art, life,
history, and culture; or
(E) extensive experience in public or elected service; or
(2) experience in the administration of, or the planning
for the establishment of, museums devoted to the study and
promotion of the role of ethnic, racial, or cultural groups
in American history.
SEC. 3. FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Plan of Action for Establishment and Maintenance of
Museum.--The Commission shall submit a report to the
President and the Congress containing its recommendations
with respect to a plan of action for the establishment and
maintenance of a National Museum of the American Latino in
Washington, DC (hereafter in this Act referred to as the
``Museum'').
(b) Fundraising Plan.--The Commission shall develop a
fundraising plan for supporting the creation and maintenance
of the Museum through contributions by the American people,
and a separate plan on fundraising by the American Latino
community.
(c) Report on Issues.--The Commission shall examine (in
consultation with the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution), and submit a report to the President and the
Congress on, the following issues:
[[Page 3148]]
(1) The availability and cost of collections to be acquired
and housed in the Museum.
(2) The impact of the Museum on regional Hispanic- and
Latino-related museums.
(3) Possible locations for the Museum in Washington, DC and
its environs, to be considered in consultation with the
National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of
Fine Arts, the Department of the Interior and Smithsonian
Institution.
(4) Whether the Museum should be located within the
Smithsonian Institution.
(5) The governance and organizational structure from which
the Museum should operate.
(6) How to engage the American Latino community in the
development and design of the Museum.
(7) The cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining
the Museum.
(d) Legislation to Carry Out Plan of Action.--Based on the
recommendations contained in the report submitted under
subsection (a) and the report submitted under subsection (c),
the Commission shall submit for consideration to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives, the Committee on House Administration of
the House of Representatives, the Committee on Rules and
Administration of the Senate, the Committee on Natural
Resources of the House of Representatives, the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, and the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate recommendations for a legislative plan of
action to create and construct the Museum.
(e) National Conference.--In carrying out its functions
under this section, the Commission may convene a national
conference on the Museum, comprised of individuals committed
to the advancement of American Latino life, art, history, and
culture, not later than 18 months after the commission
members are selected.
SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
(a) Facilities and Support of Department of the Interior.--
The Department of the Interior shall provide from funds
appropriated for this purpose administrative services,
facilities, and funds necessary for the performance of the
Commission's functions. These funds shall be made available
prior to any meetings of the Commission.
(b) Compensation.--Each member of the Commission who is not
an officer or employee of the Federal Government may receive
compensation for each day on which the member is engaged in
the work of the Commission, at a daily rate to be determined
by the Secretary of the Interior.
(c) Travel Expenses.--Each member shall be entitled to
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence,
in accordance with applicable provisions under subchapter I
of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.
(d) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The Commission is not
subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act.
SEC. 5. DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF REPORTS; TERMINATION.
(a) Deadline.--The Commission shall submit final versions
of the reports and plans required under section 3 not later
than 24 months after the date of the Commission's first
meeting.
(b) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate not later
than 30 days after submitting the final versions of reports
and plans pursuant to subsection (a).
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated for carrying out
the activities of the Commission $2,100,000 for the first
fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this
Act and $1,100,000 for the second fiscal year beginning after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs.
McMorris Rodgers) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
General Leave
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 512,
which was introduced by my colleague from California, Representative
Becerra.
The legislation directs the establishment of a commission to study
the potential creation of a National Museum of the American Latino, to
be located here in Washington, D.C. The commission will be composed of
23 qualified individuals, with seven appointed by the President and the
remainder appointed by the majority and minority leadership of the
House and Senate.
Under H.R. 512, the commission would be required to prepare a plan of
action for the establishment and maintenance of the museum, including
recommendations for a legislative plan of action to create and
construct the museum. The commission's plan would be due not later than
24 months after the date of the commission's first meeting.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 512.
Given the contributions that American Latinos have made and continue to
make to the cultural and social history of the United States, this is a
most fitting measure.
{time} 1245
The legislation was the subject of hearings in the House last
Congress, and I would note that a nearly identical measure passed the
House on September 27, 2006.
As the face of this Nation is represented by many people, the museum
would be an opportunity for all of America to look at the diversity, to
appreciate the many peoples that make up this great country of ours.
And I want to take this opportunity to also commend and congratulate
my colleague from California, Xavier Becerra, for his leadership on
this matter. He has worked very hard with many parties to bring this
legislation to fruition.
Mr. Speaker, we strongly support H.R. 512 and urge the adoption of
the legislation by the House today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 512,
and yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Latinos have played an integral part in American history since the
founding of the United States. In fact, they were on the continent for
more than two centuries prior to the signing of the Declaration of
Independence. Despite the growth of Latino inclusion programs at the
Smithsonian over the past decade, supporters of H.R. 512 believe that
the ``mosaic portrayed in the Washington museums'' is incomplete
without a museum dedicated to the community.
This bill passed the House in the 109th Congress, but we have
concerns that this legislation requires the Secretary of the Interior
to provide administrative services, facilities and funds for the
operation of the commission. In a hearing on the bill, the National
Park Service testified that the commission would fit better at the
General Services Administration, whose mission is well suited to serve
the commission. If the bill had been crafted this way, it would have
enabled the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to provide its
expertise on these issues.
Despite these concerns, I support the bill, commend the authors,
including Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for her persistence and
hard work in helping craft this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I would like again to commend Congressman
Xavier Becerra of California for bringing H.R. 512 before us and yield
him as much time as he may consume.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the
committees of jurisdiction for helping move this legislation forward
quickly.
Last session what we found was that we just ran out of time. This
bill passed unanimously out of the House of Representatives, not a
single opposing vote, and we came very, very close in the Senate to
having this actually go to the desk of the President, where I am sure
he would have signed it. Unfortunately, time became the enemy. And I
hope that now, moving this quickly through the process, we will be able
to give the Senate the time it needs to move through its process as
well.
I want to thank my colleague and friend from Florida, Ms. Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen, for her tireless efforts on behalf of this legislation. She
and I have served as a, I hope, dynamic duo in trying to move this
forward with all our colleagues who were supporting this legislation.
Many us believe that there is no place on this Earth like the
National Mall that we have here in Washington,
[[Page 3149]]
D.C. If anyone from Mars were to come and ask what is it like to be an
American, I would send them directly to the National Mall and say, go
through the museums that we have at the Smithsonian. Take a look at the
various artifacts that give you a sense of our culture, our history,
our heritage as a Nation; and you will have a better sense of what it
means to be an American after that walk. It would probably take you a
few weeks if you want to go through all the different museums, but you
will have a better sense of what it means to be an American than, I
think, if you go anywhere else in this world.
The only problem I have, and the only disappointment I have, is that
you don't get the full picture of what it has meant to be an American.
We have moved forward to try to take care of that over the years. We
have a museum that recently opened in the last 4 or 5 years that will
help us better understand what it has meant to be a Native American in
this country. We are going to put shovel in ground very soon in trying
to help America understand the history and the plight of many Americans
of African descent who have come into this country and the generations
that have followed, and what it means to be African American in this
country.
I hope, at some point, this commission will report back to us on what
best we can do as a Nation to make sure that when someone does walk
through the Mall of the Capital and visits those precious museums that
we have, that they will have that symphony and that understanding that
comes from visiting those tremendous facilities of what it means to be
an American and what it is to be proud of our American history and
culture.
This legislation, which has the support, I am very glad to say, of a
bipartisan group of Members in the House, should help us get a sense
from the experts, not politicians, not people who have no real
understanding of this, but from the experts of whether or not there is
value in moving forward the idea of trying to have a place where we
have resided within it, the culture, the experience, the history, the
art, the heritage of Americans of Latino descent.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding me the
time; thank the two committees of jurisdiction and certainly all the
cosponsors of this legislation, but principally to my colleague in
crime here, the Congresswoman from Florida, Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), a coauthor
of the legislation.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I rise in strong support today, Mr. Speaker, of
H.R. 512, the commission to study the potential creation of a National
Museum of the American Latino Community Act. And I would like to thank
my dear friend, Mr. Becerra of California, for his commitment in
bringing this important legislation to the floor. We have been working
on it for a number of years. It has got strong bipartisan support, and
it has been a delight for me to have worked with him and members of my
staff to have worked with his staff as well.
As the Republican lead on this legislation, I am so pleased that this
bill will take the next step in developing a plan of action for an
establishment of a National Museum of the American Latino.
The commission would be comprised of experts in art and museum
administration, as well as individuals with experience in the
development of similar cultural institutions. The commission would have
the responsibility of examining and reporting to Congress and the
President a plan to establish a new national museum.
Even as the largest minority group in the United States, Hispanic
Americans, are not fully represented by one of the permanent exhibits
in Washington's museums, currently there are over 42 million Hispanics
in the United States. Furthermore, the Census Bureau estimates that in
the year 2050, the Hispanic population in the U.S. will reach over 100
million.
As we can see, Hispanic Americans are our country's largest and
fastest growing minority group, and they continue to expand and
contribute to the greatness of our wonderful country.
As the first Hispanic American woman elected to Congress, I am so
proud to advance the issues affecting all citizens living in our great
country. I have been proud to represent my diverse south Florida
constituency for many years now in Congress, and I look forward to a
future that is, indeed, bright for individuals across our terrific
country.
Hispanic Americans are playing an increasing role also in the
Nation's economy and in our workforce. For example, according to the
Office of Management and Budget, the unemployment rate among the
Hispanic community dropped to 4.7, an all-time record low. This
statistic demonstrates that the economic policies of lower taxes and
less government regulations are working and that all Americans are
benefiting from it.
The great diversity of ethnicities and nationalities of the many
people of the United States is what makes our Nation strong, is what
continues to be a home for many different cultures; and this national
museum will signify our strong commitment to proudly exhibit America's
rich cultural diversity.
Therefore, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in support of this
important legislation to ensure that visitors to our Nation's Capital
gain a more complete understanding of who we are as Americans.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield as much
time as he may consume to my good friend from California (Mr. Baca),
for remarks on H.R. 512, in which he has been a participant and a hard
worker getting the legislation to this point.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for
allowing me the time to say a few words. And I want to raise my strong
voice in support of H.R. 512. This is important legislation that would
establish a commission to study the potential creation of a National
Museum of the American Latino.
And I want to thank my good friend, Xavier Becerra, for sponsoring
this bill and championing this cause, which is of great significance to
many Hispanics, Latinos throughout the Nation, throughout the country,
including myself.
This is a bipartisan legislation that basically asks for a study to
create a National Museum of the American Latino. Bipartisan.
Currently, there are over 45 million Latinos in the United States,
including Puerto Rico. The social, cultural and economic contributions
of Latinos in the United States have an important history, an important
history, and are growing daily. We must realize that.
American Latinos are natives to many different parts of the world.
Some are from Puerto Rico, some are from South America, while others
have roots and ties to Mexico. But while we hail from different
countries, including from right here in the United States, we have
different backgrounds, and many of us share a similar experience and a
wealth of common values.
A national museum of the American Latino will help share this
experience and the values not only with Latinos, but with all. It will
be a sense of pride, tradition, culture and arts that would be
exhibited to all Americans to see, all individuals.
I urge my colleagues to cast a vote in favor and understanding of
heritage of all Americans and support this legislation.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the ranking Republican of the Committee on House
Administration, which also has jurisdiction over the bill, the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 512, which
establishes a commission to study the possible creation of a national
museum of the American Latino community. As you know, this bill mirrors
H.R. 2134, which was referred to the Committee on House Administration
in the last Congress and which I was pleased to guide through that
committee and present to
[[Page 3150]]
the House for passage on September 27 of last year. It is only our
regret that it did not pass the Senate.
The Latino American community is often recognized for its rich
traditions, its sense of community, and deeply rooted beliefs which are
woven throughout the fabric of American history. As the Nation's
fastest growing ethnic community, the Latino population in America has
more than doubled in size in the last 10 years to over 40 million, and
continues to grow.
The creation of a national museum of the American Latino community
would enable Latino Americans to tell their story in their own words
and would create a destination for students, families and visitors that
would accurately depict Latino American history.
In order to explore the possibility of creating such a museum, the
legislation before us specifies that a commission be created with 23
members, seven of whom would be appointed by the President, and three
voting and are non-voting. Each would be appointed by the Speaker, the
House Republican leader, the Senate majority leader, and the Senate
Republican leader.
Once appointed, the commissioners would assess the cost of the
museum, its impact on other Hispanic and Latino-related museums,
identify a possible location for the museum, and propose guidelines on
the museum's operation. The commission would also work closely with the
Latino American community during the design and development phase to
ensure that the museum accurately captures the Latino American
experience.
I urge my colleagues to, once again, support this important
legislation which is the first step in creating a national museum of
the American Latino community that will serve as a testament to the
vibrant history and tradition of Latino Americans. And I would just be
delighted to eventually see this constructed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being the skunk at the garden party,
I would like to add a postscript expressing my concern about the
proliferation of museums on the Mall and what this may do to the Mall.
As you recall, the Mall was designed many, many years ago as a
gathering place for America, and it has nobly served that purpose. I
believe it is very important that we, in building any additional
museums, not impinge on that intent.
{time} 1300
So establishing location is I think going to be one of the most
difficult parts of the work of this Commission, and I wish them well.
But I think it is extremely important that we preserve the National
Mall as the gathering place for America and make certain that any
additional buildings on the Mall fit well with that purpose.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, as chairwoman of the Committee
on House Administration, which shares jurisdiction over H.R. 512 with
the Committee on Natural Resources, I urge my colleagues to move
quickly so that the bill can become law this year and we can begin the
process of planning a National Museum of the American Latino here in
Washington, D.C.
I congratulate Representative Becerra and Representative Ros-Lehtinen
for their leadership in introducing this legislation and for their hard
work in pushing it successfully through the House last year.
Persons of Hispanic, or Latino, descent have lived in the Western
Hemisphere for 500 years. In the United States, they have become the
largest minority group, and their impact will only grow stronger in the
future. The culture of the Americas reflects a unique mixture of what
was brought from Europe, inherited from the indigenous Native
Americans, contributed by Africans forced to come here during the era
of slavery, and stirred in the melting pot of interaction with later
immigrants from all around the world.
I am pleased to support consideration of a Latino Museum which I hope
would undertake serious scholarly research, as well as create and
display exhibits to tell the story of the American Latino to an ever
growing population which will be increasingly exposed to such cultural
influences in the years ahead. This is a project which all Americans
can enthusiastically embrace.
Our Committee on House Administration worked for years with the
gentleman from Georgia, Representative John Lewis, to establish the
Smithsonian African American Museum which finally became law in 2003.
That legislation worked its way through Congress over a period of 17
years, passed the House and the Senate in different forms during that
time, and then was successfully revived and studied by a Commission
appointed by the President and Congress.
Mr. Speaker, that Commission worked through 2002 and early 2003 to
compile information and recommendations for Congress to use in
considering whether to finally establish the museum, and in what form.
While we did not accept all of the Commission's recommendations, I
found that it provided invaluable focus and momentum in moving the
project forward.
H.R. 512, and any future legislation to establish a new museum which
may spring from it, will hopefully enjoy a less tortuous path to a
successful conclusion. The Commission to be created relating to the
Museum of the American Latino is largely patterned after the African
American Museum Commission, and this time we are considering
establishing the Commission at the beginning of the process of studying
a museum rather than near the end.
The new Commission will examine, among other issues, whether this new
museum should be part of the Smithsonian Institution, as is the new
African American Museum. The Smithsonian has unique expertise in both
museum governance and successfully presenting information which tells a
story in both educational and entertaining ways.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong
support of H.R. 512, the Commission to Study the Potential Creation of
the National Museum of the American Latino Act of 2007, which would
recognize the tremendous cultural contributions of the American Latino
community.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 512, which would
create a 23 member commission responsible for developing a plan of
action for the establishment and maintenance of a National Museum of
the American Latino in Washington, DC. Specifically, this commission
would be tasked with bringing experts, policymakers, and other
interested parties together to discuss a viable blueprint for the
museum. The commission would also design a public-private partnership
to fund the museum. These recommendations would be reported to Congress
within 24 months of the bill being signed into law.
During my tenure as Ranking Member of the House Administration
Committee in the 108th Congress, the committee held a long overdue
hearing on this legislation. In the 109th Congress, I was a cosponsor
of this legislation and it passed in the House by a voice vote on
September 27, 2006. Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to pass this
bill before the adjournment of the 109th Congress.
The Latino population in the United States is estimated at 42.7
million, making the community the fastest growing group in the country.
They also have a rich heritage in this country that is worth
celebrating. I am hopeful that we can finally get this bill to the
President's desk for signature and get the process underway for
establishing this important museum. As a former high school history
teacher, I believe that passage of this legislation is crucial in
educating all Americans of our nation's cultural diversity.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 512, a bill
introduced by my good friend, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), expressing
Congressional support for the establishment of a commission to study
the potential creation of a National Museum of the American Latino.
As a Hispanic American and a former chair of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus, I know the importance of creating a museum to honor
and preserve the history of Latino Americans. We need to celebrate the
diverse history, art, music, and literature of the Latino culture. We
also need to make strides in increasing public awareness of the
important contributions that Latino Americans have made in the United
States. The establishment of this commission and subsequent museum
would be an important step towards reaching this goal.
Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, according to the United States
Census Bureau, Hispanic Americans constitute fourteen percent of the
total United States population and are the largest growing minority
with a current population of 41.3 million Americans. In fact, the 16th
Congressional District of El Paso, Texas is eighty-two percent Hispanic
American. El Pasoans have a rich history which contributes to the
tapestry of American culture.
The establishment of a National Museum of the American Latino is
important to my constituents and Hispanics across the nation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting this
important bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 512,
to establish the
[[Page 3151]]
commission to study the potential creation of the National Museum of
the American Latino to develop a plan of action for the establishment
and maintenance of a National Museum of the American Latino in
Washington, DC, and for other purposes.
Here in our Nation's Capitol we are proud of the history from the
past that surrounds us and embrace the history that is made each and
every day. Amongst the many museums that pay tribute to our rich
history as a nation, there still remains a sense of incompletion in our
lessons of our history, art and culture. Even though 40 million United
States residents share the Latino heritage and culture, hardly any
permanent exhibits in Washington's museums commemorate their cultural
contributions. I commend Representative Becerra for recognizing the
need to share the collective history of Latino-Americans and to ensure
that their stories, cultural contributions and heritage are not
forgotten for generations to come.
This bipartisan bill was first introduced as H.R. 2134 during the
109th Congress and passed by a unanimous vote but time ran out before
the Senate could act on the bill. I was a co-sponsor of H.R. 2134 and
it is my sincere hope that my colleagues in the Senate will take quick
action and speedily move this important legislation forward upon its
passage in the House. This legislation recognizes the need for detailed
and careful planning and proposes a 23 member commission to discuss the
museum's vitality and is charged with producing a national conference
to bring stakeholders, experts, policy makers and other interested
parties together. It is important to take the chief ideas discussed and
move them from concept to reality; the commission would be tasked with
designing a fundraising plan to create an extensive public-private
partnership as well as reporting to Congress a detailed recommended
plan of action on how to do so.
Again, I thank my colleague, Mr. Becerra, for introducing this
important legislation, to ensure that we celebrate, commemorate and
remember the contribution of Latino Americans by moving to establish a
National museum and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
resolution.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 512 the
Commission to Study the Potential Creation of the National Museum of
the American Latino Act of 2007.
H.R. 512 would establish a commission to develop a plan of action to
establish and maintain a National Museum of the American Latino in our
nation's capital.
The 23 qualified individuals selected for membership in the
commission would be charged with producing a national conference to
bring together experts, stakeholders, policymakers and other interested
groups to discuss the museum's viability. In addition, the commission
would create a comprehensive fundraising plan of action to be presented
to Congress.
America is home to nearly 40 million Latinos who share in its unique
culture and heritage, yet no permanent exhibit exists in Washington, DC
to commemorate the Latino community's unique contributions to the rich
cultural tapestry of America.
Washington, DC's wonderful museums reflect the rich mosaic of
cultural diversity that is America. It is important that the unique
lessons of history, art and culture of the Latino community are
included when Washingtonians, Americans, and international travelers
come to learn about America and Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H.R. 512 establishing a Commission
to study the potential creation of the National Museum of the American
Latino, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this
important legislation.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 512, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
ALLOWING FOR RENEGOTIATION OF PAYMENT SCHEDULE OF CONTRACTS BETWEEN
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND REDWOOD VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 235) to allow for the renegotiation of the payment
schedule of contracts between the Secretary of the Interior and the
Redwood Valley County Water District, and for other purposes, as
amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 235
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RENEGOTIATION OF PAYMENT SCHEDULE.
Section 15 of Public Law 100-516 (102 Stat. 2573) is
amended as follows:
(1) By amending paragraph (2) of subsection (a) to read as
follows:
``(2) If, as of January 1, 2006, the Secretary of the
Interior and the Redwood Valley County Water District have
not renegotiated the schedule of payment, the District may
enter into such additional non-Federal obligations as are
necessary to finance procurement of dedicated water rights
and improvements necessary to store and convey those rights
to provide for the District's water needs. The Secretary
shall reschedule the payments due under loans numbered 14-06-
200-8423A and 14-06-200-8423A Amendatory and said payments
shall commence when such additional obligations have been
financially satisfied by the District. The date of the
initial payment owed by the District to the United States
shall be regarded as the start of the District's repayment
period and the time upon which any interest shall first be
computed and assessed under section 5 of the Small
Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (43 U.S.C. 422a et seq.).''.
(2) By striking subsection (c).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs.
McMorris Rodgers) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. 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 bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in very strong support of H.R. 235, as amended. This
legislation will allow the Redwood Valley County Water District in
Northern California to renegotiate loans it received from the Federal
Government for an unsuccessful water project. This action will clear
the way for the Water District to initiate a new project that will
develop a reliable supply of drinking water for that area. The District
will rely only on private financing for the new project. No Federal
money will be spent on this new project.
However, before the District can secure private financing for any
project, it must renegotiate the existing loans to provide for their
repayment subsequent to repayment of the new loan. Once the new project
is built and delivering water, it will provide enough revenue to allow
the District to repay both its private loan and the United States
Government.
Specifically, this legislation allows the Redwood County Valley Water
District to secure a private loan for a project to provide the region
with a reliable water supply. It also requires the Water District to
repay its current suspended loan to the Federal Government once the
renewed water project is paid for.
In consultation with the minority, the legislation includes a minor
amendment to clarify the requirement that the Secretary of the Interior
must reschedule loan payments and that the payments must begin
immediately upon satisfaction of the Water District's newer financial
obligation.
Similar legislation was passed by this House in the 109th Congress;
and I congratulate my colleague, Congressman Mike Thompson, for all of
his hard work on behalf of the Redwood Valley County Water District.
I do urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 235, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page 3152]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of H.R. 235.
There were many last-minute questions about this bill mainly because
a hearing wasn't held on it. I hope this will not be the standard
procedure for how the majority party brings legislation to the House
floor. That is why I am pleased that the majority has made additional
inquiries regarding this bill and has decided to offer an amendment to
address some concerns. With this amendment, I will not oppose the
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 235, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
REMOVING CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON MAMMOTH COMMUNITY WATER DISTRICT'S
ABILITY TO USE CERTAIN PROPERTY ACQUIRED FROM THE UNITED STATES
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 356) to remove certain restrictions on the Mammoth
Community Water District's ability to use certain property acquired by
that District from the United States.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 356
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON PROPERTY.
Notwithstanding Public Law 90-171 (16 U.S.C. 484a; 81 Stat.
531), the approximately 25 acres patented to the Mammoth
County Water District (now known as the ``Mammoth Community
Water District'') by Patent No. 04-87-0038, on June 26, 1987,
and recorded in Volume 482, at page 517, of the official
records of the Recorder's Office, Mono County, California,
may be used for purposes other than the purpose for which
those lands were being used prior to the conveyance to the
Mammoth County Water District and such lands may be
transferred as authorized under State law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs.
McMorris Rodgers) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. 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 bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
H.R. 356 removes congressionally imposed restrictions on the use of
lands transferred in 1987 from the United States to the Mammoth
Community Water District in California. This legislation would allow
the District to modify the use of these lands so that those 12 acres of
land now used for material storage may be put to a more beneficial use.
In 2004, the Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing on
similar legislation. In the 109th Congress, similar legislation was
favorably reported by the committee and passed by the House.
We have no objections on this noncontroversial bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 356. H.R. 356, introduced by
our colleague from California, Buck McKeon, removes land use
restrictions on property acquired from the Forest Service by the
Mammoth Community Water District in Mono County, California.
In 1987, the U.S. Forest Service conveyed 25 acres to the Water
District under land use conditions at the time. Of these lands, 12
acres are now needed for different uses, including much-needed water
utility operations. Implementation of this noncontroversial bill will
ultimately benefit the local water consumer and will adhere to all
Federal, State, and local environmental laws.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my strong support for
HR 356, legislation I introduced earlier this year to remove
restrictions on 25 acres of land patented to the Mammoth County Water
District.
Prior to 1987, the District occupied this land through a special use
permit with the Forest Service. Of these 25 acres, 12 acres were used
for the storage of materials, and prior to 1987, for oxidation ponds,
which had become obsolete by that year.
After that time, Congress passed Public Law 97-465 that allowed these
lands to be transferred directly to the District. While the law allowed
for acquisition of these lands, it also directed that they could only
be used for those purposes prior to the time of the conveyance.
Today, however, these 12 acres are no longer needed for the storage
of materials and the community would like to utilize this land in a
more economically and socially viable manner.
Such restrictions as those currently placed on the aforementioned
acreage hinder the Mammoth community's ability to respond to the
growing needs of its citizens and visitors.
As such, passage of this legislation would allow the town to
accommodate for the growing economic and social needs of the region. In
particular I am pleased to inform my colleagues of plans to use these
acres for enhanced emergency services availability for the people of
Mammoth Lakes.
I would like to express my deep appreciation to Chairman Rahall for
bringing this legislation to the floor and ask my colleagues to support
its passage here today.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 356.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
{time} 1315
YAKIMA-TIETON IRRIGATION DISTRICT CONVEYANCE ACT OF 2007
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 386) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
convey certain buildings and lands of the Yakima Project, Washington,
to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 386
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 ``Yakima-Tieton Irrigation
District Conveyance Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN BUILDINGS AND LANDS OF THE
YAKIMA PROJECT, WASHINGTON.
(a) Conveyance Required.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall convey to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District,
located in Yakima County, Washington, all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the buildings and
lands of the Yakima Project, Washington, in accordance with
the terms and conditions set forth in the agreement titled
``Agreement Between the United States and the Yakima-Tieton
Irrigation District to Transfer Title to Certain Federally
Owned Buildings and Lands, With Certain Property Rights,
Title, and Interest, to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation
District'' (Contract No. 5-07-10-L1658).
(b) Liability.--Effective upon the date of conveyance under
this section, the United States shall not be held liable by
any court for damages of any kind arising out of any act,
omission, or occurence relating to the conveyed buildings and
lands, except for
[[Page 3153]]
damages caused by acts of negligence committed by the United
States or by its employees or agents before the date of
conveyance. Nothing in this section increases the liability
of the United States beyond that provided in chapter 171 of
title 28, United States Code (popularly known as the Federal
Tort Claims Act), on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Benefits.--After conveyance of the buildings and lands
to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District under this section--
(1) such buildings and lands shall not be considered to be
a part of a Federal reclamation project; and
(2) such irrigation district shall not be eligible to
receive any benefits with respect to any buildings and lands
conveyed, except benefits that would be available to a
similarly situated person with respect to such buildings and
lands that are not part of a Federal reclamation project.
(d) Report.--If the Secretary of the Interior has not
completed the conveyance required under subsection (a) within
12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that explains the
reason such conveyance has not been completed and stating the
date by which the conveyance will be completed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs.
McMorris Rodgers) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. 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 bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 386 would transfer title for approximately 9 acres
of land and several buildings to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District.
The terms of the transfer are included in a formal agreement between
the Bureau of Reclamation and the irrigation district. Other parts of
the reclamation project, including the Tieton diversion dam and
associated canals, would not be affected.
In the 109th Congress, the Subcommittee on Water and Power held a
hearing on similar legislation. That bill was favorably reported by the
committee and passed by this House. We have no objection to this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 386 and
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 386, sponsored by our colleague, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings), conveys 9 acres of federally owned land and
administrative buildings to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District in
Washington State. No project facilities, such as dams, diversion
structures or canals, are included in this title transfer. The transfer
has been in the works for almost a decade.
This legislation, also introduced by the junior Senator from
Washington State, will enhance more private ownership and decrease the
Federal Government's liability. It is a win for the local community and
a win for the American taxpayer.
I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan
legislation.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 386 is a pretty straightforward bill. This
legislation would authorize the transfer of about 9 acres of Federal
property along with a few associated structures from the Bureau of
Reclamation to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District in central
Washington.
The irrigation district has fully repaid its obligations to the
Federal Government related to these properties and now simply pays the
bureau for their operation and maintenance. This conveyance would
enable the irrigation district to make needed improvements, while
allowing the bureau to focus its limited resources where they are more
urgently needed.
This legislation is based on a formula agreement negotiated between
the bureau and the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District in 2004. I commend
the irrigation district and the staff of the bureau for working
together at the local level to resolve the concerns of the parties
involved.
Mr. Speaker, this same legislation passed unanimously during the
previous Congress, but didn't get through during the final parts of the
session. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill again today so
that we may move it on to the other body.
I want to thank Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Young of the
Natural Resources Committee and their staff for their assistance in
expediting this bill.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 386.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. 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 question will
be postponed.
____________________
AMERICAN RIVER PUMP STATION PROJECT TRANSFER ACT OF 2007
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 482) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer
ownership of the American River Pump Station Project, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 482
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``American River Pump Station
Project Transfer Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER.
The Secretary of the Interior (hereafter in this Act
referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall transfer ownership of
the American River Pump Station Project located at Auburn,
California, which includes the Pumping Plant, associated
facilities, and easements necessary for permanent operation
of the facilities, to the Placer County Water Agency, in
accordance with the terms of Contract No. 02-LC-20-7790
between the United States and Placer County Water Agency and
the terms and conditions established in this Act.
SEC. 3. FEDERAL COSTS NONREIMBURSABLE.
Federal costs associated with construction of the American
River Pump Station Project located at Auburn, California, are
nonreimbursable.
SEC. 4. GRANT OF REAL PROPERTY INTEREST.
The Secretary is authorized to grant title to Placer County
Water Agency as provided in section 2 in full satisfaction of
the United States' obligations under Land Purchase Contract
14-06-859-308 to provide a water supply to the Placer County
Water Agency.
SEC. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS.
(a) In General.--Before conveying land and facilities
pursuant to this Act, the Secretary shall comply with all
applicable requirements under--
(1) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
(2) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.); and
(3) any other law applicable to the land and facilities.
(b) Effect.--Nothing in this Act modifies or alters any
obligations under--
(1) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); or
(2) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
SEC. 6. RELEASE FROM LIABILITY.
Effective on the date of transfer to the Placer County
Water Agency of any land or facility under this Act, the
United States shall not be liable for damages arising out of
[[Page 3154]]
any act, omission, or occurrence relating to the land and
facilities, consistent with Article 9 of Contract No. 02-LC-
20-7790 between the United States and Placer County Water
Agency.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs.
McMorris Rodgers) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. 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 bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 482 directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey
certain lands and the water pumping facility under construction on the
American River to the Placer County Water Agency in California.
Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation is obligated by a previous
agreement to supply temporary pumping service to satisfy the water
rights of the Placer County Water Agency. This temporary pumping is
done at considerable cost to the Bureau of Reclamation. The American
River Pump Station will provide a permanent facility for the delivery
of water to that agency.
H.R. 482 allows the bureau to satisfy its contractual obligations by
transferring this facility and eliminates the continued cost of
providing temporary pumping service to that agency.
In the 109th Congress, the Subcommittee on Water and Power held a
hearing on similar legislation, and the bill was subsequently favorably
reported by the committee and passed by the House. We have no
objections to this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 482,
and yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 482, introduced by our colleague, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Doolittle), directs the Secretary of the Interior
to transfer ownership of the American River Pump Station Project to the
Placer County Water Agency in Northern California. To facilitate
construction of the Auburn Dam nearly 40 years ago, the Federal
Government removed a locally owned pump station located at the dam
site.
The dam was never built. Now the Federal Government is building a
permanent pump station to replace the one it removed years earlier.
Under an agreement, the Federal Government must transfer the pump
station to the local water users once construction is complete. Before
the transfer can take place, congressional authorization is needed, and
this legislation achieves that purpose.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Doolittle), the author of the bill.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the
committee, Mr. Rahall, and the ranking member, Mr. Young, and also
thank Mrs. Napolitano and Mrs. McMorris Rodgers for their help on this
legislation.
This has been quite a few years in production. The pump station is
almost complete. It will be completed next year sometime, we
anticipate; and we would like to have this last detail of the transfer
put in order.
You have heard the explanation as to why we need the legislation,
fulfilling an obligation made by the Federal Government years ago to
the Placer County Water Agency.
I am very appreciative to our colleagues for bringing this bill up
and urge its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today in support of H.R. 482,
the American River Pump Station Project Transfer Act. This legislation
will authorize the transfer of ownership of the American River Pump
Station, located in Auburn, CA, to the Placer County Water Agency
(Agency). I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Natural Resources Committee for bringing this legislation to the floor
in such a timely manner.
During the 1960s, the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) acquired the
site of the original American River Pump Station and removed it to
facilitate contraction of the Auburn Dam. When construction of the dam
was halted, the Agency was left unable to meet its water needs. Since
1990, the Bureau has installed seasonal pumps to help the Agency
provide water during the dry summer. Unfortunately, these pumps need to
be removed each winter and reinstalled in time for the summer months.
This is an expensive process that leaves the Agency without the long-
term water-use certainty it needs. To remedy this situation, a new
American River Pump Station will be constructed by the Bureau, and this
legislation is needed to authorize the transfer of that station to the
local agency for future operations.
This legislation is supported by the Bureau, the Agency and the local
elected officials, and I appreciate all their hard work in this
endeavor. I would specifically like to thank the members of the Placer
County Water Agency: Current Board Chairman Lowell Jarvis; board
members Alex Ferreira, Otis Wollen, and Mike Lee; and new board member
Grey Allen have all worked to enable the Agency to meet the water-use
needs of the community it serves. I also want to recognize former board
member Pauline Roccucci who spoke with me many times on this issue. I
want to thank General Manager Dave Breninger, who has been and remains
a tireless and passionate advocate of the permanent pump station and
Strategic Affairs Director Einar Maisch who offered strong testimony in
support of this bill and helped us to get here today.
As the completion of the pump station will provide regional benefits
to so many in Western Placer County, I want to thank the City Councils
in Rocklin and Lincoln and our County Board of Supervisors for their
steadfast support of this critical project. I would also be remiss for
not recognizing the commitment and dedication of two local U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation staff: Regional Director Kirk Rodgers and Central Area
Office Manager Mike Finnegan.
This entire group made up the team which worked for years in
advancing the permanent American River Pump Station to get us to the
point we are at today, and it is with them in mind that I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 482.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Hopefully,
we will be able to continue working in a bipartisan manner to get these
very, very critical projects going and approved and moving out of this
House. I am sure that we are going to have others that are just equally
important. I hope the same consideration is given to all those.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, let me just say congratulations
to the chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee. I do look forward
to working with her on a bipartisan basis to move many of these
projects forward, important projects, all across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 482.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. 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 question will
be postponed.
____________________
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.
[[Page 3155]]
Votes will be taken in the following order:
H.R. 161, by the yeas and nays;
H.R. 386, by the yeas and nays.
The postponed vote on H.R. 482 will be taken tomorrow.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. The
remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.
____________________
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND JAPANESE AMERICAN MONUMENT ACT OF 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 161.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 161, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 419,
nays 0, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 76]
YEAS--419
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Bono
Buyer
Carter
Conaway
Costa
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Lincoln
Hastert
Lampson
McHenry
Norwood
Peterson (PA)
Pryce (OH)
Rothman
Royce
{time} 1351
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
YAKIMA-TIETON IRRIGATION DISTRICT CONVEYANCE ACT OF 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Baird). The pending business is the
question of suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 386.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 386, on which the yeas and nays are
ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 417,
nays 0, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 77]
YEAS--417
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
[[Page 3156]]
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Bono
Buyer
Capito
Carter
Conaway
Costa
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Lincoln
Hastert
Lampson
McHenry
Norwood
Nunes
Peterson (PA)
Pryce (OH)
Rothman
Royce
{time} 1400
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
RESIGNATION AS CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
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, February 6, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi: This is to inform you that I am
resigning my position as Clerk of the House effective
midnight on February 14, 2007. Thank you for the honor of
renominating me to serve in the position of Clerk of the
House in the 110th Congress.
It has been an honor to serve the House of Representatives
and to work with so many dedicated individuals. I will
especially miss those hardworking men and women in the Office
of the Clerk. Our Nation is a stronger place because of their
efforts.
With best wishes, I am,
Sincerely,
Karen L. Haas.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resignation is
accepted.
There was no objection.
____________________
RESIGNATION AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
Representatives:
Office of the Chief Administative Officer, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, February 6, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi, M.C.,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi: This is to inform you that I am
resigning my position as Chief Administrative Officer of the
House of Representatives effective at midnight on February
14, 2007. Thank you for the honor of re-nominating me to
serve in the position of Chief Administrative Officer in the
110th Congress.
Sincerely,
Jay Eagen,
Chief Administrative Officer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resignation is
accepted.
There was no objection.
____________________
ELECTING OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 129)
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 129
Resolved, That Lorraine C. Miller of the State of Texas,
be, and is hereby, chosen Clerk of the House of
Representatives, effective February 15, 2007; and
That Daniel P. Beard of the State of Maryland be, and is
hereby, chosen Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
Representatives, effective February 15, 2007.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have an opportunity to speak
on the resolution before its immediate adoption.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will distribute the time.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we will not take, certainly, the hour that is
allotted; but I first of all want to say something about the two
individuals who have just resigned their appointments as Clerk and as
Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to serve from 1987 to 2000 on the
House Administration Committee and worked with my friend, Mr. Ehlers,
Mr. Thomas, and others. I was a member of the House Administration
Committee on which Vic Fazio, our former colleague from California, was
the ranking member. He and Mr. Thomas came together and selected Jay
Eagen to be the Chief Administrative Officer.
I think it would be inappropriate if I did not rise and congratulate
Mr. Eagen on the job that he has done. I believe that Jay Eagen has
brought a degree of professional management to this House of
Representatives, which has been a credit to the institution and a
credit to all of the Members, and a credit, I might say, to my
colleagues on the Republican side, to the Republican leadership on this
issue, and I congratulate them for that.
Mr. Eagen is someone who has worked on this Hill for many years. He
will be leaving the Hill and leaving this city and moving his family to
the west, and we wish him the very, very best.
Mr. Speaker, Karen Haas, who has been the Clerk and who submitted her
resignation is, as well, someone who has worked for this institution,
cares deeply about the House, and has comported herself, although for a
relatively short period of time as the Clerk of our House, in a way
that brought honor to the Office of Clerk and brought credit to the
House of Representatives.
I know from my perspective personally and from Speaker Pelosi, and I
both want to, on behalf of our caucus, extend to them our deepest
thanks and gratitude for the service that they have rendered to the
House of Representatives and to our country. Both of them, I know, have
very exciting things to come. They are both young,
[[Page 3157]]
they both have much to offer, and we wish them the very best.
Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my comments on Ms. Miller
and Mr. Beard and would certainly yield now to Mr. Ehlers, who may also
want to say something.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I would join my colleague from Maryland in
commending Jay Eagen and Karen Haas for the tremendous job they have
done, and, before Karen, Jeff Trandahl, who served temporarily as CAO
during the bridge time before the selection of Mr. Eagen, and who also
served as the Clerk of the House very ably.
They both, Jay Eagen and Karen Haas, have done a great job in that
office. The House has run very, very well as a result, and I commend
them and wish them well in the future. I am certain that they have
bright futures based on the excellent work that they did here.
I also would like to comment about the appointments that have been
made. The new appointment for the Clerk, Ms. Miller, from everything I
see, is an outstanding appointment. We recognize that as traditionally
the appointment of the Speaker and can be made solely by the Speaker
and has been in the past.
I look forward to good things from her. She is obviously very
capable, has an outstanding record in working in the House, the Senate,
and various other places. I look forward to good work from her.
In regard to the selected candidate for Chief Administrative Officer
for the House, Mr. Beard, I do not object to his appointment. He is, I
think, of relatively good background and should be able to manage the
job, at least I seriously hope so.
But I have serious concerns about the lack of transparency and the
selection process that resulted in his appointment. Just to give a
better history, when I first arrived here, it was shortly before the
Republicans took over the majority, and there had been considerable
confusion in the House. We had the bank scandal, the post office
scandal and so forth. A position was created, I forget the precise
title, but something along the line of the director of the
nonlegislative and financial functions of the House of Representatives.
The Speaker at that time, who was a Democrat, since they were in the
majority, appointed a person to fill that post. It was General Wishart,
I believe, and he resigned after several months saying basically he
could not do the job, given the parameters that were imposed upon it.
When the Republicans took over the House of Representatives, they
also appointed, and it was largely a Speaker's appointment at that
time, appointed someone to serve as the Chief Administrative Officer of
the House. That position was created and described by the new majority.
Mr. Faulkner had a good resume and had a lot of good ideas, but,
frankly, did not really meet the needs that we had for that position at
that time. We then decided, and I believe Mr. Hoyer was on the
committee at the same time with me, and we simply decided that we had
to make this as nonpartisan a position as possible.
So we formed a group, two Republicans, two Democrats, and they
conducted a nationwide search with a search firm to find the best
person for the Chief Administrative Officer position.
They ended up selecting someone from the House of Representatives,
someone who was familiar with it, but also someone with extensive
administrative background who did a tremendous job of operating this
institution since that time.
The main point I want to make is a process was set up that was
bipartisan. It resulted in an excellent appointment, and I believe we
should use that same process again.
In fact, I felt so strongly about it, I sent a letter to the Speaker
last week pointing out that we should use that same process again.
Barely was the letter delivered that she announced publicly that she
had selected a new CAO, without using that process at all, without
input from the minority party. Simply, we had the courtesy of chatting
with the new appointee, but nothing to say in the appointment or
whether or not that person should have the appointment.
I have met with him; I recognize he has considerable administrative
ability. He has been around a long time, but I am very concerned
because we did not use the same process. I think this new appointee is
going to owe his allegiance to only one person, that is the Speaker of
the House, and I don't believe that is the best way to operate the
House of Representatives.
At the same time, should anything deleterious or improper happen, we
recognize where the responsibility for that will lie, because it will
be with the person who made the appointment.
But I have firsthand knowledge, having served on the House
Administration Committee now for over 12 years, firsthand knowledge of
the important role the Chief Administrative Officer plays in the House
operations, and it is an extremely important job.
This is a complex organization on the Hill, over 10,000 employees.
The position has many responsibilities that are of significant
consequence to the House of Representatives.
While the proper administration of the House is ultimately the
responsibility of the majority, the successful operation of the House
is most certainly not a partisan manner.
Republicans and Democrats alike maintain a shared investment in
preserving and building upon the professional improvements made by the
House Chief Administrative Officer over the last 12 years.
In 1997, as I mentioned, the last occasion a new CAO was appointed, a
search committee was constituted that, as I said, required a unanimous
decision from all search committee members in order to select a
candidate for the position of Chief Administrative Officer.
That last provision, I think, is very important, to ensure that it
was not a partisan position required that both Republicans and both
Democrats had to vote to select the final candidate for the position.
At that time, our current House majority leader, my colleague from
Maryland, stated that the formulation of a search committee comprised
of the leaders of both parties ``was done to assure that we would have
a bipartisan agreement on an administrator for the business of the
House.''
Mr. Hoyer also stated that what this House needs is a bipartisan and
effectively nonpartisan way to assure ourselves and the American people
that the business of the House, the paying of our bills, the managing
of our information systems, all of that which has nothing to do with
the formulation of the policy, but everything to do with the effective
management of the people's House, is being done in a proper fashion.
Now, I am not quoting this to throw the words in Mr. Hoyer's face.
That is not my intent at all. It is simply my intent to show how at
that time we worked very hard to get a bipartisan agreement. That
bipartisan agreement, which Mr. Hoyer spoke of, resulted in the
appointment of Jay Eagen, our current Chief Administrative Officer, who
has served us so well for a number of years.
Under Mr. Eagen's tenure, just as an example, the House has achieved
eight consecutive clean opinions from independent auditors, an
impressive result by any measure. This should be contrasted with the
result when the Republicans first took office, we asked for an
independent outside audit, and the auditors came back and said the
books are such a mess, we cannot even audit them; you will have to
construct an entire new financial management system.
I was pleased that since I had helped develop the computer system
that I was able to help develop a system that was appropriate for that
task. I think all of this together has led to the clean audits that we
have had for a number of years.
I certainly support the comments that Mr. Hoyer made some years ago.
They were very appropriate. They described the procedure accurately;
and his points, as he made them, I totally agree that the appointment
of a post was such a significant impact to this
[[Page 3158]]
institution, we should be able to put aside our party affiliations and
work together to find a suitable candidate.
I wish I could make a comparable statement today. I wish that such a
bipartisan process had been followed this time. Instead, I am left only
to express my sincere disappointment that it did not take place.
Let me make it clear, the qualifications of Mr. Beard are not under
attack; but the process that Speaker Pelosi administered to make this
appointment is. I think we should have had the same process, and I am
disappointed that the Speaker chose not to do that.
Without a fair, open and competitive process, there simply is no way
to determine whether the selection is in the best interest of the
House, and the complete absence of transparency is cause for alarm for
those who value the integrity of this institution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. I will tell my friend, I don't have any other speakers on
this side. Do you have a speaker?
Mr. EHLERS. Yes, I have several.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, a
newly appointed member of the Committee on House Administration, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the words of those who have spoken
the words about the job that Jay Eagen and Karen Haas have done. They
have served this body well. They have done us honor by their service. I
am sure they will continue with honorable service in the future.
When I returned to the House of Representatives after being away for
16 years, I observed that there were some things that were better about
this House and some things that were worse about this House.
{time} 1415
I noted that there was always a partisanship in this House, but there
appeared to be a harder edge to that partisanship. And one of the
things that struck me was that we needed to be around here more often.
That is why I, frankly, am one of those on this side of the aisle that
believes that attempting to go to a 5-day workweek not only is good in
terms of the product that we will put out eventually, when we actually
do go to 5-day workweeks, but the interchange and the interplay and the
opportunity for Members to deal with one another and get to know one
another I think may very well take the hard edge off the partisanship
that is always going to be a part of the House when you have strong
feelings argued by Members on both sides.
At the same time, I must say it is a disappointment, as a Member of
the House Administration Committee, to see the manner in which the
decision was made to choose a Chief Administrative Officer.
When I served here before, there is no doubt that the administration
of this place was in a mess. You could ask questions and get no
answers. You could attempt to try and decipher how this place was
organized, and you could not find out. You would ask questions, and you
would get a wink and a nod and a sense of don't ask, don't tell. You
would try and find, for legitimate reasons, information; and you would
find that either that was not made available to you or that it could
not be made available to you.
And since that time, primarily I believe because of the institution
of the position of Chief Administrative Officer and the organization
that flow from that, it has changed. So I was trying to look back at
the experience of the House to see how this was made and how the
decision was made to fill that position.
When I discovered that both the Republican and the Democratic sides
had come together stressing bipartisanship, making a national search,
attempting to try and find the best possible person for the job but,
above that, requiring unanimous support from both sides of the aisle,
it seemed to me that that was an encouraging step towards righting a
wrong that existed in this House.
And that is why, even though I do not know Mr. Beard, and I will take
on its face the recommendations that have been made on the other side
about Mr. Beard, it is a missed opportunity we had in this House to
manifest an effort in one of the legitimate areas where bipartisanship
should reign, that is, in filling the position of someone who is to be
the chief administrator of this body. It is a sorely missed
opportunity.
I know that we should not be complaining about process, and people
are tired about complaining about process, and I am tired about hearing
the complaints about process. But this was a unique opportunity for us
to work together, not as Democrats or Republicans but Members of the
House of Representatives who have respect for this institution, who
understand the necessity of having this place run at that level on a
businesslike basis so that every Member can feel that the person who
filled that job was chosen by the entire membership and that no one has
to feel that they have allegiance only to one side.
It is very difficult in this place, because of the way it is
organized, for us to find that sort of sweet spot, if you will, in the
activities in which we are involved. This was one of those chances, and
I am very sorry that we rejected the experience and the precedent of
the recent past in making this selection.
I join the gentleman from Maryland and others in hoping that Mr.
Beard will do an excellent job. It is in the interests of all of us
that he does an excellent job. My only point is this was a tremendous
opportunity for us to remove partisanship, to work together, as the
gentleman suggested a number of years ago when the selection of Mr.
Eagen was made.
My only hope is that this does not suggest how things will be done in
the future when there is abundant reason for us to work together as
Members of the House rather than as Democrats and Republicans.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I congratulate Mr. Beard on his selection. I
hope he will do the best for us, as Mr. Eagen has done. I only lament
the fact that we had an opportunity that we missed.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the comments. I appreciated my comments when I made
them. I still want you to know that I appreciate them, and I think that
is a good practice.
I had the opportunity of sitting down with Mr. Beard just a few days
ago, essentially, almost verbatim, in terms of how I believe he ought
to operate his office in the sense that this is a business office, this
is not a partisan office. Hopefully, he will respond to doing what is
in the best business management practice, best practices as well as his
own judgment without respect to party or partisanship. I would hope
that that would happen. I expect it to happen.
But I appreciate the comments that have been made.
I want to say that, also, I am strongly in support of Lorraine
Miller. This is a historic appointment, first African American to serve
as an officer of the House, not just as Clerk of the House but as an
officer of the House.
Lorraine Miller has served for three Speakers now. She served
President Clinton in the White House. She is president of the NAACP in
Washington, D.C. She is an extraordinarily knowledgeable, able
individual; and she will be a tremendous asset to this institution and
I think will send a very strong and powerful message to all of America
about inclusion, as the election of our Speaker did.
Mr. Beard, as some of you know, has more than three decades of
experience in policy and executive management, including senior
positions in the House of Representatives, the United States Senate,
the White House and the Interior Department, as well as the Library of
Congress. Obviously, he has a long, distinguished career in management
and, as such, is a professional appointment.
Again, I appreciate the comments that have been made. Mr. Speaker, I
[[Page 3159]]
strongly support the nomination of both, because I believe both will
serve this institution in a professional manner that brings credit on
their offices and on this institution.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Clyburn be able to
manage the balance of time available to me.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his
comments.
I would also echo his comments about Mrs. Miller. I was astounded at
her resume. In fact, I would love to have a resume that complete
myself. She has served government in so many different agencies and in
so many different ways that I am certain that she will perform very,
very well as the Clerk of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. McCarthy of California, a brand
new member of the Committee on House Administration but one with
considerable experience on it because of his previous work as a staff
member for the Honorable Bill Thomas, who chaired the committee.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today actually for two reasons, to congratulate
Mrs. Miller, rightfully so. She was selected, rightfully so, that the
Speaker was able to appoint her. But today I actually rise in
disappointment, disappointed in this resolution.
As the Member said, I am a new Member from California. But I am not
new to this House. I had the pleasure of serving Mr. Thomas, who had
served as the chairman of House Administration in 1995.
I know the work that was done and the respect for this House on both
sides of the aisle. I never questioned the respect for this institution
on either side. But to go about in bringing an audit to this House I
knew the work that needed to be done. I worked as a staffer, and I
found out in 1995 when we went to do the first audit, we did not keep
enough books to even have an independent audit.
And what has transpired, in the last 8 years, we have had a clean,
independent audit. And how were we able to achieve that? This body was
able to achieve that by being bipartisan in the selection of the chief
administrative officer, and to do this resolution today is actually a
step backwards.
Transparency in this House, both sides will agree, is the best thing
for the House of Representatives; and my question today is, I do not
question the credentials of Mr. Beard. Will he make a great CAO? I do
not know, quite frankly, because he has never come before us. We have
never had the ability to go for the search, and we have actually done a
disjustice to him, because we have gone through to select and not even
empower him, when both sides of the aisle could go by and make a
selection. That would empower that office in a bipartisan manner, much
like we have done in the past.
My biggest disappointment is this side of the aisle was ready to
work. I know the ranking member had sent a letter to the new Speaker to
ask about doing it just like we did in 1997, where somebody from the
Democrats and some from the Republicans got together and agreed
unanimously. That is the respect of this office.
On my first day on this floor, I listened intently. I came with no
animosity. I came to work together. I came to find common ground. And
up in that top, I listened to the Speaker when she said, this is about
partnership not partisanship.
But today is a step backwards. This was the opportunity to move
forward in a partisanship much like we have done in 1997, much as
history has shown. And I will tell you, in the end, the respect for
this House has to come from both sides of the aisle that we have, and
we have to do it when it comes to the resolution.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to offer my congratulations to
those who have done so well, Mr. Speaker, Karen Haas and Mr. Jay Eagen
in their duties and responsibilities to all of us as Members of this
body.
I am a little bit interested in some of the convenient memory that is
taking place here. I happen to recall, Mr. Speaker, that in 1995 we had
a CAO appointed; and, of course, I was a member of the bipartisan group
that was selected by this body to hire Mr. Eagen. I was one of the ones
that interviewed him, as well as others, and was one of the ones that
decided to put him in the capacity that he is in.
So I just wanted to say to my friends on the other side that we hired
Mr. Eagen to clean up a mess that was not created by those who were in
power. It was created by the gentleman who took the office in 1995.
I would want us to be careful about how we recall the history of
this, because that is the way all of this developed, and I was on that
group that helped to clean it up with the hiring of Mr. Eagen. He has
done a professional job. I want to thank him for that.
I, too, have met with Mr. Beard; and I have known Mrs. Lorraine
Miller for a long, long time. I think she is an excellent choice. I
think she is going to do great work for this institution, and I join
with those who see this as a history-making and I think marble-ceiling-
shattering appointment.
But when I met with Mr. Beard I said to him that I recognized his
professional background. But I also said to him that I had one wish of
him, that he carry out his duties and responsibilities in a
professional manner. But I said to him when I spoke with him that this
is my first elected job. I have been director or manager of something
all of my life before coming here.
{time} 1430
And one of the things I learned as a manager is that you have to try
to balance efficiency and effectiveness. And in order to do the work of
this body, I want all of those people who assume positions to be
efficient. But I also would like to see the work done be effective. And
to do so, we have to, I think, recognize the individual worth that
exists in every human being. There are a lot of people working in and
around this building who we sometimes don't see, but they come under
the purview of the Chief Administrative Officer. So I asked Mr. Beard
to remember, as he carried out his duties and responsibilities, that we
must always work to balance out efficiency and effectiveness. So I
think they will make good additions to the work here in this body, and
I want to thank them for being willing to serve and thank the Speaker
for making this appointment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I too want to join my colleagues at wishing
a fond and reluctant farewell to Jay Eagen and Karen Haas. They have
both served this institution with great distinction and reflected well
on the institution of the House.
But I rise today to honor Lorraine Miller of Fort Worth, Texas, on
her appointment as Clerk of the House of Representatives. Of course, as
Clerk of the House of Representatives, Ms. Miller's responsibilities
will include but not be limited to the page board, congressional travel
reports and disclosure forms, the voting system, oversight of the
legislative operation of the House floor. She is well prepared for
this. She has worked at the highest levels of government, which have
contributed to her leadership abilities and her knowledge of
management.
The role of the Clerk is demanding and requires someone with great
intellect. Ms. Miller will certainly bring strength and diversity to
the Office of Clerk as the first African American woman to hold this
top House position.
Ms. Miller first worked for the House of Representatives for U.S.
Congressman Jim Wright back in Fort Worth, Texas, when he was majority
leader. She moved on to work for then-Speaker Tom Foley, U.S.
Congressman John Lewis, and finally the current speaker, Speaker
Pelosi. Ms. Miller also worked as deputy assistant to the president of
[[Page 3160]]
Legislative Affairs for the House of Representatives during the
administration of Bill Clinton. She additionally held positions at the
Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.
It is with great honor that I recognize Ms. Lorraine C. Miller for
decades of hard work and selfless dedication. I want to join her
friends and family, both here in Washington, D.C. and particularly back
home in Fort Worth, Texas, where I represent, in congratulating her on
this prestigious milestone. She has been an inspiration and a role
model to many, and I know she will continue to be a role model to many
of the young men and women who will watch her progress with pride here
in the House of Representatives. And I, for one, look forward to
working with her here in Congress.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, in that case I will make my final comments.
I assume the gentleman from South Carolina is able to close right after
that.
Just hearing this debate reminds me again of all the things that
happened. And first of all, I have to clarify that Mr. Eagen did not
have to clear up a mess left by Mr. Faulkner. Mr. Faulkner may or may
not have been the best choice for CAO at the time he took the job, but
certainly improved the situation. And I was there. I saw the books as
they were, ledger cards made out in pencil with erasures in the ledger
book, an erasure of a number filled in with $2,500,000 just to make the
books balance. I have seen those books. I know the facts. It was a mess
after 40 years of the rule of one party.
Now, I am not defending or criticizing either General Wishart or Scot
Faulkner. They were there. They did the best job they could in very
difficult circumstances. But they were not there very long.
The point is simply that when we followed a good process, when we
used a bipartisan process, we appointed someone who has served for a
number of years and has served extremely well.
You know as well as I that if you hire a person, that person's
loyalty is going to be to you. It is very important that this position
be operated in a bipartisan fashion. And since the Speaker has
appointed Mr. Beard, no matter how capable he is, no matter how much he
tries, he will be suspected of partisanship in his decisions.
Daniel Beard may, in fact, be the right person to lead the CAO
organization, and I truly hope that he is. However, given the selection
process, there is simply no way of knowing that with any degree of
confidence. This appointment could and should have occurred with the
full confidence of all Members of the House. Unfortunately, the burden
of proof now lies with Mr. Beard and, ultimately, Speaker Pelosi, to
ensure that Mr. Beard is able to maintain the level of skill,
professionalism and bipartisanship we have come to expect from the
House CAO.
Mr. Speaker, I demand a division of the question on the adopting of
the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question will be divided.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CLYBURN. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question on adopting the resolution is
divided.
First, the question is on adopting the first portion of the question
(relating to the election of Clerk).
The first portion of the question was adopted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Now, the question is on adopting the second
portion of the question (relating to the election of Chief
Administrative Officer).
The second portion of the question was adopted.
A motion to reconsider the adoption of the resolution was laid on the
table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H. Res. 129.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, and under a previous order of the House, the
following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.
____________________
ALLOCATIONS OF SPENDING AUTHORITY TO HOUSE COMMITTEES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, section 511 clause (a)(4)(B)(i) of H. Res. 6
provides that I submit the 302(a) allocations contemplated by House
Concurrent Resolution 376 of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, as adopted
by the House. In addition, section 511 clause (a)(4)(B)(ii) of H. Res.
6 provides that I submit accounts identified for advance appropriations
pursuant to section 401(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 376 of the
One Hundred Ninth Congress, as adopted by the House.
The attached tables, which I submit, provide that information.
DIRECT SPENDING LEGISLATION--AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY ACTION
[Fiscal years, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 2007-2011 total
House committee -------------------------------------------------------------------
BA Outlays BA Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture................................. ............... ............... ............... ...............
Armed Services.............................. 45 45 45 45
Education and Labor......................... ............... 1 ............... 30
Energy and Commerce......................... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Financial Services.......................... ............... ............... 2 2
Foreign Affairs............................. 1 1 5 5
Homeland Security........................... ............... ............... ............... ...............
House Administration........................ ............... ............... ............... ...............
Judiciary................................... 19 16 116 113
Natural Resources........................... ............... ............... 6 6
Oversight and Government Reform............. ............... ............... ............... ...............
Science and Technology...................... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Small Business.............................. ............... ............... ............... ...............
Transportation and Infrastructure........... 13 13 22 22
Veterans' Affairs........................... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Ways and Means.............................. ............... ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3161]]
DISCRETIONARY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007--APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATION
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BA OT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 302(a) Allocation............. 872,778 963,711
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY2008 ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS--UNDER SECTION 401 OF H. CON. RES. 376
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriate Level.......................................... 23,565
Accounts Identified for Advances: ...........
Elk Hills.............................................. ...........
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.................... ...........
Employment and Training Administration................. ...........
Education for the Disadvantaged........................ ...........
School Improvement..................................... ...........
Children and Family Services (Head Start).............. ...........
Special Education...................................... ...........
Vocational and Adult Education......................... ...........
Transportation (highways, transit, Farley Building).... ...........
Payment to Postal Service.............................. ...........
Section 8 Renewals..................................... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________
IMPRISONMENT OF TWO U.S. BORDER PATROL AGENTS
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, 3 weeks ago two U.S. Border
Patrol agents entered Federal prison. Agents Ramos and Compeon never
should have been sent to Federal prison. These agents were convicted
last spring for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds
of marijuana across our southern border into Texas.
Members of Congress have, and let me say, not only Members of
Congress, but many American citizens, have repeatedly petitioned
President Bush to pardon these agents. At the House Democratic Caucus
last week, the President said: ``We want our Border Patrol agents
guarding the borders from criminals and drug dealers and terrorists.''
Mr. President, we are calling on you today, as you said you would
weeks ago, to take a sober look at this case.
Many Members of Congress have warned that if these two Border Patrol
agents entered prison their safety would be threatened by those who
hate law enforcement officers. Tragically, this happened last Saturday
night when Agent Ramos was beaten while being in prison.
Mr. President, you have the authority to correct an injustice.
Please, Mr. President, expedite your consideration of a pardon for
these two men and help their families realize that America is a country
that believes in justice.
Mr. Speaker, before closing, I want to repeat that: Mr. President,
you have the authority to correct an injustice. Please expedite your
consideration of a pardon for these two men and help their families
realize that America is a country that believes in justice.
____________________
THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President submitted his
budget to the United States Congress and to the country. And in that
budget, the President made clear a number of priorities that I think
are in direct opposition to the wishes and aspirations of the American
people.
Most egregious, in my view, is that the President leaves in place a
tax increase on the middle-class families of this country. Today, about
three million Americans are affected by the alternative minimum tax,
meant to tax only the superwealthy. This year alone, it will reach 23
million middle-class families across the country. And the only way the
President accomplishes any of his goals is to leave in place a tax that
was never intended by the Congress or the President to affect middle-
class families.
The Democrats make a pledge to, in fact, deal with the alternative
minimum tax this year so middle-class families do not have a tax
increase either this year, next year or the following year. It has been
consistently.
But this is only one of the egregious misplaced priorities in the
President's budget. The other highlights, in addition to increasing
taxes on the middle class, it cuts health care for seniors $100 billion
over 5 years, $300 billion over 10 years.
While we are dealing with the temperatures outside that are near
freezing in my home area of Chicago, below zero, it cuts home energy
assistance to our seniors by 18 percent.
It eliminates the COPS program for community policing, which has
supported 120,000 police officers throughout the country.
It goes forward in the President's desire to privatize Social
Security.
It cuts health care benefits for our returning veterans, forcing them
to pay up to $750 a year to enter the health care for veterans, one of
the best health care systems in the country. And I don't think that is
a welcome-home mat that our veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan deserve.
It also has cuts to education. It underfunds Leave No Child Behind by
$15 billion.
It cuts housing assistance for affordable housing. Returning again,
in relationship to our veterans, it cuts the funding for research into
brain trauma research, which is so significant. One of the greatest
injuries for our veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan have
been the brain injuries that they have incurred there. And the first
time ever we have gotten funding inside the Pentagon for that area, it
makes a cut.
And then it doesn't deal with what we call earmarks here, as the
President continues his earmarks in his budget. Across the board, from
Social Security privatization to health care cuts in Medicare and
Medicaid, to also not cutting children from their health care, to
raising taxes on the middle class, in time and place, from health care
to taxes to supporting our law enforcement community, this budget makes
the wrong priorities.
It is time to have a new direction and a change here in the
priorities in Washington. In addition to all that, while we have
families not being able to get to their homes in the area of Louisiana
and Mississippi and the Gulf Coast, the President asked for an
additional $245 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. In every turn that we
can, we have to right this ship that is wrong.
Most importantly, in the area the President's budget has relied on
tax increases on middle class families, cuts Medicare and Medicaid,
asked for $245 billion in increased funding for Iraq and Afghanistan,
cuts children from their health care, cuts heating assistance from our
elderly, also cuts benefits for veterans. Those are not the priorities
of the American people.
{time} 1445
Every President in the history of the country in a time of war has
thought about how to invest in America. Abraham Lincoln, in the height
of the Civil War, had the land-grant colleges. Roosevelt, in the height
of the final 2 years of World War II, developed the GI Bill of Rights.
During the height of the Cold War, Eisenhower saw the interstate system
as a way to invest in America. Kennedy, a man on the moon when we were
facing down the Soviet Union.
At every critical juncture when America was at war, a President
thought about how to invest in America to turn this country's efforts
overseas here at home to make this a stronger and better country.
This is the first Presidential budget that in time of war, rather
than looking for increases here on how to make America stronger, it
looks for cuts in America. It looks for the areas of education, health
care, veterans, and law enforcement to sacrifice, while we increase our
investments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you look at the history of every time there has been a period of
America's engagement around the world
[[Page 3162]]
militarily, every President has looked to invest here at home to make
America stronger. This is the first budget that leaves America weaker
in a time of military engagement.
____________________
DON'T DO IT, MR. PRESIDENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the President were to ask me for advice on
foreign affairs, this is what I would say: Don't do it, Mr. President.
It is a bad idea. There is no need for it. There is great danger in
doing it. America is against it, and Congress should be. The United
Nations is against it. The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the
Pakistanis are against it. The whole world is against it. Our allies
are against it. Our enemies are against it. The Arabs are against it.
The Europeans are against it. The Muslims are against it.
We don't need to do this. The threat is overblown. The plan is a
hysterical reaction to a problem that does not yet exist. Hysteria is
never a good basis for foreign policy. Don't we ever learn? Have we
already forgotten Iraq?
The plan defies common sense. If it is carried out, the Middle East
and possibly the world will explode. Oil will soar to over $100 a
barrel, and gasoline will be over $5 a gallon.
Despite what some think, it won't serve the interests of Israel.
Besides, it is illegal. It is unconstitutional. And, Mr. President, you
have no moral authority to do it.
We don't need it. We don't want it. So, Mr. President, don't do it.
Don't bomb Iran.
The moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is this: If you don't have a
nuclear weapon, we will threaten to attack you. If you do have a
nuclear weapon, we will leave you alone. In fact, we will probably
subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this?
Mr. Speaker, I would like now to yield to my friend from North
Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Paul
for so many years coming down to the floor to defend the Constitution
of the United States.
The United States Constitution, article I, Section 8, clause 11,
vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Many of us in
the past few days have put in a resolution, H.J. Resolution 14, to say
that the President should not go into and bomb Iran unless he comes to
the Congress so that the Congress can meet its constitutional
responsibility.
James Madison said, ``. . . The power to declare war, including the
power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in
the legislature . . . the Executive has no right, in any case, to
decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring
war.''
I want to thank you, Ron Paul, for always being a spokesman and a
protector of the Constitution.
Mr. PAUL. I thank you very much for those comments.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to direct
their remarks to the Chair and not to the President.
____________________
ENDING THE IRAQ WAR
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the President has isolated himself from
all the evidence, military advice, members of his own party, and the
American people. He is not staying the course in Iraq. The President is
making matters even worse by escalating the war.
He has ordered at least 21,500 more U.S. soldiers into the middle of
a bloody and violent civil war. This President has stepped backward in
history. He is making the same tragic mistakes of Vietnam all over
again.
The President's speeches won't stop a bullet, and they won't protect
soldiers from the tsunami of violence inundating Iraq. Our soldiers
don't have enough equipment or support. Soldiers know it, but the White
House ignores it.
Some of the best newspapers and magazines in the Nation are reporting
the facts, and they are not just repeating the President's spin.
From the McClatchy newspapers, here is a recent headline: ``Soldiers
in Iraq view troop surge as a lost cause.''
From the San Francisco Chronicle: ``Corners cut in rush to add
troops; shorter training time, lack of equipment hurt readiness,
experts say.''
And the latest issue of Business Week said: ``Military equipment:
Missing in action.''
I will enter these stories into the Record.
[From BusinessWeek]
Military Equipment: Missing in Action
A new Defense audit says the Pentagon has failed to properly equip
soldiers in Iraq--just as the President struggles to find support for a
troop increase
(By Dawn Kopecki)
The Inspector General for the Defense Dept. is concerned
that the U.S. military has failed to adequately equip
soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially for
nontraditional duties such as training Iraqi security forces
and handling detainees, according to a summary of a new audit
obtained by BusinessWeek.
The findings come as the Pentagon prepares to send another
21,500 troops to Iraq and as Democratic leaders levy threats
to restrict funding for a war that's already cost about $500
billion. The Army alone expects to spend an extra $70 billion
on an additional 65,000 permanent troops from fiscal year
2009 through 2013. According to Army officials, $18 billion
of that will be spent on equipment.
The Inspector General found that the Pentagon hasn't been
able to properly equip the soldiers it already has. Many have
gone without enough guns, ammunition, and other necessary
supplies to ``effectively complete their missions'' and have
had to cancel or postpone some assignments while waiting for
the proper gear, according to the report from auditors with
the Defense Dept. Inspector General's office. Soldiers have
also found themselves short on body armor, armored vehicles,
and communications equipment, among other things, auditors
found.
``As a result, service members performed missions without
the proper equipment, used informal procedures to obtain
equipment and sustainment support, and canceled or postponed
missions while waiting to receive equipment,'' reads the
executive summary dated Jan. 25. Service members often
borrowed or traded with each other to get the needed
supplies, according to the summary.
Pentagon officials did not immediately return phone calls
seeking comment.
The audit supports news reports and other evidence that
U.S. troops have been stretched too thin or have performed
tasks for which they were ill-prepared. It is likely to add
fuel to the opposition to President George W. Bush's decision
to send more troops to Iraq in an effort to quell the
violence there.
Already, support for the troop increase is tepid in the
Senate, where Democrats are preparing to vote on a nonbinding
statement against the President's plan. While lawmakers have
threatened to reduce funding for the war, few have publicly
committed to using the ``power of the purse'' to block
funding for the troop surge. ``The thing we're going to do
now is very important, to show the American people that the
United States Senate, on a bipartisan basis, does not support
an escalation,'' says Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
``Even the Republicans are very timid in their support for
the President at this stage.''
In the summary of the Inspector General's audit, the
equipment shortages were attributed to basic management
failures among military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.
U.S. Central Command lacked standard policies for requesting
and tracking equipment requirements or for equipping units to
perform nontraditional duties. Auditors surveyed 1,100
service members stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan from all
four military branches, the National Guard, and Reserves.
The Inspector General recommended that the Pentagon
establish new internal controls and policies to address the
funding, equipping, and sustaining forces performing
nontraditional duties.
____
[From McClatchy Newspapers]
Soldiers in Iraq View Troop Surge as a Lost Cause
(By Tom Lasseter)
Baghdad, Iraq.--Army 1st Lt. Antonio Hardy took a slow look
around the east Baghdad neighborhood that he and his men were
patrolling. He grimaced at the sound of gunshots in the
distance. A machine gunner on top of a Humvee scanned the
rooftops for
[[Page 3163]]
snipers. Some of Hardy's men wondered aloud if they'd get hit
by a roadside bomb on the way back to their base. ``To be
honest, it's going to be like this for a long time to come,
no matter what we do,'' said Hardy, 25, of Atlanta. ``I think
some people in America don't want to know about all this
violence, about all the killings. The people back home are
shielded from it; they get it sugar-coated.''
While senior military officials and the Bush administration
say the president's decision to send more American troops to
pacify Baghdad will succeed, many of the soldiers who're
already there say it's a lost cause.
``What is victory supposed to look like? Every time we turn
around and go in a new area there's somebody new waiting to
kill us,'' said Sgt. 1st Class Herbert Gill, 29, of Pulaski,
Tenn., as his Humvee rumbled down a dark Baghdad highway one
evening last week. ``Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting
for thousands of years, and we're not going to change that
overnight.'' ``Once more raids start happening, they'll
(insurgents) melt away,'' said Gill, who serves with the 1st
Infantry Division in east Baghdad. ``And then two or three
months later, when we leave and say it was a success, they'll
come back.''
Soldiers interviewed across east Baghdad, home to more than
half the city's 8 million people, said the violence is so out
of control that while a surge of 21,500 more American troops
may momentarily suppress it, the notion that U.S. forces can
bring lasting security to Iraq is misguided.
Lt. Hardy and his men of the 2nd Brigade of the Army's 2nd
Infantry Division, from Fort Carson, Colo., patrol an area
southeast of Sadr City, the stronghold of radical Shiite
cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
A map in Hardy's company headquarters charts at least 50
roadside bombs since late October, and the lieutenant
recently watched in horror as the blast from one killed his
Humvee's driver and wounded two other soldiers in a spray of
blood and shrapnel.
Soldiers such as Hardy must contend not only with an
escalating civil war between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite Muslims,
but also with insurgents on both sides who target U.S.
forces.
``We can go get into a firefight and empty out ammo, but it
doesn't accomplish much,'' said Pvt. 1st Class Zach Clouser,
19, of York, Pa. ``This isn't our war--we're just in the
middle.''
Almost every foot soldier interviewed during a week of
patrols on the streets and alleys of east Baghdad said that
Bush's plan would halt the bloodshed only temporarily. The
soldiers cited a variety of reasons, including incompetence
or corruption among Iraqi troops, the complexities of Iraq's
sectarian violence and the lack of Iraqi public support, a
cornerstone of counterinsurgency warfare.
``They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but
until the people here start working with us, it's not going
to change,'' said Sgt. Chance Oswalt, 22, of Tulsa, Okla.
Bush's initiative calls for American soldiers in Baghdad to
take positions in outposts throughout the capital, paired up
with Iraqi police and soldiers. Few of the U.S. soldiers
interviewed, however, said they think Iraqi forces can
operate effectively without American help.
Their officers were more optimistic.
If there's enough progress during the next four to six
months, ``we can look at doing provincial Iraqi control, and
we can move U.S. forces to the edge of the city,'' said Lt.
Col. Dean Dunham, the deputy commander of the 2nd Infantry
Division's 2nd Brigade, which oversees most of east Baghdad.
Maj. Christopher Wendland, a senior staff officer for
Dunham's brigade, said he thinks there's a good chance that
by late 2007 American troops will have handed over most of
Baghdad to Iraqi troops.
``I'm actually really positive,'' said Wendland, 35, of
Chicago. ``We have an Iraqi army that's actually capable of
maintaining once we leave.''
If the Iraqi army can control the violence, his thinking
goes, economic and political progress will follow in the
safest areas, accompanied by infrastructure improvement, then
spread outward.
In counterinsurgency circles, that notion is commonly
called the ``inkblot'' approach. It's been relatively
successful in some isolated parts of Iraq, such as Tal Afar
on the Syrian border, but in most areas it's failed to halt
the bloodshed for any length of time.
Across America, the newspapers are filled with stories and editorials
about the tragic consequences of this war and the dread over the
President's escalation. From the Seattle Post Intelligencer, their
editorial published yesterday is titled: ``Iraq War: Advice and
dissent.''
While the President is acting like he can go it alone, the PI
correctly places responsibility on the co-equal legislative branch of
government: Congress. The PI wrote: ``No resolution, however, can
absolve Congress of its responsibility to cut off spending on a
hopeless occupation.''
It is time for Congress to act responsibly by exercising its
constitutional responsibility and deny funding for the President's
escalation of the Iraq War. The history of the Vietnam War shows us how
to deal with the Iraq War, and I am prepared to apply the lessons of
history in this Congress.
In 1970, the McGovern-Hatfield amendment was introduced to stop the
President from continuing to escalate the Vietnam War. It capped
funding for troops for a short period of time, after which money could
be used to bring the troops home and for bringing the prisoners home.
It didn't pass, but it began a 5-year process that ended the war.
I intend to offer a similar amendment to the first appropriation bill
related to Iraq that is introduced in this House. There should be no
new funding for any escalation of this war, not one dime, because it
only leads to more U.S. casualties. Resolution in Iraq will never come
on the bloody streets of Baghdad. It is time for us to act on behalf of
the American people and on behalf of our soldiers. They deserve our
strong and unwavering support.
We can provide that by passing my amendment to channel our funds to
the immediate redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq, out of
occupation, and out of harm's way. We have waited far too long to act,
and our soldiers have paid for our delay with their lives and their
limbs.
I believe it is time for Congress to reassure the American people
that the President cannot go it alone. It is time for Congress to put
an end to the President's reckless disregard of the truth about Iraq.
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat
them. The President is doing today exactly what happened in Vietnam. On
September 1, 1970, George McGovern spoke eloquently on the floor of the
other body where he introduced the McGovern-Hatfield amendment.
He said, ``It does not take any courage at all for a Congressman or a
Senator or a President to wrap himself in the flag and say we are
staying in Vietnam, because it is not our blood that is being shed. But
we are responsible for those young men'' and now young women ``and
their lives and their hopes. And if we do not end this damnable war,
those young men will someday curse us for our pitiful willingness to
let the Executive carry the burden that the Constitution places on
us.''
I believe we must apply the lessons of history, and I urge my
colleagues to approve that amendment when it comes up so that we can
begin to end a damnable war that never should have been brought in the
first place.
____________________
COLTS SUPER BOWL XLI VICTORY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my
colleagues who have just spoken here on the floor, but today I am here
on some happy news, so I will confine my remarks to what I consider to
be a real celebratory event.
Sunday, the day before yesterday, I sat in the rain with 75,000 other
Americans cheering the Indianapolis Colts to victory in the Super Bowl,
and I want to tell you that it was one of the greatest football games
that I have ever seen.
We were very much in favor of the Colts, as you might imagine, and
when the kickoff came to the Bears, and Devin Hester ran 92 years for a
touchdown, everybody's heart went down to their feet because we thought
it was going to be a real letdown for us.
But Peyton Manning and the Colts came roaring back and won a very
convincing victory in the Super Bowl. And after that they had a parade
in downtown Indianapolis for the Colts in 8-degree weather. Can you
imagine people going out in 8-degree weather to be in a parade? I
can't. But the streets were filled by Hoosiers who were celebrating the
victory and giving tremendous accolades to the Colts and the coach and
Manning and everybody else that made this victory possible.
I would like to just make a couple of comments on what happened. The
Colts
[[Page 3164]]
gained 430 yards in that game against the third strongest defense in
the National Football League. Peyton Manning completed 25 of 38 passes
for 247 yards and was named the Most Valuable Player. Running back
Dominic Rhodes ran for 113 yards against that Bears defense, in driving
rain, I might add. Running back Joseph Addai received 10 passes for 66
yards and ran the ball for 77 more yards in that driving rain.
And the Colts did a tremendous job on defense. Kelvin Hayden
intercepted one of the Chicago quarterback's passes and ran it back 56
yards for a Colts touchdown, and the Colts scored in every single
quarter in all four playoff games for the first time in playoff
history.
So I would just like to congratulate Tony Dungy, the coach of the
Colts, one of the most popular people in football and especially in
Indianapolis; and we think he is one of the nicest guys you will ever
meet. He is only the third person in football history to win a Super
Bowl both as a coach and a player.
I want to congratulate my friend Bill Polian, the president of the
Indianapolis Colts, who put this team together over the past several
years and did an outstanding job. Bill, we are very proud of you.
And I want to congratulate the CEO and owner of the Colts, Jim Irsay,
who took control of the team in 1997 and dedicated himself to making us
a Super Bowl champion.
It was a great day for Indianapolis. We are very, very proud of the
Colts. On behalf of all Hoosiers, we want to say to the Indianapolis
Colts, you are the world champions, and we are very proud of each and
every one of you.
One more thing I want to mention. The Colts defense was maligned
throughout the season. Later in the season, they said the Colts defense
was one of the worst in football. In the playoff games, they took on
everybody and held them to very, very low yardage. So congratulations
to the Colts defense as well as our offense. You did a great job.
____________________
PUBLICATION OF THE RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 110TH
CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit for printing in the
Congressional Record, pursuant to rule XI, clause 2(a) of the Rules of
the House, a copy of the Rules of the Committee on Ways and Means,
which were adopted at the organizational meeting of the committee on
January 17, 2007.
Rules of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives,
110th Congress
PART I
A. General
Rule 1. Application of House Rules
The rules of the House are the rules of the Committee on
Ways and Means and its subcommittees so far as applicable,
except that a motion to recess from day to day, and a motion
to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or
resolution, if printed copies are available, is a non-
debatable motion of high privilege in the Committee.
Each subcommittee of the Committee is part of the Committee
and is subject to the authority and direction of the
Committee and to its rules so far as applicable. Written
rules adopted by the Committee, not inconsistent with the
Rules of the House, shall be binding on each subcommittee of
the Committee.
The provisions of rule XI of the Rules of the House are
incorporated by reference as the rules of the Committee to
the extent applicable.
Rule 2. Meeting Date and Quorums
The regular meeting day of the Committee on Ways and Means
shall be on the second Wednesday of each month while the
House is in session. However, the Committee shall not meet on
the regularly scheduled meeting day if there is no business
to be considered.
A majority of the Committee constitutes a quorum for
business; provided however, that two Members shall constitute
a quorum at any regularly scheduled hearing called for the
purpose of taking testimony and receiving evidence. In
establishing a quorum for purposes of a public hearing, every
effort shall be made to secure the presence of at least one
Member each from the majority and the minority.
The Chairman of the Committee may call and convene, as he
considers necessary, additional meetings of the Committee for
the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before
the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business.
The Committee shall meet pursuant to the call of the Chair.
Rule 3. Committee Budget
For each Congress, the Chairman, in consultation with the
Majority Members of the Committee, shall prepare a
preliminary budget. Such budget shall include necessary
amounts for staff personnel, travel investigation, and other
expenses of the Committee. After consultation with the
Minority Members, the Chairman shall include an amount
budgeted by Minority Members for staff under their direction
and supervision.
Thereafter, the Chairman shall combine such proposals into
a consolidated Committee budget, and shall present the same
to the Committee for its approval or other action. The
Chairman shall take whatever action is necessary to have the
budget as finally approved by the Committee duly authorized
by the House. After said budget shall have been adopted, no
substantial change shall be made in such budget unless
approved by the Committee.
Rule 4. Publication of Committee Documents
Any Committee or Subcommittee print, document, or similar
material prepared for public distribution shall either be
approved by the Committee or Subcommittee prior to
distribution and opportunity afforded for the inclusion of
supplemental, minority or additional views, or such document
shall contain on its cover the following disclaimer:
Prepared for the use of Members of the Committee on Ways
and Means by members of its staff. This document has not been
officially approved by the Committee and may not reflect the
views of its Members.
Any such print, document, or other material not officially
approved by the Committee or Subcommittee shall not include
the names of its Members, other than the name of the full
Committee Chairman or Subcommittee Chairman under whose
authority the document is released. Any such document shall
be made available to the full Committee Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member not less than 3 calendar days (excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) prior to its public
release.
The requirements of this rule shall apply only to the
publication of policy-oriented, analytical documents, and not
to the publication of public hearings, legislative documents,
documents which are administrative in nature or reports which
are required to be submitted to the Committee under public
law. The appropriate characterization of a document subject
to this rule shall be determined after consultation with the
Minority.
Rule 5. Official Travel
Consistent with the primary expense resolution and such
additional expense resolution as may have been approved, the
provisions of this rule shall govern official travel of
Committee Members and Committee staff. Official travel to be
reimbursed from funds set aside for the full Committee for
any Member or any Committee staff member shall be paid only
upon the prior authorization of the Chairman. Official travel
may be authorized by the Chairman for any Member and any
Committee staff member in connection with the attendance of
hearings conducted by the Committee, its Subcommittees, or
any other Committee or Subcommittee of the Congress on
matters relevant to the general jurisdiction of the
Committee, and meetings, conferences, facility inspections,
and investigations which involve activities or subject matter
relevant to the general jurisdiction of the Committee. Before
such authorization is given, there shall be submitted to the
Chairman in writing the following:
(1) The purpose of the official travel;
(2) The dates during which the official travel is to be
made and the date or dates of the event for which the
official travel is being made;
(3) The location of the event for which the official travel
is to be made; and (4) The names of the Members and Committee
staff seeking authorization.
In the case of official travel of Members and staff of a
Subcommittee to hearings, meetings, conferences, facility
inspections and investigations involving activities or
subject matter under the jurisdiction of such Subcommittee,
prior authorization must be obtained from the Subcommittee
Chairman and the full Committee Chairman. Such prior
authorization shall be given by the full Committee Chairman
only upon the representation by the applicable Subcommittee
Chairman in writing setting forth those items enumerated
above.
Within 60 days of the conclusion of any official travel
authorized under this rule, there shall be submitted to the
full Committee Chairman a written report covering the
information gained as a result of the hearing, meeting,
conference, facility inspection or investigation attended
pursuant to such official travel.
[[Page 3165]]
Rule 6. Availability of Committee Records and Publications
The records of the Committee at the National Archives and
Records Administration shall be made available for public use
in accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives. The Chairman shall notify the Ranking
Minority Member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3)
or clause 4(b) of Rule VII, to withhold a record otherwise
available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee
for a determination on the written request of any Member of
the Committee. The Committee shall, to the maximum extent
feasible, make its publications available in electronic form.
Rule 7. Committee Website
The Chairman shall maintain an official Committee website
for the purpose of furthering the Committee's legislative and
oversight responsibilities, including communicating
information about the Committee's activities to Committee
members and other members of the House. The ranking minority
member may maintain a similar website for the same purpose,
including communicating information about the activities of
the minority to Committee members and other members of the
House.
B. Subcommittees
Rule 8. Subcommittee Ratios and Jurisdiction
All matters referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
involving revenue measures, except those revenue measures
referred to Subcommittees under paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6
shall be considered by the full Committee and not in
Subcommittee. There shall be six standing Subcommittees as
follows: a Subcommittee on Trade; a Subcommittee on
Oversight; a Subcommittee on Health; a Subcommittee on Social
Security; a Subcommittee on Income Security and Family
Support; and a Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures. The
ratio of Democrats to Republicans on any Subcommittee of the
Committee shall be consistent with the ratio of Democrats to
Republicans on the full Committee.
1. The Subcommittee on Trade shall consist of 15 Members, 9
of whom shall be Democrats and 6 of whom shall be
Republicans.
The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Trade shall include
bills and matters referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
that relate to customs and customs administration including
tariff and import fee structure, classification, valuation of
and special rules applying to imports, and special tariff
provisions and procedures which relate to customs operation
affecting exports and imports; import trade matters,
including import impact, industry relief from injurious
imports, adjustment assistance and programs to encourage
competitive responses to imports, unfair import practices
including antidumping and countervailing duty provisions, and
import policy which relates to dependence on foreign sources
of supply; commodity agreements and reciprocal trade
agreements involving multilateral and bilateral trade
negotiations and implementation of agreements involving
tariff and non-tariff trade barriers to and distortions of
international trade; international rules, organizations and
institutional aspects of international trade agreements;
budget authorizations for the customs revenue functions of
the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. International
Trade Commission, and the U.S. Trade Representative; and
special trade-related problems involving market access,
competitive conditions of specific industries, export policy
and promotion, access to materials in short supply, bilateral
trade relations including trade with developing countries,
operations of multinational corporations, and trade with non-
market economies.
2. The Subcommittee on Oversight shall consist of 13
Members, 8 of whom shall be Democrats and 5 of whom shall be
Republicans.
The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Oversight shall
include all matters within the scope of the full Committee's
jurisdiction but shall be limited to existing law. Said
oversight jurisdiction shall not be exclusive but shall be
concurrent with that of the other Subcommittees. With respect
to matters involving the Internal Revenue Code and other
revenue issues, said concurrent jurisdiction shall be shared
with the full Committee. Before undertaking any investigation
or hearing, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight
shall confer with the Chairman of the full Committee and the
Chairman of any other Subcommittee having jurisdiction.
3. The Subcommittee on Health shall consist of 13 Members,
8 of whom shall be Democrats and 5 of whom shall be
Republicans.
The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Health shall
include bills and matters referred to the Committee on Ways
and Means that relate to programs providing payments (from
any source) for health care, health delivery systems, or
health research. More specifically, the jurisdiction of the
Subcommittee on Health shall include bills and matters that
relate to the health care programs of the Social Security Act
(including titles V, XI (Part B), XVIII, and XIX thereof)
and, concurrent with the full Committee, tax credit and
deduction provisions of the Internal Revenue Code dealing
with health insurance premiums and health care costs.
4. The Subcommittee on Social Security shall consist of 13
Members, 8 of whom shall be Democrats and 5 of whom shall be
Republicans.
The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Social Security
shall include bills and matters referred to the Committee on
Ways and Means that relate to the Federal Old Age, Survivors'
and Disability Insurance System, the Railroad Retirement
System, and employment taxes and trust fund operations
relating to those systems. More specifically, the
jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Social Security shall
include bills and matters involving title II of the Social
Security Act and Chapter 22 of the Internal Revenue Code (the
Railroad Retirement Tax Act), as well as provisions in title
VII and title XI of the Act relating to procedure and
administration involving the Old Age, Survivors' and
Disability Insurance System.
5. The Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support
shall consist of 13 Members, 8 of whom shall be Democrats and
5 of whom shall be Republicans.
The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Income Security and
Family Support shall include bills and matters referred to
the Committee on Ways and Means that relate to the public
assistance provisions of the Social Security Act, including
temporary assistance for needy families, child care, child
and family services, child support, foster care, adoption,
supplemental security income social services, eligibility of
welfare recipients for food stamps, and low-income energy
assistance. More specifically, the jurisdiction of the
Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support shall
include bills and matters relating to titles I, IV, VI, X,
XIV, XVI, XVII, XX and related provisions of titles VII and
XI of the Social Security Act.
The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Income Security and
Family Support shall also include bills and matters referred
to the Committee on Ways and Means that relate to the
Federal-State system of unemployment compensation, and the
financing thereof, including the programs for extended and
emergency benefits. More specifically, the jurisdiction of
the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support shall
also include all bills and matters pertaining to the programs
of unemployment compensation under titles III, IX and XII of
the Social Security Act, Chapters 23 and 23A of the Internal
Revenue Code, and the Federal-State Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 1970, and provisions relating thereto.
6. The Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures shall
consist of 13 Members, 8 of whom shall be Democrats and 5 of
whom shall be Republicans.
The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue
Measures shall consist of those revenue measures that, from
time to time, shall be referred to it specifically by the
Chairman of the full Committee.
Rule 9. Ex-Officio Members of Subcommittees
The Chairman of the full Committee and the Ranking Minority
Member may sit as ex-officio Members of all Subcommittees.
They may be counted for purposes of assisting in the
establishment of a quorum for a Subcommittee. However, their
absence shall not count against the establishment of a quorum
by the regular Members of the Subcommittee. Ex-officio
Members shall neither vote in the Subcommittee nor be taken
into consideration for the purposes of determining the ratio
of the Subcommittee.
Rule 10. Subcommittee Meetings
Insofar as practicable, meetings of the full Committee and
its Subcommittees shall not conflict. Subcommittee Chairmen
shall set meeting dates after consultation with the Chairman
of the full Committee and other Subcommittee Chairmen with a
view towards avoiding, wherever possible, simultaneous
scheduling of full Committee and Subcommittee meetings or
hearings.
Rule 11. Reference of Legislation and Subcommittee Reports
Except for bills or measures retained by the Chairman of
the full Committee for full Committee consideration, every
bill or other measure referred to the Committee shall be
referred by the Chairman of the full Committee to the
appropriate Subcommittee in a timely manner. A Subcommittee
shall, within three legislative days of the referral,
acknowledge same to the full Committee.
After a measure has been pending in a Subcommittee for a
reasonable period of time, the Chairman of the full Committee
may make a request in writing to the Subcommittee that the
Subcommittee forthwith report the measure to the full
Committee with its recommendations. If within seven
legislative days after the Chairman's written request, the
Subcommittee has not so reported the measure, then there
shall be in order in the full Committee a motion to discharge
the Subcommittee from further consideration of the measure.
If such motion is approved by a majority vote of the full
Committee, the measure may thereafter be considered only by
the full Committee.
No measure reported by a Subcommittee shall be considered
by the full Committee unless it has been presented to all
Members of the full Committee at least two legislative
[[Page 3166]]
days prior to the full Committee's meeting, together with a
comparison with present law, a section-by-section analysis of
the proposed change, a section-by-section justification, and
a draft statement of the budget effects of the measure that
is consistent with the requirements for reported measures
under clause 3(d)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives.
Rule 12. Recommendation for Appointment of Conferees
Whenever in the legislative process it becomes necessary to
appoint conferees, the Chairman of the full Committee shall
recommend to the Speaker as conferees the names of those
Committee Members as the Chairman may designate. In making
recommendations of Minority Members as conferees, the
Chairman shall consult with the Ranking Minority Member of
the Committee.
C. Hearings
Rule 13. Witnesses
In order to assure the most productive use of the limited
time available to question hearing witnesses, a witness who
is scheduled to appear before the full Committee or a
Subcommittee shall file with the Clerk of the Committee at
least 48 hours in advance of his or her appearance a written
statement of their proposed testimony. In addition, all
witnesses shall comply with formatting requirements as
specified by the Committee and the Rules of the House.
Failure to comply with the 48-hour rule may result in a
witness being denied the opportunity to testify in person.
Failure to comply with the formatting requirements may result
in a witness' statement being rejected for inclusion in the
published hearing record. In addition to the requirements of
clause 2(g)( 4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House
regarding information required of public witnesses, a witness
shall limit his or her oral presentation to a summary of
their position and shall provide sufficient copies of their
written statement to the Clerk for distribution to Members,
staff and news media.
A witness appearing at a public hearing, or submitting a
statement for the record of a public hearing, or submitting
written comments in response to a published request for
comments by the Committee must include in their statement or
submission, a list of all clients, persons or organizations
on whose behalf the witness appears. Oral testimony and
statements for the record, or written comments in response to
a request for comments by the Committee, will be accepted
only from citizens of the United States or corporations or
associations organized under the laws of one of the 50 States
of the United States or the District of Columbia, unless
otherwise directed by the Chairman of the full Committee or
Subcommittee involved. Written statements from non-citizens
may be considered for acceptance in the record if transmitted
to the Committee in writing by Members of Congress.
Rule 14. Questioning of Witnesses
Committee Members may question witnesses only when
recognized by the Chairman for that purpose. All Members
shall be limited to five minutes on the initial round of
questioning. In questioning witnesses under the five minute
rule, the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member shall be
recognized first, after which Members who are in attendance
at the beginning of a hearing will be recognized in the order
of their seniority on the Committee. Other Members shall be
recognized in the order of their appearance at the hearing.
In recognizing Members to question witnesses, the Chairman
may take into consideration the ratio of Majority Members to
Minority Members and the number of Majority and Minority
Members present and shall apportion the recognition for
questioning in such a manner as not to disadvantage Members
of the majority.
Rule 15. Subpoena Power
The power to authorize and issue subpoenas is delegated to
the Chairman of the full Committee, as provided for under
clause 2(m)(3)(A)(i) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
Rule 16. Records of Hearings
An accurate stenographic record shall be kept of all
testimony taken at a public hearing. The staff shall transmit
to a witness the transcript of his or her testimony for
correction and immediate return to the Committee offices.
Only changes in the interest of clarity, accuracy and
corrections in transcribing errors will be permitted. Changes
that substantially alter the actual testimony will not be
permitted. Members shall have the opportunity to correct
their own testimony before publication. The Chairman of the
full Committee may order the printing of a hearing without
the corrections of a witness or Member if he determines that
a reasonable time has been afforded to make corrections and
that further delay would impede the consideration of the
legislation or other measure that is the subject of the
hearing.
Rule 17. Broadcasting of Hearings
The provisions of clause 4(f) of Rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives are specifically made a part of
these rules by reference. In addition, the following policy
shall apply to media coverage of any meeting of the full
Committee or a Subcommittee:
(1) An appropriate area of the Committee's hearing room
will be designated for members of the media and their
equipment.
(2) No interviews will be allowed in the Committee room
while the Committee is in session. Individual interviews must
take place before the gavel falls for the convening of a
meeting or after the gavel falls for adjournment.
(3) Day-to-day notification of the next day's electronic
coverage shall be provided by the media to the Chairman of
the full Committee through an appropriate designee.
(4) Still photography during a Committee meeting will not
be permitted to disrupt the proceedings or block the vision
of Committee Members or witnesses.
(5) Further conditions may be specified by the Chairman.
D. Markups
Rule 18. Previous Question
The Chairman shall not recognize a Member for the purpose
of moving the previous question unless the Member has first
advised the Chair and the Committee that this is the purpose
for which recognition is being sought.
Rule 19. Postponement of Proceedings
The Chairman may postpone further proceedings when a record
vote is ordered on the question of approving any measure or
matter or adopting an amendment.
The Chairman may resume proceedings on a postponed request
at any time. In exercising postponement authority the
Chairman shall take reasonable steps to notify Members on the
resumption of proceedings on any postponed record vote.
When proceedings resume on a postponed question,
notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous
question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to
further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the
question was postponed.
Rule 20. Motion to go to Conference
The Chairman is authorized to offer a motion under clause 1
of rule XXII of the Rules of the House of Representatives
whenever the Chairman considers it appropriate.
Rule 21. Official Transcripts of Markups and Other Committee Meetings
An official stenographic transcript shall be kept
accurately reflecting all markups and other official meetings
of the full Committee and the Subcommittees, whether they be
open or closed to the public. This official transcript,
marked as ``uncorrected,'' shall be available for inspection
by the public (except for meetings closed pursuant to clause
2(g)(1) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House), by Members of
the House, or by Members of the Committee together with their
staffs, during normal business hours in the full Committee or
Subcommittee office under such controls as the Chairman of
the full Committee deems necessary. Official transcripts
shall not be removed from the Committee or Subcommittee
office.
If, however, (1) in the drafting of a Committee or
Subcommittee decision, the Office of the House Legislative
Counsel or (2) in the preparation of a Committee report, the
Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation determines
(in consultation with appropriate majority and minority
committee staff) that it is necessary to review the official
transcript of a markup, such transcript may be released upon
the signature and to the custody of an appropriate committee
staff person. Such transcript shall be returned immediately
after its review in the drafting session.
The official transcript of a markup or Committee meeting
other than a public hearing shall not be published or
distributed to the public in any way except by a majority
vote of the Committee. Before any public release of the
uncorrected transcript, Members must be given a reasonable
opportunity to correct their remarks. In instances in which a
stenographic transcript is kept of a conference committee
proceeding, all of the requirements of this rule shall
likewise be observed.
Rule 22. Publication of Decisions and Legislative Language
A press release describing any tentative or final decision
made by the full Committee or a Subcommittee on legislation
under consideration shall be made available to each Member of
the Committee as soon as possible, but no later than the next
day. However, the legislative draft of any tentative or final
decision of the full Committee or a Subcommittee shall not be
publicly released until such draft is made available to each
Member of the Committee.
E. Staff
Rule 23. Supervision of Committee Staff
The staff of the Committee shall be under the general
supervision and direction of the Chairman of the full
Committee except as provided in clause 9 of Rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives concerning Committee
expenses and staff.
Pursuant to clause 6(d) of Rule X of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Chairman of the full Committee, from
the funds made available for the appointment of Committee
staff pursuant to primary and additional expense resolutions,
shall ensure that each Subcommittee receives sufficient
[[Page 3167]]
staff to carry out its responsibilities under the rules of
the Committee, and that the minority party is fairly treated
in the appointment of such staff.
PART II--SELECTED RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Part II of the Manual of Rules of the Committee on Ways and
Means consists of selected Rules of the House of
Representatives, which are also part of the Committee's rules
and which affect its organization, administration, and
operation. The rules cited herein are not exclusive of other
rules of the House of Representatives applicable to the
Committee, but rather are considered to be some of the more
important rules to which frequent reference is made.
Rule VII. Records Of The House
Archiving
1. (a) At the end of each Congress, the chairman of each
committee shall transfer to the Clerk any noncurrent records
of such committee, including the subcommittees thereof.
(b) At the end of each Congress, each officer of the House
elected under rule II shall transfer to the Clerk any
noncurrent records made or acquired in the course of the
duties of such officer.
2. The Clerk shall deliver the records transferred under
clause 1, together with any other noncurrent records of the
House, to the Archivist of the United States for preservation
at the National Archives and Records Administration. Records
so delivered are the permanent property of the House and
remain subject to this rule and any order of the House.
Public availability
3. (a) The Clerk shall authorize the Archivist to make
records delivered under clause 2 available for public use,
subject to paragraph (b), clause 4, and any order of the
House.
(b)(1) A record shall immediately be made available if it
was previously made available for public use by the House or
a committee or a subcommittee.
(2) An investigative record that contains personal data
relating to a specific living person (the disclosure of which
would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy), an
administrative record relating to personnel, or a record
relating to a hearing that was closed under clause 2(g)(2) of
rule XI shall be made available if it has been in existence
for 50 years.
(3) A record for which a time, schedule, or condition for
availability is specified by order of the House shall be made
available in accordance with that order. Except as otherwise
provided by order of the House, a record of a committee for
which a time, schedule, or condition for availability is
specified by order of the committee (entered during the
Congress in which the record is made or acquired by the
committee) shall be made available in accordance with the
order of the committee.
(4) A record (other than a record referred to in
subparagraph (1), (2), or (3)) shall be made available if it
has been in existence for 30 years.
4. (a) A record may not be made available for public use
under clause 3 if the Clerk determines that such availability
would be detrimental to the public interest or inconsistent
with the rights and privileges of the House. The Clerk shall
notify in writing the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on House Administration of any such
determination.
(b) A determination of the Clerk under paragraph (a) is
subject to later orders of the House and, in the case of a
record of a committee, later orders of the committee.
5. (a) This rule does not supersede rule VIII or clause 11
of rule X and does not authorize the public disclosure of any
record if such disclosure is prohibited by law or executive
order of the President.
(b) The Committee on House Administration may prescribe
guidelines and regulations governing the applicability and
implementation of this rule.
(c) A committee may withdraw from the National Archives and
Records Administration any record of the committee delivered
to the Archivist under this rule. Such a withdrawal shall be
on a temporary basis and for official use of the committee.
Definition of record
6. In this rule the term ``record'' means any official,
permanent record of the House (other than a record of an
individual Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner),
including--
(a) with respect to a committee, an official, permanent
record of the committee (including any record of a
legislative, oversight, or other activity of such committee
or a subcommittee thereof);
* * * * *
Rule X. Organization Of Committees
Committees and their legislative jurisdictions
1. There shall be in the House the following standing
committees, each of which shall have the jurisdiction and
related functions assigned by this clause and clauses 2, 3,
and 4. All bills, resolutions, and other matters relating to
subjects within the jurisdiction of the standing committees
listed in this clause shall be referred to those committees,
in accordance with clause 2 of rule XII, as follows: * * *
(t) Committee on Ways and Means.
(1) Customs revenue, collection districts, and ports of
entry and delivery.
(2) Reciprocal trade agreements.
(3) Revenue measures generally.
(4) Revenue measures relating to insular possessions.
(5) Bonded debt of the United States, subject to the last
sentence of clause 4(f).
(6) Deposit of public monies.
(7) Transportation of dutiable goods.
(8) Tax exempt foundations and charitable trusts.
(9) National social security (except health care and
facilities programs that are supported from general revenues
as opposed to payroll deductions and except work incentive
programs).
General oversight responsibilities
2. (a) The various standing committees shall have general
oversight responsibilities as provided in paragraph (b) in
order to assist the House in--
(1) its analysis, appraisal, and evaluation of--
(A) the application, administration, execution, and
effectiveness of Federal laws; and
(B) conditions and circumstances that may indicate the
necessity or desirability of enacting new or additional
legislation; and
(2) its formulation, consideration, and enactment of
changes in Federal laws, and of such additional legislation
as may be necessary or appropriate.
(b)(1) In order to determine whether laws and programs
addressing subjects within the jurisdiction of a committee
are being implemented and carried out in accordance with the
intent of Congress and whether they should be continued,
curtailed, or eliminated, each standing committee (other than
the Committee on Appropriations) shall review and study on a
continuing basis--
(A) the application, administration, execution, and
effectiveness of laws and programs addressing subjects within
its jurisdiction;
(B) the organization and operation of Federal agencies and
entities having responsibilities for the administration and
execution of laws and programs addressing subjects within its
jurisdiction;
(C) any conditions or circumstances that may indicate the
necessity or desirability of enacting new or additional
legislation addressing subjects within its jurisdiction
(whether or not a bill or resolution has been introduced with
respect thereto); and
(D) future research and forecasting on subjects within its
jurisdiction.
(2) Each committee to which subparagraph (1) applies having
more than 20 members shall establish an oversight
subcommittee, or require its subcommittees to conduct
oversight in their respective jurisdictions, to assist in
carrying out its responsibilities under this clause. The
establishment of an oversight subcommittee does not limit the
responsibility of a subcommittee with legislative
jurisdiction in carrying out its oversight responsibilities.
(c) Each standing committee shall review and study on a
continuing basis the impact or probable impact of tax
policies affecting subjects within its jurisdiction as
described in clauses 1 and 3.
(d)(1) Not later than February 15 of the first session of a
Congress, each standing committee shall, in a meeting that is
open to the public and with a quorum present, adopt its
oversight plan for that Congress. Such plan shall be
submitted simultaneously to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform and to the Committee on House
Administration. In developing its plan each committee shall,
to the maximum extent feasible--
(A) consult with other committees that have jurisdiction
over the same or related laws, programs, or agencies within
its jurisdiction with the objective of ensuring maximum
coordination and cooperation among committees when conducting
reviews of such laws, programs, or agencies and include in
its plan an explanation of steps that have been or will be
taken to ensure such coordination and cooperation;
(B) review specific problems with Federal rules,
regulations, statutes, and court decisions that are
ambiguous, arbitrary, or nonsensical, or that impose severe
financial burdens on individuals;
(C) give priority consideration to including in its plan
the review of those laws, programs, or agencies operating
under permanent budget authority or permanent statutory
authority;
(D) have a view toward ensuring that all significant laws,
programs, or agencies within its jurisdiction are subject to
review every 10 years; and
(E) have a view toward insuring against duplication of
Federal programs.
(2) Not later than March 31 in the first session of a
Congress, after consultation with the Speaker, the Majority
Leader, and the Minority Leader, the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform shall report to the House the oversight
plans submitted by committees together with any
recommendations that it, or the House leadership group
described above, may make to ensure the most effective
coordination of oversight plans and otherwise to achieve the
objectives of this clause.
(e) The Speaker, with the approval of the House, may
appoint special ad hoc oversight
[[Page 3168]]
committees for the purpose of reviewing specific matters
within the jurisdiction of two or more standing committees.
Special oversight functions
3. * * *
(f) The Committee on Foreign Affairs shall review and study
on a continuing basis laws, programs, and Government
activities relating to customs administration, intelligence
activities relating to foreign policy, international
financial and monetary organizations, and international
fishing agreements.
* * * * *
Additional functions of committees
4. * * *
(b) The Committee on the Budget shall--* * *
(6) request and evaluate continuing studies of tax
expenditures, devise methods of coordinating tax
expenditures, policies, and programs with direct budget
outlays, and report the results of such studies to the House
on a recurring basis.
* * * * *
Budget Act responsibilities
(f)(1) Each standing committee shall submit to the
Committee on the Budget not later than six weeks after the
President submits his budget, or at such time as the
Committee on the Budget may request--
(A) its views and estimates with respect to all matters to
be set forth in the concurrent resolution on the budget for
the ensuing fiscal year that are within its jurisdiction or
functions; and
(B) an estimate of the total amounts of new budget
authority, and budget outlays resulting therefrom, to be
provided or authorized in all bills and resolutions within
its jurisdiction that it intends to be effective during that
fiscal year.
(2) The views and estimates submitted by the Committee on
Ways and Means under subparagraph (1) shall include a
specific recommendation, made after holding public hearings,
as to the appropriate level of the public debt that should be
set forth in the concurrent resolution on the budget.
* * * * *
Election and membership of standing committees
5. * * *
(2)(A) The Committee on the Budget shall be composed of
members as follows:
(i) Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner who
are members of other standing committees, including five who
are members of the Committee on Appropriations and five who
are members of the Committee on Ways and Means;
* * * * *
Expense resolutions
6. (a) Whenever a committee, commission, or other entity
(other than the Committee on Appropriations) is granted
authorization for the payment of its expenses (including
staff salaries) for a Congress, such authorization initially
shall be procured by one primary expense resolution reported
by the Committee on House Administration. A primary expense
resolution may include a reserve fund for unanticipated
expenses of committees.
An amount from such a reserve fund may be allocated to a
committee only by the approval of the Committee on House
Administration. A primary expense resolution reported to the
House may not be considered in the House unless a printed
report thereon was available on the previous calendar day.
For the information of the House, such report shall--
(1) state the total amount of the funds to be provided to
the committee, commission, or other entity under the primary
expense resolution for all anticipated activities and
programs of the committee, commission, or other entity; and
(2) to the extent practicable, contain such general
statements regarding the estimated foreseeable expenditures
for the respective anticipated activities and programs of the
committee, commission, or other entity as may be appropriate
to provide the House with basic estimates of the expenditures
contemplated by the primary expense resolution.
(b) After the date of adoption by the House of a primary
expense resolution for a committee, commission, or other
entity for a Congress, authorization for the payment of
additional expenses (including staff salaries) in that
Congress may be procured by one or more supplemental expense
resolutions reported by the Committee on House
Administration, as necessary. A supplemental expense
resolution reported to the House may not be considered in the
House unless a printed report thereon was available on the
previous calendar day. For the information of the House, such
report shall--
(1) state the total amount of additional funds to be
provided to the committee, commission, or other entity under
the supplemental expense resolution and the purposes for
which those additional funds are available; and
(2) state the reasons for the failure to procure the
additional funds for the committee, commission, or other
entity by means of the primary expense resolution.
(c) The preceding provisions of this clause do not apply
to--
(1) a resolution providing for the payment from committee
salary and expense accounts of the House of sums necessary to
pay compensation for staff services performed for, or to pay
other expenses of, a committee, commission, or other entity
at any time after the beginning of an odd-numbered year and
before the date of adoption by the House of the primary
expense resolution described in paragraph (a) for that year;
or
(2) a resolution providing each of the standing committees
in a Congress additional office equipment, airmail and
special-delivery postage stamps, supplies, staff personnel,
or any other specific item for the operation of the standing
committees, and containing an authorization for the payment
from committee salary and expense accounts of the House of
the expenses of any of the foregoing items provided by that
resolution, subject to and until enactment of the provisions
of the resolution as permanent law.
(d) From the funds made available for the appointment of
committee staff by a primary or additional expense
resolution, the chairman of each committee shall ensure that
sufficient staff is made available to each subcommittee to
carry out its responsibilities under the rules of the
committee and that the minority party is treated fairly in
the appointment of such staff.
(e) Funds authorized for a committee under this clause and
clauses 7 and 8 are for expenses incurred in the activities
of the committee.
Interim funding
7. (a) For the period beginning at noon on January 3 and
ending at midnight on March 31 in each odd-numbered year,
such sums as may be necessary shall be paid out of the
committee salary and expense accounts of the House for
continuance of necessary investigations and studies by--
(1) each standing and select committee established by these
rules; and
(2) except as specified in paragraph (b), each select
committee established by resolution.
(b) In the case of the first session of a Congress, amounts
shall be made available under this paragraph for a select
committee established by resolution in the preceding Congress
only if--
(1) a resolution proposing to reestablish such select
committee is introduced in the present Congress; and
(2) the House has not adopted a resolution of the preceding
Congress providing for termination of funding for
investigations and studies by such select committee.
(c) Each committee described in paragraph (a) shall be
entitled for each month during the period specified in
paragraph (a) to 9 percent (or such lesser percentage as may
be determined by the Committee on House Administration) of
the total annualized amount made available under expense
resolutions for such committee in the preceding session of
Congress.
(d) Payments under this paragraph shall be made on vouchers
authorized by the committee involved, signed by the chairman
of the committee, except as provided in paragraph (e), and
approved by the Committee on House Administration.
(e) Notwithstanding any provision of law, rule of the
House, or other authority, from noon on January 3 of the
first session of a Congress until the election by the House
of the committee concerned in that Congress, payments under
this paragraph shall be made on vouchers signed by--
(1) the member of the committee who served as chairman of
the committee at the expiration of the preceding Congress; or
(2) if the chairman is not a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner in the present Congress, then the ranking member
of the committee as it was constituted at the expiration of
the preceding Congress who is a member of the majority party
in the present Congress.
(f)(1) The authority of a committee to incur expenses under
this paragraph shall expire upon adoption by the House of a
primary expense resolution for the committee.
(2) Amounts made available under this paragraph shall be
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Committee on House Administration.
(3) This clause shall be effective only insofar as it is
not inconsistent with a resolution reported by the Committee
on House Administration and adopted by the House after the
adoption of these rules.
Travel
8. (a) Local currencies owned by the United States shall be
made available to the committee and its employees engaged in
carrying out their official duties outside the United States
or its territories or possessions. Appropriated funds,
including those authorized under this clause and clauses 6
and 8, may not be expended for the purpose of defraying
expenses of members of a committee or its employees in a
country where local currencies are available for this
purpose.
(b) The following conditions shall apply with respect to
travel outside the United States or its territories or
possessions:
(1) A member or employee of a committee may not receive or
expend local currencies for subsistence in a country for a
day at a rate in excess of the maximum per diem set forth in
applicable Federal law.
(2) A member or employee shall be reimbursed for his
expenses for a day at the lesser of--
[[Page 3169]]
(A) the per diem set forth in applicable Federal law; or
(B) the actual, unreimbursed expenses (other than for
transportation) he incurred during that day.
(3) Each member or employee of a committee shall make to
the chairman of the committee an itemized report showing the
dates each country was visited, the amount of per diem
furnished, the cost of transportation furnished, and funds
expended for any other official purpose and shall summarize
in these categories the total foreign currencies or
appropriated funds expended. Each report shall be filed with
the chairman of the committee not later than 60 days
following the completion of travel for use in complying with
reporting requirements in applicable Federal law and shall be
open for public inspection.
(c)(1) In carrying out the activities of a committee
outside the United States in a country where local currencies
are unavailable, a member or employee of a committee may not
receive reimbursement for expenses (other than for
transportation) in excess of the maximum per diem set forth
in applicable Federal law.
(2) A member or employee shall be reimbursed for his
expenses for a day, at the lesser of--
(A) the per diem set forth in applicable Federal law; or
(B) the actual unreimbursed expenses (other than for
transportation) he incurred during that day.
(3) A member or employee of a committee may not receive
reimbursement for the cost of any transportation in
connection with travel outside the United States unless the
member or employee actually paid for the transportation.
(d) The restrictions respecting travel outside the United
States set forth in paragraph (c) also shall apply to travel
outside the United States by a Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House authorized
under any standing rule.
Committee staffs
9. (a)(1) Subject to subparagraph (2) and paragraph (f),
each standing committee may appoint, by majority vote, not
more than 30 professional staff members to be compensated
from the funds provided for the appointment of committee
staff by primary and additional expense resolutions. Each
professional staff member appointed under this subparagraph
shall be assigned to the chairman and the ranking minority
member of the committee, as the committee considers
advisable.
(2) Subject to paragraph (f) whenever a majority of the
minority party members of a standing committee (other than
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) so request, not
more than 10 persons (or one-third of the total professional
committee staff appointed under this clause, whichever is
fewer) may be selected, by majority vote of the minority
party members, for appointment by the committee as
professional staff members under subparagraph (1). The
committee shall appoint persons so selected whose character
and qualifications are acceptable to a majority of the
committee. If the committee determines that the character and
qualifications of a person so selected are unacceptable, a
majority of the minority party members may select another
person for appointment by the committee to the professional
staff until such appointment is made. Each professional staff
member appointed under this subparagraph shall be assigned to
such committee business as the minority party members of the
committee consider advisable.
(b)(1) The professional staff members each standing
committee--
(A) may not engage in any work other than committee
business during congressional working hours; and
(B) may not be assigned a duty other than one pertaining to
committee business.
(2)(A) Subparagraph (1) does not apply to staff designated
by a committee as ``associate'' or ``shared'' staff who are
not paid exclusively by the committee, provided that the
chairman certifies that the compensation paid by the
committee for any such staff is commensurate with the work
performed for the committee in accordance with clause 8 of
rule XXIII.
(B) The use of any ``associate'' or ``shared'' staff by a
committee other than the Committee on Appropriations shall be
subject to the review of, and to any terms, conditions, or
limitations established by, the Committee on House
Administration in connection with the reporting of any
primary or additional expense resolution.
(c) Each employee on the professional or investigative
staff of a standing committee shall be entitled to pay at a
single gross per annum rate, to be fixed by the chairman and
that does not exceed the maximum rate of pay as in effect
from time to time under applicable provisions of law.
(d) Subject to appropriations hereby authorized, the
Committee on Appropriations may appoint by majority vote such
staff as it determines to be necessary (in addition to the
clerk of the committee and assistants for the minority). The
staff appointed under this paragraph, other than minority
assistants, shall possess such qualifications as the
committee may prescribe.
(e) A committee may not appoint to its staff an expert or
other personnel detailed or assigned from a department or
agency of the Government except with the written permission
of the Committee on House Administration.
(f) If a request for the appointment of a minority
professional staff member under paragraph (a) is made when no
vacancy exists for such an appointment, the committee
nevertheless may appoint under paragraph (a) a person
selected by the minority and acceptable to the committee. A
person so appointed shall serve as an additional member of
the professional staff of the committee until such a vacancy
occurs (other than a vacancy in the position of head of the
professional staff, by whatever title designated), at which
time that person is considered as appointed to that vacancy.
Such a person shall be paid from the applicable accounts of
the House described in clause 1(i)(1) of rule X. If such a
vacancy occurs on the professional staff when seven or more
persons have been so appointed who are eligible to fill that
vacancy, a majority of the minority party members shall
designate which of those persons shall fill the vacancy.
(g) Each staff member appointed pursuant to a request by
minority party members under paragraph ( a), and each staff
member appointed to assist minority members of a committee
pursuant to an expense resolution described in paragraph (a)
of clause 6, shall be accorded equitable treatment with
respect to the fixing of the rate of pay, the assignment of
work facilities, and the accessibility of committee records.
(h) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to authorize the
appointment of additional professional staff members of a
committee pursuant to a request under paragraph (a) by the
minority party members of that committee if 10 or more
professional staff members provided for in paragraph (a)(1)
who are satisfactory to a majority of the minority party
members are otherwise assigned to assist the minority party
members.
(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(2), a committee may
employ nonpartisan staff, in lieu of or in addition to
committee staff designated exclusively for the majority or
minority party, by an affirmative vote of a majority of the
members of the majority party and of a majority of the
members of the minority party.
* * * * *
Rule XI. Procedures of Committees and Unfinished Business
In general
1. (a)(1)(A) The Rules of the House are the rules of its
committees and subcommittees so far as applicable.
(B) Each subcommittee is a part of its committee and is
subject to the authority and direction of that committee and
to its rules, so far as applicable.
(2)(A) In a committee or subcommittee--
(i) a motion to recess from day to day, or to recess
subject to the call of the Chair (within 24 hours), shall be
privileged; and
(ii) a motion to dispense with the first reading (in full)
of a bill or resolution shall be privileged if printed copies
are available.
(B) A motion accorded privilege under this subparagraph
shall be decided without debate.
(b)(1) Each committee may conduct at any time such
investigations and studies as it considers necessary or
appropriate in the exercise of its responsibilities under
rule X. Subject to the adoption of expense resolutions as
required by clause 6 of rule X, each committee may incur
expenses, including travel expenses, in connection with such
investigations and studies.
(2) A proposed investigative or oversight report shall be
considered as read in committee if it has been available to
the members for at least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays,
Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in
session on such a day).
(3) A report of an investigation or study conducted jointly
by more than one committee may be filed jointly, provided
that each of the committees complies independently with all
requirements for approval and filing of the report.
(4) After an adjournment sine die of the last regular
session of a Congress, an investigative or oversight report
may be filed with the Clerk at any time, provided that a
member who gives timely notice of intention to file
supplemental, minority, or additional views shall be entitled
to not less than seven calendar days in which to submit such
views for inclusion in the report.
(c) Each committee may have printed and bound such
testimony and other data as may be presented at hearings held
by the committee or its subcommittees. All costs of
stenographic services and transcripts in connection with a
meeting or hearing of a committee shall be paid from the
applicable accounts of the House described in clause 1 (i)(1)
of rule X.
(d)(1) Each committee shall submit to the House not later
than January 2 of each odd-numbered year a report on the
activities of that committee under this rule and rule X
during the Congress ending at noon on January 3 of such year.
(2) Such report shall include separate sections summarizing
the legislative and oversight activities of that committee
during that Congress.
[[Page 3170]]
(3) The oversight section of such report shall include a
summary of the oversight plans submitted by the committee
under clause 2(d) of rule X, a summary of the actions taken
and recommendations made with respect to each such plan, a
summary of any additional oversight activities undertaken by
that committee, and any recommendations made or actions taken
thereon.
(4) After an adjournment sine die of the last regular
session of a Congress, the chairman of a committee may file
an activities report under subparagraph (1) with the Clerk at
any time and without approval of the committee, provided
that--
(A) a copy of the report has been available to each member
of the committee for at least seven calendar days; and
(B) the report includes any supplemental, minority, or
additional views submitted by a member of the committee.
Adoption of written rules
2. (a)(1) Each standing committee shall adopt written rules
governing its procedure. Such rules--
(A) shall be adopted in a meeting that is open to the
public unless the committee, in open session and with a
quorum present, determines by record vote that all or part of
the meeting on that day shall be closed to the public;
(B) may not be inconsistent with the Rules of the House or
with those provisions of law having the force and effect of
Rules of the House; and
(C) shall in any event incorporate all of the succeeding
provisions of this clause to the extent applicable.
(2) Each committee shall submit its rules for publication
in the Congressional Record not later than 30 days after the
committee is elected in each odd-numbered year.
(3) A committee may adopt a rule providing that the
chairman be directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule
XXII whenever the chairman considers it appropriate.
Regular meeting days
(b) Each standing committee shall establish regular meeting
days for the conduct of its business, which shall be not less
frequent than monthly. Each such committee shall meet for the
consideration of a bill or resolution pending before the
committee or the transaction of other committee business on
all regular meeting days fixed by the committee unless
otherwise provided by written rule adopted by the committee.
Additional and special meetings
(c)( 1) The chairman of each standing committee may call
and convene, as he considers necessary, additional and
special meetings of the committee for the consideration of a
bill or resolution pending before the committee or for the
conduct of other committee business, subject to such rules as
the committee may adopt. The committee shall meet for such
purpose under that call of the chairman.
(2) Three or more members of a standing committee may file
in the offices of the committee a written request that the
chairman call a special meeting of the committee. Such
request shall specify the measure or matter to be considered.
Immediately upon the filing of the request, the clerk of the
committee shall notify the chairman of the filing of the
request. If the chairman does not call the requested special
meeting within three calendar days after the filing of the
request (to be held within seven calendar days after the
filing of the request) a majority of the members of the
committee may file in the offices of the committee their
written notice that a special meeting of the committee will
be held. The written notice shall specify the date and hour
of the special meeting and the measure or matter to be
considered. The committee shall meet on that date and hour.
Immediately upon the filing of the notice, the clerk of the
committee shall notify all members of the committee that such
special meeting will be held and inform them of its date and
hour and the measure or matter to be considered. Only the
measure or matter specified in that notice may be considered
at that special meeting.
Temporary absence of chairman
(d) A member of the majority party on each standing
committee or subcommittee thereof shall be designated by the
chairman of the full committee as the vice chairman of the
committee or subcommittee, as the case may be, and shall
preside during the absence of the chairman from any meeting.
If the chairman and vice chairman of a committee or
subcommittee are not present at any meeting of the committee
or subcommittee, the ranking majority member who is present
shall preside at that meeting.
Committee records
(e)(l)(A) Each committee shall keep a complete record of
all committee action which shall include--
(i) in the case of a meeting or hearing transcript, a
substantially verbatim account of remarks actually made
during the proceedings, subject only to technical,
grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by the
person making the remarks involved; and
(ii) a record of the votes on any question on which a
record vote is demanded.
(B)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (B)(ii) and
subject to paragraph (k)(7), the result of each such record
vote shall be made available by the committee for inspection
by the public at reasonable times in its offices. Information
so available for public inspection shall include a
description of the amendment, motion, order, or other
proposition, the name of each member voting for and each
member voting against such amendment, motion, order, or
proposition, and the names of those members of the committee
present but not voting.
(ii) The result of any record vote taken in executive
session in the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct may
not be made available for inspection by the public without an
affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the
committee.
(2)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), all committee
hearings, records, data, charts, and files shall be kept
separate and distinct from the congressional office records
of the member serving as its chairman. Such records shall be
the property of the House, and each Member, Delegate, and the
Resident Commissioner shall have access thereto.
(B) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, other
than members of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, may not have access to the records of that committee
respecting the conduct of a Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House without the
specific prior permission of that committee.
(3) Each committee shall include in its rules standards for
availability of records of the committee delivered to the
Archivist of the United States under rule VII. Such standards
shall specify procedures for orders of the committee under
clause 3(b)(3) and clause 4(b) of rule VII, including a
requirement that nonavailability of a record for a period
longer than the period otherwise applicable under that rule
shall be approved by vote of the committee.
(4) Each committee shall make its publications available in
electronic form to the maximum extent feasible.
Prohibition against proxy voting
(f) A vote by a member of a committee or subcommittee with
respect to any measure or matter may not be cast by proxy.
Open meetings and hearings
(g)(1) Each meeting for the transaction of business,
including the markup of legislation, by a standing committee
or subcommittee thereof (other than the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct or its subcommittee) shall be
open to the public, including to radio, television, and still
photography coverage, except when the committee or
subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present,
determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder
of the meeting on that day shall be in executive session
because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger
national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement
information, would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate
any person, or otherwise would violate a law or rule of the
House. Persons, other than members of the committee and such
noncommittee Members, Delegates, Resident Commissioner,
congressional staff, or departmental representatives as the
committee may authorize, may not be present at a business or
markup session that is held in executive session. This
subparagraph does not apply to open committee hearings, which
are governed by clause 4(a)(l) of rule X or by subparagraph
(2).
(2)(A) Each hearing conducted by a committee or
subcommittee (other than the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct or its subcommittees) shall be open to the
public, including to radio, television, and still photography
coverage, except when the committee or subcommittee, in open
session and with a majority present, determines by record
vote that all or part of the remainder of that hearing on
that day shall be closed to the public because disclosure of
testimony, evidence, or other matters to be considered would
endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law
enforcement information, or would violate a law or rule of
the House.
(B) Notwithstanding the requirements of subdivision (A), in
the presence of the number of members required under the
rules of the committee for the purpose of taking testimony, a
majority of those present may--
(i) agree to close the hearing for the sole purpose of
discussing whether testimony or evidence to be received would
endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law
enforcement information, or would violate clause 2(k)(5); or
(ii) agree to close the hearing as provided in clause
2(k)(5).
(C) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not be
excluded from nonparticipatory attendance at a hearing of a
committee or subcommittee (other than the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct or its subcommittees) unless
the House by majority vote authorizes a particular committee
or subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series of
hearings on a particular article of legislation or on a
particular subject of investigation, to close its hearings to
Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner by the same
procedures specified in this subparagraph for closing
hearings to the public.
[[Page 3171]]
(D) The committee or subcommittee may vote by the same
procedure described in this subparagraph to close one
subsequent day of hearing, except that the Committee on
Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the
subcommittees thereof, may vote by the same procedure to
close up to five additional, consecutive days of hearings.
(3) The chairman of each committee (other than the
Committee on Rules) shall make public announcement of the
date, place, and subject matter of a committee hearing at
least one week before the commencement of the hearing. If the
chairman of the committee, with the concurrence of the
ranking minority member, determines that there is good cause
to begin a hearing sooner, or if the committee so determines
by majority vote in the presence of the number of members
required under the rules of the committee for the transaction
of business, the chairman shall make the announcement at the
earliest possible date. An announcement made under this
subparagraph shall be published promptly in the Daily Digest
and made available in electronic form.
(4) Each committee shall, to the greatest extent
practicable, require witnesses who appear before it to submit
in advance written statements of proposed testimony and to
limit their initial presentations to the committee to brief
summaries thereof. In the case of a witness appearing in a
nongovernmental capacity, a written statement of proposed
testimony shall include a curriculum vitae and a disclosure
of the amount and source (by agency and program) of each
Federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or
subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year
or either of the two previous fiscal years by the witness or
by an entity represented by the witness.
(5)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), a point of
order does not lie with respect to a measure reported by a
committee on the ground that hearings on such measure were
not conducted in accordance with this clause.
(B) A point of order on the ground described in subdivision
(A) may be made by a member of the committee that reported
the measure if such point of order was timely made and
improperly disposed of in the committee.
(6) This paragraph does not apply to hearings of the
Committee on Appropriations under clause 4(a)(1) of rule X.
Quorum requirements
(h)(l) A measure or recommendation may not be reported by a
committee unless a majority of the committee is actually
present.
(2) Each committee may fix the number of its members to
constitute a quorum for taking testimony and receiving
evidence, which may not be less than two.
(3) Each committee (other than the Committee on
Appropriations, the Committee on the Budget, and the
Committee on Ways and Means) may fix the number of its
members to constitute a quorum for taking any action other
than one for which the presence of a majority of the
committee is otherwise required, which may not be less than
one-third of the members.
(4)(A) Each committee may adopt a rule authorizing the
chairman of a committee or subcommittee--
(i) to postpone further proceedings when a record vote is
ordered on the question of approving a measure or matter or
on adopting an amendment; and
(ii) to resume proceedings on a postponed question at any
time after reasonable notice.
(B) A rule adopted pursuant to this subparagraph shall
provide that when proceedings resume on a postponed question,
notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous
question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to
further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the
question was postponed.
Limitation on committee sittings
(i) A committee may not sit during a joint session of the
House and Senate or during a recess when a joint meeting of
the House and Senate is in progress.
Calling and questioning of witnesses
(j)(1) Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a
measure or matter, the minority members of the committee
shall be entitled, upon request to the chairman by a majority
of them before the completion of the hearing, to call
witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to
that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing
thereon.
(2)(A) Subject to subdivisions (B) and (C), each committee
shall apply the five-minute rule during the questioning of
witnesses in a hearing until such time as each member of the
committee who so desires has had an opportunity to question
each witness.
(B) A committee may adopt a rule or motion permitting a
specified number of its members to question a witness for
longer than five minutes. The time for extended questioning
of a witness under this subdivision shall be equal for the
majority party and the minority party and may not exceed one
hour in the aggregate.
(C) A committee may adopt a rule or motion permitting
committee staff for its majority and minority party members
to question a witness for equal specified periods. The time
for extended questioning of a witness under this subdivision
shall be equal for the majority party and the minority party
and may not exceed one hour in the aggregate.
Hearing procedures
(k)(1) The chairman at a hearing shall announce in an
opening statement the subject of hearing.
(2) A copy of the committee rules and of this clause shall
be made available to each witness on request.
(3) Witnesses at hearings may be accompanied by their own
counsel for the purpose of advising them concerning their
constitutional rights.
(4) The chairman may punish breaches of order and decorum,
and of professional ethics on the part of counsel, by censure
and exclusion from the hearings; and the committee may cite
the offender to the House for contempt.
(5) Whenever it is asserted that the evidence or testimony
at an investigative hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or
incriminate any person or it is asserted by a witness that
the evidence or testimony that the witness would give at
hearing may tend to defame, degrade or incriminate the
witness--
(A) notwithstanding paragraph (g)(2), such testimony or
evidence shall be presented in executive session if, in the
presence of the number of members required under the rules of
the committee for the purpose of taking testimony, the
committee determines by vote of a majority of those present
that such evidence or testimony may tend to defame, degrade,
or incriminate any person; and
(B) the committee shall proceed to receive such testimony
in open session only if the committee, a majority being
present, determines that such evidence or testimony will not
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person.
In either case the committee shall afford such person an
opportunity voluntarily to appear as a witness, and receive
and dispose of requests from such person to subpoena
additional witnesses.
(6) Except as provided in subparagraph (5), the chairman
shall receive and the committee shall dispose of requests to
subpoena additional witnesses.
(7) Evidence or testimony taken in executive session, and
proceedings conducted in executive session, may be released
or used in public sessions only when authorized by the
committee, a majority being present.
(8) In the discretion of the committee, witnesses may
submit brief and pertinent sworn statements in writing for
inclusion in the record. The committee is the sole judge of
the pertinence of testimony and evidence adduced at its
hearing.
(9) A witness may obtain a transcript copy of his testimony
given at a public session or, if given at an executive
session, when authorized by the committee.
Supplemental, minority, or additional views
(1) If at the time of approval of a measure or matter by a
committee (other than the Committee on Rules) a member of the
committee gives notice of intention to file supplemental,
minority, or additional views for inclusion in the report to
the House thereon, that member shall be entitled to not less
than two additional calendar days after the day of such
notice (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays
except when the House is in session on such a day) to file
such views, in writing and signed by that member, with the
clerk of the committee.
Power to sit and act; subpoena power
(m)(1) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions
and duties under this rule and rule X (including any matters
referred to it under clause 2 of rule XII), a committee or
subcommittee is authorized (subject to subparagraph (2)(A))--
(A) to sit and act at such times and places within the
United States, whether the House is in session, has recessed,
or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings as it considers
necessary; and
(B) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance
and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such
books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and
documents as it considers necessary.
(2) The chairman of the committee, or a member designated
by the chairman, may administer oaths to witnesses.
(3)(A)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (A)(ii), a
subpoena may be authorized and issued by a committee or
subcommittee under subparagraph (1)(B) in the conduct of an
investigation or series of investigations or activities only
when authorized by the committee or subcommittee, a majority
being present. The power to authorize and issue subpoenas
under subparagraph (1)(B) may be delegated to the chairman of
the committee under such rules and under such limitations as
the committee may prescribe. Authorized subpoenas shall be
signed by the chairman of the committee or by a member
designated by the committee.
(ii) In the case of a subcommittee of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, a subpoena may be authorized
and issued only by an affirmative vote of a majority of its
members.
(B) A subpoena duces tecum may specify terms of return
other than at a meeting or hearing of the committee or
subcommittee authorizing the subpoena.
[[Page 3172]]
(C) Compliance with a subpoena issued by a committee or
subcommittee under subparagraph (1)(B) may be enforced only
as authorized or directed by the House.
* * * * *
Audio and visual coverage of committee proceedings
4. (a) The purpose of this clause is to provide a means, in
conformity with acceptable standards of dignity, propriety,
and decorum, by which committee hearings or committee
meetings that are open to the public may be covered by audio
and visual means--
(1) for the education, enlightenment, and information of
the general public, on the basis of accurate and impartial
news coverage, regarding the operations, procedures, and
practices of the House as a legislative and representative
body, and regarding the measures, public issues, and other
matters before the House and its committees, the
consideration thereof, and the action taken thereon; and
(2) for the development of the perspective and
understanding of the general public with respect to the role
and function of the House under the Constitution as an
institution of the Federal Government.
(b) In addition, it is the intent of this clause that radio
and television tapes and television film of any coverage
under this clause may not be used, or made available for use,
as partisan political campaign material to promote or oppose
the candidacy of any person for elective public office.
(c) It is, further, the intent of this clause that the
general conduct of each meeting (whether of a hearing or
otherwise) covered under authority of this clause by audio or
visual means, and the personal behavior of the committee
members and staff, other Government officials and personnel,
witnesses, television, radio, and press media personnel, and
the general public at the hearing or other meeting, shall be
in strict conformity with and observance of the acceptable
standards of dignity, propriety, courtesy, and decorum
traditionally observed by the House in its operations, and
may not be such as to--
(1) distort the objects and purposes of the hearing or
other meeting or the activities of committee members in
connection with that hearing or meeting or in connection with
the general work of the committee or of the House; or
(2) cast discredit or dishonor on the House, the committee,
or a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner or bring the
House, the committee, or a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner into disrepute.
(d) The coverage of committee hearings and meetings by
audio and visual means shall be permitted and conducted only
in strict conformity with the purposes, provisions, and
requirements of this clause.
(e) Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by a committee
or subcommittee is open to the public, those proceedings
shall be open to coverage by audio and visual means. A
committee or subcommittee chairman may not limit the number
of television or still cameras to fewer than two
representatives from each medium (except for legitimate space
or safety considerations, in which case pool coverage shall
be authorized).
(f) Each committee shall adopt written rules to govern its
implementation of this clause. Such rules shall contain
provisions to the following effect:
(1) If audio or visual coverage of the hearing or meeting
is to be presented to the public as live coverage, that
coverage shall be conducted and presented without commercial
sponsorship.
(2) The allocation among the television media of the
positions or the number of television cameras permitted by a
committee or subcommittee chairman in a hearing or meeting
room shall be in accordance with fair and equitable
procedures devised by the Executive Committee of the Radio
and Television Correspondents' Galleries.
(3) Television cameras shall be placed so as not to
obstruct in any way the space between a witness giving
evidence or testimony and any member of the committee or the
visibility of that witness and that member to each other.
(4) Television cameras shall operate from fixed positions
but may not be placed in positions that obstruct
unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing or meeting by the
other media.
(5) Equipment necessary for coverage by the television and
radio media may not be installed in, or removed from, the
hearing or meeting room while the committee is in session.
(6)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), floodlights,
spotlights, strobelights, and flashguns may not be used in
providing any method of coverage of the hearing or meeting.
(B) The television media may install additional lighting in
a hearing or meeting room, without cost to the Government, in
order to raise the ambient lighting level in a hearing or
meeting room to the lowest level necessary to provide
adequate television coverage of a hearing or meeting at the
current state of the art of television coverage.
(7) In the allocation of the number of still photographers
permitted by a committee or subcommittee chairman in a
hearing or meeting room, preference shall be given to
photographers from Associated Press Photos and United Press
International Newspictures. If requests are made by more of
the media than will be permitted by a committee or
subcommittee chairman for coverage of a hearing or meeting by
still photography, that coverage shall be permitted on the
basis of a fair and equitable pool arrangement devised by the
Standing Committee of Press Photographers.
(8) Photographers may not position themselves between the
witness table and the members of the committee at any time
during the course of a hearing or meeting.
(9) Photographers may not place themselves in positions
that obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing by
the other media.
(10) Personnel providing coverage by the television and
radio media shall be currently accredited to the Radio and
Television Correspondents' Galleries.
(11) Personnel providing coverage by still photography
shall be currently accredited to the Press Photographers'
Gallery.
(12) Personnel providing coverage by the television and
radio media and by still photography shall conduct themselves
and their coverage activities in an orderly and unobtrusive
manner.
Pay of witnesses
5. Witnesses appearing before the House or any of its
committees shall be paid the same per diem rate as
established, authorized, and regulated by the Committee on
House Administration for Members, Delegates, the Resident
Commissioner, and employees of the House, plus actual
expenses of travel to or from the place of examination. Such
per diem may not be paid when a witness has been summoned at
the place of examination.
* * * * *
Rule XIII. Calendars and Committee Reports
Calendars
1. (a) All business reported by committees shall be
referred to one of the following three calendars:
(1) A Calendar of the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, to which shall be referred public bills
and public resolutions raising revenue, involving a tax or
charge on the people, directly or indirectly making
appropriations of money or property or requiring such
appropriations to be made, authorizing payments out of
appropriations already made, releasing any liability to the
United States for money or property, or referring a claim to
the Court of Claims.
(2) A House Calendar, to which shall be referred all public
bills and public resolutions not requiring referral to the
Calendar of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union.
(3) A Private Calendar as provided in clause 5 of rule XV,
to which shall be referred all private bills and private
resolutions.
(b) There is established a Calendar of Motions to Discharge
Committees as provided in clause 2 of rule XV.
Filing and printing of reports
2. (a)(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2), all
reports of committees (other than those filed from the floor
as privileged) shall be delivered to the Clerk for printing
and reference to the proper calendar under the direction of
the Speaker in accordance with clause 1. The title or subject
of each report shall be entered on the Journal and printed in
the Congressional Record.
(2) A bill or resolution reported adversely shall be laid
on the table unless a committee to which the bill or
resolution was referred requests at the time of the report
its referral to an appropriate calendar under clause I or
unless, within three days thereafter, a Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner makes such a request.
(b)(1) It shall be the duty of the chairman of each
committee to report or cause to be reported promptly to the
House a measure or matter approved by the committee and to
take or cause to be taken steps necessary to bring the
measure or matter to a vote.
(2) In any event, the report of a committee on a measure
that has been approved by the committee shall be filed within
seven calendar days (exclusive of days on which the House is
not in session) after the day on which a written request for
the filing of the report, signed by a majority of the members
of the committee, has been filed with the clerk of the
committee. The clerk of the committee shall immediately
notify the chairman of the filing of such a request. This
subparagraph does not apply to a report of the Committee on
Rules with respect to a rule, joint rule, or order of
business of the House, or to the reporting of a resolution of
inquiry addressed to the head of an executive department.
(c) All supplemental, minority, or additional views filed
under clause 2(l) of rule XI by one or more members of a
committee shall be included in, and shall be a part of, the
report filed by the committee with respect to a measure or
matter. When time guaranteed by clause 2(l) of rule XI has
expired (or, if sooner, when all separate views have been
received), the committee may arrange to file its report with
the Clerk not later than one hour after the expiration of
such time. This clause and provisions of
[[Page 3173]]
clause 2(l) of rule XI do not preclude the immediate filing
or printing of a committee report in the absence of a timely
request for the opportunity to file supplemental, minority,
or additional views as provided in clause 2(l) of rule XI.
Content of reports
3. (a)(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2), the
report of a committee on a measure or matter shall be printed
in a single volume that--
(A) shall include all supplemental, minority, or additional
views that have been submitted by the time of the filing of
the report; and
(B) shall bear on its cover a recital that any such
supplemental, minority, or additional views (and any material
submitted under paragraph (c)(3) or (4)) are included as part
of the report.
(2) A committee may file a supplemental report for the
correction of a technical error in its previous report on a
measure or matter. A supplemental report only correcting
errors in the depiction of record votes under paragraph (b)
may be filed under this subparagraph and shall not be subject
to the requirement in clause 4 concerning the availability of
reports.
(b) With respect to each record vote on a motion to report
a measure or matter of a public nature, and on any amendment
offered to the measure or matter, the total number of votes
cast for and against, and the names of members voting for and
against, shall be included in the committee report. The
preceding sentence does not apply to a report by the
Committee on Rules on a rule, joint rule, or the order of
business or to votes taken in executive session by the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
(c) The report of a committee on a measure that has been
approved by the committee shall include, separately set out
and clearly identified, the following:
(1) Oversight findings and recommendations under clause
2(b)(1) of rule X.
(2) The statement required by section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, except that an estimate of
new budget authority shall include, when practicable, a
comparison of the total estimated funding level for the
relevant programs to the appropriate levels under current
law.
(3) An estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if timely submitted to the
committee before the filing of the report.
(4) A statement of general performance goals and
objectives, including outcome-related goals and objectives,
for which the measure authorizes funding.
(d) Each report of a committee on a public bill or public
joint resolution shall contain the following:
(1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to
Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the
bill or joint resolution.
(2)(A) An estimate by the committee of the costs that would
be incurred in carrying out the bill or joint resolution in
the fiscal year in which it is reported and in each of the
five fiscal years following that fiscal year (or for the
authorized duration of any program authorized by the bill or
joint resolution if less than five years);
(B) A comparison of the estimate of costs described in
subdivision (A) made by the committee with any estimate of
such costs made by a Government agency and submitted to such
committee; and
(C) When practicable, a comparison of the total estimated
funding level for the relevant programs with the appropriate
levels under current law.
(3)(A) In subparagraph (2) the term ``Government agency''
includes any department, agency, establishment, wholly owned
Government corporation, or instrumentality of the Federal
Government or the government of the District of Columbia.
(B) Subparagraph (2) does not apply to the Committee on
Appropriations, the Committee on House Administration, the
Committee on Rules, or the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, and does not apply when a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 has been included in the report under paragraph
(c)(3).
(e)(1) Whenever a committee reports a bill or joint
resolution proposing to repeal or amend a statute or part
thereof, it shall include in its report or in an accompanying
document--
(A) the text of a statute or part thereof that is proposed
to be repealed; and
(B) a comparative print of any part of the bill or joint
resolution proposing to amend the statute and of the statute
or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by
appropriate typographical devices the omissions and
insertions proposed.
(2) If a committee reports a bill or joint resolution
proposing to repeal or amend a statute or part thereof with a
recommendation that the bill or joint resolution be amended,
the comparative print required by subparagraph (1) shall
reflect the changes in existing law proposed to be made by
the bill or joint resolution as proposed to be amended.
(f)(1) A report of the Committee on Appropriations on a
general appropriation bill shall include--
(A) a concise statement describing the effect of any
provision of the accompanying bill that directly or
indirectly changes the application of existing law; and
(B) a list of all appropriations contained in the bill for
expenditures not previously authorized by law for the period
concerned (except classified intelligence or national
security programs, projects, or activities) along with a
statement of the last year for which such expenditures were
authorized, the level of expenditures authorized for that
year, the actual level of appropriations in the bill for such
expenditures.
(2) Whenever the Committee on Appropriations reports a bill
or joint resolution including matter specified in clause 1
(b)(2) or (3) of rule X, it shall include--
(A) in the bill or joint resolution, separate headings for
``Rescissions'' and ``Transfers of Unexpended Balances'' and
(B) in the report of the committee, a separate section
listing such rescissions and transfers.
(g) Whenever the Committee on Rules reports a resolution
proposing to repeal or amend a standing rule of the House, it
shall include in its report or in an accompanying document--
(1) the text of any rule or part thereof that is proposed
to be repealed; and
(2) a comparative print of any part of the resolution
proposing to amend the rule and of the rule or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions proposed.
(h)(1) It shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint
resolution reported by the Committee on Ways and Means that
proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 unless--
(A) the report includes a tax complexity analysis prepared
by the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation in
accordance with section 4022(b) of the Internal Revenue
Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998; or
(B) the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means causes
such a tax complexity analysis to be printed in the
Congressional Record before consideration of the bill or
joint resolution.
(2)(A) It shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint
resolution reported by the Committee on Ways and Means that
proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 unless--
(i) the report includes a macroeconomic impact analysis;
(ii) the report includes a statement from the Joint
Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation explaining why a
macroeconomic impact analysis is not calculable; or
(iii) the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means
causes a macroeconomic impact analysis to be printed in the
Congressional Record before consideration of the bill or
joint resolution.
(B) In subdivision (A), the term ``macroeconomic impact
analysis'' means--
(i) an estimate prepared by the Joint Committee on Internal
Revenue Taxation of the changes in economic output,
employment, capital stock, and tax revenues expected to
result from enactment of the proposal; and
(ii) a statement from the Joint Committee on Internal
Revenue Taxation identifying the critical assumptions and the
source of data underlying that estimate.
Availability of reports
4. (a)(1) Except as specified in subparagraph (2), it shall
not be in order to consider in the House a measure or matter
reported by a committee until the third calendar day
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when
the House is in session on such a day) on which each report
of a committee on that measure or matter has been available
to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.
(2) Subparagraph (1) does not apply to--
(A) a resolution providing a rule, joint rule, or order of
business reported by the Committee on Rules considered under
clause 6;
(B) a resolution providing amounts from the applicable
accounts described in clause 1 (i)( 1) of rule X reported by
the Committee on House Administration considered under clause
6 of rule X;
(C) a resolution presenting a question of the privileges of
the House reported by any committee;
(D) a measure for the declaration of war, or the
declaration of a national emergency, by Congress; and
(E) a measure providing for the disapproval of a decision,
determination, or action by a Government agency that would
become, or continue to be, effective unless disapproved or
otherwise invalidated by one or both Houses of Congress. In
this subdivision the term ``Government agency'' includes any
department, agency, establishment, wholly owned Government
corporation, or instrumentality of the Federal Government or
of the government of the District of Columbia.
(b) A committee that reports a measure or matter shall make
every reasonable effort to have its hearings thereon (if any)
printed and available for distribution to Members, Delegates,
and the Resident Commissioner before the consideration of the
measure or matter in the House.
(c) A general appropriation bill reported by the Committee
on Appropriations may not
[[Page 3174]]
be considered in the House until the third calendar day
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except when
the House is in session on such a day) on which printed
hearings of the Committee on Appropriations thereon have been
available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident
Commissioner.
* * * * *
Rule XVI. Motions and Amendments
Motions
1. Every motion entertained by the Speaker shall be reduced
to writing on the demand of a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner and, unless it is withdrawn the same day, shall
be entered on the Journal with the name of the Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner offering it. A dilatory
motion may not be entertained by the Speaker.
Withdrawal
2. When a motion is entertained, the Speaker shall state it
or cause it to be read aloud by the Clerk before it is
debated. The motion then shall be in the possession of the
House but may be withdrawn at any time before a decision or
amendment thereon.
Question of consideration
3. When a motion or proposition is entertained, the
question, ``Will the House now consider it?'' may not be put
unless demanded by a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner.
Precedence of motions
4. (a) When a question is under debate, only the following
motions may be entertained (which shall have precedence in
the following order):
(1) To adjourn.
(2) To lay on the table.
(3) For the previous question.
(4) To postpone to a day certain.
(5) To refer.
(6) To amend.
(7) To postpone indefinitely.
(b) A motion to adjourn, to lay on the table, or for the
previous question shall be decided without debate. A motion
to postpone to a day certain, to refer, or to postpone
indefinitely, being decided, may not be allowed again on the
same day at the same stage of the question.
(c)(1) It shall be in order at any time for the Speaker, in
his discretion, to entertain a motion--
(A) that the Speaker be authorized to declare a recess; or
(B) that when the House adjourns it stand adjourned to a
day and time certain.
(2) Either motion shall be of equal privilege with the
motion to adjourn and shall be decided without debate.
Divisibility
5. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a question
shall be divided on the demand of a Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner before the question is put if it
includes propositions so distinct in substance that, one
being taken away, a substantive proposition remams.
(b)(1) A motion or resolution to elect members to a
standing committee of the House, or to a joint standing
committee, is not divisible.
(2) A resolution or order reported by the Committee on
Rules providing a special order of business is not divisible.
(c) A motion to strike and insert is not divisible, but
rejection of a motion to strike does not preclude another
motion to amend.
Amendments
6. When an amendable proposition is under consideration, a
motion to amend and a motion to amend that amendment shall be
in order, and it also shall be in order to offer a further
amendment by way of substitute for the original motion to
amend, to which one amendment may be offered but which may
not be voted on until the original amendment is perfected. An
amendment may be withdrawn in the House at any time before a
decision or amendment thereon. An amendment to the title of a
bill or resolution shall not be in order until after its
passage or adoption and shall be decided without debate.
Germaneness
7. No motion or proposition on a subject different from
that under consideration shall be admitted under color of
amendment.
Readings
8. Bills and joint resolutions are subject to readings as
follows:
(a) A first reading is in full when the bill or joint
resolution is first considered.
(b) A second reading occurs only when the bill or joint
resolution is read for amendment in a Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union under clause 5 of rule XVIII.
(c) A third reading precedes passage when the Speaker
states the question: ``Shall the bill [or joint resolution]
be engrossed [ when applicable] and read a third time?'' If
that question is decided in the affirmative, then the bill or
joint resolution shall be read the final time by title and
then the question shall be put on its passage.
* * * * *
Rule XIX. Motions Following the Amendment Stage
Previous question
1. (a) There shall be a motion for the previous question,
which, being ordered, shall have the effect of cutting off
all debate and bringing the House to a direct vote on the
immediate question or questions on which it has been ordered.
Whenever the previous question has been ordered on an
otherwise debatable question on which there has been no
debate, it shall be in order to debate that question for 40
minutes, equally divided and controlled by a proponent of the
question and an opponent. The previous question may be moved
and ordered on a single question, on a series of questions
allowable under the rules, or on a amendment or amendments,
or may embrace all authorized motions or amendments and
include the bill or resolution to its passage, adoption, or
rejection.
(b) Incidental questions of order arising during the
pendency of a motion for the previous question shall be
decided, whether on appeal or otherwise, without debate.
Recommit
2. (a) After the previous question has been ordered on
passage or adoption of a measure, or pending a motion to that
end, it shall be in order to move that the House recommit (or
commit, as the case may be) the measure, with or without
instructions, to a standing or select committee. For such a
motion to recommit, the Speaker shall give preference in
recognition to a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
who is opposed to the measure.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c), if a motion that
the House recommit a bill or joint resolution on which the
previous question has been ordered to passage includes
instructions, it shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally
divided between the proponent and an opponent.
(c) On demand of the floor manager for the majority, it
shall be in order to debate the motion for one hour equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
Reconsideration
3. When a motion has been carried or lost, it shall be in
order on the same or succeeding day for a Member on the
prevailing side of the question to enter a motion for the
reconsideration thereof. The entry of such a motion shall
take precedence over all other questions except the
consideration of a conference report or a motion to adjourn,
and may not be withdrawn after such succeeding day without
the consent of the House. Once entered, a motion may be
called up for consideration by any Member. During the last
six days of a session of Congress, such a motion shall be
disposed of when entered.
4. A bill, petition, memorial, or resolution referred to a
committee, or reported therefrom for printing and
recommitment, may not be brought back to the House on a
motion to reconsider.
* * * * *
Rule XXI. Restrictions on Certain Bills
Reservation of certain points of order
1. At the time a general appropriation bill is reported,
all points of order against provisions therein shall be
considered as reserved.
General appropriation bills and amendments
2. (a)(1) An appropriation may not be reported in a general
appropriation bill, and may not be in order as an amendment
thereto, for an expenditure not previously authorized by law,
except to continue appropriations for public works and
objects that are already in progress.
(2) A reappropriation of unexpended balances of
appropriations may not be reported in a general appropriation
bill, and may not be in order as an amendment thereto, except
to continue appropriations for public works and objects that
are already in progress. This subparagraph does not apply to
transfers of unexpended balances within the department or
agency for which they were originally appropriated that are
reported by the Committee on Appropriations.
(b) A provision changing existing law may not be reported
in a general appropriation bill, including a provision making
the availability of funds contingent on the receipt or
possession of information not required by existing law for
the period of the appropriation, except germane provisions
that retrench expenditures by the reduction of amounts of
money covered by the bill (which may include those
recommended to the Committee on Appropriations by direction
of a legislative committee having jurisdiction over the
subject matter) and except rescissions of appropriations
contained in appropriation Acts.
(c) An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not
be in order if changing existing law, including an amendment
making the availability of funds contingent on the receipt or
possession of information not required by existing law for
the period of the appropriation. Except as provided in
paragraph (d), an amendment proposing a limitation not
specifically contained or authorized in existing law for the
period of the limitation shall not be in order during
consideration of a general appropriation bill.
(d) After a general appropriation bill has been read for
amendment, a motion that the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been adopted shall, if
offered by the Majority Leader or a designee, have precedence
over motions to amend the bill. If such a motion
[[Page 3175]]
to rise and report is rejected or not offered, amendments
proposing limitations not specifically contained or
authorized in existing law for the period of the limitation
or proposing germane amendments that retrench expenditures by
reductions of amounts of money covered by the bill may be
considered.
(e) A provision other than an appropriation designated an
emergency under section 251(b)(2) or section 252(e) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, a
rescission of budget authority, or a reduction in direct
spending or an amount for a designated emergency may not be
reported in an appropriation bill or joint resolution
containing an emergency designation under section 251(b)(2)
or section 252(e) of such Act and may not be in order as an
amendment thereto.
(f) During the reading of an appropriation bill for
amendment in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, it shall be in order to consider en bloc
amendments proposing only to transfer appropriations among
objects in the bill without increasing the levels of budget
authority or outlays in the bill. When considered en bloc
under this paragraph, such amendments may amend portions of
the bill not yet read for amendment (following disposition of
any points of order against such portions) and is not subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole.
Transportation obligation limitations
3. It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report that would cause
obligation limitations to be below the level for any fiscal
year set forth in section 8103 of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century, as adjusted, for the highway
category or the mass transit category, as applicable.
Appropriations on legislative bills
4. A bill or joint resolution carrying an appropriation may
not be reported by a committee not having jurisdiction to
report appropriations, and an amendment proposing an
appropriation shall not be in order during the consideration
of a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee not
having that jurisdiction. A point of order against an
appropriation in such a bill, joint resolution, or amendment
thereto may be raised at any time during pendency of that
measure for amendment.
Tax and tariff measures and amendments
5. (a)(1) A bill or joint resolution carrying a tax or
tariff measure may not be reported by a committee not having
jurisdiction to report tax or tariff measures, and an
amendment in the House or proposed by the Senate carrying a
tax or tariff measure shall not be in order during the
consideration of bill or joint resolution reported by a
committee not having that jurisdiction. A point of order
against a tax or tariff measure in such a bill, joint
resolution, or amendment thereto may be raised at any time
during pendency of that measure for amendment.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), a tax or tariff measure
includes an amendment proposing a limitation on funds in a
general appropriation bill for the administration of a tax or
tariff.
Passage of tax rate increases
(b) A bill or joint resolution, amendment, or conference
report carrying a Federal income tax rate increase may not be
considered as passed or agreed to unless so determined by a
vote of not less than three-fifths of the Members voting, a
quorum being present. In this paragraph the term ``Federal
income tax rate increase'' means any amendment to subsection
(a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section 1, or to section 11(b)
or 55(b), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that imposes
a new percentage as a rate of tax and thereby increases the
amount of tax imposed by any such section.
Consideration of retroactive tax rate increases
(c) It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a
retroactive Federal income tax rate increase. In this
paragraph--
(1) the term ``Federal income tax rate increase'' means any
amendment to subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section
1, or to section 11(b) or 55(b), of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, that imposes a new percentage as a rate of tax and
thereby increases the amount of tax imposed by any such
section; and
(2) a Federal income tax rate increase is retroactive if it
applies to a period beginning before the enactment of the
provision.
Designation of public works
6. It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report that provides for
the designation or redesignation of a public work in honor of
an individual then serving as a Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, or Senator.
Reconciliation
7. It shall not be in order to consider a concurrent
resolution on the budget, or an amendment thereto, or a
conference report thereon that contains reconciliation
directives under section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 that specify changes in law reducing the surplus or
increasing the deficit for either the period comprising the
current fiscal year and the five fiscal years beginning with
the fiscal year that ends in the following calendar year. In
determining whether reconciliation directives specify changes
in law reducing the surplus or increasing the deficit, the
sum of the directives for each reconciliation bill (under
section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974)
envisioned by that measure shall be evaluated.
Applying points of order under Budget Act to bills and joint
resolutions considered under special rules
8. With respect to measures considered pursuant to a
special order of business, points of order under title III of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall operate without
regard to whether the measure concerned has been reported
from committee. Such points of order shall operate with
respect to (as the case may be)--
(a) the form of a measure recommended by the reporting
committee where the statute uses the term ``as reported'' (in
the case of a measure that has been so reported);
(b) the form of the measure made in order as an original
bill or joint resolution for the purpose of amendment; or
(c) the form of the measure on which the previous question
is ordered directly to passage.
Point of order against congressional earmarks
9. (a) It shall not be in order to consider--
(l) a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee
unless the report includes a list of congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill
or in the report (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner who submitted a request to the
committee for each respective item included in such list) or
a statement that the proposition contains no congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits;
(2) a bill or joint resolution not reported by a committee
unless the chairman of each committee of initial referral has
caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill (and the
name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who
submitted a request to the committee for each respective item
included in such list) or a statement that the proposition
contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or
limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional
Record prior to its consideration;
(3) an amendment to a bill or joint resolution to be
offered at the outset of its consideration for amendment by a
member of a committee of initial referral as designated in a
report of the Committee on Rules to accompany a resolution
prescribing a special order of business unless the proponent
has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the amendment (and
the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
who submitted a request to the proponent for each respective
item included in such list) or a statement that the
proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits to be printed in the
Congressional Record prior to its consideration; or
(4) a conference report to accompany a bill or joint
resolution unless the joint explanatory statement prepared by
the managers on the part of the House and the managers on the
part of the Senate includes a list of congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the
conference report or joint statement (and the name of any
Member, Delegate, Resident commissioner, or Senator who
submitted a request to the House or Senate committees of
jurisdiction for each respective item included in such list)
or a statement that the proposition contains no congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.
(b) It shall not be in order to consider a rule or order
that waives the application of paragraph (a). As disposition
of a point of order under this paragraph, the Chair shall put
the question of consideration with respect to the rule or
order that waives the application of paragraph (a). The
question of consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes
by the Member initiating the point of order and for 10
minutes by an opponent, but shall otherwise be decided
without intervening motion except one that the House adjourn.
(c) In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a point of
order raised under paragraph (a) may be based only on the
failure or a report, submission to the Congressional Record,
or joint explanatory statement to include a list required by
paragraph (a) or a statement that the proposition contains no
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits.
(d) For the purpose of this clause, the term
``congressional earmark'' means a provision or report
language included primarily at the request of a Member,
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator providing,
authorizing or recommending a specific amount of
discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other
spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee,
grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to any
entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or
Congressional district, other than
[[Page 3176]]
through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or
competitive award process.
(e) For the purpose of this clause, the term ``limited tax
benefit'' means--
(1) any revenue-losing provision that--
(A) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or
preference to 10 or fewer beneficiaries under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, and
(B) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in
application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such
provision; or
(2) any Federal tax provision which provides one
beneficiary temporary or permanent transition relief from a
change to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(f) For the purpose of this clause, the term ``limited
tariff benefit'' means a provision modifying the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States in a manner that
benefits 10 or fewer entities.
10. It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report if the provisions
of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have
the net effect of increasing the deficit or reducing the
surplus for either the period comprising the current fiscal
year and the five fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year
that ends in the following calendar year or the period
comprising the current fiscal year and the ten fiscal years
beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the following
calendar year. The effect of such measure on the deficit or
surplus shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by
the Committee on the Budget relative to--
(a) the most recent baseline estimates supplied by the
Congressional Budget Office consistent with section 257 of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
used in considering a concurrent resolution on the budget; or
(b) after the beginning of a new calendar year and before
consideration of a concurrent resolution on the budget, the
most recent baseline estimates supplied by the Congressional
Budget Office consistent with section 257 of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Rule XXII. House And Senate Relations
* * * * *
11. It shall not be in order to consider a conference
report to accompany a bill or joint resolution that proposes
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 unless--
(a) the joint explanatory statement of the managers
includes a tax complexity analysis prepared by the Joint
Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation in accordance with
section 4022(b) of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring
and Reform Act of 1998; or
(b) the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means causes
such a tax complexity analysis to be printed in the
Congressional Record before consideration of the conference
report.
12. (a)(1) Subject to subparagraph (2), a meeting of each
conference committee shall be open to the public.
(2) In open session of the House, a motion that managers on
the part of the House be permitted to close to the public a
meeting or meetings of their conference committee shall be
privileged, shall be decided without debate, and shall be
decided by a record vote.
(b) A point of order that a conference committee failed to
comply with paragraph (a) may be raised immediately after the
conference report is read or considered as read. If such a
point of order is sustained, the conference report shall be
considered as rejected, the House shall be considered to have
insisted on its amendments or on disagreement to the Senate
amendments, as the case may be, and to have requested a
further conference with the Senate, and the Speaker may
appoint new conferees without intervening motion.
(3) In conducting conferences with the Senate, managers on
the part of the House should endeavor to ensure--
(A) that meetings for the resolution of differences between
the two Houses occur only under circumstances in which every
manager on the part of the House has notice of the meeting
and a reasonable opportunity to attend;
(B) that all provisions on which the two Houses disagree
are considered as open to discussion at any meeting of a
conference committee; and
(C) that papers reflecting a conference agreement are held
inviolate to change without renewal of the opportunity of all
managers on the part of the House to reconsider their
decisions to sign or not to sign the agreement.
(4) Managers on the part of the House shall be provided a
unitary time and place with access to at least one complete
copy of the final conference agreement for the purpose of
recording their approval (or not) of the final conference
agreement by placing their signatures (or not) on the sheets
prepared to accompany the conference report and joint
explanatory statement of the managers.
13. It shall not be in order to consider a conference
report the text of which differs in any way, other than
clerical, from the text that reflects the action of the
conferees on all of the differences between the two Houses,
as recorded by their placement of their signatures (or not)
on the sheets prepared to accompany the conference report and
joint explanatory statement of the managers.
Rule XXVII. Statutory Limit on Public Debt
1. Upon adoption by Congress of a concurrent resolution on
the budget under section 301 or 304 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 that sets forth, as the appropriate level
of the public debt for the period to which the concurrent
resolution relates, an amount that is different from the
amount of the statutory limit on the public debt that
otherwise would be in effect for that period, the Clerk shall
prepare an engrossment of a joint resolution increasing or
decreasing, as the case may be, the statutory limit on the
public debt in the form prescribed in clause 2. Upon
engrossment of the joint resolution, the vote by which the
concurrent resolution on the budget was finally agreed to in
the House shall also be considered as a vote on passage of
the joint resolution in the House, and the joint resolution
shall be considered as passed by the House and duly certified
and examined. The engrossed copy shall be signed by the Clerk
and transmitted to the Senate for further legislative action.
2. The matter after the resolving clause in a joint
resolution described in clause 1 shall be as follows: ``That
subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States
Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation
contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof
`$__'.'', with the blank being filled with a dollar
limitation equal to the appropriate level of the public debt
set forth pursuant to section 301(a)(5) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 in the relevant concurrent resolution
described in clause 1. If an adopted concurrent resolution
under clause 1 sets forth different appropriate levels of the
public debt for separate periods, only one engrossed joint
resolution shall be prepared under clause 1; and the blank
referred to in the preceding sentence shall be filled with
the limitation that is to apply for each period.
3. (a) The report of the Committee on the Budget on a
concurrent resolution described in clause 1 and the joint
explanatory statement of the managers on a conference report
to accompany such a concurrent resolution each shall contain
a clear statement of the effect the eventual enactment of a
joint resolution engrossed under this rule would have on the
statutory limit on the public debt.
(b) It shall not be in order for the House to consider a
concurrent resolution described in clause 1, or a conference
report thereon, unless the report of the Committee on the
Budget or the joint explanatory statement of the managers
complies with paragraph a).
4. Nothing in this rule shall be construed as limiting or
otherwise affecting--
(a) the power of the House or the Senate to consider and
pass bills or joint resolutions, without regard to the
procedures under clause 1, that would change the statutory
limit on the public debt; or
(b) the rights of Members, Delegates, the Resident
Commissioner, or committees with respect to the introduction,
consideration, and reporting of such bills or joint
resolutions.
5. In this rule the term ``statutory limit on the public
debt'' means the maximum face amount of obligations issued
under authority of chapter 31 of title 31, United States
Code, and obligations guaranteed as to principal and interest
by the United States (except such guaranteed obligations as
may be held by the Secretary of the Treasury), as determined
under section 3101(b) of such title after the application of
section 3101(a) of such title, that may be outstanding at
anyone time.
* * * * *
____________________
{time} 1500
OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) works
very hard on organizing our Truth Squad and making sure that we are
getting the word out about what needs to be gotten out in terms of the
issues that are important, I think, to the American people. We are
going to talk about the economy and what is happening to the economy in
the United States, and I want to talk a little bit about that to begin
with until Mr. Price gets here, and I probably will recognize my
colleague from Tennessee, who is also here to speak on this issue, and
ask him if he would share some comments.
The first thing I want to say is that our economy is in wonderful,
wonderful shape. It is the best economy that we have had in this
country for many, many years. Now, a major reason that the economy is
in such great shape is because of the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. I was
not here when those tax cuts were passed, but I am very pleased that
[[Page 3177]]
they were passed and that they brought about such a positive economy
for this country. We have the lowest unemployment rate that we have had
in 50 years. We have growth in all sectors. We have more people owning
their homes than have ever owned them before. Incomes are up and
revenues are up.
And I want to say something about revenues, using some information
from the Heritage Foundation. Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of
gross domestic product, which is above the 20-year, 40-year and 60-year
historical averages. The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue
increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest 2-year revenue
surge since 1965 and 1967.
There is a myth out there that tax revenues are low. Tax revenues are
actually above the historical average, even after the tax cuts. We know
that tax cuts are good for this economy; they are always good for the
economy. The more money that we leave in the hands and the pockets of
our taxpayers, the better off we are. When the government appropriates
that money and spends it, the government is very inefficient in its
spending of that money, and that does not grow the economy, contrary to
what many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like
to say.
We are going to talk again more and more about the economy and the
fact that it is in very good shape. And it is very unfortunate that the
economy doesn't get the positive press that the economy has gotten
under Democratic Presidents, when in fact most of the time the results
of the good economy are coming from a Republican Congress, which knows
how to do things in terms of growing the economy.
I would like to recognize now my colleague from Tennessee, who is
here to make a presentation on this issue, also. I know that he will
bring some enlightened points to the discussion.
Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. Thank you, Ms. Foxx. I appreciate your
leadership and your friendship just across the mountain in North
Carolina from Tennessee. And thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to
speak today.
It is an interesting time in America; things are going well in the
economy. It is going well because Americans are working hard. I grew up
in an era of politics looking back at Ronald Reagan, who was a great
President. And as we all know, his birthday is today. If you go back 96
years ago was the date of his birth. And one of his quotes was, We
don't have a trillion dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough, we
have a trillion dollar debt because we spend too much. And I think that
is a good starting point as we look towards our economy and how we run
this Congress and how we work for the people across America.
Revenues are coming in at a record pace. If we continue the pace that
we are at now, we will actually be able to balance our budget by the
year 2012 without raising taxes; and I think that is exactly what the
American people would like to see. I think they want us to hold the
line on spending, I think they want a pro-growth economy, and they want
a good, sound financial policy.
If you look at the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, which is
nonpartisan, it confirmed just last week that tax cuts of 2003 have
helped boost our Federal revenues by 68 percent. That is good news.
There are other signals that keeping taxes low, coupled with fiscal
restraint and economic growth, help move us forward and help us balance
our budget; and we can do that and take care of that deficit that we
have.
If you look at some other statistics that are vitally important, our
economy has grown for 21 straight quarters. That is rather impressive.
And in the period between 2004 and 2006, Federal tax revenues rose the
largest margin in nearly 40 years, not because we had raised taxes, but
because we had lowered taxes. In addition to that, the deficit has been
cut in half 2 years early, or ahead of schedule. That is good news for
Americans. I think that is the type of leadership that America is
looking for.
If you look at the way you balance a budget, like a small business
does back in east Tennessee, or a family sitting around the kitchen
table, and they have a small budget, their budget is tight, they are
trying to decide what they need to do, they have to decide, do you cut
what you spend or do you bring in additional revenue. And most people
understand, as they sit around their kitchen table, you have to hold
the line on spending; you can't spend more than you make, unlike
government.
I am excited about a good starting point that we see from the
President in his budget. It calls for making the 2001-2003 tax relief
provisions permanent. I think that is exactly what the American people
want. And if we do that, the administration projects total revenue to
grow an average of 5.4 percent per year. The way we maintain this
healthy economy that we have today is keep tax cuts permanent; that is
what the American people want us to do.
We really have a simple choice, Mr. Speaker: we have the choice
between a bigger economy or bigger government. And I really believe
that if we look forward, what the American people want is us to hold
the line on spending, hold the line on increasing the taxes and allow
the economy to work the way it has worked in the past and the way it is
working today.
We also need to work very hard to make sure that we hold the line not
only on spending, but we need to take a good strong look in a
bipartisan way at reducing earmarks. I think we need to pass the line
item veto. And if we do that, it will allow the President to have
better control of how tax dollars are spent.
I would also like to see a biennial budget process where we can
actually sit back and let this House and this Congress take a breathing
period from every other year and to find out if what we are doing
works. And back in Tennessee, as State legislature, I was a State
representative for 8 years, we had a balanced budget amendment in our
constitution. We couldn't spend more than we brought in. And I signed
on as a cosponsor to House Joint Resolution 1, which calls for a
balanced budget amendment right here at the Federal level. I think that
is exactly what the American people are looking for.
And, again, going back to what Ronald Reagan had to say, just to
reiterate, President Reagan said: ``We don't have a trillion dollar
debt because we haven't taxed enough, we have a trillion dollar debt
because we spend too much.'' And if we can remember that in this body
and over in the Senate and we pass a good balanced budget that would
take care of the deficit without raising taxes, I think the American
people would be very pleased.
Ms. FOXX. I thank Mr. Davis, the gentleman from Tennessee, for his
remarks. And I appreciate his being involved and sharing some
information with us that is so important. This is his first term, and
he has done a wonderful job.
He is my neighbor to the west. His district in Tennessee joins the
5th District in North Carolina. We both live in a wonderful, wonderful
place. Every time somebody speaks to me about where I live, they say,
what a beautiful place you live in, and I feel that way about it. And I
want to say that it is a great honor to serve in Congress, but I can
tell you that my feet are planted very firmly on the ground in the 5th
District of North Carolina, and I don't ever forget where I came from
and the people that I represent.
I want to talk a little bit on this issue about the economy that Mr.
Price set up today for the Truth Squad. And I know he is going to be
here probably very shortly, and when he does I am going to yield back
to the Chair and hope that the Chair will recognize him so that he can
continue this discussion.
I want to talk a little bit today about the economy and an egregious
situation that we are facing here in the Congress as it deals with
unions. I have come to the floor several times in this session and
talked about what I consider the hypocrisy that is going on in this
Congress by the majority party. We are having black called white and
white called black in terms of pieces of things on the paper. It is
astonishing to
[[Page 3178]]
me the hypocrisy that is going on. And I think there is probably no
more greater piece of hypocrisy than this so-called Employee Free
Choice Act which has been introduced by the Democrats. It deals with
the ability for unions to twist people's arms to get them into unions.
The unions have been steadily losing ground in this country for many,
many years. My understanding is that the percentage and number of U.S.
workers that belong to unions declined again in 2006, after having
stabilized a little bit in 2005. BLS data show that only 13 percent of
all construction workers were members of building trade unions, and
that is down from 18 percent in 2001.
There is a steady erosion in the percentage of construction workers
represented by unions in the past 23 years. What is happening is
because the unions are losing membership, they want to take away the
secret ballot.
I am going to enter into the Record today several different pieces
which I have in front of me that I am quoting from. I am going to quote
from a Wall Street Journal article of February 2, and from some other
information which I will enter into the Record. But I want to read the
beginning of this article from the Wall Street Journal because I think
it is so pertinent. It says: ``Why is the new Congress in such a hurry
to take away workers' right to vote?'' It seems extraordinary, but the
so-called Employee Free Choice Act is right there near the top of the
Democrats' agenda. This legislation replaces government-sponsored
secret ballot elections for union representation with a public card-
signing system.
One of the reasons that union membership is down so much in this
country is because of the abuses of the unions, and also because our
economy is so good. And, again, I think that Representative Price is
going to talk more about the economy. I mentioned earlier that it is
the best that it has ever been in terms of wages, in terms of income
and wages and homeownership and the burden that we place on the
American people from the government. But people don't need to join
unions like they needed to 125 years ago or so. We did have abuses in
this country by employers, and I am very sorry about that, but those
abuses don't go on anymore, and people are finding out they don't have
to belong to unions.
But the Democrats, who are so beholden to unions, want to take the
right of a secret ballot, which is so fundamental to us in this
country, and which they argue for on this floor for voters, and they
want to take it away from union members or people who are thinking
about forming a union. And I, again, want to make some quotes, because
this article is so excellent.
Most important, it is totally unreasonable to deny all 140 million
American workers the right to a secret ballot election because some
employers break the law. Yes, occasionally somebody may not do what
they are supposed to do. Not only is such a remedy disproportionate, it
is counterproductive. If one goal is worker empowerment, how can a
worker be better off if both his employer and his prospective union
boss know his views on the union when the secret ballot is replaced
with a public card signing? For the worker, it is the ultimate example
of being caught between a rock and a hard place.
{time} 1515
Mr. Edwards, who is running for President, has said that if you can
join the Republican Party, you should be able to join a union by simply
signing a card. But Mr. Edwards' analogy is a very false one, because
signing a card to join the Republican Party does not oblige you to vote
for the Republican ticket in a secret ballot election. And I quote
again from the article from the Wall Street Journal: ``The Employee
Free Choice Act would take care of that by abolishing such elections.
If the Edwards principle was applied to the political process in the 28
non-right to work States, Karl Rove and Republican Party organizers
could force all Democrats and Independents to become Republicans and
pay dues to the party if a majority of voters signed Republican cards.
That's free choice?''
The final proof that this bill is about union power and not worker
choice is revealed by its treatment of the flip side of unionization:
decertification elections. These are secret ballot elections in which
workers get to decide that they have had enough of the union. Under the
Employee Free Choice, can a majority of workers decertify the union by
signing a card? Not on your life. Here, unions want the chance to
engage in a campaign to give workers both sides of the story and maybe
do a better job of representing them before the union's fate is decided
by a secret ballot vote.
Again, the hypocrisy is absolutely mind-boggling, and is just one
more example. We have bills called one thing and they do another. It
just goes on and on and on. But I think it is very important that we
point out this particular hypocrisy, because the title of this bill,
the Employee Free Choice Act, is I think particularly egregious in this
respect.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.
[From the Wall Street Journal Online, Feb. 2, 2007]
Abrogating Workers' Rights
(By Lawrence B. Lindsey)
Why is the new Congress in such a hurry to take away
workers' right to vote? It seems extraordinary, but the so-
called ``Employee Free Choice Act'' is right there near the
top of the Democrats' agenda. This legislation replaces
government-sponsored secret ballot elections for union
representation with a public card-signing system.
Under the act, once a union gets a majority of the workers
to sign a card expressing a desire for a union, that union is
automatically certified as the bargaining representative of,
and empowered to negotiate on behalf of, all workers. In the
28 states that do not have right-to-work laws, all employees
would typically end up having to join the union or pay the
equivalent of union dues whether or not they signed the card.
Moreover, under the act, the bargaining process would be
shortened, with mandatory use of the Federal Mediation
service after 90 days and an imposed contract through binding
arbitration 30 days after that.
I am sympathetic to the argument that strengthening the
negotiating position of workers is good public policy, and
that expanding the choices available to them is the best way
to accomplish that. So, for example, pension portability
unlocks the golden handcuffs that financially bind workers to
jobs they may become dissatisfied with after they have become
vested. Health savings accounts are an important first step
to liberating people from jobs they put up with only because
they fear a disruption in health-care coverage.
When it comes to unions, it doesn't take a very deep
appreciation of game theory to understand that a worker's
best position comes when a nonunion company has a union
knocking on the door. Indeed, one allegation about ``union
busting'' by supporters of the bill is that, during union
certification elections, one employer in five ``gave illegal
previously unscheduled wage increases while a similar number
made some kind of illegal unilateral change in benefits or
working conditions.''
In other words, they made workers better off. But, never
fear, the Employee Free Choice Act will limit these
unconscionable increases in pay, benefits and working
conditions by imposing fines of up to $20,000 against
employers who make such ``unilateral changes.'' Similar
penalties will be assessed against employers who caution that
unionization may cause them to shut down or move production
elsewhere.
Sometimes the interests of workers and unions coincide,
sometimes they do not. The chief complaint by the bill's
sponsors is that unions only win secret-ballot elections half
of the time. Apparently workers, after they think things over
and when neither the union nor the company knows how they
vote, often decide they are better-off without the union. The
solution of the Employee Free Choice Act is to do away with
such elections. It is hard to see how that ``empowers''
workers. And it is hard not to conclude that this bill has
little to do with employee choice or maximizing employee
leverage, and everything to do with empowering union bosses
and organizers.
The unions allege that companies use unfair election
campaign tactics and that a pro-employer National Labor
Relations Board doesn't punish them. But statistics cited by
the leftwing Web site, Daily Kos, on behalf of this
allegation come from 1998 and 1999--when the entire NLRB had
been appointed by President Clinton. In any event, roughly
half the injunctions brought against companies by the NLRB
were overturned by federal courts: This does not suggest
under-enforcement of the law by the NLRB.
All of this does not mean that there are no legitimate
complaints about the union certification process. Companies
have been found that fired workers for union organizing
activities. One careful examination of
[[Page 3179]]
NLRB data found that there were 62 such cases in fiscal 2005.
This is not a large number in a work force of 140 million, or
in a year where there were more than 2,300 certification
elections. But it is 62 too many, and it would be reasonable
to stiffen the penalties for employers who break the law. But
it is hard to think of offering more pay or better worker
conditions as something that should be punished with
draconian penalties, as the Employee Free Choice Act does.
Most important, it is totally unreasonable to deny all 140
million American workers the right to a secret ballot
election because some employers break the law. Not only is
such a remedy disproportionate, it is counterproductive--if
one's goal is worker empowerment. How can a worker be better
off if both his employer and his prospective union boss know
his views on the union when the secret ballot is replaced
with a public card signing? For the worker it is the ultimate
example of being caught between a rock and a hard place.
The political rhetoric in support of this bill is a willful
exercise in obfuscation. For example, on the presidential
campaign stump John Edwards says, ``if you can join the
Republican Party by just signing a card, you should be able
to join a union by just signing a card.'' The fact is, you--
and everyone else--can join any union you want by just
signing a card, and paying union dues and meeting any other
obligations imposed by the union. But, under this bill,
contrary to Mr. Edwards's false analogy, signing a card to
join the Republican Party does not oblige you to vote for the
Republican ticket in a secret ballot election. The Employee
Free Choice Act would take care of that by abolishing such
elections. If the Edwards principle was applied to the
political process in the 28 non-right-to-work states, Karl
Rove and Republican Party organizers could force all
Democrats and independents to become Republicans and pay dues
to the party if a majority of voters signed Republican Party
cards. That is free choice?
The final proof that this bill is about union power, and
not worker choice, is revealed by its treatment of the flip
side of unionization: decertification elections. These are
secret ballot elections in which workers get to decide that
they have had enough of the union. So under the Employee Free
Choice Act can a majority of workers decertify the union by
signing a card? Not on your life. Here unions want the chance
to engage in a campaign to give workers both sides of the
story--and maybe do a better job of representing them--before
the union's fate is decided, by a secret-ballot vote.
No one has ever argued that secret-ballot elections are a
perfect mechanism, either in politics or in deciding
unionization. But they are far and away the best mechanism we
have devised to minimize intimidation and maximize the power
of the people to really matter, whether citizen or worker.
Congress should think a lot harder before it decides to do
away with workers' right to vote.
____
[From the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace]
The So-Called ``Employee Free Choice Act'' Union Leaders'' Rhetoric vs.
The Facts
Union Rhetoric: Secret ballot elections take too long and
delays of months or years are common.
Facts: The average time for an election to be held is just
39 days and 94 percent of elections are held within 56 days.
The rare exceptions that take longer hardly justify
abandoning the entire secret ballot election process.
Union Rhetoric: Card check procedures are the most
effective way to determine the wishes of a majority of
employees.
Facts: Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that secret
ballot elections are the most foolproof method of
ascertaining whether a union has the support of a majority of
employees, noting that, workers sometimes sign cards not
because they intend to vote for the union in an election, but
to avoid offending the person who asks them to sign (often a
fellow worker), or simply to get the person off their back.
Union Rhetoric: Employers illegally fire employees in 25 to
30 percent of all organizing drives.
Facts: Those who falsely claim employers illegally fire a
large number of employees during organizing drives cite to
two studies, one by Cornell professor Kate Bronfenbrenner and
another commissioned by the pro-union group American Rights
at Work. Unfortunately, these reports are in fact surveys of
uncorroborated reports of union organizers--hardly an
unbiased source. National Labor Relations Board statistics
show that employees are illegally fired in just over one in
100 (1 percent) organizing drives. Furthermore, if the NLRB
finds that an employer illegally fired workers during an
organizing drive it has the power to order the employer to
recognize and bargain with the union, even if the union lost
the election.
Union Rhetoric: The secret ballot election process enables
employers to wage bitter anti-union campaigns.
Facts: In almost nine out of ten cases the employer and
union reach agreement on the most contentious issues
surrounding union elections: the scope of the bargaining unit
(who is eligible to vote), and the date and time of the
election.
Union Rhetoric: In an election, management has total access
to the list of employees at all times, while union supporters
may have access very late in the process to a list that is
often inaccurate.
Facts: Employers are required to submit complete and
accurate lists of employees within one week of the
determination that an election will be held. The list is then
provided to the union. If the employer fails to provide the
list or the list is inaccurate, the Board can set aside the
election and order another, especially if errors involve a
determinative number of voters.
Union Rhetoric: The Employee Free Choice Act gives
employees the option of using a card-check system; it does
not replace the secret ballot election. Employees are still
free to choose a secret ballot process.
Facts: The card-check process does not give employees a
choice at all. Instead, it gives union organizers the choice
of whether to organize through a card check process. If the
union chose to submit authorization cards, workers would be
barred from seeking an election. In addition, the card check
process can cut up to almost half of all employees out of the
organizing process because the union only needs signatures
from a simple majority in order to gain collective bargaining
rights. During the card-check process, those employees who do
not want a union do not have a voice and are in effect
removed from the process of making decisions about their own
jobs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is recognized
for the remaining time as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
come to the floor again today and appreciate the confidence of my
leadership in allowing me to organize this hour and come chat a little
bit with our Members here and to point out some interesting information
in another edition of the Official Truth Squad.
The Official Truth Squad is a group of individuals who try to come to
the floor on this side of the aisle at least once a week in an effort
to bring some truths and some facts to the items that we talk about on
this floor. I know it won't surprise you, Mr. Speaker, but oftentimes
some of the things we hear on this floor aren't necessarily the truth.
So what we try to do is to point out items that are of importance in
terms of information to the American people and how we on this floor
ought to be making decisions on their behalf.
And in so doing, we have a number of individuals we like to point to
as kind of leaders in the public arena, both present and past, who have
had as one of their hallmarks making certain that they discussed truth
and made certain that they used facts in developing their positions.
One of my favorite quotes comes from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
former United States Senator from New York, and he had a quote that
said: ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own
facts.'' I think that is incredibly important as we talk about this
issue that we are discussing today, the economy and the budget and
issues that relate to how Washington spends hard-earned taxpayer money.
One of the most important facts is it is the taxpayers' money, it is
not the government's. And there are many people who are here in
Washington who believe that somehow, just by some miraculous nature,
when the money is sent to Washington that somehow it becomes the
government's money. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would hope you would agree
with me that in fact it is the taxpayers' money and we need to spend it
very, very wisely.
One of the other relative issues that I think has seen a lot of
naysayers and a lot of misinformation is the state of our economy right
now. If you ask folks, most people across this Nation will say that
their own economic situation is pretty good and they feel pretty good
about the future. If you ask them how the economy in the Nation is
going, the majority of them say that it is not going well at all. And
that, I believe, to be in large part due to much of the messaging that
comes out of Washington. Our good friends on the other side of the
aisle have been down-talking this economy for years, literally years.
So I was curious that over the weekend the Wall Street Journal had an
editorial that they entitled: ``The Current
[[Page 3180]]
`Depression,''' and they used ``depression'' in quotes, because if you
really look at the numbers, if you look at the facts, Mr. Speaker, they
kind of belie the naysayers in what they have been saying: 110,000 new
jobs in January, 41 straight months of job growth in this Nation. The
average job growth in 2006 was 187,000 jobs; 2.2 million new jobs in
2006, and 7.4 million new jobs since 2003; 7.4 million new jobs since
2003.
When you compare this expansion to the expansion that all sorts of
folks talk about as being the be-all and the end-all, and that is with
the expansion of the 1990s, when you compare this expansion, the
expansion that we are currently in, the economic success that we are
currently in is better when you look at many, many parameters.
Unemployment, for example. The first six years of the 1990s, 1991
through 1996, had an average unemployment rate of 6.4 percent. The
average unemployment rate for the first 6 years of this decade: 5.4
percent. And as you know, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment rate is at 4.6
percent. And the last time I looked, if the average unemployment rate
is 4.6 percent, it means that 95.4 percent of folks are working.
Real wage growth. Our friends on the other side of the aisle often
talk about, well, this is a recovery, an economy that isn't resulting
in real jobs; the wage growth isn't occurring, people's wages aren't
increasing. Well, if you compare it to the vaunted years of the early
1990s, real wage growth for those first 6 years averaged 0.6 percent
per year increase. 2001 through 2006, real wage growth in this Nation
up 1.5 percent, and last year it was 1.7 percent increase. And that is
accounting for inflation. It is accounting for inflation, Mr. Speaker.
Now, one might want to ask, given the success of the current economy,
how did that happen? What happened? How did that occur? How are we
seeing the kind of results in the economy, the good news that we are
currently seeing?
And I am fond of using charts because I think that they paint a
picture that is oftentimes, at least for me, easier to comprehend and
easier to get my arms around. This is a chart that runs from 2000
through 2006, and we are going to update the numbers for this most
recent quarter. But what it shows here on this vertical line, this
dotted green vertical line is when we began this remarkable expansion.
And what occurred on that at that point was, you guessed it, Mr.
Speaker, appropriate tax reductions for the American people. So when
you decrease taxes, what happens is that the blue line, you get more
jobs; the red line, you get increasing business investment; and, lo and
behold, something that President Kennedy knew and President Reagan
knew, when you decrease taxes, which occurred at the nadir of this
graph here, what happens is that you increase government revenue.
It sounds counterintuitive, but in fact it isn't. If you decrease
taxes, if you allow individuals to have more of their hard-earned
money, what happens is that the economy grows and, because of that, tax
revenue flows to the Federal Government.
Now, an individual who is joining us today for this edition of the
Official Truth Squad, an individual who is a new member of our
conference from California who knows a lot about taxes and a lot about
the issue of taxes and how they affect us on a daily basis, I am
pleased to ask my friend Kevin McCarthy from California to join us and
give us some insight into exactly where those taxes come from and how
often we are taxed. I think that is the kind of truth and facts you
would like to bring to us today.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time.
I do come from California and I am a new Member, and I think as is
only fitting we are talking about how letting people keep their hard-
earned money, how jobs grow, revenue grows, and individuals can spend
the money on what they desire, like putting their kids through college.
But we would be remiss if we didn't mention this day, because I think
it is rather ironic. Today is the 96th birthday of Ronald Reagan, and
nobody finer than that talked about taxes and talked about which way
they went. And President Ronald Reagan was actually Governor of
California at one time. That is where I come from prior to serving in
this House; I served in the State assembly. And when I got elected to
the State assembly, we had a $36 billion deficit.
And much like the other side of the aisle here, the other side of the
aisle there, their answer was to raise taxes. We sat down, the
Republicans, and crafted a bill that actually proposed a budget that
didn't raise taxes. It gave incentives that let people keep more of
what they earned. We have seen revenues continue to grow. We are now
about out of our deficit, which was fundamentally the biggest one they
have ever had, and it has continued to move forward that we were able
to bring more revenues in.
But I want to put forth really the graphs you have been talking
about, put it into everyday life, put it into where people understand
it. Where you saw that graph continue to take off, that is when the tax
cut happened.
Now, what does that mean to the millions of Americans? Well, more
than 100 million Americans have now had more than $2,200 of tax relief.
That may not sound like a lot of money to Washington where they spend
trillions of dollars, but that is $180 a month. Do you know what that
means? That means day care, that means you can take your kids maybe to
Disneyland, that means you can go and invest for your kids' college
future. That is what it means when you send more than $1 trillion back
to the taxpayers that actually earned the money.
Now, to put it in a much broader perspective where a person can
understand day-to-day life, I always like to see what I did today and
what did it mean about taxes and what did it take out of my pocket on
my money.
When I woke up this morning, I took a shower. Do you know what? I
paid a tax on that water. When I got out, a friend of mine needed a cup
of coffee, I bought a cup of coffee. I paid a tax on that. We had to
stop at the gas station and put gas in the car. We paid a tax there.
When we got to work, most Americans work the first 3 hours just paying
the taxes before they earn any money. When I go home, I am going to
turn on the TV. Hopefully, I made C-SPAN. I am going to pay a cable tax
just to watch the government at work. Then when I go out, somebody is
going to have to travel for their work. They are going to buy an
airline ticket; they are going to pay a tax on the ticket. They are
going to rent a car; they are going to pay a tax on the car.
They check into the hotel; they are going to pay an occupancy tax.
And, God forbid, if the other side of the aisle gets their way and we
are successful in individuals earning money, the death tax is going to
come back. We are taxed from the morning we wake up to take a shower to
the night we go to sleep. It is tax, tax, tax.
And I am here to say, just like Ronald Reagan said: ``We don't have a
tax issue when it comes to that, we have a spending problem.''
Our revenues are coming in and coming in very strong. So I would
proclaim and what I would like to see happen is we actually reform so
that we can compete. I will tell you, I have two small kids, Connor and
Megan who are just 12 and 10, and every day I call home when I'm back
here and we talk about their education, we talk about if they have done
their home work. Because I am not concerned with my kids from
Bakersfield, California competing with kids with Sacramento, California
or even competing with kids from Georgia. Do you know who I am
concerned with my children competing with when they grow up? Kids from
China and India. And we need a system that allows us to be competitive.
We need a tax system that creates jobs, we need a tax system that
creates entrepreneurs. And the way we do that is let taxpayers keep
more of what they earned.
That is why I applaud you today for your truth, and I applaud you for
coming down and doing this work.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for coming and joining us
today and helping out and bringing
[[Page 3181]]
truth and facts to the issue of the economy and especially taxation,
because oftentimes people don't think about the times that they do
indeed pay tax.
I try to visit as many schools as I can in my district back in
Georgia, and when I am in front of student groups, I oftentimes ask
them, Do you pay any tax? And of course most often they say, Oh, no. We
don't pay any tax. Our parents pay some tax, but we don't pay any tax.
Then you ask them, Did you buy a pack of gum? Paid for any of your
shoes lately? Have you bought any food? Anything that you buy, anything
that you buy has taxes on it. So any consumable product whatsoever has
taxes on it. So everybody contributes into it. And when individuals are
able to keep more of their own money, what happens is that the economy
is able to flourish to a much greater degree. So I appreciate the
information that you brought about taxes.
I also want to point out that you mentioned that our good friends on
the other side of the aisle seem to be moving in the direction of
allowing the appropriate tax reductions that resulted in this success,
to allow those tax reductions to go away, which means a tax increase
for the vast majority of Americans all across this Nation. And if they
do what they have basically said they are planning on doing, and that
is allow those tax reductions to expire, allow taxes to go up, the
marginal tax rate, that is the rate, the percentage of income that each
and every American pays to government to run the services, will be over
50 percent for the first time since the late 1970s. And, Mr. Speaker,
some of our Members may not remember the late 1970s, but I remember it
and I know that my good friends here remember it, and that is that we
had something called the misery index.
{time} 1530
It was the last time that inflation and unemployment were just
skyrocketing, both of them because of poor programs of the Federal
Government.
So I fear that what will happen if our good friends on the other side
of the aisle get their way is that we will revisit the misery index. So
we are here to try to bring truth and fact and light to the issue of
the economy and taxation and the budget.
I am so pleased to be joined by my good friend from Tennessee, the
congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, who understands business, understands
the economy and budgetary issues as well or better than the vast
majority of folks in this Chamber. I look forward to your comments
today as we talk about budget, economy and taxes.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia; and
I was so pleased that the gentleman from California mentioned Ronald
Reagan and his birthday and brought up the Ronald Reagan quote that
government does not have a revenue problem; government has a spending
problem. This is something that we all know and we all realize and
certainly because of the tax reductions that were put in place, and the
gentleman from Georgia showed us the charts that showed how the tax
reductions went into place in 2003, and we have seen not only growth in
our GDP, not only jobs growth but a reduction in the deficit and record
revenues for the Federal Government. Because when those rates of
taxation go down, we know that revenues to the government go up.
I was listening to the gentleman from California, and I recalled a
conversation with one of my constituents this weekend. He came to me
and he said, Marsha, look at this here in the paper. It was a note that
on February 3, 1913, is when the Federal income tax went into place. So
here we are at a time when that is being remembered. February 3, 1913,
a 1 percent temporary tax, only on the wealthiest, went into place to
pay for a war.
And look at what we have got now: an IRS that is big and is bloated
and is cumbersome and wants more and more and more, a government that
wants more and more and more of the dollar that the taxpayer earns. It
is like another saying that Ronald Reagan had: The closest thing to
eternal life on earth is a Federal Government program.
1913, a tax was put in place to pay for a war, to fund a defense
effort; and today it is bigger than ever and is still in place.
So how appropriate that we come this week and we talk about the
budget and we talk about what the President is bringing forth and we
talk about the Tax Code and the changes that should be made and the
changes that ought to be made and the steps that we should be taking to
be certain that the American people retain more of their paycheck. It
is an important thing to do.
As I was looking through the President's budget that he is offering
forth this week, one of the things that caught my eye and that I was
pleased to see is that he is recommending the elimination of 141
programs that maybe have outlived their usefulness, that need to be
revisited, that the duties could be shuffled to another one, that could
be merged with another program so that services are delivered more
effectively and more efficiently. I was very pleased to see that
because, as I said earlier, we know that there is a spending problem in
Washington, DC.
We have had our focus on addressing that; and what we want to do is
reduce that spending, eliminate programs that have outlived their
usefulness and make certain that we do not raise taxes. It is important
that we move forward balancing the budget. It is important that we get
the fiscal house in order. It is imperative that we do it without
raising taxes.
So I am looking forward to working to make certain that we focus on
waste, fraud and abuse, working to make certain, Mr. Speaker, that we
eliminate those programs and, Mr. Speaker, working to make certain that
we keep the commitment to the American people that their tax bill is
not going to go up, that their tax bill is going to be going down.
I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank you so much for joining us again today
and bringing light and truth to an issue that is so remarkably
important because it gets to the bottom line for each and every
American and each and every American family.
What we do at home, when we have discussions about our family budget,
is that we determine how much money we have to spend and then we
determine what our priorities are. Depending on what those priorities
are, that is how we allocate money, and we try to make certain that we
set aside some savings as well for a rainy day, for a difficult time.
That ought to be what the Federal Government does, as you well know,
but, sadly, that appears to be not the plan of the new majority here.
So it is important that we talk about family budgets, about how
family budgets ought to parallel Federal budgets, government budgets.
I would be pleased to yield if you have a comment.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
One of my constituents this weekend was talking about this very
issue, and he was very concerned. He had been reading some of the
reports, hearing some of the things about the tax reductions that had
been put in place in 2003 may be allowed to expire; and he said, Marsh,
you know, it is all too often that I have got too much month left over
at the end of my money.
His point to me and his admonition was the time has come to achieve
greater efficiencies. Every one of our constituents can go through
their district and see any number of Federal agencies, State agencies,
local agencies that are wasting taxpayer money. They know they cannot
do that in their family budget. They know that they cannot do that in
their small business budget. As we have said time and again, this is
the hold-on-to-your-wallet Congress. They are determined to get more of
the taxpayer money, and we are going to stand solid with the taxpayers
to make certain that we help protect those pocketbooks.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and
for again pointing out how important it is to have our budget here at
the Federal
[[Page 3182]]
level compare or track what we do at home.
In fact, what we do at the State level, virtually every single State
has a balanced budget because they cannot do what Washington does, and
that is print money. Having served in the State legislature, we would
spend days and weeks and months sometimes dealing with the hard-earned
taxpayer money, again not government money, but hard-earned taxpayer
money and make certain that our budget was balanced at the State level.
In fact, in Washington I am distressed that is not exactly what
occurs. I am a strong supporter of a balanced budget, and what you will
see on some of the charts and information that we currently have is
that the tax policies that have been put in place and the program
changes that have been put in place, something that is not well-known,
is that the nondefense discretionary money, which is about 16 to 17
percent of our overall budget right now, has been actually decreasing
as it relates to inflation. So Congress has been trying diligently to
try to make certain that it reins in costs and spending. Because, Lord
knows, we have not got a revenue problem; we have got a spending
problem.
If you track out the budget itself, and this is with Congressional
Budget Office numbers, they are not the kind of numbers that I think
demonstrate the upside that we receive from tax reductions, but, in any
event, what they do show is that at about 2011 the budget is balanced.
The budget is balanced, and that is if we keep our current programs in
place. Now, we can get to that point a lot sooner if we get more
responsible on the spending side.
Now, my good friends on the other side of the aisle will tell you,
well, we are going to balance the budget, too, and they can do that if
they just left things alone. We would get to a balanced budget. But
what they will tell you is we need to spend more in other areas, and so
we need to tax Americans more. We are going to balance the budget, yes,
but we are going to do it by taxing the American people more, and I
would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the way in which we need
to move forward.
We will talk about some other revenue items and some other aspects of
a balanced budget, but I want to address what has been termed by many
myths, 10, 12 number of myths about President Bush's tax reductions.
These are the tax reductions, appropriate tax reductions, that our
friends on the other side of the aisle say they have to end. They have
to increase taxes on the American people.
The Democrat majority has to write a budget. They have to write a
budget. Each year, the majority party has to write a budget, and the
House has to pass a budget.
The new majority, the Democrat majority, has three options in that
budget as to how they are going to deal with these appropriate tax
reductions that were put in place earlier in this decade. They can
extend them. They can continue the appropriate tax reductions,
something that I and the vast majority of folks on our side of the
aisle believe ought to occur. They could allow them to expire.
Virtually all of them are slated to expire in 2011.
So, if no action is taken, then the other side will, in fact,
increase taxes, or they can repeal them. They could increase taxes
right way. So they have the responsibility of determining exactly what
they are going to do with those appropriate tax reductions.
There are a number of myths that have grown up around these tax
reductions that I would like to highlight. One is that the tax
reductions themselves or the tax revenues themselves remain low. In
fact, Mr. Speaker, as I have on a previous chart shown, the tax
revenues are above the historical average, even after these appropriate
tax reductions.
Tax reductions in 2006 were about 18.4 percent of the gross domestic
product, which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year and 60-year
historical averages. Now the inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue
increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest 2-year surge in
tax revenue since 1965 and 1967. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The
revenue to the Federal Government increased 20 percent over a 2-year
period between 2004 and 2006, which is the largest increase in revenue
to the Federal Government since 1965 and 1967. So claims that Americans
and the American people are undertaxed according to history are simply
patently false, absolutely untrue, and so it is important to remember
that tax revenues are up because of a decrease in taxes, decrease in
liability to the American people.
When you compare the tax revenues in the fourth fiscal year after
each of the past recessions, it shows that the tax revenues were
basically the same. So, in 1987, tax revenues were about 1.4 percent of
gross domestic product; 1995, 18.5 percent; and 2006, 18.4 percent.
All of that is to say, Mr. Speaker, that when you decrease taxes, the
revenue that comes into the Federal Government stays about the same as
a percentage of the overall economy, but you decrease the number for
each and every American because the economy is increasing and the
revenue increases to the Federal Government. So tax reductions are good
for the government. Tax reductions are good for the American people.
The second myth that I want to talk about and discuss as it relates
to the appropriate tax reductions that were adopted by this Congress
back in 2001 and in 2003, the myth that is out there is that these tax
reductions substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget
deficit. Well, the fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that nearly all
of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the
baseline.
I am the first to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Federal Government,
Washington, has been spending too much money, too much of hard-earned
taxpayer money. That being said, I think it is important that our
friends on the other side of the aisle, who say that they want to
balance the budget, do so by doing the responsible thing and that is
decreasing spending and not increasing taxes.
In the first place, if you increase taxes, what you do is, over the
long term, you get less revenue to the Federal Government, but in terms
of budget deficit, what you see is that you will decrease the deficit
more rapidly by decreasing taxes and by decreasing spending.
{time} 1545
Now critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget
surpluses in 1998 through 2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006
resulted chiefly from what they call ``irresponsible'' tax reductions.
This argument, however, ignores the historic spending increases that
pushed Federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2
percent of spending in 2006.
Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels
projected. We have talked about that before. They were above the levels
that were projected before the 2003 tax cuts.
Now, immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the Congressional Budget
Office projected that the 2006 budget deficit would be $57 billion. Yet
the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. Now, the $190 billion
deficit increase resulted from Federal spending, resulted from Federal
spending that was $237 billion more than projected. So revenues were
actually $47 billion above projections even after the $75 billion in
tax cuts that the other side says hurt, hurt the bottom line and hurt
the deficits.
So these myths, I think, are important to correct to point out the
factual nature of what is going on as opposed to just flying by the
seat of your pants, which is not the way folks do their family budget
and certainly ought not to be the way that we do our Federal budget.
The next myth I want to talk about is the capital gains taxes; tax
cuts do not pay for themselves. There is kind of this sense that folks
say, well, if you keep capital gains low, those are the taxes that
people pay on the profits that they made on investments.
I am in favor of doing away with them all together. But if you keep
them low, what happens is you don't get the same amount of revenue into
[[Page 3183]]
the Federal Government. Well, the fact of the matter is that capital
gains tax revenues doubled, doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
Did you hear that? Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the
2003 tax cut.
Now, whether a tax cut pays for itself depends on how much people
alter their behavior in response to that policy. Investors have shown
to be the most sensitive to tax policy because capital gains tax cuts
encourage new investment to more than offset the lower tax rate.
This chart here is a demonstration of exactly that. What we see here
is a chart that shows capital gains tax revenues that doubled following
the 2003 tax cut. The yellow line here projected from 2003 through
2006, the yellow line demonstrates what the Congressional Budget Office
said would be the taxes gained from capital gains tax revenue. The blue
line which you see is significantly higher than that are the actual
revenues that came into the Federal Government following the 2003
capital gains tax reduction.
So in 2003 capitalize gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent to
10 percent, depending on income, to 15 percent and 5 percent. Now,
rather than expand by 36 percent from the current $50 billion level to
$68 billion in 2006, as the CBO projected, capitalize gains revenue
more than doubled $103 billion, $103 billion, more than twice what was
projected. Past capital gains cuts have shown similar results as well.
The fact of the matter is, remember, you can have your own opinions
as you walk through this discussion of the economy and of tax policy
and of budget policy, but it is important that we look at facts so that
we are making appropriate decisions here on behalf of the American
people.
The fact of the matter is that when you decrease capital gains taxes
you increase investment in America and you increase the revenue to the
Federal Government, which is demonstrated clearly by this chart that we
see right here.
Another myth that I want to talk about is the myth that says that the
tax deductions are to blame for the long-term budget deficits. In fact,
that isn't true at all. Projections show that entitlement or automatic
spending, automatic costs, will dwarf the projected large revenue
increases of the current tax reductions. As you remember, the graph
that I had up here had revenue to the Federal Government increasing
because of the appropriate reductions in taxes to the American people.
However, those increases will all be eaten up by automatic spending
that occurs here in Washington. Some folks call these programs
entitlement programs. They are primarily Medicare, Medicaid and Social
Security.
These are the automatic programs where the spending continues to
increase based upon a formula.
I have a chart that I would like to share with you that demonstrates
clearly the challenge and the problem that confront not just those of
us representing Americans but all of America. These are three pie
charts that demonstrate the mandatory or automatic spending that
occurs, primarily again in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This
is 1995. Those programs comprised approximately half of the Federal
budget, 48.7 percent of the Federal budget.
Now, the percent of the Federal budget that was utilized at that time
for interest on the debt was 15.3 percent, a point much greater than
current, and then discretionary spending where we have all of the
Federal programs that people think about in terms of transportation,
national park programs, all of those kinds of things, in addition to
defense, that portion, in 1995, was 36 percent.
Again, about 48.7 percent was the mandatory portion of the budget. In
2005, just 2 years ago, that portion had grown from 48.7 percent to
53.4 percent. Again, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, there were
automatic spending increases over a period of time with those three
specific programs.
If you track out to 2016, you get to 63.9 percent of the Federal
budget. So those are the automatic programs that are in place, the
automatic spending programs that are in place. This is clearly, clearly
unsustainable. Spending of the entire GDP has kind of hovered around 20
percent for the past half century.
However, with the retirement of the baby boomers, this is the first
year that baby boomers will begin to receive Social Security. Social
Security, Medicare and Medicaid will see significant increases in the
amount of revenue projected to increase over 10.5 percent over the next
10 years. What you see is an increase to 63.9 percent by 2016.
Clearly, clearly, these French-style spending increases, not tax
policy, are the problem. In Washington, lawmakers, all of us, all of us
have a responsibility and should focus on getting these entitlements
under control, as opposed to raising taxes on the American people. That
not only will not work, they may be good bumper sticker politics, but
they will not work to solve the problem. This is hard work, significant
challenges that confront all of us.
Next myth I would like to address very briefly is that raising tax
rates is the best way to raise revenue. There is kind of this general
belief on the other side of the aisle that all you have to do to get
more money is to raise more taxes.
As you know, tax revenues themselves correlate with economic growth,
not with tax rates, so that as the government increases its revenue as
the economy grows, many of those who desire additional tax revenues
regularly call on Congress to raise taxes. But tax revenues are a
function basically of two variables. One is tax rates and two is the
tax base.
Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92
percent to 35 percent, dropped from 92 percent to 35 percent. At the
same time, tax revenues have grown in inflation-adjusted terms while
remaining basically a constant percent of GDP. They are basically a
perfect correlation between those two.
I think it is exceedingly important for all of us here and the
American people to realize and appreciate that raising taxes doesn't
raise tax revenue. In fact, as we saw from the previous charts, it is
decreasing taxes that increase tax revenue.
One other myth that I would like to talk about very briefly is that
there is this myth that reversing the upper income tax reductions, the
upper income tax cuts, would raise substantial revenues. In fact, the
lower income tax cuts reduced tax revenue more than the high income tax
reductions.
I have a chart that will show that as well. This chart oftentimes
comes as a real eye opener for the American people and for so many of
my colleagues here, as a matter of fact. This chart shows the share of
individual income taxes that are paid by different portions of our
society, and I would like to just point to the last two bars, the last
two bar graphs down there.
This one, the larger one, that demonstrates that over 96 percent of
all tax revenue comes from folks in the upper half of the income
bracket of this Nation, and that the bottom 50 percent, the lower 50
percent pay less than 4 percent of the tax revenue that comes into the
United States.
Now, that is important because if you try to concentrate on just the
middle-income folks, in fact, you will not generate the kind of money
that you are talking about or that you need, and you also will
significantly depress the economy.
Again, it is important to talk about facts. It is important to talk
about truth as we talk about making certain that we have the right
policy here at the Federal Government.
Finally, there is a myth out there that these reductions, tax
reductions, haven't helped the economy. In fact, the economy has
responded to the 2003 tax reductions in remarkable ways, as we have
already pointed out. GDP grew at an annual rate of 1.7 percent in the
six quarters before the tax reductions. The six quarters that followed
the tax reductions, it grew at 4.1 percent; 1.7 percent before, 4.1
percent afterward. It is a fact.
[[Page 3184]]
Nonresidential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters
before the 2003 tax reductions. Since then, it has expanded for 14
consecutive quarters. Down 13 quarters before, up 14 quarters
afterward. It is a fact, not an opinion.
Standard & Poor's 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before
the 2003 tax cuts. After, increased 32 percent over the next six
quarters; before, down 18 percent; after, up 32 percent. That is a
fact, not an opinion.
The economy, six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts lost 267,000 jobs.
In the six quarters after, increased 307,000 jobs, and, as you well
know, since then we have burgeoned by having 7.3 million new jobs since
the middle of 2003.
What we have tried to do today is try to bring to the American people
some truth, some facts as we talk about the budget that will have to be
laid out here over the next month to 6 weeks, pointing out the
remarkable fallacy of so many of the arguments that are used on the
floor of this House to say that, well, we have just got to raise taxes.
You have heard some of the Presidential candidates out there on the
stump, saying, we have just got to raise taxes. In fact, some of my
good friends on the other side of the aisle say just that, nothing we
can do except raise taxes.
You know and I know that the truth of the matter is that when you
look at how the economy operates, how the Federal Government gains
revenue, that, in fact, decreasing taxes, maintaining the appropriate
tax reductions, allowing the American people to keep more of their
hard-earned money is exactly what is the prescription that is necessary
for America and for the economy to continue to flourish.
So I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle. I look forward to a spirited debate. I think the question really
is, when you get right down to it, the question becomes who ought to
decide; who should decide how the American people spend their hard-
earned money. Should it be the government? Should it be more government
programs? Regardless of whatever area of the society you want to talk
about, is it the Federal Government and State governments that ought to
be making those decisions?
Or should it be, as I and so many of my friends on this side of the
aisle believe, that those decisions are better left to individual
Americans? They make better decisions about what to do with their hard-
earned money when they are allowed to keep their hard-earned money and
not have it rolled into the Federal Government as tax revenue.
I am pleased to be able to provide hopefully a bit of light, a bit of
truth, a bit of fact for this Chamber, and deal with the issues that
are coming before us over the next 4 to 6 weeks. I look forward to this
discussion on this debate.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Bush sent us his budget
request for Fiscal Year 2008. This request includes his spending
priorities for each federal agency.
I applaud his efforts to balance the budget by the end of the decade,
and to do so without raising taxes on American families. I also applaud
his recent efforts to reduce the burden of agency guidance documents
through the Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices that was
published on January 25th.
In addition to federal regulations, which are burdensome enough, the
past decade has seen an explosion in ``guidance documents'' that are
not legislated but have the same effect as regulation on American
employers and can stifle their growth. As OMB itself noted:
The phenomenon we see in this case is familiar. Congress
passes a broadly worded statute. The agency follows with
regulations containing broad language, open-ended phrases,
ambiguous standards and the like. Then as years pass, the
agency issues circulars or guidance or memoranda, explaining,
interpreting, defining and often expanding the commands in
regulations. One guidance document may yield another and then
another and so on. Several words in a regulation may spawn
hundreds of pages of text as the agency offers more and more
detail regarding what its regulations demand of regulated
entities. Law is made, without notice and comment, without
public participation, and without publication in the Federal
Register or the Code of Federal Regulations.
In this spirit, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to examine the agency budget requests not only with regard to fiscal
matters but also with regards to how spending priorities affect our
economic competitiveness.
Taxpayer dollars should be used to benefit the public good.
Unfortunately, we have seen over and over again that--often with good
intention--agencies instead use taxpayer money to impose and enforce
regulations that literally strangle businesses and impede job growth.
Regulation imposes its heaviest burden on small and medium sized
businesses because it is harder for them to handle the necessary
overhead costs of paperwork, staff time and attorney and accountant
fees.
Richard Vedder, an economist at the Center for the Study of American
Business, finds that federal regulations cause $1.3 trillion in
economic output to be lost each year. This is roughly equivalent to the
entire economic output of the mid-Atlantic region.
I have to imagine that processing this paperwork also requires a lot
of agency time and reduces their ability to clean up the environment,
provide better health care, improve labor conditions, make our
transport systems more efficient, etc. If the government instead worked
with employers to create a better work environment and a cleaner and
safer nation, both sides could better accomplish their goals. The real
winner would be the American people.
As we go through the budget and appropriations process, I hope that
we do so with an eye towards keeping our nation economically
competitive now and in the future. We should look for ways in which the
government can better work with employers, and also for the best
programs to fund to train our children and children's children for the
21st Century economy.
____________________
{time} 1600
NO BLANK CHECK FOR THE PENTAGON
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, in an interview published yesterday by the
McClatchy newspaper chain, Dick Armey, our former Republican majority
leader, said he felt really bad about voting to go to war in Iraq. Mr.
Armey said, ``Had I been more true to myself and the principles I
believed in at the time, I would have openly opposed the whole
adventure vocally and aggressively.''
It takes a big man to admit something like that. Chris Matthews on
MSNBC on election night said, ``The decision to go to work in Iraq was
not a conservative decision historically'' and said the President asked
Republicans ``to behave like a different people than they intrinsically
are.''
In 2004, William F. Buckley, Jr., often called the godfather of
conservatism, wrote that if he knew in 2002 what he knew by 2004 he
would have opposed going to war in Iraq.
Today, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing
on the subject of waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq. A couple of years ago
the same committee, then under Republican leadership, held a similar
hearing.
David Walker, now head of the GAO but then Inspector General of the
Defense Department, testified at that time that $35 billion had been
lost in Iraq due to waste, fraud and abuse and another $9 billion had
just been lost and could not be accounted for at all.
I heard a talk by Charlie Cook, the very respected political analyst,
who said people could not really comprehend anything over $1 billion.
But $44 billion is an awful lot of money in anybody's book.
A Foreign Service Officer told me last year, a few months after he
had left Iraq, that he sometimes saw SUVs there filled with cash with
barely enough room for the driver.
Conservatives have traditionally been the strongest opponents and
biggest critics of Federal waste, fraud and abuse. Conservatives have
traditionally been the strongest opponents and biggest critics of
wasteful, lavish and ridiculous Federal contracts. Conservatives,
especially fiscal conservatives, should not feel any obligation to
defend wasteful spending or lavish Federal contracts just because they
are taking place in Iraq.
[[Page 3185]]
Ivan Eland, in the January 15 issue of the American Conservative
Magazine, wrote this. He said, ``Many conservatives who regularly gripe
about the Federal Government's ineffective and inefficient use of
taxpayer dollars give the Pentagon a free ride on their profligate
spending habits.''
Conservatives admire, respect and appreciate the people in the
military as much or more than anyone. Conservatives believe national
defense is one of the few legitimate functions of the Federal
Government and one of its most important. However, this does not mean
we should just routinely give the Pentagon everything it wants or turn
a blind eye to waste in the Defense Department.
The Defense Department is a gigantic bureaucracy, in fact, the
biggest bureaucracy in the world. It has the same problems and
inefficiencies of any giant bureaucracy; and conservatives, especially
fiscal conservatives, should not give a free ride to waste, fraud and
abuse just because it is done by the Defense Department.
Counting our regular defense appropriations bill, plus emergency and
supplemental appropriations bills, plus the military construction
appropriations bill, plus the end-of-the-year omnibus appropriations
bills, we spend more on defense than all of the other Nations of the
world combined. Yet the military, like all other bureaucracies, always
wants more money.
Well, at some point, we are going to have to decide, do we want
national defense for our own people, or are we going to be the
policeman of the world and provide international defense for all
countries that claim to be our allies?
With a national debt of almost $9 trillion and unfunded future
pension liabilities of many trillions more, I believe it is both
unaffordable and unconstitutional for us to try to be the policeman of
the world. We will soon not be able to pay Social Security and
veterans' pensions with money that means anything, and all of the other
things the Federal Government is doing, if we try to maintain an empire
around the world.
Conservatives have traditionally been the biggest critics of
interventionist foreign policies because they create so much resentment
for us around the world.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, conservatives have traditionally been the
biggest critics of nation building, as President Bush was when he ran
for the White House in 2000. We need the more humble foreign policy he
advocated then, or we need to tell the people to forget about their
Social Security because we are giving blank checks to the Pentagon.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special
Order today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
____________________
BLUE DOG COALITION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I rise on behalf of the 44-
member-strong, fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, as
we demand from this Government fiscal accountability as well as fiscal
responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, as you walk the halls of Congress, it is easy to know
when you are walking by the door of a fellow fiscally conservative
Democratic Blue Dog Coalition member, because you will see this poster
as a welcome mat to his or her office to remind Members of Congress, to
remind you, Mr. Speaker, to remind me, and to remind the American
people and all of those who walk the halls of Congress, that the U.S.
national debt today is $8,696,414,214,377.65.
For every man, woman and child in America, their share, our share, my
share of the national debt is $28,900.92. That is a big number.
A lot of people think, well, it really does not matter what the debt
is, our Government can simply print more money. I wish it was that
simple.
Our Nation today is spending the first half a billion dollars it
collects in taxes not to improve veterans' health care, to protect our
troops, to build roads, to fund health care, to protect Social Security
and Medicare, to ensure the 47 million folks without health insurance
have access to it. No. The first half a billion dollars that we collect
every day in taxes from the hard-working people in this country go to
simply pay interest, not principal but interest, on this number, the
national debt.
And those which should be America's priorities will continue to go
unmet until we get our Nation's fiscal house in order. This is
something that affects every man, woman and child in America. We have a
plan, a 12-point plan for budget reform to ensure that we can live
within our means, that we can pay down this debt and restore fiscal
discipline and common sense to our Government.
One of those 12 points, by the way, Mr. Speaker, is what we referred
to as PAYGO rules, which means pay as you go. And I am real proud that
the leadership under this Democratic Caucus in the first 24 hours, not
100 hours, but the first 24 hours, the Democratic leadership
reinstituted PAYGO rules on the floor of the House. Which means, quite
simply, if you want to fund a new program, you got to show us where the
money is coming from.
Now the Republicans tend to think that that means that to fund new
programs you raise taxes. I find it quite interesting that the
Republicans think that PAYGO, pay as you go, means raise taxes to pay
for new spending. It does not mean that. It means cut programs. It
means make the tough choices to put an end to the waste in Government.
I got some 8,000 brand new, fully furnished mobile homes sitting at
the airport in Hope, Arkansas, that were destined for Hurricane Katrina
storm victims but never reached them. That is $400 million right there.
We are not talking about raising taxes to pay for a new program. But
I can tell you what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker. We are talking
about putting an end to the days of the Republican leadership borrowing
money from China to fund a new program creating this large number,
making it go up daily. It is still going up nearly a billion dollars a
day under the Republican budget that was approved last year.
No more of that, Mr. Speaker. No more borrowing money from China to
build a rain forest in Iowa. We are demanding that you show us how you
pay for your projects and your programs. We are going to restore fiscal
discipline and accountability to our Government.
This week, the President came out with his budget; and we will be
visiting more about the President's budget during this hour.
But another thing that the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog
Coalition is doing is we have gotten together and we have written and
endorsed what is referred to as House Resolution 97. And House
Resolution 97, we have 39 cosponsors. It is providing for Operation
Iraq Freedom cost accountability.
Put quite simply, we are demanding accountability on how your tax
money, Mr. Speaker, and the tax money of the hard-working people of
this country is being spent in Iraq. You ask 100 different people what
they think about this Iraq policy, you will get about 100 different
answers. You will find some Members of the Blue Dog Coalition that are
for the surge, some are against. I am against the surge. I think the
American people want us to go in a different direction in Iraq.
But one of the things that unites us as a coalition and the things
that we have endorsed and that we have written and we are trying to put
in place is House Resolution 97, which has four
[[Page 3186]]
crucial points that demand fiscal responsibility in Iraq.
Point number one, a call for transparency on how Iraq war funds are
spent. The American people are sending some $9 billion a month to Iraq.
That is about $12 million an hour. And the American people in this
country that work hard and pay taxes deserve to know how their money is
being spent in Iraq.
Number two is the creation of a Truman Commission to investigate the
awarding of contracts. It is time, Mr. Speaker, to put an end to war
profiteering in Iraq.
Number three, a need to fund the Iraq war through the normal
appropriations process. Play by the rules. No more of this so-called
emergency supplemental appropriations to hide from the American people
the true cost of the war.
Finally, number four, use American resources. This is America. We are
the leader of the free world, and we should be using our resources to
improve Iraqi assumption of internal policing operations. In other
words, it is time for the Iraqi people to step up to the plate and buy
into this and take more responsibility and accountability.
I am joined this hour by a number of my Blue Dog colleagues, Mr.
Speaker. At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Chandler).
Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all that the gentleman from
Arkansas is doing to bring these issues to the forefront, to the
American people, because I believe they are extremely important and I
know all Members of the Blue Dog Coalition believe that accountability
and responsibility to the people of our Nation is of the utmost
importance.
Mr. Speaker, the President sent a $2.9 trillion budget to Congress
yesterday. That is quite a lot of money. And you would think that among
those trillions of hard-earned tax dollars the President would find
resources for the most essential services like education for our kids
and health care for our veterans. But, once again, those who need our
help the most are the very people who have been pushed aside.
If we follow this budget, Medicaid and Medicare will be cut by $101
billion over the next 5 years; health care for our veterans will be
slashed by $3.5 billion over 5 years; Perkins loan funds for our
college students will be recalled; and No Child Left Behind will be
underfunded by some $15 billion. The President, in addition, would have
us cut State preparedness training programs and firefighter and law
enforcement grants, depriving our first responders of the funds
necessary to operate in this post-9/11 world.
These policies make no sense. They rob our children of opportunity,
make our communities less safe, and dishonor those who have sacrificed
while wearing our Nation's uniform. I could understand some of these
cuts if they were being made in the name of fiscal responsibility, but
they are not.
If we were truly making an effort to reduce our public debt, I could,
and I believe the American people could, accept some pain. Because the
cause that we would be fighting in that case would be a good one, and
it would be about our future.
But that is not the case. This budget is not trying to reduce the
debt. The President's budget will drag us even deeper into debt, to the
tune of $3.2 trillion over the next 10 years. Trillion. That is a lot
of money. Burdening future generations with mountains of debt, not of
their own making.
Mr. Speaker, when I talk with my constituents back home in
communities rich in values and common sense, they ask me a simple
question over and over again.
{time} 1615
Where is their tax money going?
If we are cutting all of these programs, yet going deeper into debt,
what value are we getting for our tax dollar?
We owe it to our constituents to answer these questions. And it
starts with ending the black hole of waste, fraud and abuse that is
plaguing our reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
Here are the facts: we have already budgeted some $108 billion on
reconstruction. Yet, the Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction is
telling us that we haven't come close to recovering the level of basic
services that Iraqis enjoyed under Saddam Hussein.
Here is the return Americans are getting on their over $100 billion
tax investment: only 25 percent of Iraqis have access to clean water;
access to modern sewer facilities remains an incredible problem for
most Iraqi families; Iraqis now have electricity for only 4.3 hours per
day; and oil production is down almost one million barrels a day since
the levels before the war.
How long are we going to let this farce continue?
We can argue all day about spending priorities. But can we not at
least agree to make sure that our tax dollars are being efficiently
spent to accomplish good? Because right now the only thing I see these
tax dollars are doing efficiently is lining the pockets of government
contractors.
How many reports of jobs being billed that were never authorized;
jobs being started without permission; individuals admitting to
stealing millions of reconstruction dollars, and private contractors,
such as Halliburton, being awarded unprecedented numbers of no-bid
government contracts do we have to put up with before we do something
about it?
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is my belief and the belief of the Blue Dog
Coalition that we must demand accountability. The President, with his
proposed budget, is telling our seniors, our students, our veterans,
and our working families that our country doesn't have the money to
help pay for their health care or for their education.
I say we will come closer to having the money for health care and
education if we stop mismanaging funds in Iraq and greasing the pockets
of contractors who are failing, in many instances, to get the job done.
That is why our coalition, the Blue Dog Coalition, has introduced the
House resolution for the Operation Iraqi Freedom Cost Accountability.
In the spirit of the Truman Committee, which defeated so much
corruption and saved our country in excess of $15 billion during World
War II, this resolution outlines the critical steps this body must take
to hold the administration accountable for its neglect of taxpayer
dollars.
It is our constitutional obligation, as Members of this body, to
provide oversight for war spending. And Congress has neglected this
duty for far too long. We owe it to the taxpayers of this country, to
the troops who are fighting this war, and, yes, we owe it to future
generations who are going to be financing this war for many, many, many
years to come to stop the wasteful spending of this administration and
war profiteering by contractors.
We need a modern-day Truman Committee. And we need transparency on
how Iraq war funds are being spent. The days of offering the President
a blank check are over. We need to ask the tough questions, and we need
to send a message that waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq reconstruction
just simply will not be tolerated.
I thank all of my fellow Blue Dogs for the work that they are doing
on this issue, for continuing to raise awareness, and I hope that my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join forces to restore
fiscal integrity to this war.
Thank you, Mr. Ross. I appreciate the time. I appreciate the job that
you are doing.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his valued insight
into H.R. 97, which is the Blue Dog-endorsed House resolution to demand
accountability and fiscal responsibility in how tax money is being
spent in Iraq, some $9 billion a month; put another way, some $12
million an hour.
Let me be clear that as members of the Blue Dog Coalition, we support
our troops 110, 120, 130 percent. We can't do enough for our troops.
And as long as we have troops in harm's way, we are going to be there
to ensure they have what they need to get the job done and to get it
done as safely as possible, and hopefully get on back home to their
families.
This has impacted every family in America in one way or another. My
[[Page 3187]]
brother-in-law is in Kyrgyzstan now, which is the entry point for
Afghanistan, just as Kuwait is oftentimes the entry point for Iraq. My
first cousin was in Iraq when his wife gave birth to their first child.
Before coming down here today, I visited with a Ms. Watson in Pine
Bluff, Arkansas, whose son, and she is so very proud of him and I am
too, Lt. Colonel Watson, continues to serve us today in Baghdad. We
thank him. We thank all soldiers for their dedicated service to our
country.
This is about accountability. This is about having responsibility and
oversight on how our tax money is being spent in Iraq.
Not only that, but this hour is dedicated to talking about this new
Bush budget that was delivered to Capitol Hill yesterday. Thank
goodness that, as Members of Congress, we get a vote on this budget,
that we can ensure that funding is there for education and for our
veterans. And, yes, we are creating a new generation of veterans in
Afghanistan and Iraq today. And we have got to be there for them.
I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, a former cochair of the Blue
Dogs for policy, Mr. Cooper.
Mr. COOPER. I thank my good friend from Arkansas, and I thank my Blue
Dog colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus for a minute on the release of the
President's budget. As has been mentioned, it just came out yesterday,
and today, as a member of the Budget Committee, we had our first
hearing with Rob Portman, the director of the Office of Management and
Budget and former trade ambassador and former Member of this House.
This is what a part the budget looks like. It is available online. It
is about 150, 200 pages. This looks like a very credible document. But
that is what I would like to discuss today.
One of the first claims in this budget is in the second paragraph, it
says: ``The budget I am presenting achieves balance by 2012.''
Hallelujah. Wouldn't that be nice, if it were true.
Now, if you look deeper in the budget, you will see that they claim,
after years of deficits in the Bush administration, remember, we had a
surplus in the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, but after
years of Bush deficits, they claim that by mid-term of the next
President, we will have a surplus. Well, that would be good news if it
were true. They claim that the surplus in that year will be $61
billion. And I hope that a number like that would be true.
But if you look at page 168 of their document, you will see that that
$61 billion surplus is really a $187 billion deficit disguised by
borrowing $248 billion from the Social Security trust fund. In other
words, we would have a sizeable, large deficit if it weren't for the
money they are planning on taking from the Social Security trust fund
in that year.
And this isn't just a once-a-year practice. They are planning on
doing it every year between now and then. In 2007 they took $183
billion from Social Security. In 2008 they are taking $212 billion from
Social Security. In 2009 they are taking $226 billion from Social
Security. In 2010, $245 billion from Social Security. And in 2011, $264
billion.
So, basically, what this budget says, although it looks very
respectable and credible, it says we are going to take over $1
trillion, close to $1.25 trillion from Social Security so we can
disguise the budget deficit and make it look like a surplus 5 years
from now. Mr. Speaker, that doesn't sound like honest budgeting to me.
But don't take my word for it. Look at this other document. This came
out about a month ago. This is from the U.S. Treasury Department. This
uses a different and better method of accounting to tell us where we
are financially in this country. And it says, basically, we are at
deficits as far as the eye can see. And the deficits are far, far
larger than what the President admits to in this document.
But even if you don't believe any of these government documents,
either the President's or the Treasury Department's, look at a private
sector organization called Standard & Poor's. They are on Wall Street.
They are probably the top credit analyst agency in the world. They
projected this last summer that the U.S. Treasury Bond, the most
important financial instrument on the planet, would lose its triple A
credit rating by the year 2012, just 5 years from now.
So in other words, S&P, the leading credit analyst, said that
although this document says we are going to have a surplus then, they
say we are going to have continuing deficits as far as the eye can see,
in fact, deficits that damage and possibly destroy America's credit
rating.
Standard & Poor's went on to say in their analysis, they said that by
the year 2025 the U.S. Treasury Bond wouldn't have just lost its triple
A credit rating. They say that the U.S. Treasury Bond would actually
become junk debt by the year 2025. Below investment grade. That would
be a true tragedy for our Nation. We cannot let that happen. And that
is why we need to examine the credibility of the numbers in this
document. We need to make sure that they are correct.
And if you look at the assumptions in this document, you will see not
only trouble with the terrific borrowing they are planning on doing
from the Social Security surplus; you will see trouble in the fact that
they are planning on the AMT tax taking a bigger and bigger bite out of
the middle class in America for the next 4 or 5 years. They do nothing
to remedy that in this document.
There are so many other features of this document that make it almost
completely unrealistic as a starting point for our budget debates.
Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of work to do. It is not easy putting
together budgets. I have done it because I had the privilege of serving
back in the majority days, over 12 years ago here. It is a very
difficult process to come up with a proper budget. But that must begin
now. And I would just wish that the President's offering were going to
be of more help to us. It is not all bad. There are some good elements
of the President's budget. But if you look at the overall promise of a
balanced budget by 2012, I am not sure anyone in the administration
really believes that. It is here on paper, and it sounds mighty good.
But if you look at the assumptions underneath it, whether it is
borrowing from Social Security or whether it is taking the big bite out
of the middle class with the AMT tax, it looks like the President's
budget is not standing up to scrutiny.
But I thank my friend from Arkansas. I thank my Blue Dog colleagues.
This is the day that we start the budget debates. Over the next 2
months we will be trying to bring this to a conclusion.
I hope that all Americans will download these documents off the
Internet, will participate in the debate, and let me and other Blue
Dogs know your opinions on what we should do on those budget matters.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) for his
valued input and insight into this budget process. The President has
done the annual ceremoniously bringing of the budget, if you will, to
Capitol Hill. And, in fact, Mr. Speaker, here is a copy of it. This is
the budget of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2008 from
the Office of Management and Budget. And it is quite a lengthy
document.
{time} 1630
But if you read over it, you will learn that the budget submitted
this week continues the same policies that helped create the fiscal
mess now facing our government.
While the administration's budget claims to reach balance in 2012,
unfortunately, this budget is in deficit every year under realistic
Bush policy assumptions. The budget continues to make the wrong choices
for the American people. It proposes substantial cuts to programs that
benefits seniors, working families and children, all to help pay for an
extensive tax cut for folks earning over $400,000 a year. It is about
priorities, Mr. Speaker; and the priorities found in this budget, this
budget as delivered this week by President Bush, are misplaced.
[[Page 3188]]
I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr. Ross. It is always a
pleasure to be on the floor with you.
There is so much we need to cover. Sometimes, you wonder where to
really begin. But I think today we need to begin with what the
President brought over here in his budget. I have had a chance to look
at it, to go through it, and I am just astounded. I truly am astounded
at the recklessness of the President's budget, at the irresponsibleness
of the President's budget.
Here we are at a time when this country is crying out for very
serious attention in health care, especially health care for those at
the lower income end and the middle class, and what do we get in the
President's budget but a tax increase for the middle class in health
care. What we get in this budget is a slash to Medicare and to
Medicaid.
I want to go through it just very quickly so the American people and
our colleagues who might not have had a chance to really get into this
budget can see how surprisingly irresponsible this budget is.
The President's budget that he just sent to us slashes Medicare and
Medicaid by about $300 billion, at a time when Medicare and Medicaid
are in greatest need, to slash those programs by $300 billion over the
next 10 years, with legislative and regulatory Medicaid cuts totaling
about $50 billion and Medicare cuts totaling $252 billion.
And rather than using these monies to reverse the growing number of
uninsured Americans, and, indeed, listen to this startling statistic,
since President Bush took office in the last 6 years, we have added an
additional 6.8 million uninsured Americans. This is not a time to cut
the basic government safety net program for insuring Americans when we
are having more. This is why I say it is reckless. This is why I say it
is irresponsible. And these monies are being offset, in his mind, by
tax cuts to millionaires. It is totally out of sync.
The Medicare cuts include premium increases for millions of
beneficiaries totaling $10 million over the next 10 years. And at the
same time the budget slashes Medicare funding, it protects special
interests. Here is how: It leaves untouched massive overpayments by
Medicare to HMOs under the GOP 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. And
many of the Federal Medicaid cuts will simply increase State costs or
lead to further restrictions in Medicaid benefits. Thus, instead of
assisting State efforts to reduce the number of uninsured, the Bush
budget will impede those efforts.
But in the area of health care, and I mentioned at the outset that
there would be in here this hidden tax increase for the middle class.
Here is where we find it. Under the President's budget, employee health
benefits would, for the first time, be treated as income and would be
subject to income and payroll taxes, just like wages. This is new, for
the first time.
Listen carefully. At the same time, the President would create a tax
deduction for health insurance of $15,000 for families and $7,500 for
individuals. This proposal would fail to reduce the number of
uninsured, and it would also mean a tax increase for millions of
middle-class families who have employer-sponsored health insurance
worth more than $15,000. You have to really look at the fine print.
And also, because the new deduction would reduce taxable income,
people's future Social Security benefits would be reduced as well; and,
as many health experts have pointed out, the President's proposal would
undermine employer-provided health insurance and would push people into
the individual health insurance market, a market where insurers are
able to refuse coverage to workers based on their health.
As Karen Davis, who is head of the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund,
pointed out about the President's proposal, it is not solving the
uninsured problem and it is not solving the cost problem, so it is not
really advancing what we need to have happen.
Here at the most basic need, where government and people need the
help, soaring high health care costs, this budget not only fails but,
to add insult to injury, adds a tax increase to the middle class in the
process.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia, a very active member of
the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, Mr. Scott. I
hope he will stay for the remainder of this hour as we discuss the
President's budget for fiscal year 2008, as well as the Blue Dog
Coalition-endorsed House Resolution 97 to demand accountability on how
the hardworking people of this country's tax money is being spent in
Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, in the 6 years of the Bush Administration, the
government has posted the highest deficits in the Nation's history. The
administration has squandered the budget surplus it inherited,
transforming a $5.6 trillion projected 10-year surplus into a deficit
of some $2.9 trillion over the same period, a swing of $8.4 trillion,
based on realistic estimates of the cost of the President's policies.
The President's new budget calls for a deficit of $244 billion for
2007, and $239 billion for 2008, marking 6 years in a row of deficits
of more than $200 billion.
This budget that the President delivered to Capitol Hill this week
includes $244 billion worth of hot checks for fiscal year 2008 and $239
billion worth of hot checks for fiscal year 2009. Unbelievable, Mr.
Speaker. That means that this Nation will continue to borrow about a
half a billion dollars a day every day, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. Every day, under the Bush budget,
we will borrow over a half a billion dollars, and that is before we
spend a half a billion dollars each day paying interest on the debt we
have already got.
America's priorities will continue to go unmet until we get our
Nation's fiscal house in order. Meanwhile, this budget continues to
climb the climb of decline of our Nation's debt, which has already
grown by $3 trillion during this administration.
Put another way, this President, this administration has borrowed
more money from foreign lenders, foreign central banks than the
previous 42 Presidents combined. In fact, we had only borrowed $623.3
billion in foreign holdings in 1993. Today, foreign lenders currently
hold a total of about $2.199 trillion of our public debt.
I was with the President at a meeting Saturday morning. The gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) asked him about whether he believed
borrowing so much money from foreign central banks and foreign
investors was a security threat to our country. His response was that
he didn't know how much money we had borrowed from foreigners.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope the President is listening to us today,
because, Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker, what I
refer to as the top 10 list. This is the top 10 list of the 10
countries that we have borrowed the most money from: Japan, $637.4
billion; China, $346.5 billion; the United Kingdom, $223.5 billion.
Can I go back to China for a moment? You know, we don't do business
with Cuba because they are Communist, and yet we do business with
Communist China out of a spirit of international relations. And while
we are all focused on the Middle East and what is going on in Iraq and
Afghanistan, Cuba has hired China to drill for oil on their behalf 55
miles from Key West, Florida, when the United States does not allow
drilling within 100 miles of Key West. Can you imagine that? And yet we
have borrowed $346.5 billion from China to give folks who live in this
country who earn over $400,000 a year a tax cut and to leave our
children and our grandchildren with the bill.
I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield just a moment?
On the issue of China and our lending, we are now in debt to China
well over $350 billion. Now just to show you why this debt in the hands
of foreign governments is such a threat to our national security, just
this example. China is now engaged with Iran in building a, supposedly
building, a gas pipeline from China to Iran. The United States, in its
efforts to tighten certain screws, economic and political,
[[Page 3189]]
on Iran, in addition to the saber rattling we are doing, has begun to
ask China if they would desist from that relationship. To this point,
China has stonewalled; and in large measure it is because we don't have
the leverage. If you owe me $360 billion, that weakens my position.
The other area, in terms of our national security, is the situation
in Iran as we are dealing with it, because that is in the news now.
There are all kinds of questions and issues now of whether or not we
are going to attack Iran, which is why we have got to hurry up and get
our resolution passed and make sure that the President understands what
article I, section 8 of our Constitution gives the Congress the extreme
role, the exclusive role in determining the funding and the declaration
of war in that regard.
But the whole reason why this whole funding operation puts us in a
weakening position from our lending and our debt with our foreign
countries is this: Iran has to depend upon a tremendous amount of
lending from other countries to support them. It puts our Treasury
Department, our Secretary of Treasury, our Secretary of State, and I
plan to ask Ms. Condoleezza Rice tomorrow, we will have an opportunity
to meet with her, this specific question. The fact that we need our
partners, who we are working with, to stop lending to Iran, if we
tighten that financial economic screw, that is how you avoid this
unfortunate military clash that might be pending.
But the point I wanted to make is, as long as we are so overly
dependent and have this indebtedness in the hands of the foreign
governments, we lose the leverage we need to secure our Nation and to
secure a better peace in the world.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Point well taken.
Thanks for sharing that with us.
Let me just round out the top 10 current lenders. These are the
countries the United States of America is borrowing money from in order
to provide tax cuts for folks in this country earning over $400,000 a
year. That is in the President's budget. That is what he is proposing
to do. Here is what he has done already.
In the past 6 years, our Nation has borrowed more money from
foreigners than the previous 42 Presidents combined. Again, Japan
$637.4 billion; China, $346.5 billion; the United Kingdom, $223.5
billion. OPEC. And we wonder why gas was approaching 3 bucks a gallon
in August. Our Nation has borrowed $97.1 billion from OPEC to give
folks who live in this country a $400,000 tax cut.
{time} 1645
That is exactly what the President is proposing to continue. Mr.
Speaker, I dare say that in this new Democratic majority, we will stop
that.
Korea, $67.7 billion. Taiwan, $63.2 billion. If China decides to
invade Taiwan, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Tanner, has made this
point before, our country and our fiscal house is in such a mess that
if China decides to invade Taiwan, we will have to borrow more money
from China to be able to afford to go assist and defend Taiwan.
The Caribbean banking center, $63.6 billion. Hong Kong, $51 billion.
Germany, $52.1 billion. A lot of discussion about our border, and I
believe we must secure our border, but are you ready for this: the
United States of America has borrowed $38.2 billion from Mexico in the
past 6 years to fund tax cuts for people who live here earning over
$400,000 a year, leaving our children and grandchildren with the bill,
which is the very reason why our Nation today is in debt
$8,696,414,214,377.
That is a big number. How do you explain it? If you divide it by
everybody that lives in America, some 300 million of us, every one of
us owes $28,900. I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I can't
afford to write a check for $28,900 to the government. It is what we
call the debt tax, D-E-B-T, and it is one tax that can't go away until
we get our fiscal house in order and begin to meet America's priorities
again.
Today, the money is going to pay interest on the debt, and it is
going to borrow more money to fund the war that is costing us $9
billion a month, again, a big number, break it down, $12 million an
hour. $12 million an hour.
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Ross, and thank you, Mr. Speaker,
for the opportunity to speak on the budget that has been sent to us
just as recently as yesterday.
I was elected by the people of eastern Ohio and sent to Washington to
try to bring a commonsense approach to what is going on down here. I
must say that the budget that we received yesterday and have looked
through today making different points, it is astonishing, the math that
is used. The budget doesn't add up, the numbers don't fit together, the
lack of real fiscal responsibility, the tax increases on the middle
class, the continued cutting of programs that are good for people, the
lack of oversight over our war that is going on right now. It is
frightening. It is frightening for everybody. There are several things
that are wrong, though, that I would like to talk about.
As I said, the numbers don't add up; they just don't come together.
There are assumptions that are made that are unrealistic, and it
provides us with an opportunity for real failure, more so than we have
now.
As Mr. Ross recently indicated, we are near $9 trillion right now in
debt, and with everyone's share, with 300 million residents of America,
we are looking at $29,000 per person. That is man, woman, child.
Looking at this, it is unfortunate that under this budget proposal
there are crucial investments that have been cut to programs that are
important to people. For example, they are cutting commodities for
seniors and people with low incomes and people who have disabilities,
but yet we are making real strong assumptions on the scenario of what
can happen for the right things to give more tax breaks.
I did an interview today, Mr. Speaker, with a newspaper in Ohio, and
was asked, how will you pay to restore the commonsense benefits that
are in this budget? Well, one of the ways would be to eliminate some of
the tax breaks for the people who need them least, and this would
certainly be a thing that we as the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition would
be supportive of.
We need to look at common sense. We need to find ways, such as PAYGO,
which we are putting forward, to say that no program goes forward for
more spending, Mr. Speaker, without eliminating a program that is
costing us in the present time. This is what PAYGO is about. It is a
direction that our country needs. PAYGO stands for common sense, and
that is really what we are trying to do.
When we look at this budget, we say that in the President's budget
this time for the 2008 series, it is more of the same, that there has
been no change. It takes many, many assumptions that it is going to be
a best-case scenario. But when you really look at the numbers, Mr.
Speaker, it winds up quite bad again.
We are moving in the wrong direction, doing the wrong things. The
unbid contracts in the war, the situation that we have where money is
being drained on a daily basis out of America, I can't help but wonder
all the good that could be done if we had fiscal responsibility, if we
had people that were looking at the realities of what this budget could
do.
So I am confident as a new Democrat in this Congress that we are
going to work hard to try to bring common sense to the budget to try to
benefit the American people. This best-case scenario assumption is just
not a fair way to go. It hasn't proven good in the last 6 years, and I
doubt very much it is going to prove good in the next 2 years.
I am happy to be part of the Blue Dog Coalition, to look for fiscal
responsibility and fight for the rights of what should be done in
America.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for joining us during this
Special Order to discuss the President's budget, which has been
delivered to Congress this week, as well as to talk about the War
Accountability Act, House Resolution 97, to demand transparency,
accountability and just good government, Mr. Speaker, in how we are
spending the hardworking people of this country's tax money in Iraq.
[[Page 3190]]
There are a lot of misplaced priorities in this enormous budget. Here
is the top ten list:
Number one, it includes tax increases for middle-class families.
Number two, it has cuts in it to health care and to seniors.
Number three, while it is very cold outside right now, while much of
the country is frozen, if you will, Mr. Speaker, it cuts home energy
assistance for those who need help the most with finding the money to
afford to heat their home in the winter months.
After 5 years following 9/11, it has devastating cuts to police and
firefighters.
In direct opposition to the wishes of the people of this country,
here it comes again, it has a plan to privatize Social Security.
The President's budget includes cuts to veterans health care. At a
time when we are creating a new generation of veterans coming home from
Iraq and Afghanistan, the President's budget includes cuts to our
veterans. We need to ensure that our veterans receive the health care
they so desperately need.
I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I get letter after letter
and call after call from veterans who have to wait in line weeks and
months at a time to be able to see a doctor. That is not the kind of
health care we promised America's veterans. We should honor them by
properly caring for them.
It includes cuts to education and cuts to housing assistance. And
with Iraq veterans returning with devastating injuries, it includes
cuts to the brain trauma research that is so desperately needed by many
of these returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.
President Bush's budget says a lot, but it does very little. It is
filled with misplaced priorities. I will challenge you, Mr. Speaker, to
read it for yourself, make your own decision.
As members of the Blue Dog Coalition, we are not here to beat up the
President. He can't even run again. We are here to reach out across
that aisle and work with him and work with the Republican Members of
Congress, because the American people have sent a message very loud and
clear, they want us to work together. That is what the fiscally
conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition is all about. We want to
work in a bipartisan manner to put this Nation on a track toward a
balanced budget, to pay down the debt, and to restore some fiscal
discipline and common sense to our Nation's government.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Lincoln
Davis.
Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, we often hear from our
friends on the right that when the Democrats question the war or the
strategy in Iraq, we are disheartening our troops and emboldening the
enemy. I guess it doesn't matter that there are many Republicans who
also ask the same questions about the war. This attempt by the right to
use fear and shame to quiet the administration's critics is distasteful
and, I believe, hurts America.
Those on the right who take the argument further, suggesting that
folks who don't agree with the administration's policies and don't keep
their views to themselves are being un-American, really saddens me. It
saddens me because it seems like those on the right are trying to
discourage the very actions that led to the founding of our Nation, the
very actions that allowed the United States to continue evolving toward
the never-ending goal of a more perfect Union.
Our country derives its strength from the diversity of views and
ideas that come from its people. If one idea isn't working, then
someone has the freedom to suggest another idea that is different and
might yield different results. In my opinion, the ability of the
American people to discuss differing ideas gives our Nation great
strength.
Additionally, I believe that when Iraqi people see Americans
exercising their right to freedom of speech, the Iraqi people are not
disenchanted by their prospects, but rather they are inspired to have a
country as free as ours. They see our freedom as a beacon of hope for
what their nation could become some day.
Frankly, it is the freedom we enjoy here that scares the enemy over
there so much, because they know that once the people taste freedom,
they will demand it for eternity for themselves. So we should not
stifle our freedom here for fear that it may be negatively impacting
the war over there, which I seriously doubt it is.
Furthermore, if the actions of Senators of both parties and House
Members of both parties embolden the enemy, then doesn't public opinion
also embolden the enemy? Since polls show a large majority of Americans
disagreeing with the administration's policy in Iraq, not the war, the
administration's policy in Iraq, if this is the case, then why don't we
see those on the right condemning the American people for expressing
their views and emboldening the enemy? It is because probably
politically they know they can't criticize the American public. It is
because it is easier to take pot shots at politicians than at everyday
men and women in American society.
Additionally, if the actions of the Senate and the House and American
public embolden the enemy, then I think we need to take a look at the
administration. I quote: ``Such statements give a morale boost to the
terrorists,'' Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki, on remarks of the
Bush administration describing the Iraqi Government as being on
``borrowed time.'' In essence, the Prime Minister of Iraq is accusing
our President of emboldening the enemy by making such a statement.
I contend that the American people love America, that Democrats love
America, that Republicans love America and that President Bush loves
America. I contend that we all love America, and that the discussion
everyone is having on Iraq right now is not an extension of their love
for America, because we all want what we think is best for the country.
We want success and we want security. If only we also wanted civility
in Washington.
I know that once folks cross into the District of Columbia or read
about something in Washington, it seems there is something triggered in
their brains and our rhetoric is raised to a sensational point. We need
to stop and ask ourselves, is this rhetoric helpful to the end goal, or
just hurtful?
There certainly have been plenty of failures in Iraq and there is
plenty of blame to spread. We should have sent in more troops, some
say. We should have not disbanded the Iraqi Army. We should have kept
better track of how our taxpayer dollars were being spent. We should
have squashed the militias before they built a strong following, some
say, and on and on.
{time} 1700
I will tell you who has not failed: Our soldiers on the ground. The
American soldiers won in Iraq. They defeated Saddam's Army, deposed a
dictator and tore down the statue. They gave the country to the Iraqis.
Sadly, in my opinion and many others, the leaders in Washington have
failed our soldiers because those in charge of Iraqi policy have been
weak in dealing with the new Iraqi government, have not pushed them to
find political solutions to the problems they face. The lack of
political structure in Iraq falls squarely on the shoulders of the war
planners, and I for one will not let the reputation of our fighting men
and women be tarnished by the miscalculations of those in charge.
The question now must be, what are the next steps to bring success
and security? That is our goal, is success and security.
The Blue Dog Coalition has drafted a resolution that can help us
along our goals towards success and security. House Resolution 97 would
improve our accountability in Iraq so we can make sure our taxpayer
dollars are being spent wisely and going where they are needed to
achieve success.
In my opinion, this resolution is the first step of many steps down
the path to stability and success in Iraq. I, for one, stand with our
military men and women, ready and able to walk down the path of success
with them.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, an active member of
[[Page 3191]]
the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition.
And the gentleman is exactly right. As members of the Blue Dog
Coalition, we are sick and tired of all the partisan bickering that
goes on in Washington. As members of the Blue Dog Coalition, we don't
care if it is a Democratic idea or a Republican idea. All we care about
is, is it a commonsense idea, and does it make sense for the people who
sent us here to be their voice? That is really what the fiscally
conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition is all about: restoring
fiscal discipline, accountability and common sense to our government.
I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I thank you, Mr. Ross.
I just want to make clear, as colleagues are saying, and I want to
make sure that this debate is within the right frame of mind. This is
not a debate that is personally against the President. The President is
a likeable person. It is just his policies. His policies are wrong for
the American people. Even the American people are rising up and saying
so.
We have, as Congress, the responsibility to respectfully disagree
with the President. That is what we are doing. We are simply saying it
is wrong to cut veterans', it is wrong to cut seniors' programs, it is
wrong to cut education, it is wrong to cut the COPS program out, from
getting folks in to be employed for first responders. It is wrong to
cut homeland security. It is wrong to cut every single basic domestic
program that is cut in this budget. It is wrong to do that.
It is wrong also for the President to say on the one hand that he is
going to have a surge of 21,500 more troops, when, in fact, we now know
that it is not 21,500. It is more like 48,000, according to the CBO
that has just corrected that.
So when we have these kinds of situations, this is what makes this
government what it is. This is what makes us the envy of the world.
This is why we have this House. This is why we run every other year,
why people hold us accountable, to come and to make sure that the
voters and the people of America and their tax dollars, that we are
good stewards of them. That is our responsibility.
And we have a right, more than that, we have a duty, to raise the
tough questions and to hold the President's feet to the fire when he
comes with such a wrong-headed budget as this that goes right to the
heart of where America is hurting. This is why we are here today, and
this is why the Blue Dogs are offering this. This is why the Blue Dogs
are also offering Resolution 98, to bring this fiscal accountability
and financial accountability, to stop war profiteering, and to make
sure the money goes to the soldiers so that we can take care of them
while they are on the battlefield and to make sure we restore these
cuts to make sure we take care of them when they come home. This budget
doesn't do it, and it is our obligation to raise these questions and to
make sure that this budget responds appropriately.
Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Speaker, if you have any comments or questions or concerns, you
can e-mail us at BlueD[email protected].
I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. I so often hear that cut and run is a
strategy from Democrats. That is not the case. When we finished the war
in 1945, military bases were established in western Europe, in Turkey
and other places throughout the world. They are still there. As we
finished our endeavors, as many people thought during the Korean War,
our military bases are still located in South Korea.
We will never leave the Middle East, if the American people think
that is the case. What we are talking about is being able to redeploy
and do certain other endeavors that have not been done to make sure we
win this war, win the peace, and have success in Iraq. We will be in
the Middle East for a long, long time. My great-grandchildren will
still see us be there. That is an area in which we have to defend
America's freedom and liberty.
But we have got to take another look at having success, because what
we are doing now is not having the success the American people demand,
expect and we should have for them, and our troops deserve better than
that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remaining portion of my time.
____________________
PEAK OIL
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas). Under the
Speaker's announced policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, there are three different
groups in our country and indeed worldwide at least for some of these
issues that have common cause in campaigning for a reduction in the use
of fossil fuels. These three groups come from very different
perspectives, but as you will see from our discussions this evening
they really do have common cause. Because to solve the problems that
brings them to this dialogue, all three of these groups are advocating
essentially the same thing. That is, a reduction in our use of fossil
fuels.
The first of these groups is a very large group which has genuine
concern about national security interests. Probably 2 years ago now, or
nearly that, 30 of our prominent Americans, Boyden Gray, McFarland, Jim
Woolsey and 27 others, some of them senior retired military people,
wrote a letter to the President saying: Mr. President, the fact that in
our country we have only 2 percent of the known reserves of world oil
and we use 25 percent of the world's oil, importing almost two-thirds
of what we use, represents a totally unacceptable national security
risk.
The President himself recognized this in his State of the Union a
year ago when he noted that we get some of this oil from countries, as
he said, that don't even like us very much. That is a bit of an
understatement for some of those countries.
The next chart shows a recognition of this on the part of our
Secretary of State. This was April 5 of last year. We do have to do
something about the energy problem.
I can tell you that nothing has really taken me aback more as
Secretary of State than the way that the politics of energy is, I will
use the word, ``warping'' diplomacy around the world. We have simply
got to do something about the warping now of diplomatic effort by the
all-out rush for energy supply.
I am sure that in her head she had a mental picture of this really
interesting map of the world. This shows what our world would look like
if the size of each country was determined by its reserves of oil. And
you can see how in America right here, tiny on this map of the world,
we represent about less than 5 percent of the people of the world and
we have only about 2 percent of the oil in the world, but we are using
25 percent of the oil.
Look how small we are. We would fit many times in Saudi Arabia. We
are about the size of Qatar here. We would fit four times in Kuwait, if
the size of Kuwait, if the land mass of Kuwait was relative to how much
oil they have.
Russia up there, they are a big exporter now, but they can be a big
exporter because they aren't using anywhere near as much as we have.
You see Russia is two or three times as large as we are.
Well, that large community in our country which is genuinely
concerned about national security interests understands our problems
that come from this distribution of oil. Many of these oil reserves are
in countries that, what we call the royal families. They are really
dictatorships, aren't they? And Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates and
Saudi Arabia. And then in Iran, that is run as a theocracy pretty much
totally controlled by the Mullahs. And here we have Venezuela, a
Communist state.
The President very wisely said in that State of the Union message a
year ago that we are getting oil, many of the reserves are in countries
that don't even like us very much.
[[Page 3192]]
Now, fortunately, our imported oil doesn't come from the mix as we
see it here, because we are getting oil where it is cheaper to ship it
and so forth. So a lot of our oil comes from Canada. They are pretty
tiny in terms of total reserves, but there aren't many people there, so
they are an exporter. We get oil from Mexico, and we get oil from
Venezuela simply because of economics. It is just cheaper to ship it
the short distances around the world.
So this is one group that has common cause in wanting to reduce our
consumption of fossil fuels, particularly oil, because we are so
dependent on the rest of the world which, as Condoleezza Rice says,
presents a very real national security problem.
A second group that is interested in reducing our use of these fossil
fuels, particularly oil, is the group that believes that, whereas the
United States reached its maximum production of oil in 1970, that the
world is about to approach that point now. And if you aren't concerned
about national security risks and if you aren't concerned about climate
change, which is going to be the third one that we talk about, you
would really be concerned about oil if you recognized that there is not
going to be enough of it in the future. It is going to be a real
economic problem.
What we have here, it says here, the United States production Hubbert
versus Actual. This is a report from CERA, the Cambridge Energy
Research Associates, who were trying to point out that M. King Hubbert
was not very accurate in his prediction of what the United States would
do, and therefore you shouldn't take him very seriously when he
predicted the world would be peaking about now.
The average person looking at this would say that they were kind of
nitpicking, because this is the Hubbert's Lower 48 Projection, this
yellow line here, and the red is the actual. And of course added to the
Lower 48 was our big discovery in Dead Horse and Prudhoe Bay, Alaska,
and our oil discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico. Well, I think that these
two curves here run pretty darned close together; and for that growing
community of people that have a genuine concern about the availability
of oil in the future, this chart has real meaning.
I might look at the next chart here before we move to those who are
concerned about climate change. This is a chart which presents the
challenge that we face from what is called peak oil, and these bars
here represent the discoveries of oil. You note that the big
discoveries were back in the 1960s and 1970s; and ever since 1980, on
average, the discoveries have been reducing, going down, down, down.
Now, anyone who has had any math and charting and so forth in school
knows that if you draw a smooth curve over this, the area under the
curve will represent the total amount of oil that we have found.
Indeed, each of these represents a reservoir of oil. If you add up all
these little bars, why you have the total; and that is what you do when
you smooth them out. You, in effect, add them all up.
The solid dark line here represents the amount of oil that we have
been using. We started out really rich, didn't we? We found this much
oil, and we are just using this tiny bit down here.
{time} 1715
It looked like oil was going to be forever. When would it run out?
Look at how little we are using and how much there is out there.
But now look what happened. We continued to use more and more as the
industrial revolution grew and as our population grew and we found more
ways to use energy to make our lives comfortable. The use continued to
grow and grow, but the discovery started falling off.
In 1965 or so, they started falling off, down, down, down, and that
is in spite of ever better techniques for finding oil, computer
modeling, 3-D seismic and so forth. We now have a pretty good idea of
what the geology of the world looks like, and we will find gas and oil
in only very unique geological formations. Maybe a little later this
evening we will have a little chance to talk about those so you have
some expectation of what we might find in the future.
Here we are now, and this is about 2007, and we have been using more
oil ever since about 1980 than we have been finding. Of course, we have
had lots of reserve, and we have been eating up that reserve now, until
we have taken some of this to fill in this space.
Now you look to the future, and what does the future look like? We
have some options of what the future looks like. One of the options we
do not have, though, is pumping oil we have not found. So unless you
think we are going to find more oil than this chart indicates, and of
course it will not be a smooth, down curve like that. It will be up and
down but generally it will be down most people recognize. Well, we can
use all sorts of enhanced oil recovery techniques and pump it sooner,
and you may get a little more from those enhanced recovery techniques,
but you cannot pump what you have not found.
So this shows you very graphically. If you had only one graph to look
at to help you understand what we are facing in terms of peak oil, this
would be the graph. So you understand now why this second group is
really concerned about our use of fossil fuels, particularly oil,
because it is very probable that the world is going to reach its
maximum production of oil, maybe has already, but if not now, very
soon, and the demand for oil, which has been going up at a roughly 2
percent per year growth is going to continue. So it is going to be an
ever increasing difference between the available oil and the demand for
oil.
Of course, when that happens, of course when demand exceeds supply,
price goes up, and we have seen oil prices go up relatively few years
ago from $10 a barrel to $60 a barrel now. It was just a few months ago
$78 a barrel. Kind of fear factor in that way, it went away, and it
dropped very quickly $18 a barrel. But very volatile market, up and
down $1 or more a day. Another fear factor, it could jump another $18.
The next chart I have here is one that shows the concerns that this
third group has, and that is those who are concerned about climate
change. I have something I want to read here. This chart comes from
this document by the way, ``Stern Review: The Economics of Climate
Change.'' It says here, ``The scientific evidence is now overwhelming:
climate change presents very serious global risks, and it demands an
urgent global response.
``Climate change is global in its causes and consequences, and
international collective action will be critical in driving an
effective, efficient and equitable response on the scale required.''
This international cooperation reminds me of a visit we just made. I
came back just about a month ago from China. Nine of us, nine Members
of Congress went over and the primary reason of the trip was to talk to
them about energy. I was surprised and pleased when they began their
discussion of energy by talking about post-oil. Gee, I says, they get
it. Somehow a civilization that was a golden civilization when my Fore
Fathers were barbarians running around Europe has a longer view of
things than we seem to have. We have trouble seeing beyond the next
quarterly report in our industry. We have real trouble here seeing
beyond the next election. But they are looking post-oil they say. They
recognize that there will be a post-oil period.
A thousand years of recorded history, we have been in the age of oil
about 100, 150 years. If it is half gone and if it follows a bell
curve, as it did in our country and it probably will in the world, you
have probably got another 100, 150 years of oil, with ever increasing
costs and ever decreasing amounts as we get the oil, which is harder
and harder to get.
Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics. It is the
greatest and widest ranging market failure ever seen. The benefits of
strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs they say.
So this is a little chart that shows where these gases come from.
Just a moment of explanation as to why the use of oil and so forth
produces climate change.
[[Page 3193]]
When you go out into your car this evening, if you go out, if it is
parked outside and the sun is shining in, and if you go out before
dark, your car will be very much warmer inside than it is outside, and
we call that the greenhouse effect. What happens is the light from the
sun comes in in a very broad wavelength spectrum from very long waves
to very short waves, and they go easily through your car, most of them
through the car window, and then that sun heats up the material inside
your car, and that reradiates in the infrared. Well, the glass is
relatively impervious to infrared so it simply reflects it back, and
that is called the greenhouse effect, and your car then gets warmer and
warmer. You see it especially on a summer day when it may be 80 outside
and 120 inside your car which is why you should not leave your children
and animals inside the car when you leave it.
Well, there are gases in the atmosphere that essentially do the same
thing as the glass in your automobile. You may remember riding in the
airplane and you are very comfortable sitting in there at 38, 40,000
feet and the pilot tells you it is minus 40 degrees centigrade outside.
That is really cold. The reason you could be so warm down here and you
are so cold up here is the reflection of all this heat which is
radiated back from the earth, long infrared rays, and they are
reflected back. One of the things that reflects them back are gases up
in the atmosphere. There a number of those gases, methane, and carbon
dioxide is one of the major ones.
Of course, carbon dioxide, absolutely essential for plant life, and
they are so efficient. Our oxygen is about 21 percent. We can do with
maybe half of that. If you are at 18,000 feet, that is all you have got
because of the atmospheric pressure there. But these plants make due on
.04 percent. Do you not wish you could be as efficient as these plants?
You could get by on the top of Mt. Everest very easily. You would not
need to pressurize the cockpit in the aircraft you are riding in.
What stunned me in this report was when I read that our earth now is
only 5 degrees centigrade, that is 9 degrees Fahrenheit, warmer than it
was in the last ice age. Wow, what a huge change in climate, a
relatively small change in temperature makes, just 9 degrees cooler
Fahrenheit, and we had glaciers that came down to southeast Ohio. They
came down that far, scooping up the dirt and from it you can see where
it melted and left the mounds of gravel and dirt there where they came
down that far.
Well, I am very pleased to be joined by one of the Nation's leading
voices and authorities on climate change, my colleague, also from the
great State of Maryland, Congressman Gilchrest.
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) for
yielding and for having this time we can discuss these issues of
energy, its ramifications to national security, the environment and to
the economy. I would like to reiterate some of the comments that
Congressman Bartlett has made as far as energy use, and it is a single
issue, energy use, the ramifications of our energy use now is to our
economy, to our national security and to our environment.
Our energy use is dependent on fossil fuel, and our whole economy
then is dependent on fossil fuel. Our national security to a great
extent is the ramifications of national security are as a result of
where we get our fossil fuel sources from throughout the world, and
fossil fuel burning has a pretty big impact on the environment. So our
energy policy affects our economy, affects our national security and
affects our environment.
Each of these, because it is fossil fuel, because like Mr. Bartlett
said, two-thirds of our energy sources for oil come from foreign
sources, that makes our economy fragile. That makes our national
security much more difficult, and the ramifications to our environment
is that it degrades our environment.
What I would like to discuss here is the legacy of oil to our
environment, and the environment, in particular, is our climate. The
air, sea and land, upon which life exists on the planet depends to a
great extent on the atmosphere, and the atmosphere, in order to support
life as we know it, as Mr. Bartlett described, has a certain heat
balance to it in order for life to exist.
That heat balance that we talk about is the greenhouse effect which
keeps the planet and its heat at a certain temperature in order for us
to live, vegetation to grow, life in the sea to exist and life on the
land.
The greenhouse effect is as a result of the chemistry of the
atmosphere and the chemistry of the atmosphere, whether it is carbon,
whether it is methane, whether it is oxygen or whether it is water
vapor, does hold the heat of the sun's rays enough for us to have life
the way we know it, the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect has had huge fluctuations over the eons of time
that the earth has existed. We have ice ages, we have warming trends.
So throughout earth's history we have had a natural range of
fluctuation to the temperature, to CO2, to other greenhouse
gases. That is a natural range. No huge rapid fluctuations in that
natural range of chemicals that make up the atmosphere to hold on to
the greenhouse effect.
The question is, when we debate this issue in Congress or in other
political situations, are humans impacting the climate? Are humans the
cause of a warming trend?
Well, let us take a look at that. Right now, is there a warming
trend? I would say that every single scientist in the United States,
throughout the planet who is a meteorologist or an atmospheric chemist
or anybody in that scientific community, every single one of them will
say that, yes, we are in a warming trend and we have been in a warming
trend for the past 10,000 years.
If you could go back 10,000 years using ice cores drilled into the
glaciers in Greenland or the Antarctic, then you could see that 10,000
years ago, as Mr. Bartlett mentioned earlier, the temperature of the
planet was about 5 degrees centigrade cooler than it is now, and the
value assessment of that is evaluated by the makeup of the chemistry of
the atmosphere 10,000 years ago.
One of those elements in the atmosphere was carbon dioxide. If you
look at carbon dioxide, you would see that 10,000 years ago, there was
about 180 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Now let us come ahead almost 10,000 years to 1890 or 1900 and you
evaluate CO2 in the atmosphere at that point. You would see
that in 10,000 years, you increased the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere from 180 parts per million to 280 parts per million. It took
the earth in its natural range of fluctuation 10,000 years to increase
100 parts per million of CO2.
Now, let us project the next 100 years, which is essentially the
industrial age. We have increased another 100 parts per million. We are
now at 380 parts per million. So what took the natural forces in a
natural range of fluctuation over a period of 10,000 years to increase
100 parts per million, in the industrial age we have done it in 100
years.
Now some people will say that has nothing to do with human activity,
that is volcanoes, that is the natural decaying of matters, that is
nature producing that 100 parts per million. The answer to that is
this. You can distinguish between the kind of CO2 that comes
from volcanoes or forest fires or other natural sources from burning
fossil fuel. Every human being has their own DNA marker.
{time} 1730
You can tell one human being from another human being by their DNA.
Carbon dioxide has a DNA; it has a marker. It is a radioactive isotope,
so you can determine where this CO2 in the atmosphere comes
from. Is it coming from your automobile, or is it coming from a volcano
in southeast Asia, or is it coming from a forest fire in California or
Brazil?
The radioactive isotopes are markers for CO2. It is very
easily discerned that an extreme increase in CO2 has come
from human activity. What do we see as a result?
We see warmer air temperatures and warmer sea temperatures. What are
[[Page 3194]]
some of the results of that? Sea water is warming; the atmosphere is
warming. Fuel for hurricanes is warm air and warm sea water. So we are
seeing a fairly dramatic increase in stronger hurricanes.
What are some of the other implications of increasing temperatures as
a result of burning fossil fuel, human activity? That is sea level
rise.
Sea level rise from the melting of the Arctic ice, Arctic glacier
such as Greenland and the Antarctic has the potential, in this century,
to raise sea levels by 3 feet. What will that do to New York or
Baltimore or Miami or all the other low-lying communities throughout
the world, the Thames River in London? Sea level rise would flood the
City of London. Coastal erosion, coastal communities. The insurance
industry in the United States, as a result of climate change, global
warming and potential increasing violent storms and sea level rise, and
the insurance companies in the United States are beginning to stop
their homeowners insurance coverage for these communities at risk along
the gulf and Atlantic Coast. The insurance companies of the United
States and Lloyd's of London, the only reinsurance company that I know
of in the world that is continuing to cover these homeowners, have
doubled, tripled and quadrupled their premiums to look at the risk.
The other problem with increasing CO2 and other greenhouse
gases is what it does to the actual chemical make-up of our oceans. Our
oceans have a certain balance in their Ph. It is just a little bit
above 7, and it has been that way for aeons of time. How long have the
sharks been in the ocean? You hear on shows in television that sharks
have been around for millions of years. Other creatures on our planet
have been around for millions of years.
Some of the best habitat in the world for ocean creatures are coral
reefs. Increasing CO2 into the atmosphere and the world's
oceans have absorbed fully half of the CO2 that we have put
into the atmosphere. The result of that, the legacy of oil, burning
fossil fuel, is it makes the oceans more acidic. Ocean chemistry would
change, be more acidic and more corrosive. It could destroy the vast
resources we get from coral reefs by destroying the very fabric of the
beginning of the ecology of the world's oceans.
Warmer temperatures we have already begun to see cause more forest
fires, more infestations, more problems with agriculture. Weather
patterns become more violent in some places. They become more
unpredictable. The storm cycles are more violent and unpredictable.
Shifting vegetation zones, we have already talked about sea level rise,
habitat loss.
The Arctic ice cap at the top of the world in the last 50 years has
lost 40 percent of its ice volume, 40 percent. The list of dramatic
ramifications of not addressing one of the problems of the legacy of
oil and our dependence on it is climate change, is global warming.
What are some of the answers to this? Well, Mr. Bartlett has made
some comments about this, but we have a bill on the Senate side, on the
House side. Mr. Bartlett is a cosponsor. John Olver from Massachusetts
is a cosponsor. A number of our colleagues have gotten on this bill to
try to understand the nature of this problem, at least part of our
dependence on fossil fuel, which is global warming, climate change.
We think the debate is over. The debate is over because the science
is clear that human activity is causing the climate to change and all
those other problems or ramifications of increasing carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere. We need to take action now to stop global warming. We
subject our economy, our national security, our way of life to great
risk and catastrophic harm. We have a bipartisan bill that will reduce
the Nation's greenhouse gas emissions substantially and in a timely
fashion.
We have a series of Fortune 500 companies from Alcoa to BP to
Caterpillar to Duke Energy to DuPont to a number of environmental
groups that support the Federal Government making a goal of reducing
greenhouse gases by the year 2050 to 70 percent below 1990 levels,
creating a regulatory structure to do that.
Then these companies that I just read say that the market can resolve
the issue. It would create a cap and trade program with large tax
incentives to unleash the ingenuity of the American free marketplace to
capture the technology, which will make us much more economically
viable to use efficiency, technological advances, alternative fuels.
This will reduce over a period of decades not only our dependence on
fossil fuel from foreign sources, not only improve our economy, not
only improve our national security situation with the rest of the
world, but drastically begin to improve our environment. The U.S. can
take the lead in finding solutions to this seemingly intractable
problem.
The Federal Government sets a goal with the regulatory structure, the
market produces the results, and human ingenuity, once again, solves
some of the problems. I want to thank Congressman Bartlett for the time
and for his enormous interest in this issue and his skill and
expertise.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I want to thank my colleague very much for
joining us here. Congressman Gilchrest mentioned market forces. They
are, indeed, very powerful. They have served us very well in this
country. They have provided for us the highest quality of life of any
place in the world. But market forces are limited. They cannot do what
they cannot do.
As I noted somewhat humorously, there are even some things that God
cannot do. God can't make a square circle, for instance. The market
forces are very powerful. As long as there are unlimited forces, market
forces will work. I remember mentioning to one of our very high
government officials the problem of limited oil supply in the future.
The response was, gee, I guess the market will take care of that.
I guess when oil gets more expensive, we will use less of it, and
then we will find alternatives. That is true. When oil prices get
higher, we will use less of it, and we will look for alternatives.
But when you look at the potential for exploiting these alternatives,
you see that a large amount of time and energy must be invested in
these alternatives before they yield any meaningful amount of
replacement for the fossil fuels, which are so abundant and so energy
rich.
Let me give you just one little example of some of the unintended
consequences of trying to do this. This is a big push to make ethanol
from corn in our country. We have noted that the Brazilians are making
ethanol from sugar cane, and they now don't have to import any oil. We
would like to emulate them and make enough ethanol from corn that we
will not have to import oil. That, by the way, is the impossible dream.
That will not happen.
With the relatively small amount of ethanol that we are now making,
and there aren't very many E-85 pumps or blends of ethanol in gasoline
in this part of the country, there are in the Midwest, but with the
relatively small amount of ethanol that we are making, the demand for
corn raised the price of corn from $2.11 a bushel in September to $4.08
in December. That is causing a huge problem for our people that raise
animals.
We are having a meeting in a few days with a number of our dairy
people from Maryland. Unless milk goes up to more, I think it is about
$14 per 100, now it needs to be at least $18 before they can break
even.
With this kind of a price for food for their animals, they will go
bankrupt. So the relatively small demand for corn to make the
relatively small amount of ethanol that we are making now has
essentially doubled the price of corn.
What this does is to reflect the enormous amount of energy that is in
these fossil fuels. There they are really energy dense. This chart
shows something about what has happened to our world as a result of the
incredible energy density in these fossil fuels.
Hyman Rickover, and let me get a copy of his paper, it was not really
a paper, it was a talk that he gave to a group of physicians 50 years
ago. The anniversary of that will be May 14 of
[[Page 3195]]
this year, and that was at a banquet of the annual scientific assembly
of the Minnesota State Medical Association. This talk had nothing to do
with medicine. He apologized for that at the beginning of his talk. But
he thought that the physicians might enjoy some diversion.
He was talking about the enormous fossil energy in these fuels. Hyman
Rickover, of course, is the father of our nuclear submarine. I had no
idea that he had given this talk. It just appeared in the Energy
Bulletin December 2 of last year, 2006. So it has only been out in the
general public for these couple of months.
I noted this the other night that we need to hear this again, because
this is just so revealing as to what this energy has done for us. With
high energy consumption goes a high standard of living. Does the
enormous fossil fuel energy in this country which we control feed
machines which makes each of us a master of an army of mechanical
slaves? Now at that time we didn't import any, so he could say we
controlled it. Now we import almost two-thirds of what we use.
Another writer has indicated the incredible amount of energy in
fossil fuels in oil. Let me give you the analogies he uses, and then I
will read the ones that Hyman Rickover gave in that speech 50 years
ago. One barrel of oil produces the energy equivalent of 12 men working
all year for you.
If you figure the price that you could hire a man, the equivalent a
man to work for you, by buying $10 of fossil fuel, of oil, it will work
a full year for you. Now let me read what Hyman Rickover said 50 years
ago and more so today. Man's muscle power is rated at 35 watts
continuously, \1/20\ of a horse power. That is 24/7. You can do a
little better than that when you are working, but you have to eat,
sleep, so forth.
Machines, therefore, furnish every American and industrial worker
with energy equivalent to that of 244 men. Wow. How many man-months of
work without any energy from fossil fuels would it have taken to build
your automobile?
While at least 2,000 men push his automobile along the road and his
family is supplied with 33 faithful household helpers. Each locomotive
engineer, he says, controls energy equivalent to that of 100,000 men.
Each jet pilot of 700,000 men.
You know, thinking of that jet pilot in that plane up there just the
other day, and I look at those contrails and sometimes they are the
only cloud-like things in the sky, it finally occurred to me the
dynamics of this CO2 thing that Congressman Gilchrest was
talking about, carbon; and that is what is in these fuels, is largely
carbon and hydrogen.
Carbon has a molecular weight of 12, and hydrogen has a molecular
weight of 1. It is the lightest element in the universe. When you burn
this carbon, it combines with oxygen, one molecule of carbon with two
molecules of oxygen. Oxygen weighs 16. So what that says is,
Congressman Gilchrest, that if you weigh the gasoline that goes in your
car, you produce three times that weight in carbon dioxide. That is
incredible.
Now, all of that carbon dioxide was taken out of the atmosphere a
very long time ago. I didn't know, as a little boy, where oil came
from; but I did know where coal came from, because we had a coal
furnace in our house, and I would have to break those big lumps of
coal. We bought it just as it came out of the mine.
{time} 1745
When I would break a lump of coal open, there would be a fern leaf.
Nobody had to tell me where coal came from. I knew very well where it
came from. It came from plants that grew a very long time ago, they
fell over under pressure and in time and they became coal.
So we were releasing incredible amounts of carbon dioxide, which is a
greenhouse gas, which will change the acidity of the ocean. Fortunately
carbon dioxide is very soluble in water. But it still changes the pH of
the water because it forms a very weak acid, carbonic acid, when it
gets in the water.
Truly, the humblest American, Admiral Rickover says, enjoys the
services of more slaves than were once owned by the richest nobles, and
live better than most ancient kings. In retrospect and despite wars,
revolutions and disasters, the 100 years just gone by, that was 1950,
that is right here, the 100 years just gone by, may well seem like a
Golden Age.
And what this chart shows here is the history of the world, energy
wise, for only about 400 years out of that 8,000 years that Admiral
Rickover talks about. And the industrial revolution began with wood,
the brown curve here, and it did not produce very many quadrillion BtUs
of energy, and then coal, and boy did the economy grow with coal and
trains and so forth. But then look what happened. It exploded when we
found gas and oil. And that is because gas and oil are so easy to
change into compounds that we can readily get energy from.
And they are much more adaptable and flexible than coal. Although you
can get gas and oil from coal. Hitler had to do that when we cut off
his oil supplies, and under embargoes South Africa had to do that. We
may be turning to that again shortly.
As I mentioned, Madam Speaker, there are three groups that really
have common cause in talking about the use of these fossil fuels. One
is that very large and growing group of people, including our Secretary
of State, who are concerned that our growing dependence on foreign oil
is a very serious national security risk.
Well, what do we do? We obviously need to use less of it. The
President says we are hooked on it, we need to use less of it. And we
can use less of it two ways. One. We can simply conserve and be more
efficient. And we have done some of that. We can do a great deal more
of that.
The second thing that we can do is to get energy from alternatives.
As this chart shows, and as Dr. Rickover mentioned, there will come a
time when the world will be getting less and less energy from fossil
fuels, and finally at some point in history down the road, we will be
getting essentially no energy from fossil fuels, because obviously they
are not infinite in their supply and they will not last forever.
In 8,000 years of recorded history, the Age of Oil will represent but
a blip in terms of energy production, a pretty big blip. But we are
probably about halfway through the age of oil. In another 100, 150
years if M. King Hubbert is correct and we are now at the peak, and it
will be tailing off and going down the other side of what is commonly
called Hubbert's Peak, oil will be ever more difficult to get and ever
more costly.
In another 100, 150 years we will have transition to renewables, we
will be steady-state, having used up the coal we have, having gotten
all of the energy we can from these unconventional oil sources, like
the tar sands of Canada and the oil shales of the United States.
The next chart looks at what obviously we need to be about. And that
is addressing this problem. Now, whether you believe that we need to
reduce our use of fossil fuels because it is a national security
problem, whether you believe we need to reduce our use of fossil fuels
because it is causing climate change, or whether you believe we need to
reduce the use of fossil fuels because they are just not going to be
there in the quantities that we are using today in the future, you
still must do the same things.
Well, the first thing that you need to do is to buy some time. We
now, knowing that we should have known at least by 1980 that we were
going to be here today, because we were already 10 years down the other
side of our Hubbert's Peak in this country, and M. King Hubbert had
already predicted that the world would be peaking about now.
For these last 27 years, we should have been addressing this problem
and investing energy and time in alternatives. Unfortunately, we in
large measure have not done that. And so today we are faced with a
problem. We have no excess oil, no excess oil energy to invest in
alternatives. If there were any excess it would not be $55, $60 a
[[Page 3196]]
barrel. And we have essentially run out of time.
Now, we can buy some time and free up some oil with an aggressive
program in conservation. And you really can do that. Europe is using
half the energy that we use. It would be hard to argue that they do not
live as comfortably as we do. The average Californian uses 65 percent
of the electricity that we use. And there are 50 some of those in our
Congress. I doubt that any would agree that they live less well than we
do, and they still use a lot less energy than we use.
What we need to do then is use it wisely. What will we do with this
energy that we freed up and the time that we have bought by this
aggressive conservation program? We have to invest that wisely in
alternatives.
Now whichever of these camps that you come from, whether it is the
climate change camp, or the camp that is concerned that we are too
dependent on foreign oils, that is going to be a big national security
risk, or whether you believe that we need to move from fossil fuels to
alternatives simply because there are going to be less and less, and
more and more expensive fossil fuels in the future, you still want to
do essentially the same thing.
Enormous benefits can accrue from this. Congressman Gilchrest
mentioned the enormous creativity and entrepreneurship of our people.
We put a man on the moon in less than a decade. When you realize where
we started from, that was a really big feat. We can do this. We were
challenged to do that.
Today, the average American does not know that oil is probably
limited in its future supply. They probably are unaware, today is an
interesting day to talk about the potential for global warming, because
it is the coldest day that we have had this winter. But I understand it
is 20 degree above normal in Alaska and 20 degrees above normal today
in Russia.
I just wanted to make a comment about some of the potentially
unexpected consequences of this climate change. If you look at a globe,
you will see that England is way up there, about mid Canada. And I had
to stop for a refueling flight in Ireland. That really is the Emerald
Isle, it is so green. And that has a climate like, what, South
Carolina. How can you have a climate like South Carolina at a latitude
of central Canada?
The reason for that is a huge conveyor belt that carries heat from
the tropics to the British Isles and Europe. And that huge conveyor
belt is called the Gulf Stream. And the Gulf Stream picks up heat in
the Gulf area near the equator, and it then carries that like a giant
conveyor belt up to the British Isles and Europe.
They have a very moderate climate compared to what they would have in
the absence of the Gulf Stream. Now, water is not piling up up there
around Europe and England, so it is obvious that if it flows up there
and carries that heat up there, it has got to come back.
It comes back by going down. And why does it go down? We will talk
about that in just a moment. Then it comes back flowing in just a large
as volume and just as fast, it comes back to the lower part of this big
conveyor belt. Again in the tropics, picking up more heat, and
continues this transfer of heat to the British Isles and England.
Well, a very interesting thing is happening to this conveyor belt.
The waters as they flow north, they are warm. And the sun shines on
them, and water evaporates. And when the water evaporates, it leaves
the salt there. And that makes the water more salty and heavier. And of
course that is what produces the rains that then drops in our mountains
and produces the indirect solar energy from the waterfalls that we use
the turbines in to produce electricity.
Well, two things are happening. A major one is the fact that the
polar ice cap is melting. And a lot of that fresh water, water without
saline in it, very light compared to this heavy water, it is in
addition to the general global warming of the oceans, it is the effect
of this polar ice cap melting. And strangely the melting of the polar
ice cap may so dilute the waters in the Gulf Stream that they do not
become dense enough to drop down to continue this conveyor belt on back
down to the tropics.
The Gulf Stream could stop. If the Gulf Stream slows down
appreciably, or if it stopped, the climate in the British Isles and in
Europe would be very, very different than it is today.
Now, if we were in Siberia talking about global warming and so forth,
we may have a very different view of it. It might be hard to convince
me that a little global warming might not be good if I lived in
Siberia. But noting that just this 9-degree Fahrenheit, 5 degrees
Centigrade change from the Ice Age has produced the incredible climate
changes that we see from that time to this, you see the potential for
really devastating climate changes as a result of very modest changes
in temperature. Congressman Gilchrest.
Mr. GILCHREST. If the gentleman would yield just for a second on the
issue of the Gulf Stream and the conveyer belt. As Mr. Bartlett
described the conveyor belt, it is part of this whole system of the
climate that we are used to, because it creates this heat balance that
humans over the last thousands of years have become used to in North
America and especially Europe and England.
Mr. Bartlett talked about Ireland being just about on the same
latitude as northern Labrador, but has a much warmer climate. That is
partly based on the fact that ocean currents bring warm air to that
particular region.
With global warming, the ice cap on Greenland, which is about 600,000
square miles. The ice cap about 20 years ago was melting at a rate of
about 20 cubic miles on an annual basis. About 5 years ago, it was
melting at the rate of about 50 some cubic miles.
Today, it is 80 cubic miles of free water flowing into the northern
part of the north Atlantic Ocean, putting what Mr. Bartlett described,
more fresh water, less likely to sink or drop and create the pump that
drives the conveyor belt.
So the unexpected climate changes, instead of the potential for a
much warmer climate in Europe, especially northern Europe, there is a
slight chance because of global warming that you could have a much
colder climate in northern Europe, the British Isles as a result of the
fresh water pouring into the north Atlantic from the melting of the
glaciers to stop this conveyor belt from functioning, the
unpredictability of this climate change as a result of our dependance
on foreign sources of oil and burning fossil fuel.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, Congressman Gilchrest and I
have both been twice to Antarctica. One of those trips we made
together. We are on the Science Committee. We have a large experiment
station down there right at the pole. When you go to Antarctica, that
is a continent that nobody owns. I think Argentina claims they own it,
and Russia claims they own it, but nobody honors those statements. It
is an international area.
It has got ice piled nearly 2 miles high. So high and so heavy that
it has actually pushed the continent down a little bit under it. 90
percent of all the world's ice is in Antarctica, and 70 percent of all
the world's fresh water. You take our Great Lakes and all of the
relatively thin ice at the North Pole and Greenland, that is relatively
thin compared to nearly 2 miles in Antarctica.
So we have 90 percent of the ice down there and 70 percent of the
fresh water. And Congressman Gilchrest mentioned that the oceans would
rise maybe 3 feet with the melting of the glacial cap in Greenland and
so forth and in the Arctic. If all of the ice melted, that would take a
very long time, that is not going to happen tomorrow because there is a
whole lot of it there.
But if all of the ice melted in Antarctica, I am told that the oceans
would rise 200 feet.
{time} 1800
Now, that would really, really change our world because I don't know
what percent of our population lives within 200 feet altitude of the
ocean. I suspect it is more than 50 percent, if you look around the
world of the people that live at less than 200 feet altitude.
[[Page 3197]]
Now, there is an interesting ocean current that goes around
Antarctica, talking about ocean currents and their affect on climates,
that is the circumpolar current. And what it does is it keeps the, like
our gulf stream, it will either let the cold air down if it is further
south or keep it from coming down if it is further north. This
circumpolar stream around the Pole keeps the northern, down there, of
course, it is northern waters that are warm, it keeps the northern
waters from coming down into Antarctica. And if something happened that
stopped that circumpolar stream, the Antarctica polar ice cap might
melt much more quickly than we anticipate that it might melt.
As an indication of how much these ocean currents affect climate,
about 5 years ago, I guess it was, an iceberg broke off down in
Antarctica, which was the size of Delaware. And in spite of the
circumpolar current, some northern warm waters do get through it and
down there to temper the climate a little, and that usually melts the
sea ice enough so that they could get a boat in that is full of diesel
file to McMurdo, which is where the main station is. You fly from there
to the Pole. And because that big iceberg the size of Delaware blocked
the flow of this water that year, and that was 4 years ago, it was so
cold there that the sea ice didn't melt, and the closest they could
get, with the help, by the way, of a Russian ice-breaker, the closest
they could get was 3 miles out, so they laid a hose 3 miles across the
ice to fill their tanks at McMurdo.
By the way, Congressman, one of the things that amazed me there, when
I was down there the sun was shining all day long and the wind blew
incessantly. I didn't see any solar panels down there, and I didn't see
any wind machines down there. In the summer down there, in their
summer, our winter, they could clearly make all of their energy from
the wind and from solar. It just reflects the President's wise
observation that we are hooked on oil. We are so hooked on oil that we
are really quite irrational in our use of it. You had a comment?
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Bartlett and I have been down there twice, the
first time I went was probably about 10 years ago, and the supply ship
to get to McMurdo station had to break ice. I believe it was about 12
miles from open water to McMurdo. And then after the ice shelf or that
huge chunk of the glacier broke off about the size of Delaware, it was
close to 30-something miles that they had to break that ice from open
water all the way to McMurdo station. So a few degrees, a few changes
have some pretty significant dramatic events.
On just a lighter note, on one of those trips, I can't remember which
one it was, we went to watch the penguins. The first time I was in the
Antarctic they didn't have that far to go to get to open water. The
Adelie penguins, the second time, as a result of the increasing ice
because it was blocked, had to go miles and miles and miles, and
unfortunately it really reduced the population of those Adelie penguins
in that part of the Ross ice shelf.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. They have a very interesting rookery down
there; we enjoyed seeing it. Both times I was down we went out to the
rookery to see the penguins. The big Emperor penguins, they didn't like
us; they waddled off. And they scoot along on their bellies when they
are moving fast, by the way, rather than marching.
I am very pleased to have been joined by Congressman Gilchrest. And
again I want to emphasize that we have three groups that have a common
cause: those that are concerned about oil and national security, those
that are concerned about the excessive use of fossil fuels and the
climate change that may very well result from that, and those of us,
and I am with all of those groups actually, but I am particularly
concerned about the fact that we may muddle through the national
security thing and somehow God may save us from the global warming, but
nothing is going to save us if there really is a limited supply of oil.
So, I am very pleased to be joined by my colleague, and I join all of
those in these three camps. We really do have common cause. Please join
and help us do the right thing.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Lampson (at the request of Mr. Hoyer) for today.
Mr. Royce (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today on account of
illness.
____________________
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. McDermott) to revise
and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Emanuel, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. George Miller of California, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. McCarthy of New York, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. McDermott, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Spratt, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Paul) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Tiahrt, for 5 minutes, today and February 7.
Mr. Gingrey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 5 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 7, 2007,
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:
510. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Copies of
international agreements, other than treaties, entered into
by the United States, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
511. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Copies of
international agreements, other than treaties, entered into
by the United States, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
512. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting a report including matters relating to
the interdiction of aircraft engaged in illicit drug
trafficking, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2291-4; (H. Doc. No. 110-
12); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be
printed.
513. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of
Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 16-677, ``D.C.
Housing Authority Rent Supplement Temporary Amendment Act of
2007,'' pursuant to D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
514. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of
Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 16-676, ``School
Without Walls Development Project Temporary Amendment Act of
2007,'' pursuant to D.C. Code section 1-233(c)(1); to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
515. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of
Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 16-674, ``National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People Grant
Authority Temporary Act of 2007,'' pursuant to D.C. Code
section 1-233(c)(1); to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
516. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of
Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 16-675, ``Fiscal
Year 2007 Operating Cash Reserve and Revised Revenue December
Allocation Temporary Act of 2007,'' pursuant to D.C. Code
section 1-233(c)(1); to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
517. A letter from the Deputy Archivist, National Archives
and Records Administration, transmitting the Administration's
final rule -- Use of NARA Facilities [NARA-06-0005] (RIN:
3095-AB55) received December 21,
[[Page 3198]]
2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
518. A letter from the Director, Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight, transmitting pursuant to the
requirements of Section 4 of the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993, the Office's annual Performance and
Accountability Report for FY 2006; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
519. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel
Management, transmitting the Office's final rule --
Implementation of Title II of the Notification and Federal
Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 --
Reporting & Best Practices (RIN: 3206-AK55) received December
22, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform.
520. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel
Management, transmitting the Office's final rule -- Awards
(RIN: 3206-AL06) received January 9, 2007, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
521. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Amendment [USCG-2001-
10881] (RIN: 1625-AA36) received January 29, 2007, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
522. A letter from the Secretary, Department of
Transportation, transmitting a report entitled, ``Fundamental
Properties of Asphalts and Modified Asphalts-II'' submitted
in accordance with Section 6016(e) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Pub. L. 102-
240, and Section 5117(b)(5) of the Transportation Equity Act
of the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the extension of those
provisions through FY 2006; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
523. A letter from the American Legion, transmitting the
financial statement and independent audit of The American
Legion proceedings of the 88th annual National Convention of
the American Legion, held in Salt Lake City, Utah from August
25-31, 2006 and a report on the Organization's activities for
the year preceding the Convention, pursuant to 36 U.S.C. 49;
(H. Doc. No. 110-10); to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
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. LEWIS of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. Paul, and
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky):
H.R. 833. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to exclude from gross income interest received on loans
secured by agricultural real estate and rural housing; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WELLER:
H.R. 834. A bill to provide permanent relief from the
marriage penalty under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. ABERCROMBIE (for himself, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Frank
of Massachusetts, and Ms. Waters):
H.R. 835. A bill to reauthorize the programs of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development for housing
assistance for Native Hawaiians; to the Committee on
Financial Services.
By Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. Forbes, Mr.
Gallegly, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of
California, Mr. Coble, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr.
Goodlatte, and Mr. Pence):
H.R. 836. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
better assure cyber-security, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. Forbes, Mr.
Gallegly, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Daniel E.
Lungren of California, Mr. Franks of Arizona, and Mr.
Pence):
H.R. 837. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
protect youth from exploitation by adults using the Internet,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BISHOP of Utah (for himself and Mr. Cannon):
H.R. 838. A bill to provide for the conveyance of the
Bureau of Land Management parcels known as the White Acre and
Gambel Oak properties and related real property to Park City,
Utah, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Mr. BISHOP of Utah:
H.R. 839. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to study the feasibility of enlarging the Arthur V. Watkins
Dam Weber Basin Project, Utah, to provide additional water
for the Weber Basin Project to fulfill the purposes for which
that project was authorized; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Ms. CARSON (for herself, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Ms.
Lee, and Mr. Renzi):
H.R. 840. A bill to amend the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act to consolidate the housing assistance programs
for homeless persons under title IV of such Act, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Ms. FOXX:
H.R. 841. A bill to amend the Federal charter of the
Military Order of the Purple Heart of the United States of
America, Incorporated, to authorize the corporation to extend
eligibility for associate membership in the corporation to
the spouse and siblings of a recipient of the Purple Heart;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. NORWOOD:
H.R. 842. A bill to provide for enhanced Federal, State,
and local assistance in the enforcement of the immigration
laws, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, to
authorize appropriations to carry out the State Criminal
Alien Assistance Program, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BILIRAKIS:
H.R. 843. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide to employers a tax credit for compensation paid
during the period employees are performing service as members
of the Ready Reserve or the National Guard; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BILIRAKIS:
H.R. 844. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide a tax credit to employers for the value of the
service not performed during the period employees are
performing service as members of the Ready Reserve or the
National Guard; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CHABOT (for himself, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr.
Gallegly, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California, Mr.
Franks of Arizona, and Mr. Pence):
H.R. 845. A bill to improve and consolidate the law
relating to restitution in criminal cases; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Mr. CHABOT (for himself, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr.
Gallegly, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California, Mr.
Coble, Mr. Franks of Arizona, and Mr. Pence):
H.R. 846. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code,
with respect to fraud in connection with major disaster or
emergency funds; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. COOPER:
H.R. 847. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to require that amounts paid for employer-provided coverage
under accident or health plans be included on W-2 Forms; to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. FORTUNO:
H.R. 848. A bill to amend the State Department Basic
Authorities Act of 1956 to authorize assistance to combat
HIV/AIDS in certain countries of the Caribbean region; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. GALLEGLY:
H.R. 849. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to require the Secretary of the Treasury to notify the
Secretary of Homeland Security of employer returns showing
the employment of individuals not authorized to be employed
in the United States and to notify the employers that they
must terminate the employment of those employees, to provide
an opportunity for those employees to contest the
information, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways
and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Education and
Labor, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. GALLEGLY:
H.R. 850. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to establish a procedure for determining whether individuals
who are not authorized to be employed in the United States
are so employed; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
addition to the Committees on Education and Labor, and the
Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. GOHMERT (for himself, Mr. Smith of Texas, and
Mr. Franks of Arizona):
H.R. 851. A bill to modify the law with respect to the
death penalty, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mr. INSLEE (for himself and Mrs. Blackburn):
H.R. 852. A bill to prohibit the obtaining of customer
information from telecommunications carriers by false
pretenses, and the sale or disclosure of such records
obtained by false pretenses; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Mr. KNOLLENBERG:
H.R. 853. A bill to promote preventive health care for
Americans; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. LARSON of Connecticut (for himself, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Ms. DeLauro, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Hastings of
Florida, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Conyers, Mr.
Nadler, Mr.
[[Page 3199]]
Berman, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr.
Capuano, Mr. Kucinich, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Lee, Mr.
Wexler, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Castor, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of
California, Ms. Watson, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Spratt, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Fattah, Mr.
Cummings, Mr. Engel, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms.
Shea-Porter, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Stark, Mr. Cleaver,
Mr. Cohen, Mr. Baca, and Mr. Ellison):
H.R. 854. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to award grants to eligible entities to
prevent or alleviate the effects of youth violence in
eligible urban communities by providing violence-prevention
education, mentoring, counseling, and mental health services
to children and adolescents in such communities; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committee on Education and Labor, 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. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California (for himself,
Mr. Coble, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Gallegly, Mrs. Drake, Mr.
Miller of Florida, Mr. Herger, Mr. Gingrey, Mr.
Fossella, Mr. McKeon, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of
Florida, Mr. McCarthy of California, Mr. Sessions,
Mr. Poe, Mr. McCotter, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Pence, Mr.
Smith of Texas, and Mr. Franks of Arizona):
H.R. 855. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
improve the criminal law relating to terrorism, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Mrs. Capps,
and Ms. Clarke):
H.R. 856. A bill to honor Susan B. Anthony by celebrating
her legacy on the third Monday in February; to the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. McNULTY:
H.R. 857. A bill to clarify the rules of origin for certain
textile and apparel products; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. MELANCON (for himself, Mr. Baker, Mr. McCrery,
Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Alexander, and Mr.
Jindal):
H.R. 858. A bill to amend the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Hurricane Recovery, 2006 to authorize the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to provide additional assistance to State
and local governments for utility costs resulting from the
provision of temporary housing units to evacuees from
Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. SALAZAR:
H.R. 859. A bill to establish the Sangre de Cristo National
Heritage Area in the State of Colorado, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Ms. SOLIS:
H.R. 860. A bill to designate certain public land as
wilderness and certain rivers as wild and scenic rivers in
the State of California, to designate Salmon Restoration
Areas, to establish the Sacramento River National Recreation
Area and Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. Boucher):
H.R. 861. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide a national standard in accordance with which
nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the
State; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. STUPAK:
H.R. 862. A bill to provide for the return of the Fresnel
Lens to the lantern room atop Presque Isle Light Station
Lighthouse, Michigan, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi:
H.R. 863. A bill to improve communications interoperability
for emergency response; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland
Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. TOWNS (for himself and Mr. Upton):
H.R. 864. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to provide for reimbursement of certified
midwife services and to provide for more equitable
reimbursement rates for certified nurse-midwife services; to
the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska:
H.R. 865. A bill to grant rights-of-way for electric
transmission lines over certain Native allotments in the
State of Alaska; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California (for himself,
Mr. Boustany, Mr. Cannon, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. King of
Iowa, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Rogers
of Alabama, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Calvert,
Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Hunter, Mr. McCotter, Mr.
Radanovich, and Mr. Bachus):
H.J. Res. 22. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. RANGEL:
H. Con. Res. 56. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress that Arthur Schomburg should be recognized for
his leadership and contributions in documenting, recording,
and researching the historical contributions to society of
peoples of African descent and for his efforts to combat
racial and ethnic discrimination in the United States; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. RANGEL:
H. Con. Res. 57. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
contributions of the New York Public Library's Schomburg
Center for Research in Black Culture in educating the people
of the United States about the African-American migration
experience, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. RANGEL:
H. Con. Res. 58. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress that Madame C. J. Walker should be recognized for
her achievements in business, her inventions, and her
commitment to the African-American community; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. RANGEL:
H. Con. Res. 59. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress that Zora Neale Hurston should be recognized for
her achievements as a novelist and anthropologist, and for
her contributions to the Harlem Renaissance movement; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mrs. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Mr. Fossella,
Mr. Engel, Mr. Towns, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Nadler, Mr.
Ackerman, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. McNulty, Mr.
Dent, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Shays, and Mr. Israel):
H. Res. 128. A resolution urging the Department of Health
and Human Services to prepare a long-term, comprehensive plan
to medically monitor all individuals who were exposed to the
toxins of Ground Zero following the terrorist attacks of 9/11
and to treat all those sick or injured; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. HOYER:
H. Res. 129. A resolution electing officers of the House of
Representatives; considered and agreed to.
By Ms. CARSON (for herself, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr.
Visclosky, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Souder, Mr. Buyer, Mr.
Pence, Mr. Ellsworth, and Mr. Hill):
H. Res. 130. A resolution congratulating the National
Football League champion Indianapolis Colts for winning Super
Bowl XLI and for bringing the City of Indianapolis and the
State of Indiana their first Lombardi Trophy; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. MEEK of Florida (for himself, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart of Florida, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida,
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr.
Mack, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Hastings
of Florida, Mr. Mica, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Putnam, Mr.
Keller, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Klein of
Florida, Mr. Buchanan, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida,
Mr. Mahoney of Florida, Mr. Boyd of Florida, Ms.
Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, and Ms. Castor):
H. Res. 131. A resolution recognizing and honoring the
lifetime contributions of Rafael Jose Diaz-Balart on the
dedication of the Rafael Diaz-Balart Hall at the Florida
International University College of Law; to the Committee on
Education and Labor.
By Mr. RANGEL:
H. Res. 132. A resolution recognizing and honoring the life
and achievements of Constance Baker Motley, a judge for the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
MEMORIALS
Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:
5. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the House of
Representatives of the State of Michigan, relative to House
Resolution No. 248 memorializing the Congress of the United
States to enact legislation to amend the definition of
``Physician'' in the Medicaid program to include Podiatric
Physicians; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the
State of Michigan, relative to House Resolution No. 288
memorializing the Congress of the United States to increase
funding to dredge Michigan's Deep-Draft Great Lakes Ports and
Waterways; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
[[Page 3200]]
7. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the
State of Michigan, relative to House Resolution No. 313
memorializing the Congress of the United States to approve
full federal funding for the barriers designed to protect the
Great Lakes from Asian Carp; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
8. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the
State of Michigan, relative to House Resolution No. 266
memorializing the Congress of the United States to enact the
Hearing Aid Assistance Tax Credit Act; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 25: Mr. Hall of Texas and Mr. Lewis of California.
H.R. 26: Mr. Wamp and Mr. Campbell of California.
H.R. 73: Mr. Sessions, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Wicker, and Mr.
Simpson.
H.R. 82: Mr. Baird, Mr. Boustany, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of
Florida, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Lewis of
Kentucky, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. Miller of
Florida, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Ms. Pryce of
Ohio, Mr. Thompson of California, and Mr. Tiberi.
H.R. 137: Mr. Ellison, Mr. Hall of New York, Mr.
Perlmutter, Mr. Wilson of Ohio, Mr. Space, Mr. Klein of
Florida, Mr. Kagen, Ms. DeGette, Ms. Giffords, Mr. Sestak,
Mr. Sarbanes, and Ms. Castor.
H.R. 156: Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Altmire, Ms. Jackson-
Lee of Texas, and Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 177: Mr. Meeks of New York.
H.R. 180: Mr. Israel, Mr. Olver, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin,
Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Price of North Carolina, and Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 184: Mr. Bonner.
H.R. 196: Mr. Jindal and Mr. Altmire.
H.R. 197: Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Cleaver,
Mr. Moran of Virginia, and Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of
Pennsylvania.
H.R. 211: Mr. LaTourette and Mr. McCarthy of California.
H.R. 224: Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Sam Johnson of
Texas, and Mr. Pence.
H.R. 225: Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Feeney,
Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Marshall, Mr.
Neugebauer, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. King
of Iowa, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Norwood, and Mr. Souder.
H.R. 232: Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
H.R. 270: Mrs. Drake.
H.R. 273: Mr. Paul.
H.R. 303: Mr. Allen, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Space, and Mr.
Oberstar.
H.R. 327: Mr. Markey, Mr. Kildee, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Van
Hollen, Mr. Altmire, and Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 353: Mr. Gutierrez.
H.R. 369: Mr. Payne and Mr. Hare.
H.R. 395: Mr. Moran of Virginia and Mr. Gillmor.
H.R. 400: Mr. McGovern, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms.
Schakowsky, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Etheridge, Ms. Corrine Brown of
Florida, Mr. Fattah, Ms. Velazquez, and Ms. Hirono.
H.R. 418: Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Poe, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Cole of
Oklahoma, Mr. Faleomavaega, and Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.R. 458: Mr. Cummings and Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 460: Mr. Payne and Mr. Clay.
H.R. 464: Ms. Castor and Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 468: Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 473: Mr. Fortenberry and Mr. Gerlach.
H.R. 493: Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Cummings,
and Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 500: Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. English of
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Flake.
H.R. 512: Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Jefferson, Ms. Watson, Ms.
Slaughter, Mrs. Davis of California, Ms. Bordallo, Mr.
English of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Walsh of New York.
H.R. 524: Mr. Lipinski, Mr. McNerney, Ms. Kilpatrick, and
Ms. Bordallo.
H.R. 526: Mr. Gordon and Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 544: Mr. Baca.
H.R. 545: Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Smith
of Washington, Mr. Ramstad, and Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.R. 549: Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. Walz of Minnesota, Mr.
Moore of Kansas, Mr. Reichert, and Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.
H.R. 556: Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. Miller of
North Carolina.
H.R. 566: Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 567: Ms. Shea-Porter and Mr. Rehberg.
H.R. 569: Mr. Saxton, Mr. Kagen, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Michaud,
Ms. Shea-Porter, Ms. Schakowsky, and Mr. Lynch.
H.R. 579: Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mrs. Capito, Mr.
Gutierrez, and Mr. Rogers of Alabama.
H.R. 582: Mr. Hare.
H.R. 584: Mr. Rahall, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Pastor,
Mr. Altmire, Mr. Serrano, and Mr. Moore of Kansas.
H.R. 590: Mr. Terry.
H.R. 592: Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Burton of Indiana, Mrs. Napolitano, and Mrs. Capps.
H.R. 594: Mr. McHugh.
H.R. 607: Mr. Saxton.
H.R. 620: Mr. Hall of New York, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Conyers,
Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Lynch,
Mr. Delahunt, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Pallone, Ms. Velazquez,
Mr. Wexler, Mr. Wynn, and Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 621: Mr. McHugh, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Israel, and Mr.
Westmoreland.
H.R. 622: Mr. Meek of Florida and Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 623: Mr. Wynn, Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Serrano.
H.R. 624: Mr. Clay, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Filner, Mr. Grijalva,
Mr. McGovern, and Mr. George Miller of California.
H.R. 631: Mr. McCaul of Texas and Mr. Shadegg.
H.R. 645: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 654: Mr. Paul, Ms. Lee, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr.
Shays, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. McDermott, Ms.
Schakowsky, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Meeks of New York,
Mr. Farr, Mr. Filner, Mr. Serrano, and Mr. Thompson of
California.
H.R. 657: Mr. McIntyre.
H.R. 659: Mr. Dent, Mr. Shays, Mr. David Davis of
Tennessee, Mr. Cuellar, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Zoe
Lofgren of California, and Mr. Souder.
H.R. 664: Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 667: Mr. Hunter, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Stark, and Mr.
Everett.
H.R. 676: Mr. Rush.
H.R. 678: Mr. Kennedy.
H.R. 692: Mr. Fattah and Mr. Towns.
H.R. 695: Mr. Yarmuth and Mr. Pascrell.
H.R. 698: Mr. Boren, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr.
Boswell, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr.
Jordan, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Wilson of Ohio, Mr. Etheridge, and
Mr. Oberstar.
H.R. 699: Mr. Terry and Mr. Hoekstra.
H.R. 700: Mr. Kagen.
H.R. 711: Mr. Blumenauer, Mrs. Drake, Ms. Corrine Brown of
Florida, and Mr. Gingrey.
H.R. 714: Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H.R. 720: Mr. Kagen, Mr. Costello, Ms. Matsui, Mr.
Mitchell, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr.
DeFazio, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Gallegly, and Mr.
Arcuri.
H.R. 721: Mr. Royce, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California,
Mr. Boren, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Ms.
Berkley, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Smith of
Texas, Mr. Herger, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. McIntyre, Mr.
Pickering, Mr. Wu, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Everett, Mr. Renzi, Mr.
Graves, Mr. McCaul of Texas, and Mr. Lucas.
H.R. 724: Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 725: Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 758: Mrs. Boyda of Kansas.
H.R. 759: Ms. Watson and Mr. Serrano.
H.R. 768: Mr. Bonner and Mr. Forbes.
H.R. 769: Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Regula,
and Mrs. Miller of Michigan.
H.R. 780: Ms. Shea-Porter and Mr. Shimkus.
H.R. 782: Mr. LaTourette, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Marshall,
Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Burton of Indiana, and Mr.
Wilson of Ohio.
H.R. 787: Mr. Hare.
H.R. 800: Mr. Snyder.
H.R. 811: Ms. Bean, Mr. Hare, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Tim Murphy
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Levin, and Ms. Castor.
H.R. 819: Mr. Ellison, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Ms.
Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr.
Ruppersberger, and Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 820: Mr. Pickering.
H.J. Res. 3: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, and Mr.
Johnson of Georgia.
H.J. Res. 14: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Allen, Mr. Capuano, Mr.
Boswell, and Ms. Schakowsky.
H.J. Res. 18: Mr. Hall of New York.
H. Con. Res. 26: Mr. Baca.
H. Con. Res. 27: Mr. Nadler, and Mr. Neal of Massachusetts.
H. Con. Res. 39: Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Waxman, Mr.
Crowley, Ms. Lee, Mr. Baca, Mr. Moore of Kansas, and Mrs.
Jones of Ohio.
H. Con. Res. 46: Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr.
Gutierrez, Ms. Baldwin, and Ms. Hirono.
H. Res. 25: Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Holt, Mr. Israel, Ms.
Schakowsky, Ms. Berkley, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr.
Gutierrez, and Mr. Wexler.
H. Res. 55: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Van
Hollen, Mr. Al Green of Texas, and Mr. McDermott.
H. Res. 71: Ms. Schakowsky.
H. Res. 72: Mr. Young of Florida, Ms. Shea-Porter, and Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H. Res. 87: Mr. Hare, Mrs. Drake, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mrs.
Myrick.
H. Res. 97: Mr. Baird, Mr. Hare, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Welch of
Vermont, Ms. Castor, Ms. Schwartz, Mrs. Boyda of Kansas, Mr.
Miller of North Carolina, and Mr. Hodes.
H. Res. 100: Mrs. Davis of California, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr.
Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Shays, Mr. Baca,
Ms. Watson, and Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California.
H. Res. 119: Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Gordon, Mr.
Young of Alaska, Mr. Lynch, and Mr. Hare.
[[Page 3201]]
SENATE--Tuesday, February 6, 2007
The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Jon Tester, a Senator from the State of Montana.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Gracious God, who reveals Yourself gloriously in the rising and
setting Sun, make us good stewards of Your blessings. Give us
opportunities to help solve the problems in our world by using our
minds to produce creative solutions.
Inspire our Senators. As they abide in Your presence, make them
receptive to Your guidance. Fill their minds with insight and wisdom,
their hearts with resiliency and courage, and their bodies with vigor
and vitality. Today, give them the grace to think not of what they can
get but of what they can give. Empower them to practice conciliation
without compromise. Place Your arms of protection around them and their
loved ones.
We pray in Your all-powerful Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Jon Tester 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. Byrd).
The assistant legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, February 6, 2007.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Jon Tester, a Senator from the State of Montana, to perform
the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.
Mr. TESTER thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in morning
business. During the period of morning business, the first 30 minutes
will be controlled by the majority, with Senators Leahy, Mikulski, and
Kennedy each controlling 10 minutes. The next 30 minutes will be
controlled by the Republicans. Following that division, the remaining
time until 12:30 will be equally divided and controlled between the
minority and the majority.
The Senate will be in recess this Tuesday, today, for a longer period
of time than normal, from 12:30 to 3:30. The recess is longer because
we have a 2:30 p.m. briefing in room 407 on the National Intelligence
report we just received.
Order of Procedure
I ask unanimous consent that the time from 3:30 to 6:30 today also be
equally divided and controlled between the majority and minority.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators
permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the first
half hour under the control of the majority and the next half hour
under the control of the minority.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
____________________
IRAQ FUNDING
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, at this time there is no more important
issue facing our country than the mission and the fate of the American
service men and women in Iraq. This means, of course, that the men and
women of this body have no higher duty than to express ourselves openly
and honestly on this issue--to take a stand on where we stand.
The only truly meaningful tool the Framers gave us to do this was our
ability to fund or to not fund a war. That is it. And this is what
Republicans are insisting upon: that the Members of this body express
themselves on the question of whether to fund or not fund the war in
Iraq.
By blocking a vote on the Gregg funding resolution, our good friends
on the other side are blocking a vote on this most essential question--
the only question that ultimately matters. Do we oppose this war to the
point of action or do we simply want to make a point?
Our colleagues say they want progress in Iraq, but by blocking a vote
on the McCain benchmarks resolution, they are blocking a vote that
would actually set concrete goals.
So let's be very clear about what happened last night. Our colleagues
on the other side do not want to vote on whether troops should be
funded--period. There is no more critical question at this moment. We
have the duty to take it up, and we will continue to fight for that
right.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
IRAQ ESCALATION
Mr. REID. The issue before the American people that relates to Iraq
is the surge--the escalation of the war in Iraq. That is the debate
that should be before this body, and last night that was prevented. An
up-or-down vote on McCain, who is supporting the surge, or a vote in
opposition to the surge, the escalation sponsored by Warner and Levin--
that is the issue before this body today.
This is a diversion. This is a diversion. We finished the Super Bowl.
This is a trick play by the Republicans. The real issue before this
body is surge or no surge, escalation or no escalation. That is the
debate the American people deserve.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont is
recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.
[[Page 3202]]
I heard what the distinguished majority leader said. I agree with
him. The Senate, as I have often said, should be the conscience of the
Nation. There are only 100 of us to represent 300 million people.
Americans expect us to speak up on the war. Americans expect us to vote
on the war. Americans expect us to vote on the issue of the surge.
Now, I understand some Senators will support the surge, some will
oppose it, but allow us to have those votes. Allow us to express the
conscience of this Nation.
I ask unanimous consent that a column by E.J. Dionne entitled ``The
War To Save The Surge'' from today's Washington Post be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washingtonpost.com, Feb. 6, 2007]
The War To Save the Surge
(By E. J. Dionne, Jr.)
When political opponents tell you that to prove your
seriousness you need to pursue a strategy they know is doomed
to failure, shouldn't you be skeptical of their advice?
As the Senate considers a resolution to put itself on
record opposing President Bush's escalation of the Iraq war
through a ``surge'' of troops, Bush's backers are saying one
thing and doing another.
They are saying that the resolution is meaningless and that
true opponents of the war should prove their sincerity by
cutting off funding altogether. But they are doing all they
can to keep the Senate from even voting on a bipartisan anti-
surge resolution that would send a powerful message to Bush
that most Americans have lost faith in his bungled war
policy.
If you doubt that the war's supporters would love its
opponents to put all their eggs in the fund-cutoff basket,
consider what it means for them to sound as if the
administration's only serious foes were the likes of Dennis
Kucinich and Cindy Sheehan.
``I don't think these resolutions, nonbinding resolutions,
are going to accomplish anything,'' Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas
Republican and a Bush loyalist, told Gwen Ifill on PBS's
``NewsHour'' last week. ``If we really had the courage of our
convictions,'' Cornyn said, the ``we'' referring to the war's
opponents, ``if people said, `You know what? This is an
immoral task we've asked our troops to do because we don't
believe in the mission, we think they're going to fail.' They
ought to cut off funds. But to have this sort of--this debate
without any real consequence, I just don't think is the best
use of our time.''
So Cornyn wants to block a vote on a supposedly unimportant
anti-surge resolution, but he would be happy to entertain a
debate on a funding cutoff. Does that not send a message to
the war's critics?
And it's not just Cornyn. It is now a standard talking
point for supporters of this war, from the editorial pages of
the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard to Vice
President Cheney himself, to try to block any statement by
Congress of its views, except through a vote to block funds
for Iraq.
``The Congress has control over the purse strings,'' said
Cheney, who on most other occasions insists upon the
executive's supremacy over Congress. In an interview with
CNN's Wolf Blitzer last month, Cheney added: ``They have the
right, obviously, if they want to cut off funding, but in
terms of this effort the president has made his decision. . .
. We'll continue to consult with the Congress. But the fact
of the matter is, we need to get the job done.''
In other words: Even if a substantial majority of Congress
that includes many Republicans demonstrates a lack of
confidence in the Bush-Cheney surge, the administration will
feel free to ignore the other elected branch of our
government--and the more recently elected branch (remember
November, anyone?) at that.
Oh, and if an anti-surge resolution were trivial, why would
William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and one of the
war's most passionate advocates, devote a long and angry
editorial in the latest issue of his magazine to attacking
Sen. John Warner (Va.) and other Republicans as
``ignominious'' for their support of an anti-surge measure?
Kristol knows that every Republican vote against escalation
carries special weight in speeding this war to an end. So
does the Senate's Republican leadership, which used a
procedural vote yesterday evening to impede the majority's
will on the surge.
Supporters of Bush's war policy would love a vote on a full
funding cutoff right now because they know that, at this
moment, they could win it. They would love responsibility for
the failures in Iraq to fall not on an administration that
planned its policy so badly and carried it out so
incompetently. Far better for them to heap blame on the war's
opponents for ``losing faith.''
And they know, as the war's opponents should, that in a
democracy whose constitution accords so much power to the
president, turning around even a failed war policy takes
time, persuasion, organizing, legislative strategizing and
pressure.
The impatience of the administration's critics is entirely
understandable. But it would be a shame if impatience got in
the way of a sensible long-term strategy to bring America's
engagement in this war to as decent an end as possible as
quickly as possible--even if not as quickly as they'd like.
The anti-surge resolution is a necessary first step, which is
why those who are against a genuine change in our Iraq policy
are fighting so hard to stop it.
(The remarks of Mr. Leahy pertaining to the introduction of S. 495
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Resolutions.'')
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
____________________
IRAQ
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, to my colleagues, my constituents, and
the American people, I rise today to absolutely say without any
equivocation that I do support the Warner-Biden-Levin resolution on
Iraq opposing the escalation of our troops. I also stand in the Senate
to say: We were robbed! We were robbed of our ability to be able to
vote on this resolution!
The American people, on November 7, sent a message to Congress and to
the President of the United States: Change the tone in Washington,
change the direction in Iraq, and change the priorities of this Nation.
We, on this side of the aisle, got the message. The other side does not
seem to have. This parliamentary maneuver to block a vote on the
Warner-Biden-Levin resolution, to allow us to vote up or down on
approving the escalation, shows that it is the same old tone. Please,
let's give the process a chance.
Second, it also robs us of the ability to begin to express our vocal
support for changing the direction.
This bipartisan resolution is a first step. It is not going to be the
last word in bringing our troops home safely and swiftly. The Warner-
Biden-Levin resolution affirms clearly and unequivocally a commitment
to our men and women in uniform: Congress will not abandon you while
you are in Iraq and when you come home. We stand by our troops.
However, this resolution says ``no'' to the President's reckless plan
to escalate troop presence in Iraq. The bipartisan resolution insists
that the Iraqi Government stand up for its own people to provide
security, services, and an agreement on oil revenue sharing.
I am not new to this position. I never wanted to go to war in the
first place. I was 1 of the 23 who voted against this war on October
11, 2002--4 years ago. I will never forget it. I didn't believe the
administration's arguments then, and I don't believe them now. I
opposed giving the President unilateral authority to launch a
preemptive attack. I said the United States had to exhaust its
diplomatic options. I encouraged the administration to stick with the
U.N., to let the U.N. meet its responsibility to deal with the Saddam
threat. I said we should not go on our own.
The day of the vote, I was so filled with apprehension about the
course of the war, about the course we were embarking on, I said in
this Senate that we don't know whether our troops will be greeted with
flowers or landmines. Well, now we know. That mission did not get
accomplished. I called the 72 families in Maryland who gave their lives
and made the ultimate sacrifice. I know what is going on out there with
the families. I also know when we got to Iraq there were no weapons of
mass destruction, but the destruction happened, and it happened fast.
No one can ask more of our troops. They are brave. They are
courageous. They have fought valiantly. But after 4 years of fighting,
where are we in Iraq? Well, the United States, went to war with Iraq,
but right now we are at war within Iraq. Saddam is gone, but we are
still there. And we are mired in a civil war between different ethnic
and sectarian groups.
I have stated what I am against, but let me state what I am for. I am
for the Warner-Levin-Biden resolution. I salute the leadership who
produced it: John Warner, a decorated war hero,
[[Page 3203]]
former Secretary of the Navy, chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services when the Republicans were in control, a distinguished person,
and a man of great comity and civility--no one more compassionate about
America's security than John Warner; Joe Biden, chair of our Foreign
Relations Committee; Carl Levin, an expert on the Committee on Armed
Services and now the chairman. They put their heads together and they
came up with this resolution, and to a man--and this woman supports
them--the Senate opposes the President's plan because we think it is
reckless.
The bipartisan resolution says the objective of overall U.S. strategy
in Iraq should be to encourage Iraqi leaders to make political
compromises, to foster reconciliation, and strengthen the unity
government. This is what I consider essential.
The resolution says the primary objective of our military strategy
should be to maintain Iraq's territorial integrity--fancy words for
protecting the border; deny the terrorists a safe haven--yes, but they
weren't there in the first place; promote regional stability; promote
counterterrorism; train and equip the Iraqi forces. We have been doing
it for 3 years. Guess what? They have not been showing up! And the
other day when they were supposed to show up for a battle, 55 percent
of them showed up in Baghdad. Gates, our new Secretary of Defense,
said: Isn't this improvement? Last year, they didn't show up at all. It
is their war and they are not showing up. Why should we show up for
their war when they have a 50-percent attendance rate? What is wrong
with this thinking?
As much as possible, the current U.S. military operations should be
confined to these goals. We show up, they don't. Something is really
wrong with this picture.
The bipartisan resolution calls for the United States to engage the
nations in the Middle East to develop a regionally and internationally
sponsored peace and reconciliation process. That is what we should be
doing. The resolution says it should not be an open-ended commitment or
unconditional. Sure, there should be benchmarks, but benchmarks with
enforcement capability.
I do support this resolution because it makes clear to our men and
women in uniform that Congress will not abandon them. It explicitly
says that Congress should not take any action that will endanger U.S.
military forces in the field. Whether on the battlefield or on the
homefront, our troops deserve the best.
Also, the latest intelligence shows that Iraqi leadership has to make
difficult changes. The solution in Iraq requires a political solution
from the Iraqis--not military muscle--from the Americans.
There are parts of this resolution with which I don't agree. They
call it an augmentation; I call it escalation. I oppose the calls for
the vigorous operations at Anbar until there is greater clarification.
There is no doubt that al-Qaida is operating in Iraq. But when I voted
4 years ago, al-Qaida was not there; they were in Afghanistan. Why
didn't we stick with Afghanistan and really clean their clock? Now the
President wants to send more Marines to Anbar to fight al-Qaida when we
should have been in Afghanistan, catching Osama bin Laden.
We do need a way forward in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group gave us 79
recommendations as a way to go forward. Surely the President of the
United States could have found 50 for us to sit down at a table, talk,
and work together for the good of our country, the good of our troops,
and the good of peace in the Middle East. Seventy-nine recommendations
and they have all been cast aside. The Iraq Study Group calls for
diplomatic and political efforts, a change in their primary mission to
move our troops out of Iraq responsibly. They gave us a way forward
that they believe could have gotten our troops out by the first quarter
of 2008. Let's give those 79 recommendations at least a forum to be
debated and discussed and acted on.
Where do we go from here? I will tell you where I think we ought to
go. First of all, we ought to have a vote on the Warner-Biden-Levin
resolution. If they do not want to give us that, give us a vote on the
McCain resolution to vote to approve this escalation. One way or the
other, that is our constitutional duty.
The President says he does not need congressional consent to be able
to do this reckless escalation. But he sure does need congressional
advice. And my advice is, let's send in the diplomats before we send in
more troops. We need a robust diplomatic strategy to match our robust
military strategy. We need to make it clear that the Congress will not
abandon our troops in the field, and we will not abandon them when they
come home. Look at this President's budget; we are abandoning our
troops. This whole escalation--sure, they talk about money for the
21,000, but it takes another 20,000 to support them. They don't walk
their talk. They don't put the money in the budget.
Then we have our troops coming home. You look at the President's
budget on Veterans Affairs--not only have they lost the records, they
have lost their way at VA. We are not equipped to deal with Iraq and
Afghanistan veterans coming home. They have horrific, permanent wounds
of war, and we have a weak, unreliable funding system. You can't just
support the troops with yellow ribbons. You have to put the money
behind it. How about putting the money behind it when they come home?
They need us. And they need us not only with words; they need us with
deeds in the budget process. And I don't see it.
Now, we also need to make it clear to Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki
that he has to start to act. Speaking of showing up, I saw they could
not get a quorum in the Iraqi Parliament. Only 50 percent of the troops
show up, their own Parliament doesn't show up, but we show up with
21,000 more troops? The Prime Minister must meet benchmarks.
Let me conclude by saying that a great American military should not
be a substitute for a weak Iraqi Government. Neither Congress nor the
American people will abandon our troops, but the best way to support
our troops is not to send more in harm's way.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time for
Senator Kennedy be reserved.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
____________________
IRAQ
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I noted with some interest the headline in
today's Washington Post. It says ``GOP Stalls Debate on Troop
Increase.'' I must say, in light of the remarks of the Senator from
Maryland, obviously nobody has stalled the debate on troop increase or
anything else to do with the conflict in Iraq. In fact, I think that is
a positive thing because there isn't anything more important, in my
view, than debating this important issue and, as the Senator from
Maryland said, supporting our troops.
I do have profound disagreement, though, that these nonbinding
resolutions which have been offered do anything other than encourage
our enemy and undermine our troop morale.
I wonder why it is that so many are insistent that we proceed forward
on nonbinding resolutions when, in fact, we know what power the
Congress has when it comes to war. It is not to supplant the Commander
in Chief, it is not to have 535 micromanagers, but it is the power of
the purse. Yet it is the very amendment that Senator Gregg, the Senator
from New Hampshire, has offered that the majority leader has denied an
opportunity to debate and on which to have have an up-or-down vote.
That is what the vote yesterday was about. It is not to cut off debate;
it is to make sure the debate continues and that the varied positions
espoused by Members of the Senate are not only fully debated but that
there is an opportunity to vote on those positions.
At least two Members of the majority--Senator Dodd and Senator
Feingold--have made it clear that they believe the power of the purse
should be
[[Page 3204]]
exercised to cut off funding to support this new plan forward. While I
disagree with them, I do respect the fact that they actually intend to
vote for something that would make a difference in the outcome as
opposed to the nonbinding resolutions which have been offered by
Senator Levin and others.
I do not understand why it is the critics--the President's critics
and the critics of what is happening in Iraq--why they will not take
yes for an answer. Yes, as the Senator from Maryland said, on November
7, obviously, Iraq was on the minds of the American people. It is one
of the reasons why, frankly, the then majority is no longer the
majority.
There were critics on the other side of the aisle who said the
Secretary of Defense needed to be replaced. Now we have confirmed a new
Secretary of Defense, Secretary Robert Gates.
There are those who said: What we are doing in Iraq is not working,
so we need a new commander. And, indeed, we have confirmed,
unanimously, a new commander of Coalition Forces in Iraq.
There are those who said: We need a new plan in Iraq. And lo and
behold, the President announced a new plan after lengthy consultation.
I think there is a fair amount of revisionist history or selective
memory going on. For example, there are some who said the President did
not consider, in coming up with this new plan, the provisions of the
Iraq Study Group. Of course, this is a bipartisan group that made 79
different recommendations. But I would challenge the critics who say
the President ignored the Iraq Study Group report to look at page 73 of
that report, where they say, unanimously--a bipartisan group--they
could support a temporary surge of troops to secure Baghdad if it was
necessary.
Indeed, if you look at this new way forward, that is precisely what
it is, a temporary surge, supporting Iraqi troops to provide an
opportunity not only to clear but to hold Baghdad and then to build and
begin the political reconciliation process that is necessary for
stabilization.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying we do not
want to debate, when the truth is they are denying us a right to vote
on some of the key resolutions that define the nature of the debate in
this Congress.
We want a debate. We want a debate, but we want it to be a fair
debate. And we want it to be representative. We want to expand and
extend the debate so we can fully examine and discuss what is at stake
in this central front in the global war on terror. We want a full and
comprehensive debate and an opportunity to vote. Do they?
If our friends on the other side of the aisle are serious when they
say they do not want to block funding for our troops, then why are they
dodging an amendment offered by Senator Gregg that would allow them a
vote on that important issue?
Now, I disagree that we should ever cut off funds to support our
troops while they are in a time of war. But I think if you feel what is
happening in Iraq cannot be justified, if you feel we have already lost
and we are merely sending more troops into harm's way, with no chance
of accomplishing the mission, then I would say the only real vote that
matters would be one that would cut off the funds to allow that to
happen. That would be the moral decision to make. I simply disagree
with the judgment. I do not believe all is lost. I do believe this new
plan, this new commander, this new Secretary of Defense have a
reasonable chance of success.
Now, we all agree the consequences of failure in Iraq are not simply
something we can walk away from. The Iraq Study Group said that failure
in Iraq could result in a regional conflict, most likely ethnic
cleansing, where the sectarian violence would spiral out of control,
perhaps bringing in other countries to defend the various sectarian
parties to that conflict.
We know from sad experience what happened in Afghanistan after the
Soviet Union was defeated by the Afghan rebels, where the Taliban and
al-Qaida set up business in Afghanistan and used that as a place to
train and recruit and then to launch terrorist attacks against the
United States, such as what occurred on September 11, 2001.
Where is the plan of the critics of this new way forward in Iraq?
What is their plan to avoid a failed state in Iraq? Where is their plan
to avoid the kind of regional conflict and the humanitarian crisis that
will most likely occur if, in fact, we do not try to support this new
plan forward and bring stability to Iraq long enough to where the
Iraqis--which is their responsibility--can engage in the reconciliation
process and the political process necessary to stabilize that country,
which is in their best interest, which is in our best interest? Because
we know if things spiral out of control in Iraq, if we decide to
precipitously leave Iraq and it becomes a failed state or becomes a
killing field for ethnic cleansing, we will most likely have to return
at even greater loss of blood and treasure.
So I would ask the new majority, since the Senator from Maryland
mentioned the election of November 7, what is your plan? To criticize
may be OK if you are in the minority. But if you are the majority,
surely you have a responsibility to offer a constructive alternative.
It is not constructive to merely criticize the new plan that is going
to be executed by the new commander, unanimously confirmed by this
Congress, and a new Secretary of Defense.
I must say, with all due respect, it is not supporting our troops to
send them into harm's way if, in fact, our colleagues believe all is
lost and they cannot succeed. I do not believe that. But if, in fact,
they truly do believe that, then they should stand up and be willing to
vote on the only resolution that would have an outcome on that
determination. That is the Gregg amendment.
It is because we have been denied an opportunity to vote on that only
amendment that counts that this debate continues. It was not cut off
yesterday; merely a fair process was secured for those of us who think
that all views ought to be represented and we ought to have more than
one vote rather than be railroaded in this process.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, yesterday, by a vote of 49 to 47, a cloture
motion failed that would have essentially cut off a broader debate on
the big issue of the day; that is, how are we going to deal with the
situation in Iraq? I think the vote failed not because, as was reported
in some newspapers, Republicans did not want to debate the issue but,
rather, because we want a full debate on the issue.
The importance of this issue and the stakes associated with its
outcome warrant a full debate, not one restricted by one party in the
Senate. The full range of views on this issue deserves to be heard.
They deserve a voice in the Senate. The American people deserve that
debate. And surely, the Americans in uniform who are fighting and dying
deserve that debate in the Senate.
Saturday, I attended two welcome home ceremonies for National Guard
units. Both performed superbly in fighting the global war on terror.
The 114th Air Wing, a National Guard unit in Sioux Falls, SD, has been
deployed all over the planet. They have been in Afghanistan. They have
been in Iraq--16 different places since 2001, after the terrorist
attacks, in each case performing with distinction. They support an F-16
mission and have been utilized extensively. In fact, 72 percent, I
believe, of all the members of that unit have been deployed someplace
in the last 5 years, as we have been fighting this war on terror.
They and their families deserve a debate in the Senate about the
future of that mission they have been undertaking. There has been a lot
of debate around the country, a lot of debate in Washington about what
to do next. We have now before us a plan which is a change of strategy.
It incorporates more involvement by the Iraqi security forces in terms
of their military. Also, their political structures, their Government
has certain benchmarks it has to meet and economic requirements
[[Page 3205]]
they have to comply with regarding the division, distribution of oil
revenues--a whole range of things that have given us a new opportunity,
a new opening to get this right with the situation in Iraq.
I believe the families of those who have served and sacrificed
certainly deserve to have a full debate, not a restricted debate, in
the Senate, a full debate where the full range of views, the full range
of options that are held by the American people can be adequately
voiced.
I also attended a welcoming home ceremony for the 147th Field
Artillery, 1st Battalion, Charlie Battery, in Yankton, SD. This is a
unit which has contributed mightily to the war on terror and suffered
greatly. They have had four members of their unit who never came back,
killed by IEDs: SGT Richard Schild, SGT Daniel Cuka, SGT Allen Kokesh,
and SGT Greg Wagner--young Americans who will never be with their
families again.
Also, they had a young sergeant in their unit who has suffered
debilitating injuries, brain injuries that he continues to receive
intensive medical treatment for and perhaps will never be the same.
They had a young specialist, Brian Knigge from Plankinton, SD, who
suffered injuries from which he is still recovering.
They are a unit that has suffered greatly in this war on terror. Yet
there is a tremendous resilience and commitment and dedication to the
mission. The area in which they were involved was the training of Iraqi
security forces, specifically the Iraqi police, in the area of Baghdad,
which is why it was so very dangerous for them. And the IEDs that have
killed and seriously injured so many of our young American soldiers who
are serving in that region did four of their comrades in. And as I
said, a couple are very seriously injured.
They and their families who have sacrificed so greatly--and when I go
to these events, I, obviously, have opportunities to interact with the
families, with those whom these soldiers left behind. It is
heartbreaking to see the separation, the consequence, and the cost of
war. Yet at the same time, we have to realize when we get into a
conflict like this, it is not just about what we are doing today, it is
about securing a better, safer, more secure future for the next
generation of Americans.
That is why this debate is so important. Many have argued what is
happening today in the Middle East, in Iraq, is simply a regional
conflict or a conflict between different sects within Iraq. But,
frankly, we all know this--you do not have to be a rocket scientist to
see what happens when these terrorist organizations are left free to
prey in areas such as that, where there is not a lot of control and
security. They begin to use these places as sanctuaries and safe havens
to launch attacks against other places across the world, including the
United States.
It is important, in this global war on terror, that we understand
what the consequences and stakes of our failure are. I believe that is
why, when we have a debate, we need to have a debate that reflects the
full range of options and the full range of views that are available to
the Senate when it comes to the future of Iraq--again, the discussion
about consequences of failure, the discussion about plans going
forward.
Right now we have a plan in front of us. We have a strategy that has
been put forward by the President and his commanders in the region. We
have a new commander on the ground, General Petraeus. We have some new
troops heading into the area. There are changes in the rules of
engagement. This may be our last best shot, our last best hope of being
able to get this right.
We have engaged in this debate in the Senate which, again, in my
view, sends entirely the wrong signal, the wrong message to our troops
and to our enemies who interpret these messages that we send as a lack
of resolve, a lack of will to finish what we started. More importantly,
ultimately, the reason this has such great weight and gravity is that
the people who are the primary receivers of the messages we send are
the troops in the field. It is very difficult to say to those troops
who are day in and day out putting on the uniform of the United States,
performing a mission that we have asked them to do, which we have
pointed out has grave consequences not only for that immediate region
but for the entire free world--if you look at the arc of extremism that
branches from areas such as Afghanistan and al-Qaida to areas such as
some of the terrorist organizations in Lebanon, in the Palestinian
territories, all these terrorist organizations and attacks are
orchestrated by organizations that want to kill and destroy Americans.
We have a responsibility in the debate to make sure that when we are
putting young Americans in harm's way, we are allowing a debate to go
forward that examines the full range of views, the full range of
options that are available to the Senate. Frankly, the one that matters
the most, in terms of the options we have as a nation and as the
Senate, comes down to the issue of funding. Frankly, we don't have an
opportunity in this debate to talk about the real tool the Senate has
when it comes to this issue; that is, the issue of funding. We have
nonbinding resolutions. Everybody wants to debate nonbinding
resolutions. They are nonbinding, but they are not meaningless. They
send a message that we are not supportive of the mission our troops are
undertaking.
But if the Senate is serious about doing its work, and if there are
well-meaning and thoughtful people on the other side of the aisle who
want to have this debate, then we ought to get down to what real
options, what the real tools are at the disposal of the Senate when it
comes to having any kind of a role in what happens in the future of
Iraq. That is the issue of funding.
The leadership on the other side has said: We are not going to allow
you to have a debate that includes that option, that includes the other
options proposed, some from the other side that have talked about troop
caps, withdrawal timelines.
Ultimately, fundamentally, if the other side is serious, let's have a
debate about funding because that is the tool the Congress has at its
disposal. If that is not a part of the debate, we are not serious about
this debate or the range of options that ought to be heard and voiced
in the Senate.
I see I have other colleagues who want to speak on this issue.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe I have 10 minutes; is that
correct?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Chair remind me when there is a minute
remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, last evening the Republicans said no to an honest
debate about what is best for our troops in Iraq, our national
security, and for the American people. Our men and women in uniform
have done everything that we have asked them to do. They have served
with dignity, honor, and valor. They have served in Iraq longer than
American forces fought in World War II. It has been said by Republicans
and Democrats: This doesn't cry for a military solution, it cries for a
political solution and resolution. Still we have a President who is
relying on sending an additional 20,000 to 38,000 troops more to what
is effectively a civil war.
The cost in blood and treasure has been staggering. More than 3,000
Americans have been killed so far, including 64 from Massachusetts;
more than 23,000 have been wounded. In my home community, SGT Alexander
Fuller of Centerville, MA, was buried last week; Keith Callahan of
Woburn, MA--Woburn, MA, that had a higher percentage of soldiers killed
in Vietnam than any other community in our State. High school class
after high school class after high school class joined the U.S.
Marines. They were in the thick of the fighting with devastating
losses. Keith Callahan, in his fourth trip to Iraq, was killed just 10
days ago. The services in that community took place last week.
[[Page 3206]]
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, and millions have
fled their homes. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the
war already. Today the President is asking for hundreds of billions of
dollars more. President Bush insists on his policy of escalation, while
most of us in Congress are increasingly convinced that deescalation is
the only realistic strategy. The American people do not support further
escalation of this war. The legislation on which we seek an honest
debate is intended to make a record of who is on the side of the
American people and opposes sending tens of thousands more American
troops into this civil war.
Despite the clear result of the November election, our Republican
colleagues are not prepared to face the truth on Iraq. They are
determined to avoid a debate on the most important national security
issue of our time. They are willing to allow tens of thousands of more
young men and women to be dropped in the cauldron of a civil war.
The cost in precious American lives is reason enough to end this
mistaken and misguided war, but the cost at home came into full view
yesterday as we received the President's budget. This President's
budget devotes more than $200 billion to the war in Iraq. Where does
the money come from? It comes from the Children's Health Insurance
Program, as the President's budget underfunds the CHIP program by $8
billion. That program provides health care to low-income children. It
has had bipartisan support in the Senate and the House of
Representatives. It has made an extraordinary difference to the quality
of health of millions of children. There are millions of children who
are qualified for this program. But because the Federal Government
doesn't provide the help to the States, those children are not going to
get covered.
Make no mistake about it. We are taking those resources that ought to
be devoted to the CHIP program and sending them to Iraq. It comes from
our children's education, the No Child Left Behind Act, because this
budget underfunds the No Child Left Behind reforms by almost $15
billion. What are we saying? We are not going to get the well-trained
teachers that this legislation requires. We are not going to have the
adequacy of supplementary services to help those children in high
school. We are not going to move toward smaller class sizes. We are not
going to have an effective program to bring in parents. We are not
going to have the examination of these children to find out what they
need in terms of help in their classes. No, because we are shipping
billions of dollars to Iraq.
Twenty-three thousand children are in the streets of Philadelphia
today, having dropped out of school; 22,000 children have dropped out
of school in Cleveland, OH. It is happening all over the country. And
what are we doing? Sending away billions and billions of dollars that
ought to be there for prevention programs to stop those children from
dropping out of school, to help those children get back into school so
they will have useful and productive lives. They are the ones who are
paying for these wars.
As to seniors, our disabled citizens, the President cut $66 billion
from the Medicaid Program which is a lifeline to millions of retirees
and disabled children. I was there when President Johnson said: You
work hard, you pay into the Medicare Program, pay into those programs,
and we guarantee you that you are going to have the health care you
need for the rest of your life. That is a commitment that we made. Now
we are skimping on it. We didn't provide at that time a prescription
drug program. We provided one eventually that served more for the drug
industry and the HMOs than it did for the senior citizens. We are
cutting back on health care for our seniors and the disabled.
It comes from our workers who are looking for good jobs to support
their families because the President's budget slashes $1 billion from
programs that train Americans for jobs for the future. How many
speeches will we hear about competitiveness and the problems we are
facing in terms of the world economy, how we are going to have to
redouble our efforts in order to be competitive, to have the new
industries that will provide new jobs and new benefits and new
opportunities for our citizens. Every Member of this body will be
making that speech someplace in their State next week. We know that.
What are we doing?
In my State of Massachusetts, we have 275,000 people who are
unemployed, and we have 78,000 job vacancies. The only thing that is
lacking is training. We have 24 applications for every opening for
training. People want the training to get the skills to participate and
take care of their families. What does this President do? He cuts that
program. That is part of the cost.
People are asking back home--down in New Bedford and Fall River and
Lowell and Lawrence and Holyoke and Springfield--who is going to stand
up for us? It is not only the loss of their sons and daughters from
those communities, but they see that it is gutting the lifelines to
their communities, the children and the elderly, those who are the most
vulnerable in our society. They are paying the price. Read the
President's budget. Make no mistake about it. Who is paying the price?
They are paying the price, the neediest people in our society.
Then it comes from the poor who are struggling against the bitter
cold. It cuts 17 percent of the funding for the Low Income Energy
Assistance Program that helps low-income families heat their homes.
Maybe it is warm in certain parts of this country, but it is cold as
can be in many others. There are a lot of needy people in those cold
areas where there is a completely inadequate fuel assistance program
now. This administration has cut back on that program year after year
after year, and this year is no different, a 17-percent reduction.
Most of the elderly people, the needy people in my State, need to
have their oil tanks, if they are using home heating oil, filled three
times a year. This won't even let them get one tank of fuel assistance
in their homes over the year. The poor are paying a fearsome price.
They are seeing their funding diverted to these conflicts and the surge
in Iraq.
This is a war that never should have happened. It is a war that
should be brought to an end. Yet the administration is allowing it to
go on and on, mistake after mistake after mistake. This terrible war is
having an effect not only on our troops, who are paying the highest
price, but on our children, our elderly, our schools, our workers, and
the poorest of the poor here at home. Make no mistake about it. While
the President forges ahead with a surge in Iraq, the American people
need a surge at home. Americans see the cost of their health care and
the cost of college going up. What about a surge in our health and
education policy to help meet their needs? What about a surge in those
areas?
I have introduced legislation which would require the President to
get the authority he needs from Congress before moving forward with
further escalation in Iraq. I intend to seek a vote on it, unless the
President changes course. The debate is about what is best for our
troops and our national security. Our forces have served with great
valor. They have done everything they have been asked to do. Sending
more of them into a civil war will not make success any more likely. We
have a responsibility to vote on this issue before it is too late. The
American people deserve to know where the Republicans stand and where
the representatives in the Congress stand.
I look forward to that debate and a vote at the earliest possible
time.
I yield the floor.
____________________
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is
recognized.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, how much time does the minority have?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority has 8\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Colorado be
able to speak for 10 minutes following my remarks and the remarks of
Senator Coburn.
[[Page 3207]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
WORLDWIDE WAR ON TERROR
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise to speak about one of the most
important issues of our time: the worldwide war on terror.
I have to say I was disappointed to read in this morning's Roll Call
that many of my Democratic colleagues are using this debate for the
2008 elections rather than focusing on the real damage that the
resolution we have been discussing will do to our national security.
One of our greatest Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, once said, ``It
is not the critic who counts. The credit,'' he said, ``belongs to the
man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and
sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, who comes short again
and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming.
``The credit,'' Roosevelt said, belongs to the man ``who spends
himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph
of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails
while daring greatly.''
At this very moment, our Commander in Chief and those he commands are
daring greatly.
Our men and women in uniform are paying with blood, sweat, and tears.
Yet many in this body prefer to sit in the stands and offer criticism
rather than support.
For the past 50 years, the Middle East has been a cauldron of
brutality, war, and despair. The region's instability has threatened
the entire globe and reached our shores on 9/11 with a stark awakening.
This is why we are involved in the Middle East. The future security
of our homeland is tied directly to a successful outcome not only in
Iraq but in Afghanistan, Lebanon, the Palestinian territory, and a
number of Middle East countries that harbor evil men who foment hate
through a perverted version of Islam.
Yet as our efforts in Iraq encounter fierce resistance from a
determined and evil enemy, support for our efforts has waned here in
Congress. Instead, many of my colleagues prefer to support a nonbinding
resolution that would express disapproval of the President's plan to
reinforce our troops in Iraq.
Voting for this resolution is not leadership, it is criticism--
criticism without the courage of offering real solutions. While this
resolution may be toothless by force of law, its symbolism is
dangerous. Voting to condemn the President's plan is a vote of no
confidence in the mission we have told our troops to fight and die for.
But it is also a slap in the face to General Petraeus just days after
we voted unanimously to support his leadership of our troops in Iraq.
``Godspeed, General,'' was what one of my colleagues said before
introducing the very resolution that would undermine the general's
authority and his plan for victory.
This is not leadership. We were elected to make tough decisions and
that requires understanding our choices, selecting the best choice, and
then following through. But I am afraid the critics in this body do not
acknowledge the real choices before us. There are only three:
First, to continue the unworkable status quo; second, to admit defeat
and withdraw; third, to renew our strength until we win.
I respect my colleagues who disagree with the President's strategy in
Iraq, but only if they exercise leadership and support an alternative
solution, one that proposes a serious path to victory, or announces
defeat and ends our involvement immediately, not only in Iraq but
throughout the Middle East, because America will no longer have any
credibility to carry out our work in any part of the world.
If my colleagues do not support sending reinforcements to Iraq, they
should introduce legislation blocking that action. While I believe this
is shortsighted and wrong, it would at least be genuine leadership.
My hope is we will stop trying to second guess past decisions in
order to lay blame and instead remember we are locked in a struggle
much larger than Iraq. It is a struggle of security, hope, and freedom
versus hate, despair, and fear. The battlefield is the entire world.
We must understand the stakes and demonstrate real leadership. This
is not the President's war, it is freedom's war, and we all share the
responsibility for the outcome.
A century later, Teddy Roosevelt is still correct. The critic ``who
points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds
could have done them better'' is destined to be relegated to that
terrible place ``with those cold and timid souls who neither know
victory nor defeat.''
There is only one policy worthy of the blood and sweat of our troops:
a policy that completes our mission with dignity, honor, and victory.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the
floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is
recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have not come to the floor, except once,
in the 2 years I have been here to discuss the war in Iraq. I have been
to Iraq and had experience in Iraq as a medical missionary during the
first gulf war.
I am very much concerned as to how the world will read us. What we
know is that enemies try to defeat us not by trying to defeat us on the
battlefield or in Iraq; they try to defeat our will, try to defeat the
will of the American public.
Senator DeMint talked about leadership. Leadership is laying out the
real consequences of our action. What are those consequences? What
next? What is going to happen next? What is going to happen? We heard
this morning that we are trying to delay this resolution. We are not
trying to delay it. As a matter of fact, they are saying we would not
debate it. We are debating it right now. The fact is, we believe you
ought to have a resolution that says we support our troops in this
group of resolutions. Unless we get some semblance of saying we want to
send a signal to our troops that we support them, we should not have a
rule that precludes that.
So politics aside, and the next election aside, and the Presidential
election aside, what does it mean to the American people about what we
end up doing in Iraq? That is the question we should be asking. We
should be making sure that the mistake we do not make is to have an
ill-informed American public about what the consequences will be.
Regardless of whether we should be in Iraq, we are there. We cannot
change that. The question comes, what does the Iraq Study Group say?
They said we needed to secure Baghdad; they said we needed
reinforcements to be able to do that; they said we needed more funds to
make a difference in people's lives. These are the funds that go to the
generals to actually approve things.
Can we accomplish something in Iraq or do we walk away? Here is what
happens when we walk away. No. 1, there will be a genocide in Iraq. The
minority Sunni population will scatter out of Iraq, and those who don't
will be killed.
The northern Iraqis, the Kurds--what will happen to them? If we are
gone and full-blown civil war breaks out, what will happen to the
Kurds? This is a group of 36 million people who have not had a homeland
since the Ottoman Empire. Genocide was committed against them by
Saddam. What will happen to them? They will be seen as a risk to
Turkey. Turkey already has problems with its Kurdish population.
What will happen in Lebanon? Probably civil war.
What will happen in Jordan?
What will happen to the Sunni gulf states, as they now fear Iran and
its dominance?
This is a war Iran wants us to leave. Why? Because they want to
empower themselves to be the dominant force in the Middle East. We can
talk about all of the resolutions and how we disagree; that is
basically political posturing, and you can disagree. But as the Senator
from South Carolina said, unless
[[Page 3208]]
you put something into force of action, it is criticism, not
leadership. We need to calculate whatever we do in this body, based on
what the outcome of that calculation is going to be, not by giving
bellicose speeches that set up false choices that are not there. The
fact is we have an obligation to the very people--the innocent people--
in Iraq today.
We can walk away from that, but history will judge us harshly. The
estimates are there will be 5 million people displaced out of Iraq.
There will be between 700,000 and 1 million additional Iraqis who will
die. Do we not have an obligation to make that not happen? Do we not
have an obligation to do what is in the best long-term interests of
this country? Is it in our best interest for this country to get out of
Iraq? Is it? How does that fit with the war on terror and our ability
to conduct that war when we create in Iraq, by withdrawing, a new state
that is run by al-Qaida and by the Shia, which will in fact have the
funding to dominate in the international arena with terrorism and
hatefulness and murder and pillaging of innocent people?
It is not as simple as everybody here wants to make it seem. It
certainly should not be political. But that is where we are going. The
very comment that we cannot have a debate on supporting the policy,
that we will not allow a resolution that says we are going to support
our troops--why don't they want that? It is because that will get the
highest number of votes. That will become the story--not the story that
somebody postured in a position that is well-intended and well-meaning,
that they don't think a surge or a reinforcement in Iraq is correct.
America is at a crossroads. The crossroads is whether we will fulfill
and carry out the responsibilities, some of which we added to ourselves
by our very position, but whether we will fulfill that. We will be
judged by history.
To undermine many of the steps that the Iraq Study Group said, which
is in the President's plan, nobody knows if this will work, but I
guarantee it will not work if we send a signal to those who oppose us
that this is it. All they do is sit and wait. More of Iran's influence
and more dollars from Iran coming into Iraq--more to defeat us. If you
defeat the will of the American people--and, by doing that, that is our
problem--if we allow that to happen as leaders in this country, then we
will be responsible for that 5 million displacement, for those million
deaths, and the millions that will follow when you have a Middle East
dominated by Iran with a nuclear weapon.
We should think long and hard. The American people should not respond
just to the urge to get out of Iraq but respond to the well-thought-out
consequences of what happens next. And what happens next is a disaster,
not only for the people of Iraq, for the people of the Middle East, but
also for the national security of this country and our ability to carry
out our foreign policy in the future.
I earnestly pray that we will consider the actions here and the words
here in light of what comes next, not in terms of politics but what
happens to our country.
Denying the heritage we have of sacrifice for freedom and liberty and
denying that it costs something and walking away from that, we will
reap that which we sow as we walk away from it. Caution to us as we do
that.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 12:30 p.m. shall be divided between the majority and the
minority.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, this is a disappointing day for the
Senate and for the United States of America because the debate we
should be having on this floor, which is taking place around procedural
issues, should really be a debate about what is happening in Iraq and
the new direction we should be heading in Iraq.
It is disappointing as well that it has been postured somehow as a
political debate from the other side. The fact is that what happens in
Iraq today and what happens in Iraq in the months and years ahead is,
in fact, perhaps the most important issue we can face in the United
States of America and in the world, and it is important that this body,
elected by 300 million Americans in each of our respective States,
grapple with the fundamental defining issue of our time.
It is also important, as we grapple with this issue of the future of
Iraq and the involvement of the United States, that we try to move
forward in a manner that is bipartisan. At the end of the day, the only
way in which we are going to achieve stability in the Middle East and
we are going to bring our troops home--which I believe is a goal that
is shared by the 100 Members of this body--is if we develop a
bipartisan approach to getting it done. Yet, at the end of the day, we
can't even seem to get beyond a procedural obstacle to get to a debate
on the central issue that was presented by a bipartisan resolution, led
by some of the most distinguished Members of this Senate, including
Senator Warner, Senator Levin, and others. We cannot even get past the
procedural problem for us to end up having a discussion and a vote on
that very simple issue.
I ask our brethren on the other side that they join us in getting
through this procedural roadblock so that we can have an effective
debate and a vote on a question that is before us concerning the future
of Iraq and the President's plan on how we move forward.
I am disappointed as one Senator that today we are not on this floor
debating the alternative resolutions that were submitted in the last
week, which are bipartisan in nature, and then deciding how to move
forward as a Senate. I am very disappointed that we have not been able
to get there.
Let me also say that for those who have said the political posturing
is taking place on this side, I don't believe that is at all the case.
The fact is, what we have been trying to do on this side is to have an
open and honest debate, and again underscoring the reality that if we
are going to find our way out of the quagmire in which we find
ourselves in Iraq, it is going to take a true bipartisan effort to get
us to a place where we can say we have peace and stability in the
Middle East and we have brought our troops home. I hope as we move
forward in this discussion that we will be able to find some of that
bipartisan consensus.
At the end of the day, when we look at what is happening in Iraq, we
need to recognize the realities. We need to know and remember the 3,100
men and women who have given their lives on behalf of the mission the
President assigned to them in that country. We need to remember the
23,000 men and women in uniform who today are wounded and who are
carrying the scars of the war with them day by day and for many of them
for the rest of their lives. We need to remember the 137,000 men and
women who are on the ground in Iraq today. The bipartisan resolution we
put forward with Senator Warner, Senator Nelson, Senator Collins, and
others recognizes that. We recognize the bravery of the men and women
who have given so much of their time and their life in Iraq, and we
recognize the need for us to support our men and women on the ground in
Iraq.
But we also recognize that what the American people are asking us to
do is to chart a new direction for Iraq. I have heard some of my
colleagues on the other side--as there is criticism on this side--that
all we are doing is being critical and not offering alternatives. The
fact is that we are attempting to come up with a new direction in Iraq,
and that is what is embodied in the Warner-Levin resolution. It is, in
fact, a new direction and new strategy in Iraq.
Mr. President, I ask the Members of this body and I ask the people of
the United States of America to consider what are the options before
us. In my view, there are three options. There is plan A. Plan A is a
plan--which was put forth by the President after several months of
deliberation in which he concluded what we had to do in order to be
successful in Iraq--to send 21,500
[[Page 3209]]
additional troops. In real terms, that is about 48,000 additional
troops assigned, mostly in Baghdad. Some people have called it an
escalation. Some people have called it a surge. That is the heart of
the plan. It is a plan he announced in early January, a plan he
reiterated at the State of the Union, that we assign 21,500 troops to
Baghdad.
The question we all ought to be asking ourselves is whether that will
work. Will plan A work? I believe those who have studied the issue in
great depth would answer the question no--no, it will not work; no, it
will not work because Operation Going Forward in June of 2006, just 7
months ago, showed that it does not work. And when that didn't work, we
went in with a surge of some 7,000 troops in August in Operation Going
Forward Together No. 2, and again that did not work. If today we go in
with 21,500 additional troops, plus all the support for the troops that
is going to be necessary, what is going to be the result of that
endeavor? In my view, we have been there, we have done that, and it
hasn't worked. So we have to look forward to a new direction. So I
believe plan A, the President's plan, is not a plan that is going to
work.
Then there is plan B. Plan B is being advocated by many, including
some who have demonstrated in Washington and have called our offices
every day, and that is to just bring our troops home today; it is over;
it is a precipitous withdrawal; let's get out of there and get out of
there right now. The mistakes of the past have compounded the problems
in the Middle East and Iraq to the point that we can't put Humpty
Dumpty together. Not all the king's men or all the king's horses could
ever put Humpty Dumpty together again, some people would say, because
the problems in Iraq today are so severe.
I, as one Senator, reject plan B as well. I don't believe we can
afford to move forward with that kind of precipitous withdrawal.
There is plan C, and plan C is really the plan of trying to move
forward in a bipartisan way so that we can achieve success in Iraq--
success, again, being defined by stability in Iraq and in the region
and by bringing our troops home.
I know there are lots of people in this body who have much more
experience than I, and I know there are lots of people who have studied
this issue extensively over a very long period of time, and yet it is
amazing to me that when we have a group of people in a bipartisan way
coming forward with a new direction, we have the President and others
of the minority party essentially rejecting that plan of going forward
together in a new direction.
When I look at the Iraq study report and I look at names such as
former Secretary of State James Baker, former Attorney General Ed
Meese, former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, former U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, former U.S. Senator Alan
Simpson, I see all of these Republicans who are saying we need a new
direction going forward together. I believe that is what we ought to be
doing, and I believe that new direction going forward together is what
is embodied in the bipartisan resolution which was put together by
Senator Warner, Senator Levin, and others. It is that kind of new
direction which we ought to be debating and discussing on the floor of
the Senate today.
When one looks at this group of elder statesmen, which includes not
only the Republicans whose names I mentioned, but they include esteemed
elder statesmen who are also Democrats, such as Lee Hamilton, Vernon
Jordan, Leon Panetta, William Perry, and Charles Robb, when we see
those kinds of elder statesmen who have taken a year to try to figure
out how we deal with this quagmire in Iraq, we have to say those
recommendations should be paid very serious attention. The
recommendations are many, but they are important because they show the
depth of thinking that commission went through in coming up with those
recommendations.
In essence, what that bipartisan group of elder statesmen said to the
people of America is that the way forward requires a new approach. The
way forward requires a new approach. They talk about the external
approach, which is to build an international consensus on how we move
forward in Iraq. They talk about a new diplomatic offensive which is
important if we are to succeed because there are too many nations in
that part of the world and around the world who have been sitting on
their hands letting America do it alone. They have to stop sitting on
their hands if ultimately we are going to achieve stability in the
Middle East.
They talk about the Iraq International Support Group, and that kind
of a group would be a group that would make sure the efforts on
reconstruction and building the peace and security in Iraq are, in
fact, successful. Where is that group? It hasn't been there. It has
been the United States alone moving forward on this effort. We need to
have the international community involved.
It talks about dealing with Iran and dealing with Syria. They are
part of that region, like it or not. This group of elder statesmen has
said we need to deal with those countries. We know the limitations. We
know the threats they also embody and present to the United States of
America, but we need to bring them into the dialog if ultimately we are
going to bring stability to that region.
The study group goes on with a whole host of other recommendations on
the internal approach, helping the Iraqis help themselves. It says that
we must require the Iraqis to have performance on milestones, that we
need to push them hard on national reconciliation, that we need to make
sure the Iraqi Government takes responsibility for security and for
their military forces, that they establish a functioning police force,
and that they establish a criminal justice system that does, in fact,
work. And the list goes on with 79 recommendations on the way forward,
a new approach.
That is what we ought to be talking about, Mr. President, on the
floor of the Senate today--how we move forward.
I look at this resolution which was put together by some of my
esteemed colleagues, of which I am a proud original cosponsor, and I
say at least we have tried on a bipartisan basis to figure out a
roadmap for how we ought to move forward together as Democrats and
Republicans, as Americans, on this issue, which is the defining issue
of our times. I see the names of people such as Senator Warner, I see
Senator Collins, I see Senator Levin, I see Senator Nelson of Nebraska,
and others who have been involved in this effort. What we are trying to
do as a group is to say we ought to figure out a way of charting a new
direction forward together, much like the elder statesmen did in coming
up with the Iraq Study Group recommendations. Yet we are being refused
the opportunity to even engage in a debate on a resolution that
essentially says this is a direction we propose to the President in how
we move forward together.
I hope that at the end of the day, with the discussions that are
going on between the leadership, we are able to come to some agreement.
I believe there is too much at stake. I believe there is too much at
stake not only in the Middle East, but there is too much at stake for
the United States of America and for the free world. At the end of the
day, it is going to take Republicans and Democrats working together to
try to chart this new and successful direction for how we move forward
in Iraq.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is that I will be
recognized for 10 minutes in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time
consumed in any quorum call today be equally divided.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Feinstein of
California, this weekend made a point that I think is very important.
She, on a
[[Page 3210]]
television program, said that Iraq is being debated virtually
everywhere in our country: debated at kitchen tables, business places,
workplaces, and schools. The only place in America that Iraq is not
being debated is in the Senate. Here we are debating whether we should
debate.
That was what went on yesterday, and it is what is going on today, a
debate about whether the debate on Iraq should occur in the Senate. It
is unbelievable. We have a cloture vote on a motion to proceed to the
debate, and the minority party in the Senate voted nearly unanimously
to say, no, we shouldn't be debating. I don't understand that at all,
Mr. President.
Why would we not want to engage in this national discussion about
what is happening in Iraq; what are our obligations, and what are our
national interests with respect to these issues? This is not a war
against terrorists in the main. It is sectarian violence that is
occurring in Iraq. Yes, there are some terrorists in Iraq, I understand
that, but it is largely sectarian violence, Shia on Sunni, Sunni on
Shia.
Let me make a point about Iraq that I think is important. The
dictator who used to exist in Iraq no longer exists. Yes, he was a
madman and a dictator. We have unearthed mass graves in Iraq to show
that nearly a half million people were murdered by the man who ran that
country. But he has been executed, and the people of Iraq have had the
opportunity to vote for a new constitution.
The people of Iraq have had the opportunity to vote for a new
government. Things have changed in Iraq. We now have in Iraq what is
largely a civil war, sectarian violence. Things have changed.
What is the role, then--given that Saddam Hussein has been executed,
given that there is a new constitution, given that there is a new
government--what is the role for the United States and its soldiers? Is
the role to continue to be in the middle of a civil war in Iraq, to
surge additional troops, as the President suggests? That is what was to
be debated this week in the Senate. But at this point we still cannot
debate that because we are debating whether we will be able to debate
it. It is unbelievable to me. Only here on this small piece of real
estate, one of the wonderful places on this Earth, the United States
Senate, do we have a serious debate about whether we should debate.
We should have moved very quickly past this issue of a motion to
proceed and been to the substance of this issue on behalf of this great
country of ours. There is a majority in this Congress for a bipartisan
resolution. And I emphasize bipartisan resolution. Senator Warner, a
very distinguished American, a Republican, and former chairman of the
Armed Services Committee, and Senator Levin, a Democrat, the same.
Warner-Levin. When we get to a vote on the Warner-Levin resolution,
which disapproves of surging additional American troops to Iraq and
deepening our involvement in Iraq, a majority of the Senate will
support that resolution. There is a clear majority for that resolution.
The question is, Can we get to that point?
I hope in the coming hours that the minority will relent and give us
the opportunity, the opportunity the American people would expect to
exist in the United States to debate one of the most important
questions of our time. This is about obstruction and it is about
political maneuvering and about protecting the White House. It is about
a lot of things, unfortunately. It ought to be about this country's
national interest, this country's best interest. It ought to be about
the soldiers we have asked to don America's uniforms and go fight for
this country and what is best for them as well.
Two months ago, General Abizaid said this in open testimony in the
Senate:
I met with every divisional commander. I said, in your
professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American
troops now--he is talking about Iraq--does it add
considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And
they all said no.
That is what the commanding general said 2 months ago in testimony
before the Senate. Why did they all say no? Here is what General
Abizaid said the reason is:
We want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to
rely upon us to do more. I believe more forces prevents the
Iraqis from doing more and taking responsibility for their
own future.
Finally, Mr. President, a week ago, the head of our intelligence
services came to the Senate and testified in open public hearings. Here
is what he said:
Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization that poses the
greatest threat to U.S. interests, including the homeland.
That is from the top intelligence chief of our country. Here is what
he said:
Al-Qaeda continues to plot attacks against our homeland and
other targets with the objective of inflicting mass
casualties. They continue to maintain active connections and
relationships radiating outward from their leaders' secure
hideout in Pakistan.
Let me say that again. Our top intelligence person says that al-Qaida
is the greatest terrorist threat to our country; that they direct their
operations from a secure hideout in Pakistan.
Mr. President, a question: If al-Qaida is the greatest terrorist
threat to America, and our intelligence chief says it is directed from
their secure hideout in Pakistan, and we know that Osama bin Laden
continues to talk to us in his missives that they send out; if we have
21,000 additional soldiers to surge anywhere, why on Earth would we not
use those 21,000 soldiers to eliminate the greatest terrorist threat to
our country, which would be to eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida?
No, that is not what the President recommends. He recommends we send
21,000 additional soldiers into the neighborhoods of Baghdad where
sectarian violence is occurring in massive quantities and a civil war
exists. With all due respect, and I do respect the President, he is
wrong, and I believe the majority of this Senate would say he is wrong
by voting for the Warner-Levin resolution.
In a Byzantine twist, however, on this Tuesday morning, we find
ourselves debating the question of whether we should debate one of the
central questions of our time.
That is unworthy of the Senate. What is worthy of this Senate, and I
am proud to be a part of it what is worthy of us is to have on the
floor of the United States Senate the great questions before this
country, the questions the American people ask this morning and discuss
this morning all across this country: What is our role here? What is
happening here? How have things changed in Iraq? What is the greatest
threat to our country? How do we deal with that threat? What about Mr.
Negroponte pointing out that the greatest terrorist threat is al-Qaida?
What about the fact he says they are in a secure hideaway in Pakistan?
What about the fact that no one has done anything about it? What about
the fact that if 21,000 soldiers are available to be surged, that the
President says let's send them to Baghdad, in the middle of a civil war
in Iraq, rather than going to Pakistan after the leadership of the
greatest terrorist threat to this country, according to our
intelligence chief?
I simply do not understand this logic. There is a lot to be said
about these issues. All of us in this Chamber want the same thing for
our country. All of us love this country. All of us respect our
soldiers and will do everything to make sure we support them. All of us
want this country to do well and to make the right decisions. In the
last 5 years, however, we have been involved in a war that has lasted
longer than the Second World War. We have been in a war that has cost
us far too many lives and too much of America's treasure. We have been
put in a situation in which there has been dramatic change. Yet the
policy has not changed. This is not the circumstance for which we went
to war in Iraq. All of that intelligence, it turns out, was wrong.
Colonel Wilkerson, who served as Secretary of State Colin Powell's
aide for 17 years and was present when the information was compiled
that led to the presentation at the United Nations, testified before
the Senate, and he said publicly that it was the perpetration of a hoax
on the American people. That is not me speaking. That is someone who
[[Page 3211]]
had a distinguished record and who served 17 years with Colin Powell.
He was a Republican and proud of his service to this country, but he
said all of the intelligence that was basketed together and presented
was the perpetration of a hoax on the American people.
Whatever happened, happened. We went to Iraq. Saddam Hussein has now
been executed. Iraq has a new constitution and a government. It is
time, long past time for this country to say this to the country of
Iraq: Saddam Hussein is gone. You have a new constitution. You have a
new government. The question is this: Do you have the will to provide
for your own security? Because if you don't, no one in the world can do
it for you. Do you have the will to take your country back? This is
your country, not ours. This country belongs to you, not us. Do you
have the will to provide the security for a free Iraq? Because if you
do not, I say to the people of Iraq, American soldiers cannot, for any
indefinite period, provide order and security in Iraq for you. You have
to make that judgment, and you have to understand that it is your
responsibility to provide security in Iraq.
This is not a circumstance where we are trying to embarrass anybody.
We are not trying to say to the President: You have an awful situation
you have created, shame on you. That is not what this debate is about.
All of us understand that things have changed. This debate is about
what do we do at this point. Do we agree with the President that we
should send 21,000 more American troops into Baghdad and surge and
deepen America's involvement in this war?
Quite clearly, if we are allowed to get to this debate and have a
vote on Warner-Levin, a bipartisan resolution, this Senate will say,
no, we believe it is the wrong thing, and that will be the first step
in beginning to change policy. It will say to the President, we believe
you must change the policy, and then use our energies and our efforts
to go after the leadership of al-Qaida. They are the ones who murdered
Americans on 9/11, and they still exist in secure hideaways, according
to our intelligence chief. Let's deal with the greatest terrorist
threat to this country, according to Mr. Negroponte, the head of
American intelligence. The greatest threat to our country. They exist.
They live today, he says, in Pakistan. Let's deal with those issues.
As I indicated earlier, all of us want the same thing for our
country. This is not about politics. It cannot be about politics. It is
about policy and what works for America's future, what strengthens our
country, what keeps our promise to our soldiers, and what keeps our
commitment to ourselves as one of the great symbols of freedom in the
world. That is why I hope we will get past this issue that has now
impaled this Senate, a debate about whether we should debate. The
answer clearly ought to be, yes, we ought to get to the debate that is
significant and important to the future of this great country of ours.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The absence of a quorum has been
suggested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, for the last few weeks, a bipartisan
group of Senators has worked to bring to the floor a resolution
expressing opposition to the President's proposal to increase American
troops in Iraq. In an effort to have an honest, thoughtful, and
productive debate, they put aside their differences, only to be run
over by partisan politics. I support the bipartisan resolution opposing
the escalation. I support an honest and open debate on a policy that
clearly needs to change. But I do not support what I saw take place in
this Chamber yesterday.
Our soldiers and their families have sacrificed too much to accept
the political obstructionism that is keeping this body from having a
debate on a most critical issue. Our troops have given so much, and
they deserve much more than what they got from the U.S. Senate
yesterday. The least we can do is to have this debate, and the best we
can do is to get this policy right for our troops.
I would like to thank those who worked on this resolution: Senators
Levin and Warner and Senators Biden and Hagel and others. Throughout
their careers, they have shown how much they care for the men and women
in uniform. In crafting these resolutions, they showed us that when
principled individuals from opposing parties care strongly about an
issue, politics doesn't always have to win out.
Unfortunately, some in this body still don't want to have a debate
about Iraq. It is long past time to have this debate. The American
people have called for it, our troops have earned it, and we should be
big enough to have it.
Over 3,000 American soldiers are dead, more than 20,000 have been
wounded in combat, over 2,000 have lost their limbs, and more than $350
billion of taxpayer money has gone to Iraq. Scores of Iraqis are killed
every day in what has essentially devolved into a civil war.
All across my State, I have heard a strong and clear message from
Minnesotans: Change the course in Iraq and push for the strategy and
solutions that will bring our troops home. We need a surge in
diplomacy, Mr. President, not a surge in troops. It is a message that
was echoed all across this country from Montana to Minnesota, from
Pennsylvania to Virginia. Unfortunately, there were those in this
Chamber yesterday who did not listen to that message, who would prefer
no debate. This bipartisan resolution expresses the strong opposition
of this body to the President's decision to stay the course and send an
additional 21,000 American troops to Iraq. I strongly support this
bipartisan resolution and implore my colleagues to allow this
resolution its due course.
The people of Minnesota, like their fellow citizens around the
country, recognize what is at stake in Iraq. Of the 22,000 troops
involved in the surge, nearly 3,000 are from Minnesota. As I have
traveled throughout our State, I have spoken with many families who
have paid a personal price in this war, and I think of them often.
I think of Claremont Anderson from Hoffman, MN, who would drive
hundreds of miles to attend public events in the last 2 years. I just
saw him and his wife Nancy this weekend; they braved 7-degree below-
zero wind chills to come to an event in Glenwood, MN. When I see
Claremont, any time anyone even talks about the war, he starts to cry.
That is because his son Stuart, an Army Reserve major, was killed in a
helicopter crash in Iraq.
I think of Kathleen Wosika from St. Paul, MN. Just last month, her
son, James Wosika, Jr., was killed while he was patrolling on foot in
an area near Fallujah. He was a sergeant with the Army National Guard
1st Brigade, whose current duty will be extended under the President's
escalation. Sergeant Wosika was the third member of his unit to die
within a 6-month period. He was the seventh member of the brigade to be
killed since their deployment last spring.
I also think of Becky Lourey of Kerrick, MN. That is near Duluth. She
is a mother of 12 and a former State senator. Her son Matt was killed
when the Army helicopter he was piloting went down north of Baghdad. I
watched this Gold Star mother, a woman who has adopted eight children,
comfort her grandchildren, hold her shaking husband, and stand tall for
hours in a high school gym in Finlayson, MN, where hundreds of people
came to gather for her son's memorial service.
Claremont Anderson, Kathleen Wosika, and Becky Lourey are parents
whose children made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country,
and they are among the many Minnesotans who told me without apology
they want to see a change of course in Iraq. They pray others will not
have to experience their pain.
Although I opposed this war from the beginning, I recognized that
many did support it. But 4 years later, we are now dealing with a
dramatically different situation. What we know now
[[Page 3212]]
about the events and facts leading up to this war has changed
dramatically. The conditions inside Iraq have changed dramatically. Our
role there has changed dramatically.
Last November, citizens in Minnesota and across the country voted for
a new direction in Washington. Americans made clear at the ballot box
they were tired of the politics-as-usual partisan bickering and that
they wanted a meaningful and bipartisan change of course in Iraq. To
the country's bewilderment, the President responded with a plan to
escalate the number of American troops in Iraq. That is not the change
in course the American people voted for. It is not the change in course
the Iraq Study Group recommended. It is not the change in course Iraq
needs to halt its civil war. It is not the change in course our
military forces deserve.
Distinguished Senators from both sides of the aisle are seeking ways
for this body to bring about the right kind of change. The bipartisan
resolution proposes a strategy that recognizes the facts on the ground
in Iraq. It incorporates many of the recommendations of the Iraq Study
Group.
For years, we have heard from administration officials, from military
officials, and from the Iraqis themselves that there can be no military
solution in Iraq. Stability can only be achieved through diplomatic and
political solutions. This resolution calls on the administration to
engage other nations in the region to create conditions for the
compromises between Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds that will be
necessary for peace. Furthermore, the resolution calls on the
administration to apply pressures on the Iraqis themselves to stand up
and take responsibility for their country. By following the
recommendations of this resolution, the President would send a much
stronger signal to the Iraqis that we are not going to be staying there
indefinitely.
As of last Thanksgiving, this war has now lasted longer than World
War II, and after nearly 4 years of intensive military involvement in
Iraq, including more than 3,000 American deaths, we have to be focused
on reducing our troop presence in Iraq instead of putting even more
American service men and women in harm's way. Haven't we asked our men
and women to sacrifice enough?
Recently, at the funeral for a fallen soldier, I heard a local priest
say that our leaders have an obligation to do right by our children
when we send them to war. He said that our children may be over 6 feet
tall when we send them to war, but they are still our children. ``If
the kids we are sending to Iraq are 6 feet tall,'' he said, ``then our
leaders must be 8 feet tall.'' I would add that if these soldiers are
willing to stand up and risk their lives for our country, then those of
us in the Congress must be brave enough to stand up and ask the tough
questions and push for the tough solutions.
Claremont Anderson, Kathleen Wosika, and Becky Lourey are standing
tall. The parents I met with this weekend whose kids are supposed to be
coming home this month but are now staying much longer, they are now
doing everything to be brave and stand tall. The 400 members of the Air
Minnesota National Guard whose deployment ceremony I attended Sunday,
in Duluth, MN, they are standing tall. The teenage brother and sister
who will see not only their dad but also their mom be deployed in the
next 2 weeks, those two kids are standing tall. My friend Senator Webb,
who will speak with us momentarily and whose son is serving bravely, he
is over there and he is not afraid. He is standing tall. The injured
soldiers in the VA hospital in Minnesota recovering from traumatic
brain injuries and in their wheelchairs with their strength and their
spirit, they too are standing tall.
I would say to my friends across the aisle, by having an honest and
open debate on this war and on this resolution, we in Congress can also
and finally stand tall.
Our Constitution says that Congress should be a responsible check and
balance on Presidential power. Congressional oversight for Iraq policy
is long overdue. We have seen this bipartisan resolution and bipartisan
work challenging the President's proposal for an escalation of American
troop levels in Iraq. Even as Commander In Chief, our President does
not enjoy unlimited power. On behalf of the public, Members of this
body have a responsibility to exercise our own constitutional power in
a fairminded, bipartisan way, to insist on accountability, and to
demand a change of course. Ultimately, the best way to help our
soldiers and their families is not only to give them the respect they
deserve but also to get this policy right.
I hope that my friends across the aisle will see the merits of this
resolution and the urgency of having an open and honest debate on this
issue; our troops and their families deserve nothing less.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the Senator from
Minnesota, for her kind remarks about the people who have served.
I emphasize my support for the resolution--actually, the
resolutions--that were so painstakingly put together by a number of
senior Senators from both sides of the aisle, only to be denied a full
debate and an open vote through the procedural motions yesterday
evening.
Winston Churchill once wrote about watching good ideas getting
nibbled to death by ducks. Last night, we saw this phenomenon in
action. We had before the Senate a measure that would allow this
Congress to speak clearly of concerns regarding the woeful lack of
leadership by the President on an issue that affects our Nation and our
military people such as no other. And the other side--including some
Senators who had helped to draft the resolutions and had their names on
it--punted the ball down field rather than giving the people of this
country the debate they not only need but are calling for in every
opinion poll.
Quite simply, there is no way, other than through a strong resolution
or restrictive language in an appropriations bill, for this Senate to
communicate to this administration that its so-called new strategy is
lacking in the most crucial elements that might actually lead to a
solution in Iraq. This is not a strategy. It is a one-dimensional
tactical adjustment that avoids the elements of a true overarching
national strategy. It relies too heavily on our military, while
ignoring the overwhelming advice of those with long experience in this
region that we must pursue robust diplomacy in order to bring this
misguided effort to a conclusion.
There have been allegations by those on the other side that we who
take this position are not supporting the troops. I submit that the
best way to support the troops would be for this administration to
outline and pursue a comprehensive strategy that includes the
diplomatic measures that will be essential to ending our involvement.
Mr. President, a reminder: During the Vietnam war our military killed
more than a million enemy soldiers--enemy soldiers--by official count
of the present Hanoi Government. Actually, that count is 1.4 million
enemy soldiers. But without a clear strategy and without adept
diplomacy, that simply was not enough. From the very beginning in Iraq,
this administration has consciously neglected its proper diplomatic
duties. It has attempted to frame the debate over Iraq's future as one
of military action on the one hand and a set of vague guidelines to the
Iraqi Government on the other, as if the rest of the region were
somehow not crucial to the eventual outcome. This, in and of itself, is
a recipe for continued violence and for American failure in Iraq.
It is widely known that the Iraqi Government lacks the power to
control the myriad of factions that are causing chaos. The latest
National Intelligence Estimate not only confirms this, it indicates
that these factions have been broken into so many different components
that it is not even fair to call this problem one of sectarian violence
any longer. The administration knows
[[Page 3213]]
this. Most of the administration's strongest supporters know this.
Their reaction has been to increase the pressure on an impotent
government and to go to the well, again and again, asking for even
greater sacrifices from the military, while ignoring their most basic
responsibility, which is to put together a clear diplomatic effort that
will bring full context to the issues that face us and, in short order,
end our involvement. This is not supporting the troops. This is
misusing the troops.
With respect to the troops, I would caution any political leader who
claims to speak on behalf of the political views of our men and women
in uniform. Our military people are largely a mirror of our society,
particularly in the enlisted ranks, and their political views are as
diverse as our own.
As one example, last year, a survey of those in Iraq indicated that
more than 70 percent believed that the United States should exit Iraq
within a year. That was a year ago. As I have said before, it is
inverted logic to claim we should continue to fight this war on behalf
of the troops. The fact is, they are fighting this war on behalf of the
political process. They deserve political leadership that is
knowledgeable and that proceeds from an assumption that our national
goals are equal to the sacrifices we are asking them to make.
For the last 5 years, from before this invasion, this administration
and its supporters have refused to admit the most fundamental truth of
the entire war. It is a truth that was echoed over and over again last
month by expert witnesses during more than a dozen hearings before the
Foreign Relations Committee and the Committee on Armed Services, both
of which I am privileged to serve upon. It is a truth that this
administration and the architects of this war too often refuse to
recognize, perhaps because they fear it might potentially embarrass
them in the eyes of history.
The unavoidable truth is that this war will never be brought to a
proper conclusion without the active participation of the other
countries in the region--all of them.
We hear stories of the Saudis helping the Sunni insurgency. We are
told by this administration Iran is equipping and training portions of
the Shia militias. We hear Turkey and Iran are quietly cooperating to
limit the influence of Kurds. We hear Syria is the favorite starting
point for many al-Qaida guerillas who infiltrate into Al Anbar
Province. We know the entire region is being flooded with refugees from
the violence in Iraq, including, especially, Jordan and Syria.
None of this is surprising. Indeed, all of it was predictable and
predicted, even before the invasion of Iraq. I recall many of the
speeches by the Presiding Officer on those points. What is truly
surprising and unsettling is that this administration has not developed
an overt diplomatic effort to bring order out of this chaos in a way
that might allow us to dramatically decrease our presence in Iraq and,
at the same time, increase the stability of the region, increase our
ability to fight terrorism, and allow us to address strategic
challenges elsewhere in the world.
These countries have historic, political, and cultural ties to Iraq.
They are going to be involved in Iraq's affairs in the future, long
after the United States departs the region. It is in our national
interests and, as a great nation, it is our obligation to take the lead
in causing each of these countries to deal responsibly with Iraq's
chaos and with its future. We did exactly this in 2001, after the
invasion of Afghanistan, bringing the major players to the table,
including India, Pakistan, and Iran, and we should do so now.
This approach would have additional benefits beyond Iraq. It would
begin to loosen the unnatural alliance between Iran and Syria which
could, in turn, increase the potential for greater stability in
Lebanon, Israel, and the surrounding territories. It would begin to
bring countries such as Iran to a proper role of responsibility inside
the international community.
On this point, I cite an important historical reference. In 1971,
China, similar to Iran today, was considered a rogue Nation. China, in
those days, was already a nuclear power. It had an American war on its
borders in Vietnam, a war it was actively assisting. We, the United
States, took the initiative, aggressively opening China through
diplomatic energy and, over time, helped to bring China into the
international community. We should not be afraid of taking similar
actions with Iran and also, by the way, with Syria.
The bottom line of all this is this administration and its supporters
must understand the realities that are causing us as a Congress to
finally say ``enough is enough;'' that the time has come for a new
approach; that the answer in Iraq and to our fight against
international terrorism and to our diminished posture around the world
is for us to show not only our prowess on the battlefield but also our
leadership in the diplomatic arena; that, indeed, we have an obligation
to the men and women who have served so selflessly on our behalf, to
match their proficiency and their loyalties with the kind of thoughtful
leadership that will bring this effort to a proper conclusion.
If there were other ways to convince this administration to change
its ineffective one-dimensional approach to the situation in Iraq, I
would welcome them, but after 5 years of political disarray, I do not
believe it is so. I support this resolution as a first step in
reclaiming America's strategic purpose and international reputation. I
urge my fellow Senators to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I came to the Senate to talk about the loss
of a great soldier and dear friend of mine, but before I do that, I
will comment on a few things we have heard discussed this morning.
First, our efforts on this side are to get an opportunity to debate
and vote on the Gregg amendment. The Gregg amendment, very simply
stated--I don't have the full text in front of me--supports our troops.
It says we should support our troops and not cut off funding. That is a
valid viewpoint. We are at war. Traditionally, this Senate has
supported our troops. That used to be the absolute baseline which
everyone accepted. The main resolution that has been referred to, I
fear, goes in the wrong direction.
We, in time of war, ought to debate, and we will debate fully, and
everyone will have an opportunity to express their views--but I think
it is very important we not only have an opportunity to vote on the two
resolutions which have been discussed but also to vote on the Gregg
amendment. As soon as we can get agreement to do that, I am confident
the leaders can move forward.
I have also heard in the Senate a number of comments from Members who
do not support a cut-and-run policy. I have addressed previously the
disaster of an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. In open testimony, the
intelligence community--the Director of National Intelligence--the
Director of CIA, the Director of Military Intelligence, said chaos
would reign in Iraq if we withdrew precipitously. It would fall into
chaos. The primary beneficiary of that chaos would be al-Qaida. Osama
bin Laden and Al-Jazeera have said how important it was for them to
establish Iraq as their main base of operations.
Second, there would be chaos and slaughter of innocent civilians,
both Shia and Sunni. There would be a tremendous increase in the deaths
of civilians. But even more frightening, the neighboring states would
likely be brought in. The Sunni states would likely come to the aid of
their Sunni brethren, and if that had not already triggered the
entrance of Iran into it on behalf of the Shia, it surely would, and we
could potentially be facing a major Middle East conflict with many
states involved.
I have heard it said that the Levin-Warner resolution asks we chart a
new direction. We have charted a new direction. And the way forward is
a new direction. The President has the agreement of Prime Minister al-
Maliki and
[[Page 3214]]
the Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish government of Iraq that they will take
control and they will assume responsibility. They need help in training
particularly their police, but they will take control. That is where we
need to be.
We can help pick off the al-Qaida and the other committed
international terrorists, the radical Islamists. But we need them to
resolve this civil strife between Shia and Sunni, and do so in a fair
way, including the Kurds and the Sunnis.
This happens to be the military plan the Baker-Hamilton group
supported. They said to enable the Iraqi security, military, and police
to take over, we should send in some troops temporarily. That is what
the President is doing, adding another 21,000 to support them.
Is this going to work? Well, again, with the release of the National
Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and the open testimony of the leaders of
the intelligence community, they said it is an open question. It is a
tough decision. But it is the best option we have.
Yes, they think there is a chance it will work. And the Iraqi
Government knows this is their last best chance. They had best make it
work. And they best get their police trained and their military
trained.
Many people have called for bringing in other nations in the Middle
East. That is what the President and Secretary Rice have done, to bring
in other nations that will help rebuild the Sunni areas and help
provide support to the Iraqis.
There are some people who say we should not have an unlimited
commitment. Well, the President has told not only this Nation but Prime
Minister al-Maliki there is a time deadline. We are committed to them
but not indefinitely. And if they do not take advantage of this
opportunity, it will be their country which will fall into chaos and be
the battleground, perhaps embroiling the entire region, but certainly
wiping out and causing great death and destruction in their own
country. So we do have a new direction.
Now, some are pushing a resolution that challenges the President's
implementation of the plan. We are trying to be generals and say
General Petraeus--whom we just confirmed unanimously because he is such
a great general, who said we should have those 21,000 troops--they are
challenging his military judgment in the implementation of the plan.
I know many of my colleagues have followed military policy for many
years, but I do not think we in this body can determine for the
generals what the proper level of troop commitments is. They are the
ones who take responsibility for the lives of their men and women. To
send a message by adopting a resolution that says we oppose the
President's plan, implementation of his plan, is not going to change
sending more American troops there.
But it will tell al-Qaida: Good news, boys, the Congress is opposing
the President. Our chances look better to take over the country.
And it will send a message to friendly countries that are trying to
help the Iraqis telling them: Sorry guys, we are not interested in
winning this, so you probably would not want to waste your effort
helping us.
Finally, what does it send as a message to our troops: We do not
support the military plan they are being asked to carry out, the men
and women who are risking their lives? Does that make any sense? I fear
not.
I hope we can reject very soundly the Levin-Warner amendment and
adopt the Gregg amendment and also the McCain amendment.
____________________
REMEMBERING LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLES M. KIEFNER
Mr. BOND. Now, Mr. President, let me turn to another matter, a matter
of sorrow. I tell this body that at a wonderful military ceremony last
Saturday, we laid to rest LTG Charles M. Kiefner, formerly Adjutant
General of the Missouri National Guard--a man who I considered a friend
for almost 40 years, a man whose career was an amazing one.
I called on him to serve as my Adjutant General for the 8 years I
served as Governor. Having come from the Guard, he was the youngest
Adjutant General at the time, still by far the youngest Adjutant
General in Missouri. But he knew the citizen soldiers who made up the
Guard. He knew those citizen soldiers and respected them, and they
respected him.
When I left office and Governor Ashcroft took over, he made him his
Adjutant General for the next 8 years. He served 16 years. In that
time, he not only built the Missouri National Guard to be one of the
finest units--Air and Army National Guard--in America, but he was very
strong in establishing a Guard presence on Capitol Hill.
It was at his urging that I went to my colleague, Wendell Ford of
Kentucky, and we set up the National Guard Caucus, on which today
Senator Pat Leahy and I proudly serve as cochairmen. That caucus has
brought together 75 to 80 Members of this body to stand up for the
necessary resources, the necessary personnel, and the necessary support
of the Guard when active forces in the Pentagon tend to overlook them.
The Guard is a better place today because of the leadership that
General Kiefner showed as he headed the National Guard, the Adjutants
General Association, as he worked with his colleagues throughout the
country, and as he and those generals worked to make sure the Guard was
strengthened.
The Guard remembers him with great fondness. Lieutenant General
Vaughn of Missouri, who had served in the Guard under General Kiefner,
presented the flag to his wonderful wife Marilyn, his sons John and
Keith.
Charles M. Kiefner was born June 28, 1930, in Cape Girardeau, MO. He
graduated from high school in 1948 and attended Westminster College in
Fulton. He earned his bachelor of arts degree from Columbia College in
1975.
General M. Keifner, or Charlie to his friends--and I am lucky to have
counted myself as one of his many--was a great man and a great American
patriot. Under his strong leadership, including as the youngest
Adjutant General, the men and women in the Missouri National Guard came
to exemplify the best this country has to offer.
Having begun his military career by enlisting as a private in Company
F, 140th Infantry Regiment of the Missouri Army National Guard on
September 24, 1947, General Keifner entered active duty on September
11, 1950, with the 175th Military Police Battalion of Missouri Army
National Guard and served in Germany with that unit. He was
commissioned a second lieutenant, Infantry on December 21, 1951. He
served as platoon leader, company commander, battalion motor officer,
Battalion S-2, brigade adjutant and S-3, executive officer and
logistics officer on the staff of the Adjutant General. As a member of
the U.S. Army Reserve, from September 11, 1978, to November 5, 1980, he
served as liaison officer to the U.S. Military Academy, West Point.
General Kiefner was first appointed Adjutant General by me on May 8,
1973, when I served as Missouri's Governor, and held the Adjutant
General's position until March 1977, when I left the Governor's office.
Upon my reelection in 1981, I once again called on this great leader
and appointed General Kiefner to lead the Missouri National Guard.
General Kiefner served as Adjutant General throughout my two terms as
Missouri Governor. As a testament to his skill and great leadership, he
was later called upon by Governor John Ashcroft to serve 8 more years
in the Ashcroft administration.
General Kiefner not only served Missouri admirably, he also served
his nation with honor. A friend who knew him for 35 years during his
service in the Guard recalls:
He was a professional soldier who made a point to know what
was going on at every level of the Guard, from the enlisted
soldiers to the three star Generals. He knew precisely what
the threat to our homeland was and made great efforts to
ensure the Guard was prepared to protect us from those
threats.
Members of the Army National Guard knew and respected General Kiefner
and called upon him to serve as
[[Page 3215]]
president of the National Guard Association of the United States, a
position he held proudly and worked diligently to enhance our Nation's
modern-day minutemen's and women's ability to meet their dual-mission
at home and abroad.
Upon his retirement from the National Guard in 1993, Major General
Kiefner was promoted to the grade of lieutenant general, Missouri
National Guard Retired List by Governor Mel Carnahan. ``At his own
retirement he could not speak because he knew the overwhelming emotion
he would feel at leaving the service he loved so dearly would overcome
him,'' said one friend and colleague. ``He was an emotional man that
was totally committed to his country, Missourians, and the men under
his command.''
His many decorations and awards include: the Distinguished Service
Medal, Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, Meritorious Service
Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal, Good
Conduct Medal, Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal, Humanitarian
Service Medal, Armed Forces Reserve Medal, Department of Defense
Identification Badge, Ranger Tab, NGB Distinguished Service Medal,
NGAUS Distinguished Service Medal, Missouri Meritorious Service Medal,
Missouri Conspicuous Service Medal, Indiana Distinguished Service
Medal, Minnesota Distinguished Service Medal, Tennessee Distinguished
Service Medal, Minnesota Medal for Merit, 1992 Distinguished Alumni
Award--Westminster College, Field Artillery Association Order of Saint
Barbara, Army Engineers Association Silver Order of the de Fleury
Medal, and the Sons of the American Revolution Silver Good Citizenship
Award.
Charlie understood the great citizen soldiers who signed up for the
Guard. When he gave them an order they knew he understood them and they
were willing to follow.
I have lost a great friend, not just a former Adjutant General. There
have been many fine individuals who have worn the uniform of our
Nation's Army National Guard, but none more proudly than LTG Charles M.
Kiefner.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RECESS
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that under the
previous order the Senate stand in recess until the appointed hour.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senate will stand in recess until the appointed hour.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 12:22 p.m., recessed until
3:30 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer
(Mrs. Murray).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
____________________
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during the
time controlled by the Democrats this afternoon, the following be
recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes each, except where noted, and
that each side alternate when appropriate: Boxer, Murray, Dodd, 15
minutes; Kerry, 15 minutes; Nelson of Florida, Reed, Harkin, and
Whitehouse.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES
California Casualties From Iraq and Afghanistan
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, today I rise to pay tribute to 37 young
Americans who have been killed in Iraq since November 17, 2006. This
brings to 677 the number of soldiers who were either from California or
based in California that have been killed while serving our country in
Iraq. This represents 22 percent of all U.S. deaths in Iraq.
SFC Tung M. Nguyen, 38, died on November 14, in Baghdad, Iraq, of
injuries sustained from small arms fire. Sergeant First Class Nguyen
was assigned to B Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group,
Fort Bragg, NC. He was from Tracy, CA.
LCpl Jeromy D. West, 20, died November 25, while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal West was assigned
to the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, III
Marine Expeditionary Force, Kaneohe Bay, HI. He was from Aguanga, CA.
Cpl Dustin J. Libby, 22, died December 6, while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Corporal Libby was assigned to
the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
SPC Micah S. Gifford, 27, died of injuries suffered when an
improvised explosive device detonated near his unit while on patrol
during combat operations in Baghdad, Iraq, on December 7. Specialist
Gifford was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 509th Infantry Regiment,
Airborne, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Fort
Richardson, AK. He was from Redding, CA.
MAJ Megan M. McClung, 34, died December 6, while supporting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Major McClung was assigned to I
Marine Expeditionary Force Headquarters Group, I Marine Expeditionary
Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
SPC Nicholas P. Steinbacher, 22, died on December 10, in Baghdad,
Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his military
vehicle. Specialist Steinbacher was assigned to B Company, 2nd
Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX.
He was from La Crescenta, CA.
LCpl Clinton J. Miller, 23, died December 11, while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Miller was
assigned to Marine Wing Support Squadron 373, Marine Wing Support Group
37, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine
Corps Air Station, Miramar, CA.
Cpl Matthew V. Dillon, 25, died December 11, while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Corporal Dillon was assigned to
Marine Wing Support Squadron 373, Marine Wing Support Group 37, 3rd
Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine Corps Air
Station, Miramar, CA.
LCpl Budd M. Cote, 21, died December 11, while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Cote was assigned
to Marine Wing Support Squadron 373, Marine Wing Support Group 37, 3rd
Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine Corps Air
Station, Miramar, CA.
MSgt Brian P. McAnulty, 39, died December 11, when the CH-53
helicopter he was riding in crashed just after takeoff in Al Anbar
province, Iraq. Master Sergeant McAnulty was assigned to the 3rd
Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.
CPT Kevin M. Kryst, 27, died December 18, from wounds received while
conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Captain Kryst
was assigned to Marine Light-Attack Helicopter Squadron 267, Marine
Aircraft Group 39, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary
Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
LCpl Nicklas J. Palmer, 19, died December 16, while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Palmer was
assigned to the 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I
Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
LCpl Luke C. Yepsen, 20, died December 14, due to injuries suffered
from enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Yepsen was
assigned to the 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.
Cpl Joshua D. Pickard, 20, died December 19, while conducting combat
[[Page 3216]]
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Corporal Pickard was assigned to
the 2nd Assault Amphibian Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, NC. He was from Merced, CA.
LCpl Ryan L. Mayhan, 25, died December 21, while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Mayhan was
assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine
Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. He was
from Hawthorne, CA.
LCpl Ryan J. Burgess, 21, died December 21, while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Burgess was
assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine
Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.
Hospitalman Kyle A. Nolen, 21, died December 21, in Al Anbar
Province, Iraq, as a result of enemy action. Hospitalman Nolen was
assigned to H Company, 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Division, Regimental
Combat Team 7, I Marine Expeditionary Force Forward, Twentynine Palms,
CA.
LCpl Fernando S. Tamayo, 19, died December 21, while conducting
combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Tamayo was
assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine
Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. He was
from Fontana, CA.
SPC Elias Elias, 27, died December 23, in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds
suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle
while on patrol. Specialist Elias was assigned to the 3rd Squadron,
61st Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division,
Fort Carson, CO. He was from Glendora, CA.
SPC Michael J. Crutchfield, 21, died December 23, in Balad, Iraq, of
a non-combat related injury. Specialist Crutchfield was assigned to the
3rd Battalion, 4th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, Fort Bragg, NC. He
was from Stockton, CA.
SGT Lawrance J. Carter, 25, died December 29, in Baghdad, Iraq, of
wounds sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his
vehicle during combat operations. Sergeant Carter was assigned to the
1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st
Armored Division, Schweinfurt, Germany. He was from Rancho Cucamonga,
CA.
SPC Luis G. Ayala, 21, died December 28, in Taji, Iraq, of wounds
suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his unit
while on combat patrol. Specialist Ayala was assigned to the 2nd
Squadron, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry
Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from South Gate, CA.
Sgt Aron C. Blum, 22, died December 28, at the Naval Medical Center
in San Diego, California, of a nonhostile cause after being evacuated
from Al Anbar province, Iraq, on December 8. Sergeant Blum was assigned
to Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 352, Marine Aircraft Group
11, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine
Corps Air Station, Miramar, CA.
PFC Ming Sun, 20, died January 9, in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, of wounds
suffered when his unit came in contact with enemy forces using small
arms fire during combat patrol operations. Private First Class Sun was
assigned to the 1st Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade
Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO. He was from
Cathedral City, CA.
2LT Mark J. Daily, 23, died on January 15, in Mosul, Iraq, when an
improvised explosive device detonated near his military vehicle.
Lieutenant Daily was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry
Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Bliss, TX. He was from Irvine, CA.
CAPT Brian S. Freeman, 31, died January 20, in Karbala, Iraq, of
wounds suffered when his meeting area came under attack by mortar and
small arms fire. Captain Freeman was assigned to the 412th Civil
Affairs Battalion, Whitehall, OH. He was from Temecula, CA.
SPC Jeffrey D. Bisson, 22, died January 20, in Karma, Iraq, of wounds
sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his
Humvee. Specialist Bisson was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 509th
Infantry, Airborne, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division,
Fort Richardson, AK. He was from Vista, CA.
LCpl Andrew G. Matus, 19, died January 21, from wounds received while
conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal
Matus was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine
Regiment, 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Special Operations Capable, I
Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
LCpl Emilian D. Sanchez, 20, died January 21, from wounds received
while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance
Corporal Sanchez was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 2nd Battalion,
4th Marine Regiment, 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Special Operations
Capable, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
SSG Jamie D. Wilson, 34, died January 22, in Fallujah, Iraq, from
wounds suffered while conducting security operations in Karmah, Iraq.
Staff Sergeant Wilson was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 509th Infantry
Regiment, Airborne, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division,
Fort Richardson, AK. He was from San Diego, CA.
PFC Michael C. Balsley, 23, died on January 25, in Baghdad, Iraq,
when an improvised explosive device detonated near his military
vehicle. Private First Class Balsley was assigned to the 3rd Squadron,
61st Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO. He was
from Hayward, CA.
LCpl Anthony C. Melia, 20, died January 27, while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal Melia was
assigned to Battalion Landing Team 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment,
15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Special Operations Capable, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. He was from Thousand Oaks, CA.
SPC Carla J. Stewart, 37, died January 28, in Tallil, Iraq, of
injuries suffered when her convoy vehicle rolled over. Specialist
Stewart was assigned to the 250th Transportation Company, El Monte, CA.
She was from Sun Valley, CA.
CWO 3 Cornell C. Chao, 36, died on January 28, in Najaf, Iraq, of
injuries sustained when his helicopter crashed. Chief Warrant Officer
Three Chao was assigned to the 4th Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment,
1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from Orange, CA.
PFC David T. Toomalatai, 19, died on January 27, in Taji, Iraq, when
an improvised explosive device detonated near his military vehicle.
Private First Class Toomalatai was assigned to Headquarters and
Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry
Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from Long Beach, CA.
LCpl Adam Q. Emul, 19, died January 29, from wounds received while
conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Lance Corporal
Emul was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine
Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.
SGT William M. Sigua, 21, died on January 31, in Bayji, Iraq, when
his dismounted patrol received small arms fire. Sergeant Sigua was
assigned to C Company, 1st Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry
Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC. He was from Los
Altos, CA.
I would also like to pay tribute to the soldier from California who
has died while serving our country in Operation Enduring Freedom since
November 17.
SPC Jeffrey G. Roberson, 22, died on November 28 in Logar,
Afghanistan, from injuries sustained when an improvised explosive
device detonated near his patrol. Specialist Roberson was assigned to
the 230th Military Police Company, Kaiserslautern, Germany. He was from
Phelan, CA.
iraq escalation
When General William Sherman said ``war is hell,'' he certainly knew
what he was talking about. After nearly 4 years in Iraq, I know of no
one today who would argue with that statement.
[[Page 3217]]
As Members of Congress, we have an awesome responsibility to decide
whether to send America's sons and daughters into war. I voted against
the resolution authorizing the President to go to war in Iraq because I
didn't believe we should have been rushing to say to the President: Go
it alone, you have a blank check.
This is what I said at the time, October 10, 2002, which is just
before this Senate voted to give the President authority to go to war:
I never have seen a situation where the President of the
United States asked for the ability to go to war alone and
yet has not told the American people what that would mean.
How many troops would be involved? How many casualties would
there be? Would the U.S. have to foot the entire cost of
using force against Iraq? If not, which nations are ready to
provide financial support? Troop support? What will the cost
be to rebuild Iraq? How long would our troops have to stay
there? What if our troops become a target for terrorists?
Obviously, I didn't know the answers to those questions that weighed
on my heart that day, but today I know that there are more than 138,000
troops serving in Iraq, with a big escalation to come, an escalation
that the Republicans would not allow us to vote on. I know that 3,098
soldiers have been killed and more than 23,000 have been wounded. I
know we have spent $379 billion and that doesn't include the
President's latest request. And I know, as we all do, that our troops
are targets for terrorism and that 61 percent of Iraqis think it is OK
to shoot an American soldier. How can this President send more of our
troops into a country he says he is trying to help when 61 percent of
the Iraqi people say it is OK to shoot and kill an American soldier,
and 71 percent of Iraqis want us out of Iraq within a year? We now have
answers to the questions I raised that bleak day--terrible answers. Yet
my Republican colleagues wouldn't allow us to vote on a resolution
opposing an escalation of this war, an escalation of over 40,000
troops, when you consider the support troops.
We know that a majority of Senators oppose this escalation. We know
the majority of the American people oppose this escalation. Yet we
can't vote on it. Many of us have gone further. We have proposed
resolutions and bills to start redeploying our troops out of Iraq. We
have called on the Iraqis--a majority of us last year--to shoulder the
burden of defending their own country.
It seems like yesterday when we passed the 1,000 dead mark and then
1,500 dead mark and then the 2,000 dead mark and then the 2,500 dead
mark. Now it is more than 3,000 dead. I remember when we hit the 2,500
dead mark last June. A reporter at the White House press briefing asked
Mr. Bush's press secretary, Tony Snow, if the President had any
reaction. Mr. Snow said: ``It's a number, and every time there's one of
those 500 benchmarks, people want something.''
What does that even mean? He calls 500 American dead benchmarks? That
was a low point even for this administration that keeps on saying, if
you don't support the war, you don't support the troops. That is
hogwash. How do you support the troops when you send them into the
middle of a civil war where they don't even know who is shooting at
them? How do you support the troops? Three thousand ninety-eight
soldiers dead is not just a number; those are people. That is 3,098
families who are forever changed. To put more of them in harm's way, to
escalate our involvement does not say to me we love them. It says to me
we have not thought this through. We are not listening or this
administration is not listening to the Iraq Study Group. It is not
listening to the military generals who came before us to say this is
wrong. It is not listening to the American people.
Again and again this White House closes its eyes on the reality of
this war. I know they don't want to see the tragic truth. But if you
are going to make a decision to send our soldiers to war, you better be
able to look at the consequences of that decision. They would not even
let us vote on this escalation. The White House doesn't want that vote.
They don't want to be second-guessed. They don't want to be
embarrassed. They don't want to hear what this Democratic Congress has
to say. And guess what. Elections have consequences--how many times has
the President told us that--and this election had consequences. It
means we have to take off the rose-colored glasses.
Let's look at the events of Sunday, January 28, in Iraq, as told by
two Los Angeles Times reporters, Louise Rough and Borzou Daragahi. That
Sunday in America happened to be my wedding anniversary, a day of rest
for many, a day of relaxation, a day for religion, a day for football,
a day for basketball, a day for movies, a day for fun, a day for
family; in Iraq, a day of hell.
The headline of the LA Times, the following Monday, reads: ``Hundreds
Die in Clash near Iraq Holy City.'' Here is the article. I don't know
if this can be seen on the television, but it is a beautiful young
girl, an Iraqi teenage girl. It could be your daughter; it could be
mine. She is leaving school. She is stepping down steps that are
bloodied by the blood of her schoolmates. She is barely looking around,
and no one is helping her. This is a sight that is too often the
reality in Iraq. The child has seen what no child should ever see, what
we would do anything in the world to stop our children from seeing. And
she appears numb.
The reporters write about fighting erupting near holy city of Najaf
on the Shiite holiday of Ashura. There were conflicting reports as to
whether the fighters causing the trouble were Shiite or Sunni militia,
but we know that our soldiers, working with Iraqis, killed several
hundred gunmen in a fierce fight and a helicopter went down, our
helicopter, and we lost our people.
The reporters point out that our forces are fighting ``a complex
patchwork of elusive enemies,'' and the deaths outside of Najaf would
constitute the highest daily casualty toll inflicted by U.S. and Iraqi
forces since U.S. troops arrived in Baghdad shortly after the March
2003 invasion.
This group we wound up fighting, because the Iraqi soldiers couldn't
handle it and they called us in, call themselves Heaven's Army, a
messianic cult who believes in the imminent return of Imam Mahdi, the
last in the line of Shiite saints who disappeared more than 1,000 years
ago.
Nomas, who is a spokesperson for the Iraqis, went on to lament to the
reporters that many Shiites believe the end days are coming, due to all
of the violence. This is what he said:
There's nothing bizarre in Iraq anymore. We've seen the
most incredible things.
People think the end is near, and that is what this President is
sending more troops into.
Our troops have seen things we can hardly imagine, things that may
haunt them throughout their lives. I have worked hard with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try and fashion some
legislation so we have a commission that is set up to look at the
mental health problems of our soldiers. They are deep, the signature
wounds of this war, brain damage and posttraumatic stress.
In other parts of Iraq that Sunday, in addition to that school I
showed and in addition to the fight with Heaven's Army, the messianic
cult, we lost two U.S. soldiers and a marine. In Kirkuk, violence
raged. In Babil Province, mortar rounds killed 10, and 5 bodies were
found in the Tigris River. There was an assassination in Kut, a deadly
car bombing in Fallujah. In western Baghdad, explosives hidden in a
wooden cart killed 4 and injured 18, and an Industry Ministry advisor
and his daughter were shot to death.
On the east side of the Tigris, a bomb exploded on a bus, killing
one. Two other bombs exploded, killing seven. A bank clerk was killed
by gunmen in a car near her home. This was all in this one article.
This is one day, January 28, one day. Fifty-four bodies were found,
including a woman kidnapped 2 days prior.
And finally, in Diyala Province northeast of Baghdad, 1,500
policemen, Iraqis, were charged with absenteeism and fleeing fighting.
And this is what the President is sending more of our American soldiers
into, and they
[[Page 3218]]
wouldn't let us vote on it here. It is absolutely outrageous. It is
immoral that we cannot vote on whether we agree with this escalation.
Our soldiers gave the Iraqis their freedom, their Government, a
sovereign nation, and now it is the Iraqis' turn to decide their
future.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the man who knew a thing or two
about being at war said:
In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be
achieved.
The Iraqis must achieve it. We cannot want it for them more than they
are willing to fight for it themselves. All we are doing by sending
more troops to Iraq is feeding an already out-of-control dependence. So
I believe we must not only speak out against the escalation, but we
should do everything in our power to stop it. We need to convene an
international conference, as the Iraq Study Group called for. We need
to call for a cease-fire. I haven't heard the word out of the Malaki's
lips, ``cease-fire.'' It is his country. His people are killing each
other. ``Cease-fire'' would be a term of art to give people hope that
there can be peace. At this international conference, we can look at
the long-term solutions. Right now our troops have mission impossible,
acting as a police force in the middle of what is, by most accounts, a
civil war.
Nowhere in the resolution this Senate voted on authorizing force is
it stated our soldiers' mission is being in the middle of a shooting
civil war. We ought to ask this President to come back with a new
authorization, if that is what he wants to do.
Senator Warner has said that in the past. He said:
I think we have to examine very carefully what Congress
authorized the president to do in the context of a situation,
if we're faced with all-out civil war.
Well, that time has come. This President should, A, send a signal
that he wants to see us vote on this escalation of his and, B, be
willing to come back with a new authorization that says clearly that it
is fine for our troops to be in the middle of a civil war. Enough is
enough.
Enough is enough. We have to end the paralysis of ``stay the
course.'' This is a time of great challenge for the U.S. Congress. I
have been very proud these past few weeks to see my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle begin to speak out forcefully against this. For me,
it is easy to oppose the President on this war because, as I said, I
voted against it, as did the occupant of the chair at that time. We
didn't have our questions answered. I understand it is harder for
others. But I believe everybody--at least a majority of the Senate--
wants to vote on this escalation. They want to be heard on behalf of
their constituents.
So it is times like these that I recall the words of one of my
heroes, the great Martin Luther King, who said:
The ultimate measure of a man [and I suspect he meant
woman, also] is not where they stand in the moments of
comfort, but where they stand at times of challenge and
controversy.
He also said:
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about
things that matter.
Well, this escalation matters. We ought to be heard on it.
I commend my leader, Senator Reid, for holding firm on this issue.
There ought to be an up-or-down vote on this escalation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
____________________
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, my good friend, the majority leader,
and I have been in a discussion over the last few days, going back to
last week, over how to go forward on the Iraq debate. As I have
indicated to him both privately and publicly, we on this side of the
aisle were certainly looking forward to having an Iraq debate this week
and are prepared to do so and are ready to go forward.
I think we all agree at this moment that there is no more important
issue facing the Nation than the mission and the fate of the American
service men and women in Iraq. This means, of course, that the men and
women of this body have no higher duty than to express ourselves openly
and honestly on this issue, to take a stand on where we stand. The only
truly meaningful tool the Framers gave us to do this was our ability to
fund or not fund a war. That is it. This is what Republicans are
insisting upon--that the Members of this body express themselves on the
question of whether to fund or not to fund the war in Iraq.
I had indicated to my good friend, the majority leader, that I would
be propounding another unanimous-consent request at this point, and I
will do that now.
I ask unanimous consent that, at a time determined by the majority
leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate
proceed en bloc to the following concurrent resolutions under the
following agreement: S. Con. Res. 7, the Warner resolution, which is to
be discharged from the Foreign Relations Committee; McCain-Lieberman-
Graham, regarding benchmarks; Gregg, relating to funding.
I further ask unanimous consent that there be a total of 10 hours of
debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees;
provided further that no amendments be in order to any of these
measures; further, that at the use or yielding back of time, the Senate
proceed to three consecutive votes on the adoption of the concurrent
resolutions in the following order, with no further action or
intervening action or debate: McCain-Lieberman-Graham, on benchmarks;
Gregg, on funding and supporting our troops; S. Con. Res. 7, the Warner
resolution.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that any resolution that does not
receive 60 votes in the affirmative, the vote on adoption be vitiated
and the concurrent resolution be returned to its previous status.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, this is
basically the same thing that has been asked before. The issue before
the American people is whether the President of the United States, on
his own, should be able to send 48,000 American soldiers to Iraq,
costing approximately $30 billion extra.
The Republicans can run, as I said yesterday, but they cannot hide.
That is the issue before the American people. We all support the
troops, and we have fought very hard, in spite of our misgivings about
this war, to make sure they have everything they have needed.
It is interesting that there is a lot of talk about the Gregg
amendment. But if you look at the Gregg amendment and at page 2--the
last paragraph on page 2 of his amendment--and you look in the Warner
amendment on page 3, paragraph 4, it is identical language. Warner has
encapsulated within his amendment what Gregg wanted, which is the so-
called ``resolve clause.''
This is all a game to divert attention from the fact that we have
before us now an issue that the American people want us to address:
whether there should be a surge, an escalation, an augmentation of the
already disastrous war taking place in Iraq, causing 3,100 American
deaths, approximately; 24,000 wounded American soldiers, a third of
whom are hurt very badly; 2,000 are missing multiple limbs--brain
injuries, blindness, paralysis. That is what 8,000 American soldiers
now are going through--men and women.
So I ask my friend to amend his request in the following manner:
I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be
discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 7, by Senator
Warner, and S. Res. 70, by Senator McCain, and the Senate proceed to
their consideration en bloc; that there be 6 hours for debate equally
divided between the two leaders or their designees on both resolutions,
to be debated concurrently; that no amendments or motions be in order
to either resolution; that at the conclusion or yielding back of the
time, the Senate vote on Senator McCain's resolution, followed by a
vote on Senator Warner's resolution; that if either resolution fails to
garner 60 votes, the vote be vitiated and the resolution be returned to
its prior status; that immediately following the votes
[[Page 3219]]
on the resolutions I have just mentioned, the Senate turn to the
consideration of H.J. Res. 20, the infamous continuing resolution,
funding the Government after February 15 for the rest of the fiscal
year; that there be 4 hours for debate on the joint resolution; that no
amendments or motions be in order in relation to it; that at the
conclusion or yielding back of the time, the Senate vote on final
passage of the joint resolution; that if the joint resolution fails to
get 60 votes, the vote be vitiated and the joint resolution be returned
to the calendar.
I announce that if we are able to do that--dispose of these three
items I have mentioned--this week, or whenever we finish them, then we
would begin the Presidents Day recess at the conclusion of this week.
One of the things we found is that because of the accelerated work
schedule, people are having a lot of work to do at home. So that is why
we would do this.
Madam President, there would be no amendments to the CR from either
side. I mention that because, in getting to the point where we are,
there has been total consultation by the majority and minority, each
subcommittee, and the majority and ranking members. The chair and
ranking members work very closely. One of the people heavily involved
in this, for example, is Senator Domenici, my long-term partner on the
Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations. He fought for more,
and he got more. That happened with many Republicans who spoke out, and
most of them did.
I further say that if there were ever a bipartisan measure, it is the
continuing resolution. But we have to finish before February 15.
So I ask my friend, the Republican leader, to accept my alteration to
his unanimous-consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I
will object, let me remind our colleagues that 4 years ago last month,
we were at exactly the same situation. My party came back to the
majority. The Democratic majority of the previous Congress had not
passed 11 out of the 13 appropriations bills. And what did the new
Republican majority do? We took up an omnibus collection of
appropriations bills. We had over 100 amendments offered. We gave
everybody in the Senate an opportunity to offer amendments, and we
disposed of all of those appropriations bills over a couple-week
period.
What my good friend, the majority leader, is suggesting is that we
take up a continuing resolution of 11 appropriations bills, with no
amendments whatsoever, and he offers as an enticement an extra week
off. This is completely unacceptable to the minority. First, he is
saying that we cannot get adequate consideration to our Iraq proposals.
Second, he is saying we cannot have any amendments to an over $400
billion continuing appropriation. Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I will continue reserving the right to
object to my friend's unanimous consent request. Prior to making a
decision on that, I want to read to everybody here from page 3,
paragraph 4, of the Warner resolution:
The Congress should not take any action that will endanger
United States military forces in the field, including the
elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as
such an action with respect to funding would undermine their
safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned
missions.
Madam President, I object.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, it is clear now to the minority that
five proposals on our side were too many, three proposals were too
many, and two proposals were too many, but the majority leader offered
us one last week. He said: I will take one and you take one. So I am
going to modify my request of a few moments ago which, as the leader
indicated, was exactly the same as my request of late last week. I am
going to modify my request.
As I have said repeatedly, the Members on this side of the aisle are
ready and willing to proceed with this debate. At the outset, I
indicated we were prepared to enter into, as I said a moment ago, an
agreement for debate and votes on various resolutions. We had hoped for
a number--and it was pretty challenging, frankly, to pare down the
number on our side. As I indicated, we started with five. That was
rejected from the other side. We pared our proposals down to two. That
meant three proposals in total--the Warner proposal and two additional
ones--to be debated for a reasonable amount of time and then three
votes--the unanimous consent request I just propounded.
I think what we just offered was a reasonable approach and would
allow the Senate to have those votes this week. Evidently, as I
indicated, three proposals are too many. So, therefore, in order to
allow us to move forward with this important debate, I am prepared to
have votes on just two resolutions.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the
majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the
Senate proceed en bloc to two concurrent resolutions under the
following agreement: S. Con. Res. 7, the Warner resolution, which is to
be discharged from the Foreign Relations Committee; and Senator Gregg's
amendment related to the funding and supporting our troops.
I further ask unanimous consent that there be a total of 10 hours of
debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees;
provided further that no amendments be in order to any of the measures;
further, that at the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed
to two consecutive votes on the adoption of the concurrent resolutions
in the following order, with no further action or intervening debate:
the Gregg resolution supporting the troops and S. Con. Res. 7,
sponsored by Senator Warner.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that any resolution that does not
receive 60 votes in the affirmative, the vote on adoption be vitiated
and the concurrent resolution be returned to its previous status.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, we have gone from this
morning and trying to copy one of the trick plays from the Super Bowl
to now going to the science bill, and I guess it is modern math. We
don't accept that, Madam President. What we demand for the American
people is an up-or-down vote on the escalation of the war in Iraq.
McCain has been filed. Let's vote on it. Let's vote on Warner. That is
our proposal. We haven't wavered from that. We will not waiver from
that. That is what the American people demand and ultimately they will
get. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Objection is heard.
The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, as my good friend on the other side
of the aisle frequently reminded us last year, the Senate is not the
House. It is not possible in this body for the majority to dictate to
the minority the contents of this debate. What we are asking for, by
any standard, is reasonable: One alternative--just one--to the proposal
on which my good friend, the majority leader, is seeking to get a vote.
We don't object to having this debate. We are ready and willing to have
this debate, anxious to have this debate, but we insist on fundamental
fairness.
The Gregg amendment is about the troops. How can we have a debate on
Iraq and have no debate about the troops? Do we support them or don't
we? That is what the Gregg amendment is about, and Senate Republicans
insist that we consider those who are being sent to Iraq, over and
above the current troops deployed there, in our debate, which is
entirely about the additional troops going to Iraq.
I assume the whole genesis of this debate this week is the question
of additional troops going to Baghdad under the direction of General
Petraeus to try to quiet the capital city and allow this fledgling
democracy to begin to take hold. And the Gregg amendment--Senator Gregg
is right here on the floor of the Senate and is fully capable of
explaining what the Gregg amendment is about. I ask the Senator from
New Hampshire, what is the essence of
[[Page 3220]]
the Gregg amendment which we seek to have voted on in the context of
this Iraq war?
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I will attempt to read it. I first have
to find my glasses. My wife told me I had to use my glasses.
The resolution which I proposed and which I understand the Republican
leader has suggested be the Republican alternative or the alternative
presented--in fact, it will have Democratic support, I suspect, enough
so that maybe the majority leader doesn't want it voted on because it
might have so much Democratic support.
In any event, it is a proposal that simply states that it is the
sense of the Congress that Congress should not take any action that
will endanger U.S. military forces in the field, including the
elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such
action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm
their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.
I don't think it requires a great deal of explanation. It is simply a
statement of commitment to our troops which seems reasonable. It is
hard for me to understand how we can send troops on a mission, walking
the streets of Baghdad--American troops, American men and women--and
not say to those men and women: Listen, we are going to support you
with the financing, with the logistics, with the equipment you need to
be as safe as you possibly can be in this very dangerous mission you
are undertaking for our Nation.
That is all it says. I can't understand why the other side isn't
willing to allow a vote on that resolution. If they want to vote on the
Warner amendment, it doesn't make any sense.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reclaiming my time, the other side
just proposed an agreement that mandates 60 votes on two resolutions.
Those are their words on paper. We agree to those terms, but at least
we are suggesting that we be allowed to pick the proposal on our side,
as Senator Gregg has just outlined what the proposal on our side would
be.
The majority leader apparently seeks to dictate to us what the
proposal on our side would be. That is simply unheard of in the Senate,
that he is telling us that on the continuing resolution, we will get no
amendments at all, and on the Iraq resolution, he will pick for us what
our proposal is to be. I think that doesn't pass the fairness test.
I see the Senator from New Hampshire on the Senate floor. I wonder if
he has any further observations he would like to make.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I would simply like to inquire of the
Republican leader, have you ever in your experience seen a time when--
either the Republican leadership or the Democratic leadership--the
majority party says to the minority party: We will set forth the
amendments on which we are going to vote, and we will also set forth
and write the amendment on which you are going to vote?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I say to my friend from New
Hampshire, I have been here now--it is hard to believe--a couple of
decades, and I cannot recall a time in which one side has dictated to
the other side what their proposal will be in a legislative debate.
Mr. GREGG. I understand, I ask the Republican leader further,
especially since it seems ironic in the context of putting forward a
commitment to say to the men and women who are fighting for us: We
shall give you the support you need when you are sent on a mission;
they are not choosing to go on this mission; they are members of the
military who, under their responsibility as members of the military,
are being sent on a mission; is it not reasonable that we should say to
them: We will give you the logistical support, financial support, the
equipment you need in order to fulfill that mission correctly?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I say to my friend from New
Hampshire, I can't think of anything more relevant to an Iraq debate
about the appropriateness of this new mission, which General Petraeus
will lead, than the amendment which Senator Gregg has authored and
which we request be our proposal as this debate goes forward.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if the Senator will yield just for one
further point, would it not be truly unusual in a democratic forum,
which is supposed to be the most deliberative body in the world, to not
allow the minority to bring forward a resolution--which is probably
going to get more than a majority vote should it ever be voted on--
which is not contestable as to its purpose--its purpose being well
meaning; it is certainly not a purpose that is anything other than to
express a sense of support for those who are defending us--would it not
be a new form of democracy, maybe closer to the Cuban model, to not
allow an amendment presented by the minority as their option but,
rather, have the majority write the minority's amendment which would
then be voted on? That way the majority gets to write both amendments,
I guess is my bottom line.
You have one-party rule, sort of a Cuban model of democracy.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I thank my friend from New Hampshire
for his observations about not only the process but the merits of his
proposal.
Let me conclude by reiterating once again that I think the Senator
from New Hampshire and I and others, including those who have been
speaking on the Senate floor on this side this morning, welcome the
debate about Iraq policy. We had anticipated having the debate this
week. It is not too late to have the debate this week.
We are now down to two proposals, just two proposals. It took a lot
of time on our side to get down to one for us and, of course, the
majority has a preference of its own. This debate could be wrapped up
in relatively short order, and then we could move on with the
continuing resolution, where I hope it might be possible for the
minority to have at least some amendments.
Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, the Presiding Officer is a new Member of
this body, but she should have seen when the Republicans were in the
majority. We didn't have amendments. They filled every tree. I will
also say, it speaks volumes here today--volumes. There is not a single
person on the other side of the aisle who has come to the floor and
supported the troop surge of President Bush--not a single person. I
wonder if President Bush is aware that not a single Republican Senator
has come to the floor and said: I support President Bush sending 48,000
more troops to Iraq. That speaks volumes.
I will also say this, Madam President: Senator Boxer, a couple rows
back, just a few minutes ago, talked about one short snapshot of one
day from the Los Angeles Times: Scores of people being murdered and
killed and mutilated; a little girl leaving school with blood-drenched
steps over which she was walking. One could see the red in the
photograph, and Senator Boxer was one, two, three rows back. We could
all see that.
Not a single person has come to the floor to support the surge, but
that is what is dictating what we vote on today. It is not the majority
leader. We, for the American people, need to have this debate.
Also, I certainly care a lot about the Senator from New Hampshire--
and he knows that is true--but I have to smile. What has he done the
first few weeks of this legislative session? He has brought to the
Senate floor during the debate on ethics, lobbying reform, and earmark
reform the line-item veto, and then he brought it forth again on
minimum wage. And now to stop a debate on the escalation of the war in
Iraq, he now comes up with this other diversionary tactic. He is a
wonderful man, a gentleman, but, Madam President, do you know what he
kind of reminds me of this first few weeks of this legislative session?
Somebody who comes into a basketball game, not to score points, just to
kind of rough people up, just to kind of get the game going in a
different direction.
[[Page 3221]]
The game we have going today has nothing to do with supporting the
troops. We support the troops. Every speech that a Democrat has given
in the last 4 years has talked about how much we support the troops. In
fact, we were the first to raise the issue. We were the first to raise
the issue about a lack of body armor. We raised that first. We support
the troops. We have done that not only with our mouths but with the way
we voted.
The debate in the Senate should be on the resolution submitted by the
Senator from Arizona, which they have obviously dropped--the resolution
from the Senator from Arizona and Senator Lieberman from Connecticut.
They threw that out in an effort to go for this diversion.
So why don't we see how the minority feels about voting on the
President's surge of $30 billion and 48,000 troops? That is what this
debate is about.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. Sure.
Mr. GREGG. First, I appreciate the Senator's generous comments. I
take them as a compliment. I have been active legislatively. That is,
obviously, our job.
I ask the Senator: He heard me read the language of my resolution
earlier, and I will read it again, if he wishes.
Mr. REID. If I can interrupt, and I do that apologetically, I read it
before the Senator from New Hampshire arrived in the Chamber because it
is in the Warner resolution.
Mr. GREGG. Good. If the Senator is of such a mind, I ask if this were
a freestanding resolution brought to the floor, would the Senator vote
for my resolution?
Mr. REID. I don't think I have to make that judgment now because the
judgment, I say to my friend from New Hampshire, is not some
diversionary matter. The issue before this body and the issue before
the American people--that is why we are getting hundreds of phone calls
in my office and other Senate offices around the country. The issue is
does the Senate support the President's surge? That is the question.
I have to say the Senator from Arizona at least was willing to put
his name on it and move forward. We haven't heard a lot of speeches in
favor of his resolution. Where are they?
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if the Senator will yield further, I
guess I find it difficult to argue that it is a diversion when the
resolution that I am proposing simply says that we will support the
troops who are being asked to carry out the mission they have been
assigned. This is not a diversion. This is a responsibility, I would
think, of every Member of the Senate to take a position on whether they
support giving the troops who have been assigned the task, the
equipment, the financial support, and the logistical support they need
to protect themselves and carry out that mission.
I think to call that a diversion does not do justice to our troops in
the field, so I am concerned about that. It does seem to me for the
Senator from Nevada to take that position is inconsistent with the
basic philosophy of Congress, which is that the first responsibility in
a matter of warfighting is to support the troops.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I have been asked to yield to my friend
from Washington, and I am glad to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I asked the majority leader to yield
for a question. I have been on the Senate floor and listened to the
exchange between the majority leader and the Republican leader and,
quite frankly, I was astonished and I want to understand if the
majority leader heard the same thing I did.
The Republican leader came back to you and offered to remove from
consideration the McCain amendment, which is the pro-escalation
amendment, essentially offering a vote on just the Warner and Gregg
amendment. Leaving aside what this says about the lack of support of
the proposal on their side, are we hearing from the other side that
they do not even want a vote on whether they support the President's
escalation?
It seems to me we are hearing a phony debate request on who supports
the troops. That is not a debate that we need to have. Everyone in this
body supports the troops. I ask the leader if he heard the request from
the Republicans the same way I did, that they no longer even want to
have a vote on whether they support the President's escalation.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I say to my friend from Washington that we
have a record of supporting the troops. We did it in Kosovo, we did it
through the entire Balkans, and we did it in Afghanistan. We did it in
Afghanistan with very few questions asked, and rightfully so. We have
supported every effort made by this President to defeat the war on
terror, with rare exception. But the troops in the field? Never, never
have we wavered from that.
In fact, I don't know of a speech, although there could be some
given, where a Democrat has talked about the war in Iraq and hasn't
talked about how much we appreciate the work done by these valiant
troops and the sacrifices of their families. That is why we were
stunned during the State of the Union Address when the President even
mentioned the veterans.
I am happy to have answered the question from the Senator from
Washington.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a
question.
Mr. REID. I yield.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senate majority leader for yielding for a
question, and I appreciate his willingness to engage in a dialogue on
this issue.
In reference to the question of the Senator from Washington to the
majority leader, I do want our resolution debated. We are trying to
move forward. As I think the Senator from Nevada is aware, there was a
proposal to have a 60-vote, which is the way the Senate does business,
on three resolutions--on the Warner, McCain, and Gregg resolutions--and
that was turned down. I only agreed to the latest proposal because I
think we need to move the process forward.
I guess what I am asking the Senator from Nevada is, isn't it really
true that the way we do business here does require 60 votes? It is just
a reality of the way the Senate functions. When there was an attempt a
year ago, 2 years ago, actually, with the so-called nuclear option, I
was one who fought hard to preserve the right of the majority to have
60 votes in the case of the appointment of judges, and I think we
reached a bipartisan agreement on that.
So I still am a bit puzzled why we could not have a vote on my
resolution that would require 60 votes in order for it to be adopted,
just as it would be for the Warner resolution and as it would be for
the Gregg resolution. I don't quite understand why we couldn't do that,
as we have done hundreds of times in the past, as the Senator knows,
because we have been in the Senate for many years.
That is my question. Again, I thank the majority leader for allowing
me to engage in this discussion with him.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I say to my friend who came to the House
at the same time as myself, and then we came to the Senate together--in
fact, there is only one person ahead of me in seniority, and that is
the Senator from Arizona because the State of Arizona has more people
in it than the State of Nevada--no one has ever doubted the courage of
the Senator from Arizona. I have read the books. I know about Senator
McCain. He has not only been heroic on the field of battle but also
legislatively, and I respect that.
But I say to my friend, yes, there are 60 votes required on some
things in this body. Not everything. The vast majority of legislation
that passes here is with a simple majority. I would say to my friend,
recognizing that it does take 60 votes, that is why I offered to do the
deal: McCain, 60 votes; Warner, 60 votes. That is the proposal I made.
That is pending before the body right now, and that has been turned
down five or six times. So I would be willing to do it on a simple
majority, if you want to do McCain on a simple majority or the Warner
resolution on a simple majority. I would try to get that done. Right
now, Madam President, we have the proposal I have made.
[[Page 3222]]
I do say that the debate is not whether we support the troops. That
is a diversion. We support the troops. The issue before this body is
whether the American people deserve to see how their Senator is going
to vote; whether their Senator approves the surge, the escalation, the
augmentation of 48,000 troops, costing approximately $30 billion extra.
That is what the American people care about, not whether we support the
troops. We all support the troops.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, will the Senator from Nevada yield for a
question?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to understand what has happened
over on the other side, the Republican side. Is it my understanding
they have asked now to drop the McCain-Lieberman amendment?
Mr. REID. I have to be honest with my friend from Illinois, who also
came with us at the same time from the House to the Senate, that the
answer is, yes. The Lieberman amendment has been given up.
Mr. DURBIN. If I might continue through the Chair to ask the Senator
from Nevada a question, on the issue that I think is before America
today--whether we should escalate the number of troops into this war in
Iraq--we had offered to the Republican side a choice between two
Republican amendments: Senator Warner's amendment, which said the
President's policy is wrong, and Senator McCain's amendment, which says
the policy is advisable and should be followed. Even given the option
of two Republican amendments, the Republican minority, yesterday, voted
to deny any opportunity for the Senate to debate two Republican
amendments?
Mr. REID. I would say to my friend, yes, that is true. We were
willing because the Senator from Arizona had the ability, the courage,
and the dignity to put this issue before the American people, even
though--and he knows this--the vast majority of American people do not
support the escalation in Iraq. But he did it. We were willing to take
two Republican resolutions--one supporting the surge, one opposing the
surge--and let Senators from every State in the Union raise their hand
and tell the American people how they feel about it.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I might ask the Senator from Nevada
whether this resolution being offered by Senator Gregg really is
focused not on the major issue of escalating the war but somehow is
focused on supporting the troops. Even the Warner resolution, a
Republican resolution, has the identical language of the Gregg
resolution when it comes to that support of the troops; is that not
true?
Mr. REID. I say to my friend that the rumor around here is that
Senator Warner put that in there thinking he could get the support of
the Senator from New Hampshire, but, obviously, he was wrong.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I might also ask the Senator whether it
appears to him now that the Republicans, at this point, don't want to
debate either of the Republican amendments and want to change the
subject; that they want to move to a Gregg resolution, which deals
with, as the Senator has just said repeatedly, support for the troops,
which is not an issue?
We all support the troops. It appears to me that we have made no
progress in the last 24 hours, and I would ask the Senator from Nevada
if he has a different conclusion.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend that the only thing I sense this
afternoon--and I have to say it with a smile on my face, and I hope
everyone recognizes this--is that every piece of legislation we have
brought up, the Senator from New Hampshire has tried to throw a monkey
wrench into it. It happened on ethics, it happened on the minimum wage,
and now on this Iraq issue.
I guess my dear friend, who has a stellar political record as
Governor, Member of the House of Representatives, United States
Senator, chairman of the Budget Committee--and I have commented for the
record many times about my admiration for him, but I guess he is the
designated ``see if we can mess up the legislation'' guy this year. I
would hope in the future to get somebody I don't care so much about
because it is hard for me to try to oppose my dear friend from New
Hampshire. Maybe when they do this every couple of months they will
change.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for one more
question?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, again, I appreciate the courtesy of the
majority leader.
Is it not true that when the Senator says he supports the troops,
that there is disapproval of what they are doing and that the Senator
does not think their mission is going to succeed? And is it not true
that maybe some of the troops may not view that as an expression of
support?
I talked to many men and women in the military in recent days,
ranking from private to general. Isn't it true that most of them, if
you had the opportunity to talk to them, would say: When they do not
support my mission, they do not support me?
Therefore, isn't it just a little bit of an intellectual problem to
say: Of course, we support the troops; of course, we support the
troops; of course, we support the troops, but we are sending you over--
and they are going because this is a nonbinding resolution--aren't we
saying that we think they are going to fail and this is a vote of no
confidence?
The so-called Warner amendment, by the way, is not a Republican
amendment, no matter whose name is on it.
Is it not true that when I look one of these soldiers or marines in
the eye and say: I really support you, my friend, and I know you are
going into harm's way, but I don't think you are going to succeed, in
fact, I am against your mission, but I support you, that they do not
buy it? They do not buy it, I will say to my friend from Nevada, and
don't think that they do.
So I would ask my friend if it isn't true a vote of no confidence is
a vote of no confidence to the men and women who are serving in the
military. It doesn't sell.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I also have had the opportunity to go to
Iraq as many times as my friend from Arizona, and I also speak to the
troops and the people at the Pentagon. I have to respectfully suggest
to my friend that there are many individuals whom I have spoken to who
really like what we have suggested--we, the Democrats--that there be a
redeployment of troops.
Does that mean they all pull out of Iraq and leave immediately? Of
course, it doesn't. But redeploy the troops. Redeploy the troops.
Redeploy them to do what? Counterterrorism, force protection, and
training the Iraqis. And my contacts in the military say they think our
proposal is pretty good. We were on this proposal before the Iraq Study
Group, but they adopted it, and I hope they got it from us, and that is
that there should be a regional conference, including Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and, yes, Iran. This is a regional problem. This
war will not be handled and dealt with and taken care of militarily. It
can only be done diplomatically.
We are a wonderful fighting force, and we will continue to be, but
where we have lost our edge is diplomatically. We have not done well at
all in that regard, and the people I have talked to in the military
support what we are trying to do: redeployment; they support a regional
conference; they support, of course, recognizing that this must be
handled politically. There has to be some meaningful reconstruction
that goes forward--producing less oil now than before the war, less
potable water, and less electricity. These are the things which have to
be changed, and the people I talk to in the military think we are
headed in the right direction.
They also think we are headed in the right direction when we speak
out on the state of deterioration of our military. This war has taken a
toll on our equipment--not on our troops alone, on our equipment. It is
going to cost $75 billion to bring the military up to the situation
they were in prior to this war. They are grateful we are fighting for
them in that regard.
So, Madam President, I respect--and I don't have the military
background
[[Page 3223]]
of my friend from Arizona, but I have contacts in the military, and I
think a lot of those people are more willing to talk to me than someone
who is running for President and someone who is more noteworthy than I
am. He is better known in the military, and they know he can respond to
them probably better than I. So they are willing to tell me a lot of
things they wouldn't tell someone as significant as John McCain.
So, Madam President, I think the Democratic plan we have enunciated
is pretty good, much of which we have enunciated for a long time and
has been picked up by the Iraq Study Group.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. Certainly.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator from Nevada the following
question: If I follow the inquiry of the Senator from Arizona, it leads
me to this conclusion--and let me add my voice in chorus commending his
service to our country and commending his courage. I share the
admiration, and I mean it sincerely, I say to the Senator from Arizona.
But his argument goes something like this: If you are not loyal to the
policies of the Commander in Chief, then you are not loyal to the
troops. If you are not prepared to say you will stand behind the
policy, the military policy of the President, whether you agree with it
or not, then you do not respect the troops and don't have confidence in
the troops. Nothing is further from the truth.
I ask the Senator from Nevada, does he think it is possible to
disagree with the President's policies and still be loyal to the
troops? Is it possible to say the President was wrong in not bringing
more countries in as allies in this conflict before we invaded and
still be loyal to the troops? Is it possible to say we didn't send
enough soldiers when we should have and still be loyal to the troops?
Is it possible to say disbanding the Army of Iraq was a bad decision
and still be loyal to America's troops? Is it possible to say the
situation that is grave and deteriorating in Iraq is evidence of a need
for a new direction and still be loyal to the troops?
I just don't buy the premise by the Senator from Arizona that if you
question the policy of the President, somehow you are disloyal to the
soldiers. They are the ones following orders from the Commander in
Chief. We have a special obligation to them--I think a loyalty to
them--far and beyond any Chief Executive.
I would ask the Senator from Nevada if he believes you can be loyal
to the troops and still disagree with the President?
Mr. REID. I think that is part of being a patriotic Member of this
Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I was, unfortunately, engaged in a
briefing in S. 407 on the most recent NIE, and I have just come down to
join my colleagues on the Senate floor and I caught some portions of
the debate. But I would like to say to my colleagues that the Senator
from Virginia, together with probably six or eight other Republicans,
has been discussing this issue very carefully and thoughtfully and
respectfully.
Frankly, we have taken to heart what the President said when he
addressed the Nation on January 10. His very words were: ``If there are
those with ideas, we will consider them.'' We accept that invitation by
our President and have tried in a very respectful way to simply state
that we have some serious concern with the level of 21,500 additional
troops. Now we learn it could even be larger than that, in testimony,
open testimony this morning with the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It could be 3,000 or 4,000 more. We tried
in a very respectful way simply to express our concerns about an
increase of that level at a time when polls show most of the Iraqi
people don't want us there, much less increase the force. Now, I am not
following the polls, but we are asking our troops to go into a very
heated, emotional situation in that country. We simply said to the
President: Shouldn't we put more emphasis on the utilization of the
Iraqi forces? Shouldn't we let them bear the brunt of such additional
security as must go into Baghdad?
We learned this morning that the efforts to build up the forces have
fallen short. I am not going to pronounce judgment on what happened on
just 2 or 3 days' reporting, but clearly the number of Iraqis showing
up is far below the estimates or significantly below the estimates we
anticipated their participation would be in this operation which, in
many respects, is to be joint. We talked with General Pace this morning
about my concern of this concept of joint command and control. He
assured us the American forces would have a linear straight line from
an American senior officer right down to the sergeants operating the
platoons on the front lines. But nevertheless the Iraqis are going to
have their chain of command, and I think that puts a challenge to us.
But I don't want to digress from my main point. Our group, in a
conscientious and a respectful way, even wrote into the resolution that
we in no way contest the right of the President of the United States
under the Constitution to take the actions he has taken thus far and
will take. But as long as I have been in this Chamber--now in my 29th
year--I have always tried to respect another Senator's way of thinking.
I don't question his integrity or her integrity or their patriotism or
anything else. I do not do that now. I wish to make my points based on
what I have put forth in this resolution with about six other
Republican colleagues and a number of Democrats.
We simply want to suggest--and we use the word ``urge''--we urge you,
Mr. President, not ``direct you'' or ``you shall do this,'' we simply
urge that you take into consideration all the options by which you can
bring down this level and consider greater utilization of the Iraqi
forces.
Then we have the subsidiary question that this program is in three
parts--one part military. So much of our focus has been on that. There
is a diplomatic part. There is an economic part. In our testimony today
with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman, we stressed the need
for all three of those parts to come together at one time to have the
effect that the President desires with his new plan. Somehow, we gained
the impression today that maybe the political part and perhaps the
economic part are not quite as far along as some of the military
thinking and planning. Actually, the troops are moving in as we debate
this on the Senate floor.
So there were several questions we respectfully raised with the
President, urging him to take a look at this, by means of which to
lessen--lessen the total number of 21,500 and, indeed, more now--
troops.
We also point out the importance of the benchmarks. That is all in
there. We carefully lay out that the benchmarks should be clearly and
fully understood by both sides and a method put in place by which we
can assess the compliance or noncompliance for those benchmarks. The
Secretary of Defense today, in his testimony to us, in response to
questions from this Senator and others, said: Yes, we will put in a
mechanism by which to evaluate the degree to which the Iraqi compliance
is taken with respect to benchmarks, the benchmarks that basically have
to support the President's plan. In addition, we put in the resolution
of the Senator from New Hampshire. I think it is important that we have
an expression in here about the non-cutoff of funds.
So our resolution has been presented to try as best we can to put
together right here on the floor of the Senate a bipartisan consensus.
I think the American public is entitled to see whether the Senate, an
institution that is followed throughout the world, can come together
and express in a single document--accompanied by lots of debate but in
a single document--a joinder of a number of Republicans and a number of
Democrats, so it is truly bipartisan, and therefore the American public
will get, I think, the sense of confidence that this body is carrying
out its responsibility under the Constitution to speak to this issue
and to put onto a piece of paper what we think is the nearest a group
of us can
[[Page 3224]]
gather and express ourselves. And that includes a vote.
I am not going to enter into further debate with the two leaders. I
think they are trying to work out and resolve this problem. I support
my leader with respect to the cloture, and that raises a question: How
can I advocate that I strongly adhere to my resolution and at the same
time support my leader? Well, when I first came to this Chamber many
years ago, the old-time Senators who taught me so many lessons said:
This is what separates the Senate from the House--the ability to have
this almost unlimited debate by a single Senator. And it is, throughout
the history of this institution, one of its revered tenets and its
rules. To take that and deny it, deny Senators the ability to bring up
their own resolutions to express their own views, is a curtailment that
I believe we should consider long and hard. That is why I cast that
vote yesterday.
So I leave it to the two leaders, but I come back again to the need
for this great institution to express itself through the votes of
hopefully a significant number of Senators, that this is what we
believe is the best course of action for our Nation to take as we
revise our strategy in Iraq, as we move ahead. And in our resolution,
we put in there ever so expressly that we agree with the President; it
would be disastrous were we to allow this Government to collapse not
knowing what government might or might not take their place, and to
allow the Iraqi people to lose the ground they gained through
courageous votes several times to put this Government together. It
would be bad for Iraq, it would be bad for the region, and it could
have ramifications on world peace and our efforts to stem this terrible
growth of terrorism worldwide.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
used by the two leaders in the exchange on the floor not be counted
against the 90 minutes on each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, war is the most serious and the most
consequential issue we can debate here in the Senate. American lives,
American security, and America's future are all on the line when our
country decides questions of war and peace. For years, we have been
denied a real opportunity to fully debate this war in Iraq, a war that
has now claimed more than 3,000 American lives with no end in sight.
Last November, the voters sent us a message. They want a new
direction. What do we hear from the President? More of the same. In
fact, his plan is to escalate the war by putting up to 48,000 more
Americans in the middle of a deadly civil war. They are two completely
different approaches. On one side, we have the American people, the
Iraq Study Group, generals who have spoken out, and a bipartisan
majority of Congress. On the other side, we have the President and his
supporters. In a democracy, we resolve these issues through debate. We
in the Senate are ready for that debate. We are ready to move in a new
direction, and it starts by putting this Senate on record as opposing
the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq.
I have been looking forward to finally having this debate in the
Senate, but apparently some of the Republicans have a very different
strategy. They don't want to have a real debate. They don't want to
consider the resolutions that have been offered. In fact, I think the
discussion we just witnessed right now showed that to us.
Last night, by voting against a motion to proceed to this debate,
they said they didn't want to talk about this. Now, I am not here today
to question their motives, but I do want to point out the consequences.
Every day they block a debate, they send a message that Congress
supports escalation. Every day they block a debate, they deny our
citizens a voice in a war that has cost us dearly in dollars and in
lives. And every day they block a debate, they are blocking the will of
the American public.
I am on the Senate floor today because I know this debate is long
overdue, and I am not going to let anyone silence me, the troops for
whom I speak, or the constituents I represent. Ever since the start of
combat operations in March of 2003, I have been very frustrated that we
have been denied a chance to hold hearings, a chance to ask critical
questions, a chance to demand answers, to hold those in charge
accountable, and to give the American people a voice in a war that is
costing us terribly. We are going to have that debate whether some in
this Senate like it or not.
Four years ago, I came to the Senate to discuss the original
resolution to give the President the authority to wage war in Iraq. At
that time, I asked a series of questions, including: What is the
mission? What will it require? Who is with us in this fight? What
happens after our troops go in? How will it impact the Middle East? How
will it affect the broader war on terror? And are we being honest with
the American people about the costs of that war?
After exploring those questions back almost 4 years ago, I announced
on October 9 of 2002 that I could not support sending our men and women
into harm's way on an ill-defined solo mission with so many critical
questions unanswered.
Now, here we are today, 4 years later, $379 billion and more than
3,000 American lives taken. Now the President wants to send more
Americans into the middle of a civil war against the wishes of the
majority of the public and Congress?
As I look at the President's proposed escalation, I am left with the
exact same conclusion I met with 4 years ago. I cannot support sending
more of our men and women into harm's way on an ill-defined solo
mission with so many critical questions unanswered. Today, President
Bush wants to send Americans into battle without a clear mission,
without equipment, without an endgame and without explaining the cost.
When he tried it 4 years ago, I stood up and spoke out and I voted
no. Again today, President Bush wants to send more Americans into
battle without a clear mission, without equipment, without an endgame
and without explaining the costs. Once again, I say: Not on my watch.
We need a new direction, not more Americans in the middle of a civil
war. I will vote for a bipartisan resolution to send a clear message
that we oppose the surge. It is the first step in demanding a new
direction in Iraq.
No debate on Iraq can begin without first recognizing our men and
women in uniform who risk their lives and all too often give up their
lives to keep all of us safe. Whenever our country calls, they answer,
no matter the cost to them or their families. They are our best. They
are our brightest, they are our bravest, and I hope to give them a
voice in this debate.
While most Americans today are going about as normal, our troops and
their families are quietly making tremendous sacrifices. The burdens of
this war have not been shared equally, and we owe so much to those who
shoulder those heavy burdens.
I had a chance to visit servicemembers from my home State on the
ground in Kuwait and in Baghdad. Every one of them makes us proud. I
have sat down with servicemembers and their families at Camp Murray, at
McChord Air Force Base, at Fairchild Air Force Base. I have talked with
returning servicemembers in every corner of my State. I have worked to
help give them the health care and the benefits and the transition and
support they deserve.
My home State of Washington has made tremendous sacrifices to help us
fight and win the war on terror. To date, more than 59,000
servicemembers with the Washington State connection have served in
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Currently,
there are nearly 10,000 people with the Washington State connection who
are serving in OEF and OIF. According to the Department of Defense, as
of January 20, for OEF and
[[Page 3225]]
OIF, 702 servicemembers whose home of record is Washington State have
been injured. That is 702 injured from my State. In addition, 66
servicemembers whose home of record is my home State of Washington have
paid the ultimate sacrifice. The number is even higher when you include
those who have a connection to Washington State.
Each one of those brave Americans is someone whose mother or father,
sister or brother, daughter or son, their families are never going to
be the same. Their communities will never be the same. I offer my
prayers for those who have sacrificed for our country. We owe them a
debt that can never fully be repaid.
After nearly 4 years of losses and misrepresentations and
miscalculations, the American people have said they want a new
direction in Iraq. Generals have spoken out calling for a new
direction. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group called for a new direction.
Yet President Bush has ignored everyone and is now pushing to send even
more of our American troops into the middle of a civil war. He is
wrong. And a bipartisan resolution is the first step we can take in
helping to forge a new direction.
But now what we have is Republicans who are denying the Senate a
chance to vote for that new direction. In fact, they are preventing the
Senate from even debating the merits of that direction. They may have
stopped us from moving forward last night, but they cannot stop this
debate forever. The American people would not allow it.
If the Republicans stop their obstruction and start allowing the
Senate to debate this misguided surge proposal, there are plenty of
questions we have to ask. What would be the impact of a surge? How
would it affect our men and women in uniform? Will it put more of them
into the crossfire and cause more deaths and injuries? My home State is
home to Fort Lewis and two of the Army Stryker Brigades. How is the
surge going to affect them? Will some members see their current
deployment extended? Will others see their deployment date moved up?
Will all of them have the equipment they need when they are there?
Those are the first questions we have to ask.
How will the surge affect our ability to care for our returning
veterans? We are having trouble meeting their needs today; how will we
do the job in an escalated war?
I have heard several Members on the other side demand ideas from
Democrats, and my first response is simple: To discuss ideas, shouldn't
we discuss, first, the President's ideas? He is, after all, the
Commander in Chief. That is the point of the resolutions, to foster a
debate on the President's plan for the future of Iraq. But the Senate
Republicans would not allow that. The Republicans' obstruction and the
President's decision so far have left us with very few options.
I am looking at every resolution and every proposal. I am looking
forward to having hearings and getting the facts and moving forward in
a bipartisan way.
Personally, I believe the way forward should include three steps.
First of all, we should strategically redeploy our troops. Second, we
should work with Iraq's neighbors and other countries in the area to
build a regional framework. And third, we need the Iraqis to take
ownership of their own country and their own future. We can send troops
for decades and never have a peaceful, stable Iraq until the Iraqi
people are willing to work together for a purpose that is larger than
their own tribe or their own sect or their own self.
We need to refocus our efforts on the war on terror, on fighting al-
Qaida, and on addressing the other challenges that threaten our
security. I am very concerned by the reports we hear about Afghanistan,
that it is sliding backward and becoming more unstable. Those are some
of the steps I would take to improve our security. That is the debate
we ought to be having.
Before I conclude, let me address two concerns. First, some people
have suggested that if you question the President's policies, you are
somehow hurting our troops. As the Vice President would say, hogwash.
Supporting our troops means giving them a clear mission, making sure
they have the equipment and support they need and making sure we have a
clear endgame. If any of those critical ingredients are missing, it is
our duty to question the policy until we provide our troops with what
they need. Sending more Americans into the middle of a civil war
without a clear mission, without equipment, without support, without an
endgame, is endangering our troops, not supporting them.
I don't shrink from war. I voted for the war in Afghanistan. My
father served in World War II and he was injured in combat. I know war
is sometimes necessary. But I also know that if we don't answer the
critical questions, our troops pay the price. For too long, partisans
have claimed to be speaking for our troops but have blocked the
discussions that could truly protect them. I say, no more.
Finally, some people say that a nonbinding resolution is not enough.
And I agree. That is why this is a first step. We can't take the other
steps until this Congress goes on record, in a bipartisan voice,
telling the President the surge is wrong. Once we have done that, the
ball is in the President's court. But today, Senate Republicans are
preventing us from getting there. If he still will not change course,
we will look at the other tools before us.
Senators have discussed a wide series of steps that we could take. I
will review all of them. We are also holding hearings to find out what
options we can take. This is the first step. If the President doesn't
hear us, we will take the next step. And the next step. And the one
after that.
I understand that many Americans are frustrated that our troops are
in the middle of a civil war. I am frustrated. too. I wish we had been
allowed to start this process, these hearings, these debates and votes
a long time ago. But we are moving aggressively forward now. Democrats
have been in charge now for 5 weeks. And already, finally, we are
having more debates, more hearings, more progress, than we have had in
the past 3 years. But I can promise you, this is only a beginning.
We can't have these debates if the Republicans are blocking us in an
open discussion of the war. The Republicans need to stop denying a real
debate in the Senate, so that together we can move our country in a new
direction. I believe for us to have an impact, Congress has to speak
out in a clear, bipartisan voice. We could vote on hundreds of
resolutions that make us feel better, but that would not help us change
direction. It is a strong, bipartisan message from Congress to the
executive branch and to the country that has the power to make
progress.
I am willing to take the time and do this right and to build the
support we need so that at the end of the day we can have a real
impact. I strongly oppose the surge. I believe escalation is the wrong
direction. I will vote to put the Senate on record opposing the surge
if the Republicans will end their filibuster. I will continue to fight
for new direction in Iraq.
For too long, the voices of our troops and our citizens have been
blocked. Today, Senate Republicans are trying to continue that
obstruction. I say, no longer. The debate must begin because our
country will be better for it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes.
____________________
IRAQ
Mr. DODD. Madam President, let me commend my colleague from the State
of Washington for her comments and her views. I associate myself with
many of the things she expressed in the Senate. I congratulate her for
her words, her passion, and her strong feelings about where we stand
today on this issue.
Let me also commend the Democratic leader for his efforts to engage
in what is probably the single most important debate this Senate could
possibly be engaged in. There are other very important matters at home
and
[[Page 3226]]
around the globe--but everyone would agree, regardless of your views on
policy, that the issue of Iraq and where we stand and the effort by the
President to increase the number of troops on the ground in Iraq,
particularly to place them in the large, highly densely populated urban
areas of Iraq, is one of the most serious issues facing our country.
We have had a series of serious and thought-provoking hearings
conducted by Chairman Biden of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
over the last number of weeks on this issue, with people who represent
a variety of ideological perspectives. Yet without fear of
contradiction, I believe the overwhelming majority of the witnesses who
have appeared before that committee have expressed serious reservations
about this escalation, this surge, placing some 21,000 of our young men
and women into Baghdad to try and act as a referee in what we all admit
today is clearly a civil war.
Having this debate is important. I wish to take, if I can, the few
minutes allotted to me to express my concerns about the process, my
concerns about the surge, and my concerns about the overall direction
of the policy in Iraq. There is not a lot of time to do that, but let
me share some thoughts.
First of all, I believe that every Member in this Chamber, regardless
of his or her view on the issue before the Senate regarding Iraq, would
do everything he or she could to make sure that our brave men and women
in uniform, serving in harm's way, would receive everything they could
possibly need to defend themselves. That ought not to be a debating
point. I know of no one in this Senate who feels otherwise. And the
fact that we have to have some discussion about this very point is a
reflection, I think, of what has gone wrong in this debate already.
In fact, I point out that over the last 4 years or so, there have
been amendments offered by those of us here to provide different
additional resources, such as for body armor, because we felt our
troops were not getting what they needed. There has been significant
discussion here in the wake of testimony offered by our senior military
leaders about what has happened to the combat readiness of our troops
as a result of our failure to continue to provide the kind of equipment
and support they deserved over the years. Certainly what has happened
to veterans coming back has also been the subject of debate. But,
nonetheless, I believe most Members here, if not all Members here,
believe our troops deserve the kind of support they ought to have when
they are serving in harm's way.
And so, the debate is not whether you support our troops. The debate
is whether the policy direction the President wishes to lead us in is
the right one. That is a debate which ought to occur in this Chamber.
Frankly, in my view, it ought to be a debate that resolves around at
least a legislative vehicle that might have some meaning to it, some
bite, some teeth, some reality, some accountability.
My leaders know I have strong reservations about a sense-of-the-
Senate debate. Now, normally, we have sense-of-the-Senate resolutions
when there is a consensus that develops. Normally, sense-of-the-Senate
resolutions are offered around matters that are noncontroversial and we
wish to express ourselves regarding these matters, so we all sign on or
virtually everyone signs on.
I would say if, in fact, the goal here was to get 70 or 80 Members of
this Chamber--Republicans and Democrats--to sign on to a proposition
that said we think the surge and escalation is the wrong thing to be
doing, then the vehicle of a sense-of-the-Senate resolution would have
value. But I would suggest here we are into the second day of this
debate and we cannot even decide what sense-of-the-Senate resolution we
want to debate.
So if you are sitting out there watching this Chamber at this moment,
in terms of where we ought to be going and what the effect of what we
are about to do is, it is rather confusing, to put it mildly, as to
where we stand in all of this. We cannot even decide what sense-of-the-
Senate resolutions to bring up. If we are going to have a debate around
here that is meaningful, why not debate something that is meaningful?
So my concerns are, in many ways, that given this moment in time,
before these young men and women are placed in harm's way--because I
know full well, after a quarter of a century here, once they are on the
ground, once they are in place, the debate changes. The debate changes.
So if we are truly concerned about dealing with the surge and
escalation, then I believe we ought to be engaging in a debate that has
some meaningful outcomes when it comes to the decision of whether we go
forward.
I, for one, would like to see a new authorization come to this body
to be debated. The resolution on which we are operating today is one
that was crafted 5 years ago. It was fundamentally linked to weapons of
mass destruction and the conduct of Saddam Hussein. The first argument
was, of course, a fiction. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
And the second argument is no longer viable. Saddam Hussein is gone.
Today, we are being asked to place men and women in uniform in the
middle of a civil war. It seems to me that if the President of the
United States wants that to be a policy endorsed by the American people
through the actions of this body, then we ought to be voting on a
matter that says this is something we agree with and go forward. That
would have some meaning to it, it seems to me. If we rejected it, then
the President would have a strong answer from the Congress about
whether we are about to continue to finance and support that activity--
again, not undercutting the needs of our troops in harm's way but a
legitimate debate about a real issue that requires Members to stand up
and vote yes or no.
I realize I am in sort of a minority of one or two here who believes
the vehicles we are choosing to debate over the next several days, if,
in fact, the debate goes on, are ones that in the final analysis are
nothing more than really message proposals. If we are highly divided
over which one to bring up, what is the message, in effect, if we
cannot even decide which vehicles we want to choose to discuss?
Regarding the surge itself and regarding the Warner-Levin or Levin-
Warner proposal, I have some problems with the language of that
proposal. It essentially abdicates the power of the purse. It calls for
selective diplomacy in the region instead of engaging all of Iraq's
neighbors. The language opposing the surge is weak to the point of
being nonexistent. And there is language that suggests that nothing in
this resolution ought to imply a call for redeployment--something I
wholeheartedly believe we should be pursuing in a phased manner.
But those are my concerns about it, both in terms of the process and
the language under consideration. I realize other Members do not have
those problems. I respect that. But those are my concerns.
Now, regarding the surge itself, again this has been stated by others
who have examined this proposal in great detail, including our senior
military people and senior diplomats. As I said a moment ago, in
testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they have
spoken eloquently about their concerns that this proposal does nothing
but contribute to the chaos that reins in Iraq.
There are some 6 million people who live in the city of Baghdad. To
suggest we are going to send 17,000 or 18,000 service men and women
into a city of 6 million, where there are at least 23 militias along
with insurgents, Baathists, hardened criminals, and possibly some al-
Qaida elements, and that we are going to sort this out in a way that is
going to move us toward a political settlement in the country is I
believe, frankly, beyond dreaming. I do not think it has any viability
whatsoever. In fact, I think it contributes to a further escalation of
the conflict in the country and delays even further what everyone
agrees must occur: some sort of political accommodation between Shias
and Sunnis and Kurds--between Shias and Shias, for that matter. The
idea that placing our troops as a referee in the middle of this civil
conflict
[[Page 3227]]
is going to get us closer to that result, I think, has been
successfully argued against by those whom we respect and admire in
these debates.
Secondly, may I say that, in fact, if you are trying to encourage
those elements to get together and you are also trying to encourage
regional diplomacy to play a role here, then it seems to me we ought to
be talking about how best we can achieve that. When you have an
administration that refuses to even engage in any kind of conversation
or negotiations with governments in the region with which we have
serious disagreements, then I think we get even further away from the
suggestions made by the Baker-Hamilton study group on Iraq that
proposed what I thought were very commonsense, sober, and sound
recommendations that would allow us to have a greater likelihood of
achieving the success we ought to be pursuing. I see little likelihood
of that occurring if, in fact, we are talking about a further military
escalation of the conflict here. Every single person who has looked at
the situation in Iraq has drawn the following conclusion: There is no
military solution--no military solution--in Iraq. So continuing to
pursue that option, continuing to pursue that particular goal in the
face of all the evidence to the contrary, I believe is a major, major
mistake for this country.
I think this body--the Senate--ought to be on record expressing its
opinion about it and that we ought to go forward in a meaningful, real,
accountable way. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen. In fact,
we may end this debate without voting on anything at all regarding
Iraq, as we need to move on to other items that the leadership clearly
must address in the coming weeks. So we are missing an opportunity,
other than to express our views, which most people have done. I know of
no Member in this Chamber who has not spoken out publicly about whether
they think the surge is the right direction to go in, what alternatives
they would offer in terms of how we might begin to talk about
redeployment, and the need for the Iraqis to assume responsibility for
their own country.
The American people have also publicly spoken out. They voted for a
change of course in Iraq last November and according to recent polls, a
majority of Americans oppose a surge. Now I do not believe polling data
ought to be the way you conduct foreign policy, but the fact is that
the American public is exhausted and fed up, to put it mildly, with our
Iraq policy. And let's consider the following data out of Iraq: Over 80
percent of the people in that country believe that our continued
presence in that country contributes to the chaos they are facing, and
over 60 percent of Iraqis believe it is appropriate to attack American
service men and women. Over 60 percent of the people in Iraq believe
that.
How do you justify supporting an escalation, a surge in our military
presence, when the very people whom we are told we are trying to help
in this case believe that, one, we contribute to the chaos, and only a
slightly smaller number believe it is appropriate to attack our service
men and women? For the life of me, I do not understand how an American
President could possibly support a policy that takes us further down
that road.
Now we are not just talking about only two options here of escalating
or leaving. There are policies that come in far between these two. For
example, there have been suggestions about redeployment, with our
service men and women filling other roles like training the Iraqi
military, which was suggested by Baker-Hamilton. I think we should do
this. We could engage in counterterrorism activities. Border security;
we could play a very meaningful role in that as well. So there are
those of us here who believe we ought to be redeploying, bring down
those numbers, but none of us whom I know of have suggested we ought to
be just packing our bags over the next 6 months and leaving Iraq. We
are talking about other roles we can perform, as the 300,000 Iraqi
soldiers and police take over the responsibility of their country.
Madam President, I am telling you as I stand before you today, if we
continue to provide the kind of level of support militarily we are
engaging in, there is less and less likelihood that the Iraqis are
going to assume the responsibility, both politically and militarily, to
take over leadership of their country.
For those reasons, I urge that we find a means and a vehicle, sooner
rather than later, for this body--the Senate, this coequal branch of
Government--to say to the administration and to others: We believe in a
different direction. We would like a new authorization. We would like
debate on a meaningful proposal that would allow us to be accounted
for, yes or no, as to whether you want to move forward.
Again, with all due respect to those who crafted this, I have no
greater admiration for any two Members than I do for Carl Levin and
John Warner, people I have served with here for many years. I respect
immensely the effort they have engaged in here to try to build a
proposal that would attract a substantial majority of our colleagues to
support. If you could do that, then sense-of-the-Senate resolutions
have value. But I rest my case on what is occurring at the very moment
I stand before you this afternoon. We are divided here. We have some
four or five different resolutions. All of them are sense-of-the-Senate
resolutions. None of them have any meaning in law at all. And we cannot
seem to come around a single debate. We ought to be having one about
whether we believe our resources and our young men's and women's lives
ought to be placed in harm's way. That is the debate which ought to be
occurring here. It is not occurring yet. I think that is unfortunate.
It is tragic. My hope is we will find a means to address that in short
order.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted
to proceed for such time as I consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator was allotted 15 minutes. Does the
Senator seek UC for more time?
Mr. KERRY. Well, I ask that, yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. I probably will not use more time, but at least I am
protected. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I listened carefully to the comments of my colleague,
the Senator from Connecticut. I appreciate the frustration he expressed
about what has gone on in the last hours here and the difficulty of
presenting to the country a Senate that appears unable to make up its
mind about what resolution we ought to vote on.
The fact is, the last 24 hours in the Senate have not been a profile
in courage; they have been a profile in politics. Rather than protect
the troops, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided
to try to do what they can to protect the President. I think they have
made an enormous mistake.
The fact is, if we voted on the Warner resolution, those who support
the mission, the escalation--but the mission, as the Senator from
Arizona said--have a chance to vote no, and those who believe the
escalation is a mistake have an opportunity to vote yes. It just does
not get any clearer than that.
No matter what happens with all this argument about the process of
one resolution versus another resolution, the bottom line is that
people who on Sunday shows and in hearings stand up and say they oppose
the escalation were, yesterday, unwilling to allow the Senate to vote
on that. They were unwilling to have a vote of conscience on the
question of the direction of this war.
So rather than protect the troops, those troops who are about to be
sent into a mission that, in fact, does not resolve the issue of Iraq--
and perhaps even makes it far more dangerous, certainly more dangerous
for those troops being asked to perform it--are not protected by the
Senate, making its best effort here to try to make a vote that
disagrees with the President.
The Senator from Arizona was down here a few minutes ago asking the
question of the majority leader: If you
[[Page 3228]]
do not support the troops' mission, then aren't you, by definition--if
you vote as we would like to vote here--not supporting the troops? That
is just an extraordinary leap of logic which has no basis whatsoever in
real reasoning.
The Senator from Arizona himself has criticized the policies of this
administration time and again--in fact, not enough. But time and again,
he has said Mr. Rumsfeld was wrong or he did not have confidence in him
or this and that. Was that a criticism of the troops? Was that not
supporting the troops? I am absolutely confident the answer is no. I
know, and we all know, the Senator from Arizona supports the troops,
but he has been able to draw a distinction between criticizing the
policy and support for the troops. I will tell you, the best way you
support the troops, you support the troops by getting the policy right.
Right now, all over the Hill here in Washington, there are veterans
of the Iraq war who are going around and talking to Congressmen and
Senators and the public, advocating that this mission in Iraq ought to
change, that we ought to begin a process of terminating our involvement
there. They have a very different view of their own service than that
which is expressed by some on the other side of the aisle. The fact is,
there is a growing sentiment among many of those being asked to do this
very difficult job that the missions they are being sent on don't, in
fact, always make sense.
I remember--and I know the Senator from Arizona remembers--what it is
like to be a troop in a war. I remember being on a river in Vietnam
when the Secretary of Defense was flying over us on one of his visits
to take a look at what was going on. Every single one of us said to
each other: Boy, wouldn't it be great if he came down here and talked
to us and found out what we really think is going on. We would have
loved the policy to change. The fact is that more and more of the
veterans I have talked to who are returning from Iraq and some,
regrettably, as Senator Dodd and I noticed a few days ago, whom we met
over there who have not returned alive, are against what is happening
and believe there is a better way to manage this war.
What we are trying to do is have a vote, albeit on a nonbinding
resolution, a vote that expresses the view of the Senate with respect
to this war. We have a moral obligation to make that statement in the
Senate. It is our duty to have that vote. The soldiers in Iraq are
performing their duty. Why aren't the Senators in the Senate performing
theirs? Is it their duty to obstruct? Is it their duty to protect the
President, to prevent a vote? Even though they go out publicly and talk
about their opposition to the war, their opposition to the escalation,
their belief that the direction is wrong, we are not supposed to vote
in the Senate on the question of whether you support the troops or
don't support the troops by sending an additional 21,000 troops over
there. Now is the time for the Senate to register its opposition to the
escalation.
If you pursue the logic of the other side of the aisle when they say:
Well, we can't have a vote here, we shouldn't express anything, we
shouldn't try to change anything, then we are complicit in the very
process with which we disagree. If lives are lost subsequent to our
unwillingness to stand up and vote, do we bear any responsibility for
the loss of those lives? Do you go home and say to yourself at night,
to your wife or your children: Do you know I did everything possible to
try to stop what is happening? When you make the next phone call to a
mother or father or wife in your State and express your sorrow for
their loss in the next days ahead, will you also be able to say, with a
clear conscience, that you did your best to try to prevent that loss,
to set this war on its proper course? I don't think so. I don't think
anybody, with a clear conscience, can say that.
I hate the fact that we are reduced to having a vote on something
that isn't at this moment going to change the direction. But every step
is incremental; every step is a building block. Every step helps to
build the change of opinion we need to achieve in this country, where
people will understand the way you best define patriotism and the way
you best defend the interests of our troops on the ground in Iraq.
Surely, we haven't reached a point in the Senate where you can't even
have a debate on the most important life-and-death issue facing people
in this country. What are we supposed to do? Pack up and go home and
let the President continue to make a mistake? Are we supposed to be
somehow satisfied that the President has earned the right and the new
Secretary of Defense? Who knows yet; the decision is out. But the
record of the last 5 years, 6 years is one of mistake after mistake
after mistake after mistake after mistake, one after the other, from
the planning to the numbers of troops, to what you do afterwards, to
how you preserve the peace, to what kind of politics we are going to
pursue.
So we are doing what we can, within our limited power, with 60-vote
restrictions, to register our disapproval to sending an additional
number of troops, which has been told to the American people is 21,000
but which, in fact, is over 40,000 when you finish with the support
troops who are necessary. These troops deserve a policy that is worthy
of their sacrifice. No Senator that I know of is not committed to
success. We would like to be successful. But what is the definition of
success now?
We have heard month after month from Ambassador Khalilizad. General
Casey, over 7 months ago, said this is the last 6 months for Iraq. They
have a fundamental 6-month period within which they have to get their
act together, and if they don't, serious problems.
That time came and passed. What happened? We hear another promise of
the next few months. We have had months and even years now of these
promises about how this is a moment of turning the corner. This is the
critical moment for Iraq. This is the moment of the difference.
Everybody has known for the whole last year or more that you have to
resolve the oil revenues issue. As I stand on the floor tonight, the
oil revenues issue is not resolved. They say they are making progress,
they are getting closer, but it isn't resolved.
The fundamental question of federalism, the role between the Shia and
the Sunni and a strong Baghdad and a strong central government is
unresolved. That is a fundamental part of the struggle. Our troops,
with their technology, with their great weapons, with their
unbelievable willingness to sacrifice and their courage, they can't
resolve that issue. Iraqi politicians have to resolve that issue. Right
now, as we are debating or not debating this issue, Iraqi politicians
are still jockeying for power at the expense of our young men and
women. I object to that. I get angry that we have to have a private
fundraising effort to put together a rehab for our soldiers--thank God
for the people who did it--in order to take care of those who are going
to be wounded. And our people are talking about patriotism and
supporting the troops? We have lost all contact with what is reasonable
or what is real in this effort.
It is unacceptable that any young American ought to be giving their
life or going through the sacrifice for Iraqi politicians who refuse to
compromise, for a legislature that refuses to even meet. Less than 50
percent of them can be convened, a Parliament that doesn't meet, that
is the democracy we are supposedly fighting for--Shia and Sunni
politicians who are jockeying amongst each other, creating their own
militias, each of them playing for a future with a U.S. security
blanket lying over it, preventing the full explosion of the kind of
sectarian violence that would flow, if all were left to their own
devices. That is the one thing our presence is doing. There is a
stopgap. It does prevent absolute chaos, but it is creating a slow,
cancerous, insidious kind of chaos that is building on itself.
A couple of days ago, the largest number of civilians were killed by
a bomb, by one single suicide bomb. It gets worse by the day because
the fundamental issues of difference between people who have always
lived there and will live there after we are gone are not resolved.
[[Page 3229]]
If you stand back from this and look at it and ask, as any reasonable
American would ask: What do you do to resolve this, what do you do to
make a difference in Iraq, I don't think any American is going to come
to the conclusion that a soldier with a gun is going to make that
difference. General Casey has told us he doesn't believe it will make
the difference. General Abizaid said he didn't think it would make a
difference. The President has even said there is no military solution.
So if there is indeed no military solution, my question to this
administration is: Where is the robust diplomacy and the robust
political jawboning, arm twisting that is necessary to get a solution?
Where is it? It is invisible to the average American.
If we don't get serious about that diplomacy, if we don't have a
summit that some of us have been calling for for 3 years, and that is
ultimately the only way to resolve these differences, then our soldiers
are being sacrificed and being asked to sacrifice each day without a
reasonable policy that is guiding this war.
What are we left to do? Are we left to say that our colleagues can
stop a vote? We are going to walk away, and we are not going to try to
do what we can to change this or to stop it? I don't think so. That is
not the Senate that I came to serve in or I think most of our
colleagues came to serve in. This is a silly sort of process that is
going back and forth.
If you are opposed to the escalation, you ought to have a right to
vote on it. If you are for it, you will have the right to vote for it.
Go register your vote and then go out to the country. The troops over
there are tougher than anybody in this room. They understand what their
mission is. And what we do, ultimately, barring the effort to either
cut off the funds or force the President to do something with 60 votes
that we don't yet have, is not going to change their dedication or
their courage or their commitment to the specific mission. Because that
is the kind of troops we have.
But while we are talking about the kind of troops we have, let me ask
a question: Our troops, most of them, go through basic training. They
go through a specialized school. They train with their brigade unit
company for a while. Then they are sent over. Most of our troops are
ready to go to battle, and some of them do, new recruits, within 7
months, 9 months. We are now at the 3-year mark, 4-year mark on
training of 300,000 troops in Iraq. What I hear from the experts is the
problem with them is not training. The problem is motivation. How much
training do you think the terrorists get? How much training do you
think the guys get who have those machineguns and go out? Where is
their training camp? Where are their barracks? Where is their 9-week
basic training or 12 weeks? Most of those people are out there in a
matter of days and hours because they are motivated.
Right now in the streets of the West Bank and the streets of Lebanon
and in the streets of Iraq, the guys we are struggling against are
getting up earlier, staying up later, and they have more motivation.
And the guys we are supporting and putting forth money and guns and all
the technology and all the training in the world are not motivated.
Many of them don't show up. So unless we deal with this issue of
motivation, of people who are willing to die for their country and
people who are willing to go out and put their lives on the line and a
group of politicians who are willing to make the decisions necessary to
resolve this, this is going to go on and on and on, and it is not going
to end well.
Everybody knows what the public assessment is on the latest NIE.
People are learning privately what it is. The fact is, these are
difficult times over there. This is not getting better. It is getting
worse. Twenty-one thousand troops are not going to change that. An
escalation is not going to change that. More troops on the ground
raises the stakes. More troops on the ground provides more targets.
More troops on the ground raises the stakes in a way that says, because
we heard it from the administration: Boy, this is kind of our last-
ditch stand. And if we don't make this work, we don't know what is
going to happen. What a wonderful message to send to the other side.
We are being accused of sending bad messages. If you raise the stakes
like that but create a mission and actually can't necessarily achieve
it, you are preordaining the potential of even worse consequences
because you will make the negotiation even harder. You will make it
harder for the surrounding countries to say: This is sensible, we ought
to get involved now. And you will make it harder for the people there
to make the compromises necessary because they know that down the road
is this confrontation with reality with an administration that has
already said: We don't have a plan beyond this.
What a predicament. That just defies common sense. So we have made
matters worse. We will raise the stakes, but we don't have a way to
deal with it. A wing and a prayer. This is a ``Hail Mary'' pass by this
administration, with no guarantee. I think our troops deserve some
guarantees of an outcome.
The best guarantee I can think of is to redeploy them in a way that
puts more emphasis on what the Iraqis need to do. It doesn't mean
leaving Iraq completely. There are plenty of over-the-horizon
strategies, such as in the desert deployments, a capacity to be there
for emergency assistance, to tamp down chaos and go after al-Qaida, an
ability to remain in a truly supportive training role without having
our troops on the front line of a civil war. But those are not the ones
they are putting on the table, and that is not what we hear them talk
about.
We hear these two dramatic things: We have to go down this road where
we have telegraphed our move and raise the stakes, and saying they are
talking about complete withdrawal. No, they are not. Most are talking
about how to achieve success in a responsible way which honors the
sacrifice of our troops and meets the important national security needs
of the United States of America.
The only way I know of to do that is to get to the diplomatic table;
bring our neighbors into a new dynamic where they begin to have
credibility; get Syria and others through the Arab League, the U.N,
Perm 5, and begin a process of legitimate diplomacy, such as we have
read about in the history books of our Nation for years. The great
diplomats of our country are aghast at what we are doing now. Listen to
any number of them privately, some who served in the administration of
George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st President--Secretaries of State,
such as Jim Baker. Jim Baker is a model in how to build a true
coalition. It took him 15 trips to Syria before. On the 15th trip, he
finally got President Assad to agree to support what we were engaged
in. I am not sure the current Secretary of State has made 15 trips in
the last 5 years. I cannot tell you the exact number, but I don't think
it is 15 in the years she has been in office, let alone the prior
Secretary of State.
Mr. President, we have to get serious about what we are going to do.
The fact is, there are over 3,000 young Americans who have now died. I
think four were reported in the newspapers yesterday. There will be
more tomorrow and the next day. The fact that we are losing young
Americans is not a reason to say we should leave. But it is a reason to
say we should get the policy right. It is a reason to say we owe them a
strategy that supports the sacrifice they are making. We ought to be
able to do better than what we are doing now, Mr. President.
So this is really pretty simple. The Iraqi Study Group put forward
some 79 recommendations. They have all been cast aside. This was a
moment where the President could have brought Democrats to the table,
all of us. We could have sat down and come together around, OK, let's
put all these recommendations together. These will work, and we are
willing to support these. Let's go out jointly and see if we can
leverage the full power of the Senate and the Congress and the country
behind the kind of strategy we need in the Middle East in order to
protect these real interests, which range from Israel, to containing
Iran, dealing with
[[Page 3230]]
the protection of the gulf states, to Lebanon, the fledgling democracy,
and obviously to stability in Iraq. We all understand that, not to
mention oil and the economy and the other interests that we have. Those
are real.
But I respectfully submit that the current policy we are on is
recklessly putting those very interests at greater risk. And the
measurement of that statement is in the fact that Iran is actually more
powerful today as a consequence of what we are doing. Iran loves the
fact that we are bogged down in Iraq because it makes it far more
difficult for us to play a legitimate card in order to deal with their
nuclear ambitions. There is nobody in the world who doubts that.
Lebanon is more in jeopardy today, with Hezbollah and Nasrallah in
greater positions of threat to the Government and the Prime Minister.
Hamas has been in an ascendency in the last months, and we have been
unable to move forward with a legitimate entity with which to be able
to ultimately make peace. All these things are worse off today than a
year ago, than 2 years ago, and worse off than 6 years ago.
If they are worse off, how do you stand there and say this is a good
policy, that we ought to keep doing what we are doing, digging a deeper
hole, and making it worse? I was over in the Middle East a month ago. I
met with leaders of the region. I can tell you that while, yes, they
say they don't want a precipitous departure and a crazy consequence of
chaos as a result, they also do want the United States to play a
sensible, constructive, and legitimate role in resolving the
fundamental issues of the region.
So I think a lot of us have had enough of hearing these phony debates
about who supports the troops. We all support the troops. This is the
best trained military that many of us have ever seen. They are doing an
amazing job under difficult circumstances. Again and again, I say that
they deserve the support of a Congress that gets this policy right and
that fights for them while they are over there and guarantees that when
they come home, they don't have to fight for themselves to have the
promises that were made to them kept. That is what this is about.
I think we can have a very simple vote. If you are for the escalation
and you think it is the right policy, vote no against the resolution.
If you are against the policy of escalation and you think it is the
wrong policy and you want to be counted, then you ought to vote aye for
the resolution. That is a vote we can have tonight, tomorrow, or any
time. Most people here know where they stand, but they are unwilling to
show the American people and unwilling to hold this President
accountable. Shame on us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from
Missouri for being so understanding. I will make my comments quite
brief.
The entire success of the President's plan of escalation is
predicated on the fact that the Iraqi Army is, in fact, reliable.
Therefore, in every one of our hearings in our committees--be it the
Armed Services Committee, be it the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
be it the Senate Intelligence Committee--I have asked that question of
the various witnesses, most of whom are representatives of the
administration or representatives of our U.S. military. Up to this
moment, not one of the administration witnesses can tell us that the
Iraqi Army is, in fact, reliable in a plan that is essential that they
are, which is to clear the area, hold the area, and then rebuild the
infrastructure. In the clear phase, it is not only the Iraqi Army and
the U.S. military--by the way, not in a single unified command but in
dual commands of which the Iraqi Army will be the most force in
personnel--and I have heard that 60/40 is the ratio; maybe it is more
than that--60 percent Iraqi Army and 40 percent U.S. Therefore, it is
essential that the Iraqi Army is reliable.
Yet every witness has not been able to tell us that, including up to
today's witness, the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates, who I think
is doing an excellent job. But when I laid this out to him in front of
our committee--in this case, the Senate Armed Services Committee--
today, his answer was, as of this morning, that we have to wait and
see.
Well, I am just a little country lawyer, but doesn't it seem logical
that if the President's whole plan is predicated on the reliability of
the Iraqi Army, and at this moment we still have to wait and see on the
reliability of the Iraqi Army, then is that reason for us to escalate
our troops in Baghdad out of 21,000, with some 17,500 going into
Baghdad, on a plan that we do not know is going to work?
It is on that basis that this Senator from Florida opposes this troop
increase. I have said on this floor several times that the Marine
generals in the west of Iraq, in Anbar Province, convinced me that an
escalation of troops there would help them, since that is all Sunni,
and since the main enemy there is al-Qaida. But that is western Iraq;
that is not Baghdad where the sectarian violence is.
Mr. President, I will just conclude my remarks by saying that I think
it is our only hope of stabilizing Iraq, that it depends on three
successful initiatives: No. 1, an aggressive diplomatic effort led by
the U.S. with Iraq and its neighbors to quickly find a political
settlement between Iraq's warring factions; two, Iraqis taking
responsibility for providing for their own security; three, a massive
and effective international reconstruction program.
With regard to the first of these initiatives, an intense diplomatic
effort aimed at helping Iraq with a political settlement has been
discussed many times by most of our Senators. This Senator believes it
must include sufficient autonomy for Iraq's various regions and
communities but a stake for all in the central government; an oil
revenue sharing law; a reversal of debaathification--partial reversal--
and a revised constitutional amendment process.
The lack of a major diplomatic effort to build an international
coalition to support a political settlement is truly baffling. Iraq is
in a full-blown crisis.
So we need at least one, if not several, high-level special envoys
empowered by the President and endorsed by congressional leadership.
Working together, they need to be on the ground every day, throughout
the Middle East, in Europe and Asia, and at the United Nations.
The goal should be--within a month--to assemble an international
conference at which all of Iraq's neighbors and other key nations would
endorse the framework of a political settlement.
It became painfully evident to me during my last trip to Iraq that
Prime Minister al-Maliki either lacks the will or the nerve to take on
the Shiite militias on whose backing he depends for power. For example,
his rushed execution of Saddam Hussein--certainly justified, but
horribly carried out--spoke volumes about his insensitivity to the
concerns of the Sunnis.
Initiative No. 2: As for Iraqis taking responsibility for their own
security, this will only take place if U.S. troops begin to pull back
from the primary combat role they now play and shift to an advisory
capacity.
Where are those words ringing familiar, Mr. President? From the Iraq
study commission, Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton's commission. They offered
this recommendation.
Rather than increasing our forces in Iraq, as the President has
proposed, we should be transitioning the troops to training and
advising Iraqi troops, training and advising antiterrorism missions and
border security.
Finally, the third initiative: The massive reconstruction effort
requires a reconstruction czar, a person of the highest integrity who
will cut through the redtape, demand our agencies produce the results
working together and deliver construction assistance quickly and
directly to Iraqi communities.
Concurrently, this official should convene a donors conference to
elicit pledges of assistance from our international partners and to
hold them accountable for delivering this aid quickly.
In short and in summary, the cost of failure in Iraq will be
catastrophic in
[[Page 3231]]
growing threats to us and to our allies and in more American and Iraqi
lives lost if we do not awaken to the reality that diplomacy, not a
military solution, is what is needed to end the sectarian violence in
Iraq.
I wish to paraphrase what the President of the United States, when I
was a student in college, President Kennedy, said in 1961: We must
always be ready and willing to bear arms to defend our freedoms, but as
long as we know what comprises our vital interest or our long-range
goals, we have nothing to fear from diplomacy.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I spoke briefly this morning about the need
to have votes on the Republican resolutions--the Republican Gregg
resolution and the bipartisan Lieberman-McCain resolution. It is very
important we give the opportunity for this body to go on record saying,
No. 1, they do support and will not cut off funding for our troops in
Iraq. That needs to be said in the Gregg resolution.
It is unusual and very unfortunate that at this time, when we are
actually at war, we are considering resolutions which would say: Well,
we don't support sending more troops over. We are actually sending
troops over, and there are some who want to say: Well, we don't support
the mission; good luck, guys and gals; you are going over, but we don't
support what you are doing.
We owe them more than that. We owe them what used to be the baseline
in our discussions. Unfortunately, in time of war, we can debate and we
should debate. However, the Levin-Warner resolution, the only
resolution at this point the majority would let us vote on, sends a
wrong message to the insurgents, militia, and, obviously, to our
troops.
This is a very serious and difficult situation in Iraq, no question
about it. We got the national intelligence estimate, and it says these
are tough times. But--and I agree with my colleague from Florida--we
cannot afford to fail.
During General Petraeus's testimony before the Armed Services
Committee last week, he chillingly described the typical Iraqi
terrorist as ``determined, adaptable, barbaric'' and that ``he will try
to wait us out.''
And now we are considering a resolution signaling to this enemy that
this body doesn't think the terrorists will have to wait too long. By
capping the troop strength, this resolution limits the very leaders
this body confirmed as fit to lead and determine strategies and levels
of troops.
The proponents of the resolution to limit troop strength must now
believe that sitting here 8,000 miles away, this body is more equipped
than our military leaders to say what our force structure should be in
Iraq. That is unacceptable; it is totally unacceptable.
The question has been raised: Will this plan work? There are lots of
challenges. It is a challenging situation. The intelligence community,
in its National Intelligence Estimate, says there are many difficult
factors; it is a complex situation. But they said this is the best we
can hope to do. This is our best effort to make sure something comes
out that provides a stable Iraq, one that will not be a haven for
terrorist groups such as al-Qaida to operate.
The intelligence community was also very forthright, both in the NIE
that we received last week and in testimony several weeks earlier in an
open hearing of the Intelligence Committee. They said if we cut and
run, Iraq would descend into chaos, giving the terrorist groups, such
as al-Qaida and probably the Shia terrorist groups, the chance to
operate freely in that country. It would lead to slaughter of more and
more Iraqis--innocent Iraqis--and it would likely involve the entire
region.
It is clear that cutting and running should not be an option. There
may be some people who would vote to cut off funding. We ought to let
them have a chance at least to say we want to end it now, not we want
to tinker with the military strategy so perhaps we can gain some
political points at home.
I have heard it said that some of the people who are supporting the
Levin-Warner resolution think we should be following the guidelines of
the Iraq Study Group. I had the opportunity on Sunday to ask Jim Baker
is this military plan the military plan you have supported? He said:
Yes, it is.
Others have said we need a new strategy, and I agree. I agree we
shouldn't have gone forward with debaathification and disbanding the
Iraqi Army. That mistake is behind us. But we need a new strategy that
can lead us to victory in Iraq.
It seems to me the place where we want to be is getting the Iraqi
Government, al-Maliki and his Sunni and Kurdish counterparts in the
Government, to take responsibility and say we are going to establish
stability, we are going to end the insurgency. To do that, they have
said: We need the support of American troops, not to be on the
frontlines--and I agree with those who said we want to move the Iraqis
out front when they are stopping the Shia and Sunni violence; that is
where they should be. We still have a role, and we can play a very
important role in helping to take out the al-Qaida leadership and the
other organized international radical Islamist terrorists, whether they
be Shia or Sunni, and we can do that. That is part of what the troop
surge will do. But we need to have them take over, and we need to train
them.
The intelligence community said the police are not ready to take over
now. We have found that when we embed American troops, provide American
troops in smaller numbers but with Iraqis, they function better. We can
help show them how to win, and that is a plan I think we ought to
pursue because what is the cost if we lose? Iraq is the center point in
the war on terror. And unfortunately, we have no better source than
Osama bin Laden, who says:
I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic Nation:
Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is
momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the
whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-
Zionist coalition began against the Islamic Nation. It is
raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone
and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.
That is what he calls Baghdad, ``the capital of the caliphate.''
There are similar transmissions by Ayman al-Zawahiri, who said: ``We
must have Iraq as our caliphate.'' So we have to wait. We have to make
sure we stabilize the area.
It seems to me this is absolutely the best plan than fiddling around
and adopting a resolution that says, no, we don't need 21,000 more
troops. Some of the same people who said earlier this year and last
year that we need more troops now are saying no, no, 21,000 more troops
is not necessary. Whom are we going to believe, someone standing on the
floor of the Senate or the commanding general who has responsibility
for making sure that our troops accomplish their mission and they are
safe? If he says we need those troops, I wish to vote for a resolution
that says we need those troops. I wish to vote for a resolution that
says we shouldn't cut off funding; we need to support our troops when
they are in the field.
What is at stake in this resolution deserves a commitment that goes
far beyond what the political pundits and political operatives
pontificate in Washington. I don't say all the people supporting this
resolution have a desire to undercut our troops, to send the wrong
message to our allies in the region or to encourage al-Qaida and Jaysh
al-Mahdi. But, unfortunately, that is what this resolution can do.
I had the honor today of talking with the head of the intelligence
agency of one of our allies in the region. I said: What message would
it send to your country if we adopt a resolution saying the President
can't send over more troops? He said: That would be very bad because we
want to see peace and stability survive in Iraq. It is vitally
important to the entire region, and we are prepared to help the
coalition make sure stability is achieved. We want to make sure Iran
doesn't take over that country, that chaos doesn't ensue, and we--and
he was speaking for several of the countries in the region--we want to
provide aid to help rebuild the economy so there will be a stable
[[Page 3232]]
economy because a stable economy is one of the best ways to convince
people they don't need to get 25 bucks from setting out an improvised
explosive device along the roadside.
So we would be sending a bad message to our allies, and we would be
sending a message of great hope to the people of al-Qaida.
That is not what we ought to be doing, Mr. President. What is at
stake deserves a commitment that goes far beyond the political pundits.
Those who call for an end to the war don't want to talk about the fact
that the war in Iraq will not end but, in fact, will only grow more
dangerous if we leave with that country in chaos.
So as we debate these resolutions, Congress's role in the Iraq policy
is clear: Either Congress needs to exercise its constitutional powers
of the purse and cut funding for the operations of the troops, which is
madness, or get behind them. We shouldn't confirm General Petraeus and
then say: Oh, but we don't support your plan. So if we are not using
our power of the purse to cut off funds and force a hasty withdrawal,
what are we doing? Are we telling 21,000 brave men and women who will
be going to Iraq that we are uncomfortable with the dangerous mission
you are about to undertake but not offering any alternative? I am sure
our troops would find that encouraging.
Simply put, this may be a situation where there are good politics,
but these good politics equal bad policy. Politics are trumping good
policy.
A headline in today's Roll Call reads: ``Democrats to Launch PR Blitz
on Iraq Vote.''
. . . Senate Democrats are launching a national public
relations campaign aimed at tying GOP moderates and
incumbents facing difficult 2008 re-election races to Bush in
the public's mind, Democratic leadership aides said Monday.
Is that what this is all about? Is that the politics? I think that is
a very sad message.
What is at stake is so much bigger than politics, bigger than the
2008 election, and it is a real disservice to our troops to see our
national security become a political election gamble.
I previously entered into the Record an article about 12 days ago by
Robert Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall
Fund. He wrote a piece saying it is a grand delusion if we think we can
walk away from Iraq and not solve it. He went on to say:
Democratic and Republican Members of Congress are looking
for a different kind of political solution: the solution to
their problems in presidential primaries and elections almost
2 years off.
This is coming, as he indicates in his article, just as American
soldiers are finally beginning the hard job of establishing a measure
of peace, security, and order in critical sections of Baghdad.
He goes on to say:
They have launched attacks on Sunni insurgent strongholds
and begun reining in Moqtada al-Sadr's militia.
And, finally, he concludes, and it is fitting advice for this body:
Politicians in both parties should realize that success in
this mission is in their interest, as well as the Nation's.
Here's a wild idea: Forget the political posturing, be
responsible, and provide the moral and material support our
forces need and expect.
Mr. President, I hope we will vote on resolutions that do that.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, you have just heard an extraordinary
speech, and I want to put it in perspective, if I may.
There was a Foreign Relations Committee meeting several weeks ago at
which one of the Senators insinuated that the Secretary of State didn't
understand this war because she didn't have enough of a personal
interest. Well, we thought that was an unfair question because this is
a woman who is spending 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, trying to do the
right thing for our country, and that was considered a personal thing
that was out of line.
We have just now heard a U.S. Senator make a speech that was a
wonderful, principled speech on the merits of what he is going to
support in this war effort, the resolution that will come before us,
and he never mentioned that he had a personal interest. So I want to
mention it. I want to mention Sam Bond.
Sam Bond is a Princeton graduate. He is the light of Senator Kit
Bond's life. He is his only child, his only son. Sam Bond has been a
star from the day he was born, and we have all heard about it. Sam Bond
graduated from Princeton University, and he didn't get a job on Wall
Street to then sign up to go to business school. No, Sam Bond signed up
for the Marine Corps.
Sam Bond has spent 1 year in Iraq already, in Fallujah, and he is
going back in 1 month. Sam Bond is going back to Iraq in 1 month, and
we just heard the Senator from Missouri not even mention his only son
because he is talking about what is right for our country. He believes
that Sam Bond's future depends on our doing the right thing in Iraq. So
I applaud Senator Bond, and I applaud Sam Bond.
I want to talk about the resolution that we are going to vote on at
some point. First, I think Senator Bond is correct; that we ought to
have the right to vote on at least two resolutions, not just one that
is unamendable. This is, as we have been reminded time and time and
time again, the most important issue raging in our country and maybe
the world today. So I think having two resolutions, or one amendable
resolution, is a legitimate request because there are legitimate
differences of opinion. There are legitimate debatable issues that I
think the Senate is capable of putting forth for our country,
representing the division in our country on this important issue.
Some people say we should never have gone into Iraq. In hindsight, it
is an easy thing to say. Let's remember what we were looking at as
Senators, and let's look at what the President was looking at as the
Commander in Chief of this Nation, whose responsibility it is to
protect the people of this country. The buck stopped on the President's
desk.
I don't agree with everything the President has done. Not one person
on the Senate floor agrees with everything the President has done. But
I will tell you this: no one--no one--can ever say this President isn't
committed to one thing, paramount in all of his responsibilities, and
that is to protect the people of the United States. He is doing what he
thinks is best to protect our children and freedom for our way of life.
When he went into Iraq, many people questioned whether it was the
appropriate thing to do. I did myself. But the President had just been
through 9/11, where we saw airplanes used as weapons of mass
destruction that killed thousands of Americans and people working in
New York City. So he said, to look at it from his view: I can't afford
to take a chance that a weapon of mass destruction would hit America
again, only this time it would be a chemical or a biological weapon.
I believe that is what the President was thinking. He knew that
Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons, had used them on his own people
and had kicked the weapons inspectors out in 1998. He had kicked the
weapons inspectors out. Why would he have done that, was the thinking,
if he didn't have something to hide?
Then there were the intelligence reports. There were the intelligence
reports that we saw and there were the intelligence reports that the
President received which were at a much higher level than even we were
able to get. All of that pointed to Saddam Hussein having weapons of
mass destruction and the capability to deliver them. So it is a
legitimate debate to ask why are we there, but it is not the debate we
ought to be having today.
The debate we ought to be having today is what should we do to have
success in Iraq because success in Iraq and Afghanistan is a part of
the war on terror.
After 9/11, we didn't treat what happened as a criminal act. In 1993,
after the first World Trade Center bombing, that is what America did.
We treated it
[[Page 3233]]
as a criminal act. America didn't know this was the beginning of a war
on terror. Then there was Khobar Towers, attacked in Saudi Arabia, and
19 American soldiers killed. We treated it as a criminal act. There was
the bombing of our embassies, and then there was the USS Cole. We
treated those as criminal acts. But America woke up on 9/11/2001 and
realized, finally, 10 years after the war had started, that America and
our way of life was under attack. This was not a crime, it was the
continuation of a war.
So we are there now. We are not succeeding. Success would be a
stabilized Iraq, an Iraq where people can go to the market in security
and buy food or necessities and visit and have coffee on the street.
That is what success in Iraq will be. Success in Iraq will be when they
have self-governance. Success in Iraq will be when there are not
security forces that kill people of a different sect. Success in Iraq
will be when they are a stable neighbor in the Middle East and
terrorists will not be able to get a foothold.
We are not succeeding yet. How can we do better? We should be
debating how we can do better to succeed. If victory is not the end
result, we will have failed our children and grandchildren. So I ask,
what could possibly be the purpose of passing a resolution in what has
been considered the world's most deliberative body that would send
General Petraeus to take charge of Baghdad and a new strategy and say,
General Petraeus, we have faith in you but not the mission? That is not
the right resolution to pass in this Senate.
I hope we can debate that resolution, and I hope we can debate
against those who would send a signal to our troops that we don't have
faith in the possibility of success in their mission. I want to debate
a resolution that would say we are not going to send any more troops,
and even if we need troop protection we are not going to send those
troops because Congress is going to take the place of the Commander in
Chief and the generals on the ground.
I want to debate a resolution that would cut off funding for our
troops in the field. I would like to debate what would happen to our
troops who are there now if a signal were sent that we were not going
to give them the support they needed to do the job they have right now.
I very much hope that we will be able to take up the Levin-Warner
resolution, and I hope we will be able to take up an alternative which
will not have amendments because those are not in order. But we must
have the ability to exercise a voice that would go in a different
direction, that would set benchmarks for what the Iraqi Government must
do if they want America to stay and help them become strong and stable
and free.
I want to be able to debate also the McCain-Lieberman resolution
because I think there will be a clear choice. And I hope that we have
the opportunity to bring that out to the American people because there
are consequences of setting a timetable and trying to have some kind of
graceful exit strategy that basically says this is too tough for
America, we just can't take it and, therefore, we are going to walk
away.
How about keeping our commitments, so that our allies and our enemies
will know, when they are partners with America or enemies of America,
we will stick through thick and thin, arm in arm with our allies and be
formidable against our enemies? How about having a strategy that says
we have not succeeded in the way this has gone, so here is a different
approach? We expect the Iraqis to stand up now. We are going to help
you, but you must lead. You must meet certain benchmarks if you are
going to keep us helping you help yourselves.
We want the Iraqi people to succeed because we don't want terrorists
to takeover Iraq, get the oil revenue and come and deliver their
weapons of mass destruction to America. That is what we are talking
about. That is what is at stake in this war. How we execute our
responsibilities as Senators who have the leadership mantle is going to
determine how successful our troops can be.
I hope we can have that debate. I hope we can have the debate on the
Levin-Warner resolution. I hope we can have a debate on the Gregg
resolution. I hope we can have a debate on the McCain-Lieberman-Lindsey
Graham resolution because I think it would be the right thing for the
American people. But don't try to put one resolution on the floor with
no amendments and call that an opportunity to have a voice. No one
could keep a straight face and say that is a fair process.
There are 100 Members of the Senate. I do not question one Member's
patriotism. I do not question the motives of one Member. Everyone has a
view that we believe is the right way for our country. We ought to be
able to support resolutions that put forward those views. This is too
important to have a struggle over process keep us from having the
ability to come together and try to reason and pass one good resolution
or two that would allow us to have a voice in this debate. The world is
going to listen to what we say. I hope we don't send the wrong signal
to our allies or to our enemies that America cannot stand it when it
gets tough. America is the beacon of freedom to the world. If we do not
stand and fight for freedom, who will? America must never step back
from that mantle and that responsibility. Freedom will die everywhere
if we don't fight and keep it for America and our allies.
Let's have that debate. Let's have that debate on whatever differing
resolutions come forward. I am not afraid to debate the Levin-Warner
resolution, and I am certainly proud to support the Gregg and the
McCain-Lieberman resolutions. I wish to talk more about it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am dismayed at where we now stand.
Last fall, the people of the United States sent a message to the
President of the United States that the current course of his war in
Iraq is deeply misguided and that bold, new solutions are called for.
The President failed to listen. Yesterday, the Senate, this historic
institution, was prevented from speaking.
What we say in this historic Chamber about our course in Iraq, and
even more what I hope we will do in this Chamber to correct that
course, are among the most urgent concerns of the community of nations.
It matters to millions of Americans who have already raised their
voices in concern at a strategy lacking in foresight and cratered with
flaws. It matters to millions more souls throughout the world whose
lives, whose hopes, whose futures depend on American leadership and
authority.
But we are silenced as a Senate, silenced because yesterday, on the
single most important issue facing America today, on the issue that has
cost more than 3,000 young Americans their lives, tens of thousands
more their limbs and livelihoods, and countless families their well-
being--on the issue where this President has squandered so much of our
national Treasury and national good will--the Senate was silent. It was
silenced by a parliamentary maneuver.
The people we represent deserve better from us. As you know, I am new
to this body, but each time I step through these doors, I bring with me
the hopes and expectations of thousands of Rhode Islanders I have heard
who know it is time for a new direction in Iraq. Tired of a President
who has failed to listen and failed to learn, last November, they
joined millions of their countrymen and voted for change.
Whenever I think of these men and women, I am filled with an enormous
sense of responsibility. They trusted me to hear their voices and to
make sure the Senate hears them too. So I speak today. I share Rhode
Island's conviction that it is time for a change of course. Our troops
and their families have made countless sacrifices, and our choices in
this Chamber must be worthy of them.
The situation in Iraq is dire, rife with sectarian conflict that can
only be resolved by Iraqi political cooperation, not by American
military force. A
[[Page 3234]]
broad consensus has emerged from senior military commanders to the
bipartisan Iraq Study Group and throughout the American people that our
best course would be to begin to redeploy American troops out of Iraq.
Instead, the President has insisted on a costly strategy of escalation
that would send more of our soldiers into harm's way. I believe that to
be a terrible mistake.
It is my deeply held conviction that in order to create the best
environment for real change, the President must announce, clearly and
unequivocally, that the United States plans to redeploy our troops from
Iraq. That announcement would change the dynamic, enhancing our
national security position in Iraq, in the Middle East, and throughout
the world in three important ways.
First, a clear statement of American intent to redeploy forces from
Iraq would eliminate the Iraqi insurgents' case that we are an army of
occupation. It would eliminate it once and forever. The Iraqi
population's nationalist sentiment would no longer be engaged against
us. The Iraqi people don't want us there, and a majority of them
consequently believe it is acceptable to kill American soldiers. That
is not an environment in which we can gain likely success.
Second, without a buffering American presence, the world community
would understand it must face the consequences of the Iraq situation.
Other nations in the region and elsewhere around the world would be
motivated to take a more active role to work together to bring peace
and stability to the region. Now, for all intents and purposes, we are
alone.
In particular, Arab nations, facing the risk of a pan-Arabic, Sunni-
Shiite conflict igniting in Iraq, must then assume greater
responsibility for averting such an outcome. Under current U.S. policy,
these Arab countries have little incentive to help calm the conflict or
reduce the violence. Any incentive they have is buffered by America's
role as the peacekeeper and offset by the cost, in so many eyes, of
even associating with the United States.
Third, Iran presently gains immensely from fomenting violence in
Iraq. Keeping America bogged down in a civil war in Iraq undermines
critical U.S. policy objectives, including the effort to work
effectively with the international community to address the serious
threat posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program. The threat of American
redeployment changes that calculation for Iran. The advantages Iran
currently enjoys from bogging America down in Iraq would diminish or
evaporate.
Some argue--we hear it right in this Chamber--that to fail to support
this President's judgment is to fail to support the troops. Never mind
the manifest and repeated flaws in that judgment: Misjudgment on
weapons of mass destruction; misjudgment on when the mission was
completed; misjudgment on the risks, costs, and demands of occupation;
misjudgment on the wisdom of de-Baathification; misjudgment that the
insurgency was in its last throes; and now misjudgment on whether there
is civil war. There has never been a record of error, failure, and
falsity similar to it. Now, the unfortunate fact is the President's bad
misjudgments and failed diplomacy leave us few good options.
Changing the Iraq dynamic can set the stage for an aggressive
international diplomatic effort to restore security in Iraq and combat
terrorism worldwide. An intense diplomatic effort, with the parties
thus motivated by the prospect of American redeployment, is our best
remaining real chance for success. It will also staunch the hemorrhage
of two critical American assets: Our international standing and our
national Treasury--and most importantly, it will bring our troops home.
Without such a change in the dynamic, we are likely to remain trapped
there, seen by many as more provocative than helpful, a great nation
ensnared. For the safety of our troops, the stability of the region and
the security of our Nation, that must not happen.
The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. It undermines our
national security by hurting our troops and their families, by
diverting our attention from al-Qaida and other critical threats, and
by degrading our military capability for other actions. The Iraq
quagmire demands a new strategy that is both bold and realistic. If we
lead boldly, sensitively, and firmly on the diplomatic front, if we
speak, again, in realities instead of slogans, if we build consensus
instead of polarizing nations, we can restore America's prestige,
leadership, and good will. The President's escalation does not help
achieve these goals, and yesterday the Senate had the opportunity to
say so. We did not. We were silenced--silenced by parliamentary
maneuver.
The Senate has been called the world's greatest deliberative body.
Let us deliberate. The debate over our course in Iraq echoes all over
the world, from world capitals to the kitchen tables of middle
America--everywhere except this silenced Chamber.
Mr. President, I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
to stop the stalling and allow this body to deliberate. Ultimately, the
free and unfettered clash of ideas that a real Senate debate represents
is exactly what our troops in Iraq are fighting for.
Let us, in this historic Chamber, not undermine their sacrifice with
our silence.
For my part, it remains my view that announcing our intent to bring
our soldiers home will help us start down the long road toward renewed
American strength and leadership in the region and in the world. It is
a critical journey, and it is long past time to begin.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
____________________
SOURCES OF ENERGY IN AMERICA
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, every time a President gives a State of
the Union message, there are a lot of people who praise it, there are a
lot of people who disagree with it. One of the areas where there was
some agreement--but also a lot of disagreement--was on the energy
package the President suggested in his State of the Union message.
Since I come from a State that is No. 1 in almost all of the
alternative energies such as biodiesel, such as wind--we are third in
wind energy, we are first in biodiesel, we are first in ethanol
production--I would like to set the record straight and encourage
people to see that a lot of good has been accomplished over the last
several years and that we ought to forget a lot of disagreeing rhetoric
and move on and even enhance what we have already done. So I am here to
address an issue President Bush mentioned in his State of the Union
message and an issue that those particularly on the other side of the
aisle have been quick to criticize.
In the President's speech to the Nation, he once again highlighted
the need for the United States to reduce our dependence upon foreign
oil. This has been something that Presidents have been stating on a
very regular basis, both Republican and Democratic, going back to 1973,
when President Nixon gave a speech, during the first energy crisis,
speaking about energy independence. Of course, President Nixon was
saying we can do it by 1980. I don't know why he picked that date, but
actually we are much more dependent upon foreign sources now than we
were even in 1980 because of the consumption of the United States and
the standard of living we have. People want to be free to drive their
car wherever they want to drive it as long as they want to. Whether it
is a big car or little car, it is freedom in America to do it, so we
become more dependent. But also along the lines of alternative energy,
we have made tremendous progress.
So President Bush did not do anything that Presidents probably
haven't been doing for the last 34 years, in saying we need to move
toward energy independence, but what they mean is less dependence upon
foreign sources and less dependence upon petroleum. Because I would be
misleading my colleagues, I would be misleading my constituents if I
said we have the capability--at least I don't know that we
[[Page 3235]]
have the capability--of being totally independent of foreign sources of
energy, but we surely have the capability of being less dependent upon
foreign sources of energy, and we have the capability of being less
dependent upon petroleum as a basis of our energy.
So the critics, though, it seems, have been quick to point out that
the President has mentioned our dangerous dependence on foreign oil in
seven straight addresses to the Congress. That is why I pointed out
that every President since President Nixon has been talking about this
issue. So it is not just President Bush who has been mentioning it and,
presumably and impliedly, not doing anything about it. I wish to remind
my colleagues he has also talked about the value of domestic,
homegrown, renewable sources. But at the same time, there has been
criticism that he has done little to actually support the growth of
alternative energy. I say my colleagues are wrong.
I am going to quote Senators, but I am not going to mention their
names because I am not here to embarrass anybody; I am here to try to
get people to be responsible. I do wish to refer to these as all
Members of the Democratic Party, but I am not going to mention their
names. One Democratic Senator stated after the President's speech last
week:
The President acknowledged the need to develop alternative
energy, but he did not offer a real plan to put us on the
path to energy independence.
Now, I am going to show my colleagues how the President has been very
much involved in this.
Another Democratic Senator stated:
So many of us believe that though the President continues
to refer to the problem--
Meaning the problem of not being energy independent enough--
he has never quite moved us--
Never quite moved us--
as we would like in the direction of a solution. We did
little or nothing in Washington to address the addiction.
Maybe he hasn't addressed the addiction, but because there is an
addiction, he has tried to make us less dependent upon a petroleum
addiction, as opposed to an energy addiction.
Finally--and I could go on and quote many more, but I will stop at
the third one--one more Democratic Senator commented:
We have waited 6 long years for the aggressive new
incentives needed to really get our biofuels industries off
the ground and break America's oil addiction.
Of all the statements I have quoted, it seems to me that is the one
that is flatout intellectually dishonest, as I am going to give some
facts here. The facts would suggest otherwise. The fact is the ethanol
industry is growing at the fastest pace in its history. There are over
110 ethanol facilities operated across the country. These plants have
the capacity to produce 5.3 billion gallons of ethanol annually. I said
110--110 ethanol facilities. We only have 170 petroleum refineries to
make gasoline and fuel oil in this country. So I think we are
developing an industry.
Here my colleagues can see the States that are darker, where the
ethanol industry is being located. Iowa is No. 1, my State is No. 1 in
the production of ethanol, but it is rapidly expanding. I still
remember 3 or 4 years ago, or maybe it has only been 2 years ago now,
when we had Members from this State and Members from this State who
would stand up here and offer amendments against ethanol, and it wasn't
long that once we got into the point where everybody realized they had
to use ethanol, we had Members from this State and we had Members from
this State saying to Senator Harkin and me: Why don't you get us more
ethanol, as an example. So people are becoming more ethanol friendly,
but it seems you have to take them dragging and screaming into the new
world of alternative energy.
So we have a developing industry. Twenty-three States currently have
ethanol plants in operation or under construction. Today, there is some
level of ethanol blended in more than 46 percent of our Nation's fuel.
In my State, that would be about 80 percent. In Minnesota, I will bet
it is more because Minnesota has a State mandate. I have been
embarrassed because when the Republicans controlled the State
legislature and I went to them and said we ought to be doing what
Minnesota is smart enough to do, I had Republican legislators tell me:
Grassley, go back to Washington and stick to your own business. But I
told them how I fought for the ethanol industry and alternative fuel
and for the agricultural industry because that is where the source of
the energy comes from, from the family farmers of America, and I told
them it was embarrassing to me to fight big oil here while they were
kowtowing to big oil back in Des Moines.
Well, anyway, I think things are going to be moving along. We have a
Democratic Governor who wants to do more with the biofuel industry in
my State, and I think we are going to make some progress. We may not
have a mandate, but we may not need a mandate now.
I wish to talk about where we are located. Now, according to the
Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol produced in 2006 resulted in
the reduction of oil imports by 170 million barrels of oil, with a
value of $11.2 billion. Remember, $11.2 billion being spent on ethanol
that is not going to the Middle East to produce a profit for the oil
barons over there who shoot bullets at our soldiers as we are trying to
take on the war on terrorism.
Now, I say to the critics on the other side--the other side chooses,
as evidenced by the earlier statements I quoted of Democratic
Senators--to ignore this data when they discuss the energy track record
of President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress in past years.
I was cynical when there was a Governor Bush running for President
and coming to Iowa to campaign saying he would be for anything but big
oil. So I had the opportunity in January of 2000, when we have our
caucuses in the coldest time of the year, to be in a minivan with
President Bush, as a candidate for the Republican caucuses at that
time, to ride with him for 2 or 3 days. I thought, what a wonderful
opportunity to be in a small car with a Governor who might be President
of the United States, to teach him about the facts of ethanol. It
didn't take me very long because he came back--and you never remember
the exact quotes because I didn't write this stuff down. But I remember
him saying something along the effect of: Well, it is just common
sense. We only have so much petroleum. We have to start relying on
ethanol to a greater extent. I guess I believed him then, but maybe I
had some question marks. So we went on for 2 or 3 days, and there
wasn't anything in those 2 or 3 days to change my mind. But you wonder:
you say one thing as a candidate; you might perform another thing as an
officeholder. But I found back in 2000 that the President was a friend
of ethanol when he told me about it, and he has performed that way in
office. So I am satisfied that this President is coming from where he
started and albeit from a State where oil is big business and where you
wouldn't expect him to be for it, but he has been a friend, as he
indicated to me privately he was going to be. I think this President
has done well for alternative fuel. So I don't think the criticism of
him is legitimate.
The fact is that when President Clinton left office in 2000, our
farmers were only producing 1.6 billions of gallons of ethanol. Now, I
am not saying President Clinton was not friendly to ethanol. He was
friendly to ethanol. But I think there are degrees of friendliness. But
for the people on the other side of the aisle who tend to be
criticizing this President, I want them to see where we have come since
this President took office. During the 8 years of the Clinton
presidency, domestic ethanol production grew 33 percent, as my
colleagues can see here. Now, when we compare that to what it is since
President Bush came to office in January 2001, the domestic ethanol
industry is producing 1.7 billion gallons annually. That grew to 4.9
gallons last year. When President Bush leaves office--this chart is
somewhat of an estimate, but we think it is on target because the
plants are coming online and ethanol is catching on and the need for
ethanol is very real--we think this will grow to 10 billion
[[Page 3236]]
gallons. That is a 488-percent increase during this period of time
compared to a 33-percent increase.
I am not belittling President Clinton's efforts, but I think people
on the other side of the aisle ought to take into consideration when
they are raising a question about whether we have done enough in recent
years about alternative energy these facts and this growth and not
belittle this growth that seems to me is going on. This growth is no
accident.
In fact, a key turning point took place in March of 2001 when
President Bush took a courageous step that President Clinton should
have taken but did not take during the last year of his Presidency. In
1999, the big State of California, with a tremendous consumption of
fuel for automobiles and energy--generally, the State of California, at
that time, was deciding to ban the competitor to ethanol as an octane
enhancer that is known by the acronym MTBE. It stands for methyl
tertiary-butyl ether. It was found to contaminate ground water.
Obviously, California had to quit using it, but they did not want to
substitute ethanol. According to the 1990 Clean Air Act, they had to
substitute ethanol without a waiver by the President or Congress. They
were asking for that waiver. It did not happen, so we did not know
where the ethanol industry sat versus the MTBE, so ethanol did not
benefit the way it could have if President Clinton had made a decision.
California Governor Gray Davis did not want his citizens to have to
use ethanol--which the 1990 law required--and he petitioned Clinton for
that waiver. While many of my colleagues and I lobbied President
Clinton to deny the waiver, he took no action. When President Clinton
had the opportunity to demonstrate his confidence in our Nation's
farmers and ranchers to produce this clean renewable alternative
energy, President Clinton was nowhere to be found.
That changed when Governor George Bush was elected President. Less
than 90 days into his term as President, George Bush denied the waiver
which put the ethanol industry firmly on a path to growth because
California uses so much energy.
Along the way, Congress considered and enacted a number of incentives
and supportive policies to foster the development of this important
industry. In August 2005, President Bush signed into law the Energy
Policy Act which included the renewable fuels standard, or RFS, for
short. This provision was a culmination of the work of dozens of
Senators during a period that spanned three Congresses. It has also
been key to the growth of the domestic ethanol industry.
The effort to enact a strong renewable fuels standard was bipartisan,
but it was approved by the majority Republican Congress with the help
of President Bush.
During the consideration of the Energy Policy Act, President Bush
asked Congress for a bill that would help diversify the U.S. away from
crude oil. He put his public support behind the renewable fuels
standard to require the use of ethanol and/or biodiesel. The President
supported our efforts toward a renewable fuels standard because he
recognized that increasing our use of ethanol and biodiesel would
create new markets for farm products and increase our energy security.
During the consideration by the Senate during this period of time--
and I referred to this a little bit before--no fewer than 11 amendments
were offered by Members of the other side of the aisle to delay,
reduce, or render useless the renewable fuels standard which had broad
bipartisan support, particularly from those from the Midwest. It was
not the Republicans offering these amendments to kill the growth of the
domestic renewable fuels market. It was members of the other side, some
of whom are the same ones who may be criticizing the President today
for not doing enough to decrease dependence upon foreign oil.
Perhaps more ironic is that a strong renewable fuels standard could
have been enacted earlier than 2005. In November 2003, an Energy bill
conference report came to the Senate with a renewable fuels standard
but ran into a filibuster in the Senate. Had there not been a
Democratic-led filibuster, what the President signed in August of 2005
would have been signed in November 2003. We would have been 2 years
ahead of the game.
In addition to the renewable fuels standard, other provisions enacted
in the past 6 years have perhaps done even more to spur the growth of
the renewable fuels, particularly ethanol and particularly biodiesel.
In 2004, Congress enacted the American Jobs Creation Act. This
legislation included modification and extension of the ethanol tax
incentive. While improving the incentive, it also extended it through
2010.
In the Energy Policy Act, which the President signed in August of
2005, Congress expanded the incentive for small ethanol producers and
created a new credit for small producers of biodiesel. Most recently,
Congress extended the tariff on imported ethanol through the year 2008.
The tariff ensures that U.S. taxpayers are not subsidizing foreign
ethanol and that we continue to grow our domestic production of
ethanol.
As a result of the tax incentives, the ethanol import tariff and the
renewable fuels standard, the domestic renewable fuels industry, is
growing faster than anyone could have ever imagined. The policies put
in place by the Congress when Republicans controlled it, with the
support and assistance of President Bush, have put this industry on a
path of extraordinary growth. We have recognized that renewable fuels,
such as ethanol and biodiesel, improve air quality, strengthen national
security, reduce the trade deficit, decrease dependence upon the
volatile Middle East for oil, expand markets for agricultural products,
increase income for farmers, and create good-paying jobs in rural
America.
In other words, it is as the Campbell's soup advertisement of 25
years ago: everything about ethanol is good, good, good.
The fact is, President Bush has been the most prorenewable fuels
President our country has ever had. I stated earlier when he was a
candidate for President coming from big oil Texas and being Governor of
that State, would I expect him to be a renewable fuels person in the
future? No, because I have been dealing with big oil and fighting them
versus ethanol for a long period of time. It is only within the last 3
or 4 years that we had the freedom of not having to fight big oil. Who
knows, maybe today we will have to fight big oil again when it comes to
some ethanol products for the future, but there has been a lull. I
thank President Bush for keeping his word to the people when he
promised to be prorenewable fuels.
Getting back to those who claim the renewable fuels industry has
lacked attention from President Bush and previous Republican
Congresses, I leave with one final point. In the year 2000, the final
year of the Clinton administration, we produced 1.6 billion gallons of
ethanol. That is nothing negative about President Clinton. He seemed to
be, for the most part, very ethanol friendly. But you cannot criticize
this President when we have this figure: By the time he leaves office
in 2008, we will be producing 10 billion gallons. The policy supported
by the Republican Congress led to this growth.
I have proven that I don't want to sit by quietly while the other
side tries to say otherwise.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Does the Democratic side seek unanimous consent to address the
Senate?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to
speak as if in morning business for such time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
IRAQ
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have been periodically tuning in today
during committee hearings and other work we do around here on some of
the debate surrounding whether we are going to have a debate on Iraq.
It is hard for
[[Page 3237]]
the average American out there who may be watching C-SPAN to understand
whether there is any sanity in this place, whether we are really
rational individuals running the Senate.
This is supposed to be the most deliberative body, as we keep calling
ourselves, in the world. The function of the Senate is to debate and to
discuss, sometimes ad nauseam, different measures. Sometimes we can
debate for a long time around here. People in this country wonder what
is happening here that the Republicans won't even allow debate on the
most important single issue confronting America today: the war in Iraq
and the escalation.
I make it clear from the outset to those who may be watching, to try
to clear it up as much as possible, the Republicans, through
parliamentary maneuvers and through their vote yesterday, will not even
allow the Senate to debate Iraq. I can talk on it if I want to. Of
course, I can. But they will not allow us to go to a debate on the
Warner resolution, which has very strong bipartisan support, and has a
majority of the votes in the Senate.
We are faced with an unusual situation which I don't know has ever
occurred here before. A matter which is life and death for so many of
our young men and women--disrupting families, causing untold drain on
our Federal Treasury, not just now but for years in the future, causing
us to lose friends and allies around the world--and we can't even
debate it. But that is the situation in which we find ourselves.
I can tell you, over the last few weeks I have had thousands contact
my office through e-mails and phone calls. I must say, the vast
majority, the overwhelming majority, oppose the President's escalation
and the war in Iraq.
Over the last 24 hours, since yesterday, much of their anger and
focus has been not so much on the President and his misguided policies
but on the Republicans in the Senate who won't allow Members to debate
the issue. As one said, we debate this in our workplace, we debate it
in the parking lot, we debate it after church on Sunday, we debate it
with our neighbors, in our clubs, at the bowling alleys, but you guys
can't debate it in the Senate? They just cannot believe that Republican
Senators are blocking debate on the No. 1 issue before our Nation.
In a nutshell, what callers are saying to my office is that Senators
have a right if they want to support the President's position on the
war in Iraq. They have a right to embrace his escalation of the war,
but they do not have a right to block legitimate debate in the Senate
on whether the escalation is wise or appropriate. They do not have the
right to silence the voices of tens of millions of Americans who have
had enough of our quagmire in Iraq.
People in Iowa, and I suspect across the country, are saying the
election last November was a referendum on the war. Voters spoke loudly
and clearly; they want our troops out of the civil war in Iraq. I
imagine the American people probably thought their elected leaders in
Washington got the message. Well, maybe they see now that the
Republican minority in the Senate does not even care about what
happened in the election. They want to escalate the war. But that is
fine. If that is their choice, that is their choice. But what should
not be their choice is to silence debate by a majority of Senators who
oppose the escalation in Iraq.
I think this is what got people so upset and are calling and e-
mailing my office. People in this country, in times of crisis such as
this, are always way ahead of the politicians. They know that by voting
against debating the war, the Republican Senators have voted to endorse
President Bush's escalation of that war.
It is one thing for Republican Senators to ignore the Iraq Study
Group's recommendations. It is one thing for Republican Senators to
ignore the results of the November election. It is one thing for them
to ignore all the warnings of the generals last year. But what is
unacceptable is that Republicans in the Senate refuse to listen to the
families of soldiers who are being asked to put their lives on the line
for this last and reckless roll of the dice in Iraq.
Among those being committed to the escalation are more than 600
soldiers from the Iowa Army National Guard. Many of them are from the
1st Battalion of the 133rd Infantry headquartered in Waterloo, IA.
Other units are from Dubuque, Iowa Falls, Charles City, and Oelwein.
These soldiers have been deployed since early last year in Anbar
Province, the most violent region in Iraq.
These soldiers were supposed to come home in the spring. But just 1
day after the President announced his escalation, they learned they
would not be coming home. Instead, their combat tour in Iraq would be
extended to 16 months. Think about that--nearly a year and a half in
the middle of some of the most deadly combat in Iraq. To make matters
worse, as we now know, many of the soldiers and their families learned
about it through the media before they were officially notified.
I want to make it clear, I know some of these members of the Iowa
Army National Guard. They are disciplined professionals. Even those who
I know profoundly disagree with this escalation, I know they will do
their duty. And they are doing their duty in Iraq. They deserve our
profound respect and admiration. But they deserve to be listened to.
And their families deserve to be listened to.
From the letters, e-mails, and phone calls I have gotten, people are
outraged that Republicans are not allowing the Senate to even debate
the escalation.
We got some e-mails in, and I started reading some of them. I asked
my staff to contact them to see if I could read them on the Senate
floor. I would not want to read an e-mail on the floor unless I had
permission from the sender.
So I have three letters I am going to read because they are so
profound. One is from Barbara--I will not use the last name--in Iowa
whose husband is with the 133rd Infantry. This is what she writes:
Senator Harkin: I sit here to write this letter, not
knowing why since I'm feeling like no one cares anymore or
will be able to do anything about it. I am a 41 year old
woman, (as of today), a military wife of 23 years and a
mother of 3. My husband is a proud member of the 1-133rd
Infantry. This unit was called up to serve in the Sinai for 9
months from April 2003 until January of 2004. Just a short 18
months later they were ripped away from their families once
again to be a part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. They are
currently serving in Iraq and have been gone for 16 months so
far on this mission. The soldiers and the families have
finally been feeling like we were seeing the light at the end
of the tunnel. As the new year began we all started our
countdown for our reunions expected for the first part of
April. Three days ago, our worlds came crashing down once
again as we learned that our loved ones would not be coming
home in April, but were being extended until August, thus
being deployed for almost 2 years by the time they return. I
am angry, I am devastated! How could this happen? How could
you let this happen? How could this be right? I have lost all
hope and faith in our government. I don't understand much
about politics so my biggest question is if so many people
are against this war and the increase of troops being sent
over then why is the president not listening? Doesn't he
care? I voted for him and believed in him and he has let me
down. I attended a meeting that was to discuss this extension
and we were told some good things were happening for the
future for the guards. Limited times of 12 months being
deployed and 5 years in between call ups. Even though I am so
happy for these changes for the future, you have to
understand that 700 families are devastated right now,
feeling left out, and not cared for because this doesn't help
our soldiers or us right now. Please, please think about the
effects this is having on our soldiers and their families. We
all have given so much and though we are proud to have been
part of serving our country, it's time for our soldiers to
come home. Please bring them home.
Sincerely,
Barbara
The next letter is from Jodi in Iowa. She said:
I have a 20 year old son who has put his life on hold for
the past 18 months. He left after only two weeks of his
freshman year of college. He deployed to Iraq last April and
was due to come home in three months. Now we are told he is
to stay another 4 months. I have seen no progress in the
Iraqi war and can not justify my son losing another 4 months
of his life. I feel it is the lower and middle class people
who are providing the men and women who are fighting this
war. How many of your fellow congressmen have sons,
daughters, husbands, wives, nieces or nephews serving in this
war? I have a son, a nephew and a niece in Iraq. They joined
the Guard for money so they could attend college, not because
they were eager to go to
[[Page 3238]]
war. They were assured when they signed up that they would
not need to worry about being deployed. They do not want nor
do we want them to stay longer than what they were told when
they left last April. Please help bring my son home. He has
served his time and his country and served it well.
Sincerely,
Jodi
Last, I will read a letter from Nikole:
Dear Senator Harkin:
I write to you as the wife of a soldier in the 1-133. My
husband, SSG Nicholas . . . , has been stationed in Iraq
since the end of March 2006. He also trained at Camp Shelby,
Mississippi for five months prior. He was to come home at the
beginning of April; however, he has now been extended for an
additional four months.
My husband and I have been married for almost six years. He
was in the US Army when we married and then joined the Iowa
National Guard after exiting the service to continue to serve
his country. My husband is 27 years old. He has served eight
years in the military. Before his deployment he was a junior
at Iowa State University majoring in Community Regional
Planning and had plans to attend graduate school.
Our lives have been put on hold during this deployment. We
both went into the deployment knowing that it would be
difficult, but we knew that our love would allow us to make
it through. Our motivation was the ability to secure our
future with financial freedom.
Think about that: ``Our motivation was the ability to secure our
future with financial freedom.''
We planned to purchase our first house with the money that
we saved.
During his two-week leave in September, we began building a
new home. The house was to be finished in February. This
would allow me time to move in and decorate just in time for
his return. It was PERFECT timing. We would be able to pick
up our lives and move on.
As you can imagine, we were both extremely disappointed to
hear the news that he would be extended for an additional
four months, already a longer time than any other unit
deployed to Iraq.
I have not only lost my husband. I have lost my very best
friend, my lover, my confident, my motivation and inspiration
for life, that one person that knows and understands me the
most. I am sure you can relate to someone in your own life.
Sure, my wife.
Now imagine that person being torn away from you for two
years and place them in harm's way in a war zone. I act tough
to my husband so that he will have one less thing to worry
about. However, it IS an act. I miss him. I need him. I am
falling apart.
My intention is not to be rude, complain, and say nasty
comments. I am sure that you receive enough of those types of
letters. I just pray that our story can give you a glimpse
into our lives and the effect of the situation. I also pray
that by hearing a personal story you will reconsider and
allow the 1-133 to return home to their families, their
children, their jobs, and continue their lives as American
citizens.
Sincerely,
Nikole
Mr. President, I took the time to read those three letters. If we do
not speak for these families, who will? If we are not allowed to debate
here, are their voices to be silenced? They do not have the right to
come here on the Senate floor and speak. I have the right to read their
letters, with their permission, but why can't we debate this and speak
on behalf of them and so many other families in this country who want
their stories told and who want an end to this quagmire in Iraq?
They now know--people are so far ahead of us; they are so far ahead
of the politicians around here--they know what is happening. They know
that Iraq was a lie; it was a mistake. They know there was never any
weapons of mass destruction. They know now that Saddam Hussein, however
bad he was, was not involved in acts of terrorism against the United
States--against his own people but not against the United States.
They now know that what is happening in Iraq is a civil war. As I was
told some years ago by a person from the Emirates--close to there--he
said to me: Senator, you have to understand that Iraq was really three
countries. It is just a figment of the British imagination that they
put it together in the Treaty of Versailles after the First World War.
He said: Really it is three countries, the Shias, the Sunnis, and the
Kurds. He said: Furthermore, Senator, it is a civil war waiting to
happen, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Yes, maybe someone as ruthless as Saddam could put the lid on it for
a while. And we would hope they would come to their senses and not have
a civil war. They have had an election. They have a parliament. And now
it is time for the Iraqis to take matters into their own hands. The
longer we are there, the more involved we become, the more it becomes
America's war against the Iraqis.
I read the article in the Washington Post this morning about how our
troops are now going door-to-door in Iraq, and they just bust in. They
busted into the home of a woman who had a master's degree in English
translation, whose husband was a major in the Iraqi Army. And she said:
Why didn't you just have the courtesy to knock? I would have let you
in.
These soldiers are going into homes. They are going into bedrooms and
looking under beds, tearing sheets off the beds, looking through
dressers of people who have nothing to do with the war. These are just
civilians and they happen to be caught in a zone.
You wonder how they feel about us after something like that happens.
One soldier was quoted in the paper this morning talking about his
first tour of Iraq right after the invasion. He said: Things were fine.
We went out with the Iraqi people. Now I go over there and they spit at
us, every one of them.
So the people of this country understand that this war was a terrible
mistake from the beginning. It has been not only a mistake and a lie to
get into it, it has been mismanaged from the very beginning. It has
cost over 3,000 of our young men and women's lives. How many Iraqi
lives? I am told the count is now way over 50,000, maybe as high as
100,000, with millions more displaced from their homes, going into
Jordan. That is going to cause a lot of unrest in Jordan with all the
displaced people and refugees there.
The answer is not to continue this miserable escalation the President
wants to do. Everyone realizes this won't do it. It is just going to
cause more misery, more suffering, cost more money, cost more lives.
That is the kind of debate we want to have. But Republican Senators
will not allow us to have the debate or even to have a vote on the
resolution of disapproval. We have a duty to debate this escalation, to
speak up when we believe the President's policy is wrong. We have a
duty to speak up for families, such as the ones whose letters I read,
and for the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose this new
escalation. It is unconscionable that Republicans leaders, at the
behest of President Bush, are refusing to allow the Senate to debate
the escalation in Iraq. It is time for them to listen to the American
people and the families of our troops in the field. It is time to stop
the obstruction, allow the Senate to debate the Warner resolution, and
to have a vote. That is all we are asking for. Vote your conscience. If
people want to vote to support the escalation, if they want to speak on
behalf of it, that is their right as U.S. Senators. But I hope they
don't realize they have a right to silence the voices of millions of
Americans who are looking to us to do something, to bring some
reasoning, some rational discourse, and some clear thinking to what is
happening in Iraq and to confront the truth.
As I said earlier, our young men and women are doing their duty. I
know. I have an e-mail I received the other day from a young man in
Iraq who has been there for quite a while. I won't use his name because
I didn't ask his permission to use the e-mail. He said in his e-mail
that he--I am not sure of the word--disagreed with the war. He said:
This war is not winnable. The military cannot do this over here. But he
is doing his job. He is putting himself in harm's way day after day.
They realize this is a bad mistake. You think we would start realizing
it around here, too.
War is not the answer in Iraq. Diplomacy is, bringing in other
countries. Does it mean we have to talk with Iran? I have no problem
with that. The President once said he didn't want to talk to Iran
because they were our enemies. I guess all we want to talk to is our
friends. If I disagree with someone here, I want to talk to that
person. I want to find out why. Is there any way
[[Page 3239]]
we can reach resolution? So we ought to be talking with Syria and
Jordan and Iran, Iraq, of course, Turkey, Syria--all the countries
around there. We ought to be talking to them. And there ought to be a
more concerted effort on the diplomatic side than there is on the
military side. We are putting too much on the military and not enough
on diplomacy. I would hope the Iraqis would come to their senses and
not engage in a civil war, but that is their decision to make. We can't
make it for them.
The longer we are there, the worse it becomes. The longer we are
there, the more and more Iraqis turn against us. More and more people
in the Mideast turn against us. And more and more we lose our standing
in the world community. I daresay we have precious few friends around
the world today who are willing to stand with us. Prior to this war,
after 9/11, the entire world was on our side. After those planes hit
the Twin Towers and the one hit the Pentagon and the one went down in
Pennsylvania which was probably coming here, the world was on our side.
Countries all over the world--Muslim nations were on our side. Even
Iran sent out some feelers to go after the Taliban. They didn't like
the Taliban, either. And here we squandered it all, with the whole
world on our side 5 years ago. Now we would be hard-pressed to find a
few. They may be with us here and there on this or that, but we know
what they are saying about our involvement in Iraq. We know what they
are saying about our standing in the world community. We know that. It
is going to take a long time to rebuild it. The longer we persist in
this unconscionable, unwinnable quagmire war in Iraq, the longer it is
going to take us to get our standing back in the word community. Try we
must. We need to bring this war to its conclusion.
It is not losing the war. People say: We can't lose it. I wasn't in
the Senate, but I was in the House of Representatives when the Vietnam
war finally came to a close. We heard the same arguments then, that we
can't afford to lose, that the whole of Southeast Asia would be in
flames, communism would take over the Philippines, communism would take
over Indonesia. We heard it time after time. Guess what. None of it
happened. And you look back now and you go down here to the Vietnam
Memorial wall and you read those names and you think about their
sacrifice, families that were left behind, children, loved ones. You
wonder what for. What for? They served their country proudly. They did
their duty. But you wonder in the end, what was it for?
I think, as we look back on this war in Iraq years from now, the
thousands of Americans who have lost their lives, we will ask that same
question: What for? Why? War is not the answer. Escalation is not the
answer. We need to bring our troops home.
Those on the other side are saying we ought to talk about cutting off
funding. That is going to come. We are going to have a supplemental
appropriations bill. It will be here probably in the next couple
months. I, for one, am going to do everything I can to make sure we
have some kind of amendment on that bill which will limit the
President's ability to spend the taxpayers' money on the war in Iraq.
After all, the Constitution gives us the power of the purse strings,
not the President. If we want to say: Mr. President, you can spend the
money to redeploy troops out of Iraq and to protect them while they are
being deployed, you can do that, but you can't spend any of that money
to send any more troops there and put them in harm's way and have them
going door to door in Baghdad and have them be shot at by snipers, we
will have that opportunity when the supplemental appropriations bill
comes before us.
Right now is time for us as a Senate to stand up and say whether we
approve of the escalation or disapprove. Republican Senators on the
other side of the aisle won't even give us that opportunity. I hope
they hear from more families like the letters I just read. Maybe we
will get that opportunity. It is time for us to quit shirking our
responsibility, time for us to stand up and say whether we are for the
escalation. I, for one, am not. Maybe others are for it. I think that
is what we ought to debate, and that is what we ought to vote on.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES
First Lieutenant Jacob Fritz
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss
of U.S. Army 1LT Jacob Fritz of Nebraska. Lieutenant Fritz was killed
near Karbala, Iraq on January 20. He was 25 years old.
Lieutenant Fritz was raised on his family's farm near Verdon, NE.
From a young age, Lieutenant Fritz knew he wanted to be a leader. After
graduating from Dawson-Verdon High School in 2000, he followed through
on this goal. I had the honor of nominating Lieutenant Fritz to the
U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He graduated from the Academy in
2005. His brother, Daniel Fritz, 22, followed in his footsteps and is
currently in his third year at West Point. Like his brother Jake, I had
the privilege of nominating Dan to West Point.
Lieutenant Fritz was leading a unit of more than 30 soldiers in Iraq
since October. Lieutenant Fritz described his mission as a liaison
between Iraqi police and the U.S. Army. He said the work was
challenging, but rewarding.
Lieutenant Fritz was buried on January 31 with full military honors
in a church cemetery 4 miles from his family home near Verdon, NE.
Family and friends paid their final respects in a moving service that
reminded all of the courage, commitment, and sacrifice of soldiers like
Lieutenant Fritz. As his childhood friend Air Force 1LT Brett Cooper
remembered, a life of service to his country followed by a retirement
to the small town life that he loved was all that Lieutenant Fritz
wanted. We're proud of Lieutenant Fritz's service to our country as
well as the service of thousands of brave Americans who are currently
serving in Iraq.
In addition to his brother Dan, Lieutenant Fritz is survived by his
parents Lyle and Noala and his younger brother Ethan.
I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring 1LT
Jacob Fritz.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
RECOGNITION OF G. MARTIN WAGNER
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I honor G. Martin Wagner--
a dedicated public servant who, on January 31, 2007, retired from
Federal service after 31 years.
Marty Wagner has had an exemplary career working for the Federal
Government. Far removed from the apocryphal ``faceless bureaucrat''
that so many of those who wrongly belittle our Federal workforce often
refer to, Marty should serve as an example to us all in how to best
serve the people of this great country. Marty was a leader and a doer
who accomplished much over the past three decades, and leaves the
Federal Government a far better place than how he found it.
Over his 31 years in the Federal civil service, Marty earned many
honors and awards for his efforts to make the Federal Government a
better place to work for all Federal employees. His service has also
resulted in a Federal Government that is more caring and responsive to
the needs of the American public.
Marty grew up in Tucson, AZ. In his youth, he played guitar and sang
folk songs in old time ``hootenannies.'' He has a deep, recognizable
voice, which
[[Page 3240]]
would have served him well as a professional musician or radio persona.
Fortunately for us, his career took a different path and Marty became a
dedicated, hard-working Federal employee--serving in a number of
agencies and departments over the past 31 years.
Most of us who know and have worked with Mr. Wagner over the years,
associate him with his almost two decades of service with the General
Services Administration, GSA, where he has been an innovative leader
and promoter of initiatives for improved and more accessible
information technology for Federal workers and the public alike. Most
recently, Marty has served as Deputy Commissioner of the new Federal
Acquisition Service, FAS. Prior to accepting this position, Mary also
served as Acting Commissioner and Acting Deputy Commissioner of FAS.
However, Marty was also a leader before his days at GSA, and I call to
my colleagues attention just one of his major accomplishments over his
Federal career.
Early on, Marty was an economic analyst at the Environmental
Protection Agency. His outstanding work in the environmental arena
proved to be invaluable to the quality of the air we breathe. In
addressing the economic impact of pending EPA regulations, Marty was
instrumental in producing the findings that resulted in the first
requirement to remove lead from gasoline. I believe Marty could have
retired at this point and have served his country well but,
fortunately, this was just the first step in a long and distinguished
career with the Federal Government.
G. Martin Wagner was a masterful manager and leader of innovative
change within the Federal Government. The results of his untiring
efforts over the past 30 years are evident in numerous Federal
programs, resulting in a much more effective and efficient Federal
Government.
Throughout his career, Deputy Commissioner Wagner has been a leader
for positive change and modernization. When you worked with Marty you
knew where you stood and that his positions were based upon his strong
personal beliefs in how best to serve the American public and the
Federal employees that he managed and with whom he worked. He is an
honest, straightforward individual who did not shy away from challenges
and difficult issues but, rather, sought the middle ground of
compromise while always championing progress and better service.
From his work on implementing the gargantuan task of modernizing
Federal telecommunications to his personal crusade of making sure each
and every Federal worker was treated with respect and provided
opportunities for advancement, Marty Wagner has always proved to be a
capable and innovative leader. When we think of a government that is
more efficient and effective, we need to pay our thanks to the good
work of Deputy Commissioner Wagner.
I am sure that Marty's retirement from the Federal Government will
not be the last we hear of him. Such an active, well-rounded,
intelligent individual is not going to just while away the hours but,
rather, seek out new challenges and opportunities to help his country
and fellow citizens.
G. Martin Wagner and his good work will be missed but not
forgotten.
____________________
TRIBUTE IN HONOR OF BEASOR WALKER
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I honor Mr. Beasor Walker,
who has lived a life of great service to our Nation and to my hometown
of Tuscaloosa, AL.
Beasor was a celebrated soldier in the Second World War, where he
fought in the June 6, 1944, Invasion of Normandy. Despite a wound to
his side, Beasor stayed with his unit during the duration of the fight
and was promoted to company commander. Wounded again, he returned to
his unit a second time in order to fight against the Nazis in the
December 1944 Battle of the Bulge. It was during this offensive that he
earned the Distinguished Service Cross, two Silver Stars, three Bronze
Stars, and two Purple Hearts. After 27 years of distinguished service
to the U.S. Army, including time at Fort Jackson, where he trained
replacement troops for the Korean War, Beasor retired as a colonel.
A graduate of the University of Alabama, Beasor was elected sheriff
of Tuscaloosa County in 1970. He served as sheriff until 1991, and
during his lengthy tenure he was able to greatly improve Tuscaloosa
County. Beasor is responsible for integrating the Sheriff's Department,
streamlining the homicide squads, and extensively working to improve
the Alabama Boys' and Girls' Ranch. Beasor has been inducted to both
the Alabama Military Hall of Honor and the Alabama Law Enforcement Hall
of Fame.
His service to the Nation has been exceptional, and Beasor Walker is
more than deserving of this recognition. His sacrifices are appreciated
and important to the freedom we enjoy every day. I hope my colleagues
will join me in thanking my friend Beasor Walker for his service to our
Nation and to the State of Alabama.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
At 11:29 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 433. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1700 Main Street in Little
Rock, Arkansas, as the ``Scipio A. Jones Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 514. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 16150 Aviation Loop Drive in
Brooksville, Florida, as the ``Sergeant Lea Robert Mills
Brooksville Aviation Branch Post Office''.
H.R. 577. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 3903 South Congress Avenue
in Austin, Texas, as the ``Sergeant Henry Ybarra III Post
Office Building'' .
The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following
concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H. Con. Res. 35. Concurrent resolution supporting the goals
and ideals of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bills were read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 433. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1700 Main Street in Little
Rock, Arkansas, as the ``Scipio A. Jones Post Office
Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 514. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 16150 Aviation Loop Drive in
Brooksville, Florida, as the ``Sergeant Lea Robert Mills
Brooksville Aviation Branch Post Office''; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 577. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 3903 South Congress Avenue
in Austin, Texas, as the ``Sergeant Henry Ybarra III Post
Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
The following concurrent resolution was read, and referred as
indicated:
H. Con. Res. 35. Concurrent resolution supporting the goals
and ideals of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
____________________
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-592. A communication from the Congressional Review
Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Emerald Ash Borer; Quarantined
Areas; Michigan'' (Docket No. APHIS-2006-0131) received on
February 5, 2007; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
EC-593. A communication from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Avermectin; Pesticide
Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions'' (FRL No. 8110-8)
received on February 5, 2007; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
[[Page 3241]]
EC-594. A communication from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Tris (2-ethylhexyl)
Phosphate; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance''
(FRL No. 8112-2) received on February 5, 2007; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-595. A communication from the Secretary of the Air
Force, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to an
Average Procurement Unit Cost and a Program Acquisition Unit
Cost breach; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-596. A communication from the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency's biennial strategic plan; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
EC-597. A communication from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of
Utah; Administrative Procedures'' (FRL No . 8275-2) received
on February 5, 2007; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
EC-598. A communication from the Administrator, General
Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Administration's Performance and Accountability Report for
fiscal year 2006; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-599. A communication from the Senior Counsel, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Implementation of the Private Security Officer Employment
Authorization Act of 2004'' (RIN1110-AA23) received on
February 5, 2007; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
EC-600. A communication from the Chairman, Federal Election
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative
to its budget request for fiscal year 2008; to the Committee
on Rules and Administration.
EC-601. A communication from the Legal Advisor, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau Broadband Division, Federal
Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Rechannelization of the 17.7-19.7
GHz Frequency Band for Fixed Microwave Services Under Part
101 of the Commission's Rules'' (WT Docket No. 04-143)
received on February 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-602. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's Rules to Implement
WRC-03 Regulations in WT Docket No. 05-235'' (FCC 06-178)
received on February 5, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-603. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, Wireline
Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Petition of Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative, Incorporated
for Order Declaring it to be an Incumbent Local Exchange
Carrier in Terry, Montana Pursuant to Section 251(h)(2)''
(FCC 06-132) received on February 5, 2007; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-604. A communication from the Legal Advisor to the
Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM
Broadcast Stations (Hennessey, Oklahoma)'' (MB Docket No. 05-
85) received on February 5, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-605. A communication from the Legal Advisor to the
Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM
Broadcast Stations (Opelika and Waverly, Alabama, and Amyrna,
Georgia)'' (MB Docket No. 05-79) received on February 5,
2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-606. A communication from the Legal Advisor to the
Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM
Broadcast Stations (Hale Center, Texas)'' (MB Docket No. 05-
114) received on February 5, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-607. A communication from the Legal Advisor to the
Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM
Broadcast Stations (Columbus, Indiana)'' (MB Docket No. 05-
238) received on February 5, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-608. A communication from the Secretary of the Federal
Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of a rule entitled ``Commission Reporting Requirements Under
Section 8 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 19(a)5''
(Billing Code 6750-01P) received on February 5, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-609. A communication from the Deputy Bureau Chief,
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act and Broadband Access and Services'' (ET
Docket No. 04-295) received on February 5, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-610. A communication from the Attorney, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Hazardous Materials: Transportation of
Oxygen Cylinders and Oxygen Generators Aboard Aircraft''
(RIN2137-AD33) received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-611. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Model S-92A Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-SW-
03)) received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-612. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model
Galaxy and Model Gulfstream 200 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(Docket No. 2005-NM-175)) received on February 2, 2007;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-613. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc.
T5311A, T5311B, T5313B, T5317A, T5317A-1, and T5317B Series
Turboshaft Engines and Lycoming Former Military T53-L-11B,
T53-L-11D, T53-L-13B, T53-L-13B/D, and T53-L-703 Series
Turboshaft Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 98-ANE-72))
received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-614. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada
Model 222, 222B, 222U, 230, and 430 Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(Docket No. 2006-SW-12)) received on February 2, 2007;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-615. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-011)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-616. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -
200C, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-109)) received on February 2, 2007;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-617. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF6
Series Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 95-ANE-
10)) received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-618. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2004-NM-176)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-619. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Model HS.125 Series 700A
and 700B Airplanes; Model BAe.125 Series 800A, 800B, 1000A,
and 1000B Airplanes; and Hawker 800, 800XP, and 1000
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-118)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-620. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model AS355E,
F, F1, F2, and N Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No.
2003-SW-10)) received on February 2,
[[Page 3242]]
2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-621. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model EC130 B4
Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2005-SW-41))
received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-622. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Modification of Class E Airspace; Keokuk Municipal Airport,
IA'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-ACE-7)) received on
February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-623. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revision of Class E Airspace; Huslia, AK'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. 06-AAL-13)) received on February 2, 2007; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-624. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Modification of Legal Description of Class D and E
Airspace; Fairbanks, Fort Wainwright Army Airfield, AK''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-AAL-16)) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-625. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Modification of VOR Federal Airways; and Establishment of
Area Navigation Route; NC'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-
ASO-1)) received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-626. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Area Navigation Instrument Flight Rules
Terminal Transition Route T-210; Jacksonville, FL''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 05-ASO-10)) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-627. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of High Altitude Area Navigation Routes;
South Central United States'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 05-
ASO-7)) received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-628. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200 Series
Airplanes Modified by Supplemental Type Certificate SA979NE''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-099)) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-629. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Pratt and Whitney Canada PW535A
Turboshaft Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NE-07))
received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-630. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Air Tractor, Inc. Model AT-501
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-CE-06)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-631. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; BURKHART GROB LUFT-UND-RAUMFAHRT
GmbH and Co. KG, Model G 103 C Twin III SL Sailplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2005-CE-16)) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-632. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (53)'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3172)) received on February 2, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-633. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (33)'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3167)) received on February 2, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-634. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (11)'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3166)) received on February 2, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-635. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Part 95 Instrument Flight Rules (27)'' ((RIN2120-
AA63)(Amdt. No. 461)) received on February 2, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-636. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Modification of Class E Airspace; Scottsbluff, Western
Nebraska Regional Airport/William B. Heilig Field, NE''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-ACE-5)) received on February 2,
2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-637. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class D Airspace; Eastman, GA;
Correction'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-ASO-9)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-638. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10,
DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 Series Airplanes;
Model DC-9-81, DC-9-82, DC-9-83, and DC-9-87 Airplanes; Model
MD-88 Airplanes; Model MD-90-30 Airplanes; and Model 717-200
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2005-NM-001)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-639. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems Limited Model BAe 146
Airplanes and Model Avro 146-RJ Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(Docket No. 2005-NM-212)) received on February 2, 2007;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-640. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -
300F Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2005-NM-
099)) received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-641. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model SAAB-Fairchild SF340A
and SAAB 340B Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2005-NM-
235)) received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-642. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A319-100, A320-200,
A321-100, and A321-200 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(Docket No. 2005-NM-087)) received on February 2, 2007;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-643. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2005-NM-215)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-644. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-200B, 747-200C,
747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, and 747SP Series Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2005-NM-223)) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-645. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revision of Class E Airspace; Perryville, AK'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. 06-AAL-15)) received on February 2, 2007; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-646. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
[[Page 3243]]
entitled ``Revision of Class E Airspace; Homer , AK''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-AAL-25)) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-647. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revision of Class E Airspace; Kodiak, AK'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. 06-AAL-26)) received on February 2, 2007; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-648. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revision of Class E Airspace; St. Michael, AK'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. 06-AAL-27)) received on February 2, 2007; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-649. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revision of Class E Airspace; Tok Junction, AK'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. 06-AAL-28)) received on February 2, 2007; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-650. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Restricted Area 5601F; Fort Sill, OK''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 05-ASW-3)) received on February 2,
2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-651. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class D Airspace; Castle Airport, Atwater,
CA'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-AWP-15)) received on
February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-652. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Alaskan High Altitude Reporting Points;
AK'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-AAL-36)) received on
February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-653. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Re-Designation of VOR Federal Airway V-431; Alaska''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-AAL-18)) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-654. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revision of Class E Airspace; Sheridan, WY'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. 06-ANM-4)) received on February 2, 2007; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-655. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Change of Using Agency for Restricted Area R2202; Big
Delta, AK'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-AAL-33)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-656. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Change of Controlling Agency and Using Agency for
Restricted Area R-6608A, B, and C; Quantico, VA'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. 06-ASO-12)) received on February 2, 2007; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-657. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Kokhanok, AK''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-AAL-19)) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-658. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revision of Class E Airspace; Iliamna, AK'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. 06-AAL-21)) received on February 2, 2007; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-659. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Removal of Class E Airspace; Cedar Springs, GA'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. 06-ASO-15)) received on February 2, 2007; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-660. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revision of Class E Airspace; Hooper Bay, AK'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. 06-AAL-14)) received on February 2, 2007; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-661. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Part 95 Instrument Flight Rules (23)'' ((RIN2120-
AA63)(Amdt. No. 464)) received on February 2, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-662. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (15)'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3195)) received on February 2, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-663. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (46)'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(Amdt. No. 3192)) received on February 2, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-664. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (113)'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3196)) received on February 2, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-665. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (22)'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt No. 3197)) received on February 2 , 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-666. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (45)'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3198)) received on February 2, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-667. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (31)'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3199)) received on February 2, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-668. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Modification of the Class B Airspace Area; Atlanta, GA''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-AWA-1)) received on February 2,
2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-669. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Hartzell Propeller Inc.
Propellers and McCauley Propeller Systems Controllable
Propellers'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2005-NE-01)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-670. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-7
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-CE-42)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-671. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Pratt and Whitney PW4074,
PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, PW4090-3, and
PW4098 and Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No.
2006-NE-13)) received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-672. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10
Series Airplanes; DC-9-20 Series Airplanes; DC-9-30 Series
Airplanes; DC-9-40 Series Airplanes; and DC-9-50 Series
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2002-NM-349)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-673. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Cirrus Design Corporation Models
SR20 and SR22 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-CE-
14)) received on February 2, 2007; to the
[[Page 3244]]
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-674. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica
S.A. Model EMB-135BJ and EMB-145XR Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(Docket No. 2004-NM-36)) received on February 2, 2007;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-675. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-093)) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-676. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-143)) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-677. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Model G-159
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 96-NM-143)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-678. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Part 95 Instrument Flight Rules (28)'' ((RIN2120-
AA63)(Amdt. No. 465)) received on February 2, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-679. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class D Airspace; Ft. Riley, KS''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-ACE-9)) received on February 2,
2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-680. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica
S.A. Model EMB-135ER and -135KE Airplanes; and Model EMB-145,
-145ER, -145MR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-095)) received on February 2, 2007;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-681. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F27 Mark 500
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-019)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-682. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11F
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-220)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-683. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Model L-1011 Series
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-123)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-684. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems Limited Model BAe 146
and Avro 146-RJ Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-
NM-137)) received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-685. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747SR
Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-116))
received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-686. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-234)) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-687. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300,
A340-200, and A340-300 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(Docket No. 2001-NM-381)) received on February 2, 2007;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-688. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Air Tractor, Inc. Model AT-602
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2004-CE-50)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-689. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Stemme GmbH and Co. AG Model
STEMME S10-VT Sailplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-
CE-32)) received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-690. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Model 750 Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-229)) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-691. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747SR, and 747SP Series
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2005-NM-253)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-692. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Change of Using Agency for Restricted Areas R-3008A, B, C,
and D; Grand Bay Weapons Range, GA'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket
No. 06-ASO-16)) received on February 2, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-693. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class D Airspace; Heart of Georgia
Regional Airport, Eastman, GA'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No.
06-ASO-9)) received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-694. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment to Jet Route and Colored Federal Airways;
Alaska'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-AAL-32)) received on
February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-695. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Bethel Regional Airport,
ME'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-ANE-02)) received on
February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-696. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Newton Field, ME''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-ANE-01)) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-697. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revision to Class E Airspace; Mountain Home, ID''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-AWP-4)) received on February 2,
2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-698. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Modification of Class E Airspace; Honolulu International
Airport, HI'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-AWP-9)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-699. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330 Airplanes and
Model A340-200 and -300 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-134)) received on February 2, 2007;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
[[Page 3245]]
EC-700. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Trent 768-60,
Trent 772-60, and Trent 772B-60 Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NE-29)) received on February 2, 2007;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-701. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Models
C90A, B200, B200C, B300, and B300C Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(Docket No. 2006-CE-34)) received on February 2, 2007;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-702. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Airplanes,
Equipped with General Electric CF6-50 Series Engines''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-075)) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-703. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2005-NM-205)) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-704. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca Turmo IV A and IV C
Series Turboshaft Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 99-NE-
12)) received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-705. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems Limited Model BAe 146
and Avro 146-RJ Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-
NM-136)) received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-706. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce, plc RB211 Trent 768-
60, 772-60, and 772B-60 Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NE-30)) received on February 2, 2007;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-707. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems Limited Model BAe 146
and Avro 146-RJ Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-
NM-086)) received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-708. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems Limited Model BAe 146
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-138)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-709. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Model 750 Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-231)) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-710. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Dowty Propellers R321/4-82-F/8;
R324/4-82-F/9; R333/4-82-F/12; and R334/4-82-F/13
Propellers'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NE-40)) received
on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-711. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
Model DA 40 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-CE-
57)) received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-712. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Societe de Motorisations
Aeronautiques SR305-230 and SR305-230-1 Reciprocating
Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NE-36)) received on
February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-713. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (43)'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3193)) received on February 2, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-714. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (27)'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3194)) received on February 2, 2007; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-715. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Air Tractor, Inc. Models AT-502,
AT-502A, AT-502B, AT-602, AT-802, and AT-802A Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-CE-37)) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-716. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2005-NM-174)) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-717. A communication from the Secretary, Bureau of
Competition, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Notice Announcing
2007 Adjusted Thresholds for Clayton Act 7A'' (RIN3084-AA91)
received on February 1, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-718. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Hazardous Materials: Harmonization with the
United Nations Recommendations, International Maritime
Dangerous Goods Code, and International Civil Aviation
Organization's Technical Instructions'' (RIN2137-AE16)
received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-719. A communication from the Paralegal, Federal Transit
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Emergency
Procedures for Public Transportation Systems'' (RIN2132-AA89)
received on February 2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-720. A communication from the Regulation Officer,
Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Traffic Control Devices on Federal-Aid and Other Streets
and Highways; Standards'' (RIN2125-AF16) received on February
2, 2007; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:
By Mr. LEVIN for the Committee on Armed Services.
Army nomination of Gen. George W. Casey, Jr. to be General.
Navy nomination of Adm. William J. Fallon to be Admiral.
Air Force nomination of Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Travis to be
Major General.
Air Force nomination of Col. David H. Cyr to be Brigadier
General.
Air Force nomination of Col. Douglas J. Robb to be
Brigadier General.
Air Force nominations beginning with Brigadier General
Frank J. Casserino and ending with Colonel John T. Winters,
Jr., which nominations were received by the Senate and
appeared in the Congressional Record on January 18, 2007.
Army nomination of Lt. Gen. James M. Dubik to be Lieutenant
General.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I
report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in
the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save
the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these
nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of
Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Air Force nominations beginning with Michael D. Jacobson
and ending with Terrill L. Tops, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 18, 2007.
Air Force nominations beginning with Stuart C. Calle and
ending with Edwin O. Rodriguezpagan, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 18, 2007.
[[Page 3246]]
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER for the Select Committee on
Intelligence.
*J. Michael McConnell, of Virginia, to be Director of
National Intelligence.
*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
(Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the
recommendation that they be confirmed.)
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Bunning,
and Mr. Byrd):
S. 491. A bill to clarify the rules of origin for certain
textile and apparel products; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Coleman, and Ms.
Klobuchar):
S. 492. A bill to promote stabilization and reconstruction
efforts in Somalia, to establish a Special Envoy for Somalia
to strengthen United States support to the people of Somalia
in their efforts to establish a lasting peace and form a
democratically elected and stable central government, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 493. A bill to designate certain public land as
wilderness and certain rivers as wild and scenic rivers in
the State of California, to designate Salmon Restoration
Areas, to establish the Sacramento River National Recreation
Area and Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. LUGAR:
S. 494. A bill to endorse further enlargement of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and to facilitate the
timely admission of new members to NATO, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Feingold,
Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Sanders):
S. 495. A bill to prevent and mitigate identity theft, to
ensure privacy, to provide notice of security breaches, and
to enhance criminal penalties, law enforcement assistance,
and other protections against security breaches, fraudulent
access, and misuse of personally identifiable information; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Warner, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Lott, Mr. Brown, Mr. Cochran,
Mr. Schumer, Mr. Burr, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs.
Dole, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Graham):
S. 496. A bill to reauthorize and improve the program
authorized by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 497. A bill to repeal a prohibition on the use of
certain funds for tunneling in certain areas with respect to
the Los Angeles to San Fernando Valley Metro Rail project,
California; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. 498. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to improve the Medicare program for beneficiaries
residing in rural areas; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself and Mr. Allard):
S. 499. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow section 1031 treatment for exchanges involving
certain mutual ditch, reservoir, or irrigation company stock;
to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Mr. Martinez, Mr.
Menendez, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs.
Hutchison, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lautenberg,
Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lugar, Mr. McCain, Mr. Nelson of
Florida, Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Brown,
Mr. Feingold, and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 500. A bill to establish the Commission to Study the
Potential Creation of the National Museum of the American
Latino to develop a plan of action for the establishment and
maintenance of a National Museum of the American Latino in
Washington, DC, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. KYL:
S. 501. A bill to the relief of Ilko Vasilev Ivanov, Anelia
Marinova Peneva, Marina Ilkova Ivanova, and Julia Ilkova
Ivanova; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Lott, Mr.
Kyl, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Craig,
Mr. Vitter, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Burr, Mr.
Enzi, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Bond, Mr. Allard, and Mr.
Hagel):
S. 502. A bill to repeal the sunset on the reduction of
capital gains rates for individuals and on the taxation of
dividends of individuals at capital gains rates; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mrs. DOLE (for herself, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr.
Burr, Mr. Graham, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Isakson, Mr.
Lott, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Martinez):
S. 503. A bill to establish the SouthEast Crescent
Authority, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. SMITH:
S. 504. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to establish long-term care trust accounts and allow a
refundable tax credit for contributions to such accounts, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Warner, Ms. Landrieu,
Mr. Coleman, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Nelson of
Nebraska):
S. 505. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to increase the above-the-line deduction for teacher
classroom supplies and to expand such deduction to include
qualified professional development expenses; to the Committee
on Finance.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Ms. Snowe, and Mrs.
Boxer):
S. 506. A bill to improve efficiency in the Federal
Government through the use of high-performance green
buildings, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Ms. Collins, Ms. Cantwell,
and Mr. Durbin):
S. 507. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to provide for reimbursement of certified midwife
services and to provide for more equitable reimbursement
rates for certified nurse-midwife services; to the Committee
on Finance.
By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 508. A bill to amend the Congressional Accountability
Act of 1995 to apply whistleblower protections available to
certain executive branch employees to legislative branch
employees, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs .
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Lott, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 509. A bill to provide improved aviation security, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. Res. 72. A resolution acknowledging the severity of the
wetland loss occurring in Louisiana and supporting the
observance of World Wetlands Day in the United States; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Coleman, Mr. Stevens, Mrs. Dole, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr.
Vitter, Mr. Hatch, Mr. McCain, Mr. McConnell, and Mr.
Reid):
S. Res. 73. A resolution designating February 6, 2007, as
``Ronald Reagan Day''; considered and agreed to.
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. Con. Res. 9. A concurrent resolution celebrating the
contributions of the architectural profession during
``National Architecture Week''; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 43
At the request of Mr. Ensign, the name of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Crapo) was added as a cosponsor of S. 43, a bill to amend title II of
the Social Security Act to preserve and protect Social Security
benefits of American workers and to help ensure greater congressional
oversight of the Social Security system by requiring that both Houses
of Congress approve a totalization agreement before the agreement,
giving foreign workers Social Security benefits, can go into effect.
S. 55
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. Roberts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 55, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the individual alternative
minimum tax.
S. 65
At the request of Mr. Inhofe, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr.
[[Page 3247]]
Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 65, a bill to modify the age-60
standard for certain pilots and for other purposes.
S. 206
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from Ohio
(Mr. Brown) was added as a cosponsor of S. 206, a bill to amend title
II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset
and windfall elimination provisions.
S. 254
At the request of Mr. Enzi, the names of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Grassley) and the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) were added as
cosponsors of S. 254, a bill to award posthumously a Congressional gold
medal to Constantino Brumidi.
S. 294
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 294, a bill to
reauthorize Amtrak, and for other purposes.
S. 326
At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) was added as a cosponsor of S. 326, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special period of
limitation when uniformed services retirement pay is reduced as result
of award of disability compensation.
S. 367
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) was added as a cosponsor of S. 367, a bill
to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to prohibit the import, export, and
sale of goods made with sweatshop labor, and for other purposes.
S. 380
At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 380, a bill to reauthorize
the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000,
and for other purposes.
S. 388
At the request of Mr. Thune, the name of the Senator from Nevada (Mr.
Ensign) was added as a cosponsor of S. 388, a bill to amend title 18,
United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with
which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the
State.
S. 430
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the names of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Smith), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from
Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) were added as cosponsors of S. 430,
a bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the national
defense through empowerment of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau
and the enhancement of the functions of the National Guard Bureau, and
for other purposes.
S. 435
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Clinton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 435, a bill to amend
title 49, United States Code, to preserve the essential air service
program.
S. 439
At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Clinton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 439, a bill to amend
title 10, United States Code, to permit certain retired members of the
uniformed services who have a service-connected disability to receive
both disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs
for their disability and either retired pay by reason of their years of
military service or Combat-Related Special Compensation.
S. 450
At the request of Mr. Ensign, the name of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 450, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the medicare outpatient
rehabilitation therapy caps.
S. 479
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Ms. Klobuchar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 479, a bill to reduce
the incidence of suicide among veterans.
S. RES. 70
At the request of Mr. McCain, the name of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Craig) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 70, a resolution expressing
the sense of the Senate that the Commander of Multinational Forces-Iraq
and all United States personnel under his command should receive from
Congress the full support necessary to carry out the United States
mission in Iraq.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
______
By Mr. LUGAR:
S. 494. A bill to endorse further enlargement of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) and to facilitate the timely admission of
new members to NATO, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``NATO
Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007''. Last year this legislation passed
the Senate by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, the House was unable to
act prior to adjournment last year.
I was pleased that thirteen of my colleagues, including Senators
Biden, Chambliss, Coleman, Dodd, Hagel, Hutchison, Martinez, McCain,
Smith, and Sununu, joined me in proposing this important legislation.
The goal of this bill is to reaffirm United States support for
continued enlargement of NATO to democracies that are able and willing
to meet the responsibilities of membership. In particular, the
legislation calls for the timely admission of Albania, Croatia,
Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine to NATO and authorizes security
assistance for these countries in Fiscal Year 2008. Each of these
countries has clearly stated its desire to join NATO and is working
hard to meet the specified requirements for membership.
I believe that eventual NATO membership for these five countries
would be a success for Europe, NATO, and the United States by
continuing to extend the zone of peace and security. Albania, Croatia,
and Macedonia have been making progress on reforms through their
participation in the NATO Membership Action Plan since 2002.
Unfortunately, Georgia and Ukraine have not yet been granted a
Membership Action Plan but nevertheless have made remarkable progress.
This legislation will provide important incentives and assistance to
the countries to continue the implementation of democratic, defense,
and economic reforms.
Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been evolving to meet the new
security needs of the 21st century. In this era, the threats to NATO
members are transnational and far from its geographic borders. There is
strong support among members for NATO's operation in Afghanistan, and
for its training mission in Iraq. NATO's viability as an effective
defense and security alliance depends on flexible, creative leadership,
as well as the willingness of members to improve capabilities and
address common threats.
If NATO is to continue to be the preeminent security Alliance and
serve the defense interests of its membership, it must continue to
evolve and that evolution must include enlargement. Potential NATO
membership motivates emerging democracies to make important advances in
areas such as the rule of law and civil society. A closer relationship
with NATO will promote these values and contribute to our mutual
security. Georgia is a young democracy that has made tremendous
progress since the ``Rose Revolution.'' It is situated in a critical
geo-strategic location and is host to a large portion of the Baku-
Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that carries important energy resources to the
West from Azerbaijan and, in the future, Kazakhstan. Georgia is
resisting pressure from breakaway republics backed by Moscow. In the
past, border disputes have been identified as reasons a country may not
be invited to join NATO. But in this case, Russia's action, not
Georgia's, are frustrating Tbilisi's NATO aspirations.
[[Page 3248]]
Three years ago, the United States Senate unanimously voted to invite
seven countries to join NATO. Today, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are making significant
contributions to NATO and are among our closest allies in the global
war on terrorism. It is time again for the United States to take the
lead in urging its allies to bring in new members, and to offer timely
admission of Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine to NATO.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Feingold, Mr.
Schumer, and Mr. Sanders):
S. 495. A bill to prevent and mitigate identity theft, to ensure
privacy, to provide notice of security breaches, and to enhance
criminal penalties, law enforcement assistance, and other protections
against security breaches, fraudulent access, and misuse of personally
identifiable information; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Specter
in reintroducing the Leahy-Specter Personal Data Privacy and Security
Act. This is a comprehensive data privacy package aimed at better
protecting Americans' privacy. Senator Specter has been a valuable
partner on this, and I also thank Majority Leader Reid for his
leadership and commitment to enacting data privacy legislation this
year.
When Senator Specter and I introduced this bill in 2005, we had high
hopes of bringing urgently needed data privacy reforms to the American
people. The Judiciary Committee reported this bill favorably in
November of 2005, but with the last Congress, it simply sat on the
calendar. The leadership would not bring it forward.
The irony is while they refused to bring it forward, the problems of
data breaches remained a persistent and pernicious threat to Americans'
privacy. Yesterday we learned that the Department of Veterans Affairs
has lost a portable hard drive containing the sensitive personal
information on as many as 48,000 veterans. I can imagine what the
veterans in my State feel about that. I can imagine what the veterans
in Montana feel about that.
Last week, there was a major data breach involving a State computer
server in my home State of Vermont. It jeopardized the financial data
of at least 69,000 Vermonters whose personal financial information had
been stored on the computer used by the Vermont Agency of Human
Services. Can you imagine 69,000 people, in a State of barely over
600,000 people.
This is not unique to Vermont. Last month mega retailer TJX disclosed
that it suffered a major computer breach involving credit and debt card
purchases involving possibly hundreds of thousands of American
consumers. And, even as disturbing as that is, while they knew about
the breach in mid-December, none of those customers were told about it
until a month later. It is as if a thief had gone to each one of their
houses and stolen their data.
Of course, all of this comes on the heels of the theft of the
personal data of 26.5 million of our veterans and active-duty personnel
at the VA last year. Think about this: You are a man or a woman serving
your country in Afghanistan or Iraq, and this information is stolen--
with data about where you live and what family members are left at home
while you are overseas. How do you think that makes you feel?
According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, more than 100 million
records containing sensitive personal information have been involved in
data security breaches since 2005. We need strong Federal data privacy
and security laws to protect Americans' personal data, and to address
the ills of lax data security.
Our bill requires that data brokers let consumers know what sensitive
personal information they have about them and to allow individuals to
correct this. It is a simple matter of fairness. There is a clear
precedent for our approach in the credit reporting context. Our bill
also requires that companies who have databases with sensitive personal
information about Americans establish and implement data privacy and
security programs. In the information age, any company that wants to be
trusted by the public must earn that trust by vigilantly protecting the
databases that they use and maintain. In addition, our bill requires
notice when sensitive personal information has been compromised. The
American people need to know when they may be exposed to a data breach.
Whether it is a government agency or a private company, if they lose
your sensitive information, your Social Security number, your address,
or anything about you, you have a right to know. If they are holding
that information about you, and they lose it, you have the right to
know it has been lost.
We also have tough criminal penalties for anyone who would
intentionally or willfully conceal the fact that a data breach has
occurred when that breach causes economic damage to consumers.
Then finally, we address the important issue of the Government's use
of personal data. This would require Federal agencies to notify
affected individuals when Government data breaches occur.
We should never have to worry about our Government having this
information on us and losing it, but certainly in the last 2 or 3
years, we have seen so many millions of files that have been lost or
put in jeopardy. We live in a world in which our Government also is
increasingly turning to the private sector to get personal data that
they, in some instances, couldn't legally get on their own. To address
this, our bill puts protecting Americans' privacy first and foremost:
Government data has to be protected and we have to know if the
Government falls down on the job.
This is a comprehensive bill. It not only deals with the need to
provide Americans notice when they have been victims of a data breach,
it also deals with the underlying problems of lack of security and lack
of accountability to prevent data breaches from occurring in the first
place.
Today, Americans live in a world where their most sensitive personal
information can be accessed and sold to the highest bidder with a few
keystrokes on their computer. Our privacy laws greatly lag behind both
the capabilities of our technology and the cunning of identity thieves.
This legislation closes that gap. I commend the leadership for being
willing to bring up our data privacy bill. I wish that the leadership
in the last Congress had brought this bill up last year. But, I am glad
that the new leadership will do so this year.
For the sake of all Americans, I urge all Senators to support this
legislation and to act now to pass comprehensive data privacy and
security legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 495
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Personal
Data Privacy and Security Act of 2007''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I--ENHANCING PUNISHMENT FOR IDENTITY THEFT AND OTHER VIOLATIONS
OF DATA PRIVACY AND SECURITY
Sec. 101. Organized criminal activity in connection with unauthorized
access to personally identifiable information.
Sec. 102. Concealment of security breaches involving sensitive
personally identifiable information.
Sec. 103. Review and amendment of Federal sentencing guidelines related
to fraudulent access to or misuse of digitized or
electronic personally identifiable information.
TITLE II--DATA BROKERS
Sec. 201. Transparency and accuracy of data collection.
Sec. 202. Enforcement.
Sec. 203. Relation to State laws.
Sec. 204. Effective date.
[[Page 3249]]
TITLE III--PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION
Subtitle A--A Data Privacy and Security Program
Sec. 301. Purpose and applicability of data privacy and security
program.
Sec. 302. Requirements for a personal data privacy and security
program.
Sec. 303. Enforcement.
Sec. 304. Relation to other laws.
Subtitle B--Security Breach Notification
Sec. 311. Notice to individuals.
Sec. 312. Exemptions.
Sec. 313. Methods of notice.
Sec. 314. Content of notification.
Sec. 315. Coordination of notification with credit reporting agencies.
Sec. 316. Notice to law enforcement.
Sec. 317. Enforcement.
Sec. 318. Enforcement by State attorneys general.
Sec. 319. Effect on Federal and State law.
Sec. 320. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 321. Reporting on risk assessment exemptions.
Sec. 322. Effective date.
TITLE IV--GOVERNMENT ACCESS TO AND USE OF COMMERCIAL DATA
Sec. 401. General Services Administration review of contracts.
Sec. 402. Requirement to audit information security practices of
contractors and third party business entities.
Sec. 403. Privacy impact assessment of government use of commercial
information services containing personally identifiable
information.
Sec. 404. Implementation of chief privacy officer requirements.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) databases of personally identifiable information are
increasingly prime targets of hackers, identity thieves,
rogue employees, and other criminals, including organized and
sophisticated criminal operations;
(2) identity theft is a serious threat to the nation's
economic stability, homeland security, the development of e-
commerce, and the privacy rights of Americans;
(3) over 9,300,000 individuals were victims of identity
theft in America last year;
(4) security breaches are a serious threat to consumer
confidence, homeland security, e-commerce, and economic
stability;
(5) it is important for business entities that own, use, or
license personally identifiable information to adopt
reasonable procedures to ensure the security, privacy, and
confidentiality of that personally identifiable information;
(6) individuals whose personal information has been
compromised or who have been victims of identity theft should
receive the necessary information and assistance to mitigate
their damages and to restore the integrity of their personal
information and identities;
(7) data brokers have assumed a significant role in
providing identification, authentication, and screening
services, and related data collection and analyses for
commercial, nonprofit, and government operations;
(8) data misuse and use of inaccurate data have the
potential to cause serious or irreparable harm to an
individual's livelihood, privacy, and liberty and undermine
efficient and effective business and government operations;
(9) there is a need to insure that data brokers conduct
their operations in a manner that prioritizes fairness,
transparency, accuracy, and respect for the privacy of
consumers;
(10) government access to commercial data can potentially
improve safety, law enforcement, and national security; and
(11) because government use of commercial data containing
personal information potentially affects individual privacy,
and law enforcement and national security operations, there
is a need for Congress to exercise oversight over government
use of commercial data.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the same meaning given
such term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Affiliate.--The term ``affiliate'' means persons
related by common ownership or by corporate control.
(3) Business entity.--The term ``business entity'' means
any organization, corporation, trust, partnership, sole
proprietorship, unincorporated association, venture
established to make a profit, or nonprofit, and any
contractor, subcontractor, affiliate, or licensee thereof
engaged in interstate commerce.
(4) Identity theft.--The term ``identity theft'' means a
violation of section 1028 of title 18, United States Code.
(5) Data broker.--The term ``data broker'' means a business
entity which for monetary fees or dues regularly engages in
the practice of collecting, transmitting, or providing access
to sensitive personally identifiable information on more than
5,000 individuals who are not the customers or employees of
that business entity or affiliate primarily for the purposes
of providing such information to nonaffiliated third parties
on an interstate basis.
(6) Data furnisher.--The term ``data furnisher'' means any
agency, organization, corporation, trust, partnership, sole
proprietorship, unincorporated association, or nonprofit that
serves as a source of information for a data broker.
(7) Personal electronic record.--
(A) In general.--The term ``personal electronic record''
means data associated with an individual contained in a
database, networked or integrated databases, or other data
system that holds sensitive personally identifiable
information of that individual and is provided to
nonaffiliated third parties.
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``personal electronic record''
does not include--
(i) any data related to an individual's past purchases of
consumer goods; or
(ii) any proprietary assessment or evaluation of an
individual or any proprietary assessment or evaluation of
information about an individual.
(8) Personally identifiable information.--The term
``personally identifiable information'' means any
information, or compilation of information, in electronic or
digital form serving as a means of identification, as defined
by section 1028(d)(7) of title 18, United State Code.
(9) Public record source.--The term ``public record
source'' means the Congress, any agency, any State or local
government agency, the government of the District of Columbia
and governments of the territories or possessions of the
United States, and Federal, State or local courts, courts
martial and military commissions, that maintain personally
identifiable information in records available to the public.
(10) Security breach.--
(A) In general.--The term ``security breach'' means
compromise of the security, confidentiality, or integrity of
computerized data through misrepresentation or actions that
result in, or there is a reasonable basis to conclude has
resulted in, acquisition of or access to sensitive personally
identifiable information that is unauthorized or in excess of
authorization.
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``security breach'' does not
include--
(i) a good faith acquisition of sensitive personally
identifiable information by a business entity or agency, or
an employee or agent of a business entity or agency, if the
sensitive personally identifiable information is not subject
to further unauthorized disclosure; or
(ii) the release of a public record, or information derived
from a single public record, not otherwise subject to
confidentiality or nondisclosure requirement, or information
obtained from a news report or periodical.
(11) Sensitive personally identifiable information.--The
term ``sensitive personally identifiable information'' means
any information or compilation of information, in electronic
or digital form that includes--
(A) an individual's first and last name or first initial
and last name in combination with any 1 of the following data
elements:
(i) A non-truncated social security number, driver's
license number, passport number, or alien registration
number.
(ii) Any 2 of the following:
(I) Home address or telephone number.
(II) Mother's maiden name, if identified as such.
(III) Month, day, and year of birth.
(iii) Unique biometric data such as a finger print, voice
print, a retina or iris image, or any other unique physical
representation.
(iv) A unique account identifier, electronic identification
number, user name, or routing code in combination with any
associated security code, access code, or password that is
required for an individual to obtain money, goods, services,
or any other thing of value; or
(B) a financial account number or credit or debit card
number in combination with any security code, access code or
password that is required for an individual to obtain credit,
withdraw funds, or engage in a financial transaction.
TITLE I--ENHANCING PUNISHMENT FOR IDENTITY THEFT AND OTHER VIOLATIONS
OF DATA PRIVACY AND SECURITY
SEC. 101. ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH
UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE
INFORMATION.
Section 1961(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting ``section 1030(a)(2)(D) (relating to fraud and
related activity in connection with unauthorized access to
sensitive personally identifiable information as defined in
the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2007,'' before
``section 1084''.
SEC. 102. CONCEALMENT OF SECURITY BREACHES INVOLVING
SENSITIVE PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION.
(a) In General.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1040. Concealment of security breaches involving
sensitive personally identifiable information
``(a) Whoever, having knowledge of a security breach and of
the obligation to provide notice of such breach to
individuals under
[[Page 3250]]
title III of the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of
2007, and having not otherwise qualified for an exemption
from providing notice under section 312 of such Act,
intentionally and willfully conceals the fact of such
security breach and which breach causes economic damage to 1
or more persons, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
``(b) For purposes of subsection (a), the term `person' has
the same meaning as in section 1030(e)(12) of title 18,
United States Code.
``(c) Any person seeking an exemption under section 312(b)
of the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2007 shall
be immune from prosecution under this section if the United
States Secret Service does not indicate, in writing, that
such notice be given under section 312(b)(3) of such Act''.
(b) Conforming and Technical Amendments.--The table of
sections for chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``1040. Concealment of security breaches involving personally
identifiable information.''.
(c) Enforcement Authority.--
(1) In general.--The United States Secret Service shall
have the authority to investigate offenses under this
section.
(2) Non-exclusivity.--The authority granted in paragraph
(1) shall not be exclusive of any existing authority held by
any other Federal agency.
SEC. 103. REVIEW AND AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL SENTENCING
GUIDELINES RELATED TO FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO OR
MISUSE OF DIGITIZED OR ELECTRONIC PERSONALLY
IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION.
(a) Review and Amendment.--The United States Sentencing
Commission, pursuant to its authority under section 994 of
title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this
section, shall review and, if appropriate, amend the Federal
sentencing guidelines (including its policy statements)
applicable to persons convicted of using fraud to access, or
misuse of, digitized or electronic personally identifiable
information, including identity theft or any offense under--
(1) sections 1028, 1028A, 1030, 1030A, 2511, and 2701 of
title 18, United States Code; and
(2) any other relevant provision.
(b) Requirements.--In carrying out the requirements of this
section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall--
(1) ensure that the Federal sentencing guidelines
(including its policy statements) reflect--
(A) the serious nature of the offenses and penalties
referred to in this Act;
(B) the growing incidences of theft and misuse of digitized
or electronic personally identifiable information, including
identity theft; and
(C) the need to deter, prevent, and punish such offenses;
(2) consider the extent to which the Federal sentencing
guidelines (including its policy statements) adequately
address violations of the sections amended by this Act to--
(A) sufficiently deter and punish such offenses; and
(B) adequately reflect the enhanced penalties established
under this Act;
(3) maintain reasonable consistency with other relevant
directives and sentencing guidelines;
(4) account for any additional aggravating or mitigating
circumstances that might justify exceptions to the generally
applicable sentencing ranges;
(5) consider whether to provide a sentencing enhancement
for those convicted of the offenses described in subsection
(a), if the conduct involves--
(A) the online sale of fraudulently obtained or stolen
personally identifiable information;
(B) the sale of fraudulently obtained or stolen personally
identifiable information to an individual who is engaged in
terrorist activity or aiding other individuals engaged in
terrorist activity; or
(C) the sale of fraudulently obtained or stolen personally
identifiable information to finance terrorist activity or
other criminal activities;
(6) make any necessary conforming changes to the Federal
sentencing guidelines to ensure that such guidelines
(including its policy statements) as described in subsection
(a) are sufficiently stringent to deter, and adequately
reflect crimes related to fraudulent access to, or misuse of,
personally identifiable information; and
(7) ensure that the Federal sentencing guidelines
adequately meet the purposes of sentencing under section
3553(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code.
(c) Emergency Authority to Sentencing Commission.--The
United States Sentencing Commission may, as soon as
practicable, promulgate amendments under this section in
accordance with procedures established in section 21(a) of
the Sentencing Act of 1987 (28 U.S.C. 994 note) as though the
authority under that Act had not expired.
TITLE II--DATA BROKERS
SEC. 201. TRANSPARENCY AND ACCURACY OF DATA COLLECTION.
(a) In General.--Data brokers engaging in interstate
commerce are subject to the requirements of this title for
any product or service offered to third parties that allows
access or use of sensitive personally identifiable
information.
(b) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, this section shall not apply to--
(1) any product or service offered by a data broker
engaging in interstate commerce where such product or service
is currently subject to, and in compliance with, access and
accuracy protections similar to those under subsections (c)
through (f) of this section under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (Public Law 91-508);
(2) any data broker that is subject to regulation under the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Public Law 106-102);
(3) any data broker currently subject to and in compliance
with the data security requirements for such entities under
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(Public Law 104-191), and its implementing regulations;
(4) information in a personal electronic record that--
(A) the data broker has identified as inaccurate, but
maintains for the purpose of aiding the data broker in
preventing inaccurate information from entering an
individual's personal electronic record; and
(B) is not maintained primarily for the purpose of
transmitting or otherwise providing that information, or
assessments based on that information, to non-affiliated
third parties; and
(5) information concerning proprietary methodologies,
techniques, scores, or algorithms relating to fraud
prevention not normally provided to third parties in the
ordinary course of business.
(c) Disclosures to Individuals.--
(1) In general.--A data broker shall, upon the request of
an individual, disclose to such individual for a reasonable
fee all personal electronic records pertaining to that
individual maintained specifically for disclosure to third
parties that request information on that individual in the
ordinary course of business in the databases or systems of
the data broker at the time of such request.
(2) Information on how to correct inaccuracies.--The
disclosures required under paragraph (1) shall also include
guidance to individuals on procedures for correcting
inaccuracies.
(d) Accuracy Resolution Process.--
(1) Information from a public record or licensor.--
(A) In general.--If an individual notifies a data broker of
a dispute as to the completeness or accuracy of information
disclosed to such individual under subsection (c) that is
obtained from a public record source or a license agreement,
such data broker shall determine within 30 days whether the
information in its system accurately and completely records
the information available from the public record source or
licensor.
(B) Data broker actions.--If a data broker determines under
subparagraph (A) that the information in its systems does not
accurately and completely record the information available
from a public record source or licensor, the data broker
shall--
(i) correct any inaccuracies or incompleteness, and provide
to such individual written notice of such changes; and
(ii) provide such individual with the contact information
of the public record or licensor.
(2) Information not from a public record source or
licensor.--If an individual notifies a data broker of a
dispute as to the completeness or accuracy of information not
from a public record or licensor that was disclosed to the
individual under subsection (c), the data broker shall,
within 30 days of receiving notice of such dispute--
(A) review and consider free of charge any information
submitted by such individual that is relevant to the
completeness or accuracy of the disputed information; and
(B) correct any information found to be incomplete or
inaccurate and provide notice to such individual of whether
and what information was corrected, if any.
(3) Extension of review period.--The 30-day period
described in paragraph (1) may be extended for not more than
30 additional days if a data broker receives information from
the individual during the initial 30-day period that is
relevant to the completeness or accuracy of any disputed
information.
(4) Notice identifying the data furnisher.--If the
completeness or accuracy of any information not from a public
record source or licensor that was disclosed to an individual
under subsection (c) is disputed by such individual, the data
broker shall provide, upon the request of such individual,
the contact information of any data furnisher that provided
the disputed information.
(5) Determination that dispute is frivolous or
irrelevant.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through
(3), a data broker may decline to investigate or terminate a
review of information disputed by an individual under those
paragraphs if the data broker reasonably determines that the
dispute by the individual is frivolous or intended to
perpetrate fraud.
(B) Notice.--A data broker shall notify an individual of a
determination under subparagraph (A) within a reasonable time
by any means available to such data broker.
SEC. 202. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Civil Penalties.--
[[Page 3251]]
(1) Penalties.--Any data broker that violates the
provisions of section 201 shall be subject to civil penalties
of not more than $1,000 per violation per day while such
violations persist, up to a maximum of $250,000 per
violation.
(2) Intentional or willful violation.--A data broker that
intentionally or willfully violates the provisions of section
201 shall be subject to additional penalties in the amount of
$1,000 per violation per day, to a maximum of an additional
$250,000 per violation, while such violations persist.
(3) Equitable relief.--A data broker engaged in interstate
commerce that violates this section may be enjoined from
further violations by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(4) Other rights and remedies.--The rights and remedies
available under this subsection are cumulative and shall not
affect any other rights and remedies available under law.
(b) Federal Trade Commission Authority.--Any data broker
shall have the provisions of this title enforced against it
by the Federal Trade Commission.
(c) State Enforcement.--
(1) Civil actions.--In any case in which the attorney
general of a State or any State or local law enforcement
agency authorized by the State attorney general or by State
statute to prosecute violations of consumer protection law,
has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of
that State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by
the acts or practices of a data broker that violate this
title, the State may bring a civil action on behalf of the
residents of that State in a district court of the United
States of appropriate jurisdiction, or any other court of
competent jurisdiction, to--
(A) enjoin that act or practice;
(B) enforce compliance with this title; or
(C) obtain civil penalties of not more than $1,000 per
violation per day while such violations persist, up to a
maximum of $250,000 per violation.
(2) Notice.--
(A) In general.--Before filing an action under this
subsection, the attorney general of the State involved shall
provide to the Federal Trade Commission--
(i) a written notice of that action; and
(ii) a copy of the complaint for that action.
(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with
respect to the filing of an action by an attorney general of
a State under this subsection, if the attorney general of a
State determines that it is not feasible to provide the
notice described in subparagraph (A) before the filing of the
action.
(C) Notification when practicable.--In an action described
under subparagraph (B), the attorney general of a State shall
provide the written notice and the copy of the complaint to
the Federal Trade Commission as soon after the filing of the
complaint as practicable.
(3) Federal trade commission authority.--Upon receiving
notice under paragraph (2), the Federal Trade Commission
shall have the right to--
(A) move to stay the action, pending the final disposition
of a pending Federal proceeding or action as described in
paragraph (4);
(B) intervene in an action brought under paragraph (1); and
(C) file petitions for appeal.
(4) Pending proceedings.--If the Federal Trade Commission
has instituted a proceeding or civil action for a violation
of this title, no attorney general of a State may, during the
pendency of such proceeding or civil action, bring an action
under this subsection against any defendant named in such
civil action for any violation that is alleged in that civil
action.
(5) Rule of construction.--For purposes of bringing any
civil action under paragraph (1), nothing in this title shall
be construed to prevent an attorney general of a State from
exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by
the laws of that State to--
(A) conduct investigations;
(B) administer oaths and affirmations; or
(C) compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of
documentary and other evidence.
(6) Venue; service of process.--
(A) Venue.--Any action brought under this subsection may be
brought in the district court of the United States that meets
applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391
of title 28, United States Code.
(B) Service of process.--In an action brought under this
subsection process may be served in any district in which the
defendant--
(i) is an inhabitant; or
(ii) may be found.
(d) No Private Cause of Action.--Nothing in this title
establishes a private cause of action against a data broker
for violation of any provision of this title.
SEC. 203. RELATION TO STATE LAWS.
No requirement or prohibition may be imposed under the laws
of any State with respect to any subject matter regulated
under section 201, relating to individual access to, and
correction of, personal electronic records held by data
brokers.
SEC. 204. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title shall take effect 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
TITLE III--PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION
Subtitle A--A Data Privacy and Security Program
SEC. 301. PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY OF DATA PRIVACY AND
SECURITY PROGRAM.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this subtitle is to ensure
standards for developing and implementing administrative,
technical, and physical safeguards to protect the security of
sensitive personally identifiable information.
(b) In General.--A business entity engaging in interstate
commerce that involves collecting, accessing, transmitting,
using, storing, or disposing of sensitive personally
identifiable information in electronic or digital form on
10,000 or more United States persons is subject to the
requirements for a data privacy and security program under
section 302 for protecting sensitive personally identifiable
information.
(c) Limitations.--Notwithstanding any other obligation
under this subtitle, this subtitle does not apply to:
(1) Financial institutions.--Financial institutions--
(A) subject to the data security requirements and
implementing regulations under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15
U.S.C. 6801 et seq.); and
(B) subject to--
(i) examinations for compliance with the requirements of
this Act by a Federal Functional Regulator or State Insurance
Authority (as those terms are defined in section 509 of the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6809)); or
(ii) compliance with part 314 of title 16, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(2) HIPPA regulated entities.--
(A) Covered entities.--Covered entities subject to the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.), including the data security
requirements and implementing regulations of that Act.
(B) Business entities.--A business entity shall be deemed
in compliance with the privacy and security program
requirements under section 302 if the business entity is
acting as a ``business associate'' as that term is defined in
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 (42 U.S.C. 1301 et. seq.) and is in compliance with
requirements imposed under that Act and its implementing
regulations.
(3) Public records.--Public records not otherwise subject
to a confidentiality or nondisclosure requirement, or
information obtained from a news report or periodical.
(d) Safe Harbors.--
(1) In general.--A business entity shall be deemed in
compliance with the privacy and security program requirements
under section 302 if the business entity complies with or
provides protection equal to industry standards, as
identified by the Federal Trade Commission, that are
applicable to the type of sensitive personally identifiable
information involved in the ordinary course of business of
such business entity.
(2) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to permit, and nothing does permit, the Federal
Trade Commission to issue regulations requiring, or according
greater legal status to, the implementation of or application
of a specific technology or technological specifications for
meeting the requirements of this title.
SEC. 302. REQUIREMENTS FOR A PERSONAL DATA PRIVACY AND
SECURITY PROGRAM.
(a) Personal Data Privacy and Security Program.--A business
entity subject to this subtitle shall comply with the
following safeguards and any other administrative, technical,
or physical safeguards identified by the Federal Trade
Commission in a rulemaking process pursuant to section 553 of
title 5, United States Code, for the protection of sensitive
personally identifiable information:
(1) Scope.--A business entity shall implement a
comprehensive personal data privacy and security program that
includes administrative, technical, and physical safeguards
appropriate to the size and complexity of the business entity
and the nature and scope of its activities.
(2) Design.--The personal data privacy and security program
shall be designed to--
(A) ensure the privacy, security, and confidentiality of
sensitive personally identifying information;
(B) protect against any anticipated vulnerabilities to the
privacy, security, or integrity of sensitive personally
identifying information; and
(C) protect against unauthorized access to use of sensitive
personally identifying information that could result in
substantial harm or inconvenience to any individual.
(3) Risk assessment.--A business entity shall--
(A) identify reasonably foreseeable internal and external
vulnerabilities that could result in unauthorized access,
disclosure, use, or alteration of sensitive personally
identifiable information or systems containing sensitive
personally identifiable information;
[[Page 3252]]
(B) assess the likelihood of and potential damage from
unauthorized access, disclosure, use, or alteration of
sensitive personally identifiable information;
(C) assess the sufficiency of its policies, technologies,
and safeguards in place to control and minimize risks from
unauthorized access, disclosure, use, or alteration of
sensitive personally identifiable information; and
(D) assess the vulnerability of sensitive personally
identifiable information during destruction and disposal of
such information, including through the disposal or
retirement of hardware.
(4) Risk management and control.--Each business entity
shall--
(A) design its personal data privacy and security program
to control the risks identified under paragraph (3); and
(B) adopt measures commensurate with the sensitivity of the
data as well as the size, complexity, and scope of the
activities of the business entity that--
(i) control access to systems and facilities containing
sensitive personally identifiable information, including
controls to authenticate and permit access only to authorized
individuals;
(ii) detect actual and attempted fraudulent, unlawful, or
unauthorized access, disclosure, use, or alteration of
sensitive personally identifiable information, including by
employees and other individuals otherwise authorized to have
access;
(iii) protect sensitive personally identifiable information
during use, transmission, storage, and disposal by encryption
or other reasonable means (including as directed for disposal
of records under section 628 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(15 U.S.C. 1681w) and the implementing regulations of such
Act as set forth in section 682 of title 16, Code of Federal
Regulations); and
(iv) ensure that sensitive personally identifiable
information is properly destroyed and disposed of, including
during the destruction of computers, diskettes, and other
electronic media that contain sensitive personally
identifiable information.
(b) Training.--Each business entity subject to this
subtitle shall take steps to ensure employee training and
supervision for implementation of the data security program
of the business entity.
(c) Vulnerability Testing.--
(1) In general.--Each business entity subject to this
subtitle shall take steps to ensure regular testing of key
controls, systems, and procedures of the personal data
privacy and security program to detect, prevent, and respond
to attacks or intrusions, or other system failures.
(2) Frequency.--The frequency and nature of the tests
required under paragraph (1) shall be determined by the risk
assessment of the business entity under subsection (a)(3).
(d) Relationship to Service Providers.--In the event a
business entity subject to this subtitle engages service
providers not subject to this subtitle, such business entity
shall--
(1) exercise appropriate due diligence in selecting those
service providers for responsibilities related to sensitive
personally identifiable information, and take reasonable
steps to select and retain service providers that are capable
of maintaining appropriate safeguards for the security,
privacy, and integrity of the sensitive personally
identifiable information at issue; and
(2) require those service providers by contract to
implement and maintain appropriate measures designed to meet
the objectives and requirements governing entities subject to
section 301, this section, and subtitle B.
(e) Periodic Assessment and Personal Data Privacy and
Security Modernization.--Each business entity subject to this
subtitle shall on a regular basis monitor, evaluate, and
adjust, as appropriate its data privacy and security program
in light of any relevant changes in--
(1) technology;
(2) the sensitivity of personally identifiable information;
(3) internal or external threats to personally identifiable
information; and
(4) the changing business arrangements of the business
entity, such as--
(A) mergers and acquisitions;
(B) alliances and joint ventures;
(C) outsourcing arrangements;
(D) bankruptcy; and
(E) changes to sensitive personally identifiable
information systems.
(f) Implementation Time Line.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, a business entity subject
to the provisions of this subtitle shall implement a data
privacy and security program pursuant to this subtitle.
SEC. 303. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Civil Penalties.--
(1) In general.--Any business entity that violates the
provisions of sections 301 or 302 shall be subject to civil
penalties of not more than $5,000 per violation per day while
such a violation exists, with a maximum of $500,000 per
violation.
(2) Intentional or willful violation.--A business entity
that intentionally or willfully violates the provisions of
sections 301 or 302 shall be subject to additional penalties
in the amount of $5,000 per violation per day while such a
violation exists, with a maximum of an additional $500,000
per violation.
(3) Equitable relief.--A business entity engaged in
interstate commerce that violates this section may be
enjoined from further violations by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
(4) Other rights and remedies.--The rights and remedies
available under this section are cumulative and shall not
affect any other rights and remedies available under law.
(b) Federal Trade Commission Authority.--Any data broker
shall have the provisions of this subtitle enforced against
it by the Federal Trade Commission.
(c) State Enforcement.--
(1) Civil actions.--In any case in which the attorney
general of a State or any State or local law enforcement
agency authorized by the State attorney general or by State
statute to prosecute violations of consumer protection law,
has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of
that State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by
the acts or practices of a data broker that violate this
subtitle, the State may bring a civil action on behalf of the
residents of that State in a district court of the United
States of appropriate jurisdiction, or any other court of
competent jurisdiction, to--
(A) enjoin that act or practice;
(B) enforce compliance with this subtitle; or
(C) obtain civil penalties of not more than $5,000 per
violation per day while such violations persist, up to a
maximum of $500,000 per violation.
(2) Notice.--
(A) In general.--Before filing an action under this
subsection, the attorney general of the State involved shall
provide to the Federal Trade Commission--
(i) a written notice of that action; and
(ii) a copy of the complaint for that action.
(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with
respect to the filing of an action by an attorney general of
a State under this subsection, if the attorney general of a
State determines that it is not feasible to provide the
notice described in this subparagraph before the filing of
the action.
(C) Notification when practicable.--In an action described
under subparagraph (B), the attorney general of a State shall
provide the written notice and the copy of the complaint to
the Federal Trade Commission as soon after the filing of the
complaint as practicable.
(3) Federal trade commission authority.--Upon receiving
notice under paragraph (2), the Federal Trade Commission
shall have the right to--
(A) move to stay the action, pending the final disposition
of a pending Federal proceeding or action as described in
paragraph (4);
(B) intervene in an action brought under paragraph (1); and
(C) file petitions for appeal.
(4) Pending proceedings.--If the Federal Trade Commission
has instituted a proceeding or action for a violation of this
subtitle or any regulations thereunder, no attorney general
of a State may, during the pendency of such proceeding or
action, bring an action under this subsection against any
defendant named in such criminal proceeding or civil action
for any violation that is alleged in that proceeding or
action.
(5) Rule of construction.--For purposes of bringing any
civil action under paragraph (1) nothing in this subtitle
shall be construed to prevent an attorney general of a State
from exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general
by the laws of that State to--
(A) conduct investigations;
(B) administer oaths and affirmations; or
(C) compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of
documentary and other evidence.
(6) Venue; service of process.--
(A) Venue.--Any action brought under this subsection may be
brought in the district court of the United States that meets
applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391
of title 28, United States Code.
(B) Service of process.--In an action brought under this
subsection process may be served in any district in which the
defendant--
(i) is an inhabitant; or
(ii) may be found.
(d) No Private Cause of Action.--Nothing in this subtitle
establishes a private cause of action against a business
entity for violation of any provision of this subtitle.
SEC. 304. RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.
(a) In General.--No State may require any business entity
subject to this subtitle to comply with any requirements with
respect to administrative, technical, and physical safeguards
for the protection of sensitive personally identifying
information.
(b) Limitations.--Nothing in this subtitle shall be
construed to modify, limit, or supersede the operation of the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act or its implementing regulations,
including those adopted or enforced by States.
Subtitle B--Security Breach Notification
SEC. 311. NOTICE TO INDIVIDUALS.
(a) In General.--Any agency, or business entity engaged in
interstate commerce, that uses, accesses, transmits, stores,
disposes of
[[Page 3253]]
or collects sensitive personally identifiable information
shall, following the discovery of a security breach of the
systems or databases of such agency or business entity notify
any resident of the United States whose sensitive personally
identifiable information has been, or is reasonably believed
to have been, accessed, or acquired.
(b) Obligation of Owner or Licensee.--
(1) Notice to owner or licensee.--Any agency, or business
entity engaged in interstate commerce, that uses, accesses,
transmits, stores, disposes of, or collects sensitive
personally identifiable information that the agency or
business entity does not own or license shall notify the
owner or licensee of the information following the discovery
of a security breach involving such information.
(2) Notice by owner, licensee or other designated third
party.--Nothing in this subtitle shall prevent or abrogate an
agreement between an agency or business entity required to
give notice under this section and a designated third party,
including an owner or licensee of the sensitive personally
identifiable information subject to the security breach, to
provide the notifications required under subsection (a).
(3) Business entity relieved from giving notice.--A
business entity obligated to give notice under subsection (a)
shall be relieved of such obligation if an owner or licensee
of the sensitive personally identifiable information subject
to the security breach, or other designated third party,
provides such notification.
(c) Timeliness of Notification.--
(1) In general.--All notifications required under this
section shall be made without unreasonable delay following
the discovery by the agency or business entity of a security
breach.
(2) Reasonable delay.--Reasonable delay under this
subsection may include any time necessary to determine the
scope of the security breach, prevent further disclosures,
and restore the reasonable integrity of the data system and
provide notice to law enforcement when required.
(3) Burden of proof.--The agency, business entity, owner,
or licensee required to provide notification under this
section shall have the burden of demonstrating that all
notifications were made as required under this subtitle,
including evidence demonstrating the reasons for any delay.
(d) Delay of Notification Authorized for Law Enforcement
Purposes.--
(1) In general.--If a Federal law enforcement agency
determines that the notification required under this section
would impede a criminal investigation, such notification
shall be delayed upon written notice from such Federal law
enforcement agency to the agency or business entity that
experienced the breach.
(2) Extended delay of notification.--If the notification
required under subsection (a) is delayed pursuant to
paragraph (1), an agency or business entity shall give notice
30 days after the day such law enforcement delay was invoked
unless a Federal law enforcement agency provides written
notification that further delay is necessary.
(3) Law enforcement immunity.--No cause of action shall lie
in any court against any law enforcement agency for acts
relating to the delay of notification for law enforcement
purposes under this subtitle.
SEC. 312. EXEMPTIONS.
(a) Exemption for National Security and Law Enforcement.--
(1) In general.--Section 311 shall not apply to an agency
or business entity if the agency or business entity
certifies, in writing, that notification of the security
breach as required by section 311 reasonably could be
expected to--
(A) cause damage to the national security; or
(B) hinder a law enforcement investigation or the ability
of the agency to conduct law enforcement investigations.
(2) Limits on certifications.--An agency may not execute a
certification under paragraph (1) to--
(A) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or
administrative error;
(B) prevent embarrassment to a business entity,
organization, or agency; or
(C) restrain competition.
(3) Notice.--In every case in which an agency issues a
certification under paragraph (1), the certification,
accompanied by a description of the factual basis for the
certification, shall be immediately provided to the United
States Secret Service.
(b) Safe Harbor.--An agency or business entity will be
exempt from the notice requirements under section 311, if--
(1) a risk assessment concludes that there is no
significant risk that the security breach has resulted in, or
will result in, harm to the individuals whose sensitive
personally identifiable information was subject to the
security breach;
(2) without unreasonable delay, but not later than 45 days
after the discovery of a security breach, unless extended by
the United States Secret Service, the agency or business
entity notifies the United States Secret Service, in writing,
of--
(A) the results of the risk assessment; and
(B) its decision to invoke the risk assessment exemption;
and
(3) the United States Secret Service does not indicate, in
writing, within 10 days from receipt of the decision, that
notice should be given.
(c) Financial Fraud Prevention Exemption.--
(1) In general.--A business entity will be exempt from the
notice requirement under section 311 if the business entity
utilizes or participates in a security program that--
(A) is designed to block the use of the sensitive
personally identifiable information to initiate unauthorized
financial transactions before they are charged to the account
of the individual; and
(B) provides for notice to affected individuals after a
security breach that has resulted in fraud or unauthorized
transactions.
(2) Limitation.--The exemption by this subsection does not
apply if the information subject to the security breach
includes sensitive personally identifiable information in
addition to the sensitive personally identifiable information
identified in section 3.
SEC. 313. METHODS OF NOTICE.
An agency, or business entity shall be in compliance with
section 311 if it provides both:
(1) Individual notice.--
(A) Written notification to the last known home mailing
address of the individual in the records of the agency or
business entity;
(B) Telephone notice to the individual personally; or
(C) Electronic notice, if the primary method used by the
agency or business entity to communicate with the individual
is by electronic means, or the individual has consented to
receive such notice and the notice is consistent with the
provisions permitting electronic transmission of notices
under section 101 of the Electronic Signatures in Global and
National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 7001).
(2) Media notice.--Notice to major media outlets serving a
State or jurisdiction, if the number of residents of such
State whose sensitive personally identifiable information
was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an
unauthorized person exceeds 5,000.
SEC. 314. CONTENT OF NOTIFICATION.
(a) In General.--Regardless of the method by which notice
is provided to individuals under section 313, such notice
shall include, to the extent possible--
(1) a description of the categories of sensitive personally
identifiable information that was, or is reasonably believed
to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person;
(2) a toll-free number or, if the primary method used by
the agency or business entity to communicate with the
individual is by electronic means, an electronic mail
address--
(A) that the individual may use to contact the agency or
business entity, or the agent of the agency or business
entity; and
(B) from which the individual may learn what types of
sensitive personally identifiable information the agency or
business entity maintained about that individual; and
(3) the toll-free contact telephone numbers and addresses
for the major credit reporting agencies.
(b) Additional Content.--Notwithstanding section 319, a
State may require that a notice under subsection (a) shall
also include information regarding victim protection
assistance provided for by that State.
SEC. 315. COORDINATION OF NOTIFICATION WITH CREDIT REPORTING
AGENCIES.
If an agency or business entity is required to provide
notification to more than 1,000 individuals under section
311(a), the agency or business entity shall also notify,
without unreasonable delay, all consumer reporting agencies
that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide
basis (as defined in section 603(p) of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(p)) of the timing and
distribution of the notices.
SEC. 316. NOTICE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Secret Service.--Any business entity or agency shall
give notice of a security breach to the United States Secret
Service if--
(1) the number of individuals whose sensitive personally
identifying information was, or is reasonably believed to
have been acquired by an unauthorized person exceeds 10,000;
(2) the security breach involves a database, networked or
integrated databases, or other data system containing the
sensitive personally identifiable information of more than
1,000,000 individuals nationwide;
(3) the security breach involves databases owned by the
Federal Government; or
(4) the security breach involves primarily sensitive
personally identifiable information of individuals known to
the agency or business entity to be employees and contractors
of the Federal Government involved in national security or
law enforcement.
(b) Notice to Other Law Enforcement Agencies.--The United
States Secret Service shall be responsible for notifying--
(1) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if the security
breach involves espionage, foreign counterintelligence,
information protected against unauthorized disclosure for
reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or
Restricted Data (as that term is defined in section 11y of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)), except for
offenses affecting the duties of the United
[[Page 3254]]
States Secret Service under section 3056(a) of title 18,
United States Code;
(2) the United States Postal Inspection Service, if the
security breach involves mail fraud; and
(3) the attorney general of each State affected by the
security breach.
(c) 14-Day Rule.--The notices to Federal law enforcement
and the attorney general of each State affected by a security
breach required under this section shall be delivered as
promptly as possible, but not later than 14 days after
discovery of the events requiring notice.
SEC. 317. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Civil Actions by the Attorney General.--The Attorney
General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United
States district court against any business entity that
engages in conduct constituting a violation of this subtitle
and, upon proof of such conduct by a preponderance of the
evidence, such business entity shall be subject to a civil
penalty of not more than $1,000 per day per individual whose
sensitive personally identifiable information was, or is
reasonably believed to have been, accessed or acquired by an
unauthorized person, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 per
violation, unless such conduct is found to be willful or
intentional.
(b) Injunctive Actions by the Attorney General.--
(1) In general.--If it appears that a business entity has
engaged, or is engaged, in any act or practice constituting a
violation of this subtitle, the Attorney General may petition
an appropriate district court of the United States for an
order--
(A) enjoining such act or practice; or
(B) enforcing compliance with this subtitle.
(2) Issuance of order.--A court may issue an order under
paragraph (1), if the court finds that the conduct in
question constitutes a violation of this subtitle.
(c) Other Rights and Remedies.--The rights and remedies
available under this subtitle are cumulative and shall not
affect any other rights and remedies available under law.
(d) Fraud Alert.--Section 605A(b)(1) of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681c-1(b)(1)) is amended by
inserting ``, or evidence that the consumer has received
notice that the consumer's financial information has or may
have been compromised,'' after ``identity theft report''.
SEC. 318. ENFORCEMENT BY STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL.
(a) In General.--
(1) Civil actions.--In any case in which the attorney
general of a State or any State or local law enforcement
agency authorized by the State attorney general or by State
statute to prosecute violations of consumer protection law,
has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of
that State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by
the engagement of a business entity in a practice that is
prohibited under this subtitle, the State or the State or
local law enforcement agency on behalf of the residents of
the agency's jurisdiction, may bring a civil action on behalf
of the residents of the State or jurisdiction in a district
court of the United States of appropriate jurisdiction or any
other court of competent jurisdiction, including a State
court, to--
(A) enjoin that practice;
(B) enforce compliance with this subtitle; or
(C) civil penalties of not more than $1,000 per day per
individual whose sensitive personally identifiable
information was, or is reasonably believed to have been,
accessed or acquired by an unauthorized person, up to a
maximum of $1,000,000 per violation, unless such conduct is
found to be willful or intentional.
(2) Notice.--
(A) In general.--Before filing an action under paragraph
(1), the attorney general of the State involved shall provide
to the Attorney General of the United States--
(i) written notice of the action; and
(ii) a copy of the complaint for the action.
(B) Exemption.--
(i) In general.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with
respect to the filing of an action by an attorney general of
a State under this subtitle, if the State attorney general
determines that it is not feasible to provide the notice
described in such subparagraph before the filing of the
action.
(ii) Notification.--In an action described in clause (i),
the attorney general of a State shall provide notice and a
copy of the complaint to the Attorney General at the time the
State attorney general files the action.
(b) Federal Proceedings.--Upon receiving notice under
subsection (a)(2), the Attorney General shall have the right
to--
(1) move to stay the action, pending the final disposition
of a pending Federal proceeding or action;
(2) initiate an action in the appropriate United States
district court under section 317 and move to consolidate all
pending actions, including State actions, in such court;
(3) intervene in an action brought under subsection (a)(2);
and
(4) file petitions for appeal.
(c) Pending Proceedings.--If the Attorney General has
instituted a proceeding or action for a violation of this
subtitle or any regulations thereunder, no attorney general
of a State may, during the pendency of such proceeding or
action, bring an action under this subtitle against any
defendant named in such criminal proceeding or civil action
for any violation that is alleged in that proceeding or
action.
(d) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil
action under subsection (a), nothing in this subtitle
regarding notification shall be construed to prevent an
attorney general of a State from exercising the powers
conferred on such attorney general by the laws of that State
to--
(1) conduct investigations;
(2) administer oaths or affirmations; or
(3) compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of
documentary and other evidence.
(e) Venue; Service of Process.--
(1) Venue.--Any action brought under subsection (a) may be
brought in--
(A) the district court of the United States that meets
applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391
of title 28, United States Code; or
(B) another court of competent jurisdiction.
(2) Service of process.--In an action brought under
subsection (a), process may be served in any district in
which the defendant--
(A) is an inhabitant; or
(B) may be found.
(f) No Private Cause of Action.--Nothing in this subtitle
establishes a private cause of action against a business
entity for violation of any provision of this subtitle.
SEC. 319. EFFECT ON FEDERAL AND STATE LAW.
The provisions of this subtitle shall supersede any other
provision of Federal law or any provision of law of any State
relating to notification of a security breach, except as
provided in section 314(b).
SEC. 320. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to cover the costs incurred by the United States
Secret Service to carry out investigations and risk
assessments of security breaches as required under this
subtitle.
SEC. 321. REPORTING ON RISK ASSESSMENT EXEMPTIONS.
The United States Secret Service shall report to Congress
not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, and upon the request by Congress thereafter, on--
(1) the number and nature of the security breaches
described in the notices filed by those business entities
invoking the risk assessment exemption under section 312(b)
and the response of the United States Secret Service to such
notices; and
(2) the number and nature of security breaches subject to
the national security and law enforcement exemptions under
section 312(a), provided that such report may not disclose
the contents of any risk assessment provided to the United
States Secret Service pursuant to this subtitle.
SEC. 322. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This subtitle shall take effect on the expiration of the
date which is 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act.
TITLE IV--GOVERNMENT ACCESS TO AND USE OF COMMERCIAL DATA
SEC. 401. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION REVIEW OF
CONTRACTS.
(a) In General.--In considering contract awards totaling
more than $500,000 and entered into after the date of
enactment of this Act with data brokers, the Administrator of
the General Services Administration shall evaluate--
(1) the data privacy and security program of a data broker
to ensure the privacy and security of data containing
personally identifiable information, including whether such
program adequately addresses privacy and security threats
created by malicious software or code, or the use of peer-to-
peer file sharing software;
(2) the compliance of a data broker with such program;
(3) the extent to which the databases and systems
containing personally identifiable information of a data
broker have been compromised by security breaches; and
(4) the response by a data broker to such breaches,
including the efforts by such data broker to mitigate the
impact of such security breaches.
(b) Compliance Safe Harbor.--The data privacy and security
program of a data broker shall be deemed sufficient for the
purposes of subsection (a), if the data broker complies with
or provides protection equal to industry standards, as
identified by the Federal Trade Commission, that are
applicable to the type of personally identifiable information
involved in the ordinary course of business of such data
broker.
(c) Penalties.--In awarding contracts with data brokers for
products or services related to access, use, compilation,
distribution, processing, analyzing, or evaluating personally
identifiable information, the Administrator of the General
Services Administration shall--
(1) include monetary or other penalties--
(A) for failure to comply with subtitles A and B of title
III; or
(B) if a contractor knows or has reason to know that the
personally identifiable information being provided is
inaccurate, and provides such inaccurate information; and
[[Page 3255]]
(2) require a data broker that engages service providers
not subject to subtitle A of title III for responsibilities
related to sensitive personally identifiable information to--
(A) exercise appropriate due diligence in selecting those
service providers for responsibilities related to personally
identifiable information;
(B) take reasonable steps to select and retain service
providers that are capable of maintaining appropriate
safeguards for the security, privacy, and integrity of the
personally identifiable information at issue; and
(C) require such service providers, by contract, to
implement and maintain appropriate measures designed to meet
the objectives and requirements in title III.
(d) Limitation.--The penalties under subsection (c) shall
not apply to a data broker providing information that is
accurately and completely recorded from a public record
source or licensor.
SEC. 402. REQUIREMENT TO AUDIT INFORMATION SECURITY PRACTICES
OF CONTRACTORS AND THIRD PARTY BUSINESS
ENTITIES.
Section 3544(b) of title 44, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (7)(C)(iii), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) procedures for evaluating and auditing the
information security practices of contractors or third party
business entities supporting the information systems or
operations of the agency involving personally identifiable
information (as that term is defined in section 3 of the
Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2007) and ensuring
remedial action to address any significant deficiencies.''.
SEC. 403. PRIVACY IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF GOVERNMENT USE OF
COMMERCIAL INFORMATION SERVICES CONTAINING
PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION.
(a) In General.--Section 208(b)(1) of the E-Government Act
of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``or''; and
(2) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking the period and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
``(iii) purchasing or subscribing for a fee to personally
identifiable information from a data broker (as such terms
are defined in section 3 of the Personal Data Privacy and
Security Act of 2007).''.
(b) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, commencing 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, no Federal agency may enter into a contract with a data
broker to access for a fee any database consisting primarily
of personally identifiable information concerning United
States persons (other than news reporting or telephone
directories) unless the head of such department or agency--
(1) completes a privacy impact assessment under section 208
of the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), which
shall subject to the provision in that Act pertaining to
sensitive information, include a description of--
(A) such database;
(B) the name of the data broker from whom it is obtained;
and
(C) the amount of the contract for use;
(2) adopts regulations that specify--
(A) the personnel permitted to access, analyze, or
otherwise use such databases;
(B) standards governing the access, analysis, or use of
such databases;
(C) any standards used to ensure that the personally
identifiable information accessed, analyzed, or used is the
minimum necessary to accomplish the intended legitimate
purpose of the Federal agency;
(D) standards limiting the retention and redisclosure of
personally identifiable information obtained from such
databases;
(E) procedures ensuring that such data meet standards of
accuracy, relevance, completeness, and timeliness;
(F) the auditing and security measures to protect against
unauthorized access, analysis, use, or modification of data
in such databases;
(G) applicable mechanisms by which individuals may secure
timely redress for any adverse consequences wrongly incurred
due to the access, analysis, or use of such databases;
(H) mechanisms, if any, for the enforcement and independent
oversight of existing or planned procedures, policies, or
guidelines; and
(I) an outline of enforcement mechanisms for accountability
to protect individuals and the public against unlawful or
illegitimate access or use of databases; and
(3) incorporates into the contract or other agreement
totaling more than $500,000, provisions--
(A) providing for penalties--
(i) for failure to comply with title III of this Act; or
(ii) if the entity knows or has reason to know that the
personally identifiable information being provided to the
Federal department or agency is inaccurate, and provides such
inaccurate information; and
(B) requiring a data broker that engages service providers
not subject to subtitle A of title III for responsibilities
related to sensitive personally identifiable information to--
(i) exercise appropriate due diligence in selecting those
service providers for responsibilities related to personally
identifiable information;
(ii) take reasonable steps to select and retain service
providers that are capable of maintaining appropriate
safeguards for the security, privacy, and integrity of the
personally identifiable information at issue; and
(iii) require such service providers, by contract, to
implement and maintain appropriate measures designed to meet
the objectives and requirements in title III.
(c) Limitation on Penalties.--The penalties under
subsection (b)(3)(A) shall not apply to a data broker
providing information that is accurately and completely
recorded from a public record source.
(d) Study of Government Use.--
(1) Scope of study.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall conduct a study and audit and prepare a
report on Federal agency use of data brokers or commercial
databases containing personally identifiable information,
including the impact on privacy and security, and the extent
to which Federal contracts include sufficient provisions to
ensure privacy and security protections, and penalties for
failures in privacy and security practices.
(2) Report.--A copy of the report required under paragraph
(1) shall be submitted to Congress.
SEC. 404. IMPLEMENTATION OF CHIEF PRIVACY OFFICER
REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Designation of the Chief Privacy Officer.--Pursuant to
the requirements under section 522 of the Transportation,
Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2005 (division H of Public Law 108-447;
118 Stat. 3199) that each agency designate a Chief Privacy
Officer, the Department of Justice shall implement such
requirements by designating a department-wide Chief Privacy
Officer, whose primary role shall be to fulfill the duties
and responsibilities of Chief Privacy Officer and who shall
report directly to the Deputy Attorney General.
(b) Duties and Responsibilities of Chief Privacy Officer.--
In addition to the duties and responsibilities outlined under
section 522 of the Transportation, Treasury, Independent
Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act, 2005
(division H of Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat. 3199), the
Department of Justice Chief Privacy Officer shall--
(1) oversee the Department of Justice's implementation of
the requirements under section 403 to conduct privacy impact
assessments of the use of commercial data containing
personally identifiable information by the Department; and
(2) coordinate with the Privacy and Civil Liberties
Oversight Board, established in the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458), in
implementing this section.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to discuss the
Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2007, which I am introducing
with Senator Leahy. Not long ago, personal information--Social Security
numbers, birthdates, mothers' maiden names, addresses--all remained
relatively private. Some information--for example, whether you had a
mortgage on your home--might have been publicly available, but finding
that information required a trip to the local courthouse. For the most
part, the sheer difficulty of obtaining personal information kept it
private. This privacy--what Justice Brandeis called the freedom to be
left alone--has been a cherished value throughout American history.
As everyday transactions increasingly occur electronically, personal
information can be stored, transmitted and accessed much more easily.
Most Americans have benefited from this change. Because personal
information is available electronically, Americans enjoy the
convenience of purchasing goods over the phone or on the Internet. They
can obtain a home mortgage in a matter of hours. They can apply for a
credit card while they wait at the store. The availability of such
information also helps law enforcement agencies conduct investigations
and apprehend criminals.
In electronic form, personal information is both more valuable and
more vulnerable. As the multitude of security breaches that have
occurred over the past 2 years demonstrate, electronic information is
more vulnerable because it can be accessed anonymously from afar and
can be stolen in a split second. According to the Privacy Rights
Clearing House, since February 2005, over 100 million records
containing personal information have
[[Page 3256]]
been subject to some sort of security breach. The first of these
incidents to come to light involved commercial data broker ChoicePoint,
which in February 2005 reported that identity thieves had gained access
to personal information of 163,000 people. The identity thieves had
obtained the information by setting up sham accounts with ChoicePoint.
ChoicePoint eventually settled with the FTC for $15 million, including
$5 million for consumer redress. However, consumers might never have
found out about the breach. The incident only came to light because of
a law California had recently adopted requiring ChoicePoint and others
to provide notice of security breaches involving personal information
to California residents who were affected by the breach. As a result of
the California law, Americans for the first time began learning that
data brokers and others were routinely collecting and selling their
personal information, and in so doing, they were not always keeping the
information secure.
After the ChoicePoint incident came a long series of security
breaches involving major American companies. In March of 2005, Designer
Shoe Warehouse reported that hackers had gained access to personal
information, including credit card numbers, on over 100,000 of its
customers. Weeks later, Lexis Nexis reported that hackers had gained
access to the personal information of over 300,000 individuals. Other
blue-chip companies where unauthorized persons have gained access to
personal information include Wal-Mart, General Motors, Wachovia Bank,
H&R Block, Honeywell, AT&T, Lloyd's of London, ARCO, Visa, MasterCard,
Bank of America, FedEx, OfficeMax, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Ralph
Lauren. The largest incident came in June 2005, when Card Systems,
which processes payments for the country's largest banks and credit
card companies, reported that hackers had accessed 40 million records
containing personal information. Most recently, TJ Maxx Stores and
MoneyGram both had the personal information of their customers stolen
from their computer systems. This list only includes security breaches
involving wrong-doers who were trying to obtain personal information.
The list would be much longer had it included inadvertent disclosure of
personal information or incidents involving stolen computers or other
equipment that happened to contain personal information.
A large number of colleges and universities have also suffered
significant breaches, including the University of Southern California,
which in July of 2005 reported that hackers has accessed 270,000
records containing personal data. Other educational institutions that
have been hacked include Boston College, Northwestern University, Tufts
University, UCLA, Michigan State, Carnegie Mellon, Perdue, Stanford,
Duke, the University of Iowa, the University of Colorado, and the
University of Utah.
Governments also have not been immune from attempts by identity
thieves to obtain personal information. Hackers have accessed personal
data at the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, the Air Force
and the Department of Agriculture. Hackers obtained over half a million
records containing personal data from a State agency in Georgia. The
San Diego County Employees Retirement Association, the California
Department of Corrections, the Nebraska Treasurers office, the city of
Lubbock, TX, and a Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program in Hawaii
have all been the victims of similar thefts.
Electronic personal data is more valuable because identity thieves
can steal a large volume of data and use it before anyone even knows
their personal information has been compromised. For the last 5 years,
identity theft has topped the FTC's list of consumer complaints. From
2002 to 2004, the number of complaints rose 52 percent, to 246,570. Put
another way, that's one complaint every 2 minutes. But this is only the
tip of the iceberg. Not all consumers report identity theft to the FTC.
Not all victims report identity theft to their local police. Sixty
percent of those who did file a report with the FTC did not call their
local police department. It stands to reason that many did not call the
FTC.
A recent study by the Better Business Bureau concluded that 8.9
million Americans were victims of identity fraud in 2006, and that each
victim lost approximately $6,300. Ultimately, it has been predicted
that nearly 20 percent of Americans will become victims of identity
theft. Worse, according to the study, it took victims an average of 40
hours on the phone with creditors and credit bureaus to clear their
names. I use the term ``clear'' loosely, because in many cases the
damage caused by identity theft is irreversible. Victims will have
fraud alerts on their credit reports for years to come, making it more
difficult for them to open new accounts or make major purchases. Some
will be erroneously contacted by collection agencies. Many will not
even know they have been victimized until they try to get a car loan or
a mortgage on a home.
Individuals who have not yet been victims also suffer. Businesses
lose nearly $50 billion a year from identity thieves posing as
customers. These losses translate into increased prices for every
consumer. All Americans are victims of identify theft, even if their
own information remains secure.
In some cases, the availability of electronic personal data can lead
to tragedy. In 1999, a former high school classmate of Amy Lynn Boyer
obtained her former work address and Social Security number from an on-
line data broker. Using this information, he called Amy's mother and
posed as the former employer, convincing Amy's mom to give him Amy's
new work address. He then drove to Amy's workplace and fatally shot
her.
In an effort to protect the privacy and security of our personal
information, and prevent future tragedies, small and large, last
Congress, Senator Leahy and I introduced the Personal Data Privacy and
Security Act. The problem is one of large proportions and many have
views on how to go about tackling it. Six committees, three on the
House side and three on the Senate side, introduced legislation last
Congress addressing data security. At least two other Senate committees
became involved in the issue. It is my hope that the differences among
committees and members can be bridged this Congress. The problem is
simply too large to ignore.
In an effort to start that process, Senator Leahy and I are again
introducing the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. We are
reintroducing the bill in largely the same form that it was approved by
the Judiciary Committee last Congress. The bill takes a comprehensive
approach to the problem, an approach I believe is necessary. First, the
legislation goes after identity thieves by increasing penalties for
crimes involving electronic personal information. It also contains
criminal penalties for those who intentionally conceal a security
breach involving personal data. Those who actively conceal breaches
attempt to protect themselves by gambling with the reputations and
finances of innocent Americans. They deserve to be punished.
The bill also empowers Americans to look after the privacy of their
own information. The bill will allow individuals to gain access to
their personal information when it is in the hands of commercial data
brokers. For individuals who believe their information is wrong--
possibly because the activities of identity thieves--data brokers must
provide assistance with correcting their information.
The legislation also places some of the burden of protecting privacy
on those that collect personal information. It will require the
companies, government agencies, universities and others that deal with
personal information to identify and remedy any weaknesses in their
computer systems.
Such measures will not always be enough. As I've already noted, the
nature of electronic information makes it vulnerable even when
reasonable steps are taken to protect it. Currently, over 30 States
have adopted legislation requiring companies, agencies, universities
and others to give notice when they experience a security breach that
[[Page 3257]]
involves personal information. However, no Federal law imposes such a
requirement. As a result, companies are forced to comply with over 30
different State laws, an expensive and time-consuming endeavor.
The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act requires that both
affected individuals and law enforcement receive notice. Knowledge is
power. Once individuals learn that their personal information is
exposed, they can take steps to protect themselves. And, the company,
school or agency that experienced the breach must help. They must
provide individuals whose data was lost with credit monitoring. For
large breaches, the media must be notified. Media reports over the 2
years have made Americans far more aware of the problem of security
breaches. Hopefully, we can raise awareness by continuing the practice
of making public announcements. Notice will also give law enforcement a
head start in catching those who steal personal information.
Finally, this legislation will protect the privacy of all Americans
by providing a check on the government's use of commercial databases.
Federal law enforcement agencies use commercial databases to track
criminals and criminal activity. Correctly used, these databases can be
very useful tools in the fight against crime. However, there should be
some check on their use. The bill makes it clear that protections
similar to those provided by the Privacy Act are applied to the
government's use of commercial databases. The legislation also aims at
making sure the government's use of such data is secure.
This bill represents a comprehensive effort to protect the privacy
and security of the personal information of all Americans. The lives of
most Americans have been made easier because our personal information
is readily available to those who have a legitimate need for it. This
legislation aims to keep such information out of the hands of those who
have no legitimate need for it. I want to take a moment to thank my
colleague, Senator Leahy, who has been tireless in his efforts to
promote individual privacy. He has long fought these issues on the
Senate floor and has been a leader in securing the privacy rights of
all Americans. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this
important legislation.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor
of the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2007. This bill is a
much-needed solution to the daunting problem of ensuring the privacy
and the security of our personal data, which has become such a precious
commodity.
Several forces are converging to make our personal information more
valuable--and more vulnerable--than ever. The world is digital and so
is our personal data. In this day and age, almost everything we do
results in a third party creating a digital record about us--digital
records that we may not even realize exist. We seek the convenience of
opening bank accounts, managing our credit cards, and making major
purchases over the Internet. And we often complete these transactions
without ever speaking to another person face-to-face or over the
telephone. Businesses, nonprofits, and political parties are
personalizing their messages, products, and services to a degree we've
never seen before, and they are willing to invest significant amounts
of money in collecting personal information about potential customers
or donors. And we are living in an age where identity-based screening
and security programs can be vitally important, resulting in more
information being collected about individuals in an attempt to identify
them accurately.
As a result, personal information has become a hot commodity that is
bought, sold, and--as so often happens when something becomes
valuable--stolen.
We are at a crossroads. We all know about the security breaches that
have been on the front pages of newspapers. They have placed the
identities of hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk. The fear
among the American public is so widespread that it has become the basis
of an entire ad campaign by a credit card company.
But this is about much more than information security. Until
California law required a company named ChoicePoint to notify
individuals in 2005 that their information was compromised and that
they might be vulnerable to identity theft, many Americans had never
heard of ChoicePoint. As news stories focused on the data broker
business, many Americans were surprised to discover that companies are
creating digital dossiers about them that contain massive amounts of
information, and that these companies sell that information to
commercial and government entities. The revelations about these
security breaches highlighted the fact that Americans need a better
understanding of what happens to their information in a digital world--
and what kind of consequences they can face as a result.
When I am back home in Wisconsin, I hear from people who do not
understand why companies have the right to sell their sensitive
personal information. I hear from people who are shocked to discover
that personal information about them is available for free on the
Internet.
There is no question that data aggregators facilitate societal
benefits, allowing consumers to obtain instant credit and personalized
services, and allowing police officers to locate suspects. But these
companies also gather a great deal of potentially sensitive information
about individuals, and in many instances they go largely unregulated.
Too many of my constituents feel that they have lost control over
their own information. Congress must return some power to individual
Americans so that we can all better understand and manage what happens
to our own personal data.
The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act takes a comprehensive
approach to the privacy and security problems we face. It gives
consumers back some control over their own information. The bill
requires data brokers to allow consumers to access their own
information and to investigate when consumers tell them that
corrections are necessary. And it requires companies to give notice to
affected consumers and to law enforcement if there is a serious
security breach, so that individuals know their identity may be at risk
and can take steps to protect themselves.
In addition, the bill extends existing criminal law to ensure that it
covers unauthorized access of data broker systems, as well as
concealment of security breaches. It requires companies that buy and
sell information to have appropriate data security systems in place.
These protections will help safeguard against future privacy violations
and security breaches in the commercial data industry. But that is not
all this bill accomplishes.
The bill also contains some critically important privacy and security
provisions to govern the government's use of commercial data. This is
an aspect of the data broker business that has not yet gotten as much
attention in the wake of the security breaches over the past few years.
The information gathered by these companies is not just sold to
individuals and businesses; government agencies of all stripes also buy
or subscribe to information from commercial sources. We all remember
the discovery in 2005 that the Pentagon had a contract with a marketing
firm to analyze commercial and other data about high school and college
students.
Although the government should be able to access commercial databases
in appropriate circumstances, there are few existing rules or
guidelines to ensure this information is used responsibly. Nor are
there restrictions on the use of commercial data for powerful,
intrusive data mining programs. The Privacy Act, which governs when
government agencies themselves are collecting data, likely does not
apply because the information is held outside the government and is not
gathered solely at government direction.
As a result, there is a great deal we do not know about government
use of commercial data, even in clearly appropriate circumstances such
as when the agency's goal is simply to locate an
[[Page 3258]]
individual already suspected of a crime.
We don't know under what circumstances government employees can
obtain access to these databases or for what purposes. We don't know
how government agencies evaluate the accuracy of the databases to which
they subscribe. We don't know how the accuracy level of the data
affects government use of the data. We don't know how employees are
monitored to ensure they do not abuse their access to these databases.
We don't know how those who misuse the information are punished. And we
don't know how government agencies, particularly those engaged in
sensitive national security investigations, ensure that the data
brokers cannot keep records of who the government is investigating,
records which themselves could create a huge security risk in light of
the vulnerabilities that have come to the forefront in recent months.
That is why I am so pleased that this bill includes provisions to
address the government's use of commercial data. A comprehensive
approach to data privacy and security would be incomplete without
taking on this piece of the puzzle. The bill recognizes there are many
legitimate reasons for government agencies to obtain commercially
available data, but that they need to be subject to privacy and
security protections. It takes a common sense approach, pushing
government agencies to take basic steps to ensure that individuals'
personal information is secure and only used for legitimate purposes,
and that the commercial information the government is paying for and
relying on is accurate and complete.
Specifically, the bill would require that federal agencies that
subscribe to commercial data adopt standards governing its use. These
standards would reflect long-standing basic privacy principles. The
bill would ensure that government agencies consider and determine which
personnel will be permitted to access the information and under what
circumstances; develop retention policies for this personal data and
get rid of data they no longer need, minimizing the opportunity for
abuse or theft; rely only on accurate and complete data, and penalize
vendors who knowingly provide inaccurate information to the Federal
Government; provide individuals who suffer adverse consequences as a
result of the agency's reliance on commercial data with a redress
mechanism; and establish enforcement mechanisms for those privacy
policies.
The bill also directs the General Services Administration to review
government contracts for commercial data to make sure that vendors have
appropriate security programs in place, and that they do not provide
information to the government that they know to be inaccurate. And it
requires agencies to audit the information security practices of their
vendors.
These are basic good government measures. They guarantee that the
Federal Government is not wasting money on inaccurate data and that
vendors are undertaking the security programs that they have promised
and for which the government is paying.
We live in a new digital world. The law may never fully keep up with
technology, but we must make every effort we can. I am proud to be
involved in this comprehensive, reasoned approach to privacy and
security, and I hope it will move forward in this Congress. I
congratulate Senators Leahy and Specter for their excellent work on
this bill. This bill is important and it deserves serious
consideration.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 497. A bill to repeal a prohibition on the use of certain funds
for tunneling in certain areas with respect to the Los Angeles to San
Fernando Valley Metro Rail project, California; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. Pesident, today I rise to introduce a bill for myself
and Senator Feinstein to allow for subway tunneling in parts of Los
Angeles.
In 1985, in response to a methane gas explosion that destroyed a Ross
Dress for Less Store in Los Angeles, Representative Waxman worked to
enact a law that prohibits subway tunneling in his district.
In 2004, the Los Angeles City Council passed a motion in support of
reversing the laws banning tunneling. In February 2005, the Los Angeles
Metropolitan Transportation Authority board also voted to begin
discussions of subway expansion.
As a result, a panel of scientific experts was created to conduct an
independent safety review that determined that subway tunneling could
move forward safely with new technology.
Representative Waxman introduced a bill to lift the Federal tunneling
prohibition in the last Congress--where it passed the House--and again
in this Congress. Senator Feinstein and I are introducing the same bill
in the Senate.
This legislation has the support of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
This bill is necessary to expand the subway, which is extremely
important in Los Angeles--a city that ranks time and time again as the
most congested region in the country. The Wilshire corridor is densely
populated and is a large commercial area. The freeways and streets are
filled--we need transit in this area.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. 498. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
improve the Medicare program for beneficiaries residing in rural areas;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator
Collins from Maine, I am introducing legislation to address the needs
of the nearly one-quarter of all Medicare beneficiaries who live in
rural America. These beneficiaries are systematically disadvantaged in
the Medicare program. The beauty of Medicare is its equity, its
universality, and its accessibility. But we have compromised these
values by stratifying payments, by under-representing rural voices on
the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and by continuing to use
obsolete payment data that hurts rural America.
First, we must stop indexing physician payments for work based on
geographic differences. Rural areas already have a hard enough time
recruiting and retaining the Nation's top talent. Currently, even
though 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries live in rural areas, only
10 percent of the Nation's physicians serve them. Lower payments to
doctors in these areas only perpetuate this dangerous shortage of
medical expertise. We should not be discouraging medical school
graduates from moving to underserved rural areas by continuing to offer
sub-par pay--in fact, we should be providing incentives to encourage
them to work in underserved areas. My legislation proposes a project to
help rural facilities to host educators and clinical practitioners in
clinical rotations.
Lack of dollars to rural health facilities has also prevented
communities from investing in vital information technology. The
Institute of Medicine published a report in 2005 detailing the ways in
which health IT could assist isolated communities. For example, since
rural physicians tend to be generalists rather than specialists,
virtual libraries within physician offices would provide both doctors
and patients with a wider and deeper source of information at their
fingertips. Rural residents can also be quite far from health
facilities, so technology that allows emergency room physicians to
communicate with EMS workers in an ambulance can help patients receive
life-saving treatment before they physically reach the hospital. These
kinds of technologies will improve both the quality and efficiency of
care given in rural areas. My legislation offers funding for quality
improvement demonstration projects, to allow isolated communities to
invest in this otherwise out of reach technology.
Lastly, this legislation will end the disproportionately low
representation of rural interests on the Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission. This lack of representation has resulted in policies that
hurt rural communities. Those policies have hurt--and continue
[[Page 3259]]
to hurt--the people of my State of Wisconsin, and they hurt my
colleague Senator Collins' constituents as well. For every dollar that
Medicare spends on the average beneficiary in the average State in this
country, Medicare spends only 82 cents on a beneficiary in Wisconsin.
In Maine, Medicare spends only 80 cents per dollar it spends on the
average beneficiary.
How is this the case, if beneficiaries in Wisconsin and in Maine pay
the same payroll taxes as beneficiaries in other States? Because the
distribution of Medicare dollars among the 50 States is grossly unfair
to Wisconsin, and to much of the Upper Midwest. Wisconsinites pay
payroll taxes just like every American taxpayer, but the Medicare funds
we get in return are lower than those received in many other States.
With the guidance and support of people across my State who are
fighting for Medicare fairness, I am introducing this legislation to
address Medicare's discrimination against Wisconsin's seniors and
health care providers. My bill will decrease some of the inequitable
payments that harm rural areas. It will provide rural areas the help
they need to grow crucial health information technology infrastructure.
It will offer the necessary incentives to help attract the Nation's top
medical talent to underserved rural areas. And it will mandate rural
representation on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Rural
seniors are already underserved in their communities; they should not
be underrepresented in Washington as well.
Rural Americans have worked hard and paid into the Medicare program
all their lives. In return, they deserve full access to the same
benefits as seniors throughout the country: their choice of highly
skilled physicians, use of the latest technologies, and a strong voice
representing their needs in Medicare policy.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 498
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Rural
Medicare Equity Act of 2007''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Elimination of geographic physician work adjustment factor from
geographic indices used to adjust payments under the
physician fee schedule.
Sec. 3. Clinical rotation demonstration project.
Sec. 4. Medicare rural health care quality improvement demonstration
projects.
Sec. 5. Ensuring proportional representation of interests of rural
areas on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
Sec. 6. Implementation of GAO recommendations regarding geographic
adjustment indices under the Medicare physician fee
schedule.
SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF GEOGRAPHIC PHYSICIAN WORK ADJUSTMENT
FACTOR FROM GEOGRAPHIC INDICES USED TO ADJUST
PAYMENTS UNDER THE PHYSICIAN FEE SCHEDULE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Variations in the geographic physician work adjustment
factors under section 1848(e) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-4(e)) result in inequity between localities in
payments under the Medicare physician fee schedule.
(2) Beneficiaries under the Medicare program that reside in
areas where such adjustment factors are high have relatively
more access to services that are paid based on such fee
schedule.
(3) There are a number of studies indicating that the
market for health care professionals has become nationalized
and historically low labor costs in rural and small urban
areas have disappeared.
(4) Elimination of the adjustment factors described in
paragraph (1) would equalize the reimbursement rate for
services reimbursed under the Medicare physician fee schedule
while remaining budget-neutral.
(b) Elimination.--Section 1848(e) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A)(iii), by striking ``an index'' and
inserting ``for services provided before January 1, 2008, an
index''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, for services
provided before January 1, 2008,'' after ``paragraph (4)),
and''.
(c) Budget Neutrality Adjustment for Elimination of
Geographic Physician Work Adjustment Factor.--Section 1848(d)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(d)), as amended
by section 101 of the Medicare Improvement and Extension Act
of 2006, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``The conversion'' and
inserting ``Subject to paragraph (8), the conversion''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Budget neutrality adjustment for elimination of
geographic physician work adjustment factor.--Before applying
an update for a year under this subsection, the Secretary
shall (if necessary) provide for an adjustment to the
conversion factor for that year to ensure that the aggregate
payments under this part in that year shall be equal to
aggregate payments that would have been made under such part
in that year if the amendments made by section 2(b) of the
Rural Medicare Equity Act of 2007 had not been enacted.''.
SEC. 3. CLINICAL ROTATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
(a) Establishment.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a
demonstration project that provides for demonstration grants
designed to provide financial or other incentives to
hospitals to attract educators and clinical practitioners so
that hospitals that serve beneficiaries under the Medicare
program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) who are residents of underserved areas
may host clinical rotations.
(b) Duration of Project.--The demonstration project shall
be conducted over a 5-year period.
(c) Waiver.--The Secretary shall waive such provisions of
titles XI and XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1301 et seq. and 1395 et seq.) as may be necessary to conduct
the demonstration project under this section.
(d) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress interim reports on the demonstration
project and a final report on such project within 6 months
after the conclusion of the project together with
recommendations for such legislative or administrative action
as the Secretary determines appropriate.
(e) Funding.--There are appropriated to the Secretary
$20,000,000 to carry out this section.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Hospital.--The term ``hospital'' means any subsection
(d) hospital (as defined in section 1886(d)(1)(B) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(1)(B)) that had
indirect or direct costs of medical education during the most
recent cost reporting period preceding the date of enactment
of this Act.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(3) Underserved area.--The term ``underserved area'' means
such medically underserved urban areas and medically
underserved rural areas as the Secretary may specify.
SEC. 4. MEDICARE RURAL HEALTH CARE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall establish not more that 10 demonstration projects to
provide for improvements, as recommended by the Institute of
Medicine, in the quality of health care provided to
individuals residing in rural areas.
(2) Activities.--Activities under the projects may include
public health surveillance, emergency room videoconferencing,
virtual libraries, telemedicine, electronic health records,
data exchange networks, and any other activities determined
appropriate by the Secretary.
(3) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with the
Rural Health Quality Advisory Commission, the Office of Rural
Health Policy of the Health Resources and Services
Administration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in
carrying out the provisions of this section.
(b) Duration.--Each demonstration project under this
section shall be conducted over a 4-year period.
(c) Demonstration Project Sites.--The Secretary shall
ensure that the demonstration projects under this section are
conducted at a variety of sites representing the diversity of
rural communities in the Nation.
(d) Waiver.--The Secretary shall waive such provisions of
titles XI and XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1301 et seq. and 1395 et seq.) as may be necessary to conduct
the demonstration projects under this section.
(e) Independent Evaluation.--The Secretary shall enter into
an arrangement with an entity that has experience working
directly with rural health systems for the conduct of an
independent evaluation of the projects conducted under this
section.
[[Page 3260]]
(f) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress interim reports on each demonstration
project and a final report on such project within 6 months
after the conclusion of the project. Such reports shall
include recommendations regarding the expansion of the
project to other areas and recommendations for such other
legislative or administrative action as the Secretary
determines appropriate.
(g) Funding.--There are appropriated to the Secretary
$50,000,000 to carry out this section.
SEC. 5. ENSURING PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION OF INTERESTS OF
RURAL AREAS ON THE MEDICARE PAYMENT ADVISORY
COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--Section 1805(c)(2) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395b-6(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``consistent with
subparagraph (E)'' after ``rural representatives''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Proportional representation of interests of rural
areas.--In order to provide a balance between urban and rural
representatives under subparagraph (A), the proportion of
members who represent the interests of health care providers
and Medicare beneficiaries located in rural areas shall be no
less than the proportion, of the total number of Medicare
beneficiaries, who reside in rural areas.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to appointments made to the Medicare
Payment Advisory Commission after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF GAO RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT INDICES UNDER THE
MEDICARE PHYSICIAN FEE SCHEDULE.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
implement the recommendations contained in the March 2005 GAO
report 05-119 entitled ``Medicare Physician Fees: Geographic
Adjustment Indices are Valid in Design, but Data and Methods
Need Refinement.''.
______
By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Menendez, Mr.
Bayh, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Domenici, Mr.
Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lugar, Mr. McCain, Mr.
Nelson of Florida, Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Brown,
Mr. Feingold, and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 500. A bill to establish the Commission to Study the Potential
Creation of the National Museum of the American Latino to develop a
plan of action for the establishment and maintenance of a National
Museum of the American Latino in Washington, DC, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak about bi-partisan
legislation I am introducing today. I am proud to be joined by Senator
Mel Martinez, Senator Bob Menendez, and 20 additional Senators from
both sides of the aisle.
The National Museum of the American Latino Community Commission Act
will establish a Commission to study the potential creation of a
National Museum of the American Latino Community. The Commission
members, selected by the President and Members of Congress, will be
tasked with studying the impact of such a Museum and the cost of
constructing and maintaining a museum, developing a plan of action and
a fundraising plan, and proposing recommendations to make the Museum a
reality.
As we begin our efforts to pass this significant legislation, the
U.S. House of Representatives is set to complete their consideration of
H.R. 512, the House companion bill, and will pass the bill on the House
floor today. It has been a pleasure to working with Representative
Xavier Becerra and Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who have
championed this legislation for several years. I hope to work with the
Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee to quickly advance the
Senate bill, so that we can, at last, move forward.
If we are successful in our efforts, I believe we will have done our
part to enhance the experience of the millions who visit our Nation's
capital every year. By passing this legislation, we will contribute to
the ongoing, deeply rewarding, and profoundly important process of
national self-discovery.
Washington, DC is the symbolic heart of our country. When Americans
travel to their capital, they expect the museums, monuments, and
national parks they visit to reflect the complete American experience.
I celebrate the opening of the National Museum of the America Indian
and efforts underway to establish the National Museum of African
American History and Culture because I believe we must celebrate our
rich, diverse national heritage.
Hispanics have long been a part of our country's history and my own
family's story illustrates this truth.
Over 400 years ago, in 1598, my family helped found the oldest city
in what is now these United States. They named the city Santa Fe--the
City of Holy Faith--because they knew the hand of God would guide them
through the struggles of survival in the ages ahead. In Hispanic
Pioneers in Colorado and New Mexico, a new book by Colorado Society of
Hispanic Genealogy, their triumph over extreme adversity is documented.
The time has come for the story of these pioneers to be told in our
Nation's capital.
As a proud American, I want to ensure that every individual who
visits Washington has a chance to learn the full history of who we are
as Americans. It is my hope that the Senate can work to pass this
important bill. In doing so, we will preserve our shared America
history.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 500
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Commission to Study the
Potential Creation of the National Museum of the American
Latino Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--There is established the Commission to
Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the
American Latino (in this Act referred to as the
``Commission'').
(b) Membership.--The Commission shall consist of 23 members
appointed not later than 6 months after the date of enactment
of this Act as follows:
(1) The President shall appoint 7 voting members.
(2) The Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority
leader of the Senate, and the minority leader of the Senate
shall each appoint 3 voting members.
(3) In addition to the members appointed under paragraph
(2), the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority
leader of the Senate, and the minority leader of the Senate
shall each appoint 1 nonvoting member.
(c) Qualifications.--Members of the Commission shall be
chosen from among individuals, or representatives of
institutions or entities, who possess either--
(1) a demonstrated commitment to the research, study, or
promotion of American Latino life, art, history, political or
economic status, or culture, together with--
(A) expertise in museum administration;
(B) expertise in fundraising for nonprofit or cultural
institutions;
(C) experience in the study and teaching of Latino culture
and history at the post-secondary level;
(D) experience in studying the issue of the Smithsonian
Institution's representation of American Latino art, life,
history, and culture; or
(E) extensive experience in public or elected service; or
(2) experience in the administration of, or the planning
for the establishment of, museums devoted to the study and
promotion of the role of ethnic, racial, or cultural groups
in American history.
SEC. 3. FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Plan of Action for Establishment and Maintenance of
Museum.--The Commission shall submit a report to the
President and Congress containing its recommendations with
respect to a plan of action for the establishment and
maintenance of a National Museum of the American Latino in
Washington, DC (in this Act referred to as the ``Museum'').
(b) Fundraising Plan.--The Commission shall develop a
fundraising plan for supporting the creation and maintenance
of the Museum through contributions by the American people,
and a separate plan on fundraising by the American Latino
community.
(c) Report on Issues.--The Commission shall examine (in
consultation with the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution), and
[[Page 3261]]
submit a report to the President and Congress on, the
following issues:
(1) The availability and cost of collections to be acquired
and housed in the Museum.
(2) The impact of the Museum on regional Hispanic- and
Latino-related museums.
(3) Possible locations for the Museum in Washington, DC and
its environs, to be considered in consultation with the
National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of
Fine Arts, the Department of the Interior and Smithsonian
Institution.
(4) Whether the Museum should be located within the
Smithsonian Institution.
(5) The governance and organizational structure from which
the Museum should operate.
(6) How to engage the American Latino community in the
development and design of the Museum.
(7) The cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining
the Museum.
(d) Legislation to Carry Out Plan of Action.--Based on the
recommendations contained in the report submitted under
subsection (a) and the report submitted under subsection (c),
the Commission shall submit for consideration to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives, the Committee on House Administration of
the House of Representatives, the Committee on Rules and
Administration of the Senate, the Committees on Natural
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate recommendations for a
legislative plan of action to create and construct the
Museum.
(e) National Conference.--In carrying out its functions
under this section, the Commission may convene a national
conference on the Museum, comprised of individuals committed
to the advancement of American Latino life, art, history, and
culture, not later than 18 months after the commission
members are selected.
SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
(a) Facilities and Support of Department of the Interior.--
The Department of the Interior shall provide from funds
appropriated for this purpose administrative services,
facilities, and funds necessary for the performance of the
Commission's functions. These funds shall be made available
prior to any meetings of the Commission.
(b) Compensation.--Each member of the Commission who is not
an officer or employee of the Federal Government may receive
compensation for each day on which the member is engaged in
the work of the Commission, at a daily rate to be determined
by the Secretary of the Interior.
(c) Travel Expenses.--Each member shall be entitled to
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence,
in accordance with applicable provisions under subchapter I
of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.
(d) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The Commission is not
subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act.
SEC. 5. DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF REPORTS; TERMINATION.
(a) Deadline.--The Commission shall submit final versions
of the reports and plans required under section 3 not later
than 24 months after the date of the Commission's first
meeting.
(b) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate not later
than 30 days after submitting the final versions of reports
and plans pursuant to subsection (a).
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated for carrying out
the activities of the Commission $2,100,000 for the first
fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act
and $1,100,000 for the second fiscal year beginning after the
date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. SMITH:
S. 504. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
establish long-term care trust accounts and allow a refundable tax
credit for contributions to such accounts, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Long-Term
Care Trust Account Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined by my
colleague Senator Blanche Lincoln who has been a tireless leader on
issues of importance to the health of our Nation. I look forward to
continuing to work with Senator Lincoln on this legislation as well as
other opportunities to improve health care in America.
We are an aging Nation. With babyboomers rapidly retiring, the need
for long-term care planning is becoming even more critical. However, we
know all too well that planning for the likelihood of disability in
young or old age is not done as actively as we would like it to be.
Currently, only about 7 percent of all money spent on long-term care
comes from private insurance. Too often, insurance is not being
purchased, funds are not being saved and persons with disabilities are
forced to rely on Medicaid for their daily care.
As a Nation, we need to do better. Senator Lincoln and I believe that
our bill will encourage Americans to invest in their futures and in
their care, which is an important first step.
Specifically, our legislation will create a new type of savings
mechanism for the purpose of preparing for the costs associated with
long-term care services and purchasing long-term care insurance. An
individual who establishes a long-term care trust account can
contribute up to $5,000 per year to their account and receive a
refundable 10 percent tax credit on that contribution. Interest accrued
on these accounts will be tax free, and funds could be withdrawn for
the purchase of long-term care insurance or to pay for long-term care
services. Our bill also will allow an individual to make contributions
to another person's Long-Term Care Trust Account. This will allow
relatives to help their parents or a loved one prepare for their future
health care needs.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates that
national spending for long-term care was more than $190 billion in
2004, representing about 12.5 percent of all personal health care
expenditures. While those numbers already are staggering, we also know
that the need for long-term care is expected to grow significantly in
coming decades. Almost two-thirds of people receiving long-term care
are over age 65, with this number expected to double by 2030. We also
know that the population over age 85, those most likely to need long-
term services and supports, is expected to increase more than 250
percent by 2040 from 4.3 million to 15.4 million.
Today, millions of Americans are receiving or are in need of long-
term care services and supports. Surprisingly, more than 40 percent of
persons receiving long-term care are between the ages of 18 and 64.
Some were born with disabilities; others came to be disabled through
accident or illness. No one can predict their long-term health care
needs. Therefore, everyone needs to be prepared.
Currently, long-term care insurance is the main way to prepare for
possible future care and support needs. Long-term care insurance helps
protect assets and income from the devastating financial consequences
of long-term health care costs. Today's comprehensive long-term care
insurance policies allow consumers to choose from a variety of benefits
and offer a wide range of coverage choices. They allow individuals to
receive care in a variety of settings including nursing homes, home
care, assisted living facilities and adult day care. Some of the most
recent policies also provide a cash-benefit that a consumer can spend
in the manner he or she chooses. When we buy long-term care insurance,
we are also working to ensure that we can make more independent long-
term care decisions and reduce the strain on state Medicaid budgets.
Unfortunately, for too many, the struggle to pay the immediate costs
of long-term care insurance sometimes outweighs the security these
products would provide. As Americans are spending more and saving less,
I fear the American middle class is woefully unprepared to meet the
coming challenges of their long-term care needs. Moving forward in our
effort to help individuals prepare for life in their later years, we
must encourage them to purchase long-term care insurance and save for
long-term care services. The Long-Term Care Trust Account Act of 2007
is designed to achieve both goals.
It is my hope that this legislation will help all Americans save for
their future and their independence during times of vulnerability. I
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important
bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 504
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 ``Long-Term Care Trust Account
Act of 2007''.
[[Page 3262]]
SEC. 2. LONG-TERM CARE TRUST ACCOUNTS.
(a) In General.--Subchapter F of chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exempt organizations) is
amended by adding at the end the following new part:
``PART IX--LONG-TERM CARE TRUST ACCOUNTS
``SEC. 530A. LONG-TERM CARE TRUST ACCOUNTS.
``(a) General Rule.--A Long-Term Care Trust Account shall
be exempt from taxation under this subtitle. Notwithstanding
the preceding sentence, such account shall be subject to the
taxes imposed by section 511 (relating to imposition of tax
on unrelated business income of charitable organizations).
``(b) Long-Term Care Trust Account.--For purposes of this
section, the term `Long-Term Care Trust Account' means a
trust created or organized in the United States for the
exclusive benefit of an individual who is the designated
beneficiary of the trust and which is designated (in such
manner as the Secretary shall prescribe) at the time of the
establishment of the trust as a Long-Term Care Trust Account,
but only if the written governing instrument creating the
trust meets the following requirements:
``(1) Except in the case of a qualified rollover
contribution described in subsection (d)--
``(A) no contribution will be accepted unless it is in
cash, and
``(B) contributions will not be accepted for the calendar
year in excess of the contribution limit specified in
subsection (c)(1).
``(2) The trustee is a bank (as defined in section 408(n)),
an insurance company (as defined in section 816), or another
person who demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary
that the manner in which that person will administer the
trust will be consistent with the requirements of this
section or who has so demonstrated with respect to any
individual retirement plan.
``(3) No part of the trust assets will be invested in life
insurance contracts.
``(4) The interest of an individual in the balance of his
account is nonforfeitable.
``(5) The assets of the trust shall not be commingled with
other property except in a common trust fund or common
investment fund.
``(6) Except as provided in subsection (e)(2), no
distribution will be allowed if at the time of such
distribution the designated beneficiary is not a chronically
ill individual (as defined in section 7702B(c)(2)).
``(c) Tax Treatment of Contributions.--
``(1) Contribution limit.--
``(A) In general.--The aggregate amount of contributions
(other than qualified rollover contributions described in
subsection (d)) for any taxable year to all Long-Term Care
Trust Accounts maintained for the benefit of the designated
beneficiary shall not exceed $5,000.
``(B) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable
year beginning in a calendar year after 2007, the dollar
amount under subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount
equal to--
``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the medical care cost adjustment determined under
section 213(d)(10)(B)(ii) for the calendar year in which the
taxable year begins, determined by substituting `2006' for
`1996' in subclause (II) thereof.
If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not
a multiple of $10, such amount shall be rounded to the next
lowest multiple of $10.
``(2) Gift tax treatment of contributions.--For purposes of
chapters 12 and 13--
``(A) In general.--Any contribution to a Long-Term Care
Trust Account on behalf of any designated beneficiary--
``(i) shall be treated as a completed gift to such
beneficiary which is not a future interest in property, and
``(ii) shall not be treated as a qualified transfer under
section 2503(e).
``(B) Treatment of excess contributions.--If the aggregate
amount of contributions described in subparagraph (A) during
the calendar year by a donor exceeds the limitation for such
year under section 2503(b), such aggregate amount shall, at
the election of the donor, be taken into account for purposes
of such section ratably over the 5-year period beginning with
such calendar year.
``(d) Qualified Rollover Contribution.--For purposes of
this section, the term `qualified rollover contribution'
means a contribution to a Long-Term Care Trust Account--
``(1) from another such account of the same beneficiary,
but only if such amount is contributed not later than the
60th day after the distribution from such other account, and
``(2) from a Long-Term Care Trust Account of a spouse of
the beneficiary of the account to which the contribution is
made, but only if such amount is contributed not later than
the 60th day after the distribution from such other account.
``(e) Tax Treatment of Distributions.--
``(1) In general.--Any distribution from a Long-Term Care
Trust Account shall be includible in the gross income of the
distributee in the manner as provided under section 72 to the
extent not excluded from gross income under any other
provision of this subsection.
``(2) Long-term care insurance premiums.--If at the time of
any distribution, the designated beneficiary is not a
chronically ill individual (as defined in section
7702B(c)(2)), no amount shall be includible in gross income
under paragraph (1) if the aggregate premiums for any
qualified long-term care insurance contract for such
beneficiary during the taxable year are not less than the
aggregate distributions during the taxable year.
``(3) Distributions for qualified long-term care
services.--For purposes of this subsection, if at the time of
any distribution, the designated beneficiary is a chronically
ill individual (as so defined)--
``(A) In-kind distributions.--No amount shall be includible
in gross income under paragraph (1) by reason of a
distribution which consists of providing a benefit to the
distributee which, if paid for by the distributee, would
constitute expenses for any qualified long-term care services
(as defined in section 7702B(c)).
``(B) Cash distributions.--In the case of distributions not
described in subparagraph (A), if--
``(i) such distributions do not exceed the expenses for
qualified long-term care services (as so defined), reduced by
expenses described in subparagraph (A), no amount shall be
includible in gross income, and
``(ii) in any other case, the amount otherwise includible
in gross income shall be reduced by an amount which bears the
same ratio to such amount as such expenses bear to such
distributions.
``(4) Change in beneficiaries or accounts.--Paragraph (1)
shall not apply to that portion of any distribution which,
within 60 days of such distribution, is transferred--
``(A) to another Long-Term Care Trust Account for the
benefit of the designated beneficiary, or
``(B) to the credit of another designated beneficiary under
a Long-Term Care Trust Account who is a spouse of the
designated beneficiary with respect to which the distribution
was made.
``(5) Operating rules.--For purposes of applying section
72--
``(A) to the extent provided by the Secretary, all Long-
Term Care Trust Accounts of which an individual is a
designated beneficiary shall be treated as one account,
``(B) except to the extent provided by the Secretary, all
distributions during a taxable year shall be treated as one
distribution, and
``(C) except to the extent provided by the Secretary, the
value of the contract, income on the contract, and investment
in the contract shall be computed as of the close of the
calendar year in which the taxable year begins.
``(6) Special rules for death and divorce.--
``(A) In general.--Rules similar to the rules of paragraphs
(7) and (8) of section 220(f) shall apply.
``(B) Amounts includible in estate of donor making excess
contributions.--In the case of a donor who makes the election
described in subsection (c)(2)(B) and who dies before the
close of the 5-year period referred to in such subsection,
the gross estate of the donor shall include the portion of
such contributions properly allocable to periods after the
date of death of the donor.
``(7) Additional tax.--The tax imposed by this chapter for
any taxable year on any taxpayer who receives a payment or
distribution from a Long-Term Care Trust Account which is
includible in gross income shall be increased by 25 percent
of the amount which is so includible under rules similar to
the rules of section 530(d)(4).
``(8) Denial of double benefit.--For purposes of
determining the amount of any deduction under this chapter,
any payment or distribution out of a Long-Term Care Trust
Account shall not be treated as an expense paid for medical
care.
``(f) Designated Beneficiary.--For purposes of this
section, the term `designated beneficiary' means the
individual designated at the commencement of participation in
the Long-Term Care Trust Account as the beneficiary of
amounts paid (or to be paid) to the account.
``(g) Loss of Taxation Exemption of Account Where
Beneficiary Engages in Prohibited Transaction.--Rules similar
to the rules of paragraph (2) of section 408(e) shall apply
to any Long-Term Care Trust Account.
``(h) Custodial Accounts.--For purposes of this section, a
custodial account or an annuity contract issued by an
insurance company qualified to do business in a State shall
be treated as a trust under this section if--
``(1) the custodial account or annuity contract would,
except for the fact that it is not a trust, constitute a
trust which meets the requirements of subsection (b), and
``(2) in the case of a custodial account, the assets of
such account are held by a bank (as defined in section
408(n)) or another person who demonstrates, to the
satisfaction of the Secretary, that the manner in which he
will administer the account will be consistent with the
requirements of this section.
For purposes of this title, in the case of a custodial
account or annuity contract treated as a trust by reason of
the preceding sentence, the person holding the assets of such
account or holding such annuity contract shall be treated as
the trustee thereof.
``(i) Reports.--The trustee of a Long-Term Care Trust
Account shall make such reports
[[Page 3263]]
regarding such account to the Secretary and to the
beneficiary of the account with respect to contributions,
distributions, and such other matters as the Secretary may
require. The reports required by this subsection shall be
filed at such time and in such manner and furnished to such
individuals at such time and in such manner as may be
required.''.
(b) Tax on Excess Contributions.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 4973 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to tax on excess
contributions to certain tax-favored accounts and annuities)
is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (4), by
inserting ``or'' at the end of paragraph (5), and by
inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
``(6) a Long-Term Care Trust Account (as defined in section
530A),''.
(2) Excess contribution.--Section 4973 of such Code is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Excess Contributions to Long-Term Care Trust
Accounts.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--In the case of Long-Term Care Trust
Accounts (within the meaning of section 530A), the term
`excess contributions' means the sum of--
``(A) the amount by which the amount contributed for the
calendar year to such accounts (other than qualified rollover
contributions (as defined in section 530A(d))) exceeds the
contribution limit under section 530A(c)(1), and
``(B) the amount determined under this subsection for the
preceding calendar year, reduced by the excess (if any) of
the maximum amount allowable as a contribution under section
530A(c)(1) for the calendar year over the amount contributed
to the accounts for the calendar year.
``(2) Special rule.--A contribution shall not be taken into
account under paragraph (1) if such contribution (together
with the amount of net income attributable to such
contribution) is returned to the beneficiary before June 1 of
the year following the year in which the contribution is
made.''.
(c) Failure To Provide Reports on Long-Term Care Trust
Accounts.--Paragraph (2) of section 6693(a) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to failure to provide reports
on individual retirement accounts or annuities) is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D), by striking
the period at the end of subparagraph (E) and inserting ``,
and'', and by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following
new subparagraph:
``(F) section 530A(i) (relating to Long-Term Care Trust
Accounts).''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--The table of parts for
subchapter F of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``Part IX. Long-Term Care Trust Accounts''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2006.
SEC. 3. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO LONG-TERM CARE
TRUST ACCOUNTS.
(a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
refundable credits) is amended by inserting after section 35
the following new section:
``SEC. 35A. CONTRIBUTIONS TO LONG-TERM CARE TRUST ACCOUNTS.
``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an individual, there
shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this
subtitle for the taxable year an amount equal to 10 percent
of the contributions to any Long-Term Care Trust Account
allowed under section 530A for such taxable year.
``(b) Reduction Based on Adjusted Gross Income.--
``(1) In general.--The percentage which would (but for this
subsection) be taken into account under subsection (a) for
the taxable year shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the
percentage determined under paragraph (2).
``(2) Amount of reduction.--The percentage determined under
this paragraph is the percentage which bears the same ratio
to the percentage which would be so taken into account as--
``(A) the excess of--
``(i) the taxpayer's adjusted gross income for such taxable
year, over
``(ii) $95,000 ($190,000 in the case of a joint return),
bears to
``(B) $10,000 ($20,000 in the case of a joint return).
``(3) Adjusted gross income.--For purposes of this
subsection, adjusted gross income shall be determined without
regard to sections 911, 931, and 933.
``(c) Denial of Double Benefit.--No deduction shall be
allowed under this chapter for any amount taken into account
in determining the credit under this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by inserting before the period ``, or
from section 35A of such Code''.
(2) The table of sections of subpart C of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 35 the following new item:
``Sec. 35A. Contributions to Long-Term Care Trust Accounts.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2005.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Warner, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Coleman, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska).
S. 505. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase
the above-the-line deduction for teacher classroom supplies and to
expand such deduction to include qualified professional development
expenses; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the bill that I am introducing today,
along with Senators Warner, Landrieu, Vitter, Coleman, Smith, and
Nelson of Nebraska, would increase and expand the Teacher Tax deduction
provided in current law. The Teacher Tax deduction is available to
school teachers and other educators who incur out-of-pocket expenses in
order to purchase classroom supplies for their students. The bill we
are offering today would increase this above-the-line tax deduction to
$400, allow the deduction to be taken for expenses related to
professional development, and make the deduction permanent.
This bill builds upon a $250 tax deduction in current law authored by
Senator Warner and myself, which became law as part of the tax relief
package in 2001. This tax relief was later extended through the end of
this year, but we need to act to extend it further.
I would suggest that there is no reason why we should not make the
deduction permanent. Teachers who buy classroom supplies in order to
improve the educational experience of their students deserve more than
just our gratitude. They deserve this modest tax relief to thank them
for their hard work.
So often teachers in my State, and throughout the country, spend
their own money in order to improve the classroom experiences of their
students. Many of us are familiar with a survey of the National
Education Association that found that teachers spend, on average, $443
a year on classroom supplies. Other surveys show that they are spending
even more than that. In fact, the National School Supply and Equipment
Association found that educators spend an average of $826 to supplement
classroom supplies, plus $926 for instructional materials on top of
that--for a total of over $1,700 out of their own pockets.
In most States, including mine, teachers are very modestly paid for
their jobs. I think it is so impressive that despite challenging jobs
and modest salaries, teachers are willing to dig deep into their own
pockets to enrich the classroom experience, because they care so deeply
for their students.
Indeed, I have spoken to dozens of teachers in Maine who tell me they
routinely spend far in excess of the $250 deduction limit that is in
current law. I have made a practice of visiting schools all over Maine,
and so far, I have had the opportunity to visit more than 160 schools
in my State. At virtually every school I visit, I find teachers who are
spending their own money to benefit their students. Year after year,
these teachers spend hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin boards,
computer software, crayons, construction paper, stamps, inkpads--
everything you can think of. Let me just give you a couple of examples.
Anita Hopkins and Kathi Toothaker, who are elementary school teachers
from Augusta, ME, purchase books for their students to have as a
classroom library, as well as workbooks and sight cards. They have also
purchased special prizes for positive reinforcement for their students.
Mrs. Hopkins estimates that she spends $800 to $1,000 of her own money
on extra materials to make learning fun and to create a stimulating
classroom environment.
This bill would also expand the Teacher Tax deduction to make it
available to teachers who incur expenses for professional development.
Whenever the provisions of ``No Child Left Behind'' are being debated,
we hear a lot of discussion about the need for highly-qualified
teachers. One of
[[Page 3264]]
the best ways for teachers to improve their qualifications is through
professional development. Yet, in towns in my State, and I suspect
throughout the country, school budgets are often very tight, and money
for professional development is either very limited or non-existent.
For that reason, I believe we should allow this tax deduction to also
apply when a teacher takes a course or attends a workshop and has to
pay for it out of his or her own pocket.
In my view, students are the ultimate beneficiaries when teachers
receive professional development to sharpen their skills or to learn a
new approach to presenting material to their students. Studies have
consistently shown that, other than involved parents, the single
greatest determinant of classroom success is the presence of a well-
qualified teacher. Educators themselves understand just how important
professional development is to their ability to make a positive impact
in the classroom.
The Teacher Tax relief that we have made available since 2001 is
certainly a positive step, and I was proud to have authored that law,
along with Senator Warner. This bill would increase that deduction from
$250 to $400, reflecting more accurately what teachers really spend,
and would make the deduction permanent. The National Education
Association has endorsed this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that a
copy of the NEA's letter be printed in the Record at the end of my
statement.
This bill is a small but appropriate means of recognizing the many
sacrifices that our teachers make every day to benefit the children of
America. I urge my colleagues to support it.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
National Education Association,
Washington, DC, January 24, 2007.
Senator Susan Collins,
Senator John Warner,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Collins and Warner: On behalf of the National
Education Association's, NEA, 3.2 million members, we would
like to express our strong support for your legislation that
would increase, expand, and make permanent the tax deduction
for educators' out-of-pocket classroom supply expenses. We
thank you for your continued leadership and advocacy on this
important issue.
As you know, the educator tax deduction helps recognize the
financial sacrifices made by teachers and paraprofessionals,
who often reach into their own pockets to purchase classroom
supplies such as books, pencils, paper, and art supplies.
Studies show that teachers are spending more of their own
funds each year to supply their classrooms, including
purchasing essential items such as pencils, glue, scissors,
and facial tissues. For example, NEA's 2003 report Status of
the American Public School Teacher, 2000-2001 found that
teachers spent an average of $443 a year on classroom
supplies. More recently, the National School Supply and
Equipment Association found that in 2005-2006, educators
spent out of their own pockets an average of $826.00 for
supplies and an additional $926 for instructional materials,
for a total of $1,752.
By increasing the current deduction and making it
permanent, your legislation will make a real difference for
many educators, who often must sacrifice other personal needs
in order to pay for classroom supplies.
NEA also strongly supports your proposal to extend the tax
deduction to cover out-of-pocket professional development
expenses. Teacher quality is the single most critical factor
in maximizing student achievement. Ongoing professional
development is essential to ensure that educators stay up-to-
date on the skills and knowledge necessary to prepare
students for the challenges of the 21 st century. Your bill
will make a critical difference in helping educators access
quality training.
We thank you again for your work on this important
legislation and look forward to continuing to work with you
to support our nation's educators.
Sincerely,
Diane Shust,
Director of Government Relations.
Randall Moody,
Manager, Policy and Politics.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support, once again, of
America's teachers by joining with Senator Collins in introducing
legislation regarding the Teacher Tax Relief Act.
Senator Collins and I have worked closely for some time now in
support of legislation to provide our teachers with tax relief in
recognition of the many out-of-pocket expenses they incur as part of
their profession. In the 107th Congress, we were successful in
providing much needed tax relief for our Nation's teachers with passage
of H.R. 3090, the ``Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002.''
This legislation, which was signed into law by President Bush,
included the Collins/Warner ``Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001''
provisions that provided a $250 above the line deduction for educators
who incur out-of-pocket expenses for supplies they bring into the
classroom to better the education of their students. These important
provisions provided almost half a billion dollars worth of tax relief
to teachers all across America in 2002 and 2003.
In the 108th Congress we were able to successfully extend the
provisions of the Teacher Tax Relief Act for 2004 and 2005. In the
109th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions for
2006 and 2007.
While these provisions will provide substantial relief to America's
teachers, our work is not yet complete.
It is now estimated that the average teacher spends $826 out of their
own pocket each year on classroom materials--materials such as pens,
pencils and books. First year teachers spend even more.
Why do they do this? Simply because school budgets are not adequate
to meet the costs of education. Our teachers dip into their own pocket
to better the education of America's youth.
Moreover, in addition to spending substantial money on classroom
supplies, many teachers spend even more money out of their own pocket
on professional development. Such expenses include tuition, fees,
books, and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers
become even better instructors.
The fact is that these out-of-pocket costs place lasting financial
burdens on our teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving
the profession. Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a
teacher shortage.
Without a doubt the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 took a step
forward in helping to alleviate the Nation's teaching shortage by
providing a $250 above the line deduction for classroom expenses.
However, it is clear that our teachers are spending much more than
$250 a year out of their own pocket to better the education of our
children.
Accordingly, Senator Collins and I have joined together to take
another step forward by introducing this legislation.
This proposed legislation will build upon current law in three ways.
The legislation will: One, increase the above-the-line deduction, as
President Bush has called for, from $250 allowed under current law to
$400; two, allow educators to include professional development costs
within that $400 deduction. Under current law, up to $250 is deductible
but only for classroom expenses; and three, make the Teacher Tax Relief
provisions in the law permanent. Current law sunsets the Collins/Warner
provisions after 2007.
Our teachers have made a personal commitment to educate the next
generation and to strengthen America. And, in my view, the Federal
Government should recognize the many sacrifices our teachers make in
their career.
This Teacher Tax Relief Act is another step forward in providing our
educators with the recognition they deserve.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Ms. Snowe, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 506. A bill to improve efficiency in the Federal Government
through the use of high-performance green buildings, and for other
purposes; to the committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my
colleagues, Senators Snowe and Boxer, to introduce the High Performance
Green Buildings Act. This legislation encourages the government to
improve the energy efficiency, indoor air quality,
[[Page 3265]]
and environmental impacts of our Nation's Federal buildings, and will
reenergize and focus the Federal Government's leadership and commitment
on this issue.
Buildings in the United States have an enormous impact on the
environment and also on our overall energy situation. According to the
Department of Energy, buildings in the United States use almost 40
percent of the total energy consumed in this country. That figure is
expected to rise to 53 percent by 2030, meaning that over half of the
energy consumed in this country will be used by buildings alone. In
addition, buildings are the source of 35 percent of national carbon
dioxide emissions, 49 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, and 25
percent of nitrogen oxide emissions.
However, the impact of buildings is even broader than that. Americans
spend approximately 90 percent of their time indoors and the quality of
the air they breathe can have an impact on their health, as well as
work productivity and absenteeism. The U.S. Green Buildings Council, a
national non-profit, indicates that on average, installing high
performance lighting enhances worker productivity by 6.7 percent. There
are also numerous sources of indoor air pollutants, ranging from mold
to radon, and strong building design that considers ventilation can
help to remedy these potential health problems.
It is important that we confront these issues, and our legislation
does just that. High Performance Green Buildings are designed with the
impact on occupants, surroundings and energy consumption in mind.
Buildings designed or renovated on these merits save money, have
healthier occupants, and have a more positive impact on their
communities.
While the initial investment cost of green buildings may be higher
than a traditional building, many of these costs are recouped over
time. For instance, the Federal government spends about $170 million
per year on the lighting of federal buildings; using new lighting
technology can reduce energy use by 50 to 75 percent. Some estimates
show that the payback time for energy efficient lighting is as little
as four months.
The High Performance Green Buildings Act focuses the Federal
Government's efforts on promoting sustainable design in federal
buildings, and realizing the economic benefits associated with reduced
energy use and increased occupant health. It creates an Office of High
Performance Green Buildings within the General Services Administration
(GSA), which manages buildings owned or leased by the Federal
Government. GSA is the largest ``landlord'' in the country the
government owns or leases nearly 500,000 buildings in the United
States, covering 3.1 billion square feet. The new Office will promote
public outreach, focus ongoing research and development, and create an
Advisory Committee consisting of Agency representatives and experts
from various sectors, to improve coordination across Federal Government
agencies and bring best practices to the Federal government.
Additionally, the High Performance Green Buildings Act provides
grants to schools, in consultation with the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of Education, to provide technical assistance
to address environmental and health concerns. The health of our
children is our primary concern and this legislation takes important
steps to ensure their well-being.
It is clear that having sustainable design in our buildings is smart
public policy and a wise financial investment, and this bill will allow
the Federal Government to increase its leadership role on the promotion
of green buildings. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 506
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``High-
Performance Green Buildings Act of 2007''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I--OFFICE OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGS
Sec. 101. Oversight.
Sec. 102. Office of High-Performance Green Buildings.
Sec. 103. Green Building Advisory Committee.
Sec. 104. Public outreach.
Sec. 105. Research and development.
Sec. 106. Budget and life-cycle costing and contracting.
Sec. 107. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE II--HEALTHY HIGH-PERFORMANCE SCHOOLS
Sec. 201. Definition of high-performance school.
Sec. 202. Grants for healthy school environments.
Sec. 203. Model guidelines for siting of school facilities.
Sec. 204. Public outreach.
Sec. 205. Environmental health program.
Sec. 206. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE III--STRENGTHENING FEDERAL LEADERSHIP
Sec. 301. Incentives.
Sec. 302. Federal procurement.
Sec. 303. Federal green building performance.
TITLE IV--DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Sec. 401. Coordination of goals.
Sec. 402. Authorization of appropriations.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of General Services.
(2) Committee.--The term ``Committee'' means the Green
Building Advisory Committee established under section 103(a).
(3) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the individual
appointed to the position established under section 101(a).
(4) Federal facility.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Federal facility'' means any
building or facility the intended use of which requires the
building or facility to be--
(i) accessible to the public; and
(ii) constructed or altered by or on behalf of the United
States.
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``Federal facility'' does not
include a privately-owned residential or commercial structure
that is not leased by the Federal Government.
(5) High-performance green building.--The term ``high-
performance green building'' means a building--
(A) that, during its life-cycle--
(i) reduces energy, water, and material resource use and
the generation of waste;
(ii) improves indoor environmental quality, including
protecting indoor air quality during construction, using low-
emitting materials, improving thermal comfort, and improving
lighting and acoustic environments that affect occupant
health and productivity;
(iii) improves indoor and outdoor impacts of the building
on human health and the environment;
(iv) increases the use of environmentally preferable
products, including biobased, recycled content, and nontoxic
products with lower life-cycle impacts;
(v) increases reuse and recycling opportunities; and
(vi) integrates systems in the building; and
(B) for which, during its planning, design, and
construction, the environmental and energy impacts of
building location and site design are considered.
(6) Life cycle.--The term ``life cycle'', with respect to a
high-performance green building, means all stages of the
useful life of the building (including components, equipment,
systems, and controls of the building) beginning at
conception of a green building project and continuing through
site selection, design, construction, landscaping,
commissioning, operation, maintenance, renovation,
deconstruction or demolition, removal, and recycling of the
green building.
(7) Life-cycle assessment.--The term ``life-cycle
assessment'' means a comprehensive system approach for
measuring the environmental performance of a product or
service over the life of the product or service, beginning at
raw materials acquisition and continuing through
manufacturing, transportation, installation, use, reuse, and
end-of-life waste management.
(8) Life-cycle costing.--The term ``life-cycle costing'',
with respect to a high-performance green building, means a
technique of economic evaluation that--
(A) sums, over a given study period, the costs of initial
investment (less resale value), replacements, operations
(including energy use), and maintenance and repair of an
investment decision; and
(B) is expressed--
(i) in present value terms, in the case of a study period
equivalent to the longest useful life of the building,
determined by taking
[[Page 3266]]
into consideration the typical life of such a building in the
area in which the building is to be located; or
(ii) in annual value terms, in the case of any other study
period.
(9) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Office of High-
Performance Green Buildings established under section 102(a).
TITLE I--OFFICE OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGS
SEC. 101. OVERSIGHT.
(a) In General.--The Administrator shall establish within
the General Services Administration, and appoint an
individual to serve as Director in, a position in the career-
reserved Senior Executive service, to--
(1) establish and manage the Office in accordance with
section 102; and
(2) carry out other duties as required under this Act.
(b) Compensation.--The compensation of the Director shall
not exceed the maximum rate of basic pay for the Senior
Executive Service under section 5382 of title 5, United
States Code, including any applicable locality-based
comparability payment that may be authorized under section
5304(h)(2)(C) of that title.
SEC. 102. OFFICE OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGS.
(a) Establishment.--The Director shall establish within the
General Services Administration an Office of High-Performance
Green Buildings.
(b) Duties.--The Director shall--
(1) ensure full coordination of high-performance green
building information and activities within the General
Services Administration and all relevant Federal agencies,
including, at a minimum--
(A) the Environmental Protection Agency;
(B) the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive;
(C) the Office of Federal Procurement Policy;
(D) the Department of Energy;
(E) the Department of Health and Human Services;
(F) the Department of Defense; and
(G) such other Federal agencies as the Director considers
to be appropriate;
(2) establish a senior-level green building advisory
committee, which shall provide advice and recommendations in
accordance with section 103;
(3) identify and biennially reassess improved or higher
rating standards recommended by the Committee;
(4) establish a national high-performance green building
clearinghouse in accordance with section 104, which shall
provide green building information through--
(A) outreach;
(B) education; and
(C) the provision of technical assistance;
(5) ensure full coordination of research and development
information relating to high-performance green building
initiatives under section 105;
(6) identify and develop green building standards that
could be used for all types of Federal facilities in
accordance with section 105;
(7) establish green practices that can be used throughout
the life of a Federal facility;
(8) review and analyze current Federal budget practices and
life-cycle costing issues, and make recommendations to
Congress, in accordance with section 106; and
(9) complete and submit the report described in subsection
(c).
(c) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and biennially thereafter, the
Director shall submit to Congress a report that--
(1) describes the status of the green building initiatives
under this Act and other Federal programs in effect as of the
date of the report, including--
(A) the extent to which the programs are being carried out
in accordance with this Act; and
(B) the status of funding requests and appropriations for
those programs;
(2) identifies within the planning, budgeting, and
construction process all types of Federal facility procedures
that inhibit new and existing Federal facilities from
becoming high-performance green buildings as measured by--
(A) a silver rating, as defined by the Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design Building Rating System standard
established by the United States Green Building Council (or
an equivalent rating obtained through a comparable system);
or
(B) an improved or higher rating standard, as identified by
the Committee;
(3) identifies inconsistencies, as reported to the
Committee, in Federal law with respect to product acquisition
guidelines and high-performance product guidelines;
(4) recommends language for uniform standards for use by
Federal agencies in environmentally responsible acquisition;
(5) in coordination with the Office of Management and
Budget, reviews the budget process for capital programs with
respect to alternatives for--
(A) restructuring of budgets to require the use of complete
energy- and environmental-cost accounting;
(B) using operations expenditures in budget-related
decisions while simultaneously incorporating productivity and
health measures (as those measures can be quantified by the
Office, with the assistance of universities and national
laboratories);
(C) permitting Federal agencies to retain all identified
savings accrued as a result of the use of life cycle costing;
and
(D) identifying short- and long-term cost savings that
accrue from high-performance green buildings, including those
relating to health and productivity;
(6) identifies green, self-sustaining technologies to
address the operational needs of Federal facilities in times
of national security emergencies, natural disasters, or other
dire emergencies;
(7) summarizes and highlights development, at the State and
local level, of green building initiatives, including
Executive orders, policies, or laws adopted promoting green
building (including the status of implementation of those
initiatives); and
(8) includes, for the 2-year period covered by the report,
recommendations to address each of the matters, and a plan
for implementation of each recommendation, described in
paragraphs (1) through (6).
(d) Implementation.--The Office shall carry out each plan
for implementation of recommendations under subsection
(c)(7).
SEC. 103. GREEN BUILDING ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Director shall establish an
advisory committee, to be known as the ``Green Building
Advisory Committee''.
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Committee shall be composed of
representatives of, at a minimum--
(A) each agency referred to in section 102(b)(1); and
(B) other relevant agencies and entities, as determined by
the Director, including at least 1 representative of each
of--
(i) State and local governmental green building programs;
(ii) independent green building associations or councils;
(iii) building experts, including architects, material
suppliers, and construction contractors;
(iv) security advisors focusing on national security needs,
natural disasters, and other dire emergency situations; and
(v) environmental health experts, including those with
experience in children's health.
(2) Non-federal members.--The total number of non-Federal
members on the Committee at any time shall not exceed 15.
(c) Meetings.--The Director shall establish a regular
schedule of meetings for the Committee.
(d) Duties.--The Committee shall provide advice and
expertise for use by the Director in carrying out the duties
under this Act, including such recommendations relating to
Federal activities carried out under sections 104 through 106
as are agreed to by a majority of the members of the
Committee.
(e) FACA Exemption.--The Committee shall not be subject to
section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.
App.).
SEC. 104. PUBLIC OUTREACH.
The Director, in coordination with the Committee, shall
carry out public outreach to inform individuals and entities
of the information and services available Government-wide
by--
(1) establishing and maintaining a national high-
performance green building clearinghouse, including on the
Internet, that--
(A) identifies existing similar efforts and coordinates
activities of common interest; and
(B) provides information relating to high-performance green
buildings, including hyperlinks to Internet sites that
describe related activities, information, and resources of--
(i) the Federal Government;
(ii) State and local governments;
(iii) the private sector (including nongovernmental and
nonprofit entities and organizations); and
(iv) other relevant organizations, including those from
other countries;
(2) identifying and recommending educational resources for
implementing high-performance green building practices,
including security and emergency benefits and practices;
(3) providing access to technical assistance on using tools
and resources to make more cost-effective, energy-efficient,
health-protective, and environmentally beneficial decisions
for constructing high-performance green buildings, including
tools available to conduct life-cycle costing and life-cycle
assessment;
(4) providing information on application processes for
certifying a high-performance green building, including
certification and commissioning;
(5) providing technical information, market research, or
other forms of assistance or advice that would be useful in
planning and constructing high-performance green buildings;
and
(6) using such other methods as are determined by the
Director to be appropriate.
SEC. 105. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
(a) Establishment.--The Director, in coordination with the
Committee, shall--
[[Page 3267]]
(1)(A) survey existing research and studies relating to
high-performance green buildings; and
(B) coordinate activities of common interest;
(2) develop and recommend a high-performance green building
research plan that--
(A) identifies information and research needs, including
the relationships between human health, occupant
productivity, and each of--
(i) emissions from materials and products in the building;
(ii) natural day lighting;
(iii) ventilation choices and technologies;
(iv) heating, cooling, and system control choices and
technologies;
(v) moisture control and mold;
(vi) maintenance, cleaning, and pest control activities;
(vii) acoustics; and
(viii) other issues relating to the health, comfort,
productivity, and performance of occupants of the building;
and
(B) promotes the development and dissemination of high-
performance green building measurement tools that, at a
minimum, may be used--
(i) to monitor and assess the life-cycle performance of
facilities (including demonstration projects) built as high-
performance green buildings; and
(ii) to perform life-cycle assessments;
(3) assist the budget and life-cycle costing functions of
the Office under section 106;
(4) study and identify potential benefits of green
buildings relating to security, natural disaster, and
emergency needs of the Federal Government; and
(5) support other research initiatives determined by the
Office.
(b) Indoor Air Quality.--The Director, in consultation with
the Committee, shall develop and carry out a comprehensive
indoor air quality program for all Federal facilities to
ensure the safety of Federal workers and facility occupants--
(1) during new construction and renovation of facilities;
and
(2) in existing facilities.
SEC. 106. BUDGET AND LIFE-CYCLE COSTING AND CONTRACTING.
(a) Establishment.--The Director, in coordination with the
Committee, shall--
(1) identify, review, and analyze current budget and
contracting practices that affect achievement of high-
performance green buildings, including the identification of
barriers to green building life-cycle costing and budgetary
issues;
(2) develop guidance and conduct training sessions with
budget specialists and contracting personnel from Federal
agencies and budget examiners to apply life-cycle cost
criteria to actual projects;
(3) identify tools to aid life-cycle cost decisionmaking;
and
(4) explore the feasibility of incorporating the benefits
of green buildings, such as security benefits, into a cost-
budget analysis to aid in life-cycle costing for budget and
decision making processes.
SEC. 107. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012,
to remain available until expended.
TITLE II--HEALTHY HIGH-PERFORMANCE SCHOOLS
SEC. 201. DEFINITION OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE SCHOOL.
In this title, the term ``high-performance school'' has the
meaning given the term ``healthy, high-performance school
building'' in section 5586 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7277e).
SEC. 202. GRANTS FOR HEALTHY SCHOOL ENVIRONMENTS.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
in consultation with the Secretary of Education, may provide
grants to qualified State agencies for use in--
(1) providing technical assistance for programs of the
Environmental Protection Agency (including the Tools for
Schools Program and the Healthy School Environmental
Assessment Tool) to schools for use in addressing
environmental issues; and
(2) development of State school environmental quality plans
that include--
(A) standards for school building design, construction, and
renovation; and
(B) identification of ongoing school building environmental
problems in the State and recommended solutions to address
those problems, including assessment of information on the
exposure of children to environmental hazards in school
facilities.
SEC. 203. MODEL GUIDELINES FOR SITING OF SCHOOL FACILITIES.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
in consultation with the Secretary of Education and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall develop school
site selection guidelines that account for--
(1) the special vulnerability of children to hazardous
substances or pollution exposures in any case in which the
potential for contamination at a potential school site
exists;
(2) modes of transportation available to students and
staff; and
(3) the potential use of a school at the site as an
emergency shelter.
SEC. 204. PUBLIC OUTREACH.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall provide to the Director information
relating to all activities carried out under this title,
which the Director shall include in the report described in
section 102(c).
(b) Public Outreach.--The Director shall ensure, to the
maximum extent practicable, that the public clearinghouse
established under section 104 receives and makes available
information on the exposure of children to environmental
hazards in school facilities, as provided by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
SEC. 205. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of
Education, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and
other relevant agencies, shall issue guidelines for use by
the State in developing and implementing an environmental
health program for schools that--
(1) takes into account the status and findings of Federal
research initiatives established under this Act and other
relevant Federal law with respect to school facilities,
including relevant updates on trends in the field, such as
the impact of school facility environments on student and
staff--
(A) health, safety, and productivity; and
(B) disabilities or special needs;
(2) provides research using relevant tools identified or
developed in accordance with section 105(a) to quantify the
relationships between--
(A) human health, occupant productivity, and student
performance; and
(B) with respect to school facilities, each of--
(i) pollutant emissions from materials and products;
(ii) natural day lighting;
(iii) ventilation choices and technologies;
(iv) heating and cooling choices and technologies;
(v) moisture control and mold;
(vi) maintenance, cleaning, and pest control activities;
(vii) acoustics; and
(viii) other issues relating to the health, comfort,
productivity, and performance of occupants of the school
facilities;
(3) provides technical assistance on siting, design,
management, and operation of school facilities, including
facilities used by students with disabilities or special
needs;
(4) collaborates with federally funded pediatric
environmental health centers to assist in on-site school
environmental investigations;
(5) assists States and the public in better understanding
and improving the environmental health of children; and
(6) provides to the Office a biennial report of all
activities carried out under this title, which the Director
shall include in the report described in section 102(c).
(b) Public Outreach.--The Director shall ensure, to the
maximum extent practicable, that the public clearinghouse
established under section 104 receives and makes available--
(1) information from the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency that is contained in the report described
in subsection (a)(6); and
(2) information on the exposure of children to
environmental hazards in school facilities, as provided by
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
SEC. 206. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $10,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2012, to remain available until expended.
TITLE III--STRENGTHENING FEDERAL LEADERSHIP
SEC. 301. INCENTIVES.
As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Director shall identify incentives to encourage the
use of green buildings and related technology in the
operations of the Federal Government, including through--
(1) the provision of recognition awards; and
(2) the maximum feasible retention of financial savings in
the annual budgets of Federal agencies.
SEC. 302. FEDERAL PROCUREMENT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy, in consultation with the Director and the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, shall promulgate revisions of the applicable
acquisition regulations, to take effect as of the date of
promulgation of the revisions--
(1) to direct any Federal procurement executives involved
in the acquisition, construction, or major renovation
(including contracting for the construction or major
renovation) of any facility, to the maximum extent
practicable--
(A) to employ integrated design principles;
(B) to optimize building and systems energy performance;
(C) to protect and conserve water;
(D) to enhance indoor environmental quality; and
(E) to reduce environmental impacts of materials and waste
flows; and
(2) to direct Federal procurement executives involved in
leasing buildings, to give
[[Page 3268]]
preference to the lease of facilities that, to the maximum
extent practicable--
(A) are energy-efficient; and
(B) have applied contemporary high-performance and
sustainable design principles during construction or
renovation.
(b) Guidance.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
promulgation of the revised regulations under subsection (a),
the Director shall issue guidance to all Federal procurement
executives providing direction and the option to renegotiate
the design of proposed facilities, renovations for existing
facilities, and leased facilities to incorporate improvements
that are consistent with this section.
SEC. 303. FEDERAL GREEN BUILDING PERFORMANCE.
(a) In General.--Not later than October 31 of each of the 2
fiscal years following the fiscal year in which this Act is
enacted, and at such times thereafter as the Comptroller
General of the United States determines to be appropriate,
the Comptroller General of the United States shall, with
respect to the fiscal years that have passed since the
preceding report--
(1) conduct an audit of the implementation of this Act; and
(2) submit to the Office, the Committee, the Administrator,
and Congress a report describing the results of the audit.
(b) Contents.--An audit under subsection (a) shall include
a review, with respect to the period covered by the report
under subsection (a)(2), of--
(1) budget, life-cycle costing, and contracting issues,
using best practices identified by the Comptroller General of
the United States and heads of other agencies in accordance
with section 106;
(2) the level of coordination among the Office, the Office
of Management and Budget, and relevant agencies;
(3) the performance of the Office in carrying out the
implementation plan;
(4) the design stage of high-performance green building
measures;
(5) high-performance building data that were collected and
reported to the Office; and
(6) such other matters as the Comptroller General of the
United States determines to be appropriate.
(c) Environmental Stewardship Scorecard.--The Director
shall consult with the Committee to enhance, and assist in
the implementation of, the Environmental Stewardship
Scorecard announced at the White House summit on Federal
sustainable buildings in January 2006, to measure the
implementation by each Federal agency of sustainable design
and green building initiatives.
TITLE IV--DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
SEC. 401. COORDINATION OF GOALS.
(a) In General.--The Director shall establish guidelines to
implement a demonstration project to contribute to the
research goals of the Office.
(b) Projects.--
(1) In general.--In accordance with guidelines established
by the Director under subsection (a) and the duties of the
Director described in title I, the Director shall carry out 3
demonstration projects.
(2) Location of projects.--Each project carried out under
paragraph (1) shall be located in a Federal building in a
State recommended by the Director in accordance with
subsection (c).
(3) Requirements.--Each project carried out under paragraph
(1) shall--
(A) provide for the evaluation of the information obtained
through the conduct of projects and activities under this
Act; and
(B) achieve a platinum rating, as defined by the Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design Building Rating System
standard established by the United States Green Building
Council (or an equivalent rating obtained through a
comparable system).
(c) Criteria.--With respect to the existing or proposed
Federal facility at which a demonstration project under this
section is conducted, the Federal facility shall--
(1) be an appropriate model for a project relating to--
(A) the effectiveness of high-performance technologies;
(B) analysis of materials, components, and systems,
including the impact on the health of building occupants;
(C) life-cycle costing and life-cycle assessment of
building materials and systems; and
(D) location and design that promote access to the Federal
facility through walking, biking, and mass transit; and
(2) possess sufficient technological and organizational
adaptability.
(d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter through
September 30, 2013, the Director shall submit to the
Administrator a report that describes the status of and
findings regarding the demonstration project.
SEC. 402. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out the
Federal demonstration project described in section 401(b)
$10,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012,
to remain available until expended.
______
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Ms. Collins, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr.
Durbin):
S. 507. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for reimbursement of certified midwife services and to provide
for more equitable reimbursement rates for certified nurse-midwife
services; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Midwifery Care
Access and Reimbursement Equity (M-CARE) Act of 2007. For too many
years, certified nurse midwives (CNMs) have not received adequate
reimbursement under the Medicare program. My legislation takes steps to
improve reimbursement for these important healthcare providers.
Since 1988, CNMs have been authorized to provide maternity-related
services to Medicare-eligible women of child-bearing age. There are
approximately three million disabled women of child-bearing age on
Medicare; however, if they choose to utilize a CNM for ``well women''
services, the CNM is only reimbursed at 65 percent of the physician fee
schedule. This is not right and does not come close to offsetting the
costs incurred by these professionals.
At this incredibly low rate of reimbursement, the Medicare Payment
Advisory Committee (MedPAC) agrees that a CNM simply cannot afford to
provide services to Medicare patients and has supported increasing
reimbursement for CNMs. In fact, the Commission recommended in 2002
that CNMs' reimbursement be increased and acknowledged that the care
provided by these individuals is at least comparable to similar
providers.
My legislation would make several changes to improve the ability of
CNMs and certified midwives (CMs) to effectively serve the Medicare-
eligible population. First, and most importantly, my bill recognizes
the need to increase Medicare reimbursement for CNMs by raising the
reimbursement level from 65 percent to 100 percent of the physician fee
schedule. CNMs provide the same care as physicians; therefore, it is
only fair to reimburse CNMs at the same level. Several states have
recognized this in their Medicaid programs--approximately 29 States
reimburse at 100 percent of the physician fee schedule for out-of-
hospital services.
In addition, the M-CARE Act would establish recognition for a
certified midwife (CM) to provide services under Medicare. Despite the
fact that CNMs and CMs provide the same services, Medicare has yet to
recognize CMs as eligible providers. My bill would change this.
This bill will enhance access to ``well woman'' care for thousands of
women in underserved communities and make several needed changes to
improve access to midwives. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 508. A bill to amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995
to apply whistleblower protections available to certain executive
branch employees to legislative branch employees, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce the Congressional
Whistleblower Protection Act of 2007, which will extend whistleblower
protections currently available to certain executive branch employees
to legislative branch employees.
Presently, executive branch employees are shielded from retaliation
for exposing waste, fraud, or abuse by the Whistleblower Protection
Act. The bill I'm introducing today simply extends those same
protections to legislative branch employees.
A theme that has dominated this new Congress, as well as the
elections this past November, is accountability and responsibility in
Washington. I have fought hard for whistleblowers over the years
because they are key in our efforts to ensure government accountability
to the people we are sent here to serve. In most instances, the only
reason we discover waste or fraud is because employees are brave enough
to stand up to the wrongdoers and expose their offenses. Without these
whistleblowers, the American taxpayer would continue to foot the bill.
[[Page 3269]]
The Office of Compliance has called for these changes on numerous
occasions in recent years, and they are very supportive of this bill.
We have already taken the steps to protect whistleblowers in the
executive branch. It doesn't make sense not to extend these same
protections to whistleblowers in our own backyard. My bill will, very
simply, give congressional employees the same protections that workers
in the other branches of government already possess.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill to ensure
that those who help us in the fight to hold government accountable are
not punished for their efforts.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 508
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION RULES TO
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Congressional Whistleblower Protection Act of 2007''.
(b) In General.--Part A of title II of the Congressional
Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``fair labor standards,''
and all that follows and inserting ``and other protections
and benefits'';
(2) by redesignating section 207 as section 208; and
(3) by inserting after section 206 the following:
``SEC. 207. RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS UNDER WHISTLEBLOWER
PROTECTION RULES.
``(a) Rights and Protections Described.--
``(1) In general.--No employing office may take or fail to
take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action
(within the meaning of chapter 23 of title 5, United States
Code) with respect to any covered employee or applicant for
employment because of--
``(A) any disclosure of information by a covered employee
or applicant which the employee or applicant reasonably
believes evidences--
``(i) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or
``(ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an
abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to
public health or safety;
if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law and
if such information is not specifically required by Executive
order or the rules of the Senate or the House of
Representatives to be kept secret in the interest of national
defense or the conduct of foreign affairs; or
``(B) any disclosure to the General Counsel, or to the
Inspector General of a legislative or executive agency or
another employee designated by the head of the legislative or
executive agency to receive such disclosures, of information
which the employee or applicant reasonably believes
evidences--
``(i) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or
``(ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an
abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to
public health or safety.
``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this section and for
purposes of applying the procedures established under title
IV for the consideration of alleged violations of this
section--
``(A) the term `covered employee' includes an employee of
the Government Accountability Office or Library of Congress;
and
``(B) the term `employing office' includes the Government
Accountability Office and the Library of Congress.
``(b) Remedy.--The remedy for a violation of subsection (a)
shall be such remedy as would be appropriate if awarded under
chapter 12 of title 5, United States Code, with respect to a
prohibited personnel practice described in section 2302(b)(8)
of such title.
``(c) Regulations To Implement Section.--
``(1) In general.--The Board shall, pursuant to section
304, issue regulations to implement this section.
``(2) Agency regulations.--The regulations issued under
paragraph (1) shall be the same as the substantive
regulations promulgated by the Merit Systems Protection Board
to implement chapters 12 and 23 of title 5, United States
Code, except to the extent that the Board of Directors of the
Office of Compliance may determine, for good cause shown and
stated together with the regulation, that a modification of
such regulations would be more effective for the
implementation of the rights and protections under this
section.''.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Table of contents.--The table of contents for part A of
title II of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 is
amended--
(A) in the item relating to part A, by striking ``FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS,'' and all that follows and inserting ``AND
OTHER PROTECTIONS AND BENEFITS'';
(B) by redesignating the item relating to section 207 as
relating to section 208; and
(C) by inserting after the item relating to section 206 the
following:
``Sec. 207. Rights and protections under whistleblower protection
rules.''.
(2) Application of laws.--Section 102(a) of the
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1302(a))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Section 2302(b)(8) of title 5, United States
Code.''.
______
Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Lott,
and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 509. A bill to provide improved aviation security, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Aviation
Security Improvement Act with Senators Stevens, Rockefeller, Lott, and
Lautenberg, who are all original cosponsors of this legislation.
When the 9/11 Commission released its report in 2004, the Commission
expressed continuing concern over the state of air cargo security, the
screening of passengers and baggage, access controls at airports, and
the security of general aviation. Congress responded then and enacted
measures to address inefficiencies highlighted by the Commission.
However, implementation through the rulemaking process was slow, and as
a result, significant shortfalls in our security regime remain.
In fact, a little more than year ago, the 9/11 Public Discourse
project issued a scorecard that gave inadequate grades in those key
areas where the Commission had advocated for improvements in aviation
security. Checked Baggage and Cargo Screening received a ``D,'' Airline
Passenger Explosive Screening received a ``C,'' and Airline Passenger
Prescreenig received an ``F.''
Over the past year, the Transportation Security Administration, TSA,
has continued working to significantly bolster air cargo security in
the United States. While that is a good step in response to the report
card, more must be done. The government must remain vigilant in its
effort to provide security for our Nation, and the steps proposed in
this bill will both improve our existing security system and give TSA
the flexibility to combat new and emerging threats.
The bill we are introducing today would require the screening of all
cargo going on passenger aircraft within 3 years. We expect TSA to
develop a robust screening program that improves upon current measures
and ensures the security of all cargo transported in commercial
passenger air carriers.
To improve our ability to detect explosives in checked baggage and at
passenger screening checkpoints, the bill extends the Aviation Security
Capital Fund and promotes the purchase and installation of advanced
baggage screening systems that can be integrated into the daily
workings of our Nation's air transportation system. This capital
investment will improve security screening by permitting TSA employees
to better focus on potential threats while reducing the high workplace
injury rates.
The bill addresses airline passenger explosive screening in several
ways:
1. By promoting advanced research and development for checkpoint
technology;
2. By enhancing screener training to more clearly identify and
address potential threats; and
3. By requiring the Administration to complete and implement a plan
over the next year that thoroughly addresses the threat of and response
to carry-on explosives.
Airline passenger prescreening also remains a primary concern of the
Congress. Not enough progress has been made by the TSA to develop an
advanced passenger prescreening system since it took on this task
nearly 4 years ago. Too many passengers are inconvenienced each year by
false positives when matched against passenger watchlists.
[[Page 3270]]
Our bill would ensure a system is in place to coordinate passenger
redress matters, and that the TSA moves rapidly to develop a strategic
plan to test and implement an advanced passenger prescreening system.
Our bill also takes steps to improve general aviation security,
airport access issues for airline employees, screener staffing issues,
and other issues where there have been consistent shortcomings over the
past several years.
The 9/11 Commission's report and subsequent Public Discourse project
helped keep Congress and the Administration focused on the need for
aviation security. While they did not have all the answers for quick
fixes, they did offer a vital blueprint, particularly in the areas of
infrastructure and transportation system security.
My colleagues and I used that guideline in drafting the legislation
we are introducing today. We believe that once this bill is enacted, it
will significantly improve aviation security in the specific areas I
have highlighted, and the aviation system as a whole. I look forward to
working with my colleagues to move this bill quickly. We have had 5
years to consider what does and does not work. Now it is time to
implement what we have learned.
I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 509
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Aviation
Security Improvement Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
TITLE --AVIATION SECURITY
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Extension of authorization for aviation security funding.
Sec. 3. Passenger aircraft cargo screening.
Sec. 4. Blast-resistant cargo containers.
Sec. 5. Protection of air cargo on passenger planes from explosives.
Sec. 6. In-line baggage screening.
Sec. 7. Enhancement of in-line baggage system deployment.
Sec. 8. Research and development of aviation transportation security
technology.
Sec. 9. Certain TSA personnel limitations not to apply.
Sec. 10. Specialized training.
Sec. 11. Explosive detection at passenger screening checkpoints.
Sec. 12. Appeal and redress process for passengers wrongly delayed or
prohibited from boarding a flight.
Sec. 13. Repair station security.
Sec. 14. Strategic plan to test and implement advanced passenger
prescreening system.
Sec. 15. General aviation security.
Sec. 16. Security credentials for airline crews.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION FOR AVIATION SECURITY
FUNDING.
Section 48301(a) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``and 2006'' and inserting ``2006, 2007,
2008, and 2009''.
SEC. 3. PASSENGER AIRCRAFT CARGO SCREENING.
(a) In General.--Section 44901 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections
(h) and (i), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
``(g) Air Cargo on Passenger Aircraft.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of the Aviation Security Improvement Act, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the
Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration,
shall establish a system to screen all cargo transported on
passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier or foreign air
carrier in air transportation or intrastate air
transportation to ensure the security of all such passenger
aircraft carrying cargo.
``(2) Minimum standards.--The system referred to in
paragraph (1) shall require, at a minimum, that the
equipment, technology, procedures, personnel, or other
methods determined by the Administrator of the Transportation
Security Administration, provide a level of security
comparable to the level of security in effect for passenger
checked baggage.
``(3) Regulations.--
``(A) Interim final rule.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security may issue an interim final rule as a temporary
regulation to implement this subsection without regard to the
provisions of chapter 5 of title 5.
``(B) Final rule.--
``(i) In general.--If the Secretary issues an interim final
rule under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall issue, not
later than 1 year after the effective date of the interim
final rule, a final rule as a permanent regulation to
implement this subsection in accordance with the provisions
of chapter 5 of title 5.
``(ii) Failure to act.--If the Secretary does not issue a
final rule in accordance with clause (i) on or before the
last day of the 1-year period referred to in clause (i), the
Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress explaining
why the final rule was not timely issued and providing an
estimate of the earliest date on which the final rule will be
issued. The Secretary shall submit the first such report
within 10 days after such last day and submit a report to the
Congress containing updated information every 60 days
thereafter until the final rule is issued.
``(iii) Superseding of interim final rule.--The final rule
issued in accordance with this subparagraph shall supersede
the interim final rule issued under subparagraph (A).
``(4) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which the system required by paragraph (1) is established,
the Secretary shall transmit a report to Congress that
details and explains the system.''.
(b) Assessment of Exemptions.--
(1) TSA assessment of exemptions.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security,
through the Administrator of the Transportation Security
Administration, shall submit a report to Congress and to the
Comptroller General containing an assessment of each
exemption granted under section 44901(i) of title 49, United
States Code, for the screening required by section
44901(g)(1) of that title for cargo transported on passenger
aircraft and an analysis to assess the risk of maintaining
such exemption. The Secretary may submit the report in both
classified and redacted formats if the Secretary determines
that such action is appropriate or necessary.
(B) Contents.--The report shall include--
(i) the rationale for each exemption;
(ii) a statement of the percentage of cargo that is not
screened as a result of each exemption;
(iii) the impact of each exemption on aviation security;
(iv) the projected impact on the flow of commerce of
eliminating such exemption;
(v) a statement of any plans, and the rationale, for
maintaining, changing, or eliminating each exemption.
(2) GAO Assessment.--Not later than 120 days after the date
on which the report required under paragraph (1) is
submitted, the Comptroller General shall review the report
and provide to Congress an assessment of the methodology used
for determinations made by the Secretary for maintaining,
changing, or eliminating an exemption.
SEC. 4. BLAST-RESISTANT CARGO CONTAINERS.
Section 44901 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(i) Blast-resistant Cargo Containers.--
``(1) In general.--Before January 1, 2008, the
Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration
shall--
``(A) evaluate the results of the blast-resistant cargo
container pilot program instituted before the date of
enactment of the Aviation Security Improvement Act;
``(B) based on that evaluation, begin the acquisition of a
sufficient number of blast-resistant cargo containers to meet
the requirements of the Transportation Security
Administration's cargo security program under paragraph (2);
and
``(C) develop a system under which the Administrator--
``(i) will make such containers available for use by
passenger aircraft operated by air carriers or foreign air
carriers in air transportation or intrastate air
transportation on a random or risk-assessment basis as
determined by the Administrator, in sufficient number to
enable the carriers to meet the requirements of the
Administration's cargo security system; and
``(ii) provide for the storage, maintenance, and
distribution of such containers.
``(2) Distribution to air carriers.--Within 90 days after
the date on which the Administrator completes development of
the system required by paragraph (1)(C), the Administrator of
the Transportation Security Administration shall implement
that system and begin making blast-resistant cargo containers
available to such carriers as necessary.''.
SEC. 5. PROTECTION OF AIR CARGO ON PASSENGER PLANES FROM
EXPLOSIVES.
(a) Technology Research and Pilot Projects.--
(1) Research and development.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security shall expedite research and development for
technology that can disrupt or prevent an explosive device
from being introduced onto a passenger plane or from damaging
a passenger plane while in flight or on the ground. The
research shall include blast resistant cargo containers and
other promising technology and will be used in concert with
implementation of section 4 of this Act.
(2) Pilot projects.--The Secretary, in conjunction with the
Secretary of Transportation, shall establish a grant program
to fund pilot projects--
[[Page 3271]]
(A) to deploy technologies described in paragraph (1); and
(B) to test technology to expedite the recovery,
development, and analysis of information from aircraft
accidents to determine the cause of the accident, including
deployable flight deck and voice recorders and remote
location recording devices.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security for
fiscal year 2008 such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section, such funds to remain available until expended.
SEC. 6. IN-LINE BAGGAGE SCREENING.
(a) Extension of Authorization.--Section 44923(i)(1) of
title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking
``2007.'' and inserting ``2007, and $450,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2008 and 2009.''.
(b) Report.--Within 30 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit the
report the Secretary was required by section 4019(d) of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (49
U.S.C. 44901 note) to have submitted in conjunction with the
submission of the budget for fiscal year 2006.
SEC. 7. ENHANCEMENT OF IN-LINE BAGGAGE SYSTEM DEPLOYMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 44923 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``may'' in subsection (a) and inserting
``shall'';
(2) by striking ``may'' in subsection (d)(1) and inserting
``shall'';
(3) by striking ``2007'' in subsection (h)(1) and inserting
``2028'';
(4) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (h)
and inserting the following:
``(2) Allocation.--Of the amount made available under
paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, not less than $200,000,000
shall be allocated to fulfill letters of intent issued under
subsection (d).
``(3) Discretionary grants.--Of the amount made available
under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, up to $50,000,000
shall be used to make discretionary grants, with priority
given to small hub airports and non-hub airports.''; and
(5) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j) and
inserting after subsection (h) the following:
``(i) Leveraged Funding.--For purposes of this section, a
grant under subsection (a) to an airport sponsor to service
an obligation issued by or on behalf of that sponsor to fund
a project described in subsection (a) shall be considered to
be a grant for that project.''.
(b) Prioritization of Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall create a
prioritization schedule for airport security improvement
projects described in section 44923(b) of title 49, United
States Code, based on risk and other relevant factors, to be
funded under the grant program provided by that section. The
schedule shall include both hub airports (as defined in
section 41731(a)(3) of title 49, United States Code) and
nonhub airports (as defined in section 41731(a)4) of title
49, United States Code).
(2) Airports that have commenced projects.--The schedule
shall include airports that have incurred eligible costs
associated with development of partial in-line baggage
systems before the date of enactment of this Act in
reasonable anticipation of receiving a grant under section
44923 of title 49, United States Code, in reimbursement of
those costs but that have not received such a grant.
(3) Report.--Within 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Administrator shall provide a copy of the
prioritization schedule, a corresponding timeline, and a
description of the funding allocation under section 44923 of
title 49, United States Code, to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of
Representatives Committee on Homeland Security.
SEC. 8. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF AVIATION TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY TECHNOLOGY.
Section 137(a) of the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act (49 U.S.C. 44912 note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``2002 through 2006,'' and inserting ``2006
through 2009,'';
(2) by striking ``aviation'' and inserting
``transportation''; and
(3) by striking ``2002 and 2003'' and inserting ``2006
through 2009''.
SEC. 9. CERTAIN TSA PERSONNEL LIMITATIONS NOT TO APPLY.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of law to
the contrary, any statutory limitation on the number of
employees in the Transportation Security Administration,
before or after its transfer to the Department of Homeland
Security from the Department of Transportation, does not
apply after fiscal year 2007.
(b) Aviation Security.--Notwithstanding any provision of
law imposing a limitation on the recruiting or hiring of
personnel into the Transportation Security Administration to
a maximum number of permanent positions, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall recruit and hire such personnel into
the Administration as may be necessary--
(1) to provide appropriate levels of aviation security; and
(2) to accomplish that goal in such a manner that the
average aviation security-related delay experienced by
airline passengers is reduced to a level of less than 10
minutes.
SEC. 10. SPECIALIZED TRAINING.
The Administrator of the Transportation Security
Administration shall provide advanced training to
transportation security officers for the development of
specialized security skills, including behavior observation
and analysis, explosives detection, and document examination,
in order to enhance the effectiveness of layered
transportation security measures.
SEC. 11. EXPLOSIVE DETECTION AT PASSENGER SCREENING
CHECKPOINTS.
(a) In General.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue
the strategic plan the Secretary was required by section
44925(a) of title 49, United States Code, to have issued
within 90 days after the date of enactment of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
(b) Deployment.--Section 44925(b) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following:
``(3) Full deployment.--The Secretary shall fully implement
the strategic plan within 1 year after the date of enactment
of the Aviation Security Improvement Act.''.
SEC. 12. APPEAL AND REDRESS PROCESS FOR PASSENGERS WRONGLY
DELAYED OR PROHIBITED FROM BOARDING A FLIGHT.
(a) In General.--Subtitle C of title IV of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 231 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 431. APPEAL AND REDRESS PROCESS FOR PASSENGERS WRONGLY
DELAYED OR PROHIBITED FROM BOARDING A FLIGHT.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a timely
and fair process for individuals who believe they have been
delayed or prohibited from boarding a commercial aircraft
because they were wrongly identified as a threat under the
regimes utilized by the Transportation Security
Administration, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection,
or any other Department entity.
``(b) Office of Appeals and Redress.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an
Office of Appeals and Redress to oversee the process
established by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a).
``(2) Records.--The process established by the Secretary
pursuant to subsection (a) shall include the establishment of
a method by which the Office of Appeals and Redress, under
the direction of the Secretary, will be able to maintain a
record of air carrier passengers and other individuals who
have been misidentified and have corrected erroneous
information.
``(3) Information.--To prevent repeated delays of an
misidentified passenger or other individual, the Office of
Appeals and Redress shall--
``(A) ensure that the records maintained under this
subsection contain information determined by the Secretary to
authenticate the identity of such a passenger or individual;
and
``(B) furnish to the Transportation Security
Administration, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection,
or any other appropriate Department entity, upon request,
such information as may be necessary to allow such agencies
to assist air carriers in improving their administration of
the advanced passenger prescreening system and reduce the
number of false positives.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 430 the following:
``431. Appeal and redress process for passengers wrongly delayed or
prohibited from boarding a flight.''.
SEC. 13. STRATEGIC PLAN TO TEST AND IMPLEMENT ADVANCED
PASSENGER PRESCREENING SYSTEM.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with
the Administrator of the Transportation Security
Administration, shall submit to the Congress a plan that--
(1) describes the system to be utilized by the Department
of Homeland Security to assume the performance of comparing
passenger information, as defined by the Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration, to the automatic
selectee and no-fly lists, utilizing appropriate records in
the consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist
maintained by the Federal government;
(2) provides a projected timeline for each phase of testing
and implementation of the system;
(3) explains how the system will be integrated with the
prescreening system for passengers on international flights;
and
(4) describes how the system complies with section 552a of
title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 14. REPAIR STATION SECURITY.
(a) Certification of Foreign Repair Stations Suspension.--
If the regulations required by section 44924(f) of title 49,
United States Code, are not issued within 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration may not certify any foreign
repair station under part 145 of title 14, Code of
[[Page 3272]]
Federal Regulations, after such 90th day unless the station
was previously certified by the Administration under that
part.
(b) 6-Month Deadline for Security Review and Audit.--
Subsections (a) and (d) of section 44924 of title 49, United
States Code, are each amended by striking ``18 months'' and
inserting ``6 months''.
SEC. 15. GENERAL AVIATION SECURITY.
Section 44901 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(i) General Aviation Airport Security Program.--
``(1) In general.--Within 1 year after the date of
enactment of the Aviation Security Improvement Act the
Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration
shall--
``(A) develop a standardized threat and vulnerability
assessment program for general aviation airports (as defined
in section 47135(m)); and
``(B) implement a program to perform such assessments on a
risk-assessment basis at general aviation airports.
``(2) Grant program.--Within 6 months after date of
enactment of the Aviation Security Improvement Act the
Administrator shall initiate and complete a study of the
feasibility of a program, based on a risk-managed approach,
to provide grants to general aviation airport operators for
projects to upgrade security at general aviation airports (as
defined in section 47135(m)). If the Administrator determines
that such a program is feasible, the Administrator shall
establish such a program.
``(3) Application to foreign-registered general aviation
aircraft.--Within 180 days after the date of enactment of the
Aviation Security Improvement Act, the Administrator shall
develop a risk-based system under which--
``(A) foreign-registered general aviation aircraft, as
identified by the Administrator, in coordination with the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, are
required to submit passenger information to the
Transportation Security Administration before entering United
States airspace; and
``(B) such information is checked against appropriate
databases maintained by the Transportation Security
Administration.''.
``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland
Security such sums as may be necessary to carry out any
program established under paragraph (2).''.
SEC. 16. SECURITY CREDENTIALS FOR AIRLINE CREWS.
Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Administrator of the Transportation Security
Administration shall, after consultation with airline,
airport, and flight crew representatives, transmit a report
to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure on the status of its
efforts to institute a sterile area access system or method
that will enhance security by properly identifying authorized
airline flight deck and cabin crew members at screening
checkpoints and granting them expedited access through
screening checkpoints. The Administrator shall include in the
report recommendations on the feasibility of implementing the
system for the domestic aviation industry beginning 1 year
after the date on which the report is submitted. The
Administrator shall begin full implementation of the system
or method not later than 1 year after the date on which the
Administrator transmits the report.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 72--ACKNOWLEDGING THE SEVERITY OF THE WETLAND LOSS
OCCURRING IN LOUISIANA AND SUPPORTING THE OBSERVANCE OF WORLD WETLANDS
DAY IN THE UNITED STATES
Ms. LANDRIEU submitted the following resolution; which was referred
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works:
S. Res. 72
Whereas Louisiana's coastal wetlands are among the Nation's
most diverse and productive ecosystems, home to ospreys,
egrets, alligators, shellfish, turtles, sea grasses, and bald
cypress trees;
Whereas Louisiana's wetlands are eroding at a rate of 25
square miles per year and, as a result of Hurricane Katrina
on August 29, 2005, and Hurricane Rita on September 24, 2005,
217 square miles of wetlands were turned into open water,
significantly advancing Louisiana's wetlands loss;
Whereas the State has lost 2,100 square miles of coastal
wetlands since the 1930s and is expected to lose another 500
square miles over the next 50 years if nothing is done to
mitigate wetland loss;
Whereas 2,000,000 residents, more than 50 percent of the
State's population, live within Louisiana's coastal zone;
Whereas Louisiana's working wetlands provide protection for
coastal communities and for oil and gas pipelines that serve
as the major energy artery in the United States, delivering
more than 25 percent of the Nation's energy;
Whereas wetland ecosystems throughout the United States are
threatened by erosion, invasive species, runoff, and habitat
loss; and
Whereas World Wetlands Day is celebrated around the world
on February 2 of each year by government agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, and groups of citizens in the
global community: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) acknowledges the severity of the wetland loss occurring
in Louisiana;
(2) recognizes and supports the observance of World
Wetlands Day in the United States; and
(3) supports efforts to raise awareness about the critical
need to sustain and preserve wetlands in Louisiana, the
United States, and throughout the world.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in honor of
World Wetlands Day proc1aiming February 2 America's Wetlands Day.
February 2, 1971 was the date of the adoption of the Convention on
Wetlands in the Iranian city of Ramsar on the shores of the Caspian
Sea.
Each year since 1971, leaders from all parts of the world have used
this day to raise public awareness of the value and benefits of
wetlands--not only as ecological gems, but as economic boons,
incubators of biodiversity, and a sportsman's paradise.
The signing in 1971 of the Convention on Wetlands provided a
framework for national action and international cooperation toward the
conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. Wetlands can
be found in every country and are among the most productive ecosystems
in the world.
Those of us from Louisiana have a rather unique perspective on the
subject of wetlands. You see, Louisiana's coast is really America's
Wetland. It is not a beach, but a vast landscape of estuaries, rivers,
freshwater marsh, forested floodplains, and vernal pools.
The landscape that extends along Louisiana's coast is one of the
largest and most productive expanses of coastal wetlands in North
America. It is the seventh largest delta on earth, where the
Mississippi River drains two-thirds of the United States. It is also
one of the most productive environments in America--``working
wetlands'' as they are known to Louisianians--producing more seafood
than any other State in the lower 48. It's the nursery ground for the
Gulf of Mexico and habitat for one of the greatest flyways in the world
for millions of waterfowl and migratory songbirds.
Even more importantly, Louisiana's coastal wetlands provide storm
protection for ports that carry nearly 500 million tons of waterborne
commerce annually--the largest port system in the world by tonnage.
That accounts for 21 percent of all waterborne commerce in the United
States each year. In fact, four of the top ten largest ports in the
United States are located in Louisiana.
These wetlands also offer protection from storm surge for two million
people and a unique culture. Louisiana's low-lying coastal communities
are home to more than 2 million people--nearly half the State's
population. Even as those communities recover from the back-to-back
2005 hurricanes, they remain threatened and compromised as the land
they occupy erodes from beneath their feet.
Tragically, Louisiana's wetlands are eroding at a devastating rate:
approximately 24 square miles per year disappear--that is the
equivalent of approximately one football field lost every 38 minutes.
Within the next 50 years--even with current restoration efforts taken
into account--those wetlands are expected to recede an additional 500
square miles.
The U.S. Geological Survey recently found that Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita alone transformed 217 square miles of marsh to open water.
Tragically, these eroding wetlands are Nature's levee system--they
diminish a hurricane's destructive power by reducing storm surge and
absorbing wave energy.
Scientists have estimated for every 2.4 square miles of wetlands,
storm surges are lowered by about one foot. Some studies suggest that
only one square mile of wetlands may achieve this. Because these
wetlands are nurseries for many species of fish and shellfish, their
loss has a profound impact on the $1 billion dollar per year fishing
[[Page 3273]]
industry supported by Louisiana's fragile coastal environment.
The costs associated with Louisiana's coastal wetland loss are not
only Louisiana's to bear--they are the entire Nation's. For instance:
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita impacted more than 26,000 businesses,
destroyed 275,000 homes, and caused more than $44.7 billion in insured
losses.
Today, more than 40 percent of the Nation's oil and nearly a quarter
of the Nation's natural gas is produced in or transported through
Louisiana.
More than 20 percent of the nation's imported oil is delivered to and
processed in Louisiana.
Louisiana is second only to Texas in the number of oil refineries on
its soi1--with 17 refineries, most of which are located in the coastal
zone.
The erosion of Louisiana's coastal wetlands--America's Wetlands--
endangers the U.S. energy supply and it endangers the Nation's critical
infrastructure in the Gulf Coast: Refineries and petrochemical
facilities that drive U.S. economic growth are at risk of being
flooded, damaged and shut down, as we saw during the 2005 hurricanes.
That is why I am submitting a Sense of the Senate resolution that
will acknowledge February 2, as World Wetlands Day and express that it
is the sense of the Senate that we must raise awareness of the Nation's
imperiled wetlands--in Louisiana and throughout the country. We need to
raise awareness of these critical issues and we need to work locally,
regionally, nationally, and internationally to confront this problem
head on.
The good news is that scientists know how to restore the wetlands and
they have been very successful in reinforcing barrier islands that
protect these ecological gems. What has heretofore been lacking is not
the will, but the resources with which to undertake this critical
challenge. The passage of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act
changed that and certified America's commitment to providing long-term,
sustainable funding to address this problem. Today, we have the will;
we have the way; let's get to work and preserve America's wetlands.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 73--DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 6, 2007, AS ``RONALD REAGAN
DAY''
Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Stevens,
Mrs. Dole, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Hatch, Mr. McCain, Mr.
McConnell, and Mr. Reid) submitted the following resolution; which was
considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 73
Whereas President Ronald Wilson Reagan, a man of humble
background, worked throughout his life serving as an
entertainer, a corporate spokesman, Governor of California,
and President of the United States;
Whereas Ronald Reagan served for 2 terms as the 40th
President of the United States;
Whereas Ronald Reagan was elected to his second term by
almost three-fifths of the electorate, a percentage surpassed
only by the election of President Lyndon Baines Johnson in
1964, and was victorious in 49 of the 50 States in the
general election, an electoral college record unsurpassed in
the history of Presidential elections in the United States;
and
Whereas February 6, 2007, will be the 96th anniversary of
Ronald Reagan's birth, and June 5, 2007, will be the third
anniversary of his passing: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates February 6, 2007, as ``Ronald Reagan Day'';
and
(2) encourages the people of the United States to observe
the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
____________________
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 9--CELEBRATING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE
ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION DURING ``NATIONAL ARCHITECTURE WEEK''
Ms. LANDRIEU submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Con. Res. 9
Whereas the architectural profession has made unique
contributions to the history, texture, and quality of life in
the United States;
Whereas the beginning of an organized architectural
profession in the United States was signified by the founding
of the American Institute of Architects 150 years ago;
Whereas today there are approximately 281,000 individuals
in the United States who work in the profession of
architecture;
Whereas architects express the richness of the Nation's
heritage and the vitality of its spirit through the vigilant
stewardship of great architectural and historic treasures;
Whereas architects improve the quality of life for all
individuals in the United States by combining advances in
building technology with design innovation to build healthy,
safe, livable, and sustainable buildings and communities; and
Whereas the week beginning April 8, 2007, has been
designated by the American Institute of Architects as
``National Architecture Week'' to bring attention to the
importance of the architectural profession to the United
States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That--
(1) it is the sense of the Congress that the contributions
of the architectural profession should be recognized and
celebrated during ``National Architecture Week''; and
(2) the Congress encourages the people of the United States
and interested organizations to observe ``National
Architecture Week'' with appropriate ceremonies and
activities.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on armed services
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Tuesday, February 6, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to
receive testimony on the fiscal year 2008 budget request and the fiscal
years 2007 and 2008 war supplemental requests in review of the defense
authorization request for fiscal year 2008 and the future years defense
program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on environment and public works
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 6, 2007.
The agenda to be considered: Oversight of Recent EPA Decisions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on finance
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday,
February 6, 2007, at 2:45 p.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
to hear testimony on ``The President's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
Proposal.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on foreign relations
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Tuesday, February 6, 2007, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on
Somalia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on the judiciary
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on
``Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice
Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?'' for Tuesday,
February 6, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room
226.
Witness List: The Honorable Mark Pryor, United States Senator [D,
AR]; The Honorable Paul J. McNulty, Deputy Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC; Mary Jo White, Partner,
Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP, New York, NY; Laurie L. Levenson, Professor
of Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, CA; Stuart M. Gerson, Partner,
Epstein Becker & Green, Washington, DC.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on the judiciary
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on
``Judicial Nominations'' for Tuesday, February 6, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. in
Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.
[[Page 3274]]
Witness List: John Preston Bailey to be U.S. District Judge for the
Northern District of West Virginia; Otis D. Wright II to be U.S.
District Judge for the Central District of California; George H. Wu to
be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
select committee on intelligence
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on February 6, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mitchell
Lincoln and Shakti Shakti of my staff be granted floor privileges for
the duration of today's session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 6, 2007, AS ``RONALD REAGAN DAY''
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 73.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will state the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 73) designating February 6, 2007, as
``Ronald Reagan Day.''
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the resolution I am honored to submit
today with my colleague, Senator Feinstein, is to commemorate today,
February 6, 2007--what would be Ronald Reagan's 96th birthday--as
Ronald Reagan Day.
President Ronald Wilson Reagan, a man of humble background, worked
throughout his life serving freedom and advancing the public good,
having been employed as an entertainer, union leader, corporate
spokesman, Governor of California and President of the United States.
In 1981, when Ronald Reagan was inaugurated President, he inherited a
disillusioned Nation shackled by rampant inflation and high
unemployment. During Mr. Reagan's presidency he worked in a bipartisan
manner to enact his bold agenda of restoring accountability and common
sense to government, which led to an unprecedented economic expansion
and opportunity for millions of Americans.
Mr. Reagan's commitment to an active social policy agenda for the
Nation's children helped lower crime and drug use in our neighborhoods.
President Reagan's commitment to our armed forces contributed to the
restoration of pride in America, in her values and in those cherished
by the free world, and prepared America's Armed Forces to meet 21st
Century challenges. President Reagan's vision of ``peace through
strength'' led to the end of the Cold War and the ultimate demise of
the Soviet Union, guaranteeing basic human rights for millions of
people. It is entirely appropriate that on February 6, 2007, which will
be the 96th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, and the third since
his passing, we declare February 6th, 2007, to be Ronald Reagan Day and
urge all citizens to take cognizance of this event and participate
fittingly in its observance.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added
as a cosponsor to this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I also be added
as a cosponsor to this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motion to
reconsider laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 73) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 73
Whereas President Ronald Wilson Reagan, a man of humble
background, worked throughout his life serving as an
entertainer, a corporate spokesman, Governor of California,
and President of the United States;
Whereas Ronald Reagan served for 2 terms as the 40th
President of the United States;
Whereas Ronald Reagan was elected to his second term by
almost three-fifths of the electorate, a percentage surpassed
only by the election of President Lyndon Baines Johnson in
1964, and was victorious in 49 of the 50 States in the
general election, an electoral college record unsurpassed in
the history of Presidential elections in the United States;
and
Whereas February 6, 2007, will be the 96th anniversary of
Ronald Reagan's birth, and June 5, 2007, will be the third
anniversary of his passing: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates February 6, 2007, as ``Ronald Reagan Day'';
and
(2) encourages the people of the United States to observe
the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
____________________
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, very quickly--I know the hour is late--I
spoke to Speaker Pelosi a couple of hours ago. Next week, the House is
going to take up the Iraq situation. The legislation they will deal
with, I have been told by the Speaker, is whether the House of
Representatives will support the surge, the escalation in Iraq. They
will finish that next week, and we will get it then, and it will be
very direct and to the point.
____________________
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2007
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m.,
Wednesday, February 7; that on Wednesday, following the prayer and the
pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning
hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be
reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of
morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein, with the
time until 2 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees, alternating sides when appropriate, with
the first 30 minutes of debate under the control of the Republicans and
the next 30 minutes under the control of the majority; that during the
majority time, Senators Schumer and Kennedy be recognized for 15
minutes each. If at all possible, I ask that Senator Schumer be
recognized as close to 10:30 as possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. REID. For the information of the Senate, I anticipate that at 2
p.m. tomorrow, the Senate will debate several nominations on the
Executive Calendar, General Casey and Admiral Fallon. I will meet with
the Republican leader and find out how much time will be required on
that side by 2 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand
adjourned under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:31 p.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, February 7, at 10 a.m.
[[Page 3275]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE TO DR. EMIL FREI III
______
HON. JON C. PORTER
of nevada
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Emil Frei III,
one of the world's leading oncologists, a pioneer in cancer treatment
and chemotherapy, and a leader in clinical research.
Dr. Frei's medical career began over 50 years ago in 1948 while
serving in our country's V-12 program for the United States Navy. Since
that time he has served as the chief of medicine at the National Cancer
Institute, associate scientific director head at M.D. Anderson, and
director and physician-in-chief at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
Currently, he serves as the physician-in-chief, emeritus at Dana-
Farber. Dr. Frei has the proud honor of being the first Richard and
Susan Smith Distinguished Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical
School
Since the beginning of his career, Dr. Frei has made many
contributions to the medical field while serving on the advisory or
board of directors for non-profit organizations such as Adherex
Technologies, Angstrom, CaP Cure, Celator Pharmaceuticals, DIAD
Research, Immunogen, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Vion Pharmaceuticals,
Aid for Cancer Research, Cancer Research Institute, Journal of Clinical
Oncology and the New England Journal of Medicine. In addition to these
wonderful achievements, he was awarded the Lasker Award, the Kettering
Prize and the Inaugural Lifetime Achievement Award for his clinical
research for cancer treatment.
Dr. Frei not only practiced medicine, but also served as a professor
of medicine at the University of Texas and Harvard Medical School for
over 30 years. Dr. Frei also coauthored the first text in medical
oncology, which is now in its seventh edition.
Dr. Frei is continuing his research in the Las Vegas area where he
serves on the chapter board of Southern Nevada Leukemia & Lymphoma
Society. He has previously served as the chairman of the Cancer and
Leukemia Group B clinical research group.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor Dr. Frei for his dedication to
improving the life of others through his service in the medical
community and advances in the chemotherapy and cancer research. I
applaud his efforts and wish him the best with his future endeavors.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE PASSING OF M.J. MENGE
______
HON. JEFF MILLER
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise
today to note the passing of a man whose legacy will forever be
remembered. For over 40 years, M.J. Menge has served his community as
an attorney and dedicated leader in Pensacola, a city in my district in
Northwest Florida.
A native Floridian born in 1936, Mr. Menge devoted his life's work to
bettering our community. At a young age he demonstrated his leadership
skills while attending Pensacola Junior College and the University of
Florida. After attending Navy Officer Candidate School, he went on to
serve as a naval gunner officer on the USS Sarsfield until 1962. Mr.
Menge then earned a law degree from the University of Florida in 1964
and joined the Pensacola law firm of Shell, Fleming, Davis, and Menge.
He was well respected by his colleagues for his integrity and concern
for the law. Mr. Menge served as general legal counsel Pensacola Junior
College for nearly 30 years, and in 1998 a bell tower was erected in
his honor. Through his different leadership roles within the community,
he became known as a man with a genuine sense of caring who fostered
that sense into those with whom he came into contact.
M.J. Menge's service to Northwest Florida extended far beyond the
legal profession. He was also known throughout the community for his
leadership roles within the Pensacola Area Chamber of Commerce, Baptist
Hospital, and March of Dimes. In 1969, Mr. Menge was named One of
Florida's Five Outstanding Young Men by the Florida Jaycees. He was
recognized again in 1979, as the Community Leader of the Year by the
Pensacola Area Chamber of Commerce, and later honored with the Spirit
of Pensacola Award in 1996. He had been an active member in the Trinity
Presbyterian Church and served as a devoted member to a number of civic
organizations including Rotary International, Navy League, and Fiesta
of Five Flags. Though suffering from cancer for the last 7 years, the
genuineness and the inspiration he had brought to those around him
continued to thrive.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the U.S. Congress, I would like to offer
my sincere condolences to the family of Mr. Menge. They, along with
their community, have suffered a great loss. Mr. Menge served as a
model for so many, and I am confident that many will remember him
fondly and model their actions in life on what he showed them through
his life.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE SUSAN B. ANTHONY BIRTHDAY ACT
______
HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, today--along with Democratic
colleagues, Congresswoman Lois Capps, co-chair of the Congressional
Caucus on Women's issues and Congresswoman Yvette Clarke--I am
introducing the Susan B. Anthony Birthday Act, which will designate the
third Monday in February as a day to celebrate the legacy of Susan B.
Anthony. Susan Brownell Anthony is remembered for creating the first
women's movement in the United States and leading that movement for
more than 50 years.
Born on February 15, 1820, Susan B. Anthony met Elizabeth Cady
Stanton in 1851 and attended her first women's rights convention in
Syracuse in 1852, where she joined the fight to get women the right to
vote, arguing that, ``the right women needed above every other . . .
was the right of suffrage.'' The first proposal for women's suffrage
was presented to Congress in 1868 and Susan B. Anthony appeared before
every Congress from 1869 to 1906 to ask for passage of a suffrage
amendment. She served as the president of the National Woman Suffrage
Association from 1892 until 1900.
The first formal women's suffrage amendment to the Constitution of
the United States was introduced in January 1878 and was subsequently
introduced in every session of Congress for the next 41 years. Before
her death on March 13, 1906, Susan B. Anthony's last public words were,
``Failure is impossible.''
Unfortunately, Susan B. Anthony did not live to realize her dream of
women's suffrage, but thankfully her legacy survives. On May 21, 1919,
the House of Representatives passed the 19th amendment, and two weeks
later, the Senate followed. The Secretary of State, Bainbridge Colby,
certified the ratification on August 26, 1920. The text of the 19th
amendment is: ``The right of citizens of the United States to vote
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.''
The United States has previously recognized Susan B. Anthony's
tremendous contribution to our Nation. A marble statue of her and her
women's rights colleagues, Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
was dedicated in the United States Capitol in 1921. Susan B. Anthony's
picture appeared on postage stamps in 1936 and 1955. Her home in
Rochester, New York, has been a National Historic Landmark since 1966,
and in 1979, her image was placed on a dollar coin.
No Federal holiday celebrates the birthday of a woman. As the founder
and leader of the
[[Page 3276]]
women's movement in the United States, Susan B. Anthony deserves a
permanent place in our history. The Susan B. Anthony Birthday Act will
allow all women and men in the United States to celebrate and honor her
legacy.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE 100TH BIRTHDAY OF LUCILLE COCHRAN
______
HON. MIKE ROGERS
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to
a very special occasion today for a constituent of mine--Mrs. Lucille
Cochran's 100th birthday. Mrs. Cochran will gather with her friends and
family to mark the occasion on February 9, 2007.
Lucille ``Mama Cill'' Cochran was born in Lee County, Alabama, where
she resides today with her loving family and church community. ``Mama
Cill'' credits long life to her faith and trust in God. This mother of
9, grandmother of 35, and great grandmother of 77, enjoys entertaining
her family in her kitchen where she serves her Alabama nugget baked
sweet potatoes and coffee.
Mrs. Cochran's vibrant personality and active life make her an
important part of her community. In her own special way, she serves as
a shining example for us all. On this special occasion, I salute this
remarkable woman for her long life, and her dedication to family.
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE TO PHIL MARCUS ESSER
______
HON. JON C. PORTER
of nevada
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Phil Marcus Esser
for work on behalf of the Boulder City Community.
Phil is a very accomplished folk singer and musical producer and has
been a resident of Boulder City Nevada for the past six years. Since
moving to Boulder City, Phil has immersed himself in charitable and
community orientated projects, most notably as the choir director for
St. Andrew's Church.
Most recently, Phil performed at the Boulder City American Legion
Hall, raising over $4000 for Emergency Aid of Boulder City. This show
was the first in a series of four such performances intending to
support a local cause.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor Phil Marcus Esser. His work on
behalf of the local community is admirable and I applaud his efforts.
____________________
RECOGNIZING TAVIA MAREZ AS OKALOOSA COUNTY'S TEACHER OF THE YEAR
______
HON. JEFF MILLER
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States
Congress, it is an honor for me to rise today to recognize Tavia Marez
as Okaloosa County's Teacher of the Year.
On January 30, 2007, Tavia Marez was announced Teacher of the Year.
Mrs. Marez joined the school district administration in 1997 with an
educational background in Genetics and Developmental Biology and as a
former researcher at Johns Hopkins University. Over the past 10 years,
Mrs. Marez has proudly served the school district, and Okaloosa County
is honored to have her as one of their own.
Tavia Marez currently teaches Advanced Placement (AP) Chemistry at
Fort Walton Beach High School in Fort Walton Beach, FL. Mrs. Marez is
aware that if her students are anything like she once was, she must
make Chemistry enjoyable. To get her students interested, Tavia Marez
incorporates creative techniques, such as: songs, dances, and mnemonic
devices.
At the same time, to ensure that she is giving her students the best
preparation needed to succeed, Mrs. Marez keeps in constant
communication with the AP College Board and college chemistry
professors. Ten weeks prior to the AP Chemistry exam, you can find Mrs.
Marez on Saturdays offering extra help to her students, who in turn
mentor elementary school students from Edwins Elementary School. Since
Mrs. Marez began teaching AP Chemistry, the percentage of students who
pass the AP exam drastically increased from around 0 percent to 70 and
the number of students taking the course from 12 to 75.
To be honored as Teacher of the Year, the proof of greatness lies
well beyond the title--it lies in the hearts and minds of the students
who have been deeply affected. While Mrs. Marez humbly credits her
fellow colleagues with helping her get to where she is today, it is her
spirit, dedication and passion for teaching, which she has developed
over the past 10 years that has won her the honor of this distinguished
award.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I am proud to
recognize Mrs. Marez for her great achievement as Teacher of the Year
and her continuing commitment to excellence at Fort Walton Beach High
School and in the Okaloosa County School District.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SERGEANT ALEXANDER HENRY FULLER
______
HON. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today so that my colleagues in
the House of Representatives can join me in honoring the life and
service of one of America's fallen heroes, Sergeant Alexander Henry
Fuller, who gave his life to his country while serving in Iraq. I rise
so that the House of Representatives can join me in conveying our
deepest condolences to his wonderful wife Stacey and to his entire
family.
Alex died on January 25 at the age of twenty one, while serving in
Iraq. He came from New Bedford and was raised on Cape Cod. He soon fell
in love with Stacey and together they were married. Today Stacey is
expecting their child. Alex had dreams of someday owning a house on
Cape Cod, working as a police officer and raising a family.
But he was a young man with a mission. He had another priority in his
life, to answer the call of service to his country. He loved his
country and he loved serving in the Army, and in the 3rd Squadron, 61st
Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division based
in Fort Carson Colorado. Each and every American owes him and his
family a great debt of gratitude. The courage he demonstrated through
his service will always be remembered.
I wish to join with my colleagues in expressing our condolences to
his family and friends. We hope and pray that they find peace and
comfort during this most difficult time.
Sean Gonsalves, a reporter from the Cape Cod Times wrote a moving
tribute that I wish to share with you.
`We Couldn't Be Prouder'
(By Sean Gonsalves)
One had a Bible in his hand.
The other Army officer carried the news Anastacia
``Stacey'' Fuller and her husband's adopted family had been
losing sleep over--wondering if their hero, Army Sgt.
Alexander Henry Fuller, was alive.
He was not, they were informed late Thursday night.
Yesterday, Sgt. Fuller's 19-year-old widow still seemed
disoriented, as if the repercussions from the improvised
explosive device that killed Fuller and another member of his
convoy in Baghdad had reverberated across the Atlantic Ocean,
all the way to the Centerville home the 21-year-old soldier
had shared with his wife and inlaws.
Pfc. Michael C. Balsley, 23, of Hayward, Calif., was also
killed in Thursday's explosion, according to the Department
of Defense.
Stacey Fuller wasn't sure if her husband's remains were in
Maryland or Delaware. She wasn't sure when his casket would
be brought home to Cape, or when the funeral and burial would
be held.
All she knew was that the father of her yet-unborn daughter
was ``fearless'' and had ``a huge heart.''
Sitting in the showroom of her family's used-car dealership
on Yarmouth Road in Hyannis, Stacey Fuller rested her hands
on her bulging belly as the small flags lining the awning
outside flapped in the winter wind.
``He was very determined. He always said, `I need to help
my Joes,''' she recalled, explaining the love he had for the
Fort Carson, Colo.-based 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment,
2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division.
``We tried to talk him out of going because of how
dangerous it is, but we couldn't,'' said Fuller's mother-in-
law, Irena Zinov.
[[Page 3277]]
Fuller, who was born in New Bedford and raised in
Centerville, saw the Army as the best way to prepare for
becoming a police officer.
Fuller's legacy was his concern for others, his uncle
Robert Mogavero of Millis said in a phone interview
yesterday.
``At the same time, he had a great zest for life. Some kids
have plans that are a little far-fetched, but his head was
screwed on straight. His plans were not beyond his reach,''
he said.
Mogavero described Fuller as a soldier ``dedicated to God
and country.'' ``As a soldier he was exemplary, and we
couldn't be prouder of him as a family.''
Zach Hallet of Osterville remembered his best friend as the
toughest, funniest person he's known.
``And he believed in what he was doing. He was proud of
being a sergeant and he was proud of being a leader.''
Hallet also described his fallen friend as ``fearless''--a
trait his wife said she'll call on in the months ahead as she
prepares to give birth in April.
Besides his wife and unborn daughter, Fuller is survived by
his mother, Linda; a sister, Katie, and two brothers,
Christopher and Sean.
The family has set up a memorial fund for the benefit of
his daughter.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO BLACK HISTORY MONTH
______
HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, it is with a great sense of honor that
I rise to celebrate Black History Month and its 2007 theme--From
Slavery to Freedom: Africans in the Americas. As we recall the many
struggles and reflect on the immense impact African-Americans have had
on this country, we are reminded that, though we have made great
strides, we must continue the fight for a society that is truly equal.
The theme for this year's Black History Month, From Slavery to
Freedom: Africans in the Americas, is a reminder that in striving for
equality, we must examine the past. We remember those brought to
America against their will, forced into slavery, working under the most
inhumane conditions. From this, however, we are reminded of those who
recognized this atrocity and made the decision to fight for their
freedom. We pay special tribute to those who were persecuted, and in
many cases murdered, for their impassioned struggle for what was right.
From the earliest men and women forced into slavery to the brave
soldiers, both free and enslaved, who joined forces to eventually
defeat the Confederacy, thus establishing their own freedom, all are to
be commended with the highest admiration and praise. Without these
struggles, President Abraham Lincoln's reminder of our founding
fathers' goal, the establishment of a new Nation, conceived in liberty,
and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, would
not be possible.
It is the efforts of these brave individuals that would inspire the
great leaders of the civil rights movement, like Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., and Rosa Parks, to persevere and make great strides toward
this goal. Some of these leaders, like many before them, would face
similar persecution. Some, like Dr. King, would pay the ultimate price
in hopes that one day all Americans would be seen as equals. We are
aware, however, that as a united society, we must continue to make
strides like those generations who came before us. From the days of
slavery to the days of segregation, we must continue to work toward a
society that is truly equal, a society with equal rights, equal
justice, and equal opportunities.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you and my distinguished colleagues join me
in honoring the brave men and women who have led us in the ongoing
fight for justice and equality. Let us take this opportunity to honor
the sacrifices and contributions of all Americans who have fought for
their freedom and the freedom of others. This commitment to equality,
opportunity, and an end to discrimination is to be admired.
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE TO LANCE CORPORAL BUDD M. COTE
______
HON. JON C. PORTER
of nevada
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Lance
Corporal Budd M. Cote, who died Monday December 11, 2006, of injuries
sustained in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Lance Corporal Cote was killed by an explosive device in al-Anbar
province during combat operations. He was assigned to the Marine Wing
Support Squadron 373 stationed out of the Marine Corps Air Station in
Miramar, CA.
Lance Corporal Budd Cote was born in Corona, CA, on June 27, 1985. He
spent his childhood in the Las Vegas valley before moving to Tucson,
AZ, where he attended high school.
Lance Corporal Cote was a hero whose desire to serve his country will
forever make an impact on his family, his community and his country. He
joined the U.S. Marine Corps to serve his country in the Global War on
Terror. He will not only be remembered for his sacrifice and willing
service, but for the extraordinary person that he was. His warmth and
optimism brightened the lives of his family and friends. He is survived
by his loving wife, Zoraida, his parents, Marcella and Roland Cote and
siblings, Alex, Christopher and Tiffany.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor the life of Lance Corporal Budd M.
Cote. Lance Corporal Budd M. Cote made the ultimate sacrifice for his
country while fighting the War on Terror and defending democracy and
freedom.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO PURPLE HEART RECIPIENT ROGER WILLIAM POWELL OF ZEPHYRHILLS,
FLORIDA
______
HON. GINNY BROWN-WAITE
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Ms. BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor
Roger William Powell, a native of Montrose, MI who volunteered for the
U.S. Army on January 22, 1969. Assigned as a mechanic, Mr. Powell was
sent to Vietnam on June 22, 1969, with an armor recon specialty where
he became a part time scout driver and machine gun operator. Assigned
to E Troop, 1st Calvary Regiment, 11th Infantry Brigade, his base camp
was Chu Lie.
On August 8, 1969, his troop was in the field in Quang Ngai when they
came under hostile fire from Viet Cong forces. Rocket propelled
grenades landed amongst the troops, with Mr. Powell sustaining shrapnel
wounds in his right eye, both hands and arms and a perforated eardrum.
transferred by Medivac helicopter to an evacuation hospital in Japan,
he remained under medical care for three months. A purple heart was
noted on his record but not awarded, as Mr. Powell was not at that
facility a sufficient time for the paperwork to be processed.
Following his recovery from his injuries, he was reassigned stateside
to Ft. Knox, KY. Mr. Powell then volunteered for duty in Germany where
he remained until his discharge on January 14, 1971.
Currently residing in Zephyrhills, Florida, Mr. Powell and his wife,
Tansy, have three grown children; 32-year-old Scott, 30-year-old
Shalynee and 26-year-old Shelby, all of whom reside in Michigan.
After almost 38 years, it is my distinct honor and privilege to
present Mr. Powell with his long-awaited Purple Heart.
Madam Speaker, soldiers like Roger William Powell should be
recognized for their service to our Nation and for their commitment and
sacrifices in battle. I am honored to present Mr. Powell with his long
overdue Purple Heart. He should know that we truly consider him one of
America's heroes.
____________________
HONORING BORDEN BYRD
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Borden Byrd for
his heroic effort to save a possible collision between two jets on
August 24, 2006.
Mr. Byrd is the air traffic controller at DFW TRACON (DIO), one of
the control towers for the Dallas-Fort Worth International airport. As
DFW is among the top three busiest airports in the Nation, the
controllers must be focused and attentive at all times to ensure safe
and smooth air traffic. If it were not for Mr. Byrd's immediate
reaction and sharp eye, two jets, an American Airlines MD80 and a
United Express regional jet, might have collided last August.
[[Page 3278]]
That day, the regional jet's pilots had entered an incorrect runway
into the Flight Management System, which put the jet directly into the
path of the MD80. Luckily, Mr. Byrd noticed the anticipated trajectory
paths for the jets and directed the regional jet immediately to the
west, out of the path of the MD80. His careful watch and proactive
character saved numerous lives that day.
It is with great honor that I recognize Mr. Borden Byrd for his
exceptional service not only to Dallas-Fort Worth International
airport, but also to our community. His knowledge and dedication to air
safety prevented a great tragedy from occurring, and I join his family
and friends in congratulating him on this heroic affair.
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE TO BONNIE SCHOFIELD
______
HON. JON C. PORTER
of nevada
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I honor Mrs. Bonnie Schofield for her
dedication to the community and families she served.
Bonnie has been serving 79 families in Hiko, NV, as a postmaster
since 1973, 6 hours a day, 6 days a week. Bonnie's families picked
their mail up at the Post Office in front of her house in an old-
fashioned way. Instead of using the modern-day post office boxes, the
mail was sorted into old-fashioned sacks Bonnie handmade herself and
then hung onto pegs. Families would then pick up their mail while the
traditions of past generations stayed intact.
For the 30 years prior to her appointment as postmaster, Bonnie's
mother-in-law held the position. Her daughter also continues the family
tradition, for she was named postmaster for 2004 in Alamo, NV. Bonnie
also has served the National Association of Postmasters of the U.S.,
NAPUS, as State president, on its State council, and representing
Nevada in Washington, DC.
On December 1, 2006, Bonnie retired from her position as postmaster
and, with her, lay to rest the traditions of Hiko' s community. What
she will miss the most is the customer interaction and personalized
service. Now that she is retired, she plans on nurturing her garden and
traveling with her husband of 49 years. Bonnie also plans on spending
more time with her 4 children, 18 grandchildren, and 8 great-
grandchildren.
Madam Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize the gracious
efforts of Mrs. Bonnie Schofield. Her diligence and dedication are
those to be admired. I wish her luck with all her future endeavors.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MAYOR MANUEL DIAZ
______
HON. KENDRICK B. MEEK
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I congratulate Mayor Manuel Diaz
of Miami for receiving the ``Outstanding American by Choice'' award on
January 24, 2007 at the White House.
The ``Outstanding American by Choice'' award recognizes the
achievements of naturalized U.S. citizens who, through civic
participation, professional achievement and responsible citizenship,
have demonstrated their commitment to this country and to common civic
values. The award is given to citizens who have made significant
contributions to their community and to this country.
Mayor Diaz was born on November 5, 1954 in Havana, Cuba and
immigrated to the United States with his mother, Elisa, in 1961. He
grew up in Miami's Little Havana neighborhood and attended Belen Jesuit
Prep School, Miami-Dade College, Florida International University and
the University of Miami's School of Law.
Mayor Diaz was elected as mayor of the city of Miami in 2001 and re-
elected to a second term in 2005. He has led the effort to reform Miami
city government, improve public schools, and bring increased investment
and business opportunities to Miami. Vanity Fair magazine has honored
Mayor Diaz, calling him one of North America's leading environmentally
conscious mayors. In recognition of his accomplishments, Mayor Diaz was
honored by his fellow mayors and elected chair of the Advisory Board of
the United States Conference of Mayors in 2006.
Mayor Diaz's achievements should make all Americans proud that, in
this Nation of immigrants, success in life is attainable through hard
work and the desire to achieve great dreams.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTION REGARDING 9/11 HEALTH ISSUES
______
HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, as a next step in the long
fight to ensure that the heroes of 9/11 get the medical monitoring and
treatment they need and deserve, today with my colleague Rep. Vito
Fossella, I am introducing a resolution urging the Administration to
prepare a comprehensive plan to medically monitor all individuals--
responders, residents, area workers and school children--who were
exposed to the toxins of Ground Zero on 9/11 and to treat all those who
are sick as a result.
A peer-reviewed study released last year by the World Trade Center
Medical Monitoring Program found that 70 percent of 9/11 responders
have suffered from respiratory ailments and 60 percent are still sick.
Among those screened, 40 percent do not have health insurance. A study
previously published by the New York City Fire Department documented a
12-year lung capacity loss, on average, among New York City
firefighters who responded to the World Trade Center.
Despite these well-documented illnesses and lack of medical
insurance, only a fraction of 9/11 responders, area residents, workers
and school children are being medically monitored. Far fewer are
receiving the treatment they need. Even worse, the first federal
funding for treatment of responders, which was distributed in October
2006, is projected to run out sometime this summer--just months after
the treatment program began.
I am pleased that the Administration has, for the first time ever,
included funding in the FY2008 budget for health treatment for sick and
injured 9/11 first responders. However, the $25 million included will
cover just a small fraction of the cost of monitoring and treating the
thousands exposed to the toxins of Ground Zero. I am also pleased that
the Administration has finally said that HHS will be producing an
estimate for the heath needs of first responders--but only first
responders. Quite simply, a plan that takes into account only first
responders is not sufficient. The hundreds of thousands of area
residents, workers, school children and federal employees who are in
need of monitoring and treatment deserve to be included in any plan put
forth by HHS.
I am hopeful that Congress will be taking direct action in the coming
weeks and months to fund current treatment and monitoring programs as
well as expand those programs to include all affected residents, school
children, area workers and rescue workers who came to New York from
across the country after 9/11. As we work together toward bolder
action, I believe this resolution urging the Department of Health and
Human Services to develop a comprehensive plan is an important first
step in focusing the Administration's attention on the health needs of
the all the heroes of 9/11.
____________________
HONORING THE CITY OF PIEDMONT
______
HON. BARBARA LEE
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mrs. LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the City of Piedmont
on the occasion of its Centennial Celebration.
Prior to its incorporation as a city in 1907, Piedmont was comprised
of lands owned by individuals such as Don Luis Peralta, Walter Blair
and James Gamble. During the late 1800s, Mr. Blair bought 600 acres of
land from the Peraltas. He built a dairy on Highland Avenue, a quarry,
a hotel and an amusement park known as Blair Park.
In 1877 James Gamble, the president of Western Union Telegraph,
bought 350 acres from Mr. Blair. He built a house on Hillside Avenue
and planned to sell the rest of the land so others could build houses
as well. He called his business the Piedmont Land Company, which he
felt was appropriate for the new community due to the fact that
Piedmont means ``foot of the mountain'' in Italian.
In the 1880s there were only seven houses where the City of Piedmont
is now. During the same time Piedmont had its first and only factory,
the Ladies Silk Culture Society. Over 100 women worked spinning thread
from the cocoons of silk worms that grew on the mulberry trees, but
ultimately there weren't enough trees and the factory closed in 1895.
[[Page 3279]]
While major landowners were building large houses in the middle of
Piedmont during the early 20th century, many artists and writers lived
in smaller houses they built themselves on Scenic Avenue. Jack London,
Xavier Martinez and George Sterling all lived in the hills of Piedmont
during the early 1900s.
On April 18, 1906, the infamous San Francisco earthquake rocked the
Bay Area, sending thousands of city residents across the Bay into the
surrounding communities. Many of those who fled the destruction in San
Francisco at that time came to Oakland, Berkeley and Piedmont, which
grew 10 times larger in one year as a result.
On January 7, 1907, Hugh Craig and James Ballentine filed papers with
the State of California to incorporate the City of Piedmont. An
election was held on January 26, 1907 and 118 men who owned land in
Piedmont voted to become a city. Some residents were displeased with
this result, however, and another election was held in September of the
same year; the result held and Piedmont became a city by a mere 10
votes. Vamey Gaskill became the first mayor of Piedmont, but only
served for three months. In May of 1907 Hugh Craig became the second
mayor of the city and is considered by many to be the ``father'' of
Piedmont. Piedmont City Hall was built in 1908.
Over the past century, the City of Piedmont has developed a
governmental organization that provides its citizens with an
exceptionally high level of municipal and educational services by
partnering an exceptional staff with a tradition of generous community
volunteerism. The residents of Piedmont have a history of service and
leadership that extends from local to international endeavors. Their
work contributes immeasurably to the quality of life here in
California's 9th Congressional District and beyond, and it is my
pleasure to extend my heartfelt congratulations to all of Piedmont's
residents on the occasion of its Centennial Celebration.
____________________
IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 808, ESTABLISHING THE DEPARTMENT OF PEACE AND
NONVIOLENCE
______
HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO
of hawaii
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 808, establishing
the Department of Peace and Nonviolence.
At a time when we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the
war in Iraq, which the majority of the American public no longer
supports, there is a growing call for a diplomatic and political, in
other words, a peaceful resolution to this conflict.
The establishment of the Department of Peace and Nonviolence, with
its emphasis on education and dispute resolution through peaceful
means, sends a clear message to our citizens and to the rest of the
world that our country recognizes and values the peaceful resolution of
conflicts and differences and that these methods should be emphasized
to resolve conflicts at both the individual and national levels.
The Department of Peace is not a new idea. My esteemed and highly
respected predecessor from the State of Hawaii, first Representative
and then Senator Spark M. Matsunaga, proposed a similar institution 30
years ago as the Vietnam war waged on. After three decades of
unresolved conflicts, worsening international relations, and seemingly
endless wars around the world, the time has come to bring this great
idea to life.
I fully support H.R. 808.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO GRACE CARTER DAWKINS
______
HON. PHIL GINGREY
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Grace
Carter Dawkins, a native of Greenville, GA. Mrs. Dawkins recently
passed away, leaving behind a long legacy of compassion and spirited
involvement in her community.
Mrs. Dawkins had a big heart and a willingness to help others. As a
teacher in Newnan and Atlanta, she not only taught home economics and
served as a class sponsor, but she helped sew prom dresses for the
students and cooked up delicious meals for class banquets.
Grace was also deeply involved with her church, Brinson Chapel, where
she lent her passion for service to the church's missionary, senior,
and community outreach programs.
Madam Speaker, I've had the honor to experience Grace's generous
personality first-hand, and I know her loving acts of kindness will be
felt in Greenville for many years to come.
I also know Grace's husband, Robert, her sister, Gloria Carter
Morris, and her three brothers, Rufus, Earnest, and Willie Carter, will
keep her memory strong.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join me in honoring the compassion,
charity, and joy of Grace Carter Dawkins's life.
____________________
HONORING MRS. DAWN GASIOR OF ST. SYMPHOROSA SCHOOL
______
HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding
educator in my district, Mrs. Dawn Gasior. For 27 years, Mrs. Gasior
has tirelessly served her students and the entire St. Symphorosa Parish
community. As a result of her dedicated and enthusiastic efforts, she
was recently nominated for the Archdiocese of Chicago's ``Heart of the
School'' Award.
A long-time Clearing resident and student at St. Symphorosa from 1963
to 1971, Mrs. Gasior returned to the school in 1980 to establish a
Kindergarten program and began teaching the second grade in 1984. Mrs.
Gasior still teaches the second grade today and especially enjoys
teaching the Sacraments. She not only provides valuable insight and
moral guidance in the classroom, but also offers support to the parish
through her work as a Eucharistic Minister.
The Archdiocese of Chicago's ``Heart of the School'' Award annually
recognizes 14 teachers for their outstanding, unique, and innovative
accomplishments. This year, the Archdiocese is acknowledging Mrs.
Gasior in the area of Catholic School Identity and Mission for her work
in the design and implementation of effective catechetical approaches
in the curriculum and for her commitment to promoting peace and
justice. Mrs. Gasior's nomination is a tribute to her work and a
reflection of the Chicago Archdiocesan pledge to develop educated,
thoughtful, and moral students.
It is my honor to commend Mrs. Dawn Gasior for her achievements as an
outstanding teacher and advocate of Catholic education. She, along with
countless other educators, serves to enhance our overall education
system--impacting one student at a time. I thank Dawn, along with all
of our Nation's teachers, for their dedication, passion, and noble
service.
____________________
LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL BOARD HAS FIRST BLACK MAJORITY
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to enter into the
Congressional Record an article in the New York Times announcing a
majority African American School Board in Little Rock, AR. This is the
first time since Federal troops enforced integration in 1957 that
African Americans have earned a majority on the Little Rock School
Board. As pronounced in the article, it is good to see that people are
looking for a change.
The events that took place in Little Rock still stand as a testament
to the spirit of resiliency abiding deeply within the African American
community. Similarly, the decision to integrate in 1957 echoes our
countries commitment to ultimately ensuring equality among all of our
Nation's sons and daughters. In the same way that 1957 remains such a
pivotal year in our Nation's history, I hope that these more recent
events continue to shape future generations--moving away from things as
usual, as the article states, toward viewing issues of importance from
the perspectives of the people directly affected rather than by
socially engineered categories like race, gender, and class.
Central to the article are the issues faced by students, skin color
notwithstanding. It is important to understand that what this article
highlights is not simply the need to recognize the gains made by
African Americans in winning the majority of seats on the school board
but rather the changes in minds and hearts necessary to move to a space
where people are voted for because of their desire to preserve and
protect the interest of the people they serve.
I applaud the efforts of Little Rock School Board members as well as
members of the community.
[[Page 3280]]
[From the New York Times, Oct. 13, 2006]
Little Rock School Board Has First Black Majority
(By the Associated Press)
Little Rock, AR.--For the first time since federal troops
enforced public school integration here by escorting a group
of black students into Central High School 49 years ago, the
Little Rock school board has a black majority.
Dianne Curry won a runoff election on Tuesday, meaning four
of the Little Rock School District's seven board members are
black. Ms. Curry defeated Tom Brock, who had been appointed
to fill an unexpired term in February.
The district, which has 26,000 students, has been mostly
black for years, but until now has never had a black majority
on the school board.
Until 1957, Little Rock had operated separate schools for
blacks and whites. Despite an order from the United States
Supreme Court, Gov. Orval E. Faubus sought to prevent nine
black students from entering Central High, but President
Dwight D. Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne to enforce
the court's order.
Federal courts have monitored the desegregation effort
since 1965.
Sixty-eight percent of the district's students are black,
24 percent are white, and Hispanics and Asians make up most
of the remaining 8 percent. The population of Little Rock is
mostly white, and there are many predominantly white private
schools in the area.
The school district has sought to free itself from federal
monitoring, but a judge maintained partial control after
ruling two years ago that the district was not adequately
appraising how well its academic programs helped black
students.
Superintendent Roy Brooks is black, as is Robert Daugherty,
the board's president.
``I think people are looking for a change,'' Mr. Daugherty
said. ``They're tired of things as usual, business as usual.
They want people who are more in tune with the community, and
I think that's what you see now.''
Skip Rutherford, dean of the Clinton School of Public
Service and a former board president, said that a black
majority on the board was ``probably long overdue.''
Students will still come first, said Mr. Rutherford, who is
white.
``I think the board members are going to vote much more on
the content of their character than the color of their
skin,'' he said. ``Most people when they get on the school
board tend to view issues not by color but by what's best for
the students.''
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY PERMANENT ELIMINATION ACT OF
2007
______
HON. JERRY WELLER
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity
to introduce the Marriage Tax Penalty Permanent Elimination Act of
2007. This important bill makes marriage tax relief permanent for the
48 million American married couples that benefit from the marriage tax
relief enacted by Congress and signed into law in 2003.
Madam Speaker, if we do not act, in 2010 48 million hardworking
married couples will face an annual tax increase which averages $2,726.
I am sure I speak for the married couples in my district and Illinois
when I say that $2,726 each year is a lot of money. In fact, if a
couple were to put this money away each year to pay for the costs of a
child's college education, without even earning interest they would
have nearly $50,000.
My legislation will ensure that marriage tax relief becomes permanent
and 48 million American couples are not subject to a $2,726 annual tax
increase starting in 2010. I encourage my colleagues to join me in
continuing the fight to guarantee that the values we hold most dear,
marriage, family and hard work are treated fairly under our tax code.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JEFF FORTENBERRY
of nebraska
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, on Monday, February 5, 2007, I was
unavoidably detained and thus I missed rollcall votes Nos. 74 and 75.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. GENE GREEN
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I was unable to attend two
votes last night due to official business, hosting a paying for college
workshop in my district.
I obtained an excused absence for this event, and I ask unanimous
consent to include this personal explanation in the Record.
On February 5, 2007, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes
No. 74 and No. 75.
On rollcall vote No. 74 to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution regarding National Consumer Protection Week, I would have
voted ``aye.''
On rollcall vote No. 75 to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Black HIV/AIDS
Awareness Day, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY
of rhode island
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 74 and No. 75 I was
unable to make the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''
on both No. 74 and No. 75.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. ORTIZ. Madam Speaker, due to my attendance at a memorial service
in my district, I was unable to cast the following rollcall votes. Had
I been present, I would have voted as indicated below.
Rollcall No. 74: ``yea''.
Rollcall No. 75: ``yea''.
____________________
HONORING TEMPLE COLLEGE
______
HON. JOHN R. CARTER
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
recognize the high level of success achieved by Temple College located
in Temple, Texas. The Texas Bioscience Institute established by Temple
College recently garnered the highest award offered by the Community
College Futures Assembly, the distinguished Bellwether Award. The
Bellwether Award is given to the highest achieving institute in
workforce development. This award is given to only one community
college each year, effectively recognizing the Texas Bioscience
Institute as the finest workforce development institute at any
community college. One chancellor from a California community college
was so impressed with TBI he plans to emulate the institute at his
school.
This award not only recognizes TBl's success; it is an indicator of
the bright future of Temple College and the Texas Bioscience Institute.
With this award comes the opportunity to apply for grants from the
state and federal governments, ensuring the means for further successes
from this institute. Not satisfied to rest on their laurels, the
institute plans to increase the number of students by 50 percent to 150
and maintain the high level of teaching achievement they are known for.
I am very proud of their work and am honored to represent such a fine
academic institution as Temple College and their award-winning Texas
Bioscience Institute.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JAMES C. MILES
______
HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to remember the
life of a proud Berks County resident, James C. Miles. James was born
August 26, 1918, to Alfred and Grace Miles, and passed away on February
5, 2007, at the age of 88.
Born and raised in Reading, Pennsylvania, Mr. Miles graduated from
Reading High School in 1936 and later joined the U.S. Army during World
War II. Utilizing his experience with the famous Reading Railroad
industry,
[[Page 3281]]
Mr. Miles served in Northern Africa and Europe helping to repair the
rail network in support of the advance towards Germany.
Mr. Miles was a member of the Advent Lutheran Church in West Lawn,
Pennsylvania. In addition, Mr. Miles was a former President of the
Wernersville VFW.
Mr. Miles was preceded in death by his wife of over 40 years, the
former Marjorie Elizabeth High, whom he wed November 27, 1941, and who
passed away on May 22, 1986. Surviving him are his two children, Larry
E. (Catherine) Miles of Wyomissing, Deborah (Michael) Shimko of
Nazareth; five grandchildren, Kelly (Tony) Curtis of Glen Allen, VA,
Jeffrey (Meredith) Miles currently serving at our Embassy in Mexico
City, Mexico, Jennifer Miles of Chicago, IL, Michael and Mark Shimko of
Nazareth; and three great-granddaughters, Caroline, Madelyn and Claire
Curtis of Glen Allen, VA.
Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remember and
celebrate the life of James C. Miles. I ask my colleagues to join me in
honoring his life and achievements here today.
____________________
NOW, MORE THAN EVER, WE NEED A DEPARTMENT OF PEACE
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, America needs a Department of Peace in
order to have a peace-making capacity to match its war-making capacity.
America should rely on preventive diplomacy, not on preventive war. We
should work within the framework of international law, not defy it.
My first campaign for Congress, following the teaching of Dr. King,
was based on ``jobs, peace and justice.'' That remains my priority
agenda. So I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 808,
Representative Kucinich's bill to establish a Department of Peace and
Non-Violence. At a time when the world is awash in war, he and Marianne
Williamson, founder of the Peace Alliance, offer this modern vision of
healing and preventing violence.
It could not be more timely. According to all reports, the Bush
administration is debating whether to attack Iran or to find peaceful
ways to deal with its nuclear program and its intervention in Iraq. The
prospect of President Bush starting a ``pre-emptive war'' with Iran, on
top of the tragedy in Iraq, is frightening. If that is not a compelling
argument for creating a Peace Department, then I do not know what is.
We attacked Iraq because President Bush would not pursue peace and
let U.N. inspectors complete their work. Instead, he distorted
intelligence and failed to foresee the terrible consequences of that
war. We must not repeat those mistakes in Iran, or anywhere else.
Last night, I spoke to an overflowing crowd that supports this
measure and I told them what I tell my colleagues now. The best way to
stop the war in Iraq is for the Congress to end our fighting there as
soon as possible, and the best way to prevent wars with Iran and other
adversarial nations is to establish a Department of Peace. We need a
Cabinet Secretary focused like a laser on how to keep peace with Iran
and constantly pressing the President to choose that strategy.
President Bush has already spent some $2 trillion on the war in Iraq.
Just think what we could have done with $2 trillion spent on health
care and education. That is another strong reason for the Department of
Peace. A small fraction of that amount could also have funded a robust,
proactive Department of Peace to analyze looming conflicts and to
advise the President on how to diffuse them without war.
The most crucial point is what happens when the President and his top
advisors confer in the Oval Office about an international crisis. We
need a Cabinet member at that table who will forcefully and
persistently advocate the peaceful options. Too often, the phrase
``search for peace'' is simply a political sound bite. President Bush
assured us he was searching for peace, and that attacking Iraq was his
``last resort,'' while he secretly plotted war. We need to ensure that
war really is America's last resort.
Some of my colleagues may find this proposal interesting but feel
they must deal with ``more pressing matters.'' What is more pressing
than preventing the violent deaths of our Gl's and of our fellow human
beings everywhere?
Some colleagues may think a Department of Peace is being offered as a
substitute for our Armed Forces. That is not true. We realize that
sometimes force proves necessary to protect our truly vital interests.
A Peace Department would complement the Pentagon, not replace it, but a
Peace Department would make war as rare as possible.
I remind those cynical about the absolute priority of pursuing
machinery for peace that Gandhi, Dr. King and Nelson Mandela, who each
pioneered paths of peace and non-violence, are now hailed worldwide as
heroes of humanity.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE RURAL COMMUNITIES INVESTMENT ACT, H.R. 833
______
HON. RON LEWIS
of kentucky
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues
of legislation I have introduced today to strengthen economies in rural
America.
The legislation that I have proposed, The Rural Communities
Investment Act, H.R. 833, extends tax initiatives to make the interest
income on farm real estate and certain rural housing loans exempt from
federal taxation.
Rural communities are facing sharp declines in population and
business development due to urban migration and consolidation trends in
U.S. agriculture. My bill would provide tax incentives to facilitate
low cost financing options for farm and rural housing loans. More
financing options will encourage greater competition among lenders and
better rates for borrowers.
The Rural Communities Investment Act, first introduced as H.R. 4854
in the 109th Congress, has received the support of the Kentucky Bankers
Association, a trade group representing the interests of thousands of
bank employees across the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
I believe the incentives offered in The Rural Communities Investment
Act will provide a solid foundation for new investment and economic
stability in small town America, making rural communities affordable
and attractive places to live and do business.
____________________
THE PASSING OF CHARLOTTE THOMPSON REID
______
HON. J. DENNIS HASTERT
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. HASTERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of a
former member of this House and one of my predecessors, Charlotte
Thompson Reid, who passed away on January 25, 2007. For those of us
from the Fox Valley who have since gone on to a life of public service,
Charlotte Thompson Reid is an inspiration to us all and an example of
how to serve the people you have been trusted to represent with the
utmost integrity.
Known as the ``Grand Lady of Aurora, Illinois,'' and ``Charley'' to
her friends, Charlotte accomplished great things for her hometown of
Aurora and the surrounding area. Her sparkling personality and just
plain Midwest-friendliness is renown throughout all of Chicago land.
As I have said before on the floor of this House, her service in
Congress overlapped with the beginning of my teaching career in
Yorkville, Illinois and her outstanding record helped inspire me to
seek public office in the late 1970s. In fact, Charley's endorsement
and work on my behalf helped me get elected in 1986 during my first and
toughest race.
After raising her family of four, she worked side by side with her
husband Frank as he ran for the House of Representatives in 1962. When
Frank suddenly died, she was elected in his stead. She won re-election
in four terms bringing her solid Midwestern values to this House.
Charlotte went on to be appointed to the F.C.C. where she served with
distinction until the mid-70s and was later appointed by President
Reagan to serve on the Presidential Task Force on International Private
Enterprise from 1985-1987.
To be sure, Charley's surviving children (Patricia, Susan, and
Frank), eight grandchildren, and thirteen great-grandchildren, should
be proud of the legacy she has left behind and carry her spirit for
life with them in their journeys.
Madam Speaker, we are all indebted to Charlotte Thompson Reid for her
energy, her gentle manner and what she meant for this country. I offer
her family my sincere condolences during this difficult time and wish
them the very best in the future.
[[Page 3282]]
____________________
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
______
HON. JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Madam Speaker, during the month of February,
we celebrate Black History Month. This year's theme is ``From Slavery
to Freedom: The Story of Africans in the Americas.''
I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to a man who
exemplifies the characteristics of a leader in the African American
community. It is with great pride that I introduce and honor Farrell J.
Chiles as he celebrates his 9th year as a member of Blacks In
Government (BIG) and on completion of his 5th consecutive year as its
Chairman of the Board.
In 2000, Mr. Chiles began his leadership role within BIG as the
President of the Los Angeles/Long Beach Area Chapter. The following
year, he was elected to the board of directors of the National
Organization.
In 2000, Mr. Chiles became the Chairman of the Board and has been re-
elected for 4 consecutive years. During his chairmanship, the
organization has grown and achieved remarkable successes.
Mr. Chiles is also a Life Member of the NAACP and the ROCKS, Inc.,
and an associate member of the Tuskegee Airmen, Inc.
Mr. Chiles is presently employed with the Department of the Army, at
the 63rd Regional Readiness Command in Los Alamitos, California where
he serves as the Division Chief of the Human Resources Division. He is
a member of the United States Army Reserve, a Vietnam Veteran, and was
mobilized for a year in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.
He is a Life member and former board member of the United States Army
Warrant Officers Association. Mr. Chiles is also a Life Member of the
Reserve Officers Association. During Black History Month in 2005, he
presented a report at its MidWinter Conference entitled ``African
American Warrant Officers--In Service to their Country--Their History,
Achievement, and Contributions to the Military and the United States.''
This year, his presentation is on African American Warrant Officers
during World War II.
Mr. Chiles served on the 37th Congressional District's Veterans
Congressional Council and is a Life Member of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars.
It is my sincere hope that my colleagues will join me in honoring and
recognizing Mr. Chiles and his significant accomplishments throughout
his career, his leadership with Blacks In Government, and his service
to the African American community and his country.
____________________
HONORING THE DIOCESE OF ORANGE COUNTY
______
HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to
honor the Diocese of Orange County which has recently celebrated its
30th anniversary and thank Bishop Tod Brown for his leadership of the
Diocese.
The Diocese of Orange was established in 1976 after 200 years of
presence by the Catholic Church symbolized by the Mission at San Juan
Capistrano built in 1776.
Since its original charter, The Diocese of Orange has always stood
for justice and peace and has grown with Orange County providing
immeasurable service to the community.
The Diocese has a hand in the education of over 65,000 students from
elementary through high school instilling values of community
involvement and a strong moral compass.
The Diocese has also provided assistance to over 400,000 patients
through its clinics, health centers, and hospitals in Orange County.
On top of these services, the Catholic Diocese has been a beacon of
hope for the underprivileged in Orange County and always provides help
to those in need.
The Diocese has united a culturally diverse group of people,
including my Vietnamese and Latino communities, through faith, love and
understanding. The Church has always been welcoming and I thank them
for their service.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW CATHOLIC SCHOOL
______
HON. BARON P. HILL
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. HILL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate St. Bartholomew
Catholic School in Columbus, Indiana for receiving the Department of
Education's 2006 No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School Award.
St. Bartholomew Catholic School is among only 250 schools in the
Nation to receive the Blue Ribbon School Award, and 1 of 14 schools in
Indiana honored with the award. The award recognizes the high academic
achievements of the students.
The Blue Ribbon School Award is a testament to the hard work and
dedication demonstrated by the students, parents, teachers, and
administrators of St. Bartholomew Catholic School, including its
Principal Kathy Schubel. This school has become a model for other
Indiana schools for its academic excellence.
It is my honor and privilege to recognize St. Bartholomew Catholic
School for its outstanding achievement in preparing our Hoosier
children for their future opportunities. I urge St. Bartholomew
Catholic School to continue to be a shining example of superior
leadership, and continue its commitment to excellence in education.
____________________
INTRODUCING THE HAWAIIAN HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2007
______
HON. NEIL ABERCROMBIE
of hawaii
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of legislation I am
proud to introduce today. The Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act of
2007 is the exact same language of H.R. 5851, reported out of the House
Financial Services Committee on September 28, 2006, in the 109th
Congress.
The measure reauthorizes existing Native Hawaiian housing programs
for 5 years and makes two adjustments to the program that will allow
the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to help more Native Hawaiians
whose incomes are equal to or less than 80 percent of the median
income.
In 2000 Congress passed legislation authorizing the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to provide block grants for
affordable housing for Native Hawaiians through the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands. The 2000 measure also authorized HUD home loan
guarantees for low-income Native Hawaiians. Eligible borrowers include
Native Hawaiian families, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and private nonprofit organizations
experienced in planning and developing affordable housing for Native
Hawaiians.
The Hawaiian Home Ownership Opportunity Act of 2007 reauthorizes
these programs and adds a new provision authorizing loan guarantees for
home mortgage refinancing. This introduces greater flexibility and
allows families to take advantage of lower interest rates as millions
of other American families have. The measure would also permit the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to issue bonds. This will allow the
Department to service more low-income families without a large increase
in appropriations.
This bill is about homeownership; this is not welfare or public
assistance. It offers another tool for a family to provide for a basic
need, housing. This is unbelieveably important in Hawaii where land is
scarce and the median home price on the island of Oahu is $639,000 and
the median condominium price is $310,000. This measure will advance our
efforts to address housing affordability in the islands.
I would like to thank the House Financial Services Committee Chairman
Barney Frank and Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity
Chairwoman Maxine Waters who have been extremely supportive in dealing
with the housing problems of Hawaii. I would also like to recognize my
colleague from Hawaii, Congresswoman Mazie Hirono, who, like Chairman
Frank and Chairwoman Waters, is a cosponsor of this legislation.
I urge my colleagues to help the residents of Hawaii and support this
legislation.