[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 7]
[Issue]
[Pages 8953-9181]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 8953]]
VOLUME 154--PART 7
SENATE--Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Benjamin L. Cardin, a Senator from the State of Maryland.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Eternal God, the giver of every good and perfect gift, thank You for
the favor which You have given to humanity. We are grateful, Lord, for
the nobility You have placed in human hearts that enables us to toil
until we pass the breaking point and still not break. Thank You that
You have enabled us to love until even self is forgotten. Thank You
also for those who willingly sacrifice even life itself for the things
they hold dear. Thank You that goodness always haunts us and sin ever
brings its remorse.
Thank You for the Members of this legislative body who labor to be
Your ambassadors of reconciliation in a divided world. May they commit
their time, effort, and resources to formulate public policy in keeping
with Your will for our beloved Nation.
We pray in Your great Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin 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 legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, May 14, 2008.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Benjamin L. Cardin, a Senator from the State of Maryland, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.
Mr. CARDIN thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, following leader time, there will be a
period of morning business for up to 1 hour, with the time equally
divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with
the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling
the final half. Following morning business, the Senate will resume
consideration of H.R. 980, the collective bargaining legislation.
Rollcall votes are expected to occur throughout the day.
Debate on this legislation has been exemplary. All amendments to this
point that have been offered relate to labor issues. That is important.
This is a bipartisan bill. We should be able to legislate on this,
hopefully get it completed in the near future. There is a lot of pent-
up desire on both sides to offer amendments on all different issues,
but I think we would get more done if we could focus on this
legislation.
I indicated to Senator Enzi, who was so involved in this, how we
would proceed. He has been, as he always is, a gentleman. Senator
Kennedy and Senator Enzi didn't get everything worked out on this piece
of legislation that they wanted prior to coming to the floor;
therefore, Senator Enzi feels an obligation to offer some amendments to
take care of some of the issues he believes are important, and I
support him on that.
____________________
MEASURE PLACED ON THE CALENDAR--S.J. RES. 32
Mr. REID. Mr. President, S.J. Res. 32 is at the desk and due for a
second reading.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the resolution
by title for the second time.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 32) limiting the issuance of
a letter of offer with respect to a certain proposed sale of
defense articles and defense services to the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia.
Mr. REID. I object to any further proceedings with respect to the
joint resolution.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection having been heard, the
joint resolution will be placed on the calendar.
____________________
FARM BILL CONFERENCE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before turning this over to the Republican
leader, we have worked long and hard on the farm bill. It is a
bipartisan bill. It has been a struggle to get where we are. I so
appreciate the work done by Senators who are responsible for bringing
this to the floor, Senators Harkin and Chambliss, Baucus, Grassley, and
a lot of other players who are involved. It is a very important piece
of legislation. We expect to turn to the farm conference report as soon
as we receive it from the House. We even will try to do it before it
comes here, if we can get a consent agreement. We hope we can limit
debate on this matter and get it out of here.
Remember, this week we have to hopefully dispose of the collective
bargaining legislation. We have to take care of the farm bill. We have
to appoint conferees on the budget. We also have to dispose of, because
we have a statutory problem, the media cross-ownership issue. There are
10 hours of debate on that. I hope we can limit that significantly.
Those are the items we need to complete this week--this week--and it is
already Wednesday.
[[Page 8954]]
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
____________________
COMMEMORATING 60 YEARS OF ISRAELI STATEHOOD
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, more than a hundred years ago, the
Hungarian journalist Theodore Herzl set into motion a political
movement that would change the world.
Herzl's vision for a Jewish homeland would not be realized in his own
lifetime, but the nation that would become the modern State of Israel
would have exceeded even his dreams of a prosperous home for the
descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
In the nearly 2,000 years that had passed since the exile, the Jewish
people had remained faithful to their traditions, praying and hoping
for their eventual return. That right was acknowledged in the Balfour
Declaration of 1917 and reaffirmed by the mandate of the League of
Nations in 1922. The horrors of the Nazi Holocaust made Israel's
establishment all the more urgent, and had created among the American
people a deep sympathy for the aspirations of the Jewish people. At the
stroke of midnight, on this day in 1948, the modern State of Israel was
born, and just eleven minutes later, here in the U.S., President Truman
recognized the new state, solidifying for all time the bond between our
two countries.
A deep friendship between America and Israel is natural, given the
many political and moral values we share. But our strong diplomatic
ties were far from inevitable. Historians tell us that recognition was
strenuously opposed by Secretary of State George Marshall, a foreign
policy realist who valued strategic interests over humanitarian
concerns. In this case, Marshall was overridden by his Commander in
Chief, who, following the Holocaust, saw the moral and humanitarian
imperative of the Jewish people having their own state. Despite
President Truman's deep respect for Marshall, it was a decision that
Truman would never regret.
The U.S. Congress, it should be noted, had spoken out on the issue
long before recognition was sought. As far back as 1922, Congress
expressed its sympathy for a sovereign homeland for the Jewish people.
It would take two more decades for that state to come about, but when
it did Congress and the American people were ready once again to
express overwhelming support.
In the decades since the birth of the modern State of Israel, much
has changed. This desert land has in many ways become ``a land that
floweth with milk and honey.'' In this, it reflects the ingenuity and
the resourcefulness of the Israeli people.
Over time, the U.S.-Israeli relationship has only grown stronger. A
bond that was originally based largely on moral grounds and shared
values has been fortified by shared strategic interests.
While some Arab states recognize Israel, most do not. And Israel
faces numerous threats, including an existential threat from Iran.
Yet on this day of celebration, it is my fervent hope that Israel
will soon celebrate its birth as a state that is recognized by all its
Arab neighbors, safe from the threat of terror. Until then, I know my
colleagues and I will do everything in our power to ensure that the
U.S.-Israeli relationship is robust, and that the Jewish state has all
it needs to defend itself.
On this anniversary, we send our best wishes and every expression of
heartfelt goodwill and congratulations to the Jewish people.
I yield the floor.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to a period of morning business for up to 1 hour,
with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or
their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the
Republicans controlling the final half.
The Senator from Ohio.
____________________
COLOMBIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, in a little more than 2 hours, I will join
members of the United States and Colombian labor organizations at a
news conference speaking out against human rights abuses in Colombia,
speaking out against the pending free-trade agreement that would ignore
those abuses and, in some sense, excuse them. Much of the talk about
this agreement centers around the violence and impunity in Colombia,
especially as it relates to trade unionists. And for good reason.
International organizations, human rights and religious groups look at
Colombia's record with alarm and urgency. Human rights defenders, trade
unionists, community leaders, and religious leaders are today, in too
many cases, receiving death threats from rearmed paramilitary groups
such as the Black Eagles and are reeling from a new wave of violence.
Before, during, and after a countrywide rally on March 6, 2008,
against paramilitary and all forms of violence, at least two march
organizers were killed. Union leaders Carlo Burbano and Carmen Cecilia
Carvajal were killed for simply trying to voice their views. Three
other social leaders were killed in events that also were associated
with the march. March organizers all over the country received death
threats. One organizer's house was attacked with gunfire on February
29. Those human rights issues are serious. Yet the administration takes
them in stride, barely acknowledging the Colombian culture of violence
and then impunity, in too many cases, for those who committed those
violent acts.
In a short while, I will stand with nearly a dozen brave women and
men who have come to Washington to give witness to the horrific danger
they and their loved ones face every day. These brave men and women
face threats to their jobs, their families, their homes, and their
lives. They are under threat because they have taken a stand. They have
fought for labor and human rights in Colombia.
One message I want them to take back to Colombia is that we are not
taking lightly what is happening to them. The administration may be
taking it lightly, but an awful lot of people in the House and Senate
and an awful lot of Americans don't take this lightly. We will push the
Bush administration to take a stand against the violence occurring in
Colombia instead of glossing over it.
The President must not forsake our Nation's values, our profound
respect for the rule of law, and our Nation's hard-won progress on
behalf of labor and human rights and basic rights. Again, the President
must not forsake our Nation's values and our profound respect for the
rule of law or our hard-won progress to establish labor, human, and
basic rights. The President must not forsake our values or dismiss the
sacrifices of so many.
The Colombian Government has taken steps to strengthen legal
institutions and processes--I acknowledge that--but the bottom line is
the violence is not subsiding. Murders of labor leaders continued at a
pace of one per week already this year.
Some newspapers have said the violence is down--and although it was
down last year, now it is back up--and we should move on with this
Colombia trade agreement because the violence is down. But when there
is one labor activist killed every single week, it is hard to say that
is an acceptable level. That is what people in the administration are
saying. That is what some newspapers are saying, that that is an
acceptable level of violence. No, we should not approve a trade
agreement when that kind of violence is aimed at too many labor
activists.
For the sake of both our nations, the United States should not sign a
trade deal with Colombia that shortchanges workers, that rewards
polluters, that
[[Page 8955]]
gives businesses the same power as sovereign governments. Later, I will
talk more about a part of this trade agreement and how it does reward
polluters and gives businesses the same power as sovereign governments.
In many cases, corporations will be able to override the democratically
attained rule of law, rules, and regulations. More on that later.
Back to the issue at hand with Colombia, we absolutely should not
sign a trade deal that forgives treachery toward labor leaders, that
says it is OK that these labor leaders are murdered. We in this body
will fight alongside our Colombian labor friends for fair trade, and we
will fight for their efforts to end the violence.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
____________________
FARM BILL
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today not only as a U.S. Senator
from Montana but also as a farmer who is actively engaged in
agriculture, family farm agriculture. It truly is a family farm that we
operate in north central Montana. Not only do my wife Sharla and I
farm, but when we need help, my brother, my son-in-law, my son, and my
daughter all step to the plate and help us.
We just finished spring planting in north central Montana, and with
it comes hopes for a great year. We all know the commodity prices right
now are very good, but the rest of the story is this: Diesel prices are
double what they were last year. Chemical prices have gone through the
roof. Fertilizer is becoming unaffordable because the cost is so high.
That is where the farm bill steps in--this farm bill which just came
out of conference committee which we will vote on, hopefully, later
today. In this farm bill, we raise the target price. We have a disaster
program that Senator Baucus fought so hard to get into this bill so
that farmers, when they do have a disaster, do not have to come back to
Washington, DC, with hat in hand. They will have a safety net. We have
country-of-origin labeling in this farm bill with some teeth in it that
I hope the next administration takes by the horns and adopts so people
know where their food comes from. It allows for the interstate shipment
of meat so small meatpackers can ship their products across State
lines, which has not been available before, to add value to meat
products throughout this country. It has a nonfood biofuel section of
which a part of that is a camelina pilot program, which I am very proud
of, which offers farmers another crop for their rotation and helps this
country become more energy independent. It also has a very aggressive
nutrition program to help people who need help buying food, which is
very important.
This bill is about rural development, about making rural America all
it can be, creating jobs, and helping meet this country's energy needs,
creating a level of energy independence.
This bill is also about food security for this country. We have been
very fortunate in the United States. We have not suffered the lack of
food that other countries have. I believe it is because of farm bills
of the past, and it is because family farmers have done such a great
job meeting this country's food demands.
We need to have a farm bill that helps support those family farmers,
and that is exactly what this farm bill does. Is it perfect? No. But is
it pretty darn good? Yes. This farm bill does things for people in
production agriculture that it needs to do to make sure they remain in
business, to make sure this country's food security needs are met.
So when I read editorials in newspapers on the east coast, west
coast, in the Washington Post, Boston Herald, Dallas Morning News, Los
Angeles Times--and the list goes on and on--that talk about this farm
bill being loaded with waste and giveaways and lard, I ask the folks
who write these editorials to come out to Montana and talk to somebody
who has their hands in the dirt. Go out to the Midwest and see the
kinds of challenges these folks have and ask yourself: Is this farm
bill really full of the kind of waste you are talking about? Because it
is not. It is a farm bill that meets the needs of America's family
farmers. As I have said many times before, if we lose this country's
family farmers, this country will change forever, and not for the
better.
So I applaud the folks who worked on the conference committee from
both parties, from all corners of this country, to develop a farm bill
that meets the needs of this country. I hope the Members of this Senate
join me later on today in voting for this farm bill and sending it to
the President's desk. I hope the President signs it because it is the
right thing to do.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll of the
Senate.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has now been 10 days since the
devastating tropical cyclone hit the country of Burma. The cyclone,
which brought sustained winds of 130 miles an hour, with gusts as high
as 160 miles an hour, really caused widespread destruction across this
Asian nation.
As you can see from the before and after satellite photographs that
are on this chart, the devastation was particularly severe in the
country's low-lying delta area. A 12-foot wall of water swept away
entire villages, leaving thousands dead and homeless. Bodies floated in
floodwaters, and survivors tried to reach dry ground on boats, using
blankets as sails. Fights broke out around the few shops that were able
to provide any kind of food to the hungry people.
The United Nations has estimated that between 1.2 million and 1.9
million people have been severely affected and that cyclone-related
deaths could reach over 100,000. Already, more than 200,000 people are
reported missing.
Immediately after the cyclone, countries around the world, including
the United States, offered emergency supplies and assistance. We
offered help in transporting badly needed food, water, and medicine. In
fact, U.S. Navy ships that by coincidence were in the region for
training exercises have remained in the vicinity to offer help. Yet
almost 2 weeks after the cyclone, this natural disaster has been made
worse by the reluctance of the Burmese military government to even
accept international aid on the scale that is necessary. Instead, they
have ignored the plight of their own people, as the entire world
watches. Not only have they refused most outside assistance, they
broadcast shameless propaganda showing the military handing out aid to
the people. Yet reports from the ground indicate the government has
done little or nothing to really help. In fact, there are reports that
the government's military has confiscated some of the limited aid that
has been allowed to enter into the country.
Not only has the military ignored the suffering of its own people,
but it tried to push through a sham referendum at the same time. Can
you imagine a national election in the midst of this devastation?
Critical time and resources were used to intimidate people to the
polls--time and resources that should have been spent for helpless and
suffering victims.
U.N. Secretary Ban Ki-moon summed up the situation when he said:
This is not about politics; it is about saving people's
lives. There is absolutely no more time to lose.
He continued:
Unless more aid gets into the country very quickly, we face
an outbreak of infectious diseases that could dwarf today's
crisis.
In a country that already has one of the worst health care systems of
the world, it is even harder for people who need medical attention to
find it. The environment is a rich breeding ground for infection and
contagious disease. We are hearing disturbing reports of
[[Page 8956]]
badly injured people trying to dress their own wounds. The government
has repeatedly forced humanitarian organizations such as Doctors
Without Borders to leave the hardest hit areas. Bodies are decomposing.
The contamination is spreading. The immediate risk of waterborne
disease is acute. The risk of other diseases, such as malaria and
dengue fever, is growing as mosquitoes rapidly reproduce in the flooded
areas.
Existing malnutrition among children, which affects up to half the
population in Burma, is even worse because of the flooding and cyclone.
Mr. President, perhaps the world should not be so surprised with this
military's outrageous reaction to this disaster. This is, after all, a
government with a long, well-documented history of brutality to its own
people.
In eastern Burma, the military has destroyed 3,000 villages over the
past 10 years. It has widely used forced labor and has recruited up to
70,000 child soldiers--far more than any other country in the world.
Today, Burma has an estimated 1.5 million internal and external
refugees.
It is a country with a well-documented history of political
repression and torture. Two years after the Burmese people protested
conditions in 1988, the government held an election. Aung San Suu Kyi,
a leader in human rights around the world, was placed under house
arrest before the election and has suffered mightily since. Despite her
party's victory she was subjugated and imprisoned in her own home for
most of the last 18 years. Suu Kyi has been awarded the Congressional
Gold Medal--recognition by this Congress of her singular efforts in
Burma to bring a new day and a new government. Last September,
thousands of monks peacefully protested for change in Burma. Many of
them were hunted down, imprisoned, and killed. This military junta has
ignored global calls for dialog and an end to the violence.
Earlier this week, ADM Timothy Keating, who leads the U.S. Pacific
Command, and USAID Administrator Henrietta Fore landed with an American
relief flight in Rangoon. They met directly with the Burmese military
officials to offer help. I hope this visit does help.
Last week, I spoke of the world taking definitive action to halt the
genocide in Darfur. Today, we face a mounting humanitarian crisis in
Burma.
Some, including French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, have said
the United Nations should invoke the responsibility to protect--a
provision that allows the world community to help those left
unprotected by their governments. Others argue that China, which also
has suffered a horrible natural disaster this week, should use its
friendship with Burma to help open the country to outside assistance.
At a minimum, Burma should view China's response to its earthquake, in
which it immediately and proactively stated its willingness to accept
emergency aid, as an important way to work with the global community.
Whatever the route, the world community, with American leadership and
generosity, must do more to address this humanitarian crisis.
____________________
HEALTH CARE
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, free market fundamentalism tells us that
all we have to do is get Government out of the way and the miraculous
powers of competition and supply and demand will solve all our
problems. This is a cardinal principle of the administration now in
power. They have had 7 \1/2\ years to test their theory, and the
results--for our economy and America's working families--has been a
disaster. They have put their theory to work, and it has thrown
Americans out of work. The middle class in America is shrinking and
suffering. Today, more Americans are falling out of the middle class
than are working their way into it.
A new poll by the respected Kaiser Family Foundation provides a
sobering look at the economic situation and the reality of economics in
America today. The Kaiser Foundation asked people about seven economic
trends or changes that they considered serious problems. Forty-four
percent of Americans said problems paying for gasoline is a serious
problem for their family's financial well-being. Twenty-nine percent
said problems getting a good-paying job or a raise are serious. Twenty-
eight percent of Americans said problems in paying for health care and
health insurance were serious and hurting their economic well-being.
Those are the top three economic strains on family budgets: The price
of gasoline, jobs--good-paying jobs--and paying for health care.
They also rated serious problems when they were asked about the
strains and problems their families face. Problems paying for mortgage
or rent: One out of five. Problems paying for food and credit card
debt: One out of five. Losing money in the stock market: About one out
of six.
We have heard a lot said about the strain the record gas prices are
placing on families and our economy. Yet in the midst of all this, with
the knowledge of what it is doing to our economy, to families, to
businesses, to farmers, big oil companies continue to rake in record
profits at the expense of the American economy.
I wish to take a few minutes to talk about another economic problem
that is hurting America's families and businesses: out-of-control
health care costs. A recent essay in Newsweek magazine contained an
eye-opening title: ``The Myth of the Best in the World.''
I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the
Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Newsweek, Mar. 22, 2008]
The Myth of `Best In The World'--A Spate of New Research Shows the U.S.
Behind Other Countries in Cancer Survival and Diabetes Care
(By Sharon Begley)
Not to be heartless or anything, but let's leave aside the
dead babies. In international comparisons of health care, the
infant mortality rate is a crucial indicator of a nation's
standing, and the United States' position at No. 28, with
seven per 1,000 live births worse than Portugal, Greece, the
Czech Republic, Northern Ireland and 23 other nations not
exactly known for cutting-edge medical science--is a tragedy
and an embarrassment. Much of the blame for this abysmal
showing, however, goes to socioeconomic factors: poor,
uninsured women failing to get prenatal care or engaging in
behaviors (smoking, using illegal drugs, becoming pregnant as
a teen) that put fetuses' and babies' lives at risk. You can
look at 28th place and say, yes, it's terrible, but it
doesn't apply to my part of the health-care system--the one
for the non-poor insured.
That, in a nutshell, is why support for health-care reform
is fragile and shallow. Yes, many people of goodwill support
extending coverage to the 47 million Americans who, according
to the Census Bureau, had no insurance for all or part of
2006. An awful lot of the insured, though, worry that messing
with the system to bring about universal coverage, even if it
allows more newborns to survive, might also hurt the quality
and availability of care that they themselves get (``If I
have trouble getting my doctor to see me now, what will
happen when 47 million more people want appointments?'').
This is where you start getting the requisite genuflection to
the United States' having ``the best health care in the
world.'' One problem: a spate of new research shows the
United States well behind other developed countries on
measures from cancer survival to diabetes care that cannot
entirely be blamed on the rich-poor or insured-uninsured
gulf. None of this implies a specific fix for the U.S.
health-care system. It does, however, say that ``the best in
the world'' is a myth that should not be an impediment to
reform.
How widespread is the ``best in the world'' view? In a
survey of 1,026 U.S. adults, the Harvard School of Public
Health and Harris Interactive reported last week, 55 percent
said they thought the United States has the best quality care
of any country. (Fewer called the U.S. system the best
overall, due to poor access and high costs.) ``Health-care
reform has failed before and will fail again if middle-income
people with insurance think it will make quality go down,''
says Harvard's Robert Blendon.
One thing Americans love about their system is the
availability (for the insured) of high-tech equipment and the
latest procedures. But there is abundant evidence that these
are not necessarily beneficial. I remember breast-cancer
patients screaming bloody murder in the 1990s when they were
denied access to bone-marrow transplants. Sadly, once the
treatment was subjected to
[[Page 8957]]
rigorous study, it was shown not to extend life. But it made
women who worked the system to get it (some private insurers
agreed to cover it) suffer even more than they already were.
In a centralized system such as Medicare, science more than
the market shapes what treatments are available. ``Some of
the things patients scream for,'' says Blendon, ``aren't
going to help them.'' Though they do run up the U.S. medical
bill. At $6,697 per capita in 2007, it is the highest in the
world (20 percent more than Luxembourg's, the next highest)
and more than twice the average of the 30 wealthy countries
in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
If only it bought better care. Only 55 percent of U.S.
patients get treatments that scientific studies show to work,
such as beta blockers for heart disease, found a 2003 study
in The New England Journal of Medicine. One reason is that
when insurance is tied to employment, you may have to switch
doctors when you change jobs. In the past three years, says
Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, 32 percent
of Americans have had to switch doctors. The result is poor
continuity of care--no one to coordinate treatment or watch
out for adverse drug interactions. Such failures may
contribute to the estimated 44,000 to 98,000 annual deaths
from medical mistakes just in hospitals, and to ``amenable
mortality''--deaths preventable by medical care. Those total
about 101,000 a year, reports a new study in the journal
Health Affairs. That per capita rate puts America dead last
of the study's 19 industrialized countries.
Other data, too, belie the ``best in the world'' mantra.
The five-year survival rate for cervical cancer? Worse than
in Italy, Ireland, Germany and others, finds the OECD. The
survival rate for breast cancer? You'd do better in
Switzerland, Norway, Britain and others. Asthma mortality?
Twice the rate of Germany's or Sweden's. Some of the U.S.
numbers are dragged down by the uninsured; they are twice as
likely to have advanced cancer when they first see a doctor
than are people with insurance, notes oncologist Elmer Huerta
of Washington Hospital Center, president of the American
Cancer Society. But the numbers of uninsured are too low to
fully explain the poor U.S. showing.
It isn't realistic to expect America to be the best in
every measure of medical quality. And none of this tells us
how to reform the U.S. system. But it does say the ``best in
the world'' is misguided medical chauvinism that should not
block attempts at reform.
Mr. DURBIN. This column points out that the United States spent
almost $7,000 per person on medical care last year--$6,697 per capita.
That is the highest in the world. It is 20 percent more per person than
the next highest spending nation of Luxembourg, and it is more than
twice as much as the 30 wealthiest countries around the world.
In a survey of over 1,000 adults, the Harvard School of Public Health
and Harris Interactive found that 55 percent thought the United States
had the best-quality care in the world.
The fact that we spend so much per person may lead people to that
conclusion--that we have the best care. After all, we spend the most
money. Yet the facts tell us otherwise. The highest cost doesn't mean
the highest quality. We rank below other nations in many critical
health outcomes. There is no doubt in my mind if I were seriously ill
in any part of the world, I would try to find my way to the United
States. There is no question we have the very best doctors, the very
best medical professionals, hospitals, and medical technology.
But when you take a step back and look at the outcomes for the
American people, it tells a different story. The 5-year survival rate
for cervical cancer in the United States--cervical cancer--is worse
than Italy, Ireland, Germany, and many others. The survival rate for
breast cancer in the United States is worse than the survivor rate in
Switzerland, Norway, Britain, and other nations. Our asthma mortality
rate is twice the rate of Germany and Sweden. True, we have the best
hospitals but not the best outcomes, in many instances.
Only 66 percent of U.S. patients receive treatments that scientific
studies show to work, such as beta blockers for heart disease,
according to the New England Journal of Medicine.
According to a 2007 survey by the Independent Commonwealth Fund,
adults in the United States are more likely to forgo needed health care
than adults in Australia, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand,
and the United Kingdom. Nearly one out of five American adults surveyed
said they have serious problems paying medical bills. That is more than
double the rate in the next highest country. Nearly a third of those
surveyed had spent more than $1,000 out of pocket in the last year on
medical costs not covered by insurance. Only one out of five
Australians and one out of eight Canadians spent that much money on
out-of-pocket health expenses. No other nation came even close.
Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major
effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. The top two nations
in the world: France and Italy. The United States did not even make the
top 10; not even the top 20. We ranked 37th in the world, according to
the World Health Organization, when it came to our health care systems.
We have this vanity in the United States that because we spend so much
money on health care, we must be the best in the world. It is not true.
More people die each year from medical and surgical mistakes in the
United States than in any other industrialized nation. Incidentally,
more Americans die of medical mistakes each year than die from AIDS,
breast cancer, and automobile accidents combined.
In health information technology, we lag far behind. By 2005, the
United Kingdom had invested 450 times more per person in public funding
of health information than the United States. We rank the highest in
infant mortality among 23 nations and near the bottom in healthy life
expectancy at age 60. We are 15th among 19 countries in deaths from a
wide range of illnesses that would not have been fatal if treated
timely and in an effective way. We do well in reducing smoking, but we
still have the worst rates of obesity.
When you get beyond the myths and look at the studies, it becomes
clear. The quality of a nation's health care is determined not by how
much we spend but by whether we provide universal care that works. The
United States is the only major industrialized nation without universal
health coverage. We cannot give an assurance to every single American
that they will have a doctor at hand when they need one. We can't give
them the assurance that they can have basic access to needed health
care when they absolutely need it for their family. Other nations have
met that responsibility. We have not.
Ironically, the persistent and unfounded belief that Americans
receive the best health care is a major reason why we don't move toward
change and don't move toward providing the peace of mind which every
American and every American family deserves. The health care and
insurance companies spend millions of dollars to frighten Americans
into thinking that covering everyone with health insurance will somehow
mean less coverage for others and less choice for Americans who already
have health insurance. That is a scare tactic. Look at all the other
countries in the world that have better health care at much lower cost.
By the way, when it comes to health care choice--especially choice of
doctors--a third of Americans with health insurance say they had to
change doctors in the last 3 years because their insurance company
insisted on it. One out of three Americans. So the idea that consumers
are in charge of their own health care choices is belied by that
statistic.
There is no reason why we can't build a better health care system in
America that lowers costs, covers everybody, and makes us a healthier
nation. One of the first steps is to get beyond the myths and the
vanity and actually look at the facts.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
RECOGNIZING ISRAEL'S 60TH ANNIVERSARY
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to join others of my colleagues in
helping the nation of Israel celebrate its 60th anniversary.
[[Page 8958]]
The nation of Israel was founded, of course, on May 14, 1948. I think
it is appropriate that we honor this ally of the United States and
reaffirm the bonds of close friendship and cooperation between our two
countries. This alliance, this friendship, has never been more
important to the mutual security and safety of our people than it is
today. This friendship, of course, spans oceans and is based on shared
values.
I was pleased when Congress recently reaffirmed our commitment to
preserving and strengthening that alliance by passing a concurrent
resolution honoring Israel and recognizing its important mission and
its history.
In the face of common threats, our relationship with Israel today is
as important as ever. We have mutual goals in defeating radical Islamic
terrorism, fostering Middle East stability, and promoting freedom.
Israel has shown an unwavering conviction in democracy, justice,
security, and peace. The nation of Israel and its people deserve not
only our friendship and our support but our admiration as well. I
extend my warmest congratulations to the State of Israel and the
Israeli people for this important anniversary.
____________________
SENATE INACTION
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to turn to an important vote that
we had yesterday in the Senate. Unfortunately, yesterday morning, we
saw only 42 Senators voted to do anything significant about the high
price of gasoline at the pump. This is just the latest example, I am
afraid, of congressional intransigence and turning a deaf ear to the
cries of the American people for Congress to do something to help bring
relief at the gas pump. Unfortunately, it is just the latest example.
I know most of us came to Washington to serve in the Congress to try
to solve problems. Unfortunately, the mentality inside the beltway
seems to be that we ought to spend more time shooting at each other on
a partisan political basis and not working together to solve problems.
Unfortunately, there are more examples than just high gas prices to
demonstrate this mentality.
I will just point to four areas where we have seen significant delays
in congressional action that have had tremendous consequences on the
American people. First and foremost is on our national security. It was
89 days ago that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act basically
expired. The most recent authorization would have allowed us to
continue to listen in to foreign terrorists communicating with each
other on the telephone in a way that would allow us to detect and deter
terrorist activity and defeat terrorist activity.
Why the House of Representatives and Speaker Pelosi would refuse to
allow this important piece of legislation to come to the floor after it
passed the Senate on a strong bipartisan vote is, frankly, beyond me.
But it has been 89 days now since we have had the ability to detect new
terrorist threats, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
basically went dark and expired.
Secondly, it has been 540 days since we have failed to act on the
Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Free-trade agreements should not be
partisan affairs. It is good, in fact, for us to have free-trade
agreements because it opens markets to American farmers and American
manufacturers and producers for their goods in other countries. In
fact, Colombia does about $2.3 billion in trade with the State of Texas
each year, which is very important to my State. Unfortunately, when
Texas sells goods and produce to Colombia, they carry large tariffs,
which disadvantages my manufacturers, my producers, and my farmers in
Texas, while Colombian goods that are sold in the United States,
because of other agreements, basically come in duty free.
Why Speaker Pelosi would fail to allow this important free-trade
agreement to be taken up and voted on in the House of Representatives,
again, escapes me. This is in the best interest of the United States.
It is in the best interest of my State and the people who work there.
At a time when we are dealing with stimulus packages because we are
concerned about the softening of our economy, what better stimulus
could we enact than to pass this free-trade agreement, which would
strengthen the robust markets in Colombia for American goods and
produce? But here we are 540 days later, and it is bogged down in
partisan disagreements.
The next number is another important number. I think one of the most
important jobs the Senate has is to take up and consider the
nominations of individuals who have been proposed for service on the
Federal bench and to serve in that important branch of Government. But
we have seen that because of inaction in the Judiciary Committee, on
some nominees such as Peter Keisler--nominated more than 685 days ago--
and we have seen nominees out of North Carolina pass the 300-day mark
without even so much as a hearing in the Judiciary Committee.
This is another example of partisan delays that, frankly, I think
frustrates the American people. It certainly frustrates me. It is an
example of where we ought to act and find an opportunity to come
together to solve a problem, and the problem is particularly in the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where many litigants simply cannot
find access to the courts because there are not enough judges sitting
on those benches to listen to cases. Whether you are a crime victim or
a small business man or woman or whether you are just a regular citizen
in that Fourth District, we have a judicial emergency with about one-
third of the seats vacant. Frankly, that creates a lack of access to
justice. So, again, it has been 685 days without a vote on some of the
nominees in the Judiciary Committee. We need to do better.
Of course, it was 751 days ago when Speaker Pelosi,--then running for
election, and before the 2006 election, where Democrats were given the
majority status in both the House and Senate, said: Elect us and we
will produce a commonsense plan to help bring down the price of
gasoline at the pump. Unfortunately, the price of gasoline at about the
time that she took office as Speaker of the House was about $2.33 a
gallon, I believe. And now, of course, it is about $3.75 a gallon.
Yesterday, as I mentioned, we had an opportunity to help provide
relief for American families, to help them deal with their family
budgets when it comes to the cost of gasoline. But I think we took a
half step that did not do very much. What I mean by that is we did vote
to quit filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but if you look at how
much oil that represents that would then be available in the open
market, it is roughly 70,000 barrels of oil a day. Now, 70,000 barrels
of oil a day sounds like a lot of oil, unless you consider the amount
of oil consumed globally by all the countries on the planet. That is 85
million barrels of oil a day. How much of an impact do you think it
will have on gasoline at the pump to provide an additional 70,000
barrels of oil, when worldwide consumption is 85 million? You don't
have to be a Ph.D. in mathematics to figure that out. It will not be
big. As a matter of fact, it will be minuscule--not completely
insignificant but not very much.
On the other hand, we had an opportunity to vote to reduce our
dependence upon imported oil and gas from dangerous enemies of the
United States, countries such as Iran and Venezuela, both of whom are
members of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
Unfortunately, the Senate turned down that opportunity to produce as
much as 3 million barrels of oil a day from the U.S. reserve because we
would not allow or authorize Alaskans to produce oil in Alaska. We
would not authorize the States along the Outer Continental Shelf to be
able to develop their oil reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf, and
we would not allow States in the West to develop the oil shale that
could produce massive amounts of oil right here in America, reducing
our dependency on imported oil from dangerous countries such as Iran
and Venezuela.
What I don't understand is, if our friends across the Senate--and I
believe
[[Page 8959]]
there was only one vote against the decision to stop putting oil in the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But if everybody in the Senate virtually
agrees that adding 70,000 barrels of oil to the worldwide supply of oil
would help bring down the price of gas at the pump--however minuscule
that figure may be--how much more would it be likely to bring down the
price of gas at the pump to add 3 million additional barrels to
worldwide supply? Of course, this would not be from Saudi Arabia or
Iran or Venezuela. It would be from the good old USA.
Again, how many new jobs would that create at home, when our economy
has turned soft? It would create a lot of jobs in Texas. I know it
would create jobs in Louisiana and, frankly, all over the country.
Instead of taking an opportunity to take a bold move on a bipartisan
basis to increase the supply of American oil and gas, we find ourselves
with half steps and relatively insignificant votes to increase
production. I am glad that, finally, the Congress has recognized that
the laws of supply and demand are not inapplicable in the District of
Columbia. As a matter of fact, for a long time, it seemed that we
outright refused to recognize the economic laws that apply across the
planet right here in Washington, DC.
So I ask my friends and colleagues, if you are unwilling to allow us
to open American oil reserves when the price of gasoline is $3.75 a
gallon and the price of a barrel of oil is $125, will you allow us to
do it when gasoline hits $4 a gallon? How about when it hits $4.50 a
gallon or $5 a gallon or $10 a gallon? How about when the price of oil
hits $150 a barrel or $200 or $250?
We know because of the geopolitical situation with countries such as
Iran, which are no friend to the United States and are major oil
producers and are part of OPEC, that causes speculation on the spot
market to push the price of oil higher. I believe it would have a
dramatic impact on those prices and, ultimately, because oil represents
70 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline, I believe it would
ultimately bring down the price of gasoline and provide some much
needed relief to the average American family.
Congress's failure to act on a strong bipartisan basis to do it is,
frankly, inexplicable to me, just as it is inexplicable to me why we
would not allow our intelligence officials to listen to the
conversations of new targets of foreign terror surveillance, and why we
would continue to let American businesses and farmers be disadvantaged
by tariffs on goods and produce sold to the nation of Colombia, and why
we would wait more than 685 days to consider the nominations of
judicial nominees and allow crime victims and small businesses and
others to go without their day in court.
Just for the same reasons those delays are inexplicable, why are we
still waiting 751 days after Speaker Pelosi made the statement that she
would produce a commonsense plan to bring down the price at the pump?
It is inexplicable to me why we have to wait with no real solutions
in sight.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is
recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified when I have
consumed 6 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will so advise.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I also rise on the Senate floor today to
talk about the crisis we face in terms of gasoline and energy prices
and the need for us to act in terms of this true crisis that affects
every Louisiana family I represent and every American family this body
represents.
When this new Congress, led by Democratic leadership, took office,
energy prices, gasoline prices were supposed to be a top priority. At
the time, the price at the pump was $2.31. Yet today it has risen to
$3.76 a gallon. That is a 61-percent increase.
If this was such a priority at $2.31, if we have had this dramatic
increase, the fastest, the most dramatic, the most onerous on the
consumer in history, why isn't this leading to action? The simple
reality is that it is not.
This Congress has been tangled in inaction, unable to take
significant action on this issue, and that has to end for the good of
the American people.
As my colleague from Texas reiterated, this is not overly
complicated. Price is set by the equation of where supply meets demand.
That is economics 101. That is the first lesson of economics. So we
need to do everything we can to reduce demand, mitigate worldwide
demand, which is clearly increasing, particularly from rapidly growing
countries such as China and India, and we can do that through
conservation, fuel efficiency, and new sources of energy. But we also
need to increase supply. We need to do both at once because our energy
picture is so challenging and so dire.
So I rise to join my colleagues who are saying we need to act, we
need to break out of this gridlock, we need to act on energy prices
which affect all American families.
Unfortunately, we had that opportunity in the last several weeks and,
once again, the Senate passed on the opportunity, shut down the
opportunity to take real action.
Again, this is an enormous challenge, and we need to do everything we
can, both on the demand side--and I support those measures: increased
energy efficiency, increased levels of conservation, development of new
technology and new energy sources. We have done a little bit of that,
but we need to do more. But we also need to act on the supply side,
increasing our supply of energy, particularly our domestic supply which
increases our energy independence, lessens our dependence on unfriendly
foreign nations.
Several weeks ago, we were on an FAA bill, and I had an amendment at
the desk that would constitute real, meaningful action. It was very
simple. It would have established a trigger at the price of $126 per
barrel of oil. When the price reached that mark--and we are,
unfortunately, perilously close already--then the trigger would have
been pulled, and we would have been able to explore and produce off
America's Outer Continental Shelf, where we have vast resources of
energy. But we would only do that with two significant caveats, with
two significant demands.
The first is that the host State involved, wherever we were proposing
drilling, would have to want that activity. The Governor and the State
legislature would both have to affirm that they wanted to produce off
their coast. It is very important, very fair, respecting State
sovereignty and States rights.
Secondly, my amendment would have built on provisions we passed
several years ago to give those host States significant royalty sharing
so anything produced off their coast, 37.5 percent of that royalty
would go to the State for the State to use on its top priorities,
whether they be highways or higher education or, in the case of
Louisiana, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, hurricane
evacuation routes. That was a very sound, sensible policy we set a
couple years ago as we opened new areas of the gulf.
My amendment, which I had at the desk for the FAA reauthorization
bill, would have expanded on that good policy initiative.
Unfortunately, we couldn't have a full debate on that amendment. We
couldn't have any vote on that amendment because the Democratic
majority leader filled the amendment tree, took up all opportunity for
amendment for himself and blocked all other amendments from coming to
the floor.
That is unfortunate on any issue. It is particularly unfortunate,
again, on the top concern of the American people, when prices at the
pump are sky-high and continuing to rise, when they have risen from
$2.31 a gallon at the beginning of this Democratic Congress to $3.76 a
gallon today--a dramatic, onerous, 61-percent increase.
Yesterday, we had another opportunity to break through the gridlock
and act, and it was by adopting the McConnell-Domenici amendment. That
amendment proposed a number of measures, including something very
similar to my Vitter amendment regarding the Outer Continental Shelf.
[[Page 8960]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator has used
6 minutes.
Mr. VITTER. I thank the Chair. That McConnell-Domenici amendment
included a number of measures, something very similar to my proposal
with regard to the Outer Continental Shelf. It would have dramatically
expanded our domestic supply. It would have done something real,
concrete and meaningful and have a significant impact over time on the
price at the pump.
Yet again, the Senate refused to act, refused to move forward with
that significant proposal that would do major things on the supply side
and would couple it with other actions we are taking and further
actions we need to take on the demand side.
Instead, we did something extremely modest. We said: For now, we are
not going to continue to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I
supported that move. It is true that will free up 70,000 barrels of oil
to put into the open market versus pumping into the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, but that is very modest. That is hardly going to make a dent
on the price at the pump.
In contrast, all the provisions of the McConnell-Domenici amendment,
all that extra supply domestically would have meant 3 million barrels
in contrast to 70,000. Yet again, the Democratic leadership and the
Senate overall refused to act, refused to address this issue, the most
serious that Americans are facing today, the one that hits their
pocketbook over and over, causing them real concern about their family
budget and how they are going to make it.
I urge the Senate to get out of this do-nothing attitude. I urge the
Senate to act on this crucial issue for all American families.
Again, this is not brain surgery. This is economics 101, supply and
demand. It is not either/or. We need to do everything we can to lessen
demand, and I support those measures to increase efficiency, to
increase efforts at conservation, to increase new technology efforts
that will lead us to new fuel sources. That is absolutely necessary.
But it needs to be coupled with action to increase supply, particularly
domestic supply, by tapping those vital reserves, particularly on our
Outer Continental Shelf.
I join the Senator in Texas in asking, if we are not going to do it
now at $3.76 a gallon, when are we going to act? Are we going to wait
for $4? Are we going to wait for $5? We need to act now. This is a
serious issue for all Americans. This hits the pocketbook of every
American family. We need to act now. We need to act not with political
demagoguery, not with pure rhetoric. We need to act with measures that
have an impact, both on the demand side and the supply side. I hope the
Senate and the Congress move to do that.
____________________
ISRAEL'S 60TH ANNIVERSARY
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to also speak on Israel's 60th
anniversary. It is a very important date for a truly remarkable country
and a remarkable people who, in a mere six decades of existence, have
built a vibrant, successful, modern democracy out of almost nothing.
When I was still a student, I had the opportunity to visit Israel
with my sister. She had a college friend who had moved to Israel after
graduation. Even back then--I was very young--I couldn't help be
impressed by the determination and perseverance of all the people I met
and their effort to build a vibrant, democratic state, to create a
safe, secure homeland for all Jews, no matter where they may have
originally been from around the world.
I had a second opportunity to visit Israel as a Member of Congress
many years later. It was a very different sort of trip, very different
itinerary, a very different set of meetings than when I was a student.
But I left with the same strong feelings of respect and admiration for
all the people of Israel, the same recognition of their determination
and unflagging faith in their nation and countrymen. Their belief in
the importance of their mission had not faded at all in the years
between my visits.
What makes today especially notable is it is the 60th anniversary of
the founding of the State of Israel. There is wonderful hope in this
celebration of the 60th anniversary, and there is also sober
appreciation of the challenges that remain.
On the hopeful side, on the impressive side, is that in a mere 60
years, as I have said, Israel has created a nation characterized by
strong democratic principles, a compassionate and determined people,
innovative industry, especially in technology, medicine, and science, a
competitive global economy.
In a mere six decades, Israel has built all that tremendous
innovation, tremendous economic prosperity and progress virtually out
of nothing, virtually out of the sands of the desert. It has become a
beacon of freedom and democracy in a region that has very few examples
to speak to. Israel is the only fully developed democracy in that
sense. It represents to all peoples what can be achieved when people
come together in a common cause, set aside differences, work together
in a very determined way to make life better for them and their
children. I recognize this important anniversary.
I yield the floor.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is now closed.
____________________
PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE COOPERATION ACT OF 2007
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 980, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 980) to provide collective bargaining rights
for public safety officers employed by States or their
political subdivisions.
Pending:
Reid (for Gregg-Kennedy) amendment No. 4751, in the nature
of a substitute.
Hatch amendment No. 4755 (to amendment No. 4751), to
provide for a public safety officer bill of rights.
Alexander amendment No. 4760 (to amendment No. 4751), to
guarantee public safety and local control of taxes and
spending.
Leahy amendment No. 4759 (to amendment No. 4751), to
reauthorize the bulletproof vest partnership grant and
provide a waiver for hardship for the matching grant program
for law enforcement armor vests.
Corker amendment No. 4761 (to amendment No. 4751), to
permit States to pass laws to exempt such States from the
provisions of this act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend and colleague, Senator
Enzi. I will now make a comment about the pending legislation. I
thought we did have some good discussion and debate on yesterday. A
number of important issues were raised. I will try this morning at
least to respond to some of those matters to clear up what I think are
some questions we had. Obviously, we are interested in moving this
process forward, considering amendments, and getting to the Senate's
business.
Once again, I will mention two organizations that support our Public
Safety Employee Cooperation Act: the International Association of
Firefighters and the Union of Police Associations. We pointed out this
week is set aside in our Nation, and has been set aside since 1962, to
give special honor to our men and women in the police organizations who
have lost their lives in the line of duty. It is a very special, solemn
ceremony in which they participate. We are mindful of their service
every day but especially this week. We are grateful for their strong
support for this legislation. They have studied it, analyzed it, looked
into it, and support it.
The National Association of Police Organizations and a great many
other organizations have supported this legislation--our first
responders. These are the organizations that speak for firefighters,
speak for police officers, speak for the first responders.
Yesterday we had a good debate about the bill. I think we are off to
a good start. I would like to take some time today to set the record
straight as to what the bill does do and what the
[[Page 8961]]
bill does not do. Fundamentally, this bill is about choice, who should
make the choice whether public safety workers get a union--the Federal
Government, State government, or the workers themselves.
Right now we have a system where the Government makes the choice--26
States give workers the ability to form a union if they want one; 24
States deny workers that option. These 24 State governments think they
know better than the workers themselves what is best.
I disagree. Our public safety officers are on the front lines every
day fighting fires, stopping crimes, saving lives. They know best how
to protect the public. They know best how to keep safe on the job. They
know best whether they need a union to represent their interests.
The Cooperation Act gives this choice to the workers. It says the
States have to provide a path that workers can use if they decide they
want a union. If the workers do not want a union, fine, they do not
have to walk down that path. But the State has to make it available and
let the workers choose, just as it is with the right to vote.
Individuals do not have to vote, but they have the right to vote. This
is the State making that judgment. We recognize that as a fundamental
right there and here.
Under current law, States make the judgment decision. With the
Alexander amendment it will allow the States to make the judgment and
decision. Under the Corker amendment, that is it. Under our Cooperation
Act it is the workers themselves who make the judgment--do they want
it, don't they want it--and we abide by the outcome. That is a basic,
fundamental difference.
It is not going to be hard for the States to build this path. All
they have to do is provide for four core rights: No. 1, the right to
form and join a union; No. 2, the right to sit down and talk at the
table; No. 3, the right to sign a contract if both parties agree; and,
No. 4, the right to go to a neutral third party when they have
disputes.
They can make the judgment whether they want arbitration, whether
they want mediation, whether they want fact finding. There are no
requirements. They can make those judgments; they can make those
decisions. They make the judgments.
Apart from these four things, all other details of the collective
bargaining system are left up to the States. States have the
flexibility to decide whether to exempt small communities. They decide
how workers can select a union--through card check, elections, or both.
Do we understand? The States make those judgments and decisions.
States can decide how workers and employers should resolve disputes--
through arbitration, mediation, fact finding, or some other mechanism.
If a State decides not to pass a law providing a framework for
bargaining, or if the State law does not provide for the four core
rights, the Federal labor relations authority will step in to ensure
that workers have these rights. But that is only if the State refuses
to act.
We heard a good deal of discussion about the role of this authority
and how we do not understand what this is all about and how this is
going to change federalism. It is very simple what this legislation
does do and what it does not permit. Our first responders sacrifice so
much for us each day, the least we owe them is the ability to choose
for themselves whether they want a union. We owe them at least that
much dignity and respect, and that is what the Cooperation Act
provides.
I hope this explanation will ease the minds of many of my colleagues.
I think there have been a lot of misconceptions about this bill
floating around. I hope this explanation can alleviate some of those
concerns. We heard a lot of talk yesterday about this bill imposing
Washington's will on the States. Of course that is not true. I happen
to think that unions are good for workers, but nothing in this bill
imposes my opinion or the opinion of my colleagues on public safety
officers. Under this bill, Congress does not make the decision whether
public safety officers have a union. Instead, firefighters, police
officers, have the choice. That is where the decision will be made.
Several amendments were filed yesterday that would give the State and
local governments, the employers, the opportunity to opt out of the
requirements of this bill. But these opt-out provisions actually block
the rights of the first responders. They would allow the State and
local governments to cut off public safety officers' rights. We should
let police and firefighters decide whether they want to exercise their
rights to have a union. That is what this bill would do.
Senator Alexander and Senator Enzi said people in their States are
happy without unions. If that is true, then it is likely nothing will
change. If those public safety officers believe their voices are being
heard and their concerns are being addressed, then they will choose not
to form unions. Nothing in this bill forces them to make a different
choice.
Senator Alexander and Senator Enzi should put their assertions to the
test and pass this legislation. If they are right, nothing will change.
But if they are wrong, public safety officers in Tennessee and Wyoming
will vote for unions and get a voice in the workplace.
We also heard that Washington was imposing a one-size-fits-all
federal system on the States. This is another misconception. At every
turn in drafting this legislation, Senator Gregg and I went out of our
way to give States the flexibility to adopt a collective bargaining law
that works for them. Under this bill, Congress will not tell Tennessee
or Wyoming or any other State how to implement the law. States can
choose how to comply.
As I mentioned, States only have to provide the most basic rights.
Other than those basic rights, States have the flexibility to adopt the
system that works best for them.
I would note that several of the amendments filed yesterday would
take these basic choices away from the States and mandate a Federal
rule on issues such as right to work or card check. That is not what
this bill should be about. The flexibility for States is important as
long as the core rights are there.
States also have the flexibility to completely control costs under
this bill. This control means there is no risk of unfunded mandates. My
colleagues across the aisle love to talk about charges of unfunded
mandates, but it simply does not fit.
This bill comes with no--I repeat no--price tag. Nothing in this bill
tells the State and local governments to spend any money. Nothing says
they have to raise wages. Nothing says they have to improve benefits or
shift money from local priorities into public safety. Governments are
free to write their own contracts. At the bargaining table, State and
local governments are free to offer bargaining proposals that are
consistent with their local fiscal needs. They cannot be forced to
agree to any terms they do not want or cannot afford.
In addition to being able to protect their interests at the
bargaining table, State and local governments can also safeguard their
financial interests through the legislative process. The bill
explicitly allows State and local legislative bodies to retain the
right to approve or disapprove funding for a contract by requiring an
agreement be presented to a legislative body as part of the process for
approving such contract or memorandum of understanding.
That simply means elected Representatives have the final say on
spending. Do we understand that? The bill explicitly allows the State
and local legislative bodies to retain the right to approve or
disapprove funding for a contract by requiring an agreement ``be
presented to a legislative body as part of the process for approving
such contract or memoranda of understanding.'' Elected Representatives
have the final say on spending.
Remember also that under this bill, public safety officers have no
right to strike and no requirement of binding arbitration. That means
no one can
[[Page 8962]]
force a contract on a State and local government under this bill.
The other side's additional argument that there will be costs
associated with just implementing any new State law is a red herring.
The costs will be minimal. All State and local governments already have
human resource departments in place. In addition, collective bargaining
often creates new efficiencies that actually save money. In Miami, FL,
the local firefighter union worked with the community to reconfigure
EMS services and ended up saving taxpayers a great deal of money.
On top of all these safeguards for State and local governments, we
have adopted an additional safeguard for the States' smallest
communities. In addition to the protections I have just outlined, the
bill allows State governments to exempt these smaller communities if
they want. If a town has fewer than 5,000 residents or employs fewer
than 25 workers, the State can say: Our law does not apply to you.
You can see this bill is a reasonable way to extend the choice of
whether to have a union for our Nation's public safety officers. We
have taken extensive steps to protect State and local flexibility to
ensure they will not be burdened by these procedures.
A final argument that we have heard about States rights yesterday was
that this bill violates States rights under the Constitution. This
argument is simply false. The bill has been carefully crafted to comply
with the current Supreme Court cases on the ability of Congress to
regulate State governments. Throughout our history, our Federal
Government has set core labor standards, such as minimum wage and
overtime rules, that apply also to State workers. Do we understand
that? Minimum wage, overtime apply to State workers. They apply to them
in Massachusetts. They apply in Tennessee.
Bargaining rights are no different. I do not think anyone in this
Chamber would argue that the State government should not have to comply
with the basic standards prohibiting them from discriminating against
workers based on race or gender. The same is true for collective
bargaining rights. Bargaining rights are civil rights too.
Moreover, there is a strong Federal interest in the performance of
State and local first responders. We have an increasingly Federal
approach to national security. We have created a Department of Homeland
Security and appropriated $40 billion for that--$40 billion, for
homeland security.
The last time I looked at the map, all the States fell within that
criterion, in terms of being protected. In our post-
9/11 world, this national response to terrorism increasingly depends on
coordination with State and local public safety officers. It is more
appropriate than ever for the Federal Government to ensure that public
safety officers are working as efficiently and as effectively as
possible. By encouraging strong partnerships between public safety
officers and the cities and States they serve, this bill advances the
Government's interests in improving homeland security.
Finally, my colleagues have tried to scare even those States that
have good, solid collective bargaining laws into believing that their
laws are on the line. In truth, more than half of the States in the
country will not be affected by this bill.
As I described a minute ago, the bill does not require that State
laws have specific provisions, only that they provide the basic
protections I outlined. The Federal Labor Relations Authority, which
will make those determinations, is not some secret society. It is a
longstanding Federal agency staffed by dedicated career servants and
Presidential appointees who are confirmed by the Senate--not greatly
different from the National Labor Relations Board, for example.
In summary, you can see that this bill is not the aggressive
intrusion into State government that was portrayed yesterday.
In addition, I wish to address some of the other individual concerns
raised about the bill that are misleading and misplaced.
First, this bill will not encourage strikes. In fact, this bill
provides additional safeguards to prevent strikes. It specifically says
that a public safety officer may not engage in a strike, work slowdown,
or any action that will measurably disrupt the delivery of emergency
services. There is no room for interpretation. That is an ironclad ban
on any action that will impair public safety. This language
specifically says that a public safety officer may not engage in a
strike, work slowdown, or any other action that will measurably disrupt
the delivery of emergency services. More importantly, it creates a
mechanism for public safety officers and their employers to communicate
and build strong bipartisanship that enhances cooperation, decreasing
the likelihood of strikes.
It is an insult--it is an insult to public safety officers to suggest
that they will strike. It has been decades since there has been a
police or firefighters strike in this country. Police and firefighters
in most States already have the right to bargain, and there has been no
problem with strikes. These brave men and women take their duty to
serve the public very seriously, so seriously they are willing to die
for it. The suggestion that they would shirk their duty in order to
argue over a contract dishonors them and dishonors their sacrifices.
Next, I wish to underscore that this bill will not harm communities
that rely on volunteer firefighters. This legislation expressly applies
only to employees, which means volunteers are excluded. Any suggestion
that cities and towns are going to be forced to bargain with and
possibly pay their volunteer firefighters is wrong. What is more, we
included language supported by the National Volunteer Firefighter
Council to ensure that professional firefighters can continue to
volunteer in their off-duty hours. This language outlaws contract
provisions that would prohibit an employee from engaging in part-time
employment or volunteer activities during off-duty hours. That includes
part-time or volunteer firefighting. Senator Enzi says that is not
clear, but it seems pretty clear to me.
My colleagues across the aisle also attacked this bill yesterday as
hypocritical because it is inconsistent with how our Federal Government
treats its own workers. Again, this criticism is untrue and misleading.
Federal workers have bargaining rights. They also have a say in their
wages. The law allows them to petition the Government each year.
Federal law enforcement offices are an example of how well collective
bargaining rights and public safety go together. Whether Congress
should give Federal public safety officers the right to directly
bargain over wages is an issue for another day. We do not need to
resolve that question in order to do the right thing for the State and
local offices.
We also heard complaints about the process that brought us to this
point. Listening to the debate, you might think this bill was a new
idea never explored or never debated. That again is simply false. This
bill has been around for a long time. It was introduced in 1999, almost
10 years ago, by Senator DeWine, and then by Senator Gregg. It has also
had strong bipartisan support.
My colleagues across the aisle would have us go through more hearings
and debate before we act. We do not need more hearings. We have already
had a hearing in the HELP Committee. In fact, we have marked this bill
up twice, once in 2001 and once in 2003. We even voted on this bill
before in 2001. Our Nation's first responders have waited long enough
for the basic rights in this bill. We should not make them wait any
longer. They do not make us wait when we need them. We should not have
them wait any longer.
I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we did have a brief time yesterday to begin
exploring the multiple flaws and deception in this legislation. I
believe it would be useful today to begin by touching on a few of those
flaws.
I have taken the suggestion of my colleague and friend from
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and looked
[[Page 8963]]
very carefully at the Record of yesterday's proceedings, and here are a
few things worth noting.
In response to my remarks and those of Senator Alexander, we were
repeatedly told yesterday that it was perfectly all right to federalize
the programs of State and local labor relations of States like mine and
Senator Alexander's and at least 20 others to, in effect, tell those
States that the Democratic decisions of their sovereign governments and
their citizens simply did not count, that the Federal Government knows
best, that the Federal Government will tell those States what their law
must be and how they must conduct their labor relations with their own
employees. In essence, the citizens and legislators of a near majority
of States are being told by the proponents of this bill that they know
better what will work for those States.
As Senator Alexander put it so well yesterday, this bill is really
about States like Massachusetts or New Jersey telling States like mine
or his, and at least 20 others, how best to deal with their employees
and how to fashion their own State laws in the total absence of any
need to do so. Now, I completely reject that. However, for those who
support it, they owe it to themselves to at least be consistent in
their approach. They are not. While they would deny a near majority of
States the right to determine what they believe to be the best approach
to public sector labor relations within their States, they staunchly
defend the right of a small minority of States to deny public employees
the most fundamental democratic rights in the workplace.
Five States--New York, New Jersey, Illinois, New Hampshire, and
Massachusetts--all home to the sponsors of this bill, have card check
laws for their public workers. Those States have decided this is the
way they intend to conduct the labor relations among their employees. I
respectfully disagree. I believe that approach to be antidemocratic,
and it is certainly contrary to the Federal labor policy which
preserves for workers in the private sector the right to a democratic
secret ballot in deciding the question of unionization.
However, we are told by the proponents of this bill that this
fundamental workplace issue is a matter of State choice, while at the
same time being told that any State's choice to elect a different
system of labor law than that imposed by H.R. 980 is not. Denying
workers a secret ballot election on unionization is somehow a matter of
local choice, but deciding to utilize and meet and confer on a system
of labor management relations or to decide the issue by local option is
not. The inconsistency and hypocrisy of that position is nothing short
of stunning. It is utterly indefensible.
At least that issue is addressed by Senator Hatch's amendments. That
amendment will at least end that hypocrisy by expressly overturning
antidemocratic card check laws for public sector employees in New York,
New Jersey, New Hampshire, Illinois, and Massachusetts. While we should
not impose Federal law on States at all, if we ought to do it, we ought
to do it consistently.
Now, lastly, I want to note that yesterday my colleague and great
friend from Massachusetts indicated that if the bill were half as bad--
he reiterated it again today--half as bad as I had indicated in my
remarks, he would be against it as well. I take my friend at his word
but do not ask that he take me at mine.
Late yesterday, the leaders received a letter from Michael Bloomberg,
the mayor of New York, regarding H.R. 980.
I wish to remind everyone that New York has a full collective
bargaining statute covering public safety officers. I also wish to
remind everyone that we are told by all of the proponents of this bill
that because of this, New York would not be affected by this law.
Here is what Mayor Bloomberg had to say in his letter to Leaders Reid
and McConnell:
I am writing to express my serious concerns about
legislation before the Senate which would alter the current
state of collective bargaining between the City of New York
and a number of its unions. The legislation has the potential
to harm both New York City and New York State labor
relations.
As you are aware, the Public Safety Employer-Employee
Cooperation Act of 2007 is a bill that would significantly
expand the jurisdiction of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority, FLRA, into the labor relations between State and
local governments and their public safety officers.
Though the bill may be well intentioned, its fundamental
problem from the point of view of New York is that it does
not clearly distinguish States like New York that have long
provided collective bargaining rights to their employees from
States that have not.
Under the bill, States with long histories of collective
bargaining face the risk of having their labor relations with
public safety officers Federalized to the detriment of long-
established public policies.
For over 40 years, the New York City Collective Bargaining
Law and the New York State Public Employees Fair Employment
Act, also referred to as the Taylor Act, have provided a
legal framework for public sector collective bargaining in
the City of New York. There has been extensive administrative
and judicial review of virtually every aspect of this legal
framework. The bill has the potential to undermine this long-
established framework.
One problem is the bill's treatment of the ability of
public safety employees to strike. The New York State Taylor
Law currently contains a clear and unequivocal prohibition on
all strikes by public sector employees and explicit
penalties, such as substantial fines against the individual
members for violations of the no-strike provision.
The language in the proposed language before the Senate is
less clear. The City is very concerned that section 6 of this
bill can be read to prohibit only a strike that would
measurably disrupt the delivery of emergency services.
This language, while it may not be intended to limit the
prohibition in this way, is an invitation to
misinterpretation and litigation. In addition, the same
section could encourage employees to refuse to carry out
services that many believe are not required under the
mandatory terms and conditions of employment in situations
where the public safety might be immediately affected by such
a refusal.
The mayor of New York goes on to say:
Another serious problem with the bill is that it gives FLRA
the authority to decide what must be collectively bargained.
New York has longstanding legal precedent regarding what are
mandatory, permissive and prohibited subjects for collective
bargaining. Under section 4 of the bill, such long-
established legal precedent could be overturned by the FLRA.
A notable example is that disciplinary procedures for
police officers and firefighters, including due process, are
provided for in the New York City Charter and administrative
code and are prohibited subjects of bargaining. The New York
Court of Appeals confirmed as recently as 2006 that these
procedures may not be subject to bargaining, but the bill
would give the FLRA the authority to decide otherwise.
I think that is a point we made yesterday.
A decision by the police commissioner, for example, as to
whether or not discipline should be brought against a police
officer involved in a shooting incident is something for
which he remains fully accountable to the public. It is of
grave concern to the City that it could be forced to bargain
over such procedures as a result of an improper finding by
the FLRA, and such public accountability would thereby be
lost.
Even if the FLRA does not interfere with precedent that
restricts bargaining in sensitive areas like discipline, the
bill at a minimum would provide an additional means for such
precedent to be challenged repeatedly in Federal court,
resulting in an extended period of uncertainty.
In the final analysis, the bill could significantly affect
the ability of the City of New York to ensure the safety of
the public in the integrity of essential government services,
and is likely, at a minimum, to involve the city in costly
and disruptive litigation in Federal court.
Any remedy of these concerns should be achieved in
statutory language, not merely in legislative history. Given
the serious concerns the proposed bill raises for the City of
New York, I oppose the bill in its current form.
Sincerely, Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor.
As I showed yesterday, there are more than 20 States that will have
their laws overturned by this, and 12 more whose laws could be
challenged in court.
They recognize that. Calls we are getting, letters we are having
shared with us indicate that is a concern of those out there who have
to deal with these kinds of problems and the gaps the bill language
leaves and the new authority of this Federal Labor Relations Authority
which hardly anybody
[[Page 8964]]
has had to deal with in the past. It is not even equipped to handle
what is in the bill.
This is an ill-conceived and badly drafted bill that would not only
overturn the law in a near majority of States and disregard the
democratic will of the legislatures and people in other States, it
would plainly disrupt the law and labor relations policies of every
State. This is the price that is paid when the proponents of a bill
pander to special interests and circumvent the regular order of this
body in an attempt to advance fundamentally flawed legislation. The sad
truth is, I do not believe this bill can be fixed. I certainly do not
believe it can be fixed on the floor of the Senate. It should have been
addressed in committee, but we are left with no choice. So we will
continue today to take up the floor time of the Senate trying to fix an
irretrievably broken, totally unnecessary piece of special interest
legislation. Is it any wonder the American public holds Congress in
such low disregard?
I haven't had a chance yet to even talk specifically on the employee
bill of rights amendment and the unfunded mandate option. I will take
that opportunity at this point in time. Yesterday, the Senator from
Utah, Mr. Hatch, offered a public employee bill of rights amendment.
Many of my colleagues have spoken about the tremendous service
America's public safety employees give to the public. I believe 100
Senators believe that and want to help, in every way possible, the
public safety employees do their job. I am a little concerned that
occasionally we think that only through collective bargaining will
anybody listen to a suggestion of a public service employee. I have
never seen that happen. I am not saying it couldn't happen somewhere in
America, but if they are suggesting something for safety, I think
people will listen.
A lot of times we don't think of things for safety until after a
tragedy such as Charleston. Then we think about what could have been
done, and it is shared with the Nation. A lot of that is put into
place, not through collective bargaining, through common sense. You
want to protect the lives of the people who work for you; that is, the
people who work for the people of the United States, work for the
people in the communities. The toughest job in America is being a mayor
because you are right there with the people. They can grab you by the
shirt collar--you usually don't have any kind of security--and explain
in no uncertain terms what they are thinking. Usually, they have a
pretty good idea, not just a complaint but a complaint coupled with a
suggestion.
I know, on any given day, one of these officers could be asked to put
his or her life on the line, and they do so courageously. I agree with
my colleagues that individuals who choose these careers deserve
respect, gratitude, and special treatment. But the underlying amendment
would actually result in diminishing the rights of public safety
employees who are not currently unionized. Once a workforce is
unionized, even employees who do not wish to be a part of the union
will have pay deducted from their paychecks and spent in a manner
outside their control. They will have little ability to question or
alter the legal representation established with or without their
support. The Hatch amendment merely balances that diminution of self-
determination by establishing a public bill of rights. The amendment
will do three things. It guarantees the right to vote by a secret
ballot. It guarantees to limit the right of public unions' dues
collection authority to nonpolitical uses. It guarantees that financial
transparency will be there. By ensuring that public safety employees in
all States have the right to vote on whether they unionize by secret
ballot, the Hatch amendment guarantees for public safety employees the
same right private employees now have in many States. In a democratic
society, nothing is more sacred than the right to vote. It is
undeniable that nothing ensures truly free choice more than the use of
a private ballot.
The possibility of coercive or threatening behavior toward employees
who may not wish to form a union is even more concerning in the context
of public safety employees who rely on coworkers to reduce the deadly
risks they face routinely in the course of their work. The amendment
would also limit the right of public unions' dues collection authority
to nonpolitical uses. Those who choose public service often accept
lower pay than they might make in the private sector because they are
dedicated to public service. Let's not insult that choice by allowing
labor bosses to take money from paychecks and spend it on purely
political causes the employee does not support. I believe public
employees should have the same protections from fraud and abuse as
private employees. This amendment would empower public employees by
allowing them to observe how their dues are being spent and the other
financial dealings of their unions. It does this by bringing public
unions under the requirements of the Labor Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act. That is a 1959 law enacted with bipartisan support,
including then-Senator John F. Kennedy. Public employees who pay union
dues, especially those who are compelled to do so against their wishes,
are no less entitled to financial transparency and fraud protections
than private sector employees covered under the law today.
In regard to the Alexander amendment, I don't think there is any
doubt that the bill's mandates would increase costs for States and
localities that are either now unionized or do not allow bargaining to
the extent required under the law and will, therefore, be subject to
new rules. We have heard the argument that this has to be approved by a
legislative body. There is also the clause in there about what the
Federal Labor Relations Authority can do with any agreements that come
up. I assume that would be if they didn't think they were tough enough.
The costs I am concerned about go far beyond any increased pay or work
scheduling costs.
The bill's most burdensome mandate falls on small towns that will
have to assemble collective bargaining resources and capability on
short notice. We keep looking at the 5,000 figure like it is magic.
Five thousand is a very small town, and many of them already have
difficulty complying with current Federal unfunded mandates. But we are
going to impose one more on them. I don't want people to think the
small town exemption is really just set at 5,000 population. The bill
says 5,000 population or 25 employees. Towns have to hire a lot of
people to run the facilities that we take for granted. We expect to
turn on our faucet and have the water there. We expect to flush the
toilet and have it disappear. We expect to set our garbage out and have
somebody pick it up. We expect the streets to be in good condition so
they are safe. A lot of places we expect sidewalks to be there so
pedestrians don't have to be on the street. We even have in some
municipalities the provision of electricity.
Gillette, WY, was so isolated and had so few people at one time that
nobody wanted to provide electricity. So the city provided it. That has
been a growing entity with employees. But it always required quite a
few employees for doing the pole work and the meter work and the
electrical work that was necessary. So 25 employees is a pretty easy
threshold to get to in a small town. So 5,000 population or 25
employees, don't forget the 25 employees part.
The costs I am concerned about go beyond increased pay and work
scheduling costs. This bill will also require them to assemble
collective bargaining resources and capability, and on very short
notice. I think that means that since the union will be able to bring
in a negotiator, the city, the town--in Wyoming, 5,000 is a first-class
city--will have to bring in different legal and bargaining experts to
help with the negotiations, at least to train them to know how to
negotiate. That will happen on both sides.
So this requires actions such as hiring labor law experts and
establishing contracts with arbitrators, all resources that may be in
short supply since small towns all across the country will be facing
the same mandate at the same time.
[[Page 8965]]
As the former mayor of Gillette, I know what it is like to balance a
municipal budget. When the Federal Government imposes costly new
mandates and provides no funds to pay for them, it is frustrating for
the mayor and the council and anybody who works for the city. When I
became mayor, it was a boom town. The town had recognized the need to
have better sewer treatment facilities. We had applied to the Federal
Government. We had received a grant. Just as I took office, this new
sewer treatment facility went on line. The inspector showed up and
said: Your town has grown so much, you are violating the capacity of
your sewer system. Since we provided the money for it, we are going to
fine you.
So I needed a new sewer treatment facility. I needed several million
dollars' worth of new sewer treatment facility. So I went back to the
source. The Federal Government said: That one wasn't adequate because
of the growth you have had. They said: Sorry, you already got one
grant. You wind up at the bottom of the list now. So thousands of
communities across the United States, probably rightfully, got to be
ahead of my community. But that didn't stop the fines. Fortunately, I
got a judge who said:. Yes, we have to fine you, but we are going to
make you pay that money into a fund to build a new sewer treatment
plant. That helped a little bit because we still had the money to do
something, but we were still being put under this Federal mandate,
which is a good idea. You need to do adequate sewer treatment. That is
very important. But how do these small towns afford that? There are
thousands of them, and they are all going to be put under that law at
the same time. There aren't enough people trained to help them do this.
So the burden falls on the taxpayers. The taxpayers elect local
officials who will pursue their priorities and collect taxes at a level
to cover the cost of those priorities. That is partly right. You don't
always have the right to increase taxes. There are State limits in many
of the States that say how much a municipality can tax. So that option
may be closed down. This bill upsets the democratic order by imposing
Federal priorities on local taxpayers with no way to pay for them.
Local governments don't have ``funny money'' gimmicks like the Federal
Government. Increased costs have to result in increased taxes, such as
sales tax, property tax or decreased services. So which of those 25
employees are we going to get rid of in order to meet the costs of this
bill? You can say it is not a Federal mandate because we have some
definitions that explain what a true Federal mandate is, but I think
the towns will consider it to be a Federal mandate. So will the people
who are taxed or lose services or who are taxed and lose their jobs.
This is a choice I believe we should leave to local government. The
Alexander amendment would leave it up to them by allowing localities to
opt out of the bill's requirements, if they determine it will increase
local property taxes, compromise public safety or constitute an
unfunded mandate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from South Carolina.
Amendment No. 4763
(Purpose: To improve educational assistance for members of the Armed
Forces and veterans in order to enhance recruitment and retention for
the Armed Forces)
Mr. GRAHAM. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am sure I will not object, but I would
like to see the amendment. If the Senator will give us a moment to see
the amendment, we have not seen it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Consent is not needed.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), for himself,
Mr. Burr, and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered
4763.
Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. I send a cloture motion to the desk on a first-degree
amendment and ask unanimous consent that reading of the motion be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair
directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending
amendment No. 4763 to H.R. 980, the Public Safety Employer-
Employee Cooperation Act of 2007.
Mitch McConnell, Michael B. Enzi, Johnny Isakson, David
Vitter, Jim DeMint, Robert F. Bennett, Pat Roberts,
John Ensign, Thad Cochran, Roger F. Wicker, Richard
Burr, Larry E. Craig, Lindsey Graham, Saxby Chambliss,
Mel Martinez, Kay Bailey Hutchison.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Amendment No. 4764 to Amendment No. 4763
(Purpose: To improve educational assistance for members of the Armed
Forces and veterans in order to enhance recruitment and retention for
the Armed Forces)
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an
amendment numbered 4764 to amendment No. 4763.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. KENNEDY. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The clerk will continue.
The legislative clerk continued with the reading of the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I thought things were too good to be true,
that we would have a debate on a bipartisan bill. There are a lot of
things we could do to bring the Presidential politics into what is
going on here on the floor. I think this is untoward.
This is a bill that has been worked on for a long time. Senator
Kennedy and Senator Gregg have worked in good faith to bring this up to
help firemen and police officers. I had a group of police officers in
my office today. They were so excited about this bill because we are
doing something to help them.
We have been through this before. I told Mike Enzi last Friday,
through staff, that I would not fill the tree on this. I wanted to see
if we could work in good faith for once without the Republicans playing
their petty politics. But, obviously, we cannot do that.
Now, is it any wonder--I ask: Is it any wonder--that the Republicans
have lost three special elections for House seats? It is no wonder. The
American people understand what this Republican-led Congress has done,
led by this man in the White House.
Now, is it any wonder that in a poll yesterday in the Washington
Post, the Democrats have a 21-percent lead on the Republicans on being
better able to handle the problems of this country? It is no wonder
because this is what we have. They are not serious about anything.
We have had 71 filibusters that have been filed this Congress we have
tried to break--we have had to break them--71 filibusters.
So I tell my friend, Chairman Kennedy, and Ranking Member Enzi, it is
[[Page 8966]]
obvious we cannot complete this legislation. It is obvious that games
are being played.
Now, can you imagine on this bill dealing with people who are first
responders--on 9/11, who were the people rushing into that building to
die? Firefighters and police officers. They have asked for some help
from us. For example, in Nevada, we have a situation where the State
legislature said local law enforcement officers can bargain
collectively. But isn't it interesting, the State cannot. Highway
patrol officers cannot, those people who are capital policemen in
Nevada cannot.
That is what this legislation would do. It would direct attention to
some of the problems law enforcement has in this country, and we are
not going to be able to do it because we are working now and are going
to have to vote on whether there should be a holiday on gas prices. I
talked to a woman in Pahrump, NV, yesterday, 50 miles out of Las Vegas.
She moved to Pahrump because it would be cheaper to live. She works in
Las Vegas. Well, that was a bad bet she made because she has a diesel
vehicle. Yesterday, it cost almost $130 to fill it with diesel fuel,
and she has to fill it once a week.
So we have a situation here where now we are going to start debating
the energy policies of this country. We are happy to enter into that
debate because we know the energy policy in this country has been set
by Dick Cheney. He met with oil companies. It was all secret. They
protected themselves, even through the Supreme Court, that we would not
know whom they met with and what they met with. But it is obvious the
policies they came up with have been a real big boon to the energy
companies, making more money than any companies in the history of the
world.
So if my Republican colleagues want to debate energy, we are happy to
do it. What we wanted to work on is something to help police and fire.
I am very disappointed. We on this side wanted to finish this
legislation. But we have a cloture motion filed on the McCain proposal,
and I am forced to acknowledge that probably he is trying to do
anything he can. He is a flawed candidate, and he is wrong on the war,
and he is wrong on the economy. But it is too bad he is still
interfering with what we are trying to do here to start doing some
serious legislating, ``he,'' meaning John McCain.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before the leader departs the floor, I
wish to thank him again for his strong support for this legislation
that is so important to our first responders, to our firefighters, and
our police officers in this country.
We have seen this parliamentary gimmick that has taken place offered
by the Republican leadership that is a slap in the face to every
firefighter and police officer and first responder in the country.
We have bipartisan support for this legislation. We have four
amendments that are now pending. We had some understanding that we
would have an opportunity to address those amendments during the course
of the day. They are all related to this legislation. But oh, no--oh,
no--the games are going to be played, and we are saying to the
firefighters of this Nation and to the police officers of this Nation
and the first responders of this Nation: Your interests, the safety and
security of our communities across this Nation, should be put aside in
favor of some political gimmick by the Republican leader in the Senate.
That is what this is about. Make no mistake about it. Every
firefighter ought to understand that. We are here now at noontime,
ready to do the public's business, ready to take a vote on these
issues, but oh, no, the Republican side says: No, you can't do it. You
can't do it.
Look, the underlying position the Republicans are talking about is
help for our GI bill. Senator Webb has his proposal. I am all in
support of what Senator Webb is doing. Why not have that done after
this bill is over? Why not have it done after then? Why didn't the
Republican leader come on up and speak to the Democratic leader and
propose: Let's do that at the end of the week. Do it Friday, Saturday,
Sunday, and Monday. Maybe Senator McCain will come back for it; maybe
he won't. Do it after we finish this bill. But, no, we are going to
insult--and this is an insult, make no mistake about it. I have been
around here long enough to know when the insults are being played, and
this is it. This is saying: Your interests are not as important as a
political hit. That is what is happening. That is what is happening.
Who are these individuals? Forty billion dollars we spend on homeland
security. Forty billion we are spending on homeland security. Who are
the people who implement homeland security? They are our firefighters,
our police officers, and first responders in all 50 States. They
believe they have ways of doing it better than it is being done at the
present time. I do too. So do Democrats and so do a few Republicans. We
want to work through the political process to give the opportunity to
have that done. But oh, no--oh, no--we are not going to do that. We are
going to play games. It is Wednesday. It is noontime. We are just going
to play some more games. We did it with you guys in the Senate last
week on energy. We are going to do it here.
Listen, we are glad and willing to vote. I have been doing that for
45 years, and I am glad to do that now. But make no mistake about it
who the target is--who the target is. The Republicans are saying: We
will not take the time. We will not take the time to let the Senate
work its will in terms of the firefighters and policemen of this
country. That is outrageous. It is a gross insult to each and every one
of them. It is a slap in the face to each and every one of them. Make
no mistake about it, that is what is going on here. That is what is
going on here.
Well, we are not giving up. We are not giving up on them. Maybe the
other side wants to give up, but we are not giving up on them. We
believe their service--their service--is too important to this country,
their lives too important to this country. When are we going to be
threatened again? Too important to this country.
Maybe the leadership on the other side can tell us whether Senator
McCain approved this strategy. Maybe we can find that out. I think the
police and firefighters of the country would like to know whether
Senator McCain--we have Senator McCain's proposal here. It is difficult
to believe an effort would be made to bring this up without his
approval. I think firefighters and policemen ought to understand
whether Senator McCain supports this proposal. You cannot get away
without believing that he does and that he has been an architect. You
don't just go around and get 16 Senators. You have to go around here
and get all those. This thing has been in the cooking for a period of
time. This just did not happen, although it looks--they duck in the
cloakroom, and then they run out and do that--all that business.
This has been going on. This is a conscious act, and one will have to
assume Senator McCain is absolutely against it. I hope he is able to
talk to the firefighters and the police officers and the first
responders. Why are you interrupting this bill--this bill--that is so
essential to the security, homeland security? Why interrupt this bill
when we are in the process--at least we thought so--that we were going
to be moving ahead to get some votes on these particular measures? Why?
No, no effort at all to try and talk to the leadership, certainly not
to--I do not expect--although, for the first 20 years or so I was in
this body, people used to do that. They used to talk to people and tell
them what was going to come on up. But I do not expect that anymore.
But you would have thought: At least talk to the leadership who has
responsibility.
So I hope each and every one of the firefighters, police officers,
first responders who have been working on this legislation for years--I
wish to mention about how long they have been working on this. It was
introduced on May 12, 1999. On July 25, 2000, we had a Health Committee
hearing. On September 19, 2001, we had a committee markup and reported
it out. On
[[Page 8967]]
November 6, 2001, we had a Senate vote, No. 323. On November 24, we had
a HELP Committee markup. On February 4, 2004, it was offered as an
amendment to S. 1017. On November 13, 2007, it was offered as amendment
No. 2419.
For 8\1/2\ years this has been before the Senate--8\1/2\ years. Two
committees, one chaired by the Senator from New Hampshire, the HELP
Committee, and the other one by myself, and we supported this bill out.
We finally have a chance to debate this. We had a good debate
yesterday, and we are prepared to deal with the amendments on a matter
of vital national security for our country and for respect for those
who are our first responders who have done so much. But the answer is,
no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, all except the 9--10 new Senators we have
remember the time that I lived on the Senate floor. For 6 years I was
here from the time we came in session until we left, with no
exceptions. I tried at that time to be as fair to the Republicans as
the Democrats. If someone asked for more time on our side, with the
Republicans not being here, they automatically got that time.
That is what took place today--I want Senator Kennedy to hear this. I
want Senator Kennedy to hear this. Here this morning I congratulated
you and the ranking member, Senator Enzi, because we were having a good
debate and we were going to be working from the idea that we would try
to improve this bill. I said specifically that Senator Enzi said he
wished he had more time to do some committee work, and he wanted to do
some work out here.
More power to him. That is what he should be able to do. I
complimented everyone for the way this bill was being handled. Do you
know the sad part about it, I say to my friends. Senator McConnell was
standing right there. We had a conversation walking out the door.
Shouldn't he have said to me: Well, maybe you shouldn't feel that way;
I am going to file cloture on the McCain amendment to get the tax
holiday on gas.
But I am so surprised. I never try to avoid a phone call from my
Republican counterpart. I always try to be available. I would say this:
I would never do to him what he did to me this morning. It is untoward.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called 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.
Mr. REID. Because we had so much notice on this, I thought it was the
McCain tax holiday amendment. But, no, it is the McCain effort to
change the Jim Webb bipartisan GI bill of rights because it is too
generous. So this idea is about the same as the gas tax holiday. He
doesn't like the GI bill of rights because it is too generous. Now I am
wondering if we want to debate Iraq on this bill because we are happy
to do it. We are happy to debate an intractable civil war that is
costing the American people $5,000 a second every day of the week,
every week of the month, every month of the year, $5,000 a second. No
weekends off, no holidays, $5,000 a second of borrowed money.
Do we want to debate the Iraq war? Is that what we want to do on this
bill that was set aside to deal with firefighters, police officers, and
first responders?
Those people came to my office today, some in uniform, some in plain
clothes, because that is what they do. Some of them wear their uniform
to work every day. Some do other work so they can't wear the uniform.
They are undercover. But no--I apologize to everyone. I thought we were
on the McCain tax holiday. But, no, we are now on the GI bill of rights
McCain effort because it is too generous.
The bipartisan bill of Jim Webb that he wrote himself, bipartisan in
nature, is too generous according to John McCain. We are happy to
debate that. If that is what this body needs to do is to start the
supplemental debate a week early, we can do that too.
I note the absence of a quorum.
Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator withhold that request?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand what the majority leader is saying, he
is prepared to see the Senate vote on the McCain amendment as well as
have a vote on the Webb amendment, and do it in a timely way. Is that
what I am gathering here?
Mr. REID. Yes. We are going to do it next week anyway. Do you want to
do it a week early? Fine.
Mr. KENNEDY. The majority leader has indicated they are prepared to
go for a time limit on the McCain amendment, a time limit on the Webb
amendment, and then have a vote so Members can do it here, and do it in
a prompt way. I also understand that we would be able to continue the
consideration of this matter but, as I understand, we are not getting
any cooperation from the other side.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend not only was an amendment filed, but
untoward cloture was filed at the same time on that amendment. Now,
what would happen if on every piece of legislation around here, when
you offer an amendment, a person walks in and files a cloture motion at
the same time? That is a little funny way to do it. But maybe the
Republicans love this filibustering so much--they broke the record, the
filibuster record, in 10 months. Maybe they really want to in effect
break Hank Aaron's record big in the way of filibusters. It is not
enough to break it in 10 months, they want to really break it big, so
now they are going to start filing cloture motions on their own
amendments.
So I think what we need to do is just relax a little bit. We are
going to suggest the absence of a quorum in just a second, and we will
talk a little bit to see if there is a way out of this. I hope there is
a way out of it for the benefit of the police and firefighters and
first responders of this country. They are in town this week because
there is going to be a memorial for those who were killed this year,
police officers who were killed this year in service to their counties,
their cities, and their States. They are here. Part of the reason they
are here and the reason we scheduled this at this time is because they
were going to be here.
So I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. GREGG. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I yield for a question without losing the right to the
floor.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would ask the majority leader if I might
be recognized to speak after he completes his speech and his statement
because I would like to speak.
Mr. REID. As I said, Mr. President, we are going to go into a quorum
call and huddle down here and find out if there is a way out of this.
Mr. GREGG. Will the majority leader yield for a further question?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. GREGG. I think the majority leader has made his case as to the
status of the situation. But I do believe we should not shut off debate
in the sense of not allowing for those of us who would like to express
the way we see the situation to also be able to speak. That is why I
would like to have an opportunity to speak.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, and he is my friend, we are not going
to have any more discussion on this piece of legislation until we
figure out a way to help the police and firefighters. The decision was
made by the Republican leader to debate the GI bill of rights, OK? That
is where we are now.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
call be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
call be set aside.
[[Page 8968]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I object.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
call be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
quorum call so that I can answer some of the questions that have been
asked on the other side.
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Objection is heard.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the patience of all Senators. I
am going to, in a couple minutes, move to table the Graham first-degree
amendment. That vote will take place shortly. Following that, I have
asked Senators Kennedy and Enzi to sit down and see if there is a way
we can finish this important legislation. We have other things to do
this week. We have the farm bill that will be here within the hour from
the House. We have the budget conferees we have to appoint. Senator
Dorgan is pushing hard on the media cross-ownership. That is something
we need to complete this week. I want all Senators to see what they can
do to exert influence on their friends to finish this bill. I have
talked to the head of the firefighters. He is tremendously troubled
that we ran into this roadblock. The underlying bill is very important.
I would hope everyone understands that. We have all next week to do
whatever needs to be done on the supplemental appropriations bill. We
will get into a lot of discussion on the war in Iraq and what is going
to happen to returning veterans.
In the meantime, it is my understanding the matter before the Senate
is the Graham first-degree amendment. I move to table Graham amendment
No. 4763 and ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN, I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton)
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necesarily absent: the Senator from
Arizona (Mr. McCain.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 127 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--42
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--3
Clinton
McCain
Obama
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, may we have order? The Senator is
entitled to be heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in a quorum call.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under
the quorum call be suspended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator cannot reserve the right to
object.
Is there objection?
Mr. GREGG. Then I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next
hour be evenly divided between the two parties for the purposes of
debate only and at the end of that time, a quorum call be in order.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I
am not going to, but I wish to explain that Members on this side of the
aisle are prepared to go forward with the amendments Senator Enzi has
been suggesting we vote on. We are having some difficulty achieving
that, but we would like to have some more votes on the underlying bill
today.
Having said that, I do not object.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I am happy
to agree to this because I have been trying to speak now for 4 or 5
hours, and the last three times I rose to speak, the majority leader
would not allow me to speak. I understood his concern and his pique
about what he perceived as to what was happening on the floor, but
independent of that, I still think I should have the right to speak.
Therefore, since I sought the floor initially and was seeking the floor
the last time this exercise took place, I would request that the
unanimous consent request be adjusted so that I be recognized first and
that I be given 5 minutes to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator so modify his request?
Mr. KENNEDY. I so modify, with the understanding that following the
Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from Virginia be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. I just want to say in terms of the voting that we are
prepared to vote on our side on the underlying amendments, but we were
notified by the other side that we would not be permitted to vote.
There was objection from the Republican side to voting on a Democratic
amendment, and we insist on getting that worked out so we can move
ahead.
Hopefully, we can put aside the games and get moving on this
underlying legislation, which is so important. Madam President, I ask
unanimous consent further that after Senator Webb, the speakers be
rotated
[[Page 8969]]
from side to side and the time, as mentioned earlier, be evenly
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized for 5 minutes--the
Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized on this side after Senator Webb.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I wanted to rise earlier to put into
context what the exercise we were involved in was about and the fact
that the issue of the Graham amendment, in my humble opinion, did not,
in any way, adversely affect the capacity to pass and proceed on the
underlying bill, which is the firefighter initiative here that I and
Senator Kennedy have brought forward.
I think there were representations from the majority leader that the
Graham amendment was some sort of attempt to basically sidetrack the
firefighter bill. It was not that at all. It was simply the Senate
doing its natural business, which is to amend bills on the floor of the
Senate and get votes on those amendments. The Republican leader, in his
absolute right, set the matter so it would be voted on. If he had not
done what he did, there probably would have been no vote on the Graham
amendment because the majority would have been able to sidetrack that
amendment.
I think Senator Graham had every right to come forward with whatever
amendment he wanted. Every Member has that right when a bill is open to
amendment. That has been a huge debate for quite a while. The majority
party, for some reason, has decided to try to run the Senate as if it
were the House of Representatives, which means they are trying to
proceed in an autocratic way, where they decide for the minority party
what amendments will be brought forward. That is not appropriate. That
is not the tradition or the purpose of the Senate. The minority party
has an absolute, sacred right to bring forward amendments, and there is
no right in the majority party to ban the capacity of the minority
party to do that, unless the majority party has the capacity to
basically bring down the entire operation of the Senate, which is what
it consistently has been doing--filling the tree time and time again in
an attempt to shut off our party, the minority, from making its points
and bringing forward amendments, which can be debated and voted on, and
then you can get to the underlying bill--which is the way the Senate
worked, by the way, for over 200 years.
Now, another action is occurring here which required Senator Graham
to offer this amendment. He didn't, by choice, pick this bill out of
his interest in the bill to offer the amendment on. He had to offer it
because the majority party is using the rules of the Senate to shut off
all amendments to the bill being proposed by the Senator from Virginia.
The bill of the Senator from Virginia will be marked up in a manner
that will bring it to the floor so that it would not be amendable. That
has been public knowledge around here for weeks--that we were not going
to be given the opportunity to amend the Senator's bill. That is
inappropriate also. So the only way Senator Graham could protect his
rights was to bring this amendment forward at this time. It did nothing
to undermine the movement of this bill forward. If this bill doesn't
move forward--the firefighter bill--it will be because the Democratic
leadership has not been able to schedule the floor in an efficient
enough way to get the bill across the floor. That is the reason. It is
not the failure of the minority to move this bill across the floor. It
is failure of the majority to bring forward the bill in a proper
procedure and allow for a proper amendment process to occur.
I think that point needs to be made. It is like the story of the guy
who kills his parents and throws himself on the jury's mercy because he
claims he is an orphan. The majority party has killed its parents. They
are trying to deny the right of the minority to offer amendments to the
Webb measure. It is inconsistent with the way the Senate should act.
I think we had a legitimate case with the Graham amendment. I think
the Republican leader did the right thing in filing cloture to force a
vote on that amendment. We have now had a vote, which was a vote to
table. As a practical matter, it hasn't slowed down the firefighter
bill. The bill has not been prejudiced by this action. Rather, the
activity of the Senate, which is to give the minority the right to
amend, has occurred in a proper way. It took work to get it done and
huffing and puffing from the other side of the aisle, saying it should
not be done. The proper order was done, and I congratulate the
Republican leader for following this course.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to engage in a colloquy with the senior Senator from Virginia and the
senior Senator from Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I wish to speak for a few minutes about
our bill that the senior Senator from Virginia, the Senator from
Nebraska, and 58 Members of this body in total have cosponsored because
I regret this vote that has just occurred.
I personally did not think it was appropriate that the amendment of
the Senator from South Carolina be placed into this particular
legislation, particularly at a time when there had been a good bit of
discussion about how any suggestions that were viewed as appropriate to
our legislation were welcome. They have been welcome for 16 months.
So I don't want the Members of this body, or other people in our
country, to think that in any way our GI bill legislation is a partisan
measure or a piece of legislation that simply is being driven by the
majority party. In fact, as I said, we have 58 sponsors in the Senate--
11 of them Republicans--including the senior Senator from Virginia,
who, other than myself, is the only person who has served in a policy
position in the Pentagon and who is a former chairman of the Armed
Services Committee, and including the former chairman of the veterans
committee, a Republican, and also including the current chairman of the
Armed Services Committee and the chairman of the veterans committee.
This is a strongly bipartisan bill. It is an attempt to give those
people who serve and have served since 9/11 equitable opportunities for
the future on a level of the people whom we have come to call the
``greatest generation,'' the World War II veterans. That is all this
is. I hope the other Members of this body will come together with us to
pass this legislation.
With respect to amendments to this legislation, I wish to say a
couple things. One, we have worked with all the major veterans groups
over a period of 16 months. We have worked with other Members of this
body over a period of 16 months--Democrats and Republicans. We have
incorporated many different suggestions. This is a bill that I believe
will be dramatically helpful to those who have served, and it will be
something of which the American people can be proud.
In that regard, I say, first of all, on the House side, we have 295
sponsors of this identical legislation, including 91 Republicans. So
let's all get together and let's set partisan bickering aside and do
something affirmative that will allow the people who have been serving
in these arduous times to have a true first-class shot in the future.
With that, I yield to the senior Senator from Virginia, whose advice
and counsel on this bill has been greatly appreciated and whose support
I also appreciate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I stand before this Senate, which I have
been in now almost 30 years, with a great sense of humility. I simply
say that I would not be here had it not been for previous GI bills. I
volunteered
[[Page 8970]]
and served in the last year of World War II as a young sailor, 17 years
old. Subsequently, I volunteered to go into the Marine Corps in 1948
and served on active duty during the Korean conflict, 1950-1952. That
modest World War II service gave me a GI bill to get my undergraduate
degree then, and my modest service in the Marine Corps on Active Duty--
and I stayed in the Reserves for many years afterward--gave me a second
GI bill enabling me to get my law degree. I am here because of that
education given to me and many other by a generous Nation.
I have joined my distinguished colleague, and dear friend, the junior
Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, who was a part of my staff when I was
Under Secretary and Secretary of the Navy. We have known each other for
many years and have worked together prior to coming to the Senate. I
have the greatest admiration for him. He is too modest to talk of his
military career, his service in the Department in the Defense, as
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, and later as
Secretary of the Navy. We have collaborated with the Senator from
Nebraska, who is another distinguished veteran of the Vietnam period. I
think the three of us are highly conscious of what we want to do for
today's generation of young men and women in uniform and their
families.
In the aftermath of World War II, the first GI bill was passed in
1944. Sixteen million men and women were given that educational
opportunity, of which 7.8 million veterans availed themselves of these
GI bill benefits.
All those individuals, including this humble Senator, were given the
option to go to that university or that college of their choice, and
that university or college, because of their academic credentials,
would accept them. The dollars were not a subject, because the GI bill
largely paid for all the expenses incurred by the veterans.
That is the purpose of the Webb bill, to now give to this very
courageous generation the same opportunities my generation had
beginning in 1944. I think today's generation will be judged by history
as just as great, or greater, than the World War II generation. We
should give to this generation nothing less.
I can assure you that, based on my experience--and I think my
colleagues will agree--this will be an inducement to bring more high-
quality individuals into uniform, knowing that for that service, their
Nation would recognize it with the opportunity for them to pursue
further education.
Madam President, I will soon ask to have printed in the Record a part
of the law as it exists today. Much has been said about the
transferability of the GI bill rights to a spouse or a child. The
Committee of the Armed Services on which I serve, put into law the
first option by which a service person could have what is known as
transferability of their GI bill to a spouse or child. It is still the
law of the day.
I think my distinguished colleague from Virginia, having recognized
this as existing law, might well consider it as a part of his
legislation. That is a decision he will make and one I will support.
With that, I will yield the floor at this time.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, first of all, I say to the senior Senator
from Virginia, I have raised this piece of existing law a number of
times when the individuals who introduced the measure that was just
tabled talked about the need for transferability. This option is
available to service Secretaries at their discretion under the existing
law that the senior Senator from Virginia introduced more than 6 years
ago. It would be, I believe, logical and proper to extend that law to
the new GI bill.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. Might that be in the
form of an amendment to the Senator's existing bill?
Mr. WEBB. We would be happy to discuss that as soon as we can meet.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I admire the Senator's willingness to
accept that. It was my hope that perhaps Senators could have worked
together with those who sponsored the bill we just voted to table. But
certainly Republicans exercised their right to have this vote on the
measures put in by Senator Burr and Senator Graham.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, the Senator from Nebraska is getting ready
to speak. I will point out a couple things. One is that he has served
our country with great distinction as an infantry sergeant in Vietnam
and was wounded. He has been a great friend for many years, 30 years.
He and I came up together working on veterans laws years ago.
Just as importantly, when I mentioned the senior Senator from
Virginia and myself were the only ones who served in policy positions
in the Pentagon, I believe Senator Hagel is probably the only Member of
this body who has served in a senior policy position in the Department
of Veterans' Affairs.
If anyone is looking at the sense of fiduciary responsibility and the
wisdom that has gone into our bill, I hope they will consider those
sets of experiences.
With that, I yield to the senior Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I thank both of my distinguished
colleagues for their service to our country and for their leadership on
one of the most important efforts we can make on behalf of those we ask
to do so much for our country.
The reality is, today we are asking less than 1 percent of our
society to bear all the burden, to carry that burden with tremendous
sacrifice, not just for themselves but also a sacrifice called for from
their families. They do it willingly, they do it because they love
their country, and they care about the future of their country.
What this bill is about, as much as any one thing, is supporting our
troops in a time of peace, just as we support our troops in a time of
war. These are men and women who have earned this benefit. Every
generation of veterans since World War II has been acknowledged by a
grateful nation, acknowledged in many ways. Maybe the most important
way is a set of educational benefits they have been given in
appropriate recognition of their service to our country.
Just as Senator Webb noted, what we are doing is rotating these
benefits forward into the 21st century so they are relevant to the
realities of the costs of education today, giving these veterans the
same kinds of opportunities and options that Senator Warner, all of our
World War II veterans have had--our Korean war veterans in the
Congress, and our Vietnam war veterans, all of them have had.
This is not a new program. This is not a welfare program. At a time
when we have no difficulty finding the money to go to war, to place
these men and women in war, we are having some debate over whether we
have the resources, the commitment in this country to find the
resources to do not only what is right but what our Nation has always
done since 1944.
Is that the debate? If that is the debate, we should have a debate
because it is about the prioritization of our people. These young men
and women are expected to go to war, fight and die, many will come back
with tremendous scars, ruined families, and then we disconnect? It is
not enough to slap a bumper sticker on your car and say, ``I support
the troops,'' or for us to stand in the Senate or the House and speak
in abstractions about supporting the troops. This is about supporting
the troops.
My goodness, what is a wiser investment in our society, in our
future, in our country than giving these special men and women the same
opportunities we had to make a better world, not just for themselves
but for our country, through helping to educate these men and women.
We have missed some points in this debate so far. I hope the points I
have covered briefly will come back into some clarity, in some
framework of understanding by the American people as to what this is
about because, as I note again, if this is about not having the
resources to fulfill the commitments we have made for almost 70 years
to America's veterans, if that is the case, then that debate needs to
be ongoing throughout this Nation because I think
[[Page 8971]]
the American people will want to say something about this, will want to
have something to say about this, and they should. It is their Nation,
their sons and daughters we send off to war.
This, as Senator Webb has noted, should be an effort to bring our
country together, not divide our country, not divide us between
Republicans and Democrats or between States. This should be some
consensus of purpose to acknowledge these men and women who do so much,
who bear all the burden. That is what this is about.
There will be more debate, and there needs to be more debate. I am as
proud to be part of this effort with my colleagues from Virginia,
Senator Webb and Senator Warner, with 57 other colleagues in the
Senate, and almost 300 in the House, as I have ever been since I have
been in the Senate on behalf of a piece of legislation. This should be
an effort to unite our country, and I believe the American people will
see it that way.
I appreciate very much an opportunity to express some of these points
and for the continued leadership of my friend, Jim Webb.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I say to my good friend and the leader
of this effort, and Senator Hagel, let's clarify what I recommend we
consider. That is the insertion of a provision, if it is so decided by
Senator Webb, on transferability, which would be for an individual to
serve a second tour of service upon the completion of the first tour of
service. This tracks with the 2001 legislation.
Will the Senator from Virginia concur?
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I say to the senior Senator that I have
read the existing law, and the understanding I have of it is, at the
discretion of a Service Secretary for military occupational
specialities, that as they determine with a reenlistment, that
transferability in increments would be allowed. That is in keeping with
the statements of concern by the Senator from South Carolina about
wanting to use transferability as a retention incentive. It is in
existing law. It has not really been used extensively by the Service
Secretaries. But I agree with the senior Senator that we should look
for a way to continue that in our legislation as well.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague. I am
proud to note that on the Webb bill I think it remains correct at this
time that there are 11 Republican Senators who are cosponsors of the
bill. This clearly indicates that Senator Webb has devised legislation
which is bipartisan, and does reflect, as our colleague from Nebraska
said, the will of the people of the United States to recognize the
extraordinary heroism and commitment of the individual in uniform and
their family and loved ones at home.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record current law enacted in 2001, to which I referred earlier.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
FY2002 NDAA
Subtitle E--Other Matters
SEC. 654. TRANSFER OF ENTITLEMENT TO EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
UNDER MONTGOMERY GI BILL BY MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES WITH CRITICAL MILITARY SKILLS.
(a) Authority To Transfer to Family Members.--(1)
Subchapter II of chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational
assistance: members of the Armed Forces with critical
military skills
``(a) In General--Subject to the provisions of this
section, each Secretary concerned may, for the purpose of
enhancing recruitment and retention of members of the Armed
Forces with critical military skills and at such Secretary's
sole discretion, permit an individual described in subsection
(b) who is entitled to basic educational assistance under
this subchapter to elect to transfer to one or more of the
dependents specified in subsection (c) a portion of such
individual's entitlement to such assistance, subject to the
limitation under subsection (d).
``(b) Eligible Individuals.--An individual referred to in
subsection (a) is any member of the Armed Forces who, at the
time of the approval by the Secretary concerned of the
member's request to transfer entitlement to basic educational
assistance under this section--
``(1) has completed six years of service in the Armed
Forces;
``(2) either--
``(A) has a critical military skill designated by the
Secretary concerned for purposes of this section; or
``(B) is in a military specialty designated by the
Secretary concerned for purposes of this section as requiring
critical military skills; and
``(3) enters into an agreement to serve at least four more
years as a member of the Armed Forces.
``(c) Eligible Dependents.--An individual approved to
transfer an entitlement to basic educational assistance under
this section may transfer the individual's entitlement as
follows:
``(1) To the individual's spouse.
``(2) To one or more of the individual's children.
``(3) To a combination of the individuals referred to in
paragraphs (1) and (2).
``(d) Limitation on Months of Transfer.--The total number
of months of entitlement transferred by an individual under
this section may not exceed 18 months.
``(e) Designation of Transferee.--An individual
transferring an entitlement to basic educational assistance
under this section shall--
``(1) designate the dependent or dependents to whom such
entitlement is being transferred;
``(2) designate the number of months of such entitlement to
be transferred to each such dependent; and
``(3) specify the period for which the transfer shall be
effective for each dependent designated under paragraph (1).
``(f) Time for Transfer; Revocation and Modification.--
``(1) Subject to the time limitation for use of entitlement
under section 3031 of this title, an individual approved to
transfer entitlement to basic educational assistance under
this section may transfer such entitlement at any time after
the approval of the individual's request to transfer such
entitlement without regard to whether the individual is a
member of the Armed Forces when the transfer is executed.
``(2)(A) An individual transferring entitlement under this
section may modify or revoke at any time the transfer of any
unused portion of the entitlement so transferred.
``(B) The modification or revocation of the transfer of
entitlement under this paragraph shall be made by the
submittal of written notice of the action to both the
Secretary concerned and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
``(g) Commencement of Use.--A dependent to whom entitlement
to basic educational assistance is transferred under this
section may not commence the use of the transferred
entitlement until--
``(1) in the case of entitlement transferred to a spouse,
the completion by the individual making the transfer of six
years of service in the Armed Forces; or
``(2) in the case of entitlement transferred to a child,
both--
``(A) the completion by the individual making the transfer
of 10 years of service in the Armed Forces; and
``(B) either--
``(i) the completion by the child of the requirements of a
secondary school diploma (or equivalency certificate); or
``(ii) the attainment by the child of 18 years of age.
``(h) Additional Administrative Matters.--(1) The use of
any entitlement to basic educational assistance transferred
under this section shall be charged against the entitlement
of the individual making the transfer at the rate of one
month for each month of transferred entitlement that is used.
``(2) Except as provided under subsection (e)(2) and
subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section is entitled to
basic educational assistance under this subchapter in the
same manner and at the same rate as the individual from whom
the entitlement was transferred.
``(3) The death of an individual transferring an
entitlement under this section shall not affect the use of
the entitlement by the dependent to whom the entitlement is
transferred.
``(4) Notwithstanding section 3031 of this title, a child
to whom entitlement is transferred under this section may not
use any entitlement so transferred after attaining the age of
26 years.
``(5) The administrative provisions of this chapter
(including the provisions set forth in section 3034(a)(1) of
this title) shall apply to the use of entitlement transferred
under this section, except that the dependent to whom the
entitlement is transferred shall be treated as the eligible
veteran for purposes of such provisions.
``(6) The purposes for which a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section may use such
entitlement shall include the pursuit and completion of the
requirements of a secondary school diploma (or equivalency
certificate).
``(i) Overpayment.--(1) In the event of an overpayment of
basic educational assistance with respect to a dependent to
whom entitlement is transferred under this section, the
[[Page 8972]]
dependent and the individual making the transfer shall be
jointly and severally liable to the United States for the
amount of the overpayment for purposes of section 3685 of
this title.
``(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), if an individual
transferring entitlement under this section fails to complete
the service agreed to by the individual under subsection
(b)(3) in accordance with the terms of the agreement of the
individual under that subsection, the amount of any
transferred entitlement under this section that is used by a
dependent of the individual as of the date of such failure
shall be treated as an overpayment of basic educational
assistance under paragraph (1).
``(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply in the case of an
individual who fails to complete service agreed to by the
individual--
``(A) by reason of the death of the individual; or
``(B) for a reason referred to in section 3011
(a)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of this title.
``(j) Approvals of Transfer Subject to Availability of
Appropriations.--The Secretary concerned may approve
transfers of entitlement to basic educational assistance
under this section in a fiscal year only to the extent that
appropriations for military personnel are available in that
fiscal year for purposes of making deposits in the Department
of Defense Education Benefits Fund under section 2006 of
title 10 in that fiscal year to cover the present value of
future benefits payable from the Fund for the Department of
Defense portion of payments of basic educational assistance
attributable to increased usage of benefits as a result of
such transfers of entitlement in that fiscal year.
``(k) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall
prescribe regulations for purposes of this section. Such
regulations shall specify the manner and effect of an
election to modify or revoke a transfer of entitlement under
subsection (f)(2) and shall specify the manner of the
applicability of the administrative provisions referred to in
subsection (h)(5) to a dependent to whom entitlement is
transferred under this section.
``(l) Annual Report.--(1) Not later than January 31 each
year (beginning in 2003), the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the Committees on Armed Services and the Committees
on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of
Representatives a report on the transfers of entitlement to
basic educational assistance under this section that were
approved by each Secretary concerned during the preceding
fiscal year.
``(2) Each report shall set forth--
``(A) the number of transfers of entitlement under this
section that were approved by such Secretary during the
preceding fiscal year; or
``(B) if no transfers of entitlement under this section
were approved by such Secretary during that fiscal year, a
justification for such Secretary's decision not to approve
any such transfers of entitlement during that fiscal year.
``(m) Secretary Concerned Defined.--Notwithstanding section
101(25) of this title, in this section, the term `Secretary
concerned' means--
``(1) the Secretary of the Army with respect to matters
concerning the Army;
``(2) the Secretary of the Navy with respect to matters
concerning the Navy or the Marine Corps;
``(3) the Secretary of the Air Force with respect to
matters concerning the Air Force; and
``(4) the Secretary of Defense with respect to matters
concerning the Coast Guard, or the Secretary of
Transportation when it is not operating as a service in the
Navy.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
3019 the following new item:
``3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational assistance: Armed
Forces with critical military skills.''.
(b) Treatment Under Department of Defense Education
Benefits Fund.--Section 2006(b)(2) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) The present value of future benefits payable from the
Fund for the Department of Defense portion of payments of
educational assistance under subchapter II of chapter 30 of
title 38 attributable to increased usage of benefits as a
result of transfers of entitlement to basic educational
assistance under section 3020 of that title during such
period.''.
(c) Plan for Implementation.--Not later than June 30, 2002,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
describing the manner in which the Secretaries of the
military departments and the Secretary of Transportation
propose to exercise the authority granted by section 3020 of
title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a). The
report shall include the regulations prescribed under
subsection (k) of that section for purposes of the exercise
of the authority.
(d) Funding for Fiscal Year 2002.--Of the amount authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for military
personnel for fiscal year 2002 by section 421, $30,000,000
may be available in fiscal year 2002 for deposit into the
Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund under section
2006 of title 10, United States Code, for purposes of
covering payments of amounts under subparagraph (D) of
section 2006(b)(2) of such title (as added by subsection
(b)), as a result of transfers of entitlement to basic
educational assistance under section 3020 of title 38, United
States Code (as added by subsection (a)).
Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
Mr. WEBB. I thank both Senators. I yield the floor, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains, Madam President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 23\1/2\ minutes to the Senator
from Massachusetts; 12 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, we had one speaker from my side and then a
colloquy with some people from my side who were involved with the
Senator from Virginia, but I don't think that can hardly be charged to
my side.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will be glad to yield 10 minutes----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each Senator who spoke was charged with the
time based on their party.
Mr. ENZI. I thought I was in charge of half of the time, and I didn't
allocate that time. I can see how the rules go here.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask for additional time. I ask
unanimous consent for an additional 15 minutes for the Senator from
Wyoming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. And I ask unanimous consent that we will have 10 minutes
on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. So the Chair understands, there will be 15
additional minutes for the minority and additional minutes for----
Mr. KENNEDY. I understand we have 22 minutes remaining; is that
right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent for 10 additional minutes on our
side and for 15 additional minutes on the other side--or 20 minutes on
the other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. There
will be 20 additional minutes added to the minority side and 10
additional minutes added to the majority side.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we have had a very interesting exchange
with both Senators from Virginia and the Senator from Nebraska on a
matter of enormous importance and consequence, and that is our support
for a GI bill that is worthy of the bravery, courage, and valor of
those who are serving in the Armed Forces.
The stated legislative purpose of the Senator from Virginia, Mr.
Webb, who is the architect of this program--and I welcome the chance to
be a cosponsor--is to try and do for those who are in the service of
our country at this time a similar kind of support in education that
those who had served in the colors in World War II received. He has
explained it in great detail.
I look forward to supporting that proposal when it comes up on the
floor of the Senate, probably the early part of next week. I commend
the strong bipartisan support that it has been able to receive. I
commend my former chairman, Senator Warner, who led the Armed Services
Committee so brilliantly for so many years and has made such an
extraordinary contribution to the security of this Nation, both as a
serviceman and also as a policy leader, and to Senator Hagel whom I
think for all of us has demonstrated enormous courage in service and
outside guiding national security policy.
We are going to, after our next couple of speakers, be moving toward
consideration of the farm bill conference report. That is a privileged
matter, and it displaces the underlying legislation we have been
debating, the Cooperation Act, public service legislation we have been
considering both yesterday and today. I expect we will continue through
the evening on the farm conference report. Further action on our
legislation will be deferred until tomorrow.
In conclusion for this afternoon, on the floor we are considering the
service of extraordinary Americans: On the one hand, as Senator Webb
pointed out, those who serve in the armed services
[[Page 8973]]
of our country, and on the other hand, we are talking about the 659,000
police officers, 262,000 firefighters, who are in the service of our
country trying to provide for our national security.
We are mindful that we spend $40 billion a year on homeland security.
What this legislation at its heart is all about is to make sure those
service men and women, those police officers, those firefighters, those
EMTs, are going to be safe and secure; that they are going to have the
best in terms of equipment, and that we are going to listen to those
individuals who have dedicated their lives to protecting our fellow
citizens all across America. We are going to listen to their
recommendations and suggestions on how we can improve their safety and
the safety of the American people. We give them a mechanism to be able
to do that. That is the framework which is the underlying aspect of the
legislation we have before us.
People can talk about unfunded mandates and problems of strikes and
all these other items, but nonetheless we cannot and should not and
will not get away from the fundamental thrust of this legislation and
its importance. We have an extraordinary opportunity to make America
safer and more secure--here on the floor of the Senate. Who wants to
have that challenge? It is the police officers and the firefighters and
the first responders who are prepared to accept that responsibility.
All they are asking is to have a voice at the table when judgments and
decisions are being made by maybe well-intentioned policymakers, well-
intentioned bureaucrats. But we want to make sure those out there on
the front lines are at least going to have a voice in these policy
judgments and decisions. That is what this legislation is about. That
is why it is so important.
We are prepared to deal with the various amendments that come up. We
look forward to it. We have gotten off track over the course of the
day. With all due respect to others, we find that with the exception of
the amendment that was being offered by the Senator from Vermont,
Senator Leahy, on bulletproof vests--about which we don't know there is
any substantive objection--all the other amendments have been on the
other side; not from our side, from their side. We have not tried to
interfere with the order those have been offered.
Senator Alexander has been down here and has spoken eloquently. Many
Senators have spoken about their amendments. Senator Hatch was down and
spent time talking about his amendment.
We are prepared to move ahead. If there is need for further debate,
we will have further debate; if not, we are prepared to move ahead and
have the judgment made here in the Senate.
This legislation is extremely important. As I have mentioned, it has
been around for some 9 years. It was introduced initially by a
Republican. It has strong Republican--has strong bipartisan support. I
listened to my friend Senator Warner talk about the strong bipartisan
support there is for the GI bill. There is strong bipartisan support
for this legislation as well, as indeed there should be, and as we have
attempted to achieve. We will continue to work in that area.
We look forward, I expect, to have further consideration on this
tomorrow. I am very appreciative, as always, of my friend and colleague
from Wyoming, Senator Enzi. We have a remarkable area of agreement in
some public policy areas, but we have sharp areas of differences. This
happens to be one of those. This legislation happens to be one of
those. But it does not take away the great respect and affection I have
for him as a legislator and as a friend.
We look forward to continuing this debate and hopefully a resolution
on some of these matters tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it is my understanding our side has 32
minutes remaining. I wish to yield myself up to 10 minutes of that
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. CORNYN. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 25\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I am going to yield 15 minutes--10 minutes to Senator
Klobuchar and 10 minutes to the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray,
at an appropriate time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this Saturday the people in my home
State of Texas will join to celebrate Armed Forces Day and, of course,
shortly thereafter Memorial Day. These are the days we set aside to
honor the men and women who have worn the uniform of the U.S. military,
to honor them for their service and particularly remember those who
made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our freedom.
As I prepare to go home this weekend to join my fellow Texans in
celebrating this important event, I am reminded of the immense debt we
all owe those who have worn the uniform. Of course, this is a debt we
know we can never repay.
From a personal perspective, my father served as a B-17 pilot in
World War II, and served honorably for 31 years in the U.S. Air Force.
He was shot down and spent 4 months in a German prisoner-of-war camp
before General Patton and his army came along and liberated him and his
fellow POWs. Of course he, like so many of that generation, came back
to his home and took advantage of the GI bill in order to get an
education so he could then become the foundation upon which America
would continue to build itself in those postwar years and beyond.
The GI bill has done an incalculable benefit not only to the
individual veterans who received those educational benefits but to our
country as well. It is important now, many years later, in 2008, that
we focus our efforts on modernizing that GI bill to make sure the
benefits I know we all want to see directed toward our men and women in
uniform are available to allow them, when they return home from the
fight, to take their uniform off, to get an education, and to achieve
their dreams.
Because I believe we need to modernize the GI bill of rights, when it
comes to educational benefits for our veterans, I have chosen to
cosponsor a bill called S. 2938, the Enhancement of Recruitment,
Retention, and Readjustment Through Education Act. Sadly, and for some
inexplicable reason, we saw that bill tabled by the Senate. I do not
know why, at a time when we ought to be talking about and acting on our
appreciation for our men and women in uniform, the Senate decided to
table this important piece of legislation. But I wish to talk about it
for a minute, to explain to my colleagues what is contained in this
important piece of legislation.
This bill would help our military personnel with an extended range of
options under the GI bill to ensure that they get the benefits they
deserve. It immediately increases education benefits for active-duty
personnel to $1,500 a month and, to encourage retention and
continuation of service in the military, it gradually increases the
education benefits to $2,000 a month after 12 or more years of service.
It expands the authority for servicemembers to transfer--and this is
one of the most important elements of this legislation--it allows them
to transfer their educational benefits to members of their family, a
spouse or a child. After 6 years of service, half of that benefit can
be transferred, and after 12 years of service, 100 percent of the
benefit can be transferred to a child, to a spouse, or some other loved
one.
It increases from $880 to $1,200 per month the education benefits for
Guard and Reserve members called to active duty since September 11,
2001. It allows servicemembers to use up to $6,000 per year of
Montgomery G.I. bill education benefits to repay student loans, and it
provides access to Montgomery GI bill benefits to service academy
graduates and senior reserve officers' training corps officers who
continue to serve beyond their initial commitment.
This legislation is offered as an alternative to S. 22, a bill
produced by my
[[Page 8974]]
distinguished colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb, and actually
cosponsored by our other distinguished colleague from Virginia, Senator
Warner. I believe both of these bills are born out of the noblest of
aspirations and intentions, but I do believe the alternatives offered
in the bill that has been laid on the table here a moment ago would
actually provide a better range of services to more of our troops as
well as their families. Simply put, I do believe it is a better fit for
our Nation and a better fit for the people of my State of Texas.
I mentioned the issue of transferability. This is something not found
in the Webb bill that is found in the alternative. To begin with,
Senator Webb's bill fails to recognize the enormous sacrifices our
military families make in support of their loved ones who wear the
uniform of the U.S. military. Talk to any sailor, soldier, airman, or
marine and they will tell you that being able to transfer their GI
educational benefits to their spouses or their children is enormously
important to them. At a time when we depend on an all-volunteer
military, isn't it important that we provide the maximum range of
benefits not only to our veterans but also to the military families,
the people who stay behind while their loved ones are deployed and
whose support they need and depend on, and frankly whose support our
Nation depends on--our military families?
According to all the service chiefs and the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
transferability of this benefit is their No. 1 priority and something
wholly missing from the Webb bill.
As I mentioned, my father served as a bomber pilot in World War II. I
have experienced, as have other military family members, the joint
commitment military families make in support of their loved one in the
military.
In addition to the other benefits, I think this particular provision
of transferability recognizes a fundamental fairness issue and impacts
directly on our ability to retain our servicemembers. Obviously, we
would not want to do anything intentionally which would encourage
people to leave the military after 3 years of service. It is in the
best interests of the United States of America, our strength and
security--it is in the best interests of our all-volunteer military
force to actually encourage and facilitate service of our active-duty
military beyond just an initial tour of 3 years of service.
While we applaud and honor those who serve any period of time in our
military, we do need to make sure we do not create an incentive for
people to leave early in order to get a benefit under this bill. That
is why, under the legislation I am cosponsoring--Senator Graham's bill,
also cosponsored by Senator Burr, Senator McCain, and others--our
career military will receive additional GI bill benefits to reward them
for their continued service.
This bill clearly recognizes you do not have to get out of the
military to be able to continue your education. Like the Webb bill,
troops will be eligible for up to $1,500 monthly benefits after 3 years
of service. However, in order to recognize our career troops as well,
benefits would increase to $2,000 a month after 12 years of service--
clearly providing both a benefit and incentive for people to continue
in military service and not to feel as if they have to leave after 3
years in order to take advantage of this benefit. Unlike the Webb bill,
which caters to those who choose to remain in the service for only 3
years--whose service we earnestly appreciate--the Graham bill I believe
provides short-term rewards and also rewards our career troops as well.
According to the RAND Corporation study conducted in January, 2008,
Senator Webb's bill would:
. . . reduce first-term Army reenlistment by about 12
percentage points from the current rate of 40 percent to
about 28 percent.
This is an important point. The unintended effect of Senator Webb's
bill would actually be to reduce retention from 40 percent to 28
percent.
Madam President, I ask for an additional 2 minutes by unanimous
consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, why in the world would we want to do
anything that discriminates between those military members who serve
for 3 years and then decide to leave and those who decide to make the
military their career? Why would we want to discriminate against their
families, who might benefit from the transferability option contained
in this alternative legislation which I am supporting? Why would we
want to do anything that would actually damage our ability to encourage
people to stay in the military should they choose that for themselves
and for their families?
I believe this legislation is important not only to our Nation, it
provides an important benefit to our military and their families. It
encourages retention and continuation of service, facilitates those who
do want to stay longer, and creates an enhanced benefit for them.
In a State such as Texas where 1 out of every 10 people in uniform
calls our State home, this is very important to my State and my
constituents. But I will tell you, this is even more important to our
Nation in encouraging that our strong, all-volunteer military force
remain strong and that we meet our commitment to make sure they receive
the benefits they need and they deserve and are not limited only to the
servicemember but can also be extended to family members as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, please advise me after I have spoken for 10
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an agreement to alternate sides,
Senator.
The Senator from Washington State.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Refueling Tankers
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, when our constituents make decisions
about big purchases such as buying a house or buying a car, the first
thing they do is consider how much money they have to spend, and then
they shop for the best quality they can get for the most reasonable
price for the item that best meets their needs. When the Government
makes a purchase, they expect it to follow that same sort of analysis,
whether it is buying a pencil or jet engines. But that is not what our
military did when it made its decision to buy the next generation of
refueling tankers from Airbus instead of from Boeing.
Compared to Boeing's 767, Airbus's A330 is massive. The simple truth
is that a bigger plane is going to be more expensive. The bigger plane
the Air Force wants to buy is going to burn more fuel, it is going to
take up more space, and it is going to require more people to maintain
it. But our hangars, our runways, and our ramps today are all designed
for a much smaller tanker.
I also have serious concerns and questions about how much Airbus's
tanker is going to cost in fuel and personnel and maintenance. In the
months that have passed now since the military announced it had
selected Airbus for this massive contract, I have repeatedly asked the
Pentagon whether it considered how it will pay for the extra costs of a
much bigger plane. I have been astounded that no one has been able to
answer my questions. In other words, the military said it wants to
spend more than $100 billion to buy bigger planes, but it has no idea
where it is going to put them, it does not know who is going to
maintain them, and it does not know how we are going to pay to operate
them. That makes no sense to me. I am very concerned about how much
this decision is going to cost us, and that is why I have come to the
floor this afternoon. Let me explain why I am troubled about this
decision.
First of all, we do not know what the possible military construction
costs might be for this purchase. It is estimated that these planes are
too big for many of our hangars and that they are too heavy for many of
our runways and our ramps. These tankers I am talking about are the
backbone of our military. These refueling tankers make our global Air
Force possible. Today, they are
[[Page 8975]]
stationed around the world. So we are not only buying airplanes we can
keep anywhere, the tanker has to be able to take off and land from
almost anywhere in the world.
The new tankers are supposed to be a replacement for our current
fleet of medium-sized Boeing KC-135s. But compared to our current
tankers and compared to the 767, the Airbus plane the Air Force has
decided to purchase is massive. Airbus's A330 is 32 feet longer than
Boeing's 767. The Airbus A330's wingspan is 41 feet wider. The A330
weighs about 20 percent more than the Boeing plane. Our military
experts have said they think the A330 will be able to operate on only
about half of the airfields the Boeing 767 can use--about half of our
airfields. That means some of our infrastructure in this country and
across this globe is going to be torn down and refitted to accommodate
these new planes they have decided to buy.
Secondly, oil and gas prices are a major factor of the cost of
operating a refueling tanker. I am very concerned because a larger
plane is obviously going to burn more fuel and cost dramatically more
over the lifetime of these planes. In fact, because the Airbus A330 is
larger and heavier than the Boeing 767, it is going to burn 24 percent
more fuel. That means that fueling planes the size of the A330 will
cost $30 billion more over the lifetime of this plane. That is
astonishing when you think that the initial cost for this contract is
$35 billion. Fuel alone is going to double the cost of these planes.
Americans are up in arms today about the cost of gas for their own
cars. How do you think they are going to react if our Air Force chooses
to use their tax dollars, American tax dollars, to fuel massive
airplanes when there is a cheaper option available?
Third, the larger A330 is going to require bigger refueling and
ground crews. Because buying a larger plane means it will not be able
to use standard-size military pallets, the military, in making this
purchase, is now going to need more personnel and airmen to load and
unload every A330 tanker.
Finally, these larger planes are going to cost the military more to
maintain. Not only will the A330 simply need more maintenance over its
lifetime, larger crews are going to be needed to work on them. Because
the planes are bigger, they are going to have to be packed in closer at
our bases, and packing them in closer is going to make maintaining and
getting them off the ground more dangerous for our airmen and airwomen.
Now, I have been asking some pretty tough questions about how we got
to this point, how the Air Force chose the Airbus plane over the Boeing
plane, because it does not make sense to me that we would send this
contract overseas when we have the capability and the right plane right
here at home.
I have specifically asked about the military's construction costs. At
four hearings now, four hearings in the last 3 months, I have asked our
military officials whether they can tell me if they did an analysis of
the potential construction costs of buying these larger planes before
they reached their decision. Do you know what. I was shocked by their
answer. It was: No. No. No. They did not do an analysis of how much it
would cost for these larger planes. That means the Pentagon launched a
major contract to replace a plane that we will have for decades that is
going to cost us billions of dollars, but apparently it never did a
complete, independent analysis of the potential military construction
costs of buying that much larger plane.
I am concerned that even though I have asked for an estimate of these
costs and even though several of my colleagues here in the Senate and
the House have asked for the same information, we do not have an
answer.
I first asked Air Force Secretary Wynne about these costs on March
12. I asked him: What will be the associated costs for our military
construction budget, and can these Airbus planes fit in the hangars we
have today? That is what I asked. At the time, Secretary Wynne could
not answer me. He only said to me that the RFP did not indicate any
size. So I asked again on April 24, this time with two Pentagon
officials, Comptroller Tina Jonas and Under Secretary of Defense Wayne
Arny, and they said they were not part of any decisionmaking process
and could not comment. So on May 8 and then again today, I asked what
the cost of this larger tanker would be for the National Guard and
Reserve. Today, the Guard promised to get back to me with an answer.
Well, I hope they do.
I am extremely frustrated that we cannot get this information. We are
talking about spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, and
we are talking about a decision that affects our global military power.
I am baffled as to why the Pentagon did not do a top-to-bottom analysis
of every aspect of this very expensive decision. ``I don't know'' is
not an acceptable answer when we are asking American taxpayers to foot
the bill for purchasing these planes.
Now, this process has been flawed from the start. As a result, it is
now being appealed to the GAO. But regardless of the GAO's findings, I
think we, as Members of Congress, as representatives of the American
people, should be very concerned about the way the military reached
this decision. No family would buy an 18-wheeler if all they needed was
a station wagon. And the military should not be buying a jumbo jet that
is extremely expensive when what it really needs and what it has told
us it needs is an agile refueling tanker. It is common sense.
I think we need some real answers about why the Pentagon believes
this decision is worth the taxpayers' money. I hope our colleagues will
join with me in demanding that we get that information before we make a
mistake that will cost us billions of dollars that we cannot afford to
waste.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to change the
order. My friend from South Carolina, Senator Graham, has allowed me to
go. I ask unanimous consent to speak and then to be followed by the
Senator from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I come to the floor today to express
my strong support for the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation
Act that the Senate is currently considering, legislation that will
ensure our public safety officers are treated with the respect and the
dignity they unquestionably deserve.
I have always believed the first responsibility of government is to
protect its citizens. I believe that responsibility begins right here
at the local level in our neighborhoods and in our communities with our
law enforcement officers. To fulfill that essential responsibility, our
local public safety officers need the support of the Government in
Washington.
Before I came to Washington, like you, I served as a prosecuting
attorney. I served for 8 years as a chief prosecutor for Minnesota's
largest county. During that time, I saw firsthand the critical and
courageous contributions our police officers, firefighters, paramedics,
and our public safety personnel make on a daily basis. I gained an
unending appreciation for their service in keeping our communities safe
and secure. When I came to Washington, I made a commitment that I would
remember the officers I had worked alongside in Minnesota and that I
would do everything I could to see that they received the full
resources and support they deserve.
This bill would demonstrate our support by allowing public safety
officers to be treated as they should, by promoting basic fairness in
their working standards. It does so in a way that allows States to
retain the flexibility to craft their own standards to suit their local
conditions.
My State of Minnesota is fortunate to be one of 26 States that
already grant collective bargaining rights to their public safety
employees. Our police officers, firefighters, and paramedics enjoy
strong relationships with the State, counties, and cities that employ
them, which enhances their ability to protect the communities they
serve.
[[Page 8976]]
When public safety employers and employees work together, it reduces
worker fatalities and improves the quality of service. We need these
valuable partnerships to be at their strongest if we are going to be
able to properly respond to disasters and emergencies that strike at
our homeland security.
Our State is well aware of this. We have had our share of tragedies
this year, from the collapse of the I-35W bridge to the floods in
southern Minnesota in which several people died, to the fires up in
northern Minnesota in the Ham Lake area over through the Canadian
border. This week thousands of police officers have come to Washington
to commemorate National Police Week. I have had an opportunity to meet
with these police officers. I had the opportunity to meet with
paramedics when I was home a week ago. I have had the opportunity to
see our firefighters at work. We must respect these hard-working public
servants. This respect should be fundamental to the work we do.
I told these officers and paramedics and firefighters that I would
come to the floor to speak in support of this legislation and that I
was hopeful our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would join us
in passing this law. What they want is what they have in our State.
They want the right to be treated with the respect of colleagues all
across the country. In the last several years, specifically after 9/11,
we have placed even greater responsibilities on police and other public
safety officers. At a time when State and local budgets are tight,
these Federal funds have become more important in assisting local law
enforcement to fulfill their duties to protect communities. By passing
this legislation and guaranteeing the basic rights it provides and
working to deliver the full resources and assistance these officers
need to continue their exemplary work, we can demonstrate our
acknowledgment and appreciation for the work they do every day.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask to be notified after 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. First, I compliment Senator Warner and Senator Webb for
several weeks ago crafting legislation to provide some changes in our
GI benefits for educational purposes. I support an alternative measure
which has been developed in the weeks since then, among other things,
because the Defense Department, led by Secretary Gates, has analyzed
the requirements that the Defense Department has and has suggested a
different approach than that originally taken by Senators Warner and
Webb. That approach is embodied in legislation authored by Senator
Graham, Senator McCain, Senator Burr, and others. It is S. 2938. I will
describe the key point in a moment, but I was very disappointed an hour
or so ago when, after Senator Graham had offered this legislation as an
amendment, it was tabled. Our colleagues didn't want to have a vote on
it. I would think that at least we could have a fair up-or-down vote on
the legislation, particularly since it is the approach that has been
recommended by Secretary Gates and the Defense Department. I believe it
is the approach President Bush would prefer. I believe it would solve
the problem we are trying to solve.
Everybody knows that next week, when the supplemental appropriations
bill comes before us, the bill that will enable us to fund the troops
missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Warner-Webb bill will be included
as a part of that. We will not have an opportunity to try to amend it.
That was the purpose of the Senator from South Carolina offering the
amendment today. We have now been foreclosed from voting on that. That
is not right, especially since this is the superior of the two
approaches.
The key here has to do with the original intent of the GI bill and
today's circumstances. After World War II, when most of the members of
the Armed Forces had been drafted, came back from the Pacific and
European theaters, many of them had been drafted right out of high
school or perhaps they were not even in school. They, obviously, saw
the importance of getting a college education. A grateful nation said:
You have been plucked out of your family circumstance, maybe out of
high school. You were not able to attend college, although some were in
college when they were drafted. We want to pay something back to you
and send you to college, if you would like to do that. That was the GI
benefit.
Today the circumstances are much different. We don't have the draft
anymore. We didn't have millions and millions of servicemen mustered
out of the service, ready to go to college. Today we have exactly the
opposite. We need to attract good men and women to serve in our forces,
and we need to provide them the kind of benefits that are attractive to
them in today's world. They are a very different, diverse group of
people. The kind of educational benefit likewise needs to respond to
that kind of diversity and circumstance. That is the reason this GI
bill is being modernized and updated.
The key point Senator Graham will make and that Secretary Gates has
made, as my colleague Senator McCain has said, is that instead of a
group of people who have been mustered out of the service, we aren't
trying to get people out of the service. Today we are trying to retain
folks, good people who have been educated and trained in the military.
We want to have as many of those men and women stay in the military as
possible.
Clearly, recruitment and retention in an all-volunteer force is
critical to an effective military. That is what Secretary Gates was
speaking of when he said:
Our first objective is to strengthen the all-volunteer
force. Accordingly, it is essential to permit transferability
of unused education benefits from servicemembers to family.
Transferability supports military families, thereby enhancing
retention.
That is the key difference between these two approaches. I would hope
that my colleagues who originally wanted to support an approach that
Senators Warner and Webb wrote would recognize that there has been an
improvement to that in the legislation Senators Graham, Burr, and
McCain have offered and would support that alternative which provides
for transferability.
There are a couple of other differences. I wish to briefly highlight
them. The fact that the Warner-Webb bill costs more certainly should
not be necessarily an argument against it, but it certainly should not
be an argument for the legislation either. If we can deliver the same
services in a more efficient way, that is good, not bad. As to that
point, one of the other differences between the legislation of Senator
Graham and the previously introduced bill is that this recognizes
everyone in a fair way, providing the same benefit. It doesn't
discriminate against people who attend a less-expensive, State-
sponsored school in favor of one who attends a more expensive private
school, for example. You have the same kind of benefit. It is an
adequate benefit because of the increases provided for in the bill.
The bottom line, the reason I strongly support the legislation
introduced by my colleagues from South Carolina and from Arizona is
because it responds to today's circumstances, the all-volunteer force,
where we are trying to keep more people in the military as opposed to
the other approach, which is an extension of the old GI bill which was
provided for people who were leaving the military. That is the key
difference and the reason why I urge my colleagues to support the
approach Senator Graham is providing. I hope, even though we have had
this legislation now tabled, that we will have an opportunity to
actually vote on it in the future. I encourage my colleagues to support
us in providing an opportunity to vote on the legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from South
Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Can the Chair let me know when I have 2 minutes
remaining?
[[Page 8977]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time does the Senator request?
Mr. GRAHAM. Fifteen minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 14 minutes remaining. The Senator
will be advised when there is 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. GRAHAM. Let's talk about the policy and then the politics.
Everything seems to be in the case of politics. Most Members of the
body would like to pass some legislation this year that would improve
GI benefits for those who serve and leave and for those who continue to
serve. Putting this bill, the Webb bill, on the supplemental emergency
funding for the war, a mandatory entitlement program put on a
supplemental emergency spending bill for the war is not the way to go.
Having a supplemental involving spending for the war that can't be
amended is not the way to go. Putting the bill on the firefighter-
police officer legislation is not the way to go, but it is the only way
I had to go. I have sat down with Senator Webb and his staff. I hope we
can find common ground. I have never doubted the desire of Senators
Webb or Warner to increase the benefit. Senator Webb's service to the
country has been extraordinary in combat, as Secretary of the Navy, as
has Senator Warner's. Obviously, they have a desire and some expertise
in this area to upgrade basic GI benefits. I share that desire and hope
this body can do something necessary.
But as Senator Kyl said, quite frankly, I don't agree with their
approach. The need is there, but the first thing all of us in this body
should do is not compound a problem our current forces have, and that
is retention. In the name of trying to help recruit people to the
military, you don't create a benefit that the Congressional Budget
Office and the Pentagon say will hurt retention. It makes perfect sense
to me that the approach of Senators Webb and Warner will hurt
retention. It is $50-something billion of new spending, and it is all
geared to the people who leave the military after 3 years. As Senator
Kyl indicated, this is a different war. Unless we start drafting
people, which nobody appears to want, including me, we need to let
those who serve and continue to serve know how much we appreciate what
they are doing and give them incentives to stay around because every
person who will stay in the military to make it a career is a godsend
to this country because we are being defended by volunteers.
So how about this idea? Increase the basic benefit, as Senators
Warner and Webb have proposed but do it in a way that makes the most
sense for the entire force. The current amount of money available to
someone who leaves the military after 3 years of service to go to
college is $1,100 a month. That used to be the average cost of a State
college tuition, including room and board. It is now up to $1,500 a
month as an average cost. What we have done in our approach is raise
the benefit to $1,500, which is the average cost of a State college,
room and board. To me, that is a worthy goal for the Nation to pursue.
Senators Webb and Warner have a new formula, a new way of delivering
benefits that misses the mark. Instead of paying every GI who leaves
the service $1,500 a month, and under our bill $1,000 a year for books
and fees, what Senator Webb proposes is that you would look at the
school, the highest State school, the highest State institution in
terms of tuition in each State, and the GI would receive the amount of
money that would pay for that school. So in Michigan, the most
expensive State school is $13,000. In South Carolina, it is $5,000 or
$6,000. So based on where you live, you could have a disparity in how
much benefits come to the veteran. I don't think that is the way to go.
What we have tried to do is make the benefit that exists today
reflect the reality of today for those who leave.
If somebody wants to go to Harvard or Yale, what we do under the bill
is we tell the institution, if you will forgive 25 percent of the
difference between what the Government pays and the tuition, we will
put an extra thousand on the table. If you will forgive 50 percent of
the indebtedness, we will put more money on the table. If you will
forgive the entire indebtedness, I think we would go up to like $3,000,
maybe $3,500 a month. That way the institution can get over $40,000,
and the veteran can go to that school without any debt. So we have a
program in the bill to try to get institutions on the higher end,
private schools, to work with veterans to get them through their
institutions and put more money on the table.
But the big point I am trying to make is, under our approach, we have
a component not found in the Webb bill that the country needs. Right
now the GI benefits that are earned after 3 years of service under the
Webb approach, $55 billion is spent on that population, not one penny
of additional incentive to stay around. Do you know what America needs?
We need to take care of those who serve and leave because they have
done the country a great service. But as a nation, we need to
desperately try to retain people who are willing to serve longer. So
what do we do? Senator Burr and myself, Senator McCain, we have
listened to the troops. What do the troops want? What do those in
uniform want from the GI benefit reform? They would like to transfer
their benefits to their spouse or their children.
Under our approach, if you stay 6 years, that $1,500-a-month benefit,
that $1,000-a-year payment for books and fees, 50 percent of it can be
transferred to a spouse or child. That would revolutionize the way this
benefit package is being used today. Fifty percent of the people
eligible for GI benefits in today's world never use them. If you could
transfer those benefits, it would be a higher utilization, and the
benefit would be to the family members of the military member, the ones
they love and care about the most. If you will stay in 12 years, at the
12-year point under our bill, the benefit goes from $1,500 a month to
$2,000 a month, and you can transfer all of it.
Now, what does that mean? That means if you will continue to serve
our country, at the 12-year point you do not have to worry about your
kids' ability to go to college anymore. What does that mean? That means
your retirement pay has more value. A lot of people are getting out of
the military at the 8- and 10-year point because they have a couple
kids and they wonder: Can I send them to college on a military salary?
Wouldn't it be wonderful to check that block and say: You can stay in
the military, get your 20 years, get your retirement, and also have a
benefit to pay for your kids' college that will not come out of your
retired pay? This will revolutionize retention.
The CBO says for every $10,000 of educational benefit increase, you
lose a percent in retention. Under the Webb approach, we would lose 8
to 9 percent a year in retention, at a time we need to retain more.
Under our approach, not only are we going to give more money to those
who serve and leave--a very generous benefit--we are also going to put
money on the table for the first time in the history of the GI program
to reward those who stay. Most people who serve 20 years are going to
come out with a college degree they earned in the military without ever
using their benefits. The ability to transfer the benefit to a family
member is enormous. Again, it will allow the retired pay--of those who
go to 20 years--to have much more bang for the buck. They will have
their college paid for.
When I talk to people in the Guard and Reserve and Active Forces,
they tell me they would love to have the ability to transfer their GI
benefits once they get their degree to a spouse or a child.
It would help retention. It would help families. It is, in my
opinion, the best bang for the taxpayer buck.
Now, where are we going to go? Here is what is going to happen.
Madam President, how much time is left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes more before his 2-
minute warning. The Senator has 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, thank you.
We have a choice to make as a body. We can find some middle ground
and
[[Page 8978]]
pass a bill that 100 people would vote for or we can put the Webb
amendment on the supplemental in its current form without any changes,
table my bill, and say: Go off in the corner and be quiet. Well, that
``ain't'' going to happen. I am not going to be quiet. I am going to
urge the President to veto the Webb bill in its current form because no
matter how well-intended it is, it will hurt retention. It will hurt
retention at a time, as a nation, when we need to enhance retention.
I have a different approach, and I think it makes sense. But I am
willing to meet people in the middle. I am not going to be put in a box
of having to vote no and be accused of not caring. Well, I have another
approach. I think it serves the country well. I am willing to meet in
the middle. I hope we can find some middle ground. At the end of the
day, helping veterans and rewarding those who serve is a shared value--
not a Democratic value. It is a shared value by all Americans:
Republicans, Independents, and Democrats.
Two things are important to the American people at a time of national
crisis, at a time of a two-front war. Let's come together and help
those who are willing to put on the uniform. Count me in for increasing
the benefits for those who serve 3 years and leave. You have done your
country a great service. I want to make sure you have money to go to
college, that you are well rewarded for your service.
But work with me to do something for those who continue to serve.
Reward them. That has never been done before in the GI bill. It is time
for the GI bill to change. It is time to have money on the table to
reward those families and military members who stay around and keep
going back and keep fighting. If you want to help the military, the men
and women in uniform who decide to make this a career, allow their
benefits to be transferred to their loved ones, allow military members
who serve for 12 years and beyond a chance to send their kids to
college with GI benefits and not have to use their retirement.
So I look forward to this debate. It is going to be a chance to do
some good or it is going to be politics as usual. Well, that is a
decision we are all going to have to make. I hope we can do the country
some good. To me, the best thing we can do for the country and for
those men and women who serve--and continue to serve--is to do
something new, something long overdue and new; that is, to allow them
to transfer their benefits to their family members. That will help
retention. It will reward those families who sacrifice alongside the
servicemember. I have talked with enough family members to know how
much this would change and help improve family life in the military.
With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. BURR. Madam President, I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank
my colleague, Senator Graham, and I really do thank my colleagues from
both sides of the aisle who have come to the floor and talked about the
GI bill and the fact that we were asleep for a number of years from the
standpoint of making changes in the law that reflect the cost of
education.
But what I want my colleagues to understand and the public to
understand is that the Department of Defense used what we call
education kickers to provide retention tools for our Active-Duty
troops. Throughout this whole period, as they saw promising service men
and women and they wanted them to stay in the military, they used what
we call education kickers. They upped the amount of their education
benefit if they would re-up for a period of time--3 years, 5 years, 6
years.
So to say that $1,100 was the ceiling, that is not accurate. The fact
is, we have reached a point in time when we need to change the number
in the law, what the base amount is that is the promise this country is
making to our service men and women when they serve. I think it is
appropriate, given we have gone through a decade--and I am sure most
Americans would not find this hard to believe--where the highest area
of inflation in America over the last 10 years has not been health
care. It has been higher education. For any parent who is going through
higher education with a child today, they know exactly what that
means--that it costs a whole lot to go there.
Senator Webb deserves a lot of credit because for 18 months he has
talked about changing our financial level of commitment. I have to say
that has been healthy for the men and women who are serving. It has
been healthy for this Senate to begin the debate on it. I do not want
anybody to leave this debate and feel we are not both headed in the
same direction. It is just that I have some fundamental disagreements
with the way he structured it.
I believe there is a way to fulfill the promise, that if you serve,
then we are going to commit to you, we are going to provide you with a
quality education. When my dad came back from the Second World War, he
had most of his education paid for before he left, but this is not
something he went out and shopped. This is not something where he said:
Gee, there is a benefit. Let me find the most expensive place I can go,
and let me exercise it there. He focused on what he wanted to be and
where the tools were that were available to him.
Sometimes we have to stop for a minute and reflect: What are the
unintended consequences of what we do in this body? Well, one thing
with the Webb bill is we disregard the fact that part of higher
education comes out of the Department of Education today. It is called
Pell grants. For those service men and women who qualify for them, that
goes toward their education. The way this bill is written, we pay for
their education, and the Pell grant, if they qualify--which most
would--is then available for them after their education to pocket as
cash. I am not sure that is the promise we made. I am not sure it is
the promise the American people are committed to fulfill. I am not sure
it is what our service men and women expect. They want an education.
What we have done is we have structured an alternative, the Grahamm-
Burr-McCain bill, that provides exactly that. It is targeted at the
average of the cost of public education in America. Now, fundamentally,
I do not believe a student who picks an art and design school in the
State of Michigan should be entitled to $13,000 for that school. Yet if
he chooses the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, then he is
only going to get $5,300.
Why is there a discrepancy in those two schools? Because States
subsidize higher education at a different level because it is a State
decision. It is State money that is used to subsidize higher education.
In North Carolina, we choose to subsidize higher education to the tune
of 70 percent. We do not expect every State to choose to subsidize it
at that level.
But by the same token, why would we create a program that
disenfranchises North Carolina, that says to North Carolina: Oh, boy,
you are going to be cheated because you subsidize higher education so
that more of your kids can have an affordable option. And because now
the Federal Government would have paid everything, you are going to
lose money because you subsidize higher education. Unintended
consequence: We are going to chase States out of the business of
subsidizing higher education.
What is the net effect? Every kid in America who does not serve 3
years Active Duty, cumulative, is going to pay more because States are
not going to subsidize. I am not sure that is what we are after. I
surely do not suggest that is the intent of Senator Webb's legislation.
It is what will happen if, in fact, we pass the legislation.
So Senator Graham and I and Senator McCain looked for: How do we take
the existing system--not create a new one; this is not a wheel that is
broken; it works, but let's fund it at today's funding needs.
Now, Senator Graham covered a lot of things that are in the bill. For
an Active-Duty servicemember who serves 3 years Active Duty, we are
going to provide $1,500 in living expense and tuition every month as a
benefit. We are going to provide $1,000 for books and
[[Page 8979]]
fees a year. For that individual who stays in the military over 6
years, 50 percent of the education benefit they accrue is transferable
to a family member: a spouse or child. If a servicemember chooses to
serve for 12 years or more, 100 percent of their GI education benefit
is now transferable to a spouse or a child.
I think it is safe to say that for most who make a career out of the
military, they have numerous opportunities to enhance their academic
achievements on Active Duty. So the likelihood is a 20-year veteran of
our services probably has all the education they need, and they have a
huge education benefit. I cannot think of a better reward to people who
have served their country than to say: Let's make this benefit
available so you can educate your children. Let them choose the States
that highly subsidize so they get more bang for their buck.
Senator Graham covered the fact that we put the responsibility for
private schools to fill the gap on the private schools. We say to an
institution: Do you know what. You are willing to retire debt for low-
income Americans today. Well, let's see what type of commitment you are
going to make for veterans, people who are part of the GI program.
Senator Webb's bill says to the school, Harvard, Yale, Duke, schools
that have $35,000 tuitions: Do you know what. We are only paying $5,000
in North Carolina, so, Duke, if you get one of these, that $20,000-some
difference--$25,000, $30,000 difference--for every dollar you put in,
the Federal Government is going to put in.
What I say, in the legislation, to Duke is: All right. We are putting
$14,400 in the pot for that GI. The difference is indebtedness at the
end of his career. If you are willing to retire 25 percent of it, then
we are going to put an extra $1,000 in the pot. If you are willing to
retire 50 percent, we are putting $2,000 in the pot. If you are willing
to retire 100 percent of the debt, we are going to put more money into
the pot. We are not going dollar for dollar because I do not think that
is our responsibility. There has to be a side of the academic
institutions that is willing to also recognize the service of our men
and women in uniform.
We were denied the opportunity to have a vote on a piece of
legislation earlier today. It is a rule of the Senate that you can
offer a motion to table an amendment. What does tabling an amendment
mean? It means we were denied the opportunity to vote on a real
education package for our service men and women.
What is the reason somebody would do that? Well, fear that we were
going to win. Fear that enough Members would look at it and vote for it
on the merits of the legislation, that we would win. What is the
likelihood we are going to have an opportunity to offer our amendment?
Probably none. Because the Webb amendment is going to be masked in an
emergency supplemental that is going to be made up of war funding,
funding that most Members--this one has no idea what other earmarked
programs Members of the Senate are going to stick in it or the House of
Representatives.
I would say to my colleagues, we ought to vote against the entire
package, except for war funding. We ought to come to the floor. We
ought to have a side by side: the Webb bill, the Graham bill. We ought
to debate it on the merits, but we ought to take into account the needs
of our military. To ignore retention, to ignore the tools the military
needs to make sure our Nation is secure and strong, is absolutely
ignorant. Now, it may be before it is over we are able to influence the
authors of the other legislation to put transferability in theirs. But
I have to say to my colleagues that the structure is fundamentally
flawed.
I am the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs' Committee.
Currently, the GI bill is administered partly out of DOD, partly out of
the Department of Education, partly out of the Veterans'
Administration. We have a Veterans' Administration today that is
challenged to process the amount of disability claims, the appeals to
disability claims, the appeals to medical services that are delivered.
Now we are saying let's create a big new program and let's dump it in
the Veterans' Administration and let's ask them to run it. How
incredibly insensitive to the work that is currently going on but how
insensitive to the needs of our veterans who are injured--those who
come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, those who transition out of Active
Duty to veteran status who need a Veterans' Administration that is 100
percent focused on the delivery of health care, the processing of
disability claims, and making sure every veteran is matched with a
check that they need for their livelihood.
Now we are going to say: But we want you to now run education. We
want to take the Department of Education out of it. We want to take DOD
out of it. We want the Veterans' Administration to be responsible.
Millions and millions, hundreds of millions of dollars is going to be
needed to administer this program, hundreds of millions of dollars.
Forget the fact that to write the regulations out of a new agency is
probably going to take well over a year. That is why the Webb bill is
not proposed to start for some time after this body passes it.
I am sure we are going to have ample time to talk about the education
benefit for our military members. I am not sure we are going to have an
opportunity to have a choice. I am convinced people asked me to come
here and serve to represent North Carolina to make sure we have a
choice, and that it wasn't a choice between something and nothing, but
that it was a choice between something and something. Every Member of
the Senate--100 Members--should have the opportunity to come to this
floor and to offer what they think is the solution to a problem. Not on
this. We tried to do it because we didn't think we would get an
opportunity, and instead of getting an up-or-down vote on a very
important piece of legislation that provides and extends and revamps
the GI education benefit for our military, it was decided that we were
all going to have the opportunity to table consideration. I am not sure
that is why we were all elected to be here. I think to some degree it
shows what is worse about the institution that we are not willing to
tackle.
This is the institution of great debate, and when we have big issues,
we run from the debate, hoping that the American people aren't looking,
hoping that nobody will read about what we have done, that nobody will
see the missed opportunity. I will tell my colleagues, our service men
and women aren't going to miss this one. It is not going to be over
with a simple tabling vote. This is something that will continue to
educate the American people and, more importantly, the men and women
who put on a uniform and never ask why but go exactly where our
Commander in Chief asks them to go.
I urge my colleagues to pay very special attention as we go through
the debate on this legislation. Ask yourself not only is it right, ask
yourself are the consequences of what we do the consequences that we
would want to have happen. If there are unintended consequences to
this, the general public of young people who are looking at higher
education as an absolute necessity of their livelihood in the future
are disenfranchised in some way by this. If servicemembers aren't
allowed to extend an education benefit to their children or to their
spouse, and it just goes away, have we really done our job? I think the
answer is going to be no.
So I encourage the leadership in the majority to give us an
opportunity to have a fair up-or-down vote. Give us the opportunity to
compare two pieces of legislation. Nobody should be scared to do that.
Let America decide based upon their representatives in the Senate which
one better fulfills the promise we have made to the men and women who
serve but, more importantly, what upholds the structure of higher
education in this country and doesn't disenfranchise or disadvantage
any student now or in the future.
I am convinced we can only achieve that if we recognize a benefit
that is uniform and equal across the board, not one that is determined
by where you choose to go to school, not a benefit that is determined
by where you
[[Page 8980]]
choose to live, but a benefit that fulfills every promise that we are
going to provide an education and put some degree of individual
responsibility on how that is exercised. I am convinced that for those
who may choose a community college versus a 4-year university, the
savings they have should be savings they extend to their children and
to their spouse.
That would not happen under the current Webb bill; it will just go
away. They will miss out on that opportunity. They will never know that
unless we are willing to have a debate on this floor. They are never
going to know it unless we are provided the opportunity to present them
with a choice between something and something versus something and
nothing.
I thank the Chair for the time extended to me.
At this time I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak
in morning business for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the question of updating GI bill
education benefits for our veterans and service personnel is something
that we need to do. I think all of us agree on that. I have to say that
how we do it, however, is very important.
The Webb-Warner bill, as written, fails in some very important ways,
ways that make it poor legislation. We need to be honest about that.
I believe the bill offered by Senators McCain, Burr, and Graham is
much better legislation. Frankly, I thank Senator McCain for having the
gumption to stand up and see the problems with this legislation. He
said he knew it was important and he was willing to take some political
heat here to try to do the right thing.
Let me read you what the Congressional Budget Office has said about
this legislation.
This is what they say about retention. We heard that in remarks from
some Senators earlier, but retention deals with how many people re-up
and decide after their initial tour of duty is up to make a longer--a
new commitment to stay in the military for a longer period or even make
it a career. We are in a career military, and I could not be more proud
of them. They are performing so exceptionally well. No person who has
been around the military for a few years would ever want to go back to
the system we had before. This one is working surprisingly well, beyond
our expectations. And even in this war where if you reenlist you are
likely to be sent abroad, retention continues to be very high.
What will this bill do? According to the Congressional Budget Office,
S. 22, as amended, would, in effect, result in ``a 16-percent decline
in the reenlistment rate.'' I am telling you, those of us who have been
watching the reenlistment rate as members of the Armed Services
Committee--and I have been on that committee since I have been in the
Senate, and I know the Presiding Officer, Senator Pryor, is on that
committee and knows these issues--reenlistment is critical. This Webb
amendment has the perverse effect of paying people to leave the
military. We should not do that. We should create incentives as the
Burr-McCain-Graham bill does. It encourages people to stay in and gives
even more rewards if they stay in and their family more rewards if they
stay in. That is the right thing for us to do. I wanted to mention that
point.
I am also troubled by how the money is allocated. We have done a
calculation. The way it is set up under the Webb amendment, if a person
were to take advantage of this GI bill benefit under his provision, a
University of Alabama student could receive $13,569 per year and a
student at Auburn University would receive $13,355 a year, but a
student at the University of Michigan would receive $22,413. That is an
$8,000 difference. That is a lot. Is this what we want to do? I don't
know what they would give somebody who is an Arkansas Razorback. They
would probably give them less than that. No, that is a great
university. I don't see any need for me to be supportive of a bill that
is going to discriminate that much between State universities. In fact,
if the McCain legislation were to pass, students at Alabama and Auburn
would receive an additional $400 and $500 under his bill. It would be
more generous to students in my State under the McCain bill.
I say to my colleagues, I think Senator Webb and others who supported
this legislation are on the right track. It is time for us to improve
the GI bill benefits for our soldiers and their families. We can do
that. We ought to put some money in it. I understand our budget is
tight, but I am prepared to vote some resources to improve this idea.
But I do not believe we should ever consider--please understand--ever
consider setting a policy that would essentially encourage and pay
people through subsidies to leave the military. We ought to create
educational benefit programs that affirm them, affirm their families,
as they make the military a career. That is what our current
involvement is.
Before I yield the floor, I will say that is why I have chosen to not
support the Webb approach and have chosen to support the McCain
approach. I think it is preferable.
I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have tried very hard. I was here a few
hours ago when the Senate opened, congratulating the Senate for moving
forward on a very important bill for firefighters and police. I guess
my expectations were far too high. I thought we were going to legislate
and finish this bill. It is a bill that is so important.
I had the opportunity after the log had been thrown in the road to
speak with the head of the firefighters union. I don't run from
organized labor. I think it is important that we recognize the good
they do in the country, and no one can dispute the work that
firefighters do. I talked with Mr. Schneeberger and told him I don't
know if we can do this bill; it appears Republicans don't want to do
it. They have offered a mini GI bill of rights. Of course, we have been
delayed. That is very unfortunate.
I hope Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi can work something out to
complete the bill in a very short period of time. We have done about
the best we can.
I spoke with Senator Enzi last night--I don't know what time it was--
4:30, 5 o'clock. I asked if he wanted votes last night. He said no
because he didn't get the work done in committee that he wanted and he
had some work to get done on this bill. I accepted that. I said fine.
I was hoping we would do more today. We tried to get a vote on an
amendment and could not get agreement to get a vote on an amendment. So
at this stage, we are going to see if we can invoke cloture on this
bill. If it doesn't work, it is just another bill the Republicans
brought down.
Mr. President, I said this morning, is it any wonder that three
special elections held for House seats have gone to Democrats in
districts where no one expected a Democrat to win? The reason is
because the American people are seeing what is going on here. They see
what is going on at 16th and Pennsylvania Avenue, and it is down here
now where we cannot do anything, nothing. Mr. President, 71 or 72
filibusters. I don't know how many we are at. We are moving up the
road. Is it any wonder that a poll came out yesterday in the Washington
Post saying that the American people believe Democrats in Congress are
21 percent better able to
[[Page 8981]]
handle the problems of this country than Republicans? It is no wonder.
In spite of that, in spite of 7 years and almost 5 months for
President Bush, I still would like to work for the next 7 months with
him to try to get things done. I would hope he would pick up the phone
sometime and call down here and maybe help us get Federal aviation
reauthorization done, just as an example. That is fresh in my mind
because that was legislatively killed last week.
Cloture Motion
I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Gregg-Kennedy
substitute amendment No. 4751 to H.R. 980, the Public Safety
Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.
Harry Reid, Edward M. Kennedy, Charles E. Schumer, Joseph
R. Biden, Jr., Sherrod Brown, Robert Menendez, John D.
Rockefeller IV, Benjamin L. Cardin, Robert P. Casey,
Jr., Thomas R. Carper, Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara A.
Mikulski, Blanche L. Lincoln, Amy Klobuchar,
Christopher J. Dodd, Tom Harkin, Richard Durbin.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send another cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 980, the
Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.
Harry Reid, Edward M. Kennedy, Charles E. Schumer, Joseph
R. Biden, Jr., Sherrod Brown, Robert Menendez, John D.
Rockefeller, IV, Benjamin L. Cardin, Robert P. Casey,
Jr., Thomas R. Carper, Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara A.
Mikulski, Blanche L. Lincoln, Amy Klobuchar,
Christopher J. Dodd, Tom Harkin, Richard Durbin.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am here today to speak in support of the
Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007, for which I am
a proud cosponsor. While the vast majority of private and public
employees enjoy the right to bargain collectively, thousands of our
public safety employees across the country are denied this basic
American right. If enacted, this bill would provide our public safety
workers with the right to negotiate for the level of pay and benefits
they deserve.
Every day, we rely on the service of these men and women, who risk
their lives to provide safety and protection to our communities. Yet
many States and local governments deny these workers the right to
organize. It is not fair, and it should not be tolerated.
Those who oppose providing public safety employees these fundamental
rights claim that the legislation will interfere with existing State
and local laws that govern collective bargaining. This is simply false.
The legislation ensures that existing collective bargaining units and
agreements that have already been issued, approved, or ratified at the
State or local level would be maintained. Additionally, this
legislation prohibits strikes and work slowdowns by public safety
officers and labor unions, as well as lockouts by public safety
employers, ensuring that the safety of the public will not be
compromised as a result of a work stoppage.
This legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support. Introduced by
Senators Kennedy and Gregg, there are 34 cosponsors, including 11
Republicans. The House version of the bill passed by a vote of 314 to
97, supported by a majority in both parties.
It took a national tragedy in the form of the terrorist attacks of 9/
11 to remind us all of the critical role public safety officers play in
our lives. Hundreds gave their lives that day, and hundreds more give
their life in service each year, to ensure our safety and to protect us
from danger. It is inexcusable that workers so dedicated to keeping
America safe should be denied the basic and fundamental right to
organize.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to stop denying
our firefighters, our police, and all of our first responders the right
to organize.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 2419
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to shift gears now and express my
appreciation to lots of different people.
I mentioned briefly this morning my congratulations to Senator
Harkin, Senator Chambliss, Senator Baucus, and Senator Grassley, but
there are other team members who worked so hard to get this most
important bill done, the most important bill being the farm bill.
We only do a farm bill every 5 years. There are some who say it took
us 5 years to get this bill done. That is really not the case, but we
worked on it for a long time, worked very hard.
I mentioned in my caucus yesterday that this was an example of how we
should legislate because we had conferences. We have been kind of
getting out of the habit of having a public conference where Democrats
and Republicans are appointed and sit down and try to work out the
differences on a bill. That is what they did here. I think it was
exemplary legislative work.
Was there any side that was more right than the other side? No. But
they worked together to come up with a fine piece of legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the
conference report to accompany H.R. 2419, the farm bill, and during
today's session there be 5 hours of debate--remember, this farm bill
deals with food, it deals with energy, and it deals with security--with
the time equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their
designees; and when the Senate resumes the conference report tomorrow
there be an additional 90 minutes of debate divided in the same manner;
further, that if any motions to waive are made in response to points of
order, then these votes occur in the order in which they were made
prior to the vote on adoption of the conference report on Thursday;
that on Thursday, upon the yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to
vote on adoption of the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ENZI. Reserving the right to object, until I get 5 minutes to
rebut a little bit of what the leader said about the collective
bargaining bill. I do not need much time, but I was cut out of the
process earlier today and I deserve the opportunity.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend can have all the time he wants--10
minutes?
Mr. ENZI. Ten will be plenty. I appreciate it.
Mr. REID. How about doing this then? We will go ahead and have this
approved, and you do 10 minutes or however much time you want?
Mr. ENZI. That would be part of the unanimous consent? Do I
understand that under the unanimous consent I would get my 10 minutes
before the farm bill.
Mr. REID. You would get it as soon as the consent is granted--right
now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before my friend starts, I have said
publicly, I have told him privately--we do not have a Senator, Democrat
or Republican, who is easier to get along with and who is a better
legislator than Mike Enzi. He is a very fine man, and I am sorry he was
cut off.
There will also be no more votes today as a result of this unanimous-
consent agreement.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate the leader's kind remarks. I
have been diligently working on the collective bargaining bill. It is
an important part of the process to get the full debate out. We are
being precluded from that process now.
We have had three amendments brought up. None of those were mine. I
have five amendments that I would
[[Page 8982]]
like to have debated that address what I see as serious flaws in the
bill, but I am being precluded from even bringing up one of those. I
was given the offer, take it or leave it, that there could be two
Republican amendments, period, and I could decide from among my own and
others which would be the two.
As I pointed out at the very beginning of this bill, this bill is
flawed. It did not go to committee. This happens every time a bill does
not go to committee. We have a process with bills before the committee
where people can sit down and look at amendments and revise the
amendments until there is agreement between the two sides. That is the
only reason that a committee such as Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions can get bills done.
We often take a look at all of the amendments when they are in
committee and decide that we will work on those before they go to the
floor. Otherwise, as contentious a committee as we have, which handles
the volume of work it does, we would get nothing done. But we get a lot
done. In fact, last week when we were at the signing with the President
of one of the bills we passed, the President said: You know, you are
the only committee sending us any bills. It is because we go through
the whole process.
Usually Senator Kennedy and I sit down, we list our principles, we
agree on the principles, we plug in some details, and then we talk with
the stakeholders. That is everybody with an interest in it. Usually at
that point there is someone who says: No, we have one provision we have
worked on for 12 years, and we never have gotten that provision. And
until we get that provision, we don't care about the rest of the bill.
Whoever's constituent it is, Senator Kennedy or I, we take the lead on
it and say: You know, you have been asking for it for 12 years and you
got nothing. How would you like to get the other 80 percent that you
also claim you like? That is the way we do bills. It is working to get
common ground, which is a third way.
There are so many issues around here that have been polarized, so the
second they come up people jump into the weeds. They talk about a
little glitch here or there that irritated people in the past and that
gets us nowhere. So we have been able to elevate that to coming up with
a third way to achieve the same thing, the same principles we agreed
on.
This bill didn't go through any of that process. We just slammed
right over here to the floor of the Senate and then they are surprised
at the result, that we want to do a few amendments. I saw the House
bill, and then I saw the negotiations with some of the Senate people
from our side on some amendments that they thought were critical. A lot
of those didn't get in at all, even though I think a few of them
thought they were in there. They are not in there. That is what I am
bringing up--what were good ideas that ought to be contained in this
kind of a bill so the rhetoric we have had so far actually winds up
meeting what is in the bill.
That is our job. It is really supposed to come out doing what we said
it would do. This bill does not do what the chairman said it would do.
This bill doesn't say what the Republican cosponsors said it would do.
It could be clarified. It is not easy to clarify it when we are out on
the Senate floor. It is difficult to do out here because it is more of
a take it or leave it. In fact, that is what I was offered: take it or
leave it on getting two amendments. What kind of a choice is that? I
have five germane amendments and many other germane amendments have
also been filed and offered. But, of course, I will have to get
unanimous consent to bring up my amendments later if at all. Unanimous
consent is not the easiest thing to get around here, particularly when
it starts getting into this little friction area.
I want to comment on the 71 filibusters. I suspect the two motions
that were just filed count as two more filibusters. What they are is
two more attempts to protect the rights of the minority. We have a
right, just as that side did when they were in the minority, to bring
up amendments. They protected their right, and we are protecting our
right.
You heard one of the cosponsors of the collective bargaining bill
make those same comments earlier today when the big discussion happened
on the amendment that was put on the other side of the tree. He voted
not to table that because he respects the rights of the minority. That
is what has always had to happen around here.
I have to tell you, on filibusters, one of the reasons we get
filibusters is because there is still a Presidential campaign going on
on one side of the aisle, and that means two of our Members are not
here except in unusual circumstances. So the way it has to happen is,
on Monday when we come in we vote on a cloture motion. It is not
legislation that necessarily needs a cloture motion because a lot of
those have been passed 98 to 0, 96 to 0, maybe 95 to 1. That is nowhere
near a filibuster. But that allows us--that forces us into a situation
where, for the next 30 hours, we debate whether to debate. That way, by
Wednesday the candidates can show up so there is enough of a vote to
agree to some of the amendments that go on there. So part of it is a
tactical procedure being used by the majority, who still has a primary
going on in their Presidential race, to assure they will have the votes
there when the time comes.
You can see this is 51 to 49, so if two people don't show up on that
side, it is 49 to 49 and that gives the Vice President a chance to
vote. So far he has always voted with me. So that gives the minority a
win, and I understand that.
But I do not stand for being blamed for all of those cloture motions
that have been put out here. Some of those have been to protect the
majority as a majority. They need to take credit for those instead of
blaming us for it.
This is a kind of do-nothing Congress. If it were not for bills
coming out of this committee there wouldn't be a lot of bills passing
out here, but a lot of the failed bills come from skipping the process
and coming right to the floor, like the immigration bill. The way to
get things done is take them through committee and then we don't need
to do as many amendments on the Senate floor.
In fact, if you check back on the bills Senator Kennedy and I worked
on, it is very unusual for us to have an amendment on the floor. And
they usually pass unanimously here and in the House. That is how they
get to the President. There is not a conference committee involved in
it. We have already preconferenced with the House and found out what
their potential objections were with the House and worked it out. But
not on this bill. On this bill what we said--not we said; they said--
you know, the policemen and the firemen are going to be in DC for this
big memorial event this week. We ought to time it so we can really put
the crush on the Republicans.
I have to give you congratulations for that. It would not be enough
just to recognize the tremendous sacrifices these people make and the
difficult jobs they have. No, we can make some points against the
Republicans because they may want to make sure Government still works
when we are done with the process.
There are a lot of people commenting that there are some problems
with this bill. The mayor of New York City--that is a State that
requires collective bargaining--sent us a letter that said: Don't pass
this bill. This will affect the way that we do business. It is not a
one-sided thing, but I tell you, when it gets one-sided, nothing
happens and that is kind of the process we are in.
I am going to be asking people to vote with me against the cloture
motion because I have not been able to bring up my amendments. I
haven't been able to get votes on the other side.
That has an interesting little twist to it too. We have four
amendments: three that are germane--those are the three the Republicans
put in, which means they relate to the bill--and one offered by Senator
Leahy that is actually a reauthorization bill on some grant money. It
doesn't relate to this bill, but I am willing to have votes on all four
of them. I am willing to accept the Leahy amendment and get it done.
But there will be objections to that because he chairs the committee
that
[[Page 8983]]
handles judges, and we were promised three circuit court judges before
Memorial Day. As I understand it, tomorrow morning there is a markup
around here that does not have a single circuit court judge on it,
which means that deadline cannot be met.
So, again, protecting minority rights, there are some people on the
Republican side who are saying if they are not going to follow their
word, we are not going to follow--The Senator from Vermont then says:
If they are not going to take my amendment, then I am not going to
allow the other three to be voted on. That happened earlier today.
There is plenty of blame to go around. But to stick it on any one
party is the wrong thing to do. And to proclaim that we really want to
have this bill done without taking it through the regular process is a
misnomer--and I need to have my rights--and I appreciate this time to
speak. The majority leader was very kind in that. I appreciate the way
he let us at least work for a day, an interrupted day and a partial day
at that, before the cloture motion went into effect.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
____________________
FOOD CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The conference report will be stated.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2419), to provide for the continuation of agricultural
programs for fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes, having
met, have agreed that the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an
amendment, and the Senate agree to the same. Signed by a
majority of the conferees on the part of both Houses.
The conference report is printed in the proceedings of the House in
the Record of May 13, 2008.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Iowa is
recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, here we are, finally after a long year
and a half. That is how long I have been chairman. Of course, my friend
and ranking member was chairman before that, actually started the farm
bill when he was chairman. So I guess we can say after about 2 years we
are finally here with this farm bill on the floor for final passage and
ready to send to the President.
It has been a long road to get to this point. But it has been a road
I have had good friends to travel with, good colleagues to travel with.
We have had a few bumps along the way, but through it all, we have come
here on the floor of the Senate with a strong, good farm bill, and it
came from the House today with a strong 318 votes. So the House has
passed a conference report with 318 votes this afternoon.
As I said, some people call it a farm bill. Here is the title of it:
the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008. Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act. We do not have ``farm'' in it. Farm is subsumed under food
and conservation and energy, because all three of those apply to our
farmers today. So we have a bill here, a Food, Conservation, and Energy
Act, passed with bipartisan votes in the House.
We have a coalition of over 500 farm, conservation, nutrition,
consumer, and religious groups all together supporting this bill.
This is my seventh farm bill, counting my time in the House of
Representatives and my time here in the Senate. I have never seen a
farm bill in all of those years with this much broad support. As I
said, over 500 farm, conservation, religious groups, antihunger groups,
consumer groups, all are supporting this bill.
This is a food bill. Why do I say that? Because $10.4 billion of new
spending in this bill, every single penny of the new money allocated to
our committee by the Finance Committee on this side, the Ways and Means
Committee on the House side, every single penny of that $10 billion was
put into nutrition, plus another $400 million, $10.4 billion.
Now, with the changes to nutrition program included in this bill, 67
percent of all of the spending in this bill goes to nutrition; 67
percent. Then I will talk on why we call it a conservation and energy
bill in a few minutes. But let's talk about the food aspect of this.
In the last dozen years, we have seen a steady erosion of the food
safety net for our low-income families. Let me point to the standard
deduction in the Food Stamp Program. This chart indicates what has
happened. In 1996, the standard deduction--that is the deduction you
take to see if you qualify as a family to get food stamps. In 1996 it
was $134 a month. That was frozen in 1996. It has not moved since. It
remains $134 to this day for the vast majority of families. But think
of all of the increases low-income families now have to pay: higher
energy prices, higher food prices. Everything else has gone up. So you
wonder why so many people have fallen through the safety net of having
an adequate supply of food? It is because we froze it in 1996. Twelve
years later now, it has not moved. Now we have increased everything
else around here for everybody in 12 years but not for low-income
Americans. This Congress--I do not mean this Congress, but I mean all
of these Congresses--we have not met our responsibility to low-income
Americans. We finally do it in this farm bill.
If the standard deduction in 1996 of $134 had kept pace with
inflation, it would be $188 today rather than $134. Well, we could not
go as high as $188, so we went to $144. So now we have increased the
standard deduction of $144 a month. But the single most important thing
is we have indexed it for inflation in the future. No more will we have
an erosion because of inflation that hurts our lowest income families
in America. So that is the important thing. We have indexed it for the
future.
Secondly, the asset level. Under current law a family can have no
more than $2,000 in assets and still qualify for food stamps. We did
not raise it in this bill, but we indexed that also for the future. So
we have two indexes here for the future; one on the standard deduction
and one on the asset level.
For the first time ever, we exclude retirement and education savings
from counting against the asset limit. Here I give accolades to my
colleague from Georgia, Senator Chambliss. It was his intervention that
provided that low-income seniors do not have to dip into their
retirement savings to meet their food needs. If they are temporarily
out of a job, for example, but they have retirement savings, they can
still qualify for food assistance and they will not have to dip into
that savings. Again, I compliment my colleague from Georgia for
fighting hard for that.
We also did something on childcare costs. Here again is something we
have not kept up with, and it hurts our low-income families. Right now
the childcare deduction is $175 a month. It has been there since 1993.
Think about childcare costs since 1993. It has been $175 ever since
then. Right now the average cost of childcare per month is $631
average. We only allow $175 for food stamp recipients to qualify. So
there is a $456 a month gap and it is growing.
In this bill, we remove the cap. There is no longer any cap on
childcare expenses. Whatever your childcare expenses are, that is what
you can deduct from your monthly income to qualify for food stamps.
Again, we have also raised the minimum benefit by 50 percent, and we
index that to the future.
This bill also provides relief for our food banks. Our food banks in
this country provide a backstop for people who may get food stamps but
they run out before the end of the month. They do not have enough to
get their families through, so a lot of times they go to our food
banks.
Well, what has happened? What has happened is that the bonus
commodities to our food banks have gone down 75 percent since the 2002
farm bill; 75 percent. That is why we keep hearing from our food banks
that they are running out of food. They do not have enough to meet the
requirements of
[[Page 8984]]
people who come in. They need something to get them through the
weekend, get them through a holiday, because they do not have enough
food and they do not have food stamps.
What we did is put $1.2 billion of new money into the TEFAP, the
Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program, which provides staple
commodities to food banks. This year we have raised it. Current law
provides for $140 million annually. Here we raised it to $250 million.
As soon as this bill is passed and either signed by the President,
which I hope he will do, or we override the veto and it becomes law--as
soon as this bill becomes law, immediately $50 million will go out to
the food banks around America immediately. Then we index that for the
future. So we have indexed the TEFAP commodities for the future.
Lastly, we know low-income Americans have the highest incidence for
diseases and illnesses, such as heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and
diseases related to diet.
A lot of that is because low-income people have a difficult choice to
make in terms of their purchases of food. Some of the healthier foods,
such as whole grains, fruits, vegetables, those types of things, are
generally higher priced. So to stretch their dollar as far as possible,
low-income people go in the grocery store and they stretch their food
dollars to get to the next paycheck. But the foods with the least
nutrition happen to be the cheapest, and it gets them through the
month.
In this bill we provide a pilot program with about $20 million to put
incentives in there for low-income Americans to see if we can give them
incentives to purchase healthier foods as part of their diet.
Lastly, I want to quote here Vicki Escarra, who is president and CEO
of America's Second Harvest. I think she summed it up all well on
behalf of all the antihunger groups.
On behalf of our nation's food banks, I urge Senators to
vote in favor of this hunger-fighting farm bill. Millions of
low income Americans are on the brink of catastrophe, facing
some of the most difficult economic times they have had to
endure in years. I urge Senators to support this vitally
important and necessary legislation.
That is why we talk about this as being a food bill, because 67
percent of the new money goes for nutrition.
This bill does not just provide food in this country for low-income
individuals, but also for poor people abroad.
There has been a lot of talk about the McGovern-Dole Program. This is
a program, of course, named after former Senators Dole and McGovern
that provides money and food for a school lunch program in other parts
of the world, in places where they have low income, a lot of hunger. It
is a good program because not only does it get a good meal to kids at
least once a day, but it is a magnet to get kids in school. In
countries where maybe 60, 70, 80 percent of your disposable income goes
for food, one nutritious meal a day to a child saves the family a lot
of money. If the place to get that food is in a school, you ought to
send your kid to school. So it does two good things. In this bill, we
provide $84 million in mandatory money for the McGovern-Dole School
Lunch Program for kids in other countries and I expect that additional
money will be provided through the appropriations process, as it has in
the past.
There is one other area that deals with food and health. That is the
specialty crop title of the bill. We have two new titles in this farm
bill, the livestock title and the specialty crop title. They have never
been in the farm bill before.
Under specialty crops, we have a 100-percent increase in the level of
farm bill spending for specialty crops programs. This is an historic
investment. The 2002 farm bill provided $1.3 billion. We provide $2.7
billion in this bill, just shy of $3 billion--a 100-percent increase in
support for fruits, vegetables, organics, farmers' markets,
horticulture--all in this farm bill. That is one of the reasons why the
120 groups that have interest in fruits, vegetables, and organics are
supporting this legislation, because of all we have provided to support
our fruit and vegetable farmers and organic farmers, who comprise the
fastest growing segment of American agriculture. We have $22 million to
help farmers who are trying to transition from conventional production
into organic. We also provide more for farmers' markets. We provide
more money for research into organics to get it up to a level where it
matches the level of organics in our food supply chain.
For those interested in organic agriculture, we have really invested
heavily in those who want to become organic farmers, those farmers'
markets where they may collect organic products, and even farmers'
markets that may not be organic but may provide locally-grown produce.
We have put money into this bill to provide support for what I would
call aggregators--an entrepreneur who understands that perhaps Whole
Foods can't go out to each individual farmer for a supply of organic
foods, so you need somebody in the middle to put all this together.
That is what we have done. We have provided funds and support in this
bill for entities that would aggregate, go out to each individual
farmer and pull the organic foods all together--it doesn't have to be
organic, it could just be locally-grown--bundle them, and then they can
sell those to Whole Foods or Safeway or Hy-Vee out in my area.
This is an opportunity to help organic producers get into the market,
also for locally-grown produce. It doesn't have to be produce. It could
be meats, poultry, beef, whatever that is local, to also get them into
the market supply as well.
The last thing I will say in terms of health and specialty crops
pertains to the fruit and vegetable snack program. This is something we
started in the 2002 farm bill.
I sort of have a history on this. In the 1996 farm bill, I introduced
amendments to get vending machines taken out of schools. As anyone can
see, I was a spectacular failure at that one. But as time went on, it
became clearer that vending machines were not the only problem. The
problem is what kids were eating in school. If we could provide
healthier foods for kids in school, we would all be better off.
Again, we know low-income kids in these schools are the first to get
diabetes and be obese and have all the problems that lead to illness
and disease later on.
In the 2002 farm bill, I tried an experiment. I put in a provision to
supply about $6 million to test a theory of mine. The theory was that
if you gave free fresh fruits and vegetables to kids in school, they
would eat them. If they would eat the fresh fruits and vegetables that
were free, they would not be eating candy and sugary snacks, cookies,
things such as that.
So we tried it. The idea behind it was not to do it in the lunchroom
but to do it in the classroom or in the hallway outside the classroom,
not just at lunch but in the morning when kids got the growlies about 9
o'clock in the morning.
The idea was to provide it as a snack when kids got hungry in the
morning or in the afternoon and not just in the lunchroom.
I have to tell you, a lot of people said to me: Harkin, you are nuts.
You are going to have kids throwing apple cores around, orange peels,
banana peels. They will be throwing grapes at each other. They are
going to make a mess.
I said: OK. Let's see what happens. It is all voluntary. No school
has to participate. If they participate and they don't like it, they
can drop out the next day. But let's see what happens.
So we took 4 States, 25 schools in a State, 100 schools, and an
Indian reservation just to see what would happen with that $6 million,
providing free fresh fruits and vegetables. What happened to my test?
Every single school says that they don't want to drop out. They want to
continue. And we don't have kids throwing apple cores around and orange
peels and things like that. These kids are eating better. They are
better behaved. Talk to any teacher who has had experience with this
program, talk to any principal, and they will tell you these kids are
better behaved. They eat better. They go home and tell their parents
about the great
[[Page 8985]]
fruit and vegetable snacks they are getting, and then they tell their
folks to buy them at the grocery store. Those four States have now gone
to eight States. We are up to about $8 or $9 million a year now.
So because this has been so successful, this conference report has $1
billion in it to expand the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
nationwide. Again, we can't do it all next year, so we ramp it up. It
has to be ramped up over several years. But in 5 years, by the time we
ramp this up, we will be at $150 million a year. And when we reach that
level, nearly every low-income elementary school kid in America who is
in a school that has a high rate of free and reduced priced lunches,
every one of those kids is going to be getting free fresh fruits and
vegetables as a snack during the day.
Think what this will do for our kids and their health. I am really
happy about this. I am happy first that the test worked. Now I am happy
that we are going to take it nationwide to every State. We are
targeting it to elementary schools, and we are asking States, since
this goes to the States, to further target it to those schools that
have a majority of low-income kids so we can get to them first.
Again, this is helpful not only to the nutrition of our kids but also
to the specialty crops all over America because we are going to rely
upon them to grow these crops and make them available for the fruit and
vegetable snack program.
We said the second part was conservation. Let's talk about the
conservation part of this bill. On this chart, I compare the proportion
of funding going to conservation as compared to the commodity programs
in each farm bill back to 1985. The red portion is the part that goes
for conservation as compared to commodities. Why do I compare it to
commodities? Because this is the part of these farm bills that go to
farmers. The conservation share of the total of conservation and
commodity payments has never been even 20 percent. But look at 2008: 41
percent of what we are putting out to farmers is in conservation. We
have never done that before. We have never even come close to that
before.
I was proud of the 2002 farm bill. In 2002, I said we would put more
into conservation in the 2002 farm bill than ever before. That was true
in 2002. In 2008, we have more than doubled the share of conservation
that goes out, to 41 percent.
The administration said one of the reasons they wanted to veto the
farm bill was because we didn't put enough into conservation. But the
administration's own bill only put $4.2 billion into conservation, as
scored by the congressional budget office. Our bill puts $5.2 billion
into conservation, as scored by the same neutral financial accounting,
using the same assumptions. So we exceeded what the administration
asked for in total conservation spending. And what's more, we have done
it in a way that is going to clean up our soil and water, provide
incentives to farmers to be good conservationists.
In the all-important EQIP, the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, we put in $15.8 billion over 10 years in total funding. For
the Conservation Security Program, now called the Conservation
Stewardship Program, we provided $12 billion over 10 years. Why do I
single those out? Because those are conservation programs that go to
working lands.
Most people think of conservation as taking land out of production.
In the past, that has been true. We still do some of that with the
Wetlands Reserve Program, and in the Conservation Reserve Program. For
fragile, erodible acres and wetlands, taking the land out of production
is often the best way to conserve the land, and provide vital wildlife
habitat.
But we know, because of the demand for food and the high prices of
our commodities, more and more land is coming out of the Conservation
Reserve Program. It is being tilled. It is being cropped. This is a
free country and these are voluntary programs, so if a farmer has
completed a Conservation Reserve Program contract, the land can go back
into production if the farmer chooses.
But what we can do about it is put more money into conservation on
working lands, to give incentives to farmers to be good
conservationists. One of the most important programs, I believe, is the
Conservation Stewardship Program. This is a program I included in the
2002 farm bill.
We put in place what was then called the Conservation Security
Program, an uncapped entitlement program to go to farmers to be good
conservationists on working lands, to give them the incentive to
protect the soil, the water, and the wildlife habitat.
CSP has had a little bumpy history, I will be the first to admit,
because of rules and regulations that were written and cuts to funding.
First of all, they limited enrollment only to specific watersheds,
rather than making it available to producers across the country. That
was very discriminatory. So under this bill we have revamped it. We
have made it applicable to every farmer in this country, no longer just
based on watersheds. Every farmer willing to meet the eligibility
requirements can get into this program now. The program will be
available to producers from Florida to Washington State and from New
Mexico to Maine. The program pays not for what you grow, but for how
you grow it--the environmental benefits your conservation activities
produce. We are devoting over $12 billion over 10 years to the program.
We will enroll, under this program now, about 13 million acres a year.
Now, what does this mean? It means we will be giving payments to
farmers to take care of the soil, to protect the water, provide
wildlife habitat, and to be good producers and deliver important
environmental benefits. We know we have to have the production, we have
to produce the food and the fiber in the country. But you can have both
production and a good, clean environment at the same time. They are not
mutually exclusive.
This picture I have in the Chamber shows what I mean. This is what we
ought to be about: This is a farm. A river runs through it--but the
farmer is using good conservation practices to help keep the river
clean. What you see along the river is a barrier strip of grass and
trees; barriers to stop the runoff of fertilizer or pesticides that may
be put on the land, to keep it from going into the stream. You do not
farm right up to the riverbank. The farm is using minimum tillage. And
in different fields around the farm you see different kinds of crops.
You have a crop rotation that goes on. The farmer has also planted
trees as wind breaks along the fence rows.
That is what the Conservation Stewardship Program is all about:
making sure we have good production but good stewardship of the soil,
good protection for the water, and good wildlife habitat and corridors
at the same time.
Why do we need to devote federal spending on conservation? I have a
photograph I show you in the Chamber that was taken on April 14, 1935,
now known as Black Sunday, near Liberal, KS. This terrible dust storm
rolled across Kansas. All of us in grade school have seen this picture
in our textbooks of the dust clouds rolling over Kansas in 1935.
Because what had happened? What had happened is, after World War I,
because of the demand for food around the world and here, we plowed up
everything in the plains States--lands that been unplowed for thousands
years. We plowed it up, and when the rain didn't come, it turned to
dust. People say: Well, that was 1935. Well, that was 1935, yes.
Let's take a look at another picture I have in the Chamber, taken
within a few miles of that picture you saw from 1935. Look at this. Now
we have a color picture--the same big dust clouds rolling over the
plains--taken in 2006.
Let's not make the same mistake again. That is why we have put so
much effort and so much into conservation on working lands--yes, to
make sure farmers can make a profit, they can grow the food and the
feed and the fiber we need for our people and for exports, but to do it
in an environmentally sound way, which can be done so we do not have to
have those dust
[[Page 8986]]
bowls any longer. So we are going to have more land in production and
more need for conservation.
Lastly, on conservation, there are important needs across this
country, not just in the midwest. Here is a chart of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Those of us who have been around this area for any time or
who have ever been out to the Chesapeake Bay know how polluted the
Chesapeake Bay is--killing the fish, taking away a livelihood for so
many people who rely on the Chesapeake Bay; not only that, destroying
breeding grounds for many of our fish that then go back out to the
ocean.
As shown on this chart, this is the watershed that drains into the
Chesapeake Bay. It covers Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New
York, Delaware, and Maryland--all those States. We heard from the
Congressmen and Senators and people who live in those areas saying we
have to do something to help clean up the Chesapeake Bay. And we did.
We put $438 million into this bill to help protect the uplands, to take
care of it before it gets down to the Chesapeake Bay. So we have done,
I think, yeoman's work in this area in helping to help clean up the
Chesapeake Bay.
Lastly, I said food, conservation, and energy bill--energy--energy.
Now, I have a chart in the Chamber on that. Let me say this: High
gasoline prices and diesel prices are hurting our families all over
this country. I know. I hear about it all the time from my
constituents. The prices at the pump are hurting people, especially in
rural areas, where people have to drive a distance to get to work.
But we have studies that show because of the supply of ethanol in
this country, the price at the gas pump is 29 cents to 40 cents a
gallon cheaper. In other words, if it were not for ethanol, the price
of gasoline at the pump would be 29 cents to 40 cents a gallon higher
than it is today.
So what we did in this bill is, we recognized a couple things. We
need more production of clean renewable energy here in America. We need
to get off the oil pipeline. But we also recognize the impact it is
having on grain. So we have put a lot in this farm bill to move us to
cellulose production, biomass production of ethanol in the future. This
bill ramps up our capacity to produce clean renewable American energy,
not only from grain, but from wood, trees, wood chips, switchgrass,
miscanthus, corn stover, wheat stover, oat stover--all kinds of things
we basically do not use today. We put over $1 billion in this bill to
move us aggressively in that direction. So we can build biorefineries,
we give support for farmers who want to grow dedicated cellulose crops
for this purpose, and we give them help in growing them, transitioning
them, storing them, and transporting them. This is a chart to show you
we can do biomass and build biorefineries, and it helps our rural
communities and helps America. There is over $1 billion in this bill to
move us in this direction.
Two last things in rural development. We have included policy in this
bill to get broadband to rural towns and communities all over America.
Second, we put $120 million in the bill that will go out right away to
reduce the backlog in water and wastewater treatment facilities in our
small towns and communities.
I come from a small town of 162 people, where I still live, where
about 25 years ago every well in my hometown--including mine--tested
unfit to drink. But we got rural water, we got clean water. In my
house, I now have clean rural water, and every house in my small town
of Cumming has that. We know what it means, and I know what it means
firsthand. So we have to get better water and wastewater for our small
towns and communities, and we have done that in this bill.
Lastly, there is a lot of talk about reform. Maybe the White House
says we did not reform enough in agriculture. We have done what the
administration asked in reforming this bill. We now have direct
attribution, so we will know from now on exactly where every dollar,
every dime goes, to whomever gets it. We did away with the three-entity
rule, and we significantly reduced the cap on adjusted gross income.
Now, I want to be clear about this. Right now if you have $2.5
million of nonfarm income, you would still qualify for farm programs--
right now. The administration wanted to reduce that to $200,000. We
reduced it to $500,000, moving it from $2.5 million to $500,000, and
put a cap on nonfarm income. That is real reform.
Second, if the majority of your income today is from farm sources,
you can have an income of $5 million, $10 million, $20 million--no
limit--and you will still get farm program payments. Under our bill, we
put a cap of $750,000 on farm income. If farm income is more than
$750,000 then no direct payments. That is real reform. It may not be as
much as some might like, but I will tell you, it is far beyond the
limits we have now.
I know some of our colleagues had to bite down pretty hard on this
because they represent farmers who have higher input costs. They have
bigger operations because they have to in order to survive. So I know
they have had to take a hit on this. But this is real reform. I commend
those members of our committee who worked with us on this to make sure
we could have these reforms and bring it here where we are today.
The last reform we put in this bill: We put in a new optional program
for farmers, an average crop revenue election program. They can stay in
the present price-based countercyclical program or they can take a
slight cut in their loan rates, in their direct payments, and then get
a revenue-based countercyclical payment if the combination of prices
and yields go down. Now, again, I do not know if farmers will take it,
but it is an option.
I know the National Corn Growers Association was very supportive of
this approach. We have it as an option. Maybe this is the future; I do
not know. But it is a reform, and we put it in there for farmers to
consider as an option.
It has been a long road. There is a lot more I could say about this
food, energy, and conservation bill. There is a lot more I know I have
not covered. But it is a strong bill. As I said the other day, it is
good for every American from my hometown of Cumming, IA, population
162, to New York City, population 8 million, and everybody in between.
That is why so many groups, over 500 groups--antihunger groups,
religious groups, conservation groups, clean energy groups--farmers
strongly support this bill.
Finally, before I yield the floor, let me thank my colleague, my
friend, my ranking member, Senator Saxby Chambliss, for all he has done
to bring this bill to the floor today. He started it when he was
chairman, having hearings all over the country, laying the groundwork
for this farm bill. I was privileged to take it over this Congress, as
chairman. But I could not have asked for a better ranking member,
someone I could work closely with. We worked together on this right to
the bitter end--I should not say ``bitter end;'' right to the good end;
we have a great bill--but right to the end to bring this bill forward.
He has worked very hard to make sure we could get to this point on this
bill. I wanted to thank him for all of his work, for his close working
relationship on this bill.
Tomorrow morning I will thank all of our staff who have worked so
hard on this bill, in particular our staff director Mark Halverson.
When this is done, I am going to make him take a vacation. He has got
to catch up on about a year's worth of sleep here in a couple weeks.
But Mark Halverson has been a great staff director in keeping this bill
going and keeping all the things together and moving it forward. I
cannot find the words to thank him enough for all he has done.
On Senator Chambliss's side, I thank Martha Scott Poindexter, who, of
course, was the staff director under Senator Chambliss, and now for him
as the ranking member, for all the great work she has done. Both she
and Mark Halverson together have worked very hard, and their staffs.
They have great staffs, and I am going to name them all tomorrow. But I
would be remiss if in my opening statement I didn't thank
[[Page 8987]]
both of them for their extraordinary work and extraordinary effort they
have done to get this bill to this point.
So, Madam President, I have taken way too much time. I wish to yield
the floor to a great friend and a great colleague and someone who has
helped bring us to this point of getting a great farm bill to all the
people of America, Senator Chambliss.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Iowa,
Senator Harkin. This truly has, under his leadership, been a very
bipartisan effort. As we will see on the floor tonight and tomorrow,
there will be some folks on both sides of the aisle who will have a lot
of good things to say about this bill. Not everybody is in agreement
with it, but we never have total agreement on farm bills. They are
always controversial. They always contain provisions that some Members
of the Senate don't like, but by and large this bill is a true
bipartisan bill. I wish to commend Senator Harkin for his leadership,
and not just on the substance of the bill. During the conference
process we went through, the Senate stayed in lockstep. All Members,
all conferees on the Senate side, Republican and Democratic, remained
loyal to the commitment we made to each other as we went through that
conference, and I think it was for that reason that we were successful
in producing a product that somewhat mirrors the product that came out
of this Senate back in December. So I thank Senator Harkin for his
leadership and for his commitment to American agriculture.
I rise tonight in support of the farm bill conference report before
us. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 provides certainty
to America's farmers and ranchers and restates the strong commitment of
Congress to the hungry and less fortunate. This farm bill contains the
most significant reform of our farm programs in recent memory, if not
history, and increases investments in the areas of nutrition, specialty
crops, conservation, and renewable energy. It is no wonder that
nutrition groups, food bank organizations, conservation and wildlife
groups, commodity organizations, cattlemen and ranchers, renewable
energy advocates, and specialty crop producers have all united in
strong support of this farm bill.
This bill is simply the single most important piece of legislation
for rural America and the small American towns and communities whose
economic engines depend on agriculture. To reject this bill is to leave
billions of economic development investments on the table and accept
the faulty notion that currently high commodity prices will exist
forever. Every farmer knows there is no certainty in the honorable
practice of farming. This farm bill is our commitment to provide them
with much-needed economic assistance when times are bad and allow them
to prosper without our assistance when times are good. Our farm safety
net is targeted, fiscally responsible, and will ensure the prosperity
of our farmers and ranchers during the tough economic times that are
certainly to come.
Yes, this bill helps maintain a safety net for the farmers and
ranchers who produce the food on our dinner tables and the fiber for
the shirts on our back. I simply do not understand the critics who
raise their arms in protest because we attempt to help farmers in this
farm bill. Given the amount of investments in the many critical areas
to all Americans in this bill, it is actually inaccurate to simply call
this a farm bill. I wish to point out to the critics that less than
one-fifth of the bill's spending goes toward the production of
agricultural programs. Furthermore, all the commodity programs in the
commodity title combined account for a mere .29 percent of the entire
outlays of the Federal Government spending. That is almost one-quarter
of 1 percent. Many are attempting to paint a picture of a bloated bill
that provides huge subsidies to large farmers, but the facts present a
different picture of how the money is actually allocated. Commodity
program spending in this bill represents less than 14 percent of the
total spending, while conservation, nutrition, and renewable energy
spending account for more than 75 percent of the bill.
There is a common misperception in many editorial boardrooms, and
unfortunately at the White House, that the 2008 farm bill does not
include adequate reform of our current farm programs. This
misperception has led to a series of negative news articles accusing
our farm safety net of hindering African cotton trade, raising food
prices domestically and globally, providing payments to millionaire
farmers who abuse the system, and eroding our ability to provide food
aid to the neediest Americans and citizens of other countries. This
series of negative and inaccurate propaganda has culminated in a veto
threat from the President. I stand before this body tonight to clearly
state that this bill contains sweeping reforms of which all Americans
can be proud. Drastic reforms are included in this bill to make sure
nonfarmers do not benefit from the farm safety net. We rightfully
believe the farm safety net should be used to help those who take on an
enormous risk every year to produce the crops and livestock that
sustain the food supply of our country.
While we disagree with many of the attacks against our farm safety
net, we have nonetheless heard the calls for reform and have responded
in several meaningful ways. The traditional cotton program has been
reformed so that it is more market oriented per our WTO--World Trade
Organization--- commitments. The GSM program has been reformed to honor
our obligations under the cotton case that was decided last year. The
adjusted gross income test for nonfarmers has been reduced by 80
percent, ensuring that farm program benefits are targeted to those who
need them most. In addition, this bill eliminates the three-entity
rule, adopts direct attribution for farm program payments, and
eliminates base acres on land developed for residential use. These
accomplishments represent the most significant reform of the farm
safety net in the history of farm bills in this country.
Conservation programs are vital to the farm bill and to this Nation's
farmers, ranchers, and private forest landowners. Working land--the
cropland, grazing land, and forest land that is used to produce our
food, feed, and fiber--accounts for nearly 1.3 billion acres or two-
thirds of the Nation's land area. Since the enactment of the 2002 farm
bill, conservation measures have been applied on more than 70 million
acres of cropland and 125 million acres of grazing lands. In addition,
more than 1 million acres of wetlands have been created, restored or
enhanced.
This farm bill continues its great tradition of protecting working
lands by providing producers $4 billion in new resources for
conservation programs. In addition to providing new funding, the farm
bill also makes numerous improvements to the programs to ensure they
meet the needs of producers. One notable improvement is that the
environmental quality incentives program will now be available to
private forest landowners. It also looks to the future by helping
producers and landowners play a role and get credit for mitigating
climate change.
In the 2002 farm bill, an energy title was included for the first
time, and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act furthers our
commitment to meeting America's energy needs with alternative forms of
energy. All Americans must cope with today's extraordinarily high gas
prices, and with this farm bill, we take the necessary steps to
alleviate the pressure not only on petroleum-based gasoline but on
corn-based ethanol. One day, Americans will be able to fill their gas
tanks with ethanol made from woodchips or peanut hulls, and when that
day comes, you can look back to this farm bill as the foundation for
making that a reality.
Speaking of energy, I have heard calls from several of my colleagues
to ensure that contracts traded on electronic exchanges, such as
natural gas contracts traded on the ICE Futures, are subject to more
regulatory oversight by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. In
responding to those concerns, this conference report
[[Page 8988]]
includes a long-overdue reauthorization of the Commodities Futures
Trading Commission, complete with a newly developed regulatory
structure for contracts traded on exempt commercial markets that are
determined to perform a significant price discovery function. This has
been a top priority for Senators Feinstein, Levin, and Snowe, and I am
pleased we were able to include it in this farm bill.
This farm bill also includes a new title devoted to horticulture
organic production. With specialty crops representing approximately 50
percent of U.S. crop cash receipts, the inclusion of this title
appropriately recognizes that fruit and vegetable growers deserve a
place in major farm legislation. This industry is vitally important to
consumers, and the inclusion of these provisions will ensure that
producers of fruits and vegetables receive the support necessary to
enhance the healthy foods we have come to demand, as well as improve
the viability of this important sector of American agriculture.
However, rural America is not the only beneficiary of this farm bill.
The entire country will reap the rewards of increased investments in
nutrition, renewable energy, and conservation. This legislation reaches
out to low-income Americans to ensure nutritional needs are met by
providing schoolchildren with increased access to fresh fruits and
vegetables and enhancing our investments to the Food Stamp Program as
well as to food banks all across America. The numbers speak for
themselves: 73 percent--let me say that again--73 percent of the
spending in this bill goes toward our domestic nutrition programs.
Given rising food prices and the skyrocketing price of oil, it is
critical that we lend a hand to those citizens in both rural and urban
America who are struggling to feed their families and fill their gas
tanks.
Local food banks around the country are facing increased demands for
food from people in need. This farm bill invests an additional $1.25
billion over the next 10 years to increase commodity purchases for food
banks--an increase of nearly double the current level of funding. To
help improve the dietary intake of all citizens, this farm bill invests
significant resources to expand the school-based fresh fruit and
vegetable snack program to all States and increases support for the
senior farmers' market nutrition program to help seniors purchase
agricultural products at farmers' markets, roadside stands, and other
community-supported agricultural programs.
Most significant, though, is the increased investment in the Food
Stamp Program. The Food Stamp Program--the cornerstone of our country's
domestic food assistance effort--currently serves 28 million Americans
each month. This program has evolved over the decades to become one of
the most efficient tools to combat hunger and reduce poverty. The Food
Stamp Program now has one of the best track records among all Federal
programs. The payment accuracy rate, which measures the correct level
of benefit issuance to participating households, is at an all-time
high. Trafficking, which long plagued the program, has been
substantially reduced. Also, the certification process has a proven
success rate with over 98 percent of food stamp participants properly
eligible for benefits. American taxpayers can be assured that the
resources dedicated to this program are effectively used for their
intended purposes.
While administration of the Food Stamp Program has turned a corner, a
stigma still exists that prevents some eligible people from seeking the
help they need. Even though the implementation of Electronic Benefit
Transfer, or EBT, has restored dignity to those who depend on food
assistance while at the grocery store, the term ``food stamps''
conjures up negative images for many. Food stamps haven't been issued
in years, and the Federal Government destroyed the remaining inventory
of stamps in 2003. For these reasons, the Food Stamp Program is being
renamed as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. The
new name better reflects the mission of our country's premier domestic
assistance program. Instead of referring to food stamps in the future,
the term ``food SNAP'' should be used as we transition to the new name.
This farm bill invests $8 billion in food SNAP over the next 10
years. By increasing the standard deduction and minimum monthly
benefit, food SNAP will provide improved benefit levels to help low-
income families put nutritious food on the table. To make food SNAP
more accessible to low-income Americans, this farm bill indexes the
asset limitation for inflation, exempts IRS-approved retirement and
education savings accounts from the asset test, and permits a full
deduction for childcare expenses. Simplified reporting requirements are
extended to low-income seniors to ease their ability to obtain
benefits. The improvements made in this farm bill will ensure that food
SNAP continues to improve the health and nutritional well-being of
millions of people in need.
Rural development is also a vital part of this 2008 farm bill. Rural
America is not composed of farmers and ranchers only, but other hard-
working men and women reside in these areas with their families. It is
essential our rural citizens have the same opportunity to participate
in the global economy as our friends in urban areas.
This title helps deploy fundamental services, such as improving
broadband Internet capability, funding for water and waste projects,
and support for the value-added efforts. We promote economic
development by reestablishing regional planning authorities and
encouraging communities to collaborate in their efforts to attract
quality jobs and promote local investment.
I say to my colleagues, this bill before you today is a significant
and worthwhile investment, not only for American agriculture but for
millions of needy Americans. I am disheartened that the President
doesn't find these investments worthy of his signature, but I must
represent my constituents who do understand the need for a strong
safety net for our farmers and ranchers. Rural America is certainly
enjoying a period of economic prosperity. But history tells us this
prosperity will not last forever and that it is our moral obligation to
be there to lend a helping hand when the downturn comes. We have the
opportunity today to display our unwavering commitment to the Nation's
farmers and ranchers who supply us with the safest, most affordable and
most nutritious food supply in the world. I hope my colleagues will
join me in supporting this investment in America's future by voting for
the bill.
In closing, before I turn to my good friend and colleague from New
Hampshire, I again thank Chairman Harkin for his leadership. I also see
Senator Conrad on the Senate floor. We have had a terrific working
relationship through this process. Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley
have played such an integral role in making sure this farm bill has the
resources with which to stay within the budget numbers we were given.
This has truly been a bipartisan effort in the Senate and is the
reason, or an exhibition of the reason, I came to the Senate, which is
to work together with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass
positive legislation and improve the quality of life for men and women
all across America.
I, too, will talk more about staff tomorrow. I would be remiss,
though, if I didn't recognize Mark Halverson, who has been such a great
asset in working on this bill and working with my staff. He traveled
around the country with us 2 years ago, and we tried to feed him a good
Nebraska steak a couple of times and made sure he was healthy while he
was on the road with us. We had a great time in listening to the
farmers and ranchers. Martha Scott Poindexter, on my side, has been the
minority director and has done such a terrific job, No. 1, of not just
shepherding this bill from our perspective and working with the
majority side, but also in putting together, without question, in my
opinion, the best staff we have ever had on our side of the aisle from
an Agriculture Committee perspective.
Mr. President, I look forward to further discussion of this bill
tomorrow, as we move ahead. I know a number of
[[Page 8989]]
our colleagues will be coming on the Senate floor tonight to talk about
this bill. I encourage folks on our side of the aisle, if you want to
come tonight and speak, it is a good time to do it because you can have
all the time you want. Tomorrow it will get cramped. I encourage
colleagues from the minority side to come out tonight and make their
word heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I will just be a brief minute. I wanted to
advise the Senate what we have in store the rest of this week.
Because of the cooperation on both sides, we have 90 minutes of
debate on the farm conference report tomorrow. There could be two or
three points of order offered on that, or whatever Senators want to
offer. We will vote on those points of order after 90 minutes of debate
prior to voting on the conference report.
Following that, we received the papers from the House on the budget.
They have appointed conferees, and we also are going to appoint
conferees tomorrow. Statutorily, there are 10 hours for the ability of
any Senator to offer amendments to instruct conferees. We don't know
how many amendments there will be. Senators Conrad and Gregg have been
working on a number of issues they want to have resolved by votes in
the Senate. That will be done. We look forward to that.
We would like to finish, and we are going to finish, the budget
tomorrow. It may go into the evening, but that is fine. We have now
scheduled a cloture vote for Friday morning. I hope during all day
tomorrow Senators Gregg, Enzi, Kennedy, and others can see if there is
a way of moving forward on the collective bargaining bill. If there is,
then there would not be a need for a cloture vote. At least we need to
spend tomorrow making that decision whether that can be done.
The other thing we have to finish before we leave this week--either
tomorrow night or Friday--is the Dorgan cross-ownership issue that he
indicated would only take a very short period of time. We have to do
that. We have to complete that because it is statute, by June 3. We
have 10 hours of debate allowed on that matter. It is also a privileged
piece of legislation. Senator Dorgan said he thought, in my last
conversation with him, he would only want 1 hour out of the 10 hours.
Others will want to speak on that.
So that Senators know, that is what we have ahead of us this week. We
have a situation where there are no votes on Monday, but Tuesday we
enter into a critical stage of what needs to be done.
We have coming from the House tomorrow, we are told, a $180 billion
supplemental appropriations bill. We are going to have to work hard on
that. It will take work. We will be getting a message from the House.
As I understand it, there will be three trees in that message they will
give us. So we will have to have at least three separate votes on what
they send us.
I look forward to working with Senators on both sides next week to
complete that. In order to do that, we have to complete all of the work
outlined a few minutes ago this week.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from New Hampshire is
recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, I appreciate my colleague for
allowing me to proceed at this time. I recognize that we are debating a
bill the conclusion of which is already foregone. The cards are dealt
and turned over, and this bill will pass. That doesn't mean it should
not be discussed and some of the weaknesses should not be pointed out.
I have severe reservations about the way we approached the commodity
side of the bill, which is, as it has been adequately represented, not
the majority of the spending bill, but it is a very significant amount
of spending, $190 billion, or somewhere in that vicinity.
Some may ask--and I guess I may have wondered from time to time--what
happened to all of those economists who worked for the Soviet Union
when it failed, who were sitting around their desks and they didn't
have a job anymore--the folks who believed in a command economy, in
top-down management, and believed in 5-year plans and believed that
supply and demand had no relationship to the market. Where did all
those people go? We now know. They went into the development of
American farm policy. It is sort of like, after World War II, you took
all of the scientists out of Germany and put them in Huntsville. At the
end of the Cold War, we took the economists out of the Soviet Union and
put them in the Midwest or maybe in the South because this bill is
structured in a world that has no relationship to the market. It
actually fundamentally undermines the concept of market and relating
productivity to demand and supply to the market.
It is also a bill that does serious damage to budgeting because it
uses $18 billion in gimmicks in order to avoid and get around pay-go
rules and other budget enforcement mechanisms. It even brings back--
amazingly enough--the Customs fees. How many times can we bring back
Customs fees? But it brings them back and claims a savings and uses
that money and spends it--$10 billion, I believe.
So at a time when the farm community in this country is doing pretty
darn well--in fact, the average farm income today is about 51 percent
higher than it has been, on average, over the last 10 years--$92
billion--real farm income is up $200 billion just in the last couple of
years. Farmers are experiencing record income. We are setting up a
subsidy structure, the purpose of which is to basically make payments
to farmers who are making a lot of money on products that are doing
very well.
Wheat is selling at $6 or $8 a bushel, and the average price has been
around $3.50. It is almost twice the average price. The same can be
said for corn--corn is higher even--barley, soybeans, and rice, which
is at three times the average price. We have commodities that are able
to compete in the market, so why do we need this massive new subsidy
structure which essentially creates this command and control attempt to
manage the markets? We don't, obviously. We don't in the context of
this time.
In addition, the bill sets up some new mechanisms that are rather
poor. It creates this new floor for emergencies. It says there will be
a $3.8 billion kitty for emergencies. We have never handled emergencies
that way. The reason is because we don't know what the emergencies are
going to be. We have always taken care of emergencies, whether it was
Katrina--which cost will be over $150 billion--or whether it was
smaller events, such as a flood somewhere or hurricanes or tornadoes.
We take care of them when we know what the cost is. We don't set up
basically a slush fund for emergencies so that the next time a post
office box blows over in some community, it is declared an emergency
and they can go get this money. This is going to incentivize an
aggressive attempt to declare everything an emergency to get at the
money that exists.
The irony is--to show how totally inconsistent this language is--they
don't even use the emergency money they have set aside in this bill for
an emergency they identify in the bill, which is the Kansas tornadoes,
which they funded in the amount of $60 million, I believe it is. It
shows this money is just going to be used for something else. If they
are going to fund a $60 million emergency in the bill, they ought to at
least have the credibility to take it out of the new slush fund. I
mean, how absurd is that? This is walking around money. That is what it
amounts to--$3.8 billion, which is real money, by the way. It would run
the State of New Hampshire for 2 years.
There is a representation that there is a major reform effort in the
area of payment to wealthy farmers. They reduce the payment level so
you don't get any payments if you have more than $750,000 of farm
income. What isn't discussed today is the $2.5 million. The fact is,
you can also have $500,000 of outside income, plus the $750,000, so
that gets you up to $1.2 million. Then, if you are married, you can
couple that up with your spouse so that she or he can have the same
amount. If it is a married farmer, and they are making $2.5 million of
income, they still qualify under this bill. So it is sort of a
[[Page 8990]]
sleight of hand exercise to claim there is significant reform.
In fact, this reform is insignificant compared to what is suggested.
The President's reform would have saved $1.6 billion. He suggested that
people with an adjusted gross income of over $200,000 not get these
payments.
How much does this bill save in that area, because it allows the
spouse to qualify also and it allows the extra income outside farming
to qualify? Mr. President, $286 million. That is not a lot of money
when you spread it--that is a lot of money, but when you put it over
the period of this bill, it is not a significant amount of money, and
it reflects the fact that it is not a significant reform. It simply is
not.
The bill also does nothing to limit the practice of farmers locking
in subsidy payment rates at the lowest market prices, yet retaining
their crops to sell later when the prices are much higher. As a result,
farmers are paid subsidies for losses they never had. This is what is
known as commissar politics. This is where the guys from Russia and the
Soviet Union gather and say: This worked in the Soviet Union, let's do
it here.
The concept that you pay people for losses that don't exist for a
product that is being sold that the guy gets to keep and gets to sell--
let's be reasonable about this. This is not logical, and it certainly
is not market politics. It has very little relationship to Adam Smith.
It also, ironically, at a time when we should be encouraging people
to use ethanol, continues a major discouragement for those of us who
live in the Northeast from using ethanol by extending the tariff for 2
more years, to 2010. This tariff makes no sense at all because you
cannot ship to the Northeast the ethanol that is being produced in the
Midwest, and we don't have the production capabilities in the
Northeast. We don't have the product, although the switchgrass
initiative, which I respect and say is a good initiative, hopefully can
give us that option.
The simple fact is, to maintain this tariff is to penalize uniquely
the Northeast--Pennsylvania, New England, New York, New Jersey,
everything basically in the East, not even the Northeast--in order to
protect the subsidies of product corn in the Midwest. Corn is doing
pretty darn well. It does not need the protection. In fact, if
anything, we need to figure out a way to produce other products to make
ethanol. The folks in Brazil have figured it out, so why not let us b
uy that ethanol? Why penalize us in a way that is really punitive--
punitive--for the purposes of basically protecting production which is
already at a record price? It makes no sense at all.
And then the one that really is the worst or, in my humble opinion,
the most egregious. The most egregious is the Sugar Program. The Sugar
Program was pretty bad before this bill. In an act of avarice that can
only be called a sugar high, they managed to make it significantly
worse. I mean, how can they do that? It is very hard to do, but they
essentially locked in a price for sugar in the United States that is
double the world price. On top of that, they are making the Federal
Government buy sugar at that inflated price and then resell it for the
production of ethanol at a significant loss.
The Sugar Program makes no sense to begin with. It never made any
sense other than the fact this was a commodity that had influence in
the process of developing this bill; obviously, a disproportionate
amount of influence. To take this program, which was bad to begin with,
and make it so egregious by forcing the Federal Government and Federal
taxpayers first to have to pay twice what the world market price is for
sugar and then to have to resell it to ethanol producers at a huge
loss--how many times can you hit the taxpayers for the purpose of the
sugar production industry? It is not right.
Then, of course, there are the new programs, the asparagus payments.
I like asparagus. When we did the farm bill, I talked about the fact
that I used to grow asparagus. I love it. I did rototill my asparagus
bed, I admit to that. I destroyed our asparagus crop. I didn't get a
subsidy payment. I didn't get a disaster payment. Under this bill, I
might because there is a new asparagus program.
There is a new large chickpea program and a camelina program. I don't
even know what that is. That is, obviously, some product made somewhere
for which somebody wanted to get a subsidy.
There is the National Sheep and Goat Industry Improvement Center for
$1 million.
There is the Desert Terminal Lakes Program, which is $175 million to
lease or purchase water rights.
There is a variety of earmarks, and one I find to be most
representative of the failure of this bill as being outrageous is one
that sets up a program for farm and ranch stress assistance networks.
Do we have a stress assistance network for the family who is running a
gas station or maybe the family who opened a restaurant and they are
not doing so well or the folks who start a small shoe store somewhere?
Do we have a stress program, a farm and ranch stress program? What
qualifies farmers and ranchers for a special program dealing with
stress? The only thing that qualifies is somebody somewhere came up
with this program, got somebody's ear, and decided to stick it in this
bill because this bill was leaving the station. It does not make sense,
and it is certainly something on which tax dollars should not be spent.
We have items that arrived out of nowhere in this bill: fisheries
disaster assistance of $170 million for California, Washington, and
Oregon; forest conservation bonds. As I mentioned, I find it reasonable
that there should be relief for the tornado in Kansas, but why wouldn't
it come out of the money we just set aside in this bill for disasters,
$3.8 billion? Why wouldn't the fishery assistance, if that is an
emergency, come out of that money?
The budget gimmicks. This bill is just replete with gamesmanship to
try to get around pay-go. I refer to pay-go as ``swiss cheese-go,''
which is very appropriate in a farm bill. I assume it is subsidized.
The fact is, there is $18 billion of gimmicks in this bill. There are
sunsets of programs after 5 years that they know are not going to
sunset, so they won't be scored. There is the nonscoring still of the
milk income loss compensation issue. There is the classic shift of the
corporate tax one day so that you collect it a day earlier or a day
later, and that gives you a different score, which allows you to avoid
the pay-go rules.
If you look at this budget, it had to have pay-go waived in the
House, with $7.4 billion out of whack for pay-go in the House.
Equally ironic, tomorrow we are going to take up the conference
report on our budget, on the unified budget. If the budget that passed
the Senate earlier this year were in place now, a pay-go point of order
would lie against this bill because it violates the very budget that
was produced by the majority party and passed with some fanfare earlier
this year. The only reason we cannot make the pay-go point of order is
because the budget has not fully passed and therefore is not in effect.
But I think it is very hard to, with a straight face, say this bill
does not violate pay-go when you know that right around the corner is a
budget which was passed by the majority which, if it were in place and
which I presume it will be in place fairly soon, a pay-go point of
order would lie against this bill.
I think we can stop talking about pay-go around here as an
enforcement mechanism because it clearly does not exist, and this bill
is just another example of where it has been gamed and manipulated. We
count 15 to 20 different examples, adding up to something around $143
billion of instances where pay-go has been gamed around here. And this
bill just takes that total up a little further--not a little further, a
lot further, $18 billion further. So as a result, enforcing pay-go
becomes very--well, it is just a very fraudulent exercise. It is only
used on very rare occasions when it is politically acceptable for the
majority to use it. On other occasions, where it might lie, it is
gamed.
[[Page 8991]]
This bill is one of the extraordinary examples of that gamesmanship.
And, of course, I mentioned customs fees. I believe the last count is
we have used customs fees to fund 55 different programs around here in
55 different instances. The same fees. No, they are not different fees.
They are the exact same fees that have been used, I believe, 55 times
to fund different programs so the programs can claim they met the
budget rules, and this bill--maybe it is 56 or 54, but it is $10
billion of gamesmanship.
The bill has, in my opinion, decoupled economic common sense from the
farm production and especially from farm payments. If we want a farm
system that works, why don't we go to the market? A lot of these
commodities today are doing pretty doggone well, extremely well. It is
good times in farm country for most people. Why don't we let the market
continue to work? Why do we have to set up these massive subsidy
programs? Why do we have to have a sugar program that charges American
consumers twice the world rate for sugar? It makes no sense. Why do we
have to have a slush fund for emergencies when nobody else has that
sort of slush fund? Why do we have to have a new program for asparagus?
I think asparagus growers are probably pretty competitive. I don't know
who their competition is. Maybe the Chinese grow asparagus. I suspect
most asparagus growers can compete with the Chinese. I prefer American
asparagus, by the way.
Let's let the markets do this rather than create this bill which is
such a mutation of every idea that Adam Smith put forward which has
made, quite honestly, our country strong, the basis of which basically
won the Cold War, which was that free markets work, capitalism works,
competition works, the rules of supply and demand work, that you let
people produce the product that has a comparative advantage, and they
produce it better and more efficiently, especially Americans, and you
get it at a better price for the consumer, and the taxpayers don't end
up with the bill.
I know I am not going to win this battle. The way this bill is
structured, it is the classic log-rolling exercise. You pick this group
that has this interest and you give them a subsidy and they give you a
vote. Then you go over here, pick this group, they have an interest,
they get a subsidy, and you get their vote. You pick this group that
has an interest, give them a dramatic increase in their program--it all
adds up to 80 votes around here. The only problem is, the people who
pay are our kids and our consumers. This is taking a lamb chop to the
head of the American consumer and just pounding him with it. I just
thought of that.
In any event, I have a point of order which lies against this bill
which I wish to make at this time because this bill violates
innumerable points of order in spirit, and were the budget the Senator
from North Dakota brought to the floor in law at this time, passed as a
resolution at this time, it would violate them in reality also. But
there is at least one budget point of order which is a holdover from a
prior chairman which makes considerable sense, which is that you should
not run up the debt on the next generation by adding spending in
outyears without paying for it that this bill still violates.
Mr. President, section 203 of the 2008 budget resolution makes it out
of order to consider legislation that increases the deficit by more
than $5 billion in the Senate for any of the four 10-year periods,
starting in fiscal year 2018. The pending bill would increase the long-
term net deficit in excess of $5 billion. Therefore, I raise a point of
order under section 203 of S. Con. Res. 21 against the pending bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 203 of the Concurrent
Resolution 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year
2008, I move to waive section 203 of that concurrent resolution for
purposes of the pending conference report, and I ask for the yeas and
nays at the appropriate time.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the leaders on this bill for their courtesy on the
floor, the chairman and the ranking member. They have given me more
than a reasonable amount of time to express my thoughts. I understand I
have totally swayed them to my view and they will be joining me in my
position. I also very much appreciate the courtesy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have enjoyed immensely listening to the
description of this bill of the Senator from New Hampshire who is the
ranking member of the Budget Committee, which I chair. I have great
respect for Senator Gregg and affection for him.
The description he has given of this bill has almost no relationship
to the legislation that is before us. It is enormously entertaining but
it is largely a fiction. It is a fiction that is interesting to listen
to, but again it bears almost no relationship to the legislation before
us.
The Senator made reference to Soviet economists. Let's make clear,
the American system of food production is the most efficient, the
cheapest, the most plentiful, the most stable, the safest in the world.
Americans have less of their disposable income going for food at this
time than consumers at any time in the history of the world.
Let me repeat that. The American consumer today enjoys the lowest
cost of food in relationship to our income of any consumer in the
history of the world. That is a fact.
In fact, the Wall Street Journal published, last year, an article in
which they said--and I want to read this. I hope people will pay
attention. People need to understand how remarkable the American
agriculture system has been and is. This is what they said:
The prospect for a long boom is riveting economists because
the declining real price of grain has long been one of the
unsung forces behind the development of the global economy.
Thanks to steadily improving seeds, synthetic fertilizers and
more powerful farm equipment, the productivity of farmers in
the West and Asia has stayed so far ahead of population
growth that prices of corn and wheat, adjusted for inflation,
have dropped 75 percent and 69 percent, respectively, since
1974. Among other things, falling grain prices made food more
affordable for the world's poor, helping shrink the
percentage of the world's population that is malnourished.
That is a result of the genius of American farm policy and the
extraordinary productivity of American farmers and ranchers working
within that system.
When the Senator says this counters market economics and leads to
payments when prices are high, he obviously does not know how the farm
program works. It is the opposite of what the Senator suggested. The
way the system works is there is support from the Government when
prices are low to prevent a collapse of the productive system. When
prices are high, the support fades away. That is the way the system
works. It does not increase support at times of high prices. It is
precisely the opposite.
The Senator said the reform provisions in this bill only save less
than $300 million. Wrong. The reform provisions in this bill save close
to $3 billion, and I will specify that momentarily.
The Senator says the disaster program is a slush fund. Really? A
slush fund? Let's review the facts. In the last 3 years, every State in
the Nation has received disaster payments--none of it budgeted for,
none of it paid for. In this bill disaster assistance is budgeted for
and paid for. That is a reform and that is a fact.
One of the things I am most interested in is the Senator suggested
millionaires could still get farm program support under this bill. Yes,
and lightning strikes once in a while, too. Because that is what it
would take for a millionaire to get support under this program. I have
just gotten results from the IRS moments ago because I wanted to know,
with the new limits put in place--which, by the way, are very dramatic
reform. It used to be, under current law on nonfarmers, they had a
limit of $2.5 million of adjusted
[[Page 8992]]
gross income before they would start to lose farm program payments. We
have reduced that for nonfarm income to $500,000.
There is another limit for farm income. Farm income, that had no
limit in the past, now begins a limit at $750,000, at which, of that
adjusted gross income, farm income of that amount, you lose all of your
direct payments. But the two could go together. In other words, you
could have somebody with $750,000 of farm income and $500,000 of
nonfarm income, and still be under the limits. So I thought, wouldn't
it be interesting to find out how many farmers in the country would be
in that category--$750,000 of farm income and $500,000 of nonfarm
income--because that is what the press is all talking about. They add
the two together and then they double it because of a spouse. Do you
know how many are in that category in the whole United States? How many
would have $500,000 of nonfarm income and $750,000 of farm income?
Do you know how many the IRS has reported to me there are in the
entire United States? Zero. None. So much for the argument from the
Senator from New Hampshire. Facts are stubborn things.
Let's go to the essence of this bill. Why do we need support for
farmers at all? It is a legitimate question. The Senator asked why
don't we do it for the guy who has a shoe store? Why don't we do it for
the guy who has some other small business? Here is the reason. Because
we are in a world economy in which our major competitors have made a
decision to strongly support their producers--far more strongly than we
support ours.
Our major competitors in world agriculture are the Europeans. This is
how much they spend to support their producers: $134 billion. This is
after the so-called cap reform in Europe that dramatically reduced what
they do. This is where they wound up: $134 billion.
Here is where we are: $43 billion. So they are outgunning us over 3
to 1 on support to their producers over what we do for ours.
OK, I had an interviewer say to me: That is wrong. Maybe it is wrong
but it is reality. What would happen if we yanked this support out from
under our producers when our major competitors are providing three
times as much support to theirs? We did an analysis. Do you know what
we found? Here would be the result. Two words: Mass bankruptcy. Because
if your major competitors are providing three times as much support to
their producers as we provide to ours and we yank the rug out from
under ours, guess what happens: The Europeans take over world
agriculture.
Wouldn't that be great, if we became dependent on foreign food the
way we are dependent on foreign oil? That is what the critics of this
agriculture policy apparently would prefer. But those of us who have
studied it and those of us who have fought to ensure that we retain a
strong agriculture component in this country have concluded that would
be a disaster for the American economy, for American consumers, and
that would be a disaster for our farmers and ranchers.
Where does the money go in this bill? We have looked at, and just
received, a final analysis. Two-thirds of the spending in this bill
goes for nutrition--two-thirds of the money in this bill. This is the
absolute low-ball estimate of what goes for nutrition. You could do an
analysis that would take it up to as much as 73 or 74 percent. It
depends on what you include and exclude. We have tried to do this based
on CBO analysis of the final scoring of this bill.
Nine percent goes for conservation. Only 13.9 percent goes for
commodities, that is the support for farmers and ranchers, and about 8
percent for crop insurance. That is where the money goes.
When the other side asserts that this increases the deficit and it is
not paid for, they are making things up. They are making things up.
Because this is the score by the Congressional Budget Office. Here it
is. This is not Kent Conrad's numbers. This is not the Agriculture
Committee's numbers. These are the numbers of the Congressional Budget
Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. They are independent. They
are professional. They are nonpartisan. They are responsible for the
scoring of all legislation before the Congress of the United States,
and here is their conclusion. Over 5 years, this bill saves $67
million. Over 10 years, it saves $110 million. So all the spending has
been offset, has been paid for. In fact, we have done a little bit
more. So the net result is to actually reduce the deficit over 5 years
by a modest amount--$67 million; over 10 years by $110 million.
But these are facts. This is not make believe. This is not make
things up. This isn't the administration saying there is $20 billion
here above the baseline--that is all made up. We are dealing with
facts. We are dealing with reality.
When I hear them make these claims that we did not address the
administration's concerns--we spent hour after hour after hour in this
conference committee, attempting to address administration concerns. I
think we did a pretty good job. The reality is the administration
changed their stated concerns so often it was hard to keep track of
what their priority was. In fact, at the end they came to us and said
they had no priority, that all of their demands were nonnegotiable,
that all of them should be treated with equal importance.
I have never negotiated with any administration on anything that came
in with a list of nonnegotiable demands and said everything had the
highest priority, but here is what we tried to do. They said we had to
limit any additional resources to $10 billion. We agreed to that. They
said it had to be offset with spending cuts. We agreed to that. They
said that the adjusted gross income limits for farmers and nonfarmers
had to be reduced significantly. We did that. They said there had to be
beneficial interest reform to avoid the kind of scandal you saw in
Katrina. We did that.
The Senator from New Hampshire said we did not, that a farmer could
simply pick the right time to market his crop and avoid the
consequences of any kind of reasonable restraint. That is not--they
have not read the bill. In the bill we give the administration special
authority in a disaster to prevent the Katrina abuse we all saw. In
addition, we added an additional reform requiring a 30-day moving
average for prices before somebody could fix their marketing loan. That
is a very significant reform. Yet it is very clear, the critics have
never bothered to read the bill.
We also were asked by the administration to provide a revenue
countercyclical program, and we did.
They asked us to provide planting flexibility. And we did. They asked
us to provide food aid flexibility. And we did. They have a series of
miscellaneous provisions we tried to honor, including limitations on
privatizing food stamps; Cuba trade provisions; out-of-lease fees. We
answered each one of those objections.
It does not stop there. Because we have heard the critics say there
is no reform, no reform in this bill. I will tell you, that is the
biggest fiction of all. That is the biggest fiction of all. Let's talk
about the reform that is in this bill.
First, significant adjusted gross income limit adjustments to
prohibit payments to Manhattan millionaires. That is in this bill. We
required payments to be attributed to living, breathing human beings
instead of paper entities. We eliminated the three-entity rule that
allowed paper entities to evade payment limits.
We cut direct payments by $300 million. We produced schedule F reform
that will save $479 million. We reformed crop insurance, saving $5.6
billion. We decreased support for corn-based ethanol, saving $1.2
billion. We prohibited payments to cowboy starter kits and ranchettes.
We reformed disaster assistance so that it is budgeted and paid for.
I might also add, we reformed disaster assistance so we would prevent
what happened in the bad old days where somebody could have a loss on
one part of their operation and gains on another part and still get a
disaster payment. That is all over. If you do not have, on
[[Page 8993]]
your whole farm, disaster losses, you will not get a disaster payment
in the future. That is reform.
Facts are stubborn things. In short, we have gone the extra mile to
address the administration's legitimate requests and provided reform in
this bill.
I wish to take a few minutes to address three other claims the
administration has made, because they are especially egregious and
false.
The administration's spokesman said:
At a time of record farm income, Congress decides to
further increase farm subsidy rates.
More fiction. Here is the fact. The conference proposal does not
increase subsidies at times of record farm income. To the contrary, the
conference proposal: cuts direct payments by $300 million, reduces
commodity spending by $3.5 billion, reduces the ethanol tax credit by
$1.2 billion.
The conference proposal only pays producers if prices collapse or
when there is a loss of production. I am talking now about marketing
loans. I am talking about the countercyclical program. Let me give you
an example of what they are talking about.
They say we have increased farm subsidy rates at a time of record
farm income. Let me give this example to show you how truly absurd that
statement is. Wheat prices now average about $8 a bushel. Okay. That is
what you get when you go to market. You go to sell, you get about $8 a
bushel for wheat. We increased the loan rate from $2.75 to $2.94. We
increased the loan rate from $2.75 to $2.94. We increased the target
price from $3.92 to $4.17.
Obviously, neither one of those has any application when prices are
high. The only way you would get the benefit of these safety net
proposals is if prices were to collapse. We have not increased the
support when prices are high; we have strengthened the safety net in
case prices collapse. Facts are stubborn things.
In fact, the only one--the only one--who is a party to these
negotiations who talked about increasing support when prices are high
was the administration. They proposed increasing direct payments by
$5.5 billion. Those are payments that would go out to farmers at a time
of high prices. Facts are stubborn things.
When they say there has been no reform in this bill, here is the
total spending under the farm bill compared to total Federal spending:
less than 2 percent of Federal spending, and the support for commodity
programs is one-quarter of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget; one-
quarter of 1 percent.
When we wrote the farm bill in 2002, the estimates were that
commodity programs would take three-quarters of 1 percent of all
Federal spending. So support for commodity programs has been cut by
two-thirds. That is a dramatic reform. Where did the money go? All of
the new money, the $10 billion we are above baseline here, has been
paid for by other spending cuts. All of it went to nutrition.
Now, on the disaster program--I want to end on this note--here are
the States that got disaster payments over the last 3 years. Texas
qualifies too, because it got payments. So every single State, and
Guam, plus Puerto Rico, got support under the disaster program. None of
it budgeted for, none of it paid for. In this disaster proposal, we
budget for it and we pay for it. And to have the former chairman of the
Budget Committee suggest this is a slush fund--no, no, no. What this is
is being responsible. That is what this is called, because we know
there are going to be disasters. We do not know what they are, we do
not know where they are going to occur, but we know they will occur.
Instead of leaving it out, putting it on the charge card, we budgeted
for it and paid for it. This disaster program is not only budgeted for
and paid for, it also will only go to people who actually have disaster
losses. It also requires them to have crop insurance.
The CBO scoring proves this will increase the use of crop insurance,
which is good for taxpayers as well as farmers.
One other thing that is very important to understand. This will
protect against cuts in conservation. Because the one time they did pay
for disaster programs, where did they take the money? They took it out
of conservation. What a shortsighted approach that was. We have
hopefully prevented that from happening again.
I am extremely proud of the product that has been produced by this
group of Senators and Congressmen on a bipartisan basis. I thank our
chairman, Chairman Harkin, for bringing a vision of change to this farm
bill. Without that vision, without his passion for it, without his
pushing for it, moving in the direction of a greater emphasis on
conservation, it would never have happened; and to our ranking member,
Senator Chambliss, who has been a strong guiding voice throughout these
deliberations. He is somebody I formed a very close working
relationship with as we wrote this bill. He has had the best interests
not only of farmers and ranchers, he has had the best interests of this
country foremost in his mind every step of the way. This country and
certainly his State owes him an enormous debt of gratitude. We thank
Senator Chambliss for the extraordinary time and effort he has put into
this bill.
To Chairman Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee, who has
been such a rock throughout this process, who provided strong
leadership at every step of the way, and helped provide the financing,
along with the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator
Grassley, who also participated in hour after hour, day after day, week
after week, of deliberations to form a bill that was responsible, and
who provided much of the push to get these reforms adopted.
Now, I recognize this does not have all of the reforms certainly the
Senator from Iowa would have liked, but we would never have gotten this
much without his pushing. Chairman Peterson, on the House side, no one
worked harder to get this result. I applaud him for the remarkable vote
in the House today. The legislation passed there 318 to 106. That is in
the face of a Presidential veto threat.
The ranking member, Congressman Goodlatte, whom I came to have great
respect for in these discussions; thoughtful, responsible, rational.
Chairman Rangel, who helped us with the funding so we could pay for
this bill without any tax increase.
Congressman Pomeroy, the only Member of the House to serve on both
Ways and Means and the House Agriculture Committee, who played such an
important role.
In the Senate we cannot forget those other Members who played such
key roles: Senator Leahy with the dairy provisions, former chairman of
the committee; Senator Stabenow, who is, in large part, responsible for
the dramatic improvement in the treatment of specialty crops that are
such an important and growing part of American agriculture; and Senator
Lincoln, Blanche Lambert Lincoln. I tell you, her constituents have got
a fighter in their corner every day. Nobody is a more aggressive
fighter for her folks than the Senator from Arkansas.
Before I end, I wanted to say a few thanks to staff as well, because
this has been an effort that has gone on well more than a year. I want
to thank my own legislative director, Tom Mahr, who played such an
important role in making this all work financially. Jim Miller, my lead
negotiator. Jim Miller has given body and soul to this effort. I am so
proud of him. He is an encyclopedia on agriculture. He is also
extremely adept with the numbers. I estimate Jim Miller has spent 3,000
hours on this effort.
I also want to recognize Scott Stofferahn, who is my other lead
negotiator, who is the father of these disaster provisions, worked with
the agriculture commissioners around the country to come up with the
provisions for this reform.
John Fuher of my staff who is a young man who came on this team and
brought his ``A'' game. Joe McGarvey, who does the energy work on my
staff. Miles Patrie, who worked on the nutrition provisions. My deepest
appreciation for their extraordinary effort. Day after day, night after
night, weekend after weekend sacrificed.
[[Page 8994]]
To the chairman's staff, Mark Halverson and Susan Keith, who have
spent--I would not even know how to calculate the time and effort. I do
know Mark Halverson has gone gray in the effort.
The Finance Committee staff, as well. Before I mention them, I wish
to single out the extraordinary staff of Senator Chambliss: Martha
Scott Poindexter, Vernie Hubert, Hayden Milberg. What first-class
people. These are the kinds of public servants who deserve everyone's
respect.
On the Finance Committee staff, Russ Sullivan, Cathy Koch, Rebecca
Baxter, Jon Selib, Senator Baucus's legislative director.
Senator Grassley's staff, who are outstanding as well, absolutely
outstanding: Elizabeth Paris, Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, first-rate
people who did their level best for the American people.
I can tell you, I have never been more proud to be part of an effort
than I was to be involved in this one.
I see somebody else on the floor, the former chairman of the House
Agriculture Committee, the Senator from Texas--the Senator from Kansas;
I was seeing if I could get a rise out of him--Mr. Roberts, who has
been of so much importance to this conference effort and to the effort
in the Senate Agriculture Committee as well.
I tell you, I am proud of this product. This is a bipartisan product.
This is a bipartisan effort. It is good policy and it deserves our
colleagues' support.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this farm bill has been a very long
process. Last fall the Senate Agriculture Committee asked the Senate
Finance Committee to help make up a budget shortfall we faced, and the
Finance Committee on which I serve stepped up to the plate. With eight
members of the Finance Committee also being members of the Agriculture
Committee, we had a real desire to make sure rural America had the best
farm bill possible. So following on what Senator Conrad said about
fellow Senators deserving compliments for their hard work, I am only
going to single out my colleague from Iowa Senator Harkin and my
colleague from Georgia Senator Chambliss, the top two members of the
committee, thanking them for the countless hours and weekends they put
into this bill for a long period of time; for some, over a period of a
year.
This was as difficult a farm bill to write and conference as I have
ever seen. My colleagues so far have given a good overview of what this
bill contains and what it does for those who are hungry, those who are
living in rural America, and those who are still involved in family
farm operations. But I wanted to take a minute to highlight a few of
the items that were most important to me and, obviously, to my home
State of Iowa. I think I have some experience to talk about because I
still sharecrop with my son Robin.
This isn't a blanket approval of the bill. I did have some
reservations about the bill because I didn't think it went far enough
in two true farm bill areas--payment limits and competition reform.
First, the ban on packer ownership that had been a part of the Senate
bill when it passed the Senate failed in an amendment I offered in
conference committee. This is unfortunate because the livestock
industry continues to become more vertically integrated and
consolidated. I think that is bad for the independent producer. The
recent announcement, for instance, that JBS Swift plans to acquire
Smithfield Beef Group, National Beef, and Five Rivers Feedlot should be
alarming to us as legislators. I continually have to wonder if when we
get down to just one single slaughterhouse, one single packinghouse,
will the Department of Justice and Congress begin to raise questions
about the trend we have had for consolidation? This is a trend that
continues to make it more difficult for independent producers to have
choice in to whom they sell their livestock and making it more
difficult to get a fair price for their livestock as the cash market
continues to shrink. We were able to include some reforms in the
livestock title, regardless of not doing what I think should have been
done.
The Senate version of the farm bill included my language which banned
mandatory arbitration clauses in production contracts. I drafted this
bill after hearing about problems where producers were being forced to
enter into expensive arbitration proceedings, thus giving up all their
rights to have disputes finally resolved through the independent
judiciary. While we weren't able to have the arbitration language from
my bill included, we did reform production contracts to give growers a
true choice in selecting dispute resolution, ending the practice of
forced mandatory arbitration in binding contracts. The farm bill
conference report requires that contracts provide a clear statement of
choice to producers upfront as to which track of dispute resolution
they might want to use--arbitration or the court process. It also
prohibits the integrators from pressuring growers to make one choice or
the other. Any interference with the choice would constitute a
violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act. Further, the language
states that if a grower declines arbitration upfront, that grower can
still choose arbitration at the time the dispute arises, if both
parties consent to the use of arbitration. Together these provisions
constitute significant reforms and will help level the playing field
for our growers.
Secondly, I don't think the payment limitation reform goes far
enough, and Senator Conrad recognized that in the final part of his
remarks, that that is a concern I had. He did give me credit for
pushing and pushing and pushing and bringing it to the point where it
is. I believe it doesn't go far enough. Because on this Senate floor,
we had 57 votes to reduce the cap on all three forms of commodity
payments--direct payments, countercyclical and market loan benefits,
and loan deficiency payments. But we ended up having a fight in
conference just to keep those levels of current law. That is the good
news. The bad news is we didn't go as far as what those 57 votes on the
floor of the Senate thought we should do, a hard cap of $250,000.
So what did we do in its place? Senator Conrad explained some of
this, but I wish to emphasize it because it is a lot better than if we
did what the President asked us to do today, that we not pass this
bill. There is indication it will be vetoed and that we ought to extend
the existing farm bill for 1 year or 2 years. Well, when it comes to
limitations on farm income and who can participate in the farm program
and who cannot, those limitations in present law at $2.5 million are
laughable and, quite frankly, aren't even being enforced at that level
presently. So I come to the conclusion that what we have is better than
present law, not as good as what I want but, for the first time, having
something that is fairly meaningful toward reform and limits on high-
income people benefiting from the farm program.
The adjusted gross income limit did come down substantially, so that
is a step in the right direction. For the first time, we have a cap on
farm income of $750,000. Previously, there was no cap on farm income.
It will bring a $2.5 million adjusted gross income cap on nonfarm
income down from that $2.5 million that I said is laughable and
probably not enforced, down to a $500,000 cap on nonfarm income. But
these adjusted gross income limits are still too high, frankly, as far
as I am concerned. In some parts of the country, they may not be. I
have to admit that even though I am a farmer, I may not understand
agriculture in California, Texas, and the Southeast. But I sure
understand agriculture in the States of the Plains and the Midwest. You
go to almost any farmer and tell them that we put this limit of
$500,000 in for nonfarm income or that we put in a $750,000 cap on farm
income, they are going to kind of laugh at us and wonder if we haven't
been in Washington too long.
On the other hand, negotiation around here is the art of compromise,
and so I am going to vote for this bill with these caps in it. I am
going to
[[Page 8995]]
thank my colleagues who negotiated for going a lot further the last few
days than I ever thought they would go. Hopefully, this keeps some
people who have the ability to withstand natural disaster, to withstand
sometimes politics affecting farm income, sometimes war, sometimes
international trade issues affecting farm income, people at this level
have the ability to withstand that. Smaller and medium-size farmers
don't have that ability. That is why we have a farm program. So there
is some level of income where people ought to be able to withstand
things that are beyond their control and still be in the business of
farming.
I am asking the people in the State of Iowa to look at these caps as
being a step in the right direction, not satisfying me but still better
than present law. That is why I think it is very necessary that we get
this into law. Hopefully, down the road we can make things even better.
I happened to have the Government Accountability Office pull data for
me on how many folks are actually getting payments over these new
income limits. Honestly, there aren't a lot. The conference committee
took steps, though, in other areas of reform; for instance, in the
right direction by eliminating the three-entity rule and going to a
system of direct attribution. In this particular instance, we do away
with the legal subterfuge of where there are limits in existing law,
that people could split up into three different units and each unit get
the limits that are presently allowed. So that legal subterfuge is done
away with. Also, in the commodity title, the administration, the House,
and the Senate all recognize the importance of including revenue
protection programs for farmers. All three groups, however, took
different approaches. I am pleased that an average crop revenue program
was included in the final bill as an option for farmers and
particularly because the hard work from this comes from a lot of corn
producers in my State.
Not only that, we were able to make the program a more viable option
for producers and make it available to them in the next crop year,
2009. I am excited to see what type of participation we get in the
program and the outcome of it, so that in the next farm bill debate, we
can decide whether revenue protection works. The people who thought
this up, those of us on the committee who went with the
recommendations, have confidence in the people who thought it up. But
there is nothing like the real world of seeing whether it works. So we
have a few years to make that determination. I hope it does work.
In addition, the White House has continued to say Congress can't use
timing shifts to save money and somehow they didn't count. Well, they
do count because farmers are going to have to make a judgment in the
way they do things to accommodate. Farm program payments will come
later in the year, but they will be expected to make crop insurance
payments earlier. So in fact, these do count and will pinch the
cashflow of a lot of independent producers, whether the White House
wants to believe it or not.
All that being said, I am pleased this farm bill is making
significant investments in rural America. I would like to point out a
program that I have named the Value-Added Producer Grant Program as one
of those. It has had a bit of a facelift since I first worked on this.
I bet it has been 6 or 7 years ago. But it is targeting funds directly
to beginning farmers and to ranchers, which is critical to getting
young farmers into business. I continue to hear good things about these
dollars being invested right into rural communities, and so I am
pleased we could get some mandatory money into the program, even though
the farm bill dollars were very tight.
I have also worked to give Black farmers, African-American farmers,
applying for Farm Service Agency loans who were involved in the Pigford
v. USDA discrimination lawsuit a chance to have their claims heard.
That is why I introduced earlier in 2007 the Pigford Claims Remedy Act.
There were circumstances out of these farmers' control, and they
weren't able to get their claims filed timely. The conference report
provides that these claimants who have not had their cases determined
on the merits may, in civil action, obtain that determination. In other
words, they are going to have their day in court that they feel they
did not get with the administrative process. It is time justice was
done for these African-American farmers. Civil rights at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture has management problems that still need to be
addressed, so I want that department to know I will be watching over
the administration of this Pigford program very carefully.
Last year, I called for a Government Accountability Office report on
farm payments going to farmers who had already died. We even held a
hearing on this issue before the Senate Finance Committee. The Farm
Service Agency paying dead farmers was a classic example of waste,
fraud, and abuse. It is a classic example of a department not doing its
job.
Now, I am not saying there might not be legitimate reasons to keep
estates of dead people open for a few years. But there was something
wrong with people who did not report that the structure of the farming
operation had changed, that somebody had died, and continued to get
farm program payments in a dead person's name.
So the farm bill is proactive in requiring the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to check payments against taxpayers' ID numbers at the
Internal Revenue Service. I am cautiously optimistic, however. I
requested a new Government Accountability Office report, and in
preliminary briefings I have learned that the U.S. Department of
Agriculture does not even enforce the current $2.5 million AGI limits.
It makes me wonder how they are ever going to enforce the more
complicated AGI limits we have put in place.
I should also add that based on the two Government Accountability
Office reports already released, we closed a fraudulent farm loss
loophole that allows operations to evade payment limits. We also were
able to shut down the generic certificate abuse with new Commodity
Credit Corporation 1099 reporting that I had asked the Treasury
Department to do something about way back in 2001, and, quite frankly,
they have done nothing.
Another issue I often hear from constituents about is the abuse of
the rural broadband loans going into areas where service is either
already provided by other capable entities or a high percentage of
households already have service. I do not believe the Government should
be in the business of subsidizing competition. We ought to be in the
business of helping people who do not even have the service.
Thus, we were able to include in the new farm bill a requirement that
in order to be eligible for a loan, the provider needs to be applying
for an area where 25 percent of the people do not have service and
where not more than three incumbent service providers are already
located.
I want to shift gears a bit now from the Agriculture Committee's role
to my role as a member of the Senate Finance Committee. Through that
role, I was able to secure even more reforms to agricultural policy
while protecting the interests of farmers and ranchers.
When the House passed this bill with a revenue offset for the extra
agricultural spending, I raised a concern to the tax-writing
committees. By yielding several billion dollars in new revenue for new
spending, the Ways and Means Committee established, in my judgment, a
very dangerous precedent.
There is always great temptation for any committees in the Congress
that have a veracious appetite for new spending to view the Ways and
Means Committee on the other side of the Hill or the Finance Committee
in the Senate--the tax-writing committees, in other words--as some sort
of a cash register. From a fiscal disciplinary standpoint, this
pressure, if unchecked, will lead to larger and larger government and
higher and higher taxes.
The hard-working American taxpayer is the loser because revenue
offsets are diverted from the highest and best uses: tax policy and
deficit reduction. The proliferation of reserve funds in
[[Page 8996]]
budget resolutions under both parties--I want to say both parties; so
my party is guilty of this as well--is very clear evidence of this
pressure as well. Those reserve funds might as well be labeled as tax-
and-spend funds because the committees that request them are not likely
to cut any spending.
So I raised concerns early in the farm bill deliberation about a very
dangerous slippery slope that Congress or the tax-writing committees
might be heading for.
So I am pleased to say in the Senate process, Chairman Baucus
listened to my concerns and agreed. We made it clear that we would hold
the line, and we did hold the line. The Finance Committee marked up a
bill that took care of agricultural priorities. But where we use
Finance Committee resources, we kept the benefits and authority within
the Finance Committee.
Everyone knows the Finance Committee action made it possible for the
Agriculture Committee to move forward to spend more money than was in
the baseline. We took some of the policy pressure, then, off of the
Agriculture Committee.
The schedule and press stories bear out that basic point. We held the
line between agricultural policy in the Agriculture Committee and
agricultural policy in the Finance Committee when the farm bill was
processed on the Senate floor. Remember, that passed, I think, with 77
votes.
Now, the conference was quite a different matter. In the end, we kept
a decent but much smaller package of agricultural tax relief offsets
with agricultural tax reforms. We also split the baby, from the
jurisdictional point of view.
An extension of the Customs user fees, which is a tax-writing
committee offset, was used to offset the $10 billion in new
agricultural spending; in other words, meaning the $10 billion above
baseline. About half of that, the part dealing with the new
agricultural disaster relief trust fund, is in Finance Committee
jurisdiction. The balance is going to pay for new agricultural spending
above the budget baseline.
In my view, this was an unfortunate and troubling compromise for the
tax-writing committees. We mitigated some of the damage to the
institutional structure of the tax-writing committees, but we also at
the same time opened the door. It is a door I was glad to keep slammed
shut during the years I chaired the Finance Committee. I worry greatly
about the precedent that has been set here. Pressure will be brought to
bear in the future for more nontax-writing committee spending to be
offset with Finance Committee resources.
I sincerely worry about the effect of this precedent on the power and
resources of the two chairmen, my friends, Mr. Rangel, the chairman of
the House Ways and Means Committee, and Senator Baucus, the chairman of
the Senate Finance Committee. Other committees are loathe to cut their
spending and to reform large programs in their jurisdictions.
So the easy street for other committees is to assign their funding
problems to the tax-writing committees and to blame the tax-writing
committees for any funding problems. As my friends, the two chairmen,
know better than anyone else, the demands within the tax-writing
committees for offsets are a big challenge just to do the work the tax-
writing committees have to do.
I hope we all have learned a lesson. We should not use the tax-
writing committees' resources as an easy way out for other committees
that are reluctant to make the tough choices in the oversight and
development of programs in their jurisdiction.
There have been also some significant benefits, though, from the
Senate Finance Committee's involvement in this bill.
The farm bill also includes some customs and trade provisions that I
want to address. First, it includes a compromise on expanding our
existing trade preference program for Haiti.
This was a priority for the chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee. In addition to expanding Haiti's trade preferences, the
compromise calls upon the President to identify any textile or apparel
producers in Haiti that fail to comply with core labor standards, as
defined in the legislation, or the labor laws of Haiti that relate to
the core labor standards.
The statement of managers accompanying the conference report states
very clearly that the Conferees recognize that the core labor standards
defined in the legislation refer to the rights as listed in the 1998
International Labor Organization Declaration on Fundamental Principles
and Rights at Work and its Follow Up.
We voted for the 1998 ILO Declaration. We respect, promote, and
realize the labor standards stated in the 1998 ILO Declaration.
Moreover, the legislation applies only with respect to labor practices
in Haiti. It does not address and cannot impact our domestic labor
practices in any way.
Now, the legislation further calls upon the International Labor
Organization to report periodically on the compliance of individual
producers in Haiti with the core labor standards and the labor laws of
Haiti.
And the legislation directs that in identifying producers that fail
to comply with core labor standards, the President shall consider these
ILO reports. The President is free to consider any other information,
and the final decision rests entirely with the President.
Nothing in the legislation forces the President to make any
particular determination. It just says that the President shall
consider these reports.
And if the President determines that a producer in Haiti is not in
compliance and refuses to comply, the legislation directs the President
to withdraw, suspend, or limit benefits to that producer under the
trade preference program until the producer comes into compliance.
As I said at the outset of my remarks, I am not making a blanket
endorsement of the farm bill. I have my reservations. Had I written the
Haiti provisions from scratch, they would have looked very different.
But this issue was part of a broader negotiation, and compromises were
necessary if we were going to produce a final product.
The proponents compromised too. Originally they proposed requiring
the President to withdraw trade benefits solely as a consequence of the
ILO reports. That was never something I could accept. Ultimately, they
dropped that demand and agreed to defer to the President's discretion.
The compromise language that is in the bill is specific to Haiti and
responds to the unique economic and political situation in that
country. I accepted it based on that narrow context as part of an
overall compromise to conclude these negotiations.
Another issue that we addressed in the farm bill is a recent proposal
by the Customs and Border Protection agency to change the way certain
imports are valued for purposes of assessing duties.
The agency proposed eliminating its current practice of allowing
importers to base customs value on the first price paid in a series of
transactions that culminate in the importation of a product into the
United States. Customs has instead proposed a mandate that importers
must use the last transaction price.
This proposal has drawn significant concern from the business
community and in Congress, for a number of reasons. First, it appears
to counter an established practice that has been around since at least
1988. And some argue that it would lead to tariff increases of 8 to 15
percent.
Moreover, Customs doesn't collect data on the extent to which the so-
called first-sale option is used. Nor does the agency have a clear
sense of the economic impact of the proposed change. Yet the agency did
not consult Congress or the business community before proposing this
change in administrative practice.
Consequently, we included a provision that directs Customs to collect
additional data for 1 year on the usage of the first-sale option. We
further directed the International Trade Commission to submit a report
to Congress analyzing the data to be collected by Customs.
Finally, we included a sense of Congress that Customs shall not
implement any change to disallow the first-
[[Page 8997]]
sale option prior to January 1, 2011. After that date, Customs can
implement a change but only if the agency consults with the committees
of jurisdiction in Congress and the business community, and also
receives approval for such a change from the Treasury Department.
That is because the Treasury Department retains rulemaking authority
over Customs regulations, though a portion of that authority has been
delegated to the Department of Homeland Security.
I do want to say some other things the Senate Finance Committee has
done. We create a new, temporary cellulosic biofuels production tax
credit. This provision will encourage the development of a new cutting
edge alternative biofuel industry.
Cellulosic biofuels can be produced from agricultural waste, wood
chips, switchgrass, and other nonfood feedstocks. With an abundant and
diverse source of feedstocks available, cellulosic biofuels hold
tremendous promise as a home-grown alternative to fossil-based fuels.
With cellulosic ethanol, and with the additional feedstocks from corn
stover, from wood chips, from switchgrass, and other things that have
cellulose in them, we are going to be able to move beyond just grain
being used to make ethanol.
Now, that is going to solve some problems. But one of the problems
that it is going to solve, if people will be patient, are these
demagogic statements that are going on now about the production of
ethanol bringing up the high price of food.
Ethanol is being blamed for everything right now. Ethanol is being
blamed for rice going up. We do not make ethanol out of rice. Bread
goes up. They have riots in Cairo, and corn ethanol is being blamed for
it. There is a whole conspiracy on the part of the grocery
manufacturers of America, hiring a public relations firm to put on a 6-
month crusade against ethanol. It is a scapegoat. It is intellectually
dishonest.
In 1980, the people of this country asked Congress to put some
incentives in because we ought to have renewable fuels, and ethanol was
the direction to go. The farmers of America responded by growing more
corn. Farmers invested, setting up ethanol plants. For 25 years, there
have been incentives for ethanol production. Ethanol is becoming a
major component now through renewable fuels and less dependence upon
foreign sources of oil. For 25 years, everything about ethanol has been
good, good, good, good--whether it was good for the farmers, good for
the environment, good for jobs in rural America, or good for less
dependence on foreign sources of energy.
Then, all of a sudden, corn goes up to $4 a bushel a year ago, and
then everybody gets on ethanol. It is an intellectually dishonest
attack that irritates the heck out of me, and I think we ought to band
together as we always have done. The farmers of this country responded
when the country wanted renewable fuels, and for 25 years nothing bad
was said about ethanol. Then, all of a sudden, the price of food goes
up, and ethanol gets blamed for it.
Ninety-five percent of the grain in the world is eaten; 95 percent of
the grain is eaten. Last year the farmers of America planted more acres
to corn than any year since 1944. The farmers of America produced 2.3
billion more bushels of corn last year. Only 600 million bushels of
that 2.3 billion bushels of corn went into ethanol.
The other 1.7 billion bushels are available for everything else
anybody wants to use them for, including if they want to eat the same
corn animals eat. Yet I am hearing people complain about ethanol being
the reason that rice and wheat are high priced and somehow scarce. We
have to wake up the people of this country to the fact that the farmers
of America responded when they wanted alternative energy, and that
alternative energy is not at fault.
In fact, Iowa State University has studies showing that the price of
gasoline would be 30 or 40 cents higher today if it had not been for
what ethanol is producing. We have to get over it. Maybe this new
program on biofuels from things other than grain will help calm that, I
hope, because cellulosic biofuels is still science in the making, and
scientists are telling us in 3 to 5 years it is going to be
commercially viable.
This bill, then, includes a new, temporary cellulosic biofuels
production tax credit for up to $1 per gallon, available through
December 31, 2012, as an incentive toward cellulosic ethanol, the same
way we have since 1980 on a tax incentive for ethanol from grain.
This provision is estimated to cost about $403 million over a 10-year
period of years that the tax credit is available to American investors
who are willing to take the risk of producing cellulosic ethanol.
The new cellulosic biofuels production tax credit will be funded in
part by a 2-year extension of the tariff on ethanol and reform in the
current ethanol blenders' credit, which will be reduced from 51 cents
per gallon to 45 cents per gallon on January 1, 2009, the first day the
cellulosic producers' credit will be available. One other thought that
came to my mind just now about an attack on ethanol. We have people who
have voted for ethanol in this Senate. Twenty-two of them have sent a
letter to the EPA saying that the mandate on ethanol ought to be
lifted--the very same Senators who have complained because we aren't
doing enough for renewable energy.
The last tax title I wish to refer to--and then, for my colleagues, I
am just about done--is the Conservation Reserve Program payments. We
have had this situation where the IRS has been taxing cash payments
that farmers receive from Conservation Reserve Program payments--CRP
payments--with the Social Security tax, the payroll tax. If you are a
farmer receiving cash payments, if you rent your land and you receive
cash payments, you obviously don't pay Social Security tax on that
money. But the IRS ruled that if you were getting cash payments on CRP,
you had to pay Social Security on it. So we take care of that problem
in this bill as well. That is something we have been working on since
1999, and I am glad to have the opportunity to correct something the
IRS has done that is an injustice to landowners who receive cash
payments.
I understand that some of my colleagues have concerns over the
extension of the ethanol tariff in the farm bill.
I would like to point out that the United States already provides
significant opportunities for countries to ship ethanol into our market
duty-free.
Numerous countries don't pay the U.S. ethanol tariff at all. Through
our free trade agreements and trade preference programs, some 73
countries currently have duty-free access to the U.S. market for
ethanol fully produced in those countries.
For all other countries, including Brazil--the world's major exporter
of ethanol--the United States provides duty-free access through a
carve-out in the Caribbean Basin Initiative.
So Brazilian ethanol exporters currently don't have to pay the U.S.
tariff.
Under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, ethanol produced in Brazil and
other countries that is merely dehydrated in a Caribbean country can
enter the United States duty-free up to 7 percent of the U.S. ethanol
market. That is very generous access.
Moreover, this duty-free access--as it captures 7 percent of U.S.
ethanol consumption--grows every year.
Yet Brazil and other countries have never come close to hitting this
7 percent cap. In fact, as of Monday, the 7 percent cap was filled only
23 percent for the year. So we are almost halfway into 2008, and
foreign ethanol exporters haven't even filled by one-quarter the
generous duty-free access that we give them.
And it isn't that the Caribbean Basin Initiative countries don't have
the capacity to dehydrate more Brazilian ethanol. They do. Current
dehydration capacity in the Caribbean Basin Initiative countries is 580
million gallons, well above the over 452 million gallon duty-free
allotment for 2008.
Brazil isn't taking full advantage of the duty-free treatment
currently available to it. I don't know why we
[[Page 8998]]
should bend over backwards to provide yet more duty-free access for
Brazil.
This is especially the case given Brazil's stance in the Doha Round
negotiations of the World Trade Organization. Brazil is resisting
efforts to further open its market to imports of U.S. industrial goods
and services.
We shouldn't even discuss reducing or lifting the tariff until Brazil
takes full advantage of its current ability to ship ethanol duty-free
to the U.S. market.
Finally, the ethanol tariff is a revenue-raiser for the farm bill.
The cost of the new cellulosic biofuels production tax credit will be
offset, in part, by an extension of this tariff. In this way, the
ethanol tariff will help us move toward the development of a new
cutting edge alternative biofuel industry that will produce fuels from
agricultural waste, woodchips, switchgrass, and other nonfood
feedstocks.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Arkansas is
recognized.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to add my support as well
to the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. It has been a very
long and arduous process, but I think those of us who have been
extremely engaged in this process are proud. We are proud of the hard,
bipartisan work that has gone into this bill, and we are proud of the
product. Although many of us know that none of us could get everything
we wanted in this bill, we worked hard in a bipartisan way and in a way
that was respectful to the diversity of this country to come up with a
product we could all rally around and be supportive of on behalf of
this country and the hard-working farmers out there who support this
country as well as those of us who enjoy their bounty, not to mention
the many other good components of this bill we worked hard together on,
again, in a bipartisan way to come up with a good result.
However, the finish line being in sight, it is still not quite over
yet. That is why I wish to first of all encourage my colleagues to send
a strong message to President Bush to sign this bill that supports
rural America and sets a long-term strategy for investing in those
communities across this land that provide us with the unbelievable
bounty this great Nation affords us.
This is only my third farm bill, so I have not been engaged in this
process quite as long as many of my colleagues who have already spoken.
But I have to tell my colleagues, as Senator Conrad mentioned, I feel
quite passionate about this bill because I feel quite passionate about
the farm families in this country.
I myself come from a seventh-generation Arkansas farm family, and I
have watched, as I have grown up--not just in my own family but in
families across our State--the hard-working communities that take such
a sense of pride in being Americans but, more importantly, providing
for this country and the world the safest, most abundant and affordable
supply of food and fiber anybody could.
Yes, I am sure my colleagues will be delighted when I sit down and
quiet up because I have been extremely passionate about this bill
because I believe in those people of my State. I believe in the passion
and the pride they have in who they are as Arkansans and, more
importantly, who they are as Americans.
I am proud of the work we have done, and I am proud to have fought
hard for their needs and their concerns, for the diversity they
represent in the infinite number of business operations and farm
operations that exist in this great country, enabling us as a nation to
be able to say that we can provide the most efficient and effective
production of food and fiber for the world, particularly at a time
when, as my colleague from Iowa mentioned, in places across the globe
people are fighting over food and the need for food. We have the hard-
working farm families of this country to thank for the incredible
effort of making sure we don't go through that, that we don't
experience those things.
I wish to first start by thanking the chairman of our Agriculture
Committee, Chairman Harkin, and his hard-working staff. I wish to thank
the chairman for his leadership throughout this process and, again,
although none of us got everything we wanted in this bill, his
willingness and the willingness of his staff to be consistently there
for us and to listen to the concerns we have expressed. I appreciate
all of the hard work and the many hours they have put into this.
I wish to thank not just his staff but the staff of all of the other
Members who have worked so diligently with me and my staff through this
process. We do have many perspectives in this bill from many different
regions of this country, but we do know at the end of the day how to be
respectful of one another.
I especially wish to thank the ranking member, Senator Chambliss, and
without a doubt his incredible staff, Martha Scott Poindexter and
Vernie Hubert, who have been tremendous and have put incredibly hard
work into this bill. They have been not only a great asset in the
putting together of this bill, but they have been good friends, and I
am enormously grateful.
I wish to thank Chairman Baucus for his work and the excellent work
of his staff on this very important tax title, along with his ranking
member Senator Grassley and his staff. Their efforts to secure funding
for this bill have been tremendous.
I also wish to say a special thanks to Senator Conrad and his staff.
They have sought to find the common ground and to bring people to the
table. They have been thoughtful. They have been understanding. They
have been tireless at making sure there was a reasonableness about our
discussions and that the facts and the figures were clear as we debated
all of these issues.
So many of the other members of the committee as well as Members of
the body who have engaged in all of these discussions have done a
tremendous job in bringing this all together.
Of course, on the House side, Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member
Goodlatte as well as Chairman Rangel have done an incredible job in
working with us, and we appreciate so much their hard work.
I would also like to add my special thanks to my own staff, Ted
Serafini and Anna Taylor, who have been an incredible support for me
and made a tremendous effort in making sure our voice from Arkansas and
the voices of the people we represent were so passionately heard with
such great expertise, as well as my former staffer Robert Holifield,
who worked very hard on this bill before he left our staff.
Those of us on the conference committee have worked hard to come up
with this bill, and we wanted it to be practical. We wanted it to be
realistic and exhibit the reforms that so many people have been asking
for. A lot of time and energy was put into the final bill, and it is a
good compromise. While it doesn't contain everything, as I said, that I
want to see or anybody else on the committee wanted to see, it does
ensure that we maintain the blessings we have here in this great
country of American agriculture.
I often say to people at home that what we should be doing up here is
not looking for legislation to be a work of art but to be a work in
progress. As many of us who have worked on many farm bills know, it is
a work in progress and continues to be--not just in what we do with
this farm bill, but, as the Senator from Iowa mentioned, we look for
making sure that the actions we have taken do not have unintended
consequences and that we pay close attention to ensure that the things
we have done do not disproportionately harm our great efforts of
production agriculture.
From day one, there was a lot of give-and-take. In the end, I think
Members and their staffs have produced a good compromise and a
compromise that respects and appreciates the diversity of our country
and certainly the great wealth and bounty of what our Nation has.
There are so many good things in this bill to be proud of, and I am.
Several of my colleagues have already touched on the increased
investment in nutrition, renewable energy, conservation, and rural
development. All of these will benefit our country greatly.
[[Page 8999]]
As one of the cochairs and cofounders of the Senate Hunger Caucus, I
am very proud that nutrition was a priority in this bill. This bill
commits $10.36 billion--nearly 73 percent of the bill--for nutrition to
continue the fight against hunger. Hunger is a disease we can cure. We
know how to cure it. We simply have to set it as a priority, and this
bill does.
It represents the largest amount of funding for nutrition programs in
our Nation's history. At a time when 20 million Americans are living in
poverty, it should represent certainly no less. One billion of that is
allocated for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program which provides free
fresh fruits and vegetables to low-income children in our schools
nationwide. It also expands the Senior Farmers Market Program by $50
million to help them purchase fresh fruits at places like farmers
markets and roadside stands throughout the country. I am proud that the
bill aims to reduce food insecurity among our children and our elderly,
among our low income and those who are in need. This is a good part of
our bill.
This bill also provides farm families, ranchers, and small businesses
throughout the greater part of rural America with the opportunities and
the incentives to develop renewable energy sources and continue the
drive toward greater energy efficiency in this country. As we have seen
with the huge rise in gas prices this year, reducing our dependence on
foreign oil is an absolute necessity for our Nation's future security.
I see the passion in my Arkansas farmers and entrepreneurs in rural
Arkansas and across this great country for producing alternative and
renewable energy sources. They stand ready. They stand ready to take
advantage of the incentives and the call we have in this bill to lessen
our dependence on foreign oil and empower our own selves, our own
country with renewable fuels that will not only create jobs but provide
a better environment for future generations. In this bill, we have the
beginnings particularly of making sure we not only lessen our
dependence on foreign oil but we do so in a way that is good for our
environment.
I am also grateful that an important provision in this bill that I
supported will bring tax parity to the timber industry which is so
important to my State. This change will help our timber farmers and
millers remain competitive globally during tough economic times. Last
year, the downturn in the forestry industry resulted in the loss of
more than 3,000 jobs and nearly $14 million in State and local revenues
in my State of Arkansas.
Conservation is also a big part of this package. It does a tremendous
amount. As a farmer's daughter, I saw no greater conservationist than
my own father, as a farmer who took great pride in not only the land of
our farm and the future generations who would get to use that land but
also in the conservation that surrounded our farm and in our county,
because not only was it important to his livelihood and for future
generations of our family, for the expertise and his productivity on
our farm, but it also was an enhancement and an unbelievable endowment
to future generations for the wonderful pastime that so many Arkansans
enjoy. Whether it is fishing in our rivers and streams, whether it is
hunting in our forests, all of the many things we see in our State that
my children and other Arkansans enjoy, it is a true blessing to see
that conservation, and certainly it is important to our agriculture
producers and others.
The chairman, Chairman Harkin, has been a tireless advocate for
conservation programs, and we appreciate that. I am pleased that once
again he has produced a bill that is progressive in this area.
It includes a $4 billion increase in conservation programs, including
a $1.3 billion investment in the Wetlands Reserve Program, which is
very popular and productive in my State. We have the largest timber
wetlands in North America, with the White River Waterfowl Refuge, along
with the incredible lands--mostly nonproductive farmlands--that have
been put into the wetlands reserve and the wetlands program and have
contributed greatly to the environment. We have not only spotted the
ivory-billed woodpecker, but we have tremendous migratory birds--not
only the waterfowl but some of the largest areas for neotropical
migratory birds, songbirds. It is a wonderful asset for this country
and for future generations.
It ensures we are the best stewards of the land that we possibly can
be and, above all, it helps us to leave our children with the
environment they deserve.
It also includes a tax deduction to reduce the costs of implementing
recovery plans under the Endangered Species Act. I see Senator Crapo,
whom I have worked a lot with on this issue.
The current Endangered Species Act plays a crucial role in protecting
threatened endangered species and habitats and in promoting species
recovery. However, on private lands, which are relied upon by the
majority of threatened species for their survival and recovery, the
current law doesn't provide all the necessary tools we need.
This provision in the farm bill ensures that our private landowners
are given the incentives they need to protect our endangered and
threatened species and engage with State governments and the Federal
Government to protect them by making sure they can work on their land
and give the needed protections that are needed in order to protect the
habitats so we never even see these species going on the endangered
species list to begin with.
This bill also provides an additional $150 million to promote
economic growth, improve infrastructure, and create jobs in rural
America through the rural development title.
This investment will help improve access to broadband in rural
America, as well as provide loans for rural hospitals, so they can
provide the best care for patients living in those rural areas.
Oftentimes, I think many of us who grow up in rural America, and who
go home regularly to rural America, wonder if inside the beltway there
are enough people still here who understand the importance of
infrastructure needs and investing in rural America--whether it is
broadband and making sure folks in rural America have an on-ramp to the
information highway that exists or whether it is just that they have
clean drinking water in those communities. It is something we can never
forget because those precious rural areas of this country will remain
out there and those people will remain out there and we have to stand
up for them.
The bill also provides serious reform while maintaining the safety
net for our family farmers so they can compete in the global
marketplace.
Throughout this process, we have heard time and time again that there
must be reform. So many of us started early in this process to see
where we could bring about the kind of reforms that were being
demanded. We have provided in this bill the most significant reform in
our Nation's history in this farm bill. The bill lowers the overall cap
on program payments from $360,000 to $105,000.
We have seen the need to address the loopholes that allow producers
to avoid the caps. So we have eliminated those loopholes most
frequently--the three-entity rule and generic certificates.
I also heard of the need for transparency, so the committee bill
added direct attribution, which will track payments directly to a
living, breathing individual producer, a farmer out there who is
putting their hard-earned time, energy, blood, sweat, and tears into
producing these agricultural products.
I advocated for reform and transparency from the very beginning
because I knew it was something people wanted to see. But I also think
we must be careful that we understand what the possible consequences of
these reforms might be.
The 2002 farm bill established a solid safety net program when yields
and prices were low.
While we have maintained the integrity of that program, the $2.5
million means testing on income limits established in that bill in 2002
were never
[[Page 9000]]
fully enforced by this administration. The Senator from Iowa brought up
that point. It is hard to know where to go from those caps in the 2002
bill and today's bill to increase that transparency and increase those
reforms, if we don't even know what the first limit actually did.
That is why it does create some concern in me to hear that the
administration is saying this bill doesn't go far enough in regard to
these reforms. How do we know if it doesn't go far enough if we have
never enforced what has been on the books to begin with?
Prior to the 2002 farm bill, no means test existed for farm programs.
Now, I have to say I have concerns that all of a sudden we are going to
begin means testing farmers and producers across this country, but we
shy away and shiver in this body when means testing is talked about for
anything else.
We knew it was important to eliminate loopholes that nonfarmers used
to receive program payments, and during the 2002 farm debate, we
instituted the $2.5 million test.
In the bill that passed the Senate in December, we lowered the means-
testing cap to $750,000, which respected our regional differences and
avoided the unintended consequences that might arise in this
compromise.
Let's not forget that we also significantly reformed individual
program pay limits on top of that, which should sharply reduce benefits
to producers who remain eligible, as long as they are below that means-
testing level we have imposed. I thought the Senate bill did a good job
on that compromise and have remained hopeful that those limits, and
certainly something close to those limits, is where we can be.
During conference, we agreed to add an additional component that
factors in nonfarm income.
However, it is not enough for this administration, and they continue
to threaten a veto of this incredibly hard-fought, bipartisan
compromise. As I mentioned, I do have some concerns about means testing
because we are means testing the most efficient and effective producers
of agricultural products in the world, at a time when we are
experiencing a world food crisis, and we want to ensure that not only
will we maintain the kind of production that we have consistently but
also that we do it by setting an example in respect to clean water and
clean air and, certainly, in respect to all the other unbelievable
demands and restrictions that are placed on our farmers with respect to
the environment.
We don't know what those consequences might be, and I hope we will
keep in mind--as the Senator from Iowa mentioned--that as we move
forward in looking at this bill, thinking about how those effects may
have unbelievably unintended consequences. Again, there have been an
awful lot of fights for the means testing on our agricultural
producers, while there are so many other benefits in this country that
are not means tested. I noticed my colleagues earlier mentioning the
fact that farm income is up. But I also noticed that nobody hardly
mentioned the fact that reflects the reality of what farmers in this
country are going through in terms of the environment of skyrocketing
production costs and restrictive trade laws, which in our region of the
country are much more restrictive. Trade laws are much more restrictive
to the commodities we grow, and certainly production costs that are
much higher for capital-intensive crops.
I hope the unintended consequences of establishing payment limits and
means testing would not shift the landlord-tenant relations to cash
rent and place producers, who are working hard each day to shoulder
that risk solely of restrictive trade rules, bad weather, and
unbelievably skyrocketing input costs--I hope that is not one of the
unintended consequences that we see.
In the end, this bill is about ensuring that our family farmers can
continue to produce the world's safest, most abundant supply of food
and fiber.
Our farmers also produce their commodities the most efficiently and
effectively in the world, and they do it by keeping the cost of our
food and fiber per capita the lowest of any developed country, as
Senator Conrad mentioned.
Moreover, they do it with respect to our environment, so our children
and future generations can enjoy this unbelievable country of bounty
and beauty. They do it by following the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act,
and so many other restrictions that we place on them in order to ensure
they are setting the example and doing the best job possible regarding
our environment.
They are excellent conservationists and stewards of the land because
they understand that if they care for the land, it will take care of
them. It is something we should never lose sight of.
I am proud of the work we have done on this bill, and I encourage my
colleagues to support the final version. No bill is ever perfect. This
one gives our family farmers the certainty they need to continue to
compete effectively in the global marketplace. It focuses on the
unbelievable needs throughout this country in nutrition, energy,
conservation, and rural development.
Again, I am proud to have worked in a bipartisan way with so many
colleagues on the Senate Ag Committee, as well as others in this body
and in the other body across the Capitol dome.
My last plea before I yield the floor is to my colleagues. It is that
we will never allow ourselves or the people of this country to take for
granted what we have been blessed with in this country. This is a great
country, and we have a lot of incredibly hard-working people. Many of
them are spread out over the rural areas. I hope we will never allow
the American people to take for granted what this bounty means to them
and, more importantly, that we in this body will never take for granted
the hard work that goes on beyond this beltway to make us the richest
country in the whole world. I hope we can continue in that same
bipartisan fashion, recognizing and respecting the incredible diversity
across this country that has blessed us for so many years.
I encourage my colleagues to support the great bipartisan product we
brought to the floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I also rise today in support of the farm
bill conference report. Before my colleague, Senator Lincoln, leaves
the floor, I wish to take a few minutes to thank her for the tremendous
work she has been willing to do with me. She and I were both elected to
the House of Representatives in the same year, and we were elected to
the Senate in the same year. We have served on a lot of the same
committees, not the least of which has been the Agriculture Committee
and the Finance Committee, both of which have important parts of this
legislation.
We have had a tremendously good relationship over the years. We come
from different sides of the aisle, but we work closely together in a
bipartisan way on issue after issue. One of those very important
issues, which Senator Lincoln already mentioned, is the Endangered
Species Reform Act. I will talk about that later in my remarks.
Before she left the floor, I wished to thank her for being the lead
cosponsor on that legislation that we have worked on literally for 6 or
7 years, to make sure we build a consensus-based solution to issues in
this country that will make a difference. Again, I thank the Senator
for that. I truly appreciate the working relationship we have, and I
could not agree more with the comments she has made overall about the
farm bill and the tremendous blessing we have in this Nation to have
literally the lowest per capita cost in the world in our budgets for
the American families with regard to the dollars they must put forward
for food and fiber. At a time when people around the world are
struggling to deal with recent natural disasters and to ensure that
their families have the food they need, we need swift enactment of this
farm bill that will provide long-term certainty for farm families as
they continue to feed the world's hungry.
This is the third farm bill that I have worked on since I have been
elected to
[[Page 9001]]
Congress. I have to say that although each bill, as we moved through
the issues of the day, presented their unique problems, this has been
the most difficult to bring together in a conference where we could
literally come together--House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats--
and propose good, solid policy for our Nation's food and fiber. I think
we have to give credit to those who have been leaders in the Senate in
making that happen: our chairman, Senator Harkin; our ranking member,
Senator Chambliss; and on the Finance Committee, which, as I said, also
has a significant piece of this legislation, our chairman, Max Baucus;
and the ranking member, Charles Grassley. There are many others.
Now that I started mentioning Senators, I could literally go through
the members of the Agriculture Committee, both sides of the aisle, the
members of the Finance Committee, both sides of the aisle, and list
Member after Member who has worked tirelessly to make sure this policy
comes together in a farm bill we can be proud of and which will
strengthen America globally.
It is not limited to just the members of the Agriculture or Finance
Committees. This Senate is committed to making sure we develop the
kinds of policies that will keep our Nation strong and globally
competitive, and many of those policies are included in this
legislation.
In preparation for this farm bill, I held 23 farm bill listening
sessions in my State, all across Idaho, to get input from Idahoans
about what they need and what they saw important in a new farm bill. I
appreciated the input I got from my constituents and, frankly, utilized
that input in working with my fellow members on the Agriculture
Committee and Finance Committee as we crafted this legislation.
There are a number of provisions I wish to highlight tonight.
The first, which I have already mentioned, is a part of the bill that
comes in the conservation piece the Finance Committee worked so hard to
bring forward. As I think most people who followed the debate in the
battles over the farm bill over the last few months have realized, one
of the battlegrounds--in fact, the major battleground--was the effort
by the Finance Committee in the Senate to bring forward a significant
new addition to the conservation efforts in our country as we deal with
conservation policy.
One of the more important pieces of that battleground, if you will,
was the Endangered Species Reform Act. The battle was not really over
the policies; it was over the dollars because we wanted to make sure we
paid for the increased costs of what we were doing. But it was
nevertheless a very difficult time as we tried to find a path forward.
Most people who are involved in land management issues, whether they
be farmers, consumers, or people who are involved in development or
simply homeowners, realize that we have had a significant area of
conflict in this country for decades over the implementation of the
Endangered Species Act.
There is very little disagreement that we want to protect and
preserve the beautiful environmental heritage we have and the species
we have that are so rich and abundant in our country. At the same time,
we wanted to try to find a way to avoid conflict with private property
owners and with the economic activities of people in our country who
are trying to develop jobs and opportunities in the economy to provide
for themselves and their families. It is that conflict which we have
worked on in the context of the Endangered Species Act now for about,
as I say, 6 or 7 years, to try to build a solution that could be
broadly supported but which would help both species and people, the
economy, and help private property owners and those who are interested
in protecting and preserving our rich environmental heritage.
We have succeeded in the Endangered Species Reform Act. This act is
broadly supported by the environmental community because over 80
percent of the threatened or endangered species in our Nation is
located on private property. The act does not give us the ability to
reach into the private property as effectively as we need to help
implement recovery plans for species that are threatened or endangered.
This legislation does so.
At the same time, as I indicated earlier, our private property owners
have been concerned about the reach of the Endangered Species Act and
what it would do to them if an endangered species were found on their
property. This act makes it so they can actually find economic
compensation if that happens.
The core of the act is that it focuses on helping landowners on a
voluntary basis have a tax deduction for actions they undertake on
their property to help implement recovery plans, to help facilitate and
strengthen species.
This is a tremendous incentive, with the backing of the Federal
Government, for these tax deductions to encourage private property
owners to undertake activities that will tremendously benefit species
on their property. The private property owners are compensated for the
impacts on their property, the species are benefited, and everyone in
the country is a winner in terms of the improvement of the
opportunities to strengthen our endangered species protection.
This has the broad support of sportsmen organizations across this
country, of environmental organizations across the country, and of
private property groups across the country.
I am glad we were able to work our way through literally the
battlegrounds we faced in order to make sure we got this legislation
included in the final piece of the farm bill.
There is more to do. We had to work it through and adjust pieces of
it that we would rather have kept in, but we got the core of the bill
in place. And now we look forward to strengthening and improving this
important protection of the Endangered Species Act.
While she is on the floor, I thank Senator Stabenow for her
tremendous efforts in the conference to make sure we were successful in
getting this critical legislation for the endangered species and
private property owners included in the final conference report.
Specialty crop producers were also very significantly benefited by
this legislation. Speciality crop producers in Idaho and nationwide
will receive more than a $2 billion investment in programs important to
them, including $456 million for speciality crop block grants that
assist with marketing, research promotion, and other efforts to
increase the competitiveness of speciality crops.
Again, Senator Stabenow should be given great credit for fighting to
work with me and many others to make sure this happened.
The legislation also contains significant assistance for producers
impacted by disaster, including new assistance for aquaculture
producers who are impacted by drought or assistance for ranchers
utilizing the Federal grazing permits who are impacted by a loss of
grazing due to fire.
In addition, more than $4 billion in new spending is going to be
provided for conservation programs which enable landowners to meet the
environmental needs and goals and, frankly, in many cases mandates that
we put on them to make sure our environment is protected and preserve.
I have often said, as we talked about different farm bills, and this
one is no different--in fact, this one is probably a better example
than any we have done so far--that one of the most, I will say the most
important pieces of legislation this Congress ever works on with regard
to truly making a difference in protecting, preserving, and
strengthening our incredible environmental heritage in this country is
the farm bill because of the powerful provisions we have in the
conservation title.
This farm bill moves forward with significant strides to strengthen
and enhance the environmental and conservation goals of our country
through farm policy and private property policies.
This investment is an important step we must not forget. Farm bill
conservation programs are an example of the Federal Government
assisting with the environment in the right way with a carrot rather
than a stick. Our conservation programs have contributed significantly
to improving water and
[[Page 9002]]
air quality and preserving and enhancing habitat for species.
An estimated 95 percent of the world's consumers live beyond our
borders. The bill also will assist in reaching those consumers by
expanding market opportunities through the inclusion of $200 million
annually for the Market Access Program.
In addition, the bill seeks to better ensure adherence to the
softwood lumber trade commitments through inclusion of a softwood
lumber importer declaration program. I appreciate the tremendous work
that was done to include this important provision.
The legislation also continues and expands support for the Idaho
commodity producers, including our barley, dairy, pulse crop, sugar,
wheat, and wool producers. Idaho's agricultural industry is more than a
$5 billion industry and is a critical part of Idaho's economy.
The commodity title in this bill will continue to allow those farmers
to be protected and strengthened as they face incredible global
pressures and, frankly, what I consider to be anticompetitive actions
by other nations as we deal in a global agriculture market.
The legislation benefits rural America in a number of important ways.
Across the United States, rural communities struggle to access funds
necessary to comply with Federal, State, and local environmental
regulations. Through changes to SEARCH grants, small rural communities
with populations of 2,500 or less will have greater and more
streamlined access to funding to assist with water and wastewater
infrastructure projects. Let me explain what this means.
Across this country, we have requirements that our wastewater and our
drinking water be protected. In fact, often in America we talk about
the fact that we have the safest, cleanest water in the world. When you
come to America to visit, you don't have to worry about drinking the
water. When you live here, you don't have to worry about drinking the
water. The reason is because of our very strong environmental
standards.
We are proud of that, and we need to protect our water quality. But
the protection comes at a price, and often the mandates we put on
communities to assure that water quality are not able to be met by the
smaller communities because they simply don't have the economies of
scale to be able to implement the wastewater and other treatment
facilities that are necessary to enable them to comply with the
environmental mandates and keep the water quality so clear and clean.
We need to provide ways to assist these strapped rural communities as
they try to do what we all want to do, and that is make sure America
has clean, safe water. That is what these projects will do in the
SEARCH legislation.
The bill also provides $120 million in mandatory spending to be
directed at pending applications for water and wastewater disposal
grants and loans--Again, to help with the same problem.
As well in the rural areas, broadband access is a key to growth and
economic development. This farm bill simplifies the application process
for broadband assistance and ensures that broadband assistance is
targeted at communities with the least amount of access.
Improving the economic position of rural areas by stimulating the
growth of rural businesses is accomplished through reauthorization of
important programs such as the rural business opportunity grants and
the rural cooperative development grants, which will ensure the
continuation and technical assistance and training to our Nation's
rural businesses and cooperatives.
In addition, value-added producer grants are going to continue to
provide producers with the means to improve on the value of their
products through planning activities and marketing and the
reauthorization of the national rural development partnerships which
will enable individual State partnerships, such as the Idaho Rural
Partnership, to continue working to strengthen and improve life in
rural America.
The farm bill also incorporates language from the Biodiesel Education
and Expansion Act of 2007. That is S. 1791 which I introduced with
Senator Klobuchar to reauthorize the Biodiesel Education Program. This
program has been very important to the biodiesel effort in Idaho. The
University of Idaho has received about 20 percent of those funds
through a competitive grants process to help educate Government and
private owners of vehicle fleets about the benefits and technical
aspects of biodiesel fuel.
In addition, the bill includes a new temporary cellulosic biofuels
production tax credit for up to $1.01 per gallon available through
December 31, 2012.
The conference report also provides $300 million for the Bioenergy
Program which provides incentives for expanding production of advanced
biofuels made from agricultural and forestry crops and associated waste
materials, including animal manure and livestock food processing waste.
The importance of this is that we in the United States have a serious
problem in our energy policy. We can debate the many aspects of it in
other contexts. The bottom line is we are far too dependent on
petroleum in this country as a source of energy. And in the context of
petroleum, we are far too dependent on foreign sources of petroleum.
I often analogize our core need in terms of energy policy of being
one of trying to diversify our energy portfolio. We need to move into
alternative and renewable fuels, and we need to provide the support to
enable us to do the research and development to expand energy
opportunities.
One of the things this bill does in areas I already mentioned, such
as cellulosic biofuels and other efforts in that context, is to help us
do the research and to do then the thinking that goes into making sure
we move into these other types of alternative and renewable fuels.
Another important part of this legislation in that context is that we
establish a sugar-to-ethanol program which will better enable the sugar
industry to contribute to our energy independence.
There are many things we could be doing and we ought to be doing--all
of them to find the ones that will best work and will best help us to
diversify our energy economy.
The legislation also provides expanded fresh fruit and vegetable
programs, which provides domestically grown fresh fruit and vegetables
to students as healthy snacks and educates our students in every State
on the importance of eating healthy foods.
This program has already been well received as a pilot program in a
number of States, including Idaho. I am proud to continue this program
not only in Idaho but to help expand it to all States across the
country.
The bill strengthens assistance for America's food banks by providing
more than $1 billion for the next 10 years for commodity purchasing,
nearly doubling the current funding level. Access to food banks is
particularly important given the economic hard times that we are facing
with regard to high gas prices.
Also, I would like to talk a little bit more about the global
competition we face. As I indicated earlier, one of the pressures that
our producers face is anticompetitive conduct from other nations. These
are subsidies, tariffs, or nontariff barriers which are erected against
our producers.
Yes, we support our agricultural producers and, yes, we have tariffs.
I am not sure what the numbers are today, but within the last couple of
years the imbalance in those tariffs shows what I am talking about. The
average I am recalling that we have discussed over the last few years
is that the average tariff against our producers as we try to export
into other countries is around 60 percent, whereas the average that we
impose on those bringing their products into our country is more in the
neighborhood of 10 or 12 percent.
Those kinds of disparities create tremendous trade barriers to our
producers. The same is true with the level of subsidies provided to
producers in other countries that compete with our producers. One of
the critical parts of this bill is to provide that safety net or that
protection to our producers in the international contest as we seek to
[[Page 9003]]
make sure the trade arena globally is balanced fairly.
I know some have criticized this bill by saying it spends too much
limited Federal funding on agriculture. Let me make an important note
there. This bill has a number of titles. Agriculture commodity programs
are one of those titles. About 70 percent of the spending in this bill
goes to our nutrition programs, such as the Food Stamp Program.
Most people in America don't realize that because we often call this
the farm bill. Yet 70 percent of it goes into our nutrition programs.
What percent goes to the commodity programs? A little less than 14
percent. And those important conservation programs I talked about? They
get around 7 percent of the funding in the bill. The rest, the 8 or 9
percent that is left over, goes into the rural development part, the
titles--the energy titles and other portions of the bill that are
critically important to our national concerns, such as rural
development and energy.
When you look at this bill, it is not an ag bill or a farm bill. It
is a food and fiber bill. It is much more than that. It is a bill that
is very important, as I have said, to everything from energy policy to
rural development to our conservation efforts in this country to our
agriculture commodity programs and to our nutrition programs for those
who face hunger in this Nation. It is important to recognize that.
Also, I think it is important for us to note that some criticize this
bill for not being reform minded enough and not being strict enough on
payment limitations for the extremely wealthy who, it is claimed, get
all of the resources of the bill in that 14-percent commodity title.
However, the conference report has taken major steps forward in terms
of reform. I think those steps need to be recognized and noted.
The conference report would eliminate the triple entity rule, which
has already been talked about extensively on the Senate floor tonight,
and changes the current adjusted gross income limit from $2.5 million
to $500,000 for nonfarm and $750,000 for farm income. These are
considerable reforms that should be acknowledged and recognized.
This is a broad and diverse country, and no bill is a perfect bill
from the perspective of any individual Senator, I am sure. We have 50
States and 435 Congressional Districts and we have tremendous debates
about how we should implement policy. But this bill worked its way
through that process to develop policy and reforms that are meaningful
and significant and should not be undermined.
In conclusion, this legislation with its 15 titles covers a wide
range of important policy matters that go far beyond our traditional
farm support, as I have said. These titles include things, as I have
indicated, such as conservation, trade and food aid, nutrition, farm
credit, research, energy opportunities, crop insurance, and disaster
assistance and many more. The breadth and depth of this legislation
reaches into so many people's lives--everyone in America, not just
those in farm country--everyone in America should be paying attention
to this legislation and should be glad that we have been able to find
that agreement that has enabled us to get a conference report between
the House and Senate.
Again, I thank all my colleagues for their tremendous work in this
very difficult and lengthy process we have been going through, to make
sure we develop the right policies for our food and fiber in this
Nation, and we continue to keep America strong and on the competitive
edge in the production of food and fiber for the world.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, referred to as the 2008
farm bill. The 2008 farm bill contains many worthwhile polices,
including valuable investments in conservation and nutrition programs.
However, it fails to provide meaningful crop subsidy program reforms
that most Americans would support.
This farm bill continues a set of antiquated programs that send a
majority of payments only to farmers earning over $200,000 a year. It
exceeds the budget allocation by $10-$20 billion through the use of tax
policies and budgetary sleights of hand. The perception of being within
the budget limit is not reality.
While it is true that subsidies are only part of the overall bill,
Congress should not accept these outmoded policies in order to move
along other priorities. The fiscal, food and trade policy costs are too
great and too damaging.
This farm bill continues the ``three-legged stool'' of a ``farm
safety net'' that targets mostly corn, soybean, wheat, rice, and cotton
farmers. The first leg is the practice of sending $20 billion in direct
payments to only 43 percent of U.S. farms. Of those, only 8 percent
receive 58 percent of the payments. These payments have nothing to do
with markets, disasters, or need, and they have been ruled to violate
trade agreements. This farm bill reduces these payments by a miniscule
2 percent. Farmers, who had received an average $94 per acre for a
history of growing rice, would still receive $92.40 under this farm
bill.
Second, the farm bill continues counter-cyclical payments that are
made when prices go down. Third, these targeted farmers may also
receive unlimited marketing loan payments--farmers do not need to repay
government loans if prices fall below a targeted rate. Additionally,
this farm bill retains a government administered supply and demand
program that keeps sugar prices for consumers well above world market
prices.
Farm bill conferees added yet a fourth leg to the farm subsidy stool
by creating a new $4 billion standing disaster program to cover losses
due to droughts and floods. The idea of a permanent disaster program
may have merit, especially when you consider that Congress has passed
legislation to fund ad hoc disaster payment assistance nearly every
year for the last 20 years. But we should ask ourselves, if the current
expensive farm bill is failing to provide a safety net to farmers when
these devastating events do happen, then what is the purpose of the
farm bill? Why do we need a new program administered by a separate
Federal agency to fulfill what most Americans believe is the core
purpose of the legislation before us? We should fix the root problem,
namely that the current subsidy system does not work and wastes
taxpayer dollars.
Trade distortion is yet another major problem with the bill. In 2004,
Brazil won a World Trade Organization, WTO, case against U.S. cotton
programs based on the trade distorting nature of direct payments,
countercyclical payments, and marketing loan payments. Similar cases
against other commodities are now being deliberated. Surprisingly,
instead of fixing the programs to shield U.S. farmers from these
challenges, this farm bill continues these programs and provocatively
increases the subsidy rates.
How, in good faith, can we ask other governments to join us in
trading partnerships, or to abide by fair trade agreements, when this
Congress blatantly ignores our own commitments? Some Senators may
wonder why we should be concerned about violating WTO commitments. They
might think that this is simply limited to agriculture or specific
crops with little impact on our overall economy. Others might even
suggest that we are better off building up more barriers to trade; that
this farm bill is about American farmers not farmers in Brazil or
elsewhere. However, if Senators look further down the line they will
see that our WTO violations could cost the United States billions in
revenue, intellectual property, and lost trade opportunities. Failure
to move toward compliance will invite retaliatory tariffs that legally
can be directed at any U.S. industry.
It could be argued that flaunting these commitments would be
justified in order to save the U.S. farming sector from sure ruin.
However, that would ignore the realities of our current farm economy
and the actual structure of these farm programs. Thanks to strong
foreign and domestic demand, net farm income for 2007 was nearly $89
billion, up $30 billion from 2006 and $30 billion
[[Page 9004]]
above the average for the previous 10 years, setting a new farm income
record. Estimates for 2008 project net farm income to top $92 billion.
As a result, average farm household income is projected to be almost
$89,000 in 2008, up 9 percent from 2006, and well above average U.S.
household income of $67,000.
We need a new farm bill that ensures a stable farm economy and a
healthy food supply. I do not believe our Nation is best served by this
farm bill that continues to make payments that defy common sense, snubs
our trading partners, and balloons taxpayer spending. Last year I
joined Senator Frank Lautenberg and others in offering a farm bill
alternative that received 37 votes on the Senate floor. It would have
provided all farmers with a more equitable ``safety net,'' as well as
greater investment in conservation, rural energy projects, and
nutrition.
Under the proposal, farmers, for the first time, would receive--at no
cost to them--either expanded county-based crop insurance policies that
would cover 85 percent of expected crop revenue, or 80 percent of a
farm's five year average adjusted gross revenue. These subsidized
insurance tools already exist, but our reforms would have made them
more effective and universally used, while controlling administrative
costs. Farmers would also be able to purchase insurance to cover the
remainder of their revenue and yields. In addition, the amendment would
have created optional risk management accounts that would be available
to every farmer and rancher and provide incentives for them to put away
money in good years to cover lean years. Our program would be available
to all farmers in the country--regardless of products--and not just a
select few corn, soybean, wheat, rice, and cotton farmers.
Using the savings from this approach could fund important expansion
in conservation, nutrition, energy, and research programs. In fact, the
approach made more significant investments within the Federal budget in
these areas than the farm bill before us and even found savings to help
pay down our Nation's budget deficit, which this year is approaching
$400 billion.
I will vote against the farm bill conference report and support a
presidential veto of the bill. I further suggest that the Lugar-
Lautenberg FRESH Act remains a reform option, a constructive
alternative that will save taxpayers billions, provide a generous
safety net, and allow for funding of farm, nutrition, bioenergy,
conservation, and rural development programs without budget-breaking
gimmicks.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, every morning thousands of Americans
wake up to a bowl of Wheaties, the vast majority of whom have never
asked where their Wheaties come from. I submit to you that the farm
bill is the primary factor responsible for providing America with safe,
healthy, and affordable food and fiber, including Wheaties. What we are
debating today is of paramount importance to each and every American.
If you look at the title of this bill, the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008, you will not see the word agriculture. This begs
the question, What does this bill really mean to agriculture and the
American farmer and rancher?
By way of example, I have been contacted by the Dairy Producers of
New Mexico which told me that the farm bill does not, on the whole,
help rural New Mexico. Rather its policies have short-term and long-
term implications that can harm my State. The primary source of
economic activity in rural New Mexico today is dairy farming. There are
approximately 172 dairy farms with approximately 4,221 direct employees
and 17,150 indirect employees. These local operations contribute $1.02
billion direct dollars to the economy and $2.6 billion indirect dollars
to the economy. The farm bill undermines the economic stability that
the dairy industry plays a large role in creating.
The dairy title subsidizes dairy farmers who compete with New Mexico
dairymen. Under the farm bill, the ``MILC'' program not only funds milk
produced in other regions of the country, at rates higher than New
Mexico, it increases those payments. The new bill ensures that the
amount of those payments will rise when feed prices go up. This is
despite the fact that virtually all of the grain used by producers
outside New Mexico is raised by them and they are insulated from much
of that price inflation. New Mexico's farmers purchase their feed but
receive only partial payments. In short, the Dairy Price Support
Program provides no support at all.
I applaud the efforts that were made in this bill to address
nutrition concerns, provide for broader flexibility for specialty crop
growers, and assist rural communities. However, it does not appear to
me that enough progress has been made toward conservation programs and
other reform initiatives. Moreover, while the bill does continue the
peanut handling benefits it does not continue the peanut storage
provisions contained in the 2002 farm bill. This alone will cost New
Mexico peanut growers up to an additional $50 to $60 per ton, which
represents at least $74 million to peanut producers in my State. I am
not convinced that this is the best we can do for the people who feed
our Nation and I am left wondering if this farm bill is already out of
date before it is even law.
The Congressional Budget Office tells us that this bill will cost
$307 billion over the next 5 years and almost double that figure over
10 years, which is cause for concern in and of itself.
Ultimately, I am unwilling to support a measure that is
counterproductive to the most important agriculture component in New
Mexico, our dairy industry. Instead of enacting policies that will
encourage stability and continued growth of dairies in States like New
Mexico, the conference report before us today says our farm policy
should be to erect unreasonable hurdles and obstacles for many dairies.
I intend to vote against this bill and I urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I certify that the information required by
Senate rule XLIV, related to congressionally directed spending, has
been identified in the conference report to accompany the Food
Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, numbered H.R. 2419, filed on May
12, 2008, and that the required information has been available on a
publicly accessible congressional Web site at least 48 hours before a
vote on the pending conference report.
____________________
FURTHER CHANGES TO S. CON. RES. 21
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 307 of S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008
budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee
to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels for
legislation, including one or more bills and amendments, that
reauthorizes the 2002 farm bill or similar or related programs,
provides for revenue changes, or any combination thereof. Section 307
authorizes the revisions provided that certain conditions are met,
including that amounts provided in the legislation for the above
purposes not exceed $20 billion over the period of fiscal years 2007
through 2012 and that the legislation not worsen the deficit over the
period of the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 or the period of
the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2017.
On November 5, 2007, I filed a reserve fund adjustment pursuant to
section 307 for an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
2419. That legislation passed the Senate on December 14, 2007. The
Senate is considering the conference report to accompany H.R. 2419, the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. I find that the conference
report also satisfies the conditions of the deficit-neutral reserve
fund for the farm bill, including being fully paid for over both the
five and 10-year time periods. Therefore, pursuant to section 307, I am
amending the reserve fund adjustment made on November 5, 2007, and
further revising the aggregates in the 2008 budget resolution, as well
as the allocation provided to the Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry, to reflect the final estimate for the
completed farm bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res.
21 be printed in the Record.
[[Page 9005]]
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008--S. CON. RES.
21; FURTHER REVISIONS TO THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION
307 DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE FARM BILL
(In billions of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 101
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)(A) Federal Revenues:
FY 2007................................................ 1,900.340
FY 2008................................................ 2,016.793
FY 2009................................................ 2,114.754
FY 2010................................................ 2,170.343
FY 2011................................................ 2,351.046
FY 2012................................................ 2,493.878
(1)(B) Change in Federal Revenues:
FY 2007................................................ -4.366
FY 2008................................................ -34.003
FY 2009................................................ 7.828
FY 2010................................................ 6.622
FY 2011................................................ -43.504
FY 2012................................................ -103.218
(2) New Budget Authority:
FY 2007................................................ 2,371.470
FY 2008................................................ 2,501.726
FY 2009................................................ 2.520.890
FY 2010................................................ 2,573.040
FY 2011................................................ 2,688.764
FY 2012................................................ 2,720.897
(3) Budget Outlays:
FY 2007................................................ 2,294.862
FY 2008................................................ 2,473.063
FY 2009................................................ 2,569.024
FY 2010................................................ 2,601.423
FY 2011................................................ 2,695.166
FY 2012................................................ 2.702.695
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008--S. CON. RES.
21; FURTHER REVISIONS TO THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION
307 DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE FARM BILL
(In millions of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Allocation to Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry Committee
FY 2007 Budget Authority................................. 14,284
FY 2007 Outlays.......................................... 14,056
FY 2008 Budget Authority................................. 17,088
FY 2008 Outlays.......................................... 14,629
FY 2008-2012 Budget Authority............................ 76,881
FY 2008-2012 Outlays..................................... 71,049
Adjustments
FY 2007 Budget Authority................................. 0
FY 2007 Outlays.......................................... 0
FY 2008 Budget Authority................................. -1,500
FY 2008 Outlays.......................................... -976
FY 2008-2012 Budget Authority............................ 401
FY 2008-2012 Outlays..................................... -483
Revised Allocation to Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry Committee
FY 2007 Budget Authority................................. 14,284
FY 2007 Outlays.......................................... 14,056
FY 2008 Budget Authority................................. 15,588
FY 2008 Outlays.......................................... 13,653
FY 2008-2012 Budget Authority............................ 77,282
FY 2008-2012 Outlays..................................... 70,566
------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF ISRAEL
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, over the past week, the Jewish people and
their friends around the world have celebrated the historic and proud
occasion of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of
Israel. I rise to join my colleagues in again congratulating and
honoring the Israeli people in reaching this monumental milestone, and
to recognize the enduring and unwavering relationship between our two
countries.
During my tenure in public service, it has truly been an honor to
consistently stand with Israel. Throughout my 29 years in Congress--
begun the same year, 1979, when I attended the signing of the Israeli-
Egyptian peace treaty at the White House--I have fought for Israel's
absolute right to exist in peace, and I have understood Israel's
enduring value as a strategic ally to America. And for twice as long as
I have been privileged to help enhance this relationship in Congress,
Israel has proven itself time and again not only to be a true ally of
the United States in terms of our shared security interests, but also
in terms of upholding democratic ideals.
In its first 60 years, the modern State of Israel has proven itself
to be a bastion of democracy in a region rife with authoritarianism.
Israel is the only country in the Middle East whose citizens enjoy the
right to vote, speak, and pray freely. As notable as it is that Israel
has successfully brought these critical elements of western-style
democracy to the region, it is even more remarkable that it has been
able to guarantee these freedoms while under constant threat from
terrorists and countries along its borders. In this way, Israel has
proven itself to be a true democracy--a paragon of political openness
and liberty.
As the first woman to serve in both houses of a State legislature and
both Houses of the U.S. Congress, I regard Israel's inclusion and
empowerment of women in politics as an especially inspiring feature of
its democratic triumph. Highlighted by the election of Golda Meir as
Prime Minister in 1969, Israeli women played as central a role in the
founding and flourishing of the State of Israel as their male
counterparts. Meir's legacy is proudly continued today by countless
Israeli women in top government positions in Israel, including Foreign
Minister Tzipi Livni, Speaker of the Knesset Dalia Itzik, and Justice
Dorit Beinish, who serves as the President, or Chief Justice, of the
Supreme Court.
Again, Israel's proud record of outstanding participation by women in
the governance of their country stands in stark contrast to the
disenfranchising of women from public life elsewhere in the Middle
East. And while many of its neighbors suffer from a high illiteracy
rate among women, Israel has achieved educational parity for men and
women, with 57 percent of all academic degrees in the country being
earned by women.
By advancing the causes of political inclusiveness and freedom, the
State of Israel has done more than provide a vibrant homeland for the
Jewish people, it has emerged a beacon of modernity and hope in an
ancient and still troubled region. And there should be no doubt that
the people and Government of United States continue to stand alongside
Israel as it seeks peace even as it endures daily rocket attacks
against its citizens and vile, hate-filled rhetoric from radical and
dangerous strongmen who speak of its destruction. In supporting Israel
against these threats, we support the dignity of all peoples against
those who would prefer the oppressions of humanity's past to the
promise of its future.
And so, on the occasion of its 60th anniversary, I rise not only to
commend the State of Israel and its people, but also to thank them, for
their friendship, for their bravery, and for their defense of that
which is righteous in the world.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to commemorate
the 60th anniversary of Israel's founding.
On May 14, 1948, members of the Jewish People's Council gathered at
the Tel Aviv Museum to approve the Declaration of the Establishment of
the State of Israel. The declaration stated, in part, ``The State of
Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of
the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the
benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice
and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure
complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants
irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of
religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will
safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to
the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.'' These were the
principles Israel was founded on, and these same principles guide it
today.
I have visited Israel 25 times since taking office in 1981. Under the
able leadership of the numerous Israeli leaders whom I have come to
know over that period, Israel has remained a bastion of democracy in
the Middle East.
According to the Freedom House's ``Freedom in the World 2008''
report, Israel is the only free country in the Middle East. Evidence of
Israel's strong democratic traditions is seen in the inquisitiveness of
its press: the Freedom House considers the Israeli press to be the only
free press in the region.
Israel's economy has also prospered under democratic rule. According
to the Economist Intelligence Unit, ``Israel's economy is far more
diversified and sophisticated than its neighbors.'' ``Israel has the
highest proportion of engineers in the workforce [worldwide], and
nearly double the
[[Page 9006]]
share of second-place US and Japan.'' Its well-educated populace has
enabled its high-tech industry to make advances in research and
development, enabling Israeli firms ``to achieve global leadership in a
number of fields, including various segments of the software industry,
anti-virus protection and computer security systems, as well as in the
areas of fiber optics and electro-optics, medical instruments and
medical imaging systems.''
During my time in the Senate, I have worked to ensure Israel's
security. One aspect of this has been securing economic and military
assistance for Israel. During my most recent trip to Israel, in
December 2007, I met with President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert. We discussed, among other things, the Israeli-Palestinian
peace process, Iran's role in the region, and the U.S.-Israeli
bilateral relationship. In each instance, it was clear to me that both
the United States and Israel benefit greatly from our strong ties and
shared ideals.
At the core of the United States-Israeli relationship is the Middle
East peace process. There have been so many developments since Israel
emerged as a state. The enmity which has existed for decades has meant
senseless killing, terrorism in Israel, and Hezbollah and Hamas firing
rockets into Israel, prompting the justified retaliation by Israel as a
matter of self defense.
It is crucial that Israel's neighbors understand the importance of
words and perceptions in the peace process, bringing the region closer
to the goals set forth in the November 27, 2007 Joint Israeli-
Palestinian Declaration at Annapolis: ``We express our determination to
bring an end to bloodshed, suffering and decades of conflict between
our peoples; to usher in a new era of peace, based on freedom,
security, justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition; to
propagate a culture of peace and nonviolence; to confront terrorism and
incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis.''
The democratic principles set forth in the Declaration of the
Establishment of the State of Israel have enabled Israel to thrive for
the past 60 years and will continue to guide it into the future.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the 60th
anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel.
On May 14, 1948, the people of Israel proclaimed the establishment of
the sovereign and independent State of Israel, and the Government
established full diplomatic relations.
The United States and Israel share a deep friendship and alliance.
Our alliance is based on the belief of the United States in Israel's
right to exist and our countries' shared values of democracy.
Both Israel and the United States understand the values of life,
liberty, opportunity, security, and freedom. Additionally, we both seek
to address the common threat of terrorism. We recognize that terrorist
organizations have denounced the values of freedom, and we are
dedicated to ensuring that terrorism does not prevail.
Throughout Israel's history, the country has strived to build a
democratic nation despite severe obstacles. Yet the people of Israel
continue to show great strength and perseverance as they seek peace
with their neighbors.
I extend my congratulations to our friends, the people of Israel, and
I join them in celebrating this occasion.
____________________
THE MATTHEW SHEPARD ACT OF 2007
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for
hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce
hate crimes legislation that would strengthen and add new categories to
current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is
unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the
floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our
country.
In the early morning hours of Saturday, May 10, 2008, in Muncie, IN,
Kyle Flood was attacked for being gay in what he believes was a hate
crime. Flood, a 21-year-old college student at Ball State University,
says he was leaving a bar at about 3 a.m. when two college-aged men
approached him and his friends using anti-gay epithets. When the two
groups crossed paths, a fight erupted. Flood was shoved to the ground
and punched in the face. He was later treated at the local hospital for
a scratched cornea, swollen eye, cuts and bruises. The Ball State
community has reacted to the beating, and students have been informed
to stay calm and try to travel to and from social events in groups.
Police Chief Gene Burton has said that bias-motivated attacks are rare
among students, but that they have happened before. No arrests have
been made in connection with the assault.
I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens,
to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. Federal laws
intended to protect individuals from heinous and violent crimes
motivated by hate are woefully inadequate. This legislation would
better equip the Government to fulfill its most important obligation by
protecting new groups of people as well as better protecting citizens
already covered under deficient laws. I believe that by passing this
legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as
well.
____________________
NATIONAL FOSTER CARE MONTH
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize National Foster
Care Month, an effort to raise awareness about our responsibility to
support the more than half a million children across the Nation who are
living in foster care. I would also like to take this opportunity to
pay tribute to the dedicated adoptive parents who provide these
vulnerable youth with the permanent families they deserve.
Having a family is vitally important to foster youth like JoJo
Carbonell, from my home State of California. When she was in school,
JoJo had to ask her teacher to excuse her from the assignment to make a
family tree because she didn't know any of her relatives except her
birth mother and her sisters. For JoJo, one of the most important
reasons that she is now successful and stable is her foster parent, Sue
Crowley. From Sue, JoJo learned the importance of family and began to
develop heartfelt traditions she will carry with her forever. As JoJo
grew older, she and Sue decided to become a permanent family through
adoption.
I am proud of California's success in finalizing more than 66,500
adoptions of children from foster care between 2000 and 2006, but sadly
many foster youth are never united with a permanent, stable family.
For Priscilla Davis, who ``aged out'' after spending 3 years at nine
different placements in California's foster care system, having a
family would mean having someone she could call if she is having a
problem; having a family would mean there is someone to catch her if
she makes a mistake; having a family would mean someone to call if
something wonderful happens.
Unfortunately, Priscilla is one of about 4,000 foster youth in
California, and more than 20,000 youth nationwide who emancipate, or
``age out'' of foster care every year without ever finding a permanent
family or establishing a relationship with an adult who will love,
support, and guide them.
A recent report by Kids Are Waiting and the Jim Casey Youth
Opportunities Initiative found that while the total number of children
in foster care has declined, the number of young people aging out of
foster care has increased 41 percent since 1998.
Last year, I introduced the Foster Care Continuing Opportunities Act,
S. 1512, which would extend Federal funding to those States that try to
provide services that help foster youth transition to adulthood. Right
now, the future for foster youth when they are emancipated is often
bleak. In California, about 65 percent of emancipated youth face
homelessness, less than 3 percent go to college, and 51 percent are
unemployed.
While extending support for these services at a Federal level could
make an extraordinary difference in the success of these youth in
transitioning to
[[Page 9007]]
adulthood, the best way for us to ensure these youth find the families
they deserve is to reauthorize the Federal Adoption Incentive Program.
The Adoption Incentive Program encourages States to find foster
children like JoJo and Priscilla permanent homes through adoption, with
an emphasis on finding adoptive homes for special needs children and
foster children over the age of 9. This important program must be
renewed before it expires on September 30 this year.
I urge my colleagues to celebrate National Foster Care Month by
supporting these important efforts to ensure that the Federal
Government meets its responsibility to care for these youth--not just
their future, but the future of our Nation depends on it.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, in recognition of May as National Foster
Care Month, I want to extend my personal thanks to all of the families
in Washington State and throughout our country who have adopted
children from the Nation's foster care system. Foster children, through
no fault of their own, face unique challenges in attaining permanent,
loving homes. We can all agree that, regardless of background, all
children in our country deserve to have a safe, loving home and the
opportunity to pursue their dreams.
In 2005, almost 1,200 of Washington's children left foster care to
join adoptive families--but that same year more than 2000 foster
children in Washington were still waiting to be adopted. They had to
wait an average of over 3 years to find adoptive families. Vulnerable
children should not have to wait so long for the safe, permanent
families that all children need.
The Federal Adoption Incentive Program, a program first enacted by
Congress in 1997, plays an important role in encouraging adoption. The
program provides States like Washington with incentive payments for
adoptions that exceed an established baseline and includes additional
incentives for adoptions of older foster children and children with
special needs. Between 2000 and 2006, the Adoption Incentive Program
helped 5,700 children in Washington's foster care system join adoptive
families.
I am also pleased to support the Kinship Caregiver Act, introduced by
Senator Clinton in February 2007. The Kinship Caregiver Support Act is
intended to assist the millions of children who are being raised by
their grandparents and other relatives because their parents are not
able to care for them. Among other things, this important legislation
would establish a Kinship Navigator Program to help link relative
caregivers to a broad range of services and supports that they need for
their children and themselves.
I join my colleagues in the Senate in paying tribute to the many
prospective and veteran adoptive families, and I look forward to
pursuing reforms that support children in foster care.
____________________
NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS VIDEOTAPING
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Patriots engaged in extensive
videotaping of opponents' offensive and defensive signals starting on
August 20, 2000, and extending to September 9, 2007, when they were
publicly caught videotaping the Jets.
The extent of the taping was not disclosed until the NFL was
pressured to do so. Originally, Commissioner Goodell said the taping
was limited to late in the 2006 season and early in the 2007 season. In
his meeting with me on February 13, 2008, Goodell admitted the taping
went back to 2000. Until my meeting with Matt Walsh on May 13, 2008,
the only taping we knew about took place from 2000 until 2002 and
during the 2006 and 2007 seasons.
That left an obvious gap between 2003 and 2005. In response to my
questions, Matt Walsh stated he had season tickets in 2003, 2004 and
2005 and saw Steve Scarnecchia, his successor, videotape games during
those seasons including:
The Patriots' September 9, 2002, game against the Steelers.
The Patriots' November 16, 2003, game against the Cowboys.
The Patriots' September 25, 2005, game against the Steelers, which
the Steelers resoundingly won 34-20.
Walsh stated he observed Scarnecchia filming additional Patriots home
games, though he could not recall the specific games.
Walsh said he did not tell Goodell about the taping during 2003, 2004
and 2005 because he was not asked.
The NFL confiscated the Jets tape on September 9, 2007; imposed the
penalties on September 13, 2007; on September 17, 2007, viewed the
tapes for the first time; and then announced they had destroyed those
tapes on September 20, 2007. Commissioner Goodell made his judgment on
the punishment to be levied before he had viewed the key evidence.
Matt Walsh and other Patriots employees, Steve Scarnecchia, Jimmy
Dee, Fernando Neto and possibly Ed Bailey were present to observe most
if not all of the St. Louis Rams walk-through practice in advance of
the 2002 Super Bowl, including Marshall Faulk's unusual positioning as
a punt returner.
David Halberstam's book, ``The Education of a Coach,'' documents the
way Belichick spent the week before the Super Bowl obsessing about
where the Rams would line up Faulk.
Walsh was asked and told Assistant Coach, Brian Daboll, about the
walkthrough. Walsh said Daboll asked him specific questions about the
Rams offense and Walsh told Daboll about Faulk's lining up as a kick
returner. Walsh also told Daboll about Rams running backs ``lining up
in the flat.'' Walsh said Daboll then drew diagrams of the formations
Walsh had described. According to media reports, Daboll denied talking
to Walsh about Faulk. We do not know what Scarnecchia, Dee, Neto or
Bailey did or even if they were interviewed.
The Patriots took elaborate steps to conceal their filming of
opponents' signals. Patriots personnel instructed Walsh to use a
``cover story'' if anyone questioned him about the filming.
For example, if asked why the Patriots had an extra camera filming,
he was instructed to say that he was filming ``tight shots'' of a
particular player or players or that he was filming highlights. If
asked why he was not filming the play on the field, he was instructed
to say that he was filming the down marker.
The red light indicating when his camera was rolling was broken.
During at least one game, the January 27, 2002, AFC Championship
game, Walsh was specifically instructed not to wear anything displaying
a Patriots logo. Walsh indicated he turned the Patriots sweatshirt he
was wearing at the time inside-out. Walsh was also given a generic
credential instead of one that identified him as team personnel.
These efforts to conceal the filming demonstrate the Patriots knew
they were violating NFL rules.
The filming enabled the Patriots coaching staff to anticipate the
defensive plays called by the opposing team. According to Walsh, he
first filmed an opponents' signals during the August 20, 2000,
preseason game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. After Walsh filmed a
game, he would provide the tape for Ernie Adams, a coaching assistant
for the Patriots, who would match the signals with the plays.
Walsh was told by a former offensive player that a few days before
the September 3, 2000, regular season game against Tampa Bay, he--the
offensive player--was called into a meeting with Adams, Bill Belichick
and Charlie Weis, then the offensive coordinator for the Patriots,
during which it was explained how the Patriots would make use of the
tapes. The offensive player would memorize the signals and then watch
for Tampa Bay's defensive calls during the game. He would then pass the
plays along to Weis, who would give instructions to the quarterback on
the field. This process enabled the Patriots to go to a ``no-huddle''
offensive, which would lock in the defense the opposing team had called
from the sideline, preventing the defense from making any adjustments.
When Walsh asked whether the tape he had filmed was helpful, the
offensive player said it had enabled the team to anticipate 75 percent
of the plays being called by the opposing team.
[[Page 9008]]
Among the tapes Walsh turned over to the NFL is one of the AFC
Championship game on January 27, 2002, in which the Patriots defeated
the Steelers by a score of 24-17. When the Patriots played the Steelers
again during their season-opener on September 9, 2002, the Patriots
again won, this time by a score of 30-14.
On October 31, 2004, the Steelers beat the Patriots 34-20, forced
four turnovers, including two interceptions, and sacked the quarterback
four times. In the AFC Championship game on January 23, 2005, the
Patriots won 41-27 and intercepted Ben Roethlisberger three times. The
Steelers had no sacks that game.
With respect to the 2002 AFC Championship game, it was reported in
February of this year that Hines Ward, Steelers wide receiver, said:
``Oh, they know. They were calling our stuff out. They knew, especially
that first championship game here at Heinz Field. They knew a lot of
our calls. There's no question some of their players were calling out
some of our stuff.''
In addition, Eagles cornerback, Sheldon Brown, reportedly said
earlier this year that he noticed a difference in New England's play
calling in the second quarter of the February 6, 2005, Super Bowl game.
Tampa Bay won the August 20, 2000, preseason game by a score of 31-
21. According to the information provided by Matt Walsh, the Patriots
used the film to their advantage when they played Tampa Bay in their
first regular season game on September 3, 2000. The Patriots narrowed
the spread, losing by a score of 21-16. After the game, Charlie Weis,
the Patriots' offensive coordinator, was reportedly overheard telling
Tampa Bay's defensive coordinator, Monte Kiffin, ``We knew all your
calls, and you still stopped us.'' The tapes Walsh turned over to the
NFL indicate the Patriots filmed the Dolphins during their game on
September 24, 2000, a game the Patriots lost by 10-3.
According to Walsh, when the Patriots first began filming opponents,
they filmed opponents they would play again during that same season.
The Patriots played the Dolphins again that season on December 24,
2000; they again narrowed the spread, losing by a score of 27-24.
According to Walsh, he filmed the Patriots' game against Buffalo on
November 5, 2000, a game the Patriots lost 16-13. When the Patriots
played the Bills again that season on December 17, 2000, the Patriots
won by a score of 13-10.
During the following season, Walsh filmed the Patriots' game against
the Jets on September 23, 2001, a game the Patriots lost by a score of
10-3. When the Patriots played the Jets again that season on December
2, 2001, the Patriots won by a score of 17-16.
The tapes Walsh turned over to the NFL indicate the Patriots filmed
the Dolphins during their game on October 7, 2001, a game the Patriots
lost by 30-10. When the Patriots played the Dolphins again that season
on December 22, 2001, the Patriots won by a score of 20-13.
The Patriots filmed opponents offensive signals in addition to
defensive signals. On April 23, 2008, the NFL issued a statement
indicating that ``Commissioner Goodell determined last September that
the Patriots had violated league rules by videotaping opposing coaches'
defensive signals during Patriots games throughout Bill Belichick's
tenure as head coach.'' However, the tapes turned over by Matt Walsh
contain footage of offensive signals. The tapes turned over to the NFL
and the information provided by Walsh proves that the Patriots also
routinely filmed opponents' offensive signals.
Why the Patriots videotaped signals during games when they were not
scheduled to play that opponent during the balance of the season unless
they were able to utilize the videotape during the latter portion of
the same game. The NFL has not addressed the question as to whether the
Patriots decoded signals during the game for later use in that game.
Mark Schlereth, a former NFL offensive lineman and an ESPN football
analyst, is quoted in the New York Time on May 14:
Then why are you doing it against teams you aren't going to
play again that season?''
Schlereth said that ``the breadth of information on the
tapes mainly, the coaches' signals and the subsequent play
would be simple for someone to analyze during a game. There
are enough plays in the first quarter, he said, to glean any
team's ``staples,'' and a quick review of them could prove
immediately helpful. I don't see them wasting time if they
weren't using it in that game.
Walsh said that Dan Goldberg, an attorney for the Patriots, was
present at his interview and asked questions. With some experience in
investigations, I have never heard of a situation where the subject of
an investigation or his/her/its representative was permitted to be
present during the investigation. It strains credulity that any
objective investigator would countenance such a practice. During a
hearing or trial, parties will be present with the right of cross-
examination and confrontation but certainly not in the investigative
stage.
Commissioner Goodell misrepresented the extent of the taping when he
said at the Super Bowl press conference on February 1, 2008:
I believe there were six tapes, and I believe some were
from the pre-season in 2007, and the rest were primarily in
the late 2006 season. In addition, there were notes that had
been collected, that I would imagine many teams have from
when they scout a team in advance, that we took, that may
have been collected by using an illegal activity, according
to our rules. Later, Goodell said of the taping [W]e think it
was quite limited. It was not something that was done on a
widespread basis.
Commissioner Goodell materially changed his story in his meeting with
me on February 13, 2008, when he said there has been taping since 2000.
There has been no plausible explanation as to why Commissioner
Goodell imposed the penalty on September 13, 2007, before the NFL
examined the tapes on September 17, 2007.
There has been no plausible explanation as to why the NFL destroyed
the tapes. Commissioner Goodell sought to explain his reason by saying
during his February 1, 2008 press conference that:
We didn't want there to be any question about whether this
existed. If it shows up again, it would have to be something
that came outside of our investigation and what I was told
existed.
On April 23, 2008, the NFL issued a statement that the penalties
imposed on the Patriots last fall were solely for filming defensive
signals. ``Commissioner Goodell determined last September that the
Patriots had violated league rules by videotaping opposing coaches'
defensive signals during Patriots games throughout Bill Belichick's
tenure as head coach.'' The tapes turned over by Matt Walsh also
contain footage of offensive signals.
The overwhelming evidence flatly contradicts Commissioner Goodell's
assertion that there was little or no effect on the outcome of the
game: during his February 1, 2008, press conference, Commissioner
Goodell stated ``I think it probably had a limited effect, if any
effect, on the outcome on any game.'' Later during the press
conference, Goodell stated again ``I don't believe it affected the
outcome of any games.'' Commissioner Goodell's effort to minimize the
effect of the videotaping is categorically refuted by the persistent
use of the sophisticated scheme which required a great deal of effort
and produced remarkable results.
In the absence of the notes, which the NFL destroyed, of the
Steelers' three regular season games and two postseason games,
including the championship game on January 23, 2005, we do not know
what effect the videotaping of the earlier games, especially the
October 31, 2004, game, had on enabling the Patriots to win the AFC
Championship. It is especially critical that key witnesses--coaches,
players--be questioned to determine those issues.
Failure to question--or at least publicly disclose the results of--
key witnesses to other matters identified herein on what we do not
know.
On the totality of the available evidence and the potential unknown
evidence, the Commissioner's investigation has been fatally flawed. The
lack of candor, the piecemeal disclosures, the changes in position on
material
[[Page 9009]]
matters, the failure to be proactive in seeking out other key
witnesses, and responding only when unavoidable when evidence is thrust
upon the NFL leads to the judgment that an impartial investigation is
mandatory.
There is an unmistakable atmosphere of conflict of interest or
potential conflict of interest between what is in the public's interest
and what is in the NFL's interest. The NFL has good reason to disclose
as little as possible in its effort to convince the public that what
was done wasn't so bad, had no significant effect on the games and, in
any event, has all been cleaned up. Enormous financial interests are
involved and the owners have a mutual self-interest in sticking
together. Evidence of winning by cheating would have the inevitable
effect of undercutting public confidence in the game and reducing,
perhaps drastically, attendance and TV revenues.
The public interest is enormous. Sports personalities are role models
for all of us, especially youngsters. If the Patriots can cheat, so can
the college teams, so can the high school teams, so can the 6th grader
taking a math examination. The Congress has granted the NFL a most
significant business advantage, an antitrust exemption, highly unusual
in the commercial world. That largesse can continue only if the NFL can
prove itself worthy. Beyond the issues of role models and antitrust,
America has a love affair with sports. Professional football has topped
all other sporting events in fan interest. Americans have a right to be
guaranteed that their favorite sport is honestly competitive.
In an extraordinary time, baseball took extraordinary action in
turning to a man of unimpeachable integrity--Federal Judge Kenesaw
Mountain Landis--to act forcefully and decisively to save professional
baseball from the Black Sox scandal in 1919.
On this state of the record, an objective, thorough, transparent
investigation is necessary. If the NFL does not initiate an inquiry
like the investigation conducted by former Senator George Mitchell for
baseball, it will be up to Congress to get the facts and take
corrective action.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
HONORING MILDRED AND RICHARD LOVING
Mr. CARDIN. For many young Americans, it is hard to believe
that only 40 years ago, citizens of the United States were subject to
prosecution and imprisonment for marrying someone of a different race.
But in 1967 that was indeed the situation in 16 States where
interracial marriage was illegal.
In 1958, Mildred Jeter, a black Native American, traveled with
Richard Loving, a Caucasian, from Virginia's Caroline County to the
District of Columbia to be married. They came here because their home
State of Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws prohibited interracial
marriage. Shortly after returning to Virginia, Mr. and Mrs. Loving were
arrested in their home. They pled guilty to violating section 20-58 of
the Virginia Code: ``Leaving State to evade law--If any white person
and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being
married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it,
and afterwards return and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife,
they shall be punished as provided in Section 20-59, and the marriage
shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this
State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be
evidence of their marriage.'' Section 20-59 of the code provided for
confinement for between 1 and 5 years. The Lovings were sentenced to 1
year in jail, but the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period
of 25 years on the condition that the couple leave the State and agree
not to return simultaneously for the next 25 years.
But after some time away, the couple began to miss Virginia and
decided to pursue justice. They hired lawyers and challenged the
Virginia law through years of court cases leading up to the United
States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard the case of Richard Perry
Loving et ux, v. Virginia on April 10 and decided the case unanimously
on June 12, 1967, noting that ``the clear and central purpose of the
Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official sources of invidious
racial discrimination in the States. . . . We have consistently denied
the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens
on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom
to marry violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause .
. . Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a
person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be
infringed by the State. These convictions must be reversed. It is so
ordered.''
Due to their unyielding belief in equality and the work of dedicated
attorneys, the Lovings prevailed. They made their home in Virginia and
raised three children. According to published accounts of their life
together, times were hard for the family. Hit by a drunk driver in
1975, Richard Loving died and Mildred Loving was injured. Mrs. Loving
lived her remaining years in Virginia until Friday, May 2, 2008, when
she died at age 68.
Mildred Loving's name lacks the prominence shared by other heroes of
the civil rights movement. In fact, she eschewed the limelight and
viewed her case differently than what many might expect.
On the 40th anniversary of the decision, Mildred Loving stated:
(W)hen my late husband, Richard, and I got married in
Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn't to make a political
statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to
be married. . . . We didn't get married in Washington because
we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the
government wouldn't allow us to marry back home in Virginia
where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and
where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see,
I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time
people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because
of their ideas of who should marry whom . . . Not long after
our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in
our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for
the ``crime'' of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our
marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed.
The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found
guilty, the judge declared: ``Almighty God created the races
white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on
separate continents. And but for the interference with his
arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The
fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend
for the races to mix.'' He sentenced us to a year in prison,
but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in
Virginia for 25 years exile. We left, and got a lawyer.
Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a
cause. We were fighting for our love. Though it turned out we
had to fight, happily Richard and I didn't have to fight
alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal
Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the
country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom
to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June
12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, ``The
freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital
personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness
by free men,'' a basic civil right.
Mrs. Loving's words express more poignantly than any others the
importance of this case. Although she did not embrace the role of a
civil rights hero, because of her forthright bravery, history will
remember her as such. Last June, the House of Representatives passed
unanimously H. Res 431, commemorating the 40th anniversary of the
landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing interracial marriage within
the United States. In addition, June 12 has informally come to be known
as ``Loving Day'' in the United States in their honor.
Next month, when we acknowledge the 41st anniversary of that historic
decision, Mrs. Loving will not be with us, but her spirit will remain.
Today, I pay tribute to Mildred and Richard Loving and to their
remarkable courage. I offer my sincere condolences to their children
and grandchildren, and I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering
them.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF LOUISE SHADDUCK
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, on May 4, Idaho lost a pioneer and
one of her
[[Page 9010]]
strongest champions. The legacy of Louise Shadduck will live in the
hearts of many Idahoans, particularly for Idaho women now involved in
politics or journalism. She blazed trails and inspired action and
involvement in the governance of and commentary on our society.
Louise lived an incredible and full life, working as a journalist in
the 1930s and 1940s and then shifting to politics where she served on
the staffs of historical figures such as Governors Len Jordan and
Charles Robins, Senator Henry Dworshak and U.S. Representative Orval
Hansen. She was a staunch supporter of Idaho Republicans over the
years, but did so with discernment, always making sure to remind those
in office in her own way that it was Idahoans who they served, not
themselves.
Louise enjoyed people, and they enjoyed her in return. In high school
in Coeur d'Alene in the early 1930s, Louise wrote an article for a
journalism contest to win a trip to Alaska. According to an old friend,
the entire school got together and voted for her article; she won the
trip. Louise was a hard worker. Also in high school, Louise and her six
brothers took turns driving the Shadduck family dairy milk truck on its
route in the mornings before school started. Some afternoons, Louise
would invite her friends to pile on to the empty milk crates on the bed
of the truck to go to Spokane to catch a movie. She was a pioneer in
women's rights, serving as Idaho State Secretary of Commerce and
Development in 1958 the first woman in the country in that position.
Louise also ran unsuccessfully against Gracie Pfost for Congress in
1956. It was an historic campaign, not only because it was the first
time two Idaho women ran against each other in a general election for a
national legislative office, but Pfost, the Democrat incumbent, was the
first woman to represent Idaho in Congress.
Louise served as executive director of the Idaho Forest Industry
Council and received an honorary law degree from the University of
Idaho in 1969. She was president of Idaho Press Women in 1966 and was
president of the National Federation of Press Women from 1971 to 1973.
Louise was an avid consumer of history, news and the world, traveling
often and writing. She authored four books about Idaho and was working
on a fifth when she became ill. Her mind was always sharp, as was her
wit. People could count on her to be honest, forthright and inclusive,
even of strangers. Many felt as if they had a second mom in Louise. She
was a lover of knowledge and history, arranging family trips to show
younger generations where their Shadduck pioneer roots lay. She
remembered your name after the first introduction. People were vitally
important to Louise, and her thirst for knowledge made her the go-to
person for many people when they were researching information about
Idaho. She was artistically gifted, and was known for her impromptu
illustrations, sometimes hastily sketched in the front of a copy of one
of her books and given to a friend.
Much of Idaho is rural. Louise internalized the importance of small-
town life and the intrinsic value of people. In a small-town, you get
to know just about everyone. You learn to appreciate the fact that
people are much more than just faces in a crowd. In today's hurried,
populated world, Louise reminded many of us what was truly important--
morals, faith, mutual respect, honesty, individuality, and
trustworthiness. Louise once told a reporter that people who leave this
world without writing their story down means that we have lost a story.
While Louise wrote many stories, we have lost an epic with her passing.
I offer my condolences to Louise's family and friends at this sad
time.
____________________
HONORING JOHN H. McCONNELL
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I wish to honor John H.
McConnell. On April 25, Ohio lost a dear friend and true statesman.
Very few people cared as much about Ohio as John did, and his legacy
will live on through his tremendous contributions in the state.
Though he found great professional success in his life, John never
swayed from his deep-rooted commitment to honesty and integrity in
every facet of his life. With just a single load of steel, John founded
Worthington Industries in 1955 out of his basement home in Columbus,
OH. Since then, Worthington Industries has reached 10 countries, with
63 locations and 8,000 employees. With its main divisions in steel
processing, metal framing and pressure cylinders, it generates
approximately $3 billion of sales annually.
Above all else, the Worthington philosophy has always been about
practicing the Golden Rule. The commitment to good citizenship, civic
involvement, and philanthropy is nowhere better represented within the
Worthington organization than at the very top level--and that
commitment lives on with John's legacy.
Worthington Industries has also been recognized for its unfailing
dedication to its employees and their families. In fact, it has been
named one of the top 100 best places to work in America. John truly
cared about his employees, and that attitude was reflected throughout
the entire company.
I worked closely with John when Worthington Industries opened a steel
plant in Delta, OH. Honestly, I never worked with anyone more candid
and fair than John. When he made a commitment, it was sure--you didn't
need a contract with him. He championed public and private
partnerships, and as former Governor of Ohio and now U.S. Senator, I
found great comfort knowing John was at the head of one of the largest
companies in Ohio.
In 2000, Columbus got its first professional athletic team--the
Columbus Blue Jackets hockey team. John led the group of investors that
brought the team to Columbus, where he served as the team's majority
owner. He also established the Columbus Blue Jackets Foundation, which
uses the resources of its professional athletes, coaches, and staff to
improve the quality of life throughout central Ohio.
John and his wife Peggy were also committed to advancing the care and
prevention of heart disease, contributing $7.5 million to develop the
McConnell Heart Hospital at Riverside Hospital in Columbus. The
hospital still provides exceptional care to those in need and is the
leading heart care provider in the Midwest.
John's outstanding leadership has certainly not gone unnoticed. He
has been honored with Financial World Magazine's Outstanding Chief
Executive Officer of the Year Award, the Horatio Alger Award, the Ohio
Governor's Award, the National Football Foundation Gold Medal, the
Industry Week award for Excellence in Management, and with a place in
the National Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame.
John was married to his wife Peggy for 59 years, and sadly, they were
separated when she passed away in 2005. Perhaps the greatest comfort
John's loved ones can take is in knowing that John has been reunited in
heaven with his beloved wife. Their enduring love is a model for us
all. John will be missed. His family, including his son, John P.,
daughter, Margaret, and five grandchildren, are in our prayers.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
At 9:33 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 6022. An act to suspend the acquisition of petroleum
for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and for other purposes.
____
At 4:43 p.m. a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House
agrees to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs
through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.
____
At 5:13 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the
[[Page 9011]]
following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:
H.R. 4008. An act to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to
make technical corrections to the definition of willful
noncompliance with respect to violations involving the
printing of an expiration date on certain credit and debit
card receipts before the date of the enactment of this act.
H.R. 6051. An act to amend Public Law 110-196 to provide
for a temporary extension of programs authorized by the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 beyond May 16,
2008.
____
At 6:50 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Brandon, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House
insists upon its amendment to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res.
70) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 2009 and 2010 through 2013, and asks for a
conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
thereon.
Ordered, that Mr. Spratt, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ryan of
Wisconsin, and Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, be the managers of the
conference on the part of the House.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR
The following joint resolution was read the second time, and placed
on the calendar:
S.J. Res. 32. Joint resolution limiting the issuance of a
letter of offer with respect to a certain proposed sale of
defense articles and defense services to the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia.
____________________
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-6194. A communication from the Principal Deputy, Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness),
transmitting, pursuant to law, notification of the
Department's intent to close its commissary stores at
Darmstadt, Wuerzburg, and Hanau, Germany; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
EC-6195. A communication from the Fiscal Assistant
Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the annual reports that appeared in the March 2008
edition of the Treasury Bulletin; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-6196. A communication from the Secretary of the
Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic
report on the national emergency that was declared in
Executive Order 12170 of November 14, 1979, with respect to
Iran; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
EC-6197. 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 (145)'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3267)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6198. 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 (21)'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3235)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6199. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Using Agencies for Restricted Areas R-5303A,
B, C; R-5304A, B, C; and R-5306A, C, D, E; NC'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Docket No. 07-ASO-28)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6200. 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; Lexington, OK''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 08-ASW-11)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6201. 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; Rumford, ME'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. 08-ANE-94)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6202. 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; Tucson, AZ'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. 07-ANM-12)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6203. 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; Farmington, ME''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 07-ANE-93)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6204. 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; Oil City, PA''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 07-AEA-10)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6205. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-
Produkcyjne Szybownictwa `PZL-Bielsko' Model SZD-50-3
`Puchacz' Gliders'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-CE-100))
received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6206. 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 Model AS 332 L2
Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-SW-41))
received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6207. 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-8-55;
DC-8F-54, and DC-8F-55 Airplanes; and Model DC-8-60, DC-8-70,
DC-8-60F, and DC-8-70F Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NM-122)) received on May 12, 2008; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6208. 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 737-300, -400, and -
500 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NM-
202)) received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6209. 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. 2007-NM-282)) received on May 12, 2008; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6210. 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 Series
Airplanes and Airbus Model A300-600 Series Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-NM-239)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6211. 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-10-10
and DC-10-10F Airplanes, Model DC-10-15 Airplanes, Model DC-
10-30 and DC-10-30F Airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F
Airplanes, MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F Airplanes, and Model MD-11
and MD-11F Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NM-
163)) received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6212. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Corporation,
Ltd Model 750XL Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-
CE-097)) received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6213. 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 737-300, -400, and -
500 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2008-NM-
047)) received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6214. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
[[Page 9012]]
entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model
EC130 B4 Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2006-SW-
23)) received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6215. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Goodrich Evacuation Systems
Approved Under Technical Standard Orders TSO-C69, TSO-C69a,
TSO-C69b, and TSO-C69c, Installed on Various Boeing,
McDonnell Douglas, and Airbus Transport Category Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2003-NM-239)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6216. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; APEX Aircraft Model CAP 10 B
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-CE-102)) received
on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6217. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Philipsburg, PA'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. 05-AEA-21)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6218. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Class E Airspace; State College, PA''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 07-AEA-06)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6219. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Tappahannock, PA''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 07-AEA-04)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6220. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Du Bois, PA'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. 05-AEA-17)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6221. 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; Muncy, PA'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. 07-AEA-08)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6222. 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; Montrose, PA''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 07-AEA-11)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6223. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Pottsville, PA'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. 05-AEA-18)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6224. 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; Lewiston, ME''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 07-ANE-95)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6225. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Class E Airspace; St. Mary's, PA'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. 05-AEA-20)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6226. 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; Black River Falls, WI''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 08-AGL-4)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6227. 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; Springfield, CO''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 07-ANM-04)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6228. 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; Wheatland, WY''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 07-ANM-10)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6229. 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; Hollister, CA''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 07-AWP-5)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6230. 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; Huntsville, AR''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 08-ASW-2)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6231. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Honesdale, PA'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(Docket No. 07-AEA-12)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6232. 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; Wheatland, WY''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 07-ANM-10)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6233. 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; Lewisburg, PA''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 07-AEA-16)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6234. 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; Emporium, PA''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 07-AEA-15)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6235. 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; Marienville, PA''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 07-AEA-13)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6236. 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 E5 Airspace; Eagle Pass, TX''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 08-ASW-3)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6237. 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; La Pointe, WI''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 08-AGL-3)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6238. 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 B4-600, A300
B4-600R, A300 C4-600R, and A300 F4-600R Series Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NM-225)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6239. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited Model DHC-6
Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-CE-008))
received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6240. 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.
TFE731-2C, -3B, -3BR, -3C, -3CR, -3D, -3DR, -4R, -5AR, -5BR,
-5R, -20R, -20AR, -20BR, -40, -40AR, -40R, and -60 Series
Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NE-14))
received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6241. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
[[Page 9013]]
entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de
Aeronautica S.A. Model EMB-135 Airplanes; and Model EMB-145,
-145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2008-NM-001)) received
on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6242. 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 AS 355 F2
and AS 355 N Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-
SW-31)) received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6243. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Learjet Model 45 Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2005-NM-007)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6244. 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 DHC-8-400 Series
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-NM-146)) received
on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6245. 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, -200PF, and
-200CB Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2008-NM-
016)) received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6246. 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 727 Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 2006-NM-179)) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6247. 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 SF340A and SAAB
340B Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 2007-NM-236))
received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6248. 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 707 Airplanes and
Model 720 and 720B Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket
No. 2007-NM-212)) received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6249. 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. 2007-NM-292))
received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6250. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Taylorcraft A, B, and F Series
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 2007-CE-086))
received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6251. 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 707 Airplanes, and
Model 720 and 720B Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket
No. 2006-NM-164)) received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6252. 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, -
300F, and -400ER Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket
No. 2007-NM-105)) received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6253. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; ATR Model ATR42 and ATR72
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 2007-NM-206))
received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6254. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Falcon 2000,
Falcon 2000EX, Mystere-Falcon 900, Falcon 900EX, Fan Jet
Falcon, Mystere-Falcon 50, Mystere-Falcon 20, Mystere-Falcon
200, and Falcon 10 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No.
2006-NM-276)) received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6255. 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'' ((RIN2120-AA63) (Amdt.
No. 473)) received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6256. 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'' ((RIN2120-AA63)(Amdt. No.
472)) received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6257. 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'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3261)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6258. 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'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3260)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6259. 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'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3259)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6260. 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'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3257)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6261. 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'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3254)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6262. 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'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3256)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6263. 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'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3253)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6264. 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'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3252)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6265. 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'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3251)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6266. 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 A318, A319, A320,
and A321 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(Docket No. 2007-
NM-112)) received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6267. 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'' ((RIN2120-
AA65)(Amdt. No. 3258)) received on May 12, 2008; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6268. A communication from the Assistant Chief Counsel
for Hazardous Materials
[[Page 9014]]
Safety, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Hazardous Materials:
Enhancing Rail Transportation Safety and Security for
Hazardous Materials Shipments'' (RIN2137-AE02) received on
May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6269. A communication from the Chief Counsel, Maritime
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Launch Barge
Waiver Program'' (RIN2133-AB67) received on May 12, 2008; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6270. A communication from the Secretary of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Department's Annual Report for fiscal year 2007 relative to
progress in conducting environmental remedial action at
federally-owned or operated facilities; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6271. A communication from the Program Analyst, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Part 565 Increase Number of Unique
Available Vehicle Identification Numbers'' (RIN2127-AJ99)
received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6272. A communication from the Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Montana
Regulatory Program'' (Docket No. MT-026) received on May 12,
2008; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-6273. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Coordinated Issue: Distressed Asset Trust
Transaction'' (Notice 2008-34) received on May 7, 2008; to
the Committee on Finance.
EC-6274. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Services, Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education, Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Jacob K. Javits Gifted
and Talented Students Education Program'' (73 FR 21329)
received on May 12, 2008; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-6275. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs,
Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, an
annual report for fiscal year 2007; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
____________________
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. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 3015. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 18 S. G Street, Lakeview,
Oregon, as the ``Dr. Bernard Daly Post Office Building''; to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr.
Whitehouse, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 3016. A bill to direct the Attorney General to provide
grants for Internet Crime prevention education programs; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 3017. A bill to designate the Beaver Basin Wilderness at
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in the State of Michigan;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. SESSIONS:
S. 3018. A bill to establish a Commission on Federal
Criminal and Juvenile Justice Assistance Programs; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. SALAZAR:
S. 3019. A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to
promote oil shale and tar sands leasing, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Thune, Mrs. Hutchison,
Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Stevens, and
Mr. Smith):
S. Res. 564. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate regarding oversight of the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Allard, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Brown, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Cochran, Mr.
Craig, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Durbin,
Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Levin, Mrs.
McCaskill, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Smith, Ms.
Stabenow, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Sessions):
S. Res. 565. A resolution designating May 15, 2008 as
Military Kids Day; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
S. Res. 566. A resolution designating June 2008 as
``National Aphasia Awareness Month'' and supporting efforts
to increase awareness of aphasia; considered and agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 881
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Wicker) was added as a cosponsor of S. 881, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and modify the railroad track
maintenance credit.
S. 903
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the names of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator from
New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter),
the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the Senator from South Carolina
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from
Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar), the Senator
from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Inhofe), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) were added as
cosponsors of S. 903, a bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Dr.
Muhammad Yunus, in recognition of his contributions to the fight
against global poverty.
S. 940
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 940, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the subpart F
exemption for active financing income.
S. 1382
At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1382, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to provide for the establishment of an
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Registry.
S. 1906
At the request of Mr. Coleman, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1906, a bill to understand
and comprehensively address the oral health problems associated with
methamphetamine use.
S. 1907
At the request of Mr. Coleman, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1907, a bill to amend
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to
understand and comprehensively address the inmate oral health problems
associated with methamphetamine use, and for other purposes.
S. 2394
At the request of Mr. Coleman, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Burr) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2394, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify, modernize, and
improve public notice of and access to tax lien information by
providing for a national, Internet accessible, filing system for
Federal tax liens, and for other purposes.
S. 2495
At the request of Mr. Biden, the name of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Crapo) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2495, a bill to amend title 18,
United States Code, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure with
respect to bail bond forfeitures.
S. 2523
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the names of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) and the Senator from Louisiana (Ms.
Landrieu) were added as cosponsors of S. 2523, a bill to establish the
National Affordable Housing Trust Fund in the Treasury of the United
States to provide for the construction, rehabilitation, and
preservation of decent, safe, and affordable housing for low-income
families.
[[Page 9015]]
S. 2666
At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the name of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2666, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage investment in affordable
housing, and for other purposes.
S. 2668
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2668, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove cell phones from listed
property under section 280F.
S. 2699
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from
Washington (Ms. Cantwell) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2699, a bill
to require new vessels for carrying oil fuel to have double hulls, and
for other purposes.
S. 2748
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2748, a bill
to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to publish
physical activity guidelines for the general public, and for other
purposes.
S. 2774
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2774, a bill
to provide for the appointment of additional Federal circuit and
district judges, and for other purposes.
S. 2793
At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2793, a bill
to direct the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe a rule prohibiting
deceptive advertising of abortion services, and for other purposes.
S. 2828
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the names of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow)
were added as cosponsors of S. 2828, a bill to require the Secretary of
the Treasury to mint and issue coins commemorating the 100th
anniversary of the establishment of Glacier National Park, and for
other purposes.
S. 2874
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2874, a bill to
amend titles 5, 10, 37, and 38, United States Code, to ensure the fair
treatment of a member of the Armed Forces who is discharged from the
Armed Forces, at the request of the member, pursuant to the Department
of Defense policy permitting the early discharge of a member who is the
only surviving child in a family in which the father or mother, or one
or more siblings, served in the Armed Forces and, because of hazards
incident to such service, was killed, died as a result of wounds,
accident, or disease, is in a captured or missing in action status, or
is permanently disabled, and for other purposes.
S. 2883
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2883, a bill to
require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of
the centennial of the establishment of Mother's Day.
S. 2916
At the request of Mr. Carper, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
2916, a bill to ensure greater transparency in the Federal contracting
process, and to help prevent contractors that violate criminal laws
from obtaining Federal contracts.
S. 2932
At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2932, a bill to
amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the poison center
national toll-free number, national media campaign, and grant program
to provide assistance for poison prevention, sustain the funding of
poison centers, and enhance the public health of people of the United
States.
S. 2957
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, the name of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2957, a bill to modernize
credit union net worth standards, advance credit union efforts to
promote economic growth, and modify credit union regularity standards
and reduce burdens, and for other purposes.
S. 2991
At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from North Dakota
(Mr. Conrad) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2991, a bill to provide
energy price relief and hold oil companies and other entities
accountable for their actions with regard to high energy prices, and
for other purposes.
S. 2997
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Inouye) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2997, a bill to reauthorize
the Maritime Administration, and for other purposes.
S. CON. RES. 75
At the request of Mr. Coleman, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 75, a concurrent
resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the Secretary of
Defense should take immediate steps to appoint doctors of chiropractic
as commissioned officers in the Armed Forces.
S. RES. 550
At the request of Mr. Biden, the names of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey),
the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), and the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Lieberman) were added as cosponsors of S. Res. 550, a resolution
expressing the sense of the Senate regarding provocative and dangerous
statements made by the Government of the Russian Federation that
undermine the territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia.
AMENDMENT NO. 4759
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 4759 proposed
to H.R. 980, a bill to provide collective bargaining rights for public
safety officers employed by States or their political subdivisions.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 3015. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 18 S. G Street, Lakeview, Oregon, as the ``Dr.
Bernard Daly Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to rename
the Lakeview Post Office after Dr. Bernard Daly. I am pleased to have
my colleague Senator Wyden join me in this effort by serving as
original cosponsor of this bill.
Dr. Bernard Daly was an American country doctor, businessman, banker,
rancher, state representative, state senator, county judge, and regent
of Oregon State Agricultural College, today's Oregon State University.
As early as 1888, Dr. Bernard Daly began actively encouraging young
people to apply for college. When families could not afford the
tuition, Daly quietly paid the bill.
During a Christmas Eve party in 1894, an oil lamp started a fire in a
crowed community hall in the small town of Silver Lake, Oregon. Forty-
three people were killed in the blaze, and many more were badly
injured. Dr. Daly traveled by buggy from Lakeview to Silver Lake, a
distance of 95 miles, over bad, snow covered roads to help victims of
the tragedy. It took 24 hours of continuous travel for him to reach
Silver Lake. Despite the long journey, he began treating burn victims
as soon as he arrived, and continued without rest until everyone had
been seen. Dr. Daly saved all but three of the badly burned persons,
and his methods of healing were later published in detail in a medical
journal. The fire was widely reported and written about in The Oregon
Desert. Dr. Daly's efforts to reach
[[Page 9016]]
and treat the victims earned state-wide recognition and many admirers.
When Dr. Daly died, he gave his fortune to the people of Lake County
in the form of the Bernard Daly Educational Fund. Dr. Daly wrote in his
will: ``It is my earnest desire to help, aid and assist worthy and
ambitious young men and women of my beloved county of Lake, to acquire
a good education, so that they may be better fitted and qualified to
appreciate and help to preserve the laws and constitution of this free
country, defend its flag, and by their conduct as good citizens reflect
honor on Lake county and the state of Oregon.'' The fact that his will
specifically directed that Daly scholarships be granted to women as
well as men was very progressive for that era.
Each year, approximately 40 graduates of Lake County high schools
receive Daly scholarships. To date, well over two thousand students
from Lakeview and other Lake County communities have used Bernard
Daly's generous scholarships to attend college. Dr. Daly's educational
trust fund has financed college educations for generations of Lake
County, Oregon students, a legacy that continues to this day.
I have received several messages from across the country and even one
from Australia supporting the renaming of the Lakeview Post Office
after Dr. Bernard Daly. Each one told a story of sincere appreciation
for Dr. Daly's generosity.
We urge our colleagues to support this important piece of
legislation.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 3017. A bill to designate the Beaver Basin Wilderness at Pictured
Rocks National Lakeshore in the State of Michigan; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator
Stabenow the Beaver Basin Wilderness Act, which would permanently
protect 11,740 acres within the Pictured Rocks National Park located in
Michigan's Upper Peninsula along the south shore of Lake Superior. Also
known as the Beaver Basin area, this area comprises about 16 percent of
the national lakeshore. The Wilderness designation would ensure that
opportunities to appreciate and enjoy nature in a relatively
undisturbed state at this national lakeshore are preserved for future
generations.
The bill responds to many of the concerns expressed during the 5-year
development of the General Management Plan for Pictured Rocks, which
included a wilderness study, and involved extensive public involvement.
Boats powered by electric motors would be allowed on Little Beaver and
Beaver Lakes within the Wilderness area. All motor boats would be
allowed to access the miles of the Lake Superior shoreline, as the
wilderness area does not include the Lake Superior surface water. Also,
the access road to Beaver Lakes and Little Beaver campground is not
included in the wilderness area, so vehicles would still have access to
this popular area. Importantly, the Wilderness designation would not
change the fundamental way this land has been managed since 1981,
ensuring continued public access, use, and enjoyment of this land.
It is critical that the highly valued, pristine natural features of
the Beaver Basin area remain the treasure they are today. This area
provides a unique and distinct landscape that highlights one of the
most beautiful backdrops of the Great Lakes, and it is vital that we do
all we can to protect it. Significantly, several miles of the North
Country National Scenic Trail, also known as the Lakeshore Trail, run
through this wilderness area. This bill would help preserve the serene
quality of this segment of the trail, and protect the outstanding
scenery along the shoreline. The wilderness designation will benefit
current and future generations by protecting this natural and
undisturbed landscape for the enjoyment of thousands of people in
Michigan and across the Nation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3017
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 ``Beaver Basin Wilderness
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) since 1981, the National Park Service has managed the
land designated as the Beaver Basin Wilderness by section
4(a) as a backcountry and wilderness area;
(2) the land designated by section 4(a) as the Wilderness
comprises approximately 16 percent of the area of Pictured
Rocks National Lakeshore;
(3) the decision to propose this portion of the National
Lakeshore as wilderness was made after 5 years of planning,
which involved extensive public involvement and culminated in
the approval of a new general management plan in 2004; and
(4) the fundamental manner in which the land designated as
Wilderness by section 4(a) is managed for purposes of access,
public use, and enjoyment will not change as a result of this
designation.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Line of demarcation.--The term ``line of demarcation''
means the point on the bank or shore at which the surface
waters of Lake Superior meet the land or sand beach,
regardless of the level of Lake Superior.
(2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled
``Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore Beaver Basin Wilderness
Boundary'', numbered 625/80,051, and dated April 10, 2007.
(3) National lakeshore.--The term ``National Lakeshore''
means the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(5) Wilderness.--The term ``Wilderness'' means the Beaver
Basin Wilderness designated by section 4(a).
SEC. 4. DESIGNATION OF BEAVER BASIN WILDERNESS.
(a) In General.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the land described in subsection (b) is
designated as wilderness and as a component of the National
Wilderness Preservation System, to be known as the ``Beaver
Basin Wilderness''.
(b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in
subsection (a) is the land and inland water comprising
approximately 11,740 acres within the National Lakeshore, as
generally depicted on the map.
(c) Boundary.--
(1) Line of demarcation.--The line of demarcation shall be
the boundary for any portion of the Wilderness that is
bordered by Lake Superior.
(2) Surface water.--The surface water of Lake Superior,
regardless of the fluctuating lake level, shall be considered
to be outside the boundary of the Wilderness.
(d) Map and Legal Description.--
(1) Availability of map.--The map shall be on file and
available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of
the National Park Service.
(2) Legal description.--As soon as practicable after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate
and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives a legal description of the boundary of the
Wilderness.
(3) Force and effect.--The map and the legal description
submitted under paragraph (2) shall have the same force and
effect as if included in this Act, except that the Secretary
may correct any clerical or typographical errors in the map
and legal description.
SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Management.--Subject to valid existing rights, the
Wilderness shall be administered by the Secretary in
accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.),
except that--
(1) any reference in that Act to the effective date of that
Act shall be considered to be a reference to the date of
enactment of this Act; and
(2) with respect to land administered by the Secretary, any
reference in that Act to the Secretary of Agriculture shall
be considered to be a reference to the Secretary.
(b) Use of Electric Motors.--The use of boats powered by
electric motors on Little Beaver and Big Beaver Lakes may
continue, subject to any applicable laws (including
regulations).
SEC. 6. EFFECT.
Nothing in this Act--
(1) modifies, alters, or affects any treaty rights;
(2) alters the management of the water of Lake Superior
within the boundary of the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
in existence on the date of enactment of this Act; and
(3) prohibits--
(A) the use of motors on the surface water of Lake Superior
adjacent to the Wilderness; or
(B) the beaching of motorboats at the line of demarcation.
[[Page 9017]]
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 564--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING
OVERSIGHT OF THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS
Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Thune, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Nelson of
Florida, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Smith) submitted the
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation:
S. Res. 564
Whereas, more than 35 years ago, the Federal Government
began funding research necessary to develop packet-switching
technology and communications networks, starting with the
``ARPANET'' network established by the Department of
Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the
1960s;
Whereas, during the 1970s, DARPA also funded the
development of a ``network of networks'', which became known
as the Internet;
Whereas the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1987
awarded a contract to the International Business Machines
Corporation (IBM), MCI Incorporated, and Merit Network,
Incorporated, to develop ``NSFNET'', a national high-speed
network based on Internet protocols, that provided a
``backbone'' to connect other networks serving more than
4,000 research and educational institutions throughout the
country;
Whereas Congress knew of the vast impact the Internet could
have and the requirement of private sector investment,
development, technical management, and coordination to
achieve that potential, so in 1992 Congress gave NSF
statutory authority to allow commercial activity on the
NSFNET;
Whereas today the industry, through private sector
investment, management, and coordination, has become a global
communications network of infinite value;
Whereas part of the ARPANET development process was to
create and maintain a list of network host names and
addresses, which was initially done by Dr. Jonathan Postel at
the University of Southern California (USC), and eventually
these functions became known as the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA);
Whereas Dr. Postel's performance of these functions was
initially funded by the Federal Government under a contract
between the DARPA and USC's Information Sciences Institute
(ISI), however, responsibility for these functions was
subsequently transferred to the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN);
Whereas ICANN performs the IANA functions, which include
Internet Protocol (IP) address allocation, Domain Name System
(DNS) root zone coordination, and the coordination of
technical protocol parameters, through a contract with the
Department of Commerce;
Whereas, since its inception, the performance of the IANA
functions contract has been physically located in the United
States;
Whereas the DNS root zone file contains records of the
operators of more than 280 top-level domains (TLDs);
Whereas, as of December 31, 2007, more than 153,000,000
domain names have been registered worldwide across all of the
Top Level Domain Names;
Whereas, since 2000, the Internet community has worked
toward providing non- English speakers a way to navigate the
Internet in their own language through the use of
Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs);
Whereas, according to ICANN, of the 905 ICANN-accredited
domain name registrars, 571 of them (63 percent) are based in
the United States;
Whereas ICANN intends to introduce approximately 900 new
Top Level Domains over the next several years;
Whereas, in January 2007, approximately 51,000,000 domain
names were registered, but only 3,000,000 were eventually
paid for, and more than 48,000,000 were left to expire after
the 5 day registration grace period;
Whereas the World Intellectual Property Organization
reported in April 2007 that the number of Internet domain
name cybersquatting disputes increased 25 percent in 2006;
Whereas a 2006 Zogby Interactive poll of small business
owners found that 78 percent of those polled stated that a
less reliable Internet would damage their business;
Whereas, understanding that the Internet was rapidly
becoming an international medium for commerce, education, and
communication, and that the initial means of organizing its
technical functions needed to evolve, the United States
issued the ``White Paper'' in 1998, stating its support for
transitioning the management of Internet names and addresses
to the private sector in a manner that allows for the
development of robust competition and facilitate global
participation in Internet management;
Whereas the Federal Government is committed to working with
the international community to address its concerns, bearing
in mind the need for stability and security of the Internet's
domain name and addressing system;
Whereas the United States has been committed to the
principles of freedom of expression and the free flow of
information, as expressed in Article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, done at Paris December 10, 1948,
and reaffirmed in the Geneva Declaration of Principles
adopted at the first phase of the World Summit on the
Information Society, December 12, 2003;
Whereas the United States Principles on the Internet's
Domain Name and Addressing System, issued on June 30, 2005,
stated that the United States government intends to preserve
the security and stability of the Internet's Domain Name and
Addressing System (DNS), that governments have legitimate
interest in the management of their country code top level
domains (ccTLDs), and that ICANN is the appropriate manager
of the Internet DNS;
Whereas all stakeholders from around the world, including
governments, are encouraged to advise ICANN in its decision-
making;
Whereas ICANN has made progress in its efforts to ensure
that the views of governments and all Internet stakeholders
are reflected in its activities;
Whereas the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development has issued consumer policy guidelines calling for
online businesses to ``provide accurate, clear and easily
accessible information about themselves sufficient to allow,
at a minimum . . . prompt easy and effective consumer
communication with the business'', and ``businesses that
provide false contact information can undermine the online
experience of a consumer that decides to conduct a WHOIS
search about the business'';
Whereas the WHOIS databases provide a crucial tool for law
enforcement to track down online fraud, identity theft, and
other online illegal activity, but law enforcement is often
hindered in the pursuit of perpetrators because the
perpetrators are hiding behind the anonymity of proxy or
false registration information: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) while the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) has made progress in the areas of
transparency and accountability as directed by the Joint
Project Agreement (JPA), the unique role ICANN has in the
coordination of the technical management functions related to
the domain name and addressing system, and the direct effects
of the decisions ICANN makes on thousands of businesses with
an online presence and millions of Internet users, make it
critical that more progress be made by ICANN in areas of
transparency, accountability, and security for improved
stability of the Domain Name and Addressing System (DNS) and
the Internet;
(2) the private sector's ongoing success in investing,
building, and developing the Internet is unparalleled and
industry self-regulation must be assured through more
effective contract compliance efforts by ICANN;
(3) WHOIS databases provide a vital tool for businesses,
the Federal Trade Commission, and other law enforcement
agencies to track down brand infringement, online fraud,
identity theft, and other online illegal activity, as well as
for consumers to determine the availability of domain names
and to easily and effectively communicate with online
businesses;
(4) increased involvement and participation in various
ICANN processes by international private sector organizations
should be encouraged;
(5) the United States and other countries should continue
to allow the marketplace to work and allow private industries
to lead in the management and coordination of the DNS;
(6) the performance of the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) functions contract, including updates of the
root zone file, should remain physically located within the
United States, and the Secretary of Commerce should maintain
oversight of this contract; and
(7) ICANN should continue to manage the day-to-day
operation of the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System
well, to remain responsive to all Internet stakeholders
worldwide, and to otherwise fulfill its core technical
mission.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution on
the oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers, ICANN. This resolution is the result of the National
Telecommunications & Information Administration, NTIA, recently
concluding the mid-term review of its Joint Project Agreement, JPA,
with ICANN, which is a contract between them for the purpose of
transitioning the Internet domain name and addressing system, or Domain
Name System, DNS, to a private sector, multi-stakeholder model of
leadership.
The JPA required NTIA to conduct this mid-term review to assess the
[[Page 9018]]
transition and ICANN's progress towards becoming a more stable
organization with greater transparency and accountability in its
procedures and decision-making. While ICANN has made notable progress
in meeting the responsibilities outlined in the JPA, additional
improvement and enhancement in specific areas can and should be made.
As a result, it is necessary for Congress to voice the importance of
continued U.S. oversight of ICANN. This oversight has provided a strong
foundation for ICANN's development and is critical for greater progress
in areas such as accountability, transparency, and contract compliance.
At the same time, it is imperative that the U.S. as well as other
governments maintain a ``hands off'' approach to ICANN so the private
sector can continue to lead in the management and coordination of the
DNS.
While ICANN, for the mid-term review, detailed the progress it has
made in meeting its commitments under the JPA, it is somewhat premature
for the organization to suggest the JPA is ``no longer necessary'' and
it should become independent of U.S. oversight.
In addition, numerous organizations submitted comments to NTIA
expressing serious concerns about risks that might develop if the JPA
and U.S. oversight of ICANN were terminated. In particular, uncertainty
could arise with resolving legal or contract disputes if ICANN
relocated to an unknown legal jurisdiction. Also, ICANN could be unduly
influenced by a country or group of countries that do not embrace
innovation or freedom of expression--basically usurping the private
sector's leadership, which would deter critical investment and
jeopardize the openness of the Internet.
This resolution provides the required assurance to these concerned
organizations and to all businesses around the world in regard to
maintaining the security, integrity, and stability of the DNS through
continued oversight of ICANN's responsibilities. Specifically, this
resolution details key points about the formation of the Internet and
domain names, ICANN's efforts, concerns about the growth of domain name
abuses, and the United States' transitioning of the DNS to the
international community. The resolution then calls for additional
improvement to be made by ICANN in areas of transparency,
accountability, and security for improved stability of the DNS, as well
as more effective contract compliance to ensure the private sector's
ongoing success with developing the Internet and industry self-
regulation.
Additionally, the resolution voices how vital a tool WHOIS databases
are for consumers, businesses, and law enforcement--these publicly
accessible databases provide contact information and data on registered
domain names, which can assist in establishing trust, resolving
disputes, and pursuing online crimes. The resolution also calls for
increased participation in ICANN processes by international private
sector organizations, and states that all governments should apply a
``hands off'' approach to ICANN so the private sector's leadership with
the DNS can continue unabated.
The resolution concludes by stating the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority, IANA, functions contract should physically remain in the
U.S. and that NTIA should maintain oversight of this contract. IANA is
the entity responsible for coordinating the Internet's number
resources, domain names, and protocol parameters--it is operated solely
by ICANN. As well, the resolution states ICANN should continue to
manage the operation of the DNS and remain responsive to all Internet
stakeholders.
Without question, the Internet's vast impact on the world and this
Nation is profoundly indelible and undeniable--there are currently more
than 1.3 billion Internet users and more than 165 million websites
worldwide. And the Internet is poised to have another remarkable
chapter written about its future.
The private sector and ICANN have played an essential role in the
development of the Internet and they will continue to do so. The
private sector has and continues to make significant investments in the
Internet infrastructure as well as with content and applications.
Additionally, ICANN may introduce hundreds of new Top Level Domains,
TLDs, over the next several years--TLDs are basically domain name
suffixes such as .com, .net, .edu, .us, and .mobi that signify a
particular class of organizations or country. These possible new TLDs
coupled with the migration from Internet Protocol version 4 to version
6, IPv6, which supplies an exponentially larger address space, provides
a large expanse for the Internet to grow and for the innovation that
will follow.
While the potential of the Internet and the benefits it will provide
are infinite, if the stability, integrity, and security of the DNS are
compromised in any way, it could be detrimental to the future of the
Internet and all its users. That is why it is paramount the U.S.
continue to have a watchful eye with ICANN to ensure that those
critical areas are not hampered. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will
join Senators Thune, Hutchison, Bill Nelson, Coleman, Stevens, Smith,
and me in supporting the critical resolution.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 565--DESIGNATING MAY 15, 2008 AS MILITARY KIDS DAY
Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. allard, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Brown, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Craig, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Dole, Mr.
Domenici, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Levin,
Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Smith, Ms. Stabenow,
Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Sessions) submitted the following resolution;
which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 565
Whereas the members of the Armed Forces of the United
States are the greatest soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
Marines in the world;
Whereas as individuals and as a group, the members Armed
Forces of the United States daily place their lives on the
line for the United States, both here or abroad;
Whereas the children of these patriots, even the youngest
of them, recognize the incredible service their parents
provide, and daily face the challenges of military life, with
frequent moves, separation from their loved ones, and
uncertainty about the future;
Whereas the voices of these children are seldom heard and
their own particular sacrifices seldom acknowledged;
Whereas the children of the members of the Armed Forces of
the United States have an important creative outlet through
the Annual Essay and Art Contest of the Armed Services YMCA;
Whereas the compelling essays and artwork by military
children will be published in My Hero: Military Kids Write
about their Moms and Dads; and
Whereas the strength of character, humor and honesty
offered by these children are a hallmark for all of us to
follow as we face the challenges of everyday life: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes the significance of the sacrifices made
every day by the thousands of families across the country and
the world in support of the members of the Armed Forces of
the United States;
(2) expresses gratitude for their fortitude, their
strength, their compassion, and their expertise;
(3) supports the efforts of the Armed Services YMCA and the
many other organizations that work to assist the military
families of the United States;
(4) designates May 15, 2008, as ``Military Kids Day'' in
the United States and at military installations throughout
the world.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 566--DESIGNATING JUNE 2008 AS ``NATIONAL APHASIA
AWARENESS MONTH'' AND SUPPORTING EFFORTS TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF
APHASIA
Mr. JOHNSON submitted the following resolution; which was considered
and agreed to:
S. Res. 566
Whereas aphasia is a communication impairment caused by
brain damage, typically resulting from a stroke;
Whereas, while aphasia is most often the result of stroke
or brain injury, it can also occur with other neurological
disorders, such as in the case of a brain tumor;
Whereas many people with aphasia also have weakness or
paralysis in their right leg and right arm, usually due to
damage to the left hemisphere of the brain, which controls
[[Page 9019]]
language and movement on the right side of the body;
Whereas the effects of aphasia may include a loss or
reduction in ability to speak, comprehend, read, and write,
while intelligence remains intact;
Whereas stroke is the 3rd leading cause of death in the
United States, ranking behind heart disease and cancer;
Whereas stroke is a leading cause of serious, long-term
disability in the United States;
Whereas there are about 5,000,000 stroke survivors in the
United States;
Whereas it is estimated that there are about 750,000
strokes per year in the United States, with approximately \1/
3\ of these resulting in aphasia;
Whereas aphasia affects at least 1,000,000 people in the
United States;
Whereas more than 200,000 Americans acquire the disorder
each year;
Whereas the National Aphasia Association is unique and
provides communication strategies, support, and education for
people with aphasia and their caregivers throughout the
United States; and
Whereas as an advocacy organization for people with aphasia
and their caregivers, the National Aphasia Association
envisions a world that recognizes this ``silent'' disability
and provides opportunity and fulfillment for those affected
by aphasia: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) supports the goals and ideals of, and encourages all
Americans to observe, National Aphasia Awareness Month in
June 2008;
(2) recognizes that strokes, a primary cause of aphasia,
are the third largest cause of death and disability in the
United States;
(3) acknowledges that aphasia deserves more attention and
study in order to find new solutions for serving individuals
experiencing aphasia and their caregivers; and
(4) must make the voices of those with aphasia heard
because they are often unable to communicate their condition
to others.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 4762. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 980, to provide collective
bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by
States or their political subdivisions; which was ordered to
lie on the table.
SA 4763. Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Burr, and Mr. McCain)
proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 980, supra.
SA 4764. Mr. McCONNELL proposed an amendment to amendment
SA 4763 proposed by Mr. Graham (for himself, Mr. Burr, and
Mr. McCain) to the bill H.R. 980, supra.
SA 4765. Mr. ALLARD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 980, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4766. Mr. ENZI submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 980, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4767. Mr. ENZI submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 980, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4768. Mr. ENZI submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 980, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4769. Mr. ENZI submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 980, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4770. Mr. ENZI submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 980, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4771. Mrs. HUTCHISON submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed to amendment SA 4751 proposed by Mr. Reid (for
Mr. Gregg (for himself and Mr. Kennedy)) to the bill H.R.
980, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4772. Mrs. HUTCHISON submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed to amendment SA 4751 proposed by Mr. Reid (for
Mr. Gregg (for himself and Mr. Kennedy)) to the bill H.R.
980, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4773. Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 4751 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr.
Gregg (for himself and Mr. Kennedy)) to the bill H.R. 980,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4774. Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 4751 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr.
Gregg (for himself and Mr. Kennedy)) to the bill H.R. 980,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4775. Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 4751 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr.
Gregg (for himself and Mr. Kennedy)) to the bill H.R. 980,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4776. Mrs. BOXER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 4751 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr.
Gregg (for himself and Mr. Kennedy)) to the bill H.R. 980,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 4762. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 980, to provide collective bargaining rights for
public safety officers employed by States or their political
subdivisions; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. NO UNION DUES FROM ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
(a) Prohibition for Private Labor Organizations.--It shall
be unlawful for a labor organization to collect dues or
initiation fees from any individual who is physically present
in the United States in violation of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
(b) Prohibition for Public Safety Labor Organizations.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, a State law shall be deemed to have failed to
substantially provide for the rights and responsibilities
described in section 4(b) unless the Authority determines
that such law, in addition to meeting such rights and
responsibilities, prohibits labor organizations from
collecting dues or initiation fees from any individual who is
physically present in the United States in violation of the
Immigration and Nationality Act.
(2) Enforcement authority.--The Authority may issue and
enforce regulations to carry out paragraph (1) in the manner
provided under section 5.
(c) Decertification of Labor Organizations.--
(1) Public-sector employees.--In addition to any
enforcement measures authorized under subsection (b)(2), if
the Authority determines that a labor organization has
violated any provision under subsection (a) or (b), the
Authority shall issue an order that decertifies the labor
organization or otherwise notifies the labor organization
that the organization will no longer be recognized by the
Authority as the exclusive representative of employees for
collective bargaining purposes.
(2) Private-sector employees.--If the National Labor
Relations Board determines that a labor organization has
violated subsection (a), the Board shall issue an order that
decertifies the labor organization or otherwise notifies the
labor organization that the organization will no longer be
recognized by the Board as the exclusive representative of
employees for collective bargaining purposes.
(d) Labor Organization Defined.--In this section, the term
``labor organization'' has the meaning given such term in
section 2 of the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
152)).
(e) Required Participation by Labor Organizations.--Section
402(e) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (title IV of division C of Public
Law 104-208; 8 U.S.C. 1324a note) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Labor organizations.--
``(A) In general.--All labor organizations (as defined in
section 2 of the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
152)) shall elect to participate in the basic pilot program
and shall comply with the terms and conditions of such
election.
``(B) Verification of all members.--Notwithstanding any
other provision in this title, each participating labor
organization shall use the confirmation system to seek
confirmation of the identity and employment eligibility of
each member of such labor organization.
``(C) Deadline for compliance.--The verifications required
under subparagraph (B) shall be completed--
``(i) not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment
of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of
2007 for all members of the labor organization as of such
date; and
``(ii) for individuals who become members of such labor
organization after such date of enactment, not later than 14
days after the commencement of such membership.''.
______
SA 4763. Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Burr, and Mr. McCain) proposed
an amendment to the bill H.R. 980, to provide collective bargaining
rights for public safety officers employed by States or their political
subdivisions; as follows:
Strike the last period in the bill and insert the
following:
TITLE I--EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND
VETERANS
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Enhancement of
Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education
Act of 2008''.
SEC. 102. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The World War II-era GI Bill assisted almost 8,000,000
members of the Armed Forces in readjusting to civilian life
after completing their service to the nation. With the
[[Page 9020]]
support and assistance of America's colleges and
universities, the GI Bill provided incentives that
transformed American society, making a college degree a
realizable goal for millions of Americans.
(2) In the years following World War II, the GI Bill
continued to provide educational benefits for members of the
Armed Forces who had been drafted into or volunteered for
service.
(3) The establishment of the All Volunteer Force in 1973,
and its development since its inception, has produced highly
professional Armed Forces that are recognized as the most
effective fighting force the world has ever seen.
(4) The Sonny Montgomery GI Bill was enacted in 1984 to
sustain the All Volunteer Force by providing educational
benefits to aid in the recruitment and retention of highly
qualified personnel for the Armed Forces and to assist
veterans in readjusting to civilian life. Today, it remains a
cornerstone of military recruiting and retention planning for
the Armed Forces and continues to fulfill its original
purposes.
(5) The All Volunteer Force depends for its effectiveness
and vitality on successful recruiting of highly capable men
and women, and retention for careers of soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines, in both the active and reserve
components of the Armed Forces, who, with the support of
their families and loved ones, develop into professional,
dedicated, and experienced officers, noncommissioned
officers, and petty officers.
(6) The achievement of educational goals, including
obtaining the means to a college degree, has traditionally
been a key reason for volunteering for service in the Armed
Forces. For members who serve a career in the Armed Forces,
this goal extends to their spouses and children and has
resulted in requests for the option to transfer educational
benefits under the GI Bill to spouses and children.
(7) As in the aftermath of World War II, colleges and
universities throughout the United States should demonstrate
their and the Nation's appreciation to veterans by dedicated
programs providing financial aid.
(8) It is in that national interest for the United States--
(A) to express the gratitude of the American people by
assisting those who have honorably served in the Armed Forces
and returned to civilian life to achieve their educational
goals;
(B) to provide significant educational benefits to provide
incentives for successful recruiting;
(C) to motivate continued service in the All Volunteer
Force by those members with the potential for military
careers and their spouses and children; and
(D) to assist those who serve and their families in
achieving their personal goals, including higher education,
while progressing in a military career.
SEC. 103. PLAN ON COORDINATION OF CURRENT EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND DEVELOPMENT OF
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS TO
ENABLE CAREER-ORIENTED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES TO ATTAIN A BACHELOR'S DEGREE.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the outstanding men and women who volunteer for service
in the Armed Forces and demonstrate through their service the
ability, motivation, and commitment to serve as career
commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers, petty
officers, and warrant officers should be given the
opportunities and resources needed to obtain a bachelor's
degree before they complete active duty and retire from the
Armed Forces; and
(2) every effort should be made by the leaders of the Army,
Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard to demonstrate
to members of the Armed Forces who are willing to serve and
study that the dual goals of attaining a bachelor's degree
and a distinguished military career are achievable and not
mutually exclusive.
(b) Plan To Coordinate and Develop Educational Assistance
Programs.--
(1) Plan required.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, develop
a plan to make the attainment of a bachelor's degree an
achievable goal for members of the Armed Forces who are
motivated towards careers in the Armed Forces and who are
able and willing to accept the challenges of military duty
and pursuit of college level studies.
(2) Advice of the service chiefs.--The Secretary of Defense
shall develop the plan required by paragraph (1) with the
advice of the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Naval
Operations, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps.
(3) Elements.--The plan required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) Appropriate elements of current programs to assist
members of the Armed Forces in obtaining college-level
education, including tuition assistance programs, distance
learning programs, and technical training and education
provided by the military departments, including programs
currently administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
(B) Appropriate elements of current programs to provide
members of the Armed Forces with assistance in obtaining
college-level credit for the technical training and
experience they undergo during their military career.
(C) One or more additional education programs to assist
members of the Armed Forces in obtaining a college-level
education, including mechanisms for the provision by the
military departments of guidance, mentoring, and resources to
assist members in achieving their professional military and
personal educational goals.
(D) Such additional programs or mechanisms, such as
sabbaticals from the Armed Forces or college-level education
provided or funded by the military departments, as the
Secretary of Defense considers appropriate to assist members
of the Armed Forces in making adequate progress towards a
bachelor's degree from an accredited institution of higher
education while continuing a successful military career.
(E) Such mechanisms for the application of the elements of
the plan to members of the National Guard and Reserves as the
Secretary of Defense considers appropriate to ensure that
such members receive appropriate assistance in achieving
their professional military and personal educational goals.
(F) Such elements of current programs of the military
departments for in-service education of members of the Armed
Forces as the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate to
maintain and enhance the recruitment and retention by the
Armed Forces of highly trained and experienced military
leaders.
(4) Submittal to congress.--The Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives a report setting forth the plan
required by paragraph (1) not later than August 1, 2009.
SEC. 104. INCREASE IN RATES OF BASIC EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL.
(a) Increase in General Rates and Augmented Rates for
Extended Service.--
(1) Rates based on three years of obligated service.--
Subsection (a)(1) of section 3015 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``on a full-time basis, at the
monthly rate of'' and all that follows and inserting ``on a
full-time basis--
``(A) in the case of an individual who served on active
duty in the Armed Forces for 12 or more years, at the monthly
rate of--
``(i) for months occurring during fiscal year 2009, $1,650;
``(ii) for months occurring during fiscal year 2010,
$1,800;
``(iii) for months occurring during fiscal year 2011,
$2,000; and
``(iv) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal
year, the amount for months occurring during the preceding
fiscal year increased under subsection (h); and
``(B) in the case of an individual who served on active
duty in the Armed Forces for less than 12 years, at the
monthly rate of--
``(i) for months occurring during fiscal year 2009, $1,500;
and
``(ii) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal
year, the amount for months occurring during the preceding
fiscal year increased under subsection (h); or''.
(2) Rates based on two years of obligated service.--
Subsection (b)(1) of such section is amended--
(A) by striking subparagraphs (A) through (C) and inserting
the following new subparagraph (A):
``(A) for months occurring during fiscal year 2009, $950;
and''; and
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (B).
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2008, and shall apply with
respect to basic educational assistance payable for months
beginning on or after that date.
(2) Limitation on cost-of-living adjustments.--
(A) Certain rates based on three years of obligated
service.--No adjustment under subsection (h) of section 3015
of title 38, United States Code, shall be made in the rates
of educational assistance payable under subsection (a)(1)(A)
of such section (as amended by subsection (a)(1) of this
section) for any of fiscal years 2009 through 2011.
(B) Other rates.--No adjustment under subsection (h) of
section 3015 of title 38, United States Code, shall be made
in the rates of educational assistance payable under
subsection (a)(1)(B) of such section (as so amended), or
subsection (b) of such section, for fiscal year 2009.
SEC. 105. ANNUAL STIPEND FOR RECIPIENTS OF BASIC EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE UNDER THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL.
(a) Entitlement to Stipend.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 30 of title 38,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 3020A. Educational stipend
``(a) Entitlement.--Each individual receiving basic
educational assistance under this subchapter who is pursuing
a program of education at an institution of higher learning
(as such term is defined in section 3452(f)
[[Page 9021]]
of this title) is entitled to an educational stipend under
this section.
``(b) Amount of Stipend.--The educational stipend payable
under this section to an individual entitled to such a
stipend shall be paid--
``(1) in the case of an individual pursuing an approved
program of education on at least a half-time basis, at the
annual rate of $1,000; and
``(2) in the case of an individual pursuing an approved
program of education on less than a half-time basis, at the
annual rate of $500.
``(c) Payment Frequency and Method.--The educational
stipend payable under this subsection shall be paid with such
frequency (including by lump sum), and by such mechanisms, as
the Secretary shall prescribe for purposes of this
section.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 30 of such title is amended by adding at
the end of the items relating to subchapter II the following
new item:
``3020A. Educational stipend.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 3020A of title 38, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on
the date that is one year after the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 106. INCREASE IN RATES OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR
MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED RESERVE.
(a) Increase in Rates.--Section 16131(b)(1) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$251'' and inserting
``$634'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$188'' and inserting
``$474''; and
(3) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``$125'' and inserting
``$314''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2008, and shall apply with
respect to educational assistance payable for months
beginning on or after that date.
(2) No cost-of-living adjustment.--No adjustment under
paragraph (2) of section 16131(b) of title 10, United States
Code, shall be made in the rates of educational assistance
payable under paragraph (1) of such section for fiscal year
2009.
SEC. 107. INCREASE IN RATES OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR
RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBERS SUPPORTING
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS AND OTHER OPERATIONS
WITH EXTENDED SERVICE IN THE SELECTED RESERVE.
(a) Increase in Rates for Extended Service.--Paragraph (2)
of section 16162(c) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(2) The educational assistance allowance provided under
this chapter shall be the amount as follows (as adjusted
under paragraphs (3) and (4)):
``(A) In the case of a member who serves an aggregate of 12
years or more in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve,
the amount provided under section 3015(a)(1)(A) of title 38
for the fiscal year concerned, except that if a member
otherwise covered by this subparagraph ceases serving in the
Selected Reserve the amount shall be the amount provided
under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
``(B) In the case of any other member, the amount provided
under section 3015(a)(1)(B) of title 38 for the fiscal year
concerned.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2008, and shall apply with
respect to educational assistance payable for months
beginning on or after that date.
SEC. 108. ENHANCEMENT OF TRANSFERABILITY OF ENTITLEMENT TO
EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) Modification of Authority To Transfer Entitlement Under
Montgomery GI Bill.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 3020 of title
38, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of this
section, the Secretary of Defense shall authorize each
Secretary concerned to permit an individual described in
subsection (b) who is entitled to basic educational
assistance under this subchapter to elect to transfer to one
or more of the dependents specified in subsection (c) the
unused portion of such individual's entitlement to such
assistance, subject to the limitation under subsection
(d).''.
(2) Eligible individuals.--Subsection (b) of such section
is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Eligible Individuals.--An individual referred to in
subsection (a) is any member of the Armed Forces serving on
active duty or as a member of the Selected Reserve who, at
the time of the approval by the Secretary concerned of the
member's request to transfer entitlement to basic educational
assistance under this section--
``(1) has completed six years of service in the Armed
Forces; and
``(2) meets such other requirements as the Secretary of
Defense may prescribe for purposes of this section.''.
(3) Limitations on months of transfer.--Subsection (d) of
such section is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Number of Months Transferrable.--(1) Except as
provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), an individual may
transfer under this section any number of months of unused
entitlement of the individual to basic educational assistance
under this chapter.
``(2) In the case of an individual who has completed at
least six but less than 12 years of service in the Armed
Forces at the time of the approval by the Secretary concerned
of the individual's request to transfer entitlement under
this section, the number of months that may be transferred by
the individual under this section may not exceed the lesser
of--
``(A) the number of months transferrable by the individual
under paragraph (1); or
``(B) 18 months.''.
(4) Timing, revocation, and modification of transfer.--
Subsection (f) of such section is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``without regard'' and
all that follows and inserting ``while the individual is a
member of the Armed Forces.''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``while the
individual is serving as a member of the Armed Forces or in
the Selected Reserve'' after ``at any time''.
(5) Exclusion from marital property.--Subsection (f) of
such section is further amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(3) Entitlement transferred under this section may not be
treated as marital property, or the asset of a marital
estate, subject to division in a divorce or other civil
proceeding.''.
(6) Overpayment.--Subsection (i) of such section is
amended--
(A) by striking ``(1)'' before ``In the event''; and
(B) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3).
(7) Regulations.--Subsection (k) of such section is amended
to read as follows:
``(k) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
coordination with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
prescribe regulations for purposes of this section. Such
regulations shall specify the following:
``(1) The circumstances under which the Secretaries
concerned may permit and approve transfers of entitlement
under this section.
``(2) Such requirements for eligibility for transfer of
entitlement under this section as the Secretary of Defense
considers appropriate for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
``(3) The manner and effect of an election to modify or
revoke a transfer of entitlement under subsection (f)(2).''.
(8) Heading amendment.--The heading of such section is
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational
assistance''.
(9) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 30 of such title is amended by striking
the item relating to section 3020 and inserting the
following:
``3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational assistance.''.
(b) Authority for Transfer of Entitlement Under Reserve
Components Educational Assistance Programs.--
(1) Selected reserve program.--
(A) In general.--Chapter 1606 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 16131a the
following new section:
``Sec. 16131b. Transfer of entitlement to educational
assistance
``(a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of this
section, the Secretary concerned may permit a member of the
Armed Forces described in subsection (b) who is entitled to
educational assistance under this chapter to elect to
transfer to one or more of the dependents specified in
subsection (c) a portion of such member's entitlement to such
assistance, subject to the limitations under subsection (d).
``(b) Eligible Members.--A member described in this
subsection is a member of the Selected Reserve of the Ready
Reserve who, at the time of the approval of the member's
request to transfer entitlement to educational assistance
under this section--
``(1) has completed at least six years of service in the
Selected Reserve; and
``(2) meets such other requirements as the Secretary of
Defense may prescribe for purposes of this section.
``(c) Eligible Dependents.--A member approved to transfer
an entitlement to educational assistance under this section
may transfer the member's entitlement as follows:
``(1) To the member's spouse.
``(2) To one or more of the member's children.
``(3) To a combination of the individuals referred to in
paragraphs (1) and (2).
``(d) Number of Months Transferrable.--(1) Except as
provided in paragraph (2), a member may transfer under this
section any number of months of unused entitlement of the
member to educational assistance under this chapter.
``(2) In the case of a member who has completed at least
six but less than 12 years of service in the Selected Reserve
at the time of the approval by the Secretary concerned of the
member's request to transfer entitlement under this section,
the number of months that may be transferred by the member
under this section may not exceed the lesser of--
``(A) the number of months transferrable by the individual
under paragraph (1); or
[[Page 9022]]
``(B) 18 months.
``(e) Designation of Transferee.--A member transferring an
entitlement to educational assistance under this section
shall--
``(1) designate the dependent or dependents to whom such
entitlement is being transferred;
``(2) designate the number of months of such entitlement to
be transferred to each such dependent; and
``(3) specify the period for which the transfer shall be
effective for each dependent designated under paragraph (1).
``(f) Time for Transfer; Revocation and Modification.--(1)
Subject to the time limitation for use of entitlement under
section 16133 of this title, a member approved to transfer
entitlement to educational assistance under this section may
transfer such entitlement at any time after the approval of
the member's request to transfer such entitlement.
``(2)(A) A member transferring entitlement under this
section may modify or revoke at any time the transfer of any
unused portion of the entitlement so transferred.
``(B) The modification or revocation of the transfer of
entitlement under this paragraph shall be made by the
submittal of written notice of the action to both the
Secretary concerned and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
``(3) Entitlement transferred under this section may not be
treated as marital property, or the asset of a marital
estate, subject to division in a divorce or other civil
proceeding.
``(g) Commencement of Use.--A dependent to whom entitlement
to educational assistance is transferred under this section
may not commence the use of the transferred entitlement
until--
``(1) in the case of entitlement transferred to a spouse,
the completion by the member making the transfer of six years
of service in the Selected Reserve; or
``(2) in the case of entitlement transferred to a child,
both--
``(A) the completion by the member making the transfer of
six years of service in the Selected Reserve; and
``(B) either--
``(i) the completion by the child of the requirements of a
secondary school diploma (or equivalency certificate); or
``(ii) the attainment by the child of 18 years of age.
``(h) Additional Administrative Matters.--(1) The use of
any entitlement to educational assistance transferred under
this section shall be charged against the entitlement of the
member making the transfer at the rate of one month for each
month of transferred entitlement that is used.
``(2) Except as provided under subsection (e)(2) and
subject to paragraphs (5) and (6), a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section is entitled to
educational assistance under this chapter in the same manner
as the member from whom the entitlement was transferred.
``(3) The monthly rate of educational assistance payable to
a dependent to whom entitlement is transferred under this
section shall be the monthly amount payable to the member
making the transfer under section 16131 or 16132a of this
title, as applicable.
``(4)(A) The death of a member transferring entitlement
under this section shall not affect the use of the
entitlement by the dependent to whom the entitlement is
transferred.
``(B) The involuntary separation or retirement of a member
transferring entitlement under this section because of a
nondiscretionary provision of law for age or for years of
service, as described in section 16133(b) of this title, or
medical disqualification which is not the result of gross
negligence or misconduct of the member shall not affect the
use of entitlement by the dependent to whom the entitlement
is transferred.
``(5) A child to whom entitlement is transferred under this
section may not use any entitlement so transferred after
attaining the age of 26 years.
``(6) The purposes for which a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section may use such
entitlement shall include the pursuit and completion of the
requirements of a secondary school diploma (or equivalency
certificate).
``(7) The administrative provisions of this chapter shall
apply to the use of entitlement transferred under this
section, except that the dependent to whom the entitlement is
transferred shall be treated as the eligible member for
purposes of such provisions.
``(i) Overpayment.--(1) In the event of an overpayment of
educational assistance with respect to a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section, the dependent
and the member making the transfer shall be jointly and
severally liable to the United States for the amount of the
overpayment for purposes of section 3685 of title 38.
``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in the
case of a member transferring entitlement under this section
whose eligibility is terminated under section 16134(2) of
this title, the amount of any transferred entitlement under
this section that is used by a dependent of the member as of
the date of the failure of the member to participate
satisfactorily in training as specified in section 16134(2)
of this title shall be treated as an overpayment of
educational assistance under paragraph (1).
``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply in the case of a
member who fails to complete service agreed to by the
member--
``(i) by reason of the death of the member; or
``(ii) for a reason referred to in section 16133(b) of this
title.
``(j) Approvals of Transfer Subject to Availability of
Appropriations.--The Secretary concerned may approve
transfers of entitlement to educational assistance under this
section in a fiscal year only to the extent that
appropriations for military personnel are available in that
fiscal year for purposes of making deposits in the Department
of Defense Education Benefits Fund under section 2006 of this
title in that fiscal year to cover the present value of
future benefits payable from the Fund for the Department of
Defense portion of payments of educational assistance
attributable to increased usage of benefits as a result of
such transfers of entitlement in that fiscal year.
``(k) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
prescribe regulations for purposes of this section. Such
regulations shall specify the following:
``(1) The circumstances under which the Secretaries
concerned may permit and approve transfers of entitlement
under this section.
``(2) Such requirements for eligibility for transfer of
entitlement under this section as the Secretary of Defense
considers appropriate for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
``(3) The manner and effect of an election to modify or
revoke a transfer of entitlement under subsection (f)(2).''.
(B) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 1606 of such title is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 16131a the
following new item:
``16131b. Transfer of entitlement to educational assistance.''.
(2) Program for reserve components supporting contingency
and other operations.--
(A) In general.--Chapter 1607 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 16162a the
following new section:
``Sec. 16162b. Transfer of entitlement to educational
assistance
``(a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of this
section, the Secretary concerned may permit a member of the
Armed Forces described in subsection (b) who is entitled to
educational assistance under this chapter to elect to
transfer to one or more of the dependents specified in
subsection (c) a portion of such member's entitlement to such
assistance, subject to the limitations under subsection (d).
``(b) Eligible Members.--A member referred to in subsection
(a) is a member of the Armed Forces who, at the time of the
approval of the member's request to transfer entitlement to
educational assistance under this section--
``(1) has completed at least six years of service in the
Armed Forces; and
``(2) meets such other requirements as the Secretary of
Defense may prescribe for purposes of this section.
``(c) Eligible Dependents.--A member approved to transfer
an entitlement to educational assistance under this section
may transfer the member's entitlement as follows:
``(1) To the member's spouse.
``(2) To one or more of the member's children.
``(3) To a combination of the individuals referred to in
paragraphs (1) and (2).
``(d) Number of Months Transferrable.--(1) Except as
provided in paragraph (2), a member may transfer under this
section any number of months of unused entitlement of the
member to educational assistance under this chapter.
``(2) In the case of a member who has completed at least
six but less than 12 years of service in the Armed Forces at
the time of the approval by the Secretary concerned of the
member's request to transfer entitlement under this section,
the number of months that may be transferred by the member
under this section may not exceed the lesser of--
``(A) the number of months transferrable by the individual
under paragraph (1); or
``(B) 18 months.
``(e) Designation of Transferee.--A member transferring an
entitlement to educational assistance under this section
shall--
``(1) designate the dependent or dependents to whom such
entitlement is being transferred;
``(2) designate the number of months of such entitlement to
be transferred to each such dependent; and
``(3) specify the period for which the transfer shall be
effective for each dependent designated under paragraph (1).
``(f) Time for Transfer; Revocation and Modification.--(1)
Subject to the time limitation for use of entitlement under
section 16164 of this title, a member approved to transfer
entitlement to educational assistance under this section may
transfer such entitlement only while serving as a member
[[Page 9023]]
of the Armed Forces when the transfer is executed.
``(2)(A) A member transferring entitlement under this
section may modify or revoke at any time the transfer of any
unused portion of the entitlement so transferred.
``(B) The modification or revocation of the transfer of
entitlement under this paragraph shall be made by the
submittal of written notice of the action to both the
Secretary concerned and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
``(g) Commencement of Use.--A dependent to whom entitlement
to educational assistance as transferred under this section
may not commence the use of the transferred entitlement
until--
``(1) in the case of entitlement transferred to a spouse,
the completion by the member making the transfer of the years
of service in the Armed Forces applicable to the member under
subsection (b); or
``(2) in the case of entitlement transferred to a child,
both--
``(A) the completion by the member making the transfer of
the years of service in the Armed Forces applicable to the
member under subsection; and
``(B) either--
``(i) the completion by the child of the requirements of a
secondary school diploma (or equivalency certificate); or
``(ii) the attainment by the child of 18 years of age.
``(h) Additional Administrative Matters.--(1) The use of
any entitlement to educational assistance transferred under
this section shall be charged against the entitlement of the
member making the transfer at the rate of one month for each
month of transferred entitlement that is used.
``(2) Except as provided under subsection (e)(2) and
subject to paragraphs (5) and (6), a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section is entitled to
educational assistance under this chapter in the same manner
as the member from whom the entitlement was transferred.
``(3) The monthly rate of educational assistance payable to
a dependent to whom entitlement is transferred under this
section shall be the monthly amount payable to the member
making the transfer under section 16162 or 16162a of this
title, as applicable.
``(4) The death of a member transferring an entitlement
under this section shall not affect the use of the
entitlement by the dependent to whom the entitlement is
transferred.
``(5) A child to whom entitlement is transferred under this
section may not use any entitlement so transferred after
attaining the age of 26 years.
``(6) The purposes for which a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section may use such
entitlement shall include the pursuit and completion of the
requirements of a secondary school diploma (or equivalency
certificate).
``(7) The administrative provisions of this chapter shall
apply to the use of entitlement transferred under this
section, except that the dependent to whom the entitlement is
transferred shall be treated as the eligible member for
purposes of such provisions.
``(i) Overpayment.--In the event of an overpayment of
educational assistance with respect to a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section, the dependent
and the member making the transfer shall be jointly and
severally liable to the United States for the amount of the
overpayment for purposes of section 3685 of title 38.
``(j) Approvals of Transfer Subject to Availability of
Appropriations.--The Secretary concerned may approve
transfers of entitlement to educational assistance under this
section in a fiscal year only to the extent that
appropriations for military personnel are available in that
fiscal year for purposes of making deposits in the Department
of Defense Education Benefits Fund under section 2006 of this
title in that fiscal year to cover the present value of
future benefits payable from the Fund for the Department of
Defense portion of payments of educational assistance
attributable to increased usage of benefits as result of such
transfers of entitlement in that fiscal year.
``(k) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
prescribe regulations for purposes of this section. Such
regulations shall specify the following:
``(1) The circumstances under which the Secretaries
concerned may permit and approve transfers of entitlement
under this section.
``(2) Such requirements for eligibility for transfer of
entitlement under this section as the Secretary of Defense
considers appropriate for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
``(3) The manner and effect of an election to modify or
revoke a transfer of entitlement under subsection (f)(2).''.
(B) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 1607 of such title is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 16162a the
following new item:
``16162b. Transfer of entitlement to educational assistance.''.
(3) Funding under department of defense education benefits
fund.--Section 2006(b)(2)(D) of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, including payments attributable to increased
usage of benefits as a result of transfers of entitlement to
educational assistance under sections 16131b and 16162b of
this title''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on October 1, 2009.
SEC. 109. USE OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE TO REPAY FEDERAL
STUDENT LOANS.
(a) Use of Educational Assistance To Repay Federal Student
Loans.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 30 of title 38,
United States Code, as amended by section 104(a) of this Act,
is further amended by inserting after section 3020A the
following new section:
``Sec. 3020B. Use of basic educational assistance benefits
for repayment of Federal student loans
``(a) In General.--An individual entitled to basic
educational assistance under this subchapter who is serving
on active duty in the Armed Forces may elect to apply amounts
of basic educational assistance otherwise available to the
individual under this subchapter to repay all or a portion of
the outstanding principal and interest on any Federal student
loan owed by the individual for the individual's pursuit of a
course of education.
``(b) Designation of Loans and Amounts Payable.--An
individual electing under this section to apply amounts of
basic educational assistance to the payment of the
outstanding principal and interest on Federal student loans
shall designate (in such form and manner as the Secretary
shall prescribe for purposes of this section) the following:
``(1) Each Federal student loan of the individual for which
payment shall be made under this section.
``(2) For each Federal student loan designated under
paragraph (1), the monthly amount to be paid under this
section.
``(c) Limitation on Amount of Payments.--(1) The monthly
amount payable with respect to an individual under this
section may not exceed the monthly rate of basic educational
assistance to which the individual is otherwise entitled
under this subchapter at the time of payment of such monthly
amount.
``(2) The aggregate amount of basic educational assistance
payable with respect to an individual under this section for
any 12-month period may not exceed $6,000.
``(d) Frequency of Payments.--Payment of amounts of
principal and interest on Federal student loans of an
individual under this section shall be made on a monthly
basis.
``(e) Cessation of Payments.--Payments made under this
section with respect to an individual shall cease if the
individual ceases serving on active duty in the Armed Forces,
effective as of the first month that begins after the date on
which the individual ceases serving on active duty in the
Armed Forces.
``(f) Charge Against Entitlement.--The period of
entitlement to basic educational assistance under this
subchapter of an individual for whom payments are made under
this section shall be charged at the rate of one month for
each payment or aggregate of payments under this section that
are equivalent in amount to the monthly rate of basic
educational assistance to which the individual is otherwise
entitled under this subchapter.
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as the Secretary considers appropriate for
purposes of the administration of this section.
``(h) Federal Student Loan Defined.--In this section, the
term `Federal student loan' means any loan made under title
IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et
seq.).''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections of
subchapter II of chapter 30 of such title, as so amended, is
further amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 3020A the following new item:
``3020B. Use of basic educational assistance benefits for repayment of
Federal student loans.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 3020B of title 38, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with
respect to educational assistance payable for months that
begin on or after the date that is one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 110. EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR GRADUATES OF THE SERVICE
ACADEMIES AND RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS
PROGRAMS.
(a) Active Duty Program.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a)(1) of section 3011 of title
38, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) after September 30, 2009--
``(i) receives or has received a commission as an officer
in the Armed Forces--
``(I) upon graduation from the United States Military
Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States
Air Force Academy, or the Coast Guard Academy; or
``(II) upon completion of a Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps program under chapter 103 of title 10; and
[[Page 9024]]
``(ii) completes at least five years of continuous active
duty in the Armed Forces (excluding any period of obligated
service in connection with receipt of a commission as an
officer in the Armed Forces under clause (i) and excluding
any other period of obligated service in connection with
education, training, or instruction provided or funded,
whether in whole or in part, by the United States);''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(A) in subsection (b), by striking ``subsection (c)(1)''
and inserting ``subsection (c)'';
(B) in subsection (c)--
(i) by striking ``(1)'' after ``(c)''; and
(ii) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and
(C) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``subsection (c)(1)''
and inserting ``subsection (c)''.
(b) Selected Reserve Program.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a)(1) of section 3012 of such
title is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) after September 30, 2009--
``(i) receives or has received a commission as an officer
in the Armed Forces--
``(I) upon graduation from the United States Military
Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States
Air Force Academy, or the Coast Guard Academy; or
``(II) upon completion of a Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps program under chapter 103 of title 10; and
``(ii) completes at least five years of continuous active
duty in the Armed Forces (excluding any period of obligated
service in connection with receipt of a commission as an
officer in the Armed Forces under clause (i) and excluding
any other period of obligated service in connection with
education, training, or instruction provided or funded,
whether in whole or in part, by the United States);''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(A) in subsection (c), by striking ``subsection (d)(1)''
and inserting ``subsection (d)'';
(B) in subsection (d)--
(i) by striking ``(1)'' after ``(d)''; and
(ii) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and
(C) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``subsection (d)(1)''
and inserting ``subsection (d)''.
(c) Amount of Basic Educational Assistance.--Section
3015(c) of such title is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Paragraph (1) of this subsection also applies to the
following:
``(A) An individual entitled to an educational assistance
allowance under section 3011 of this title by reason of
subsection (a)(1)(D) of such section.
``(B) An individual entitled to an educational assistance
allowance under section 3012 of this title by reason of
subsection (a)(1)(D) of such section.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2009.
SEC. 111. OPPORTUNITY FOR CURRENT AND CERTAIN RETIRED VEAP-
ERA PERSONNEL TO ENROLL IN BASIC EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE UNDER THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL.
(a) Opportunity for Current and Certain Retired VEAP-Era
Personnel To Enroll.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 30 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 3018C the
following new section:
``Sec. 3018D. Opportunity for current and certain retired
VEAP-era personnel to enroll
``(a) In General.--An individual described in subsection
(b) who makes an election described in paragraph (5) of such
subsection is entitled to basic educational assistance under
this chapter, subject to the provisions of subsection (d).
``(b) Covered Individuals.--An individual described in this
subsection is an individual who meets each of the following
requirements:
``(1) The individual first became a member of the Armed
Forces or first entered on active duty as a member of the
Armed Forces on or after January 1, 1977, but before July 1,
1985.
``(2) The individual, as of the date of the individual's
election under paragraph (5)--
``(A) is serving on active duty without a break in service
(other than as described in section 3202(1)(C) of this title)
since the date the individual first became such a member or
first entered on active duty as such a member; or
``(B) is retired from the Armed Forces after serving at
least 20 years on active duty in the Armed Forces, which
service included service on active duty in the Armed Forces
on or after September 11, 2001, and elected not to
participate in the program of educational assistance under
chapter 32 of this title.
``(3) The individual, before applying for benefits under
this section, has completed the requirements of a secondary
school diploma (or equivalency certificate) or has
successfully completed the equivalent of 12 semester hours in
a program of education leading to a standard college degree,
but has not completed the requirements for nor been awarded a
bachelor's degree.
``(4) The individual--
``(A) in the case of an individual described by paragraph
(2)(A), is discharged with an honorable discharge or released
with service characterized as honorable by the Secretary
concerned; or
``(B) in the case of an individual described by paragraph
(2)(B), was discharged with an honorable discharge or
released with service characterized as honorable by the
Secretary concerned.
``(5) During the one-year period beginning on October 1,
2009, the individual makes an irrevocable election to receive
benefits under this section pursuant to procedures which the
Secretary of each military department shall provide in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense for the purpose of carrying out this section or which
the Secretary of Transportation shall provide for such
purpose with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not
operating as a service in the Navy.
``(c) Reduction of Pay; Collection and Payment of
Amounts.--(1) In the case of an individual described by
subsection (b) who makes an election under this section to
become entitled to basic educational assistance under this
chapter--
``(A) the basic pay or retired or retainer pay, as
applicable, of the individual shall be reduced (in a manner
determined by the Secretary concerned) until the total amount
by which such pay is reduced is $2,700; or
``(B) to the extent that the basic pay of the individual is
not so reduced before the individual's discharge or release
from active duty as described in subsection (d)(4)(A), the
Secretary concerned shall collect from the individual an
amount equal to the difference between $2,700 and the total
amount of reductions with respect to the individual under
subparagraph (A).
``(2) An individual covered by paragraph (1) may at any
time pay the Secretary concerned an amount equal to the
difference between the total of the reductions otherwise
required with respect to the individual under that paragraph
and the total amount of the reductions with respect to the
individual under that paragraph at the time of the payment.
``(3) Any amounts collected under paragraph (1)(B) or paid
under paragraph (2) shall be paid into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.
``(4) The total amount of reductions in pay, or of
collections or payments, required with respect to an
individual under paragraph (1) shall be achieved not later
than 12 months after the date on which the individual makes
an election under subsection (b)(5).
``(5) No amount of educational assistance allowance under
this chapter shall be paid to an individual covered by
paragraph (1) until the date on which the total amount of
reductions in pay, or of collections or payments, required
with respect to the individual under paragraph (1) is
achieved.
``(d) Limitations on Basic Educational Assistance.--(1) The
basic educational assistance allowance payable under this
chapter to an individual entitled to such educational
assistance allowance under this section shall be payable at
the monthly rate of basic educational assistance payable
under section 3015(a)(1)(B) of this title.
``(2) Basic educational assistance under this section shall
be available only for pursuit of a non-degree vocational
training program, an associate degree, or a bachelor's
degree, but shall not be available for pursuit of a masters
degree or other advanced college degree.
``(3) An individual entitled under this section to basic
educational assistance under this chapter is entitled to the
educational stipend provided under section 3020A of this
title.
``(4)(A) Entitlement under this section to basic
educational assistance under this chapter is not
transferrable under the provisions of section 3020 of this
title.
``(B) An individual entitled under this section to basic
educational assistance under this chapter is not eligible for
the following:
``(i) The use of basic educational assistance benefits
under this chapter for the repayment of Federal student loans
under section 3020B of this title.
``(ii) Supplemental educational assistance authorized by
subchapter III of this chapter.
``(5)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the
provisions of section 3031 of this title shall apply to the
use of entitlement under this section to basic educational
assistance under this chapter.
``(B) In the case of an individual entitled under this
section to basic educational assistance under this chapter
who is described by subsection (b)(2)(B), the period during
which the individual may use such entitlement expires on
October 1, 2019.
``(e) Outreach.--The Secretary shall, in coordination with
the Secretary of Defense,
[[Page 9025]]
provide for notice of the opportunity under this section to
elect to become entitled to basic educational assistance
under this chapter.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 30 of such title is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 3018C the following new
item:
``3018D. Opportunity for current and certain retired VEAP-era personnel
to enroll.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 3017(b)(1) of such
title is amended--
(1) in subparagraphs (A) and (C), by striking ``or
3018C(e)'' and inserting ``3018C(e), or 3018D(c)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or 3018C(e) of this
title'' after ``section 3018C(e), or 3018D(c) of this title
or paid by the individual under section 3018D(c) of this
title''.
SEC. 112. COLLEGE PATRIOTS GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Program Authorized.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 36 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subchapter:
``SUBCHAPTER IV--COLLEGE PATRIOTS GRANTS
``Sec. 3699A. College Patriots Grant Program
``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to
provide, through a partnership with the Department and
institutions of higher education, supplemental educational
grants to assist in making available the benefits of
postsecondary education to qualified veterans by meeting such
veterans' unmet financial need.
``(b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall carry
out a supplemental educational grant program under which--
``(1) an institution of higher education participating in
the program voluntarily provides a covered individual
enrolled in the institution with the non-Federal share of a
percentage of the covered individual's unmet financial need
determined in accordance with subsection (e); and
``(2) the Secretary provides the Federal share of a
percentage of the covered individual's unmet financial need
determined in accordance with subsection (e).
``(c) Designation of Program.--The program under this
section shall be known as the `College Patriots Grant
Program'.
``(d) Institutional Eligibility Criteria.--Assistance may
be made available under this section only to an institution
of higher education that satisfies any criteria specified by
the Secretary. Such criteria shall include an agreement or
other appropriate assurance from the institution of higher
education that--
``(1) the non-Federal share of a covered individual's unmet
financial need awarded under this section shall be provided
from non-Federal resources, including--
``(A) institutional grants and scholarships;
``(B) tuition or fee waivers;
``(C) State scholarships; and
``(D) foundation or other charitable organization funds;
and
``(2) funds made available under this section shall be
provided to a covered individual for whom the institution of
higher education has made a determination that the covered
individual has an unmet financial need, which determination
shall be made before including Federal student loans under
title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 in the covered
individual's financial aid package.
``(e) Federal Share; Non-Federal Share.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not approve an
institution of higher education for participation in the
College Patriots Grant Program unless the institution of
higher education has provided, in the manner required by the
Secretary, the following:
``(A) An agreement or other assurance that the institution
of higher education will provide the non-Federal share in
accordance with this subsection.
``(B) Information on the specific methods by which the non-
Federal share shall be paid.
``(C) An acknowledgment that the non-Federal share provided
under this subsection shall supplement and not supplant other
Federal and non-Federal funds.
``(2) Federal and non-federal shares.--Each institution of
higher education participating in the program under this
section shall select one of the three contribution percentage
tiers described in paragraph (3) for purposes of meeting a
percentage of the unmet financial needs of covered
individuals enrolled in the institution.
``(3) Percentage contribution tiers.--
``(A) 25 percent tier.--In the case of a covered individual
enrolled in the institution who has an unmet financial need
that is--
``(i) less than $8,000, the non-Federal share shall be 12.5
percent of the unmet financial need and the Federal share
shall be 12.5 percent of the unmet financial need, except
that the Federal share shall not exceed $1,000; and
``(ii) equal to or greater than $8,000, the Federal share
shall be $1,000 and the non-Federal share shall be 25 percent
of the covered individual's unmet financial need minus
$1,000.
``(B) 50 percent tier.--In the case of a covered individual
enrolled in the institution who has an unmet financial need
that is--
``(i) less than $8,000, the non-Federal share shall be 25
percent of the unmet financial need and the Federal share
shall be 25 percent of the unmet financial need, except that
the Federal share shall not exceed $2,000; and
``(ii) equal to or greater than $8,000, the Federal share
shall be $2,000 and the non-Federal share shall be 50 percent
of the covered individual's unmet financial need minus
$2,000.
``(C) 100 percent tier.--In the case of a covered
individual enrolled in the institution who has an unmet
financial need that is--
``(i) less than $6,000, the non-Federal share shall be 50
percent of the unmet financial need and the Federal share
shall be 50 percent of the unmet financial need, except that
the Federal share shall not exceed $3,000; and
``(ii) equal to or greater than $6,000, the Federal share
shall be $3,000 and the non-Federal share shall be 100
percent of the covered individual's unmet financial need
minus $3,000.
``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe
regulations necessary to implement and administer the College
Patriots Grant Program, including regulations establishing
the procedures for determining eligibility for the program,
applying for supplemental educational grants under the
program, and distributing the Federal share provided by the
Secretary under the program.
``(g) Outreach.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in
coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary
of Education, shall--
``(1) make available to the public on the Internet website
of the Department--
``(A) a current list of institutions of higher education
participating in the College Patriots Grant Program; and
``(B) information on the extent of participation of each
institution of higher education participating in the College
Patriots Grant Program;
``(2) make available to the public on the Internet website
of the Department information about all Federal and State
education benefits that members of the regular components of
the Armed Forces, members of the reserve components of the
Armed Forces, veterans, and their dependents may be eligible
to receive; and
``(3) make available to institutions of higher education
information about the College Patriots Grant Program and take
appropriate actions to encourage broad participation of
institutions of higher education in the program.
``(h) Awards for Institutional Recognition.--The Secretary
may establish and administer an awards program to recognize
the extent of an institution of higher education's
participation in the College Patriots Grant Program.
``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Cost of attendance.--The term `cost of attendance'
has the meaning given the term in section 472 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ll).
``(2) Covered individual.--The term `covered individual'
means an individual who--
``(A) is enrolled in an institution of higher education
that is participating in the College Patriots Grant Program;
``(B) has such amount of remaining entitlement to
educational assistance under chapter 30 or 32 of this title,
or under chapter 1606 or 1607 of title 10, as the Secretary
may require for purposes of this section; and
``(C) after receipt of any of the educational assistance
described in subparagraph (B), has an unmet financial need to
attend the institution of higher education for which a
supplemental educational grant is sought.
``(3) Institution of higher education.--The term
`institution of higher education' has the meaning given the
term in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1002).
``(4) Unmet financial need.--The term `unmet financial
need' means, with respect to a covered individual, the cost
of attendance for the covered individual to attend an
institution of higher education participating in the College
Patriots Grant Program, minus the sum of--
``(A) grant and work assistance received by the covered
individual under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.); and
``(B) any educational assistance payments received by the
covered individual through any programs administered by the
Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of
Defense.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 36 of such title is amended by adding at
the end the following new items:
``subchapter iv--college patriots grants
``3699A. College Patriots Grant Program.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, and shall apply to terms, quarters, or semesters
beginning on or after that date.
SEC. 113. TERMINATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE
MONTGOMERY GI BILL PROGRAM.
(a) Active Duty Program.--Notwithstanding subsection (b) of
section 3011 of title 38, United States Code, no reduction in
basic pay otherwise required by such section shall be made in
the case of a member of the Armed Forces who first enters on
active duty on or after the date of the enactment of this Act
and elects to receive basic educational assistance under such
section.
[[Page 9026]]
(b) Selected Reserve Program.--Notwithstanding subsection
(c) of section 3012 of such title, no reduction in basic pay
otherwise required by such section shall be made in the case
of a member of the Armed Forces who first becomes eligible
for basic educational assistance under such section on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act and elects to
receive basic educational assistance under such section.
SEC. 114. MODIFICATION OF SERVICE REQUIREMENT FOR EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE FOR RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBERS
SUPPORTING CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS AND OTHER
OPERATIONS WITH EXTENDED SERVICE IN THE
SELECTED RESERVE.
(a) In General.--Section 16162(c)(4) of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by striking subparagraphs (A) through
(C) and inserting the following new subparagraphs:
``(A) 40 percent in the case of a member of a reserve
component who performed active service for--
``(i) 90 consecutive days but less than one continuous
year; or
``(ii) an aggregate of one year but less than two years,
none of which was continuous service of one year or more;
``(B) 60 percent in the case of a member of a reserve
component who performed active service for--
``(i) one continuous year but less than two continuous
years; or
``(ii) an aggregate of two years but less than three years,
none of which was continuous service of two years or more; or
``(C) 80 percent in the case of a member of a reserve
component who performed active service for--
``(i) two continuous years or more; or
``(ii) an aggregate of three years or more.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2008, and shall apply with
respect to educational assistance payable for months
beginning on or after that date.
SEC. 115. MODIFICATION OF FORMULA FOR DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL
COST ADJUSTMENT IN RATES OF EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE.
(a) Active Duty Program.--Section 3015(h) of title 38,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``With respect to any fiscal year'' and
inserting ``Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), with respect
to any fiscal year''; and
(B) by striking ``the percentage by which--'' and all that
follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting ``the
percentage increase in the average cost of tuition, fees,
room, and board at public four-year institutions of higher
education (as determined by the Secretary in consultation
with the Secretary of Education and Secretary of Defense)
over the one-year period ending on the June 30 preceding the
beginning of the fiscal year for which the increase is
made.'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph (2):
``(2) With respect to any fiscal year, in no event shall
the increase in rates under paragraph (1) be less than a
percentage increase equal to the percentage by which--
``(A) the Consumer Price Index (all items, United States
city average) for the 12-month period ending on the June 30
preceding the beginning of the fiscal year for which the
increase is made, exceeds
``(B) such Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period
preceding that 12-month period.''.
(b) Selected Reserve Program.--Section 16131(b)(2) of title
10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``With respect to any fiscal year'' and
inserting ``(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), with respect to
any fiscal year'';
(2) by striking ``the percentage by which--'' and all that
follows and inserting ``the percentage increase in the
average cost of tuition, fees, room, and board at public
four-year institutions of higher education (as determined by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in consultation with the
Secretary of Education and Secretary of Defense) over the
one-year period ending on the June 30 preceding the beginning
of the fiscal year for which the increase is made.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) With respect to any fiscal year, in no event shall
the increase in rates under subparagraph (A) be less than a
percentage increase equal to the percentage by which--
``(i) the Consumer Price Index (all items, United States
city average) for the 12-month period ending on the June 30
preceding the beginning of the fiscal year for which the
increase is made, exceeds
``(ii) such Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period
preceding that 12-month period.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2009, and shall apply with
respect to fiscal years that begin on or after that date.
______
SA 4764. Mr. McCONNELL proposed an amendment to amendment SA 4763
proposed by Mr. Graham (for himself, Mr. Burr, and Mr. McCain) to the
bill H.R. 980, to provide collective bargaining rights for public
safety officers by States or their political subdivisions; as follows:
Strike in the amendment the word TITLE and add the
following:
I--EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND VETERANS
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Enhancement of
Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education
Act of 2008''.
SEC. 102. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The World War II-era GI Bill assisted almost 8,000,000
members of the Armed Forces in readjusting to civilian life
after completing their service to the nation. With the
support and assistance of America's colleges and
universities, the GI Bill provided incentives that
transformed American society, making a college degree a
realizable goal for millions of Americans.
(2) In the years following World War II, the GI Bill
continued to provide educational benefits for members of the
Armed Forces who had been drafted into or volunteered for
service.
(3) The establishment of the All Volunteer Force in 1973,
and its development since its inception, has produced highly
professional Armed Forces that are recognized as the most
effective fighting force the world has ever seen.
(4) The Sonny Montgomery GI Bill was enacted in 1984 to
sustain the All Volunteer Force by providing educational
benefits to aid in the recruitment and retention of highly
qualified personnel for the Armed Forces and to assist
veterans in readjusting to civilian life. Today, it remains a
cornerstone of military recruiting and retention planning for
the Armed Forces and continues to fulfill its original
purposes.
(5) The All Volunteer Force depends for its effectiveness
and vitality on successful recruiting of highly capable men
and women, and retention for careers of soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines, in both the active and reserve
components of the Armed Forces, who, with the support of
their families and loved ones, develop into professional,
dedicated, and experienced officers, noncommissioned
officers, and petty officers.
(6) The achievement of educational goals, including
obtaining the means to a college degree, has traditionally
been a key reason for volunteering for service in the Armed
Forces. For members who serve a career in the Armed Forces,
this goal extends to their spouses and children and has
resulted in requests for the option to transfer educational
benefits under the GI Bill to spouses and children.
(7) As in the aftermath of World War II, colleges and
universities throughout the United States should demonstrate
their and the Nation's appreciation to veterans by dedicated
programs providing financial aid.
(8) It is in that national interest for the United States--
(A) to express the gratitude of the American people by
assisting those who have honorably served in the Armed Forces
and returned to civilian life to achieve their educational
goals;
(B) to provide significant educational benefits to provide
incentives for successful recruiting;
(C) to motivate continued service in the All Volunteer
Force by those members with the potential for military
careers and their spouses and children; and
(D) to assist those who serve and their families in
achieving their personal goals, including higher education,
while progressing in a military career.
SEC. 103. PLAN ON COORDINATION OF CURRENT EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND DEVELOPMENT OF
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS TO
ENABLE CAREER-ORIENTED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES TO ATTAIN A BACHELOR'S DEGREE.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the outstanding men and women who volunteer for service
in the Armed Forces and demonstrate through their service the
ability, motivation, and commitment to serve as career
commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers, petty
officers, and warrant officers should be given the
opportunities and resources needed to obtain a bachelor's
degree before they complete active duty and retire from the
Armed Forces; and
(2) every effort should be made by the leaders of the Army,
Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard to demonstrate
to members of the Armed Forces who are willing to serve and
study that the dual goals of attaining a bachelor's degree
and a distinguished military career are achievable and not
mutually exclusive.
(b) Plan To Coordinate and Develop Educational Assistance
Programs.--
(1) Plan required.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, develop
a plan to make the attainment of a bachelor's degree an
achievable goal for members of the Armed Forces who are
motivated towards careers in the Armed Forces and who are
able and willing to accept the challenges of military duty
and pursuit of college level studies.
[[Page 9027]]
(2) Advice of the service chiefs.--The Secretary of Defense
shall develop the plan required by paragraph (1) with the
advice of the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Naval
Operations, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps.
(3) Elements.--The plan required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) Appropriate elements of current programs to assist
members of the Armed Forces in obtaining college-level
education, including tuition assistance programs, distance
learning programs, and technical training and education
provided by the military departments, including programs
currently administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
(B) Appropriate elements of current programs to provide
members of the Armed Forces with assistance in obtaining
college-level credit for the technical training and
experience they undergo during their military career.
(C) One or more additional education programs to assist
members of the Armed Forces in obtaining a college-level
education, including mechanisms for the provision by the
military departments of guidance, mentoring, and resources to
assist members in achieving their professional military and
personal educational goals.
(D) Such additional programs or mechanisms, such as
sabbaticals from the Armed Forces or college-level education
provided or funded by the military departments, as the
Secretary of Defense considers appropriate to assist members
of the Armed Forces in making adequate progress towards a
bachelor's degree from an accredited institution of higher
education while continuing a successful military career.
(E) Such mechanisms for the application of the elements of
the plan to members of the National Guard and Reserves as the
Secretary of Defense considers appropriate to ensure that
such members receive appropriate assistance in achieving
their professional military and personal educational goals.
(F) Such elements of current programs of the military
departments for in-service education of members of the Armed
Forces as the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate to
maintain and enhance the recruitment and retention by the
Armed Forces of highly trained and experienced military
leaders.
(4) Submittal to congress.--The Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives a report setting forth the plan
required by paragraph (1) not later than August 1, 2009.
SEC. 104. INCREASE IN RATES OF BASIC EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL.
(a) Increase in General Rates and Augmented Rates for
Extended Service.--
(1) Rates based on three years of obligated service.--
Subsection (a)(1) of section 3015 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``on a full-time basis, at the
monthly rate of'' and all that follows and inserting ``on a
full-time basis--
``(A) in the case of an individual who served on active
duty in the Armed Forces for 12 or more years, at the monthly
rate of--
``(i) for months occurring during fiscal year 2009, $1,650;
``(ii) for months occurring during fiscal year 2010,
$1,800;
``(iii) for months occurring during fiscal year 2011,
$2,000; and
``(iv) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal
year, the amount for months occurring during the preceding
fiscal year increased under subsection (h); and
``(B) in the case of an individual who served on active
duty in the Armed Forces for less than 12 years, at the
monthly rate of--
``(i) for months occurring during fiscal year 2009, $1,500;
and
``(ii) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal
year, the amount for months occurring during the preceding
fiscal year increased under subsection (h); or''.
(2) Rates based on two years of obligated service.--
Subsection (b)(1) of such section is amended--
(A) by striking subparagraphs (A) through (C) and inserting
the following new subparagraph (A):
``(A) for months occurring during fiscal year 2009, $950;
and''; and
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (B).
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2008, and shall apply with
respect to basic educational assistance payable for months
beginning on or after that date.
(2) Limitation on cost-of-living adjustments.--
(A) Certain rates based on three years of obligated
service.--No adjustment under subsection (h) of section 3015
of title 38, United States Code, shall be made in the rates
of educational assistance payable under subsection (a)(1)(A)
of such section (as amended by subsection (a)(1) of this
section) for any of fiscal years 2009 through 2011.
(B) Other rates.--No adjustment under subsection (h) of
section 3015 of title 38, United States Code, shall be made
in the rates of educational assistance payable under
subsection (a)(1)(B) of such section (as so amended), or
subsection (b) of such section, for fiscal year 2009.
SEC. 105. ANNUAL STIPEND FOR RECIPIENTS OF BASIC EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE UNDER THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL.
(a) Entitlement to Stipend.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 30 of title 38,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 3020A. Educational stipend
``(a) Entitlement.--Each individual receiving basic
educational assistance under this subchapter who is pursuing
a program of education at an institution of higher learning
(as such term is defined in section 3452(f) of this title) is
entitled to an educational stipend under this section.
``(b) Amount of Stipend.--The educational stipend payable
under this section to an individual entitled to such a
stipend shall be paid--
``(1) in the case of an individual pursuing an approved
program of education on at least a half-time basis, at the
annual rate of $1,000; and
``(2) in the case of an individual pursuing an approved
program of education on less than a half-time basis, at the
annual rate of $500.
``(c) Payment Frequency and Method.--The educational
stipend payable under this subsection shall be paid with such
frequency (including by lump sum), and by such mechanisms, as
the Secretary shall prescribe for purposes of this
section.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 30 of such title is amended by adding at
the end of the items relating to subchapter II the following
new item:
``3020A. Educational stipend.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 3020A of title 38, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on
the date that is one year after the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 106. INCREASE IN RATES OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR
MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED RESERVE.
(a) Increase in Rates.--Section 16131(b)(1) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$251'' and inserting
``$634'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$188'' and inserting
``$474''; and
(3) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``$125'' and inserting
``$314''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2008, and shall apply with
respect to educational assistance payable for months
beginning on or after that date.
(2) No cost-of-living adjustment.--No adjustment under
paragraph (2) of section 16131(b) of title 10, United States
Code, shall be made in the rates of educational assistance
payable under paragraph (1) of such section for fiscal year
2009.
SEC. 107. INCREASE IN RATES OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR
RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBERS SUPPORTING
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS AND OTHER OPERATIONS
WITH EXTENDED SERVICE IN THE SELECTED RESERVE.
(a) Increase in Rates for Extended Service.--Paragraph (2)
of section 16162(c) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(2) The educational assistance allowance provided under
this chapter shall be the amount as follows (as adjusted
under paragraphs (3) and (4)):
``(A) In the case of a member who serves an aggregate of 12
years or more in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve,
the amount provided under section 3015(a)(1)(A) of title 38
for the fiscal year concerned, except that if a member
otherwise covered by this subparagraph ceases serving in the
Selected Reserve the amount shall be the amount provided
under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
``(B) In the case of any other member, the amount provided
under section 3015(a)(1)(B) of title 38 for the fiscal year
concerned.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2008, and shall apply with
respect to educational assistance payable for months
beginning on or after that date.
SEC. 108. ENHANCEMENT OF TRANSFERABILITY OF ENTITLEMENT TO
EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) Modification of Authority To Transfer Entitlement Under
Montgomery GI Bill.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 3020 of title
38, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of this
section, the Secretary of Defense shall authorize each
Secretary concerned to permit an individual described in
subsection (b) who is entitled to basic educational
assistance under this subchapter to elect to transfer to one
or more of the dependents specified in subsection (c) the
unused portion of such individual's entitlement to such
assistance, subject to the limitation under subsection
(d).''.
(2) Eligible individuals.--Subsection (b) of such section
is amended to read as follows:
[[Page 9028]]
``(b) Eligible Individuals.--An individual referred to in
subsection (a) is any member of the Armed Forces serving on
active duty or as a member of the Selected Reserve who, at
the time of the approval by the Secretary concerned of the
member's request to transfer entitlement to basic educational
assistance under this section--
``(1) has completed six years of service in the Armed
Forces; and
``(2) meets such other requirements as the Secretary of
Defense may prescribe for purposes of this section.''.
(3) Limitations on months of transfer.--Subsection (d) of
such section is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Number of Months Transferrable.--(1) Except as
provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), an individual may
transfer under this section any number of months of unused
entitlement of the individual to basic educational assistance
under this chapter.
``(2) In the case of an individual who has completed at
least six but less than 12 years of service in the Armed
Forces at the time of the approval by the Secretary concerned
of the individual's request to transfer entitlement under
this section, the number of months that may be transferred by
the individual under this section may not exceed the lesser
of--
``(A) the number of months transferrable by the individual
under paragraph (1); or
``(B) 18 months.''.
(4) Timing, revocation, and modification of transfer.--
Subsection (f) of such section is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``without regard'' and
all that follows and inserting ``while the individual is a
member of the Armed Forces.''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``while the
individual is serving as a member of the Armed Forces or in
the Selected Reserve'' after ``at any time''.
(5) Exclusion from marital property.--Subsection (f) of
such section is further amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(3) Entitlement transferred under this section may not be
treated as marital property, or the asset of a marital
estate, subject to division in a divorce or other civil
proceeding.''.
(6) Overpayment.--Subsection (i) of such section is
amended--
(A) by striking ``(1)'' before ``In the event''; and
(B) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3).
(7) Regulations.--Subsection (k) of such section is amended
to read as follows:
``(k) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
coordination with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
prescribe regulations for purposes of this section. Such
regulations shall specify the following:
``(1) The circumstances under which the Secretaries
concerned may permit and approve transfers of entitlement
under this section.
``(2) Such requirements for eligibility for transfer of
entitlement under this section as the Secretary of Defense
considers appropriate for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
``(3) The manner and effect of an election to modify or
revoke a transfer of entitlement under subsection (f)(2).''.
(8) Heading amendment.--The heading of such section is
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational
assistance''.
(9) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 30 of such title is amended by striking
the item relating to section 3020 and inserting the
following:
``3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational assistance.''.
(b) Authority for Transfer of Entitlement Under Reserve
Components Educational Assistance Programs.--
(1) Selected reserve program.--
(A) In general.--Chapter 1606 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 16131a the
following new section:
``Sec. 16131b. Transfer of entitlement to educational
assistance
``(a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of this
section, the Secretary concerned may permit a member of the
Armed Forces described in subsection (b) who is entitled to
educational assistance under this chapter to elect to
transfer to one or more of the dependents specified in
subsection (c) a portion of such member's entitlement to such
assistance, subject to the limitations under subsection (d).
``(b) Eligible Members.--A member described in this
subsection is a member of the Selected Reserve of the Ready
Reserve who, at the time of the approval of the member's
request to transfer entitlement to educational assistance
under this section--
``(1) has completed at least six years of service in the
Selected Reserve; and
``(2) meets such other requirements as the Secretary of
Defense may prescribe for purposes of this section.
``(c) Eligible Dependents.--A member approved to transfer
an entitlement to educational assistance under this section
may transfer the member's entitlement as follows:
``(1) To the member's spouse.
``(2) To one or more of the member's children.
``(3) To a combination of the individuals referred to in
paragraphs (1) and (2).
``(d) Number of Months Transferrable.--(1) Except as
provided in paragraph (2), a member may transfer under this
section any number of months of unused entitlement of the
member to educational assistance under this chapter.
``(2) In the case of a member who has completed at least
six but less than 12 years of service in the Selected Reserve
at the time of the approval by the Secretary concerned of the
member's request to transfer entitlement under this section,
the number of months that may be transferred by the member
under this section may not exceed the lesser of--
``(A) the number of months transferrable by the individual
under paragraph (1); or
``(B) 18 months.
``(e) Designation of Transferee.--A member transferring an
entitlement to educational assistance under this section
shall--
``(1) designate the dependent or dependents to whom such
entitlement is being transferred;
``(2) designate the number of months of such entitlement to
be transferred to each such dependent; and
``(3) specify the period for which the transfer shall be
effective for each dependent designated under paragraph (1).
``(f) Time for Transfer; Revocation and Modification.--(1)
Subject to the time limitation for use of entitlement under
section 16133 of this title, a member approved to transfer
entitlement to educational assistance under this section may
transfer such entitlement at any time after the approval of
the member's request to transfer such entitlement.
``(2)(A) A member transferring entitlement under this
section may modify or revoke at any time the transfer of any
unused portion of the entitlement so transferred.
``(B) The modification or revocation of the transfer of
entitlement under this paragraph shall be made by the
submittal of written notice of the action to both the
Secretary concerned and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
``(3) Entitlement transferred under this section may not be
treated as marital property, or the asset of a marital
estate, subject to division in a divorce or other civil
proceeding.
``(g) Commencement of Use.--A dependent to whom entitlement
to educational assistance is transferred under this section
may not commence the use of the transferred entitlement
until--
``(1) in the case of entitlement transferred to a spouse,
the completion by the member making the transfer of six years
of service in the Selected Reserve; or
``(2) in the case of entitlement transferred to a child,
both--
``(A) the completion by the member making the transfer of
six years of service in the Selected Reserve; and
``(B) either--
``(i) the completion by the child of the requirements of a
secondary school diploma (or equivalency certificate); or
``(ii) the attainment by the child of 18 years of age.
``(h) Additional Administrative Matters.--(1) The use of
any entitlement to educational assistance transferred under
this section shall be charged against the entitlement of the
member making the transfer at the rate of one month for each
month of transferred entitlement that is used.
``(2) Except as provided under subsection (e)(2) and
subject to paragraphs (5) and (6), a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section is entitled to
educational assistance under this chapter in the same manner
as the member from whom the entitlement was transferred.
``(3) The monthly rate of educational assistance payable to
a dependent to whom entitlement is transferred under this
section shall be the monthly amount payable to the member
making the transfer under section 16131 or 16132a of this
title, as applicable.
``(4)(A) The death of a member transferring entitlement
under this section shall not affect the use of the
entitlement by the dependent to whom the entitlement is
transferred.
``(B) The involuntary separation or retirement of a member
transferring entitlement under this section because of a
nondiscretionary provision of law for age or for years of
service, as described in section 16133(b) of this title, or
medical disqualification which is not the result of gross
negligence or misconduct of the member shall not affect the
use of entitlement by the dependent to whom the entitlement
is transferred.
``(5) A child to whom entitlement is transferred under this
section may not use any entitlement so transferred after
attaining the age of 26 years.
``(6) The purposes for which a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section may use such
entitlement shall include the pursuit and completion of the
requirements of a secondary school diploma (or equivalency
certificate).
``(7) The administrative provisions of this chapter shall
apply to the use of entitlement transferred under this
section, except that
[[Page 9029]]
the dependent to whom the entitlement is transferred shall be
treated as the eligible member for purposes of such
provisions.
``(i) Overpayment.--(1) In the event of an overpayment of
educational assistance with respect to a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section, the dependent
and the member making the transfer shall be jointly and
severally liable to the United States for the amount of the
overpayment for purposes of section 3685 of title 38.
``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in the
case of a member transferring entitlement under this section
whose eligibility is terminated under section 16134(2) of
this title, the amount of any transferred entitlement under
this section that is used by a dependent of the member as of
the date of the failure of the member to participate
satisfactorily in training as specified in section 16134(2)
of this title shall be treated as an overpayment of
educational assistance under paragraph (1).
``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply in the case of a
member who fails to complete service agreed to by the
member--
``(i) by reason of the death of the member; or
``(ii) for a reason referred to in section 16133(b) of this
title.
``(j) Approvals of Transfer Subject to Availability of
Appropriations.--The Secretary concerned may approve
transfers of entitlement to educational assistance under this
section in a fiscal year only to the extent that
appropriations for military personnel are available in that
fiscal year for purposes of making deposits in the Department
of Defense Education Benefits Fund under section 2006 of this
title in that fiscal year to cover the present value of
future benefits payable from the Fund for the Department of
Defense portion of payments of educational assistance
attributable to increased usage of benefits as a result of
such transfers of entitlement in that fiscal year.
``(k) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
prescribe regulations for purposes of this section. Such
regulations shall specify the following:
``(1) The circumstances under which the Secretaries
concerned may permit and approve transfers of entitlement
under this section.
``(2) Such requirements for eligibility for transfer of
entitlement under this section as the Secretary of Defense
considers appropriate for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
``(3) The manner and effect of an election to modify or
revoke a transfer of entitlement under subsection (f)(2).''.
(B) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 1606 of such title is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 16131a the
following new item:
``16131b. Transfer of entitlement to educational assistance.''.
(2) Program for reserve components supporting contingency
and other operations.--
(A) In general.--Chapter 1607 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 16162a the
following new section:
``Sec. 16162b. Transfer of entitlement to educational
assistance
``(a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of this
section, the Secretary concerned may permit a member of the
Armed Forces described in subsection (b) who is entitled to
educational assistance under this chapter to elect to
transfer to one or more of the dependents specified in
subsection (c) a portion of such member's entitlement to such
assistance, subject to the limitations under subsection (d).
``(b) Eligible Members.--A member referred to in subsection
(a) is a member of the Armed Forces who, at the time of the
approval of the member's request to transfer entitlement to
educational assistance under this section--
``(1) has completed at least six years of service in the
Armed Forces; and
``(2) meets such other requirements as the Secretary of
Defense may prescribe for purposes of this section.
``(c) Eligible Dependents.--A member approved to transfer
an entitlement to educational assistance under this section
may transfer the member's entitlement as follows:
``(1) To the member's spouse.
``(2) To one or more of the member's children.
``(3) To a combination of the individuals referred to in
paragraphs (1) and (2).
``(d) Number of Months Transferrable.--(1) Except as
provided in paragraph (2), a member may transfer under this
section any number of months of unused entitlement of the
member to educational assistance under this chapter.
``(2) In the case of a member who has completed at least
six but less than 12 years of service in the Armed Forces at
the time of the approval by the Secretary concerned of the
member's request to transfer entitlement under this section,
the number of months that may be transferred by the member
under this section may not exceed the lesser of--
``(A) the number of months transferrable by the individual
under paragraph (1); or
``(B) 18 months.
``(e) Designation of Transferee.--A member transferring an
entitlement to educational assistance under this section
shall--
``(1) designate the dependent or dependents to whom such
entitlement is being transferred;
``(2) designate the number of months of such entitlement to
be transferred to each such dependent; and
``(3) specify the period for which the transfer shall be
effective for each dependent designated under paragraph (1).
``(f) Time for Transfer; Revocation and Modification.--(1)
Subject to the time limitation for use of entitlement under
section 16164 of this title, a member approved to transfer
entitlement to educational assistance under this section may
transfer such entitlement only while serving as a member of
the Armed Forces when the transfer is executed.
``(2)(A) A member transferring entitlement under this
section may modify or revoke at any time the transfer of any
unused portion of the entitlement so transferred.
``(B) The modification or revocation of the transfer of
entitlement under this paragraph shall be made by the
submittal of written notice of the action to both the
Secretary concerned and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
``(g) Commencement of Use.--A dependent to whom entitlement
to educational assistance as transferred under this section
may not commence the use of the transferred entitlement
until--
``(1) in the case of entitlement transferred to a spouse,
the completion by the member making the transfer of the years
of service in the Armed Forces applicable to the member under
subsection (b); or
``(2) in the case of entitlement transferred to a child,
both--
``(A) the completion by the member making the transfer of
the years of service in the Armed Forces applicable to the
member under subsection; and
``(B) either--
``(i) the completion by the child of the requirements of a
secondary school diploma (or equivalency certificate); or
``(ii) the attainment by the child of 18 years of age.
``(h) Additional Administrative Matters.--(1) The use of
any entitlement to educational assistance transferred under
this section shall be charged against the entitlement of the
member making the transfer at the rate of one month for each
month of transferred entitlement that is used.
``(2) Except as provided under subsection (e)(2) and
subject to paragraphs (5) and (6), a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section is entitled to
educational assistance under this chapter in the same manner
as the member from whom the entitlement was transferred.
``(3) The monthly rate of educational assistance payable to
a dependent to whom entitlement is transferred under this
section shall be the monthly amount payable to the member
making the transfer under section 16162 or 16162a of this
title, as applicable.
``(4) The death of a member transferring an entitlement
under this section shall not affect the use of the
entitlement by the dependent to whom the entitlement is
transferred.
``(5) A child to whom entitlement is transferred under this
section may not use any entitlement so transferred after
attaining the age of 26 years.
``(6) The purposes for which a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section may use such
entitlement shall include the pursuit and completion of the
requirements of a secondary school diploma (or equivalency
certificate).
``(7) The administrative provisions of this chapter shall
apply to the use of entitlement transferred under this
section, except that the dependent to whom the entitlement is
transferred shall be treated as the eligible member for
purposes of such provisions.
``(i) Overpayment.--In the event of an overpayment of
educational assistance with respect to a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section, the dependent
and the member making the transfer shall be jointly and
severally liable to the United States for the amount of the
overpayment for purposes of section 3685 of title 38.
``(j) Approvals of Transfer Subject to Availability of
Appropriations.--The Secretary concerned may approve
transfers of entitlement to educational assistance under this
section in a fiscal year only to the extent that
appropriations for military personnel are available in that
fiscal year for purposes of making deposits in the Department
of Defense Education Benefits Fund under section 2006 of this
title in that fiscal year to cover the present value of
future benefits payable from the Fund for the Department of
Defense portion of payments of educational assistance
attributable to increased usage of benefits as result of such
transfers of entitlement in that fiscal year.
``(k) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
prescribe regulations for purposes of this section. Such
regulations shall specify the following:
``(1) The circumstances under which the Secretaries
concerned may permit and approve transfers of entitlement
under this section.
[[Page 9030]]
``(2) Such requirements for eligibility for transfer of
entitlement under this section as the Secretary of Defense
considers appropriate for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
``(3) The manner and effect of an election to modify or
revoke a transfer of entitlement under subsection (f)(2).''.
(B) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 1607 of such title is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 16162a the
following new item:
``16162b. Transfer of entitlement to educational assistance.''.
(3) Funding under department of defense education benefits
fund.--Section 2006(b)(2)(D) of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, including payments attributable to increased
usage of benefits as a result of transfers of entitlement to
educational assistance under sections 16131b and 16162b of
this title''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on October 1, 2009.
SEC. 109. USE OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE TO REPAY FEDERAL
STUDENT LOANS.
(a) Use of Educational Assistance To Repay Federal Student
Loans.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 30 of title 38,
United States Code, as amended by section 104(a) of this Act,
is further amended by inserting after section 3020A the
following new section:
``Sec. 3020B. Use of basic educational assistance benefits
for repayment of Federal student loans
``(a) In General.--An individual entitled to basic
educational assistance under this subchapter who is serving
on active duty in the Armed Forces may elect to apply amounts
of basic educational assistance otherwise available to the
individual under this subchapter to repay all or a portion of
the outstanding principal and interest on any Federal student
loan owed by the individual for the individual's pursuit of a
course of education.
``(b) Designation of Loans and Amounts Payable.--An
individual electing under this section to apply amounts of
basic educational assistance to the payment of the
outstanding principal and interest on Federal student loans
shall designate (in such form and manner as the Secretary
shall prescribe for purposes of this section) the following:
``(1) Each Federal student loan of the individual for which
payment shall be made under this section.
``(2) For each Federal student loan designated under
paragraph (1), the monthly amount to be paid under this
section.
``(c) Limitation on Amount of Payments.--(1) The monthly
amount payable with respect to an individual under this
section may not exceed the monthly rate of basic educational
assistance to which the individual is otherwise entitled
under this subchapter at the time of payment of such monthly
amount.
``(2) The aggregate amount of basic educational assistance
payable with respect to an individual under this section for
any 12-month period may not exceed $6,000.
``(d) Frequency of Payments.--Payment of amounts of
principal and interest on Federal student loans of an
individual under this section shall be made on a monthly
basis.
``(e) Cessation of Payments.--Payments made under this
section with respect to an individual shall cease if the
individual ceases serving on active duty in the Armed Forces,
effective as of the first month that begins after the date on
which the individual ceases serving on active duty in the
Armed Forces.
``(f) Charge Against Entitlement.--The period of
entitlement to basic educational assistance under this
subchapter of an individual for whom payments are made under
this section shall be charged at the rate of one month for
each payment or aggregate of payments under this section that
are equivalent in amount to the monthly rate of basic
educational assistance to which the individual is otherwise
entitled under this subchapter.
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as the Secretary considers appropriate for
purposes of the administration of this section.
``(h) Federal Student Loan Defined.--In this section, the
term `Federal student loan' means any loan made under title
IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et
seq.).''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections of
subchapter II of chapter 30 of such title, as so amended, is
further amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 3020A the following new item:
``3020B. Use of basic educational assistance benefits for
repayment of Federal student loans.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 3020B of title 38, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with
respect to educational assistance payable for months that
begin on or after the date that is one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 110. EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR GRADUATES OF THE SERVICE
ACADEMIES AND RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS
PROGRAMS.
(a) Active Duty Program.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a)(1) of section 3011 of title
38, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) after September 30, 2009--
``(i) receives or has received a commission as an officer
in the Armed Forces--
``(I) upon graduation from the United States Military
Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States
Air Force Academy, or the Coast Guard Academy; or
``(II) upon completion of a Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps program under chapter 103 of title 10; and
``(ii) completes at least five years of continuous active
duty in the Armed Forces (excluding any period of obligated
service in connection with receipt of a commission as an
officer in the Armed Forces under clause (i) and excluding
any other period of obligated service in connection with
education, training, or instruction provided or funded,
whether in whole or in part, by the United States);''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(A) in subsection (b), by striking ``subsection (c)(1)''
and inserting ``subsection (c)'';
(B) in subsection (c)--
(i) by striking ``(1)'' after ``(c)''; and
(ii) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and
(C) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``subsection (c)(1)''
and inserting ``subsection (c)''.
(b) Selected Reserve Program.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a)(1) of section 3012 of such
title is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) after September 30, 2009--
``(i) receives or has received a commission as an officer
in the Armed Forces--
``(I) upon graduation from the United States Military
Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States
Air Force Academy, or the Coast Guard Academy; or
``(II) upon completion of a Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps program under chapter 103 of title 10; and
``(ii) completes at least five years of continuous active
duty in the Armed Forces (excluding any period of obligated
service in connection with receipt of a commission as an
officer in the Armed Forces under clause (i) and excluding
any other period of obligated service in connection with
education, training, or instruction provided or funded,
whether in whole or in part, by the United States);''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(A) in subsection (c), by striking ``subsection (d)(1)''
and inserting ``subsection (d)'';
(B) in subsection (d)--
(i) by striking ``(1)'' after ``(d)''; and
(ii) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and
(C) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``subsection (d)(1)''
and inserting ``subsection (d)''.
(c) Amount of Basic Educational Assistance.--Section
3015(c) of such title is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Paragraph (1) of this subsection also applies to the
following:
``(A) An individual entitled to an educational assistance
allowance under section 3011 of this title by reason of
subsection (a)(1)(D) of such section.
``(B) An individual entitled to an educational assistance
allowance under section 3012 of this title by reason of
subsection (a)(1)(D) of such section.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2009.
SEC. 111. OPPORTUNITY FOR CURRENT AND CERTAIN RETIRED VEAP-
ERA PERSONNEL TO ENROLL IN BASIC EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE UNDER THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL.
(a) Opportunity for Current and Certain Retired VEAP-Era
Personnel To Enroll.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 30 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 3018C the
following new section:
``Sec. 3018D. Opportunity for current and certain retired
VEAP-era personnel to enroll
``(a) In General.--An individual described in subsection
(b) who makes an election described in paragraph (5) of such
subsection is entitled to basic educational assistance under
this chapter, subject to the provisions of subsection (d).
``(b) Covered Individuals.--An individual described in this
subsection is an individual who meets each of the following
requirements:
[[Page 9031]]
``(1) The individual first became a member of the Armed
Forces or first entered on active duty as a member of the
Armed Forces on or after January 1, 1977, but before July 1,
1985.
``(2) The individual, as of the date of the individual's
election under paragraph (5)--
``(A) is serving on active duty without a break in service
(other than as described in section 3202(1)(C) of this title)
since the date the individual first became such a member or
first entered on active duty as such a member; or
``(B) is retired from the Armed Forces after serving at
least 20 years on active duty in the Armed Forces, which
service included service on active duty in the Armed Forces
on or after September 11, 2001, and elected not to
participate in the program of educational assistance under
chapter 32 of this title.
``(3) The individual, before applying for benefits under
this section, has completed the requirements of a secondary
school diploma (or equivalency certificate) or has
successfully completed the equivalent of 12 semester hours in
a program of education leading to a standard college degree,
but has not completed the requirements for nor been awarded a
bachelor's degree.
``(4) The individual--
``(A) in the case of an individual described by paragraph
(2)(A), is discharged with an honorable discharge or released
with service characterized as honorable by the Secretary
concerned; or
``(B) in the case of an individual described by paragraph
(2)(B), was discharged with an honorable discharge or
released with service characterized as honorable by the
Secretary concerned.
``(5) During the one-year period beginning on October 1,
2009, the individual makes an irrevocable election to receive
benefits under this section pursuant to procedures which the
Secretary of each military department shall provide in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense for the purpose of carrying out this section or which
the Secretary of Transportation shall provide for such
purpose with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not
operating as a service in the Navy.
``(c) Reduction of Pay; Collection and Payment of
Amounts.--(1) In the case of an individual described by
subsection (b) who makes an election under this section to
become entitled to basic educational assistance under this
chapter--
``(A) the basic pay or retired or retainer pay, as
applicable, of the individual shall be reduced (in a manner
determined by the Secretary concerned) until the total amount
by which such pay is reduced is $2,700; or
``(B) to the extent that the basic pay of the individual is
not so reduced before the individual's discharge or release
from active duty as described in subsection (d)(4)(A), the
Secretary concerned shall collect from the individual an
amount equal to the difference between $2,700 and the total
amount of reductions with respect to the individual under
subparagraph (A).
``(2) An individual covered by paragraph (1) may at any
time pay the Secretary concerned an amount equal to the
difference between the total of the reductions otherwise
required with respect to the individual under that paragraph
and the total amount of the reductions with respect to the
individual under that paragraph at the time of the payment.
``(3) Any amounts collected under paragraph (1)(B) or paid
under paragraph (2) shall be paid into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.
``(4) The total amount of reductions in pay, or of
collections or payments, required with respect to an
individual under paragraph (1) shall be achieved not later
than 12 months after the date on which the individual makes
an election under subsection (b)(5).
``(5) No amount of educational assistance allowance under
this chapter shall be paid to an individual covered by
paragraph (1) until the date on which the total amount of
reductions in pay, or of collections or payments, required
with respect to the individual under paragraph (1) is
achieved.
``(d) Limitations on Basic Educational Assistance.--(1) The
basic educational assistance allowance payable under this
chapter to an individual entitled to such educational
assistance allowance under this section shall be payable at
the monthly rate of basic educational assistance payable
under section 3015(a)(1)(B) of this title.
``(2) Basic educational assistance under this section shall
be available only for pursuit of a non-degree vocational
training program, an associate degree, or a bachelor's
degree, but shall not be available for pursuit of a masters
degree or other advanced college degree.
``(3) An individual entitled under this section to basic
educational assistance under this chapter is entitled to the
educational stipend provided under section 3020A of this
title.
``(4)(A) Entitlement under this section to basic
educational assistance under this chapter is not
transferrable under the provisions of section 3020 of this
title.
``(B) An individual entitled under this section to basic
educational assistance under this chapter is not eligible for
the following:
``(i) The use of basic educational assistance benefits
under this chapter for the repayment of Federal student loans
under section 3020B of this title.
``(ii) Supplemental educational assistance authorized by
subchapter III of this chapter.
``(5)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the
provisions of section 3031 of this title shall apply to the
use of entitlement under this section to basic educational
assistance under this chapter.
``(B) In the case of an individual entitled under this
section to basic educational assistance under this chapter
who is described by subsection (b)(2)(B), the period during
which the individual may use such entitlement expires on
October 1, 2019.
``(e) Outreach.--The Secretary shall, in coordination with
the Secretary of Defense, provide for notice of the
opportunity under this section to elect to become entitled to
basic educational assistance under this chapter.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 30 of such title is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 3018C the following new
item:
``3018D. Opportunity for current and certain retired VEAP-era personnel
to enroll.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 3017(b)(1) of such
title is amended--
(1) in subparagraphs (A) and (C), by striking ``or
3018C(e)'' and inserting ``3018C(e), or 3018D(c)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or 3018C(e) of this
title'' after ``section 3018C(e), or 3018D(c) of this title
or paid by the individual under section 3018D(c) of this
title''.
SEC. 112. COLLEGE PATRIOTS GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Program Authorized.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 36 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subchapter:
``SUBCHAPTER IV--COLLEGE PATRIOTS GRANTS
``Sec. 3699A. College Patriots Grant Program
``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to
provide, through a partnership with the Department and
institutions of higher education, supplemental educational
grants to assist in making available the benefits of
postsecondary education to qualified veterans by meeting such
veterans' unmet financial need.
``(b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall carry
out a supplemental educational grant program under which--
``(1) an institution of higher education participating in
the program voluntarily provides a covered individual
enrolled in the institution with the non-Federal share of a
percentage of the covered individual's unmet financial need
determined in accordance with subsection (e); and
``(2) the Secretary provides the Federal share of a
percentage of the covered individual's unmet financial need
determined in accordance with subsection (e).
``(c) Designation of Program.--The program under this
section shall be known as the `College Patriots Grant
Program'.
``(d) Institutional Eligibility Criteria.--Assistance may
be made available under this section only to an institution
of higher education that satisfies any criteria specified by
the Secretary. Such criteria shall include an agreement or
other appropriate assurance from the institution of higher
education that--
``(1) the non-Federal share of a covered individual's unmet
financial need awarded under this section shall be provided
from non-Federal resources, including--
``(A) institutional grants and scholarships;
``(B) tuition or fee waivers;
``(C) State scholarships; and
``(D) foundation or other charitable organization funds;
and
``(2) funds made available under this section shall be
provided to a covered individual for whom the institution of
higher education has made a determination that the covered
individual has an unmet financial need, which determination
shall be made before including Federal student loans under
title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 in the covered
individual's financial aid package.
``(e) Federal Share; Non-Federal Share.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not approve an
institution of higher education for participation in the
College Patriots Grant Program unless the institution of
higher education has provided, in the manner required by the
Secretary, the following:
``(A) An agreement or other assurance that the institution
of higher education will provide the non-Federal share in
accordance with this subsection.
``(B) Information on the specific methods by which the non-
Federal share shall be paid.
``(C) An acknowledgment that the non-Federal share provided
under this subsection shall supplement and not supplant other
Federal and non-Federal funds.
``(2) Federal and non-federal shares.--Each institution of
higher education participating in the program under this
section shall select one of the three contribution percentage
tiers described in paragraph (3) for purposes of meeting a
percentage of the unmet financial needs of covered
individuals enrolled in the institution.
``(3) Percentage contribution tiers.--
[[Page 9032]]
``(A) 25 percent tier.--In the case of a covered individual
enrolled in the institution who has an unmet financial need
that is--
``(i) less than $8,000, the non-Federal share shall be 12.5
percent of the unmet financial need and the Federal share
shall be 12.5 percent of the unmet financial need, except
that the Federal share shall not exceed $1,000; and
``(ii) equal to or greater than $8,000, the Federal share
shall be $1,000 and the non-Federal share shall be 25 percent
of the covered individual's unmet financial need minus
$1,000.
``(B) 50 percent tier.--In the case of a covered individual
enrolled in the institution who has an unmet financial need
that is--
``(i) less than $8,000, the non-Federal share shall be 25
percent of the unmet financial need and the Federal share
shall be 25 percent of the unmet financial need, except that
the Federal share shall not exceed $2,000; and
``(ii) equal to or greater than $8,000, the Federal share
shall be $2,000 and the non-Federal share shall be 50 percent
of the covered individual's unmet financial need minus
$2,000.
``(C) 100 percent tier.--In the case of a covered
individual enrolled in the institution who has an unmet
financial need that is--
``(i) less than $6,000, the non-Federal share shall be 50
percent of the unmet financial need and the Federal share
shall be 50 percent of the unmet financial need, except that
the Federal share shall not exceed $3,000; and
``(ii) equal to or greater than $6,000, the Federal share
shall be $3,000 and the non-Federal share shall be 100
percent of the covered individual's unmet financial need
minus $3,000.
``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe
regulations necessary to implement and administer the College
Patriots Grant Program, including regulations establishing
the procedures for determining eligibility for the program,
applying for supplemental educational grants under the
program, and distributing the Federal share provided by the
Secretary under the program.
``(g) Outreach.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in
coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary
of Education, shall--
``(1) make available to the public on the Internet website
of the Department--
``(A) a current list of institutions of higher education
participating in the College Patriots Grant Program; and
``(B) information on the extent of participation of each
institution of higher education participating in the College
Patriots Grant Program;
``(2) make available to the public on the Internet website
of the Department information about all Federal and State
education benefits that members of the regular components of
the Armed Forces, members of the reserve components of the
Armed Forces, veterans, and their dependents may be eligible
to receive; and
``(3) make available to institutions of higher education
information about the College Patriots Grant Program and take
appropriate actions to encourage broad participation of
institutions of higher education in the program.
``(h) Awards for Institutional Recognition.--The Secretary
may establish and administer an awards program to recognize
the extent of an institution of higher education's
participation in the College Patriots Grant Program.
``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Cost of attendance.--The term `cost of attendance'
has the meaning given the term in section 472 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ll).
``(2) Covered individual.--The term `covered individual'
means an individual who--
``(A) is enrolled in an institution of higher education
that is participating in the College Patriots Grant Program;
``(B) has such amount of remaining entitlement to
educational assistance under chapter 30 or 32 of this title,
or under chapter 1606 or 1607 of title 10, as the Secretary
may require for purposes of this section; and
``(C) after receipt of any of the educational assistance
described in subparagraph (B), has an unmet financial need to
attend the institution of higher education for which a
supplemental educational grant is sought.
``(3) Institution of higher education.--The term
`institution of higher education' has the meaning given the
term in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1002).
``(4) Unmet financial need.--The term `unmet financial
need' means, with respect to a covered individual, the cost
of attendance for the covered individual to attend an
institution of higher education participating in the College
Patriots Grant Program, minus the sum of--
``(A) grant and work assistance received by the covered
individual under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.); and
``(B) any educational assistance payments received by the
covered individual through any programs administered by the
Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of
Defense.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 36 of such title is amended by adding at
the end the following new items:
``subchapter iv--college patriots grants
``3699A. College Patriots Grant Program.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, and shall apply to terms, quarters, or semesters
beginning on or after that date.
SEC. 113. TERMINATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE
MONTGOMERY GI BILL PROGRAM.
(a) Active Duty Program.--Notwithstanding subsection (b) of
section 3011 of title 38, United States Code, no reduction in
basic pay otherwise required by such section shall be made in
the case of a member of the Armed Forces who first enters on
active duty on or after the date of the enactment of this Act
and elects to receive basic educational assistance under such
section.
(b) Selected Reserve Program.--Notwithstanding subsection
(c) of section 3012 of such title, no reduction in basic pay
otherwise required by such section shall be made in the case
of a member of the Armed Forces who first becomes eligible
for basic educational assistance under such section on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act and elects to
receive basic educational assistance under such section.
SEC. 114. MODIFICATION OF SERVICE REQUIREMENT FOR EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE FOR RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBERS
SUPPORTING CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS AND OTHER
OPERATIONS WITH EXTENDED SERVICE IN THE
SELECTED RESERVE.
(a) In General.--Section 16162(c)(4) of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by striking subparagraphs (A) through
(C) and inserting the following new subparagraphs:
``(A) 40 percent in the case of a member of a reserve
component who performed active service for--
``(i) 90 consecutive days but less than one continuous
year; or
``(ii) an aggregate of one year but less than two years,
none of which was continuous service of one year or more;
``(B) 60 percent in the case of a member of a reserve
component who performed active service for--
``(i) one continuous year but less than two continuous
years; or
``(ii) an aggregate of two years but less than three years,
none of which was continuous service of two years or more; or
``(C) 80 percent in the case of a member of a reserve
component who performed active service for--
``(i) two continuous years or more; or
``(ii) an aggregate of three years or more.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2008, and shall apply with
respect to educational assistance payable for months
beginning on or after that date.
SEC. 115. MODIFICATION OF FORMULA FOR DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL
COST ADJUSTMENT IN RATES OF EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE.
(a) Active Duty Program.--Section 3015(h) of title 38,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``With respect to any fiscal year'' and
inserting ``Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), with respect
to any fiscal year''; and
(B) by striking ``the percentage by which--'' and all that
follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting ``the
percentage increase in the average cost of tuition, fees,
room, and board at public four-year institutions of higher
education (as determined by the Secretary in consultation
with the Secretary of Education and Secretary of Defense)
over the one-year period ending on the June 30 preceding the
beginning of the fiscal year for which the increase is
made.'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph (2):
``(2) With respect to any fiscal year, in no event shall
the increase in rates under paragraph (1) be less than a
percentage increase equal to the percentage by which--
``(A) the Consumer Price Index (all items, United States
city average) for the 12-month period ending on the June 30
preceding the beginning of the fiscal year for which the
increase is made, exceeds
``(B) such Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period
preceding that 12-month period.''.
(b) Selected Reserve Program.--Section 16131(b)(2) of title
10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``With respect to any fiscal year'' and
inserting ``(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), with respect to
any fiscal year'';
(2) by striking ``the percentage by which--'' and all that
follows and inserting ``the percentage increase in the
average cost of tuition, fees, room, and board at public
four- year institutions of higher education (as determined by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in consultation with the
Secretary of Education and Secretary of Defense) over the
one-year period ending on the June 30 preceding the beginning
of the fiscal year for which the increase is made.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) With respect to any fiscal year, in no event shall
the increase in rates under subparagraph (A) be less than a
percentage increase equal to the percentage by which--
[[Page 9033]]
``(i) the Consumer Price Index (all items, United States
city average) for the 12-month period ending on the June 30
preceding the beginning of the fiscal year for which the
increase is made, exceeds
``(ii) such Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period
preceding that 12-month period.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 2, 2009, and shall apply with
respect to fiscal years that begin on or after that date.
F_____
SA 4765. Mr. ALLARD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 980, to provide collective bargaining rights for
public safety officers employed by States or their political
subdivisions; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. PROTECTING GOOD SAMARITANS.
Any person, who in good faith gratuitously provides
emergency care at the scene of an accident or emergency to
the victim thereof, shall not be liable for any civil damages
for any personal injury as a result of any act or omission by
such person in rendering the emergency care or as a result of
any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further
medical treatment or care for the injured person, except acts
or omissions amounting to gross negligence or willful or
wanton misconduct.
F_____
SA 4766. Mr. ENZI submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 980, to provide collective bargaining rights for
public safety officers employed by States or their political
subdivisions; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of section 4(b), insert the following:
(6) Providing employers with the right to require random
drug testing of its employees.
F_____
SA 4767. Mr. ENZI submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 980, to provide collective bargaining rights for
public safety officers employed by States or their political
subdivisions; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
In section 8(b) before paragraph (1) the following and
redesignate accordingly:
(1) Harmonizing with federal law.--
(A) Exemption.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, a governor or the legislative body of a State, or a
mayor or other chief executive officer or authority or the
legislative body of a political subdivision, may exempt from
the requirements established under this Act or otherwise any
group of public safety officers whose job function is similar
to the job function performed by any group of Federal
employees that is excluded from collective bargaining under
Federal law or an Executive order.
(B) Treatment of certain employees.--Notwithstanding any
provision of State law, supervisory, managerial, and
confidential employees employed by public safety employers
shall be treated in the same manner for purposes of
collective-bargaining as individuals employed in the same
capacity by any employer covered under the provisions of the
National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
(C) Rule of construction.--Notwithstanding any provision of
this Act, nothing in this Act shall be construed to require
mandatory bargaining except to the extent, and with regard to
the subjects, that mandatory bargaining is required between
the Federal Government and any of its public safety
employees.
______
SA 4768. Mr. ENZI submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 980, to provide collective bargaining rights for
public safety officers employed by States or their political
subdivisions; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of section 2, add the following:
(5) Because of the critical role of public safety officers
in law enforcement, and the high public regard for such
employees, such employees should only be represented by
organizations that demonstrate a similar regard for the law
and inspire the same level of public trust and confidence.
SEC. 2A. PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTIONS.
(a) In General.--A State law described in section 4(a)
shall--
(1) provide that no labor organization may serve, or
continue to serve, as the representative of any unit of
public safety officers if--
(A) any of the labor organization's officers or agents are
convicted of--
(i) a felony; or
(ii) a misdemeanor related to the organization's
representational responsibilities; or
(B) the organization, or the organization's officers,
agents, or employees, encourage, participate, or fail to take
all steps necessary to prevent any unlawful work stoppage or
disruption by any public safety officers represented by such
labor organization; and
(2)(A) provide any political subdivision or individual with
the right to bring a civil action in Federal court against
any public safety officer that engages in a strike, slowdown,
or other employment action that is unlawful under Federal or
State law or contrary to the provisions of a collective
bargaining agreement or a contract or memorandum of
understanding described in section 4(b)(2); and
(B) provide that, in any civil action described in
subparagraph (A), a public safety employer may receive
damages relating to the strike, slowdown, or other employment
action described in subparagraph (A), and that joint and
several liability shall apply.
(b) Interaction With Other Laws.--Notwithstanding the Act
entitled ``An Act to amend the Judicial Code and to define
and limit the jurisdiction of courts sitting in equity, and
for other purposes'', approved March 23, 1932 (commonly known
as the ``Norris-LaGuardia Act''), or any other provision of
law, no Federal law that restricts the issuance of
injunctions or restraining orders in labor disputes shall
apply to labor disputes involving public safety officers
covered under this Act.
(c) Application.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the provisions of this section shall apply to all
States.
______
SA 4769. Mr. ENZI submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 980, to provide collective bargaining rights for
public safety officers employed by States or their political
subdivisions; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 6 and insert the following:
SEC. 6. STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS PROHIBITED.
Notwithstanding any rights or responsibilities provided
under State law or pursuant to any regulations issued under
section 5, a labor organization may not call, encourage,
condone, or fail to take all actions necessary to prevent or
end, and a public safety employee may not engage in or
otherwise support, any strike (including sympathy strikes),
work slowdown, sick out, or any other job action or
concerted, full or partial refusal to work against any public
sector employer. A public safety employer may not engage in a
lockout of public safety officers.
______
SA 4770. Mr. ENZI submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 980, to provide collective bargaining rights for
public safety officers employed by States or their political
subdivisions; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of section 2, add the following:
(_) Police, firefighters, and other first responders are
responsible for the protection of life and property and the
maintenance of civil order, all of which may be threatened in
a labor dispute. Public safety officers covered by this Act
should not be subject to any conflict of interest, and the
public should be confident that such officers' duties will
not be subject to any such conflict.
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTIONS.
(a) In General.--A State law described in section 4(a)
shall provide that no labor organization may serve as
bargaining representative for any public safety officers if
the labor organization admits to membership, or is affiliated
directly or indirectly with an organization that admits to
membership, any employee other than a public safety officer.
(b) Interaction With Other Laws.--Notwithstanding the Act
entitled ``An Act to amend the Judicial Code and to define
and limit the jurisdiction of courts sitting in equity, and
for other purposes'', approved March 23, 1932 (commonly known
as the ``Norris-LaGuardia Act''), or any other provision of
law, no Federal law that restricts the issuance of
injunctions or restraining orders in labor disputes shall
apply to labor disputes involving public safety officers
covered under this Act.
(c) Application.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the provisions of this section shall apply to all
States.
F_____
SA 4771. Mrs. HUTCHISON submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 4751 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Gregg (for
himself and Mr. Kennedy)) to the bill H.R. 980, to provide collective
bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by States or
their political subdivisions; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the appropriate place in the amendment, insert the
following:
SEC. __. PRESERVATION OF STATE LAWS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, nothing in
this Act shall be construed to preempt a State law that
provides collective bargaining rights of the type provided
for under this Act to public safety officers in political
subdivisions of the State, or that provides such political
subdivisions
[[Page 9034]]
with the right to adopt such collective bargaining rights,
through a vote of the residents of such political
subdivisions in a special referendum election relating to
such rights.
F_____
SA 4772. Mrs. HUTCHISON submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 4751 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Gregg (for
himself and Mr. Kennedy)) to the bill H.R. 980, to provide collective
bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by States or
their political subdivisions; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW.
Notwithstanding section 8(a), and any other provision of
this Act, nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt
any provision of State law (whether enacted prior to or after
the date of enactment of this Act) with respect to the
collective bargaining rights of public safety employees.
F_____
SA 4773. Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 4751 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Gregg (for himself and
Mr. Kennedy)) to the bill H.R. 980, to provide collective bargaining
rights for public safety officers employed by States or their political
subdivisions; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 13 of the amendment, between lines 14 and 15,
insert the following:
(c) Remedies.--If a public safety officer or labor
organization violates the prohibition of subsection (a), the
Authority, employer, or any other person may file a petition
in any United States District Court in the district in which
the violation occurred or in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia seeking--
(1) injunctive relief; and
(2) a fine on the labor organization for each day of the
violation in an amount equal to 1/26 of the total of the
labor organization's annual membership dues, but not less
than $2,500 nor more than $20,000 per day.
(d) Jurisdiction.--The Courts of the United States shall
have jurisdiction to hear any cause of action under this
section.
______
SA 4774. Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 4751 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Gregg (for himself and
Mr. Kennedy)) to the bill H.R. 980, to provide collective bargaining
rights for public safety officers employed by States or their political
subdivisions; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 10 of the amendment, between lines 12 and 13,
insert the following:
(d) Rights and Responsibilities of Labor Organizations.--
(1) Labor organizations.--The requirements of titles I, II,
III, IV, V, and VI of the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959 (29 U.S.C. 411 et seq.) shall apply to
a labor organization in which public safety officers are
members to the same extent as such Act applies to a labor
organization (as such term is defined in such Act) under such
titles.
(2) Public safety officers.--The requirements of titles I,
II, III, IV, V, and VI of the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959 (29 U.S.C. 411 et seq.) shall apply to
a public safety officer to same extent as such Act applies to
an employee (as such term is defined in such Act) under such
titles.
______
SA 4775. Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 4751 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Gregg (for himself and
Mr. Kennedy)) to the bill H.R. 980, to provide collective bargaining
rights for public safety officers employed by States or their political
subdivisions; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 9 of the amendment, line 15, add after the period
the following: ``State law may make the recognition of the
employees' labor organization by any political subdivision of
the State contingent upon the results of an election by that
political subdivision.''.
______
SA 4776. Mr. BOXER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 4751 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Gregg (for himself and
Mr. Kennedy)) to the bill H.R. 980, to provide collective bargaining
rights for public safety officers employed by States or their political
subdivisions; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. MONITORING AND TREATMENT OF FIRST RESPONDERS IN
DISASTER AREAS.
(a) In General.--Any first responder who suffers health-
related conditions or injuries as a result of responding to
emergencies in any area which is declared a disaster area by
the Federal Government and who does not have health insurance
coverage shall be entitled to follow-up long-term health
monitoring and treatment provided through the United States
Fire Administration and the Department of Health and Human
Services.
(b) Health Monitoring.--The long-term health monitoring
referred to in subsection (a) shall include--
(1) pulmonary illness, neurological damage, and
cardiovascular damage; and
(2) exposure documentation.
(c) Regulations.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall promulgate regulations to implement this
section.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the United States Fire Administration
to carry out this section, such sums as may be necessary for
each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, at 10 am., in
room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Foreign Relations
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on
responding to the global food crisis.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Foreign Relations
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a working
coffee with Dr. Surin Pitsuwan, Secretary-General of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing entitled ``Addressing
the Challenge of Children with Food Allergies'' on Wednesday, May 14,
2008. The hearing will commence at 2:30 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen
Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, at 10 a.m.
to consider the nomination of the Honorable Paul A. Schneider to be
Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information,
Federal Services, and International Security
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal
Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and
International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, at 3 p.m. to conduct a hearing
entitled, ``Archives Oversight: Protecting Our Nation's History for
Future Generations.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Special Committee on Aging
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special
Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, from 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in SD-106
for the purpose of conducting a hearing.
[[Page 9035]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Ward
Black, Patty Lawrence, and Alan Mackey from my staff be given floor
privileges for the duration of the debate on the farm bill conference
report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am going to do some wrap-up and then
yield the floor. It will only take me a couple of minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
____________________
EXTENSION OF FARM SECURITY AND RURAL INVESTMENT ACT OF 2002
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed
to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6051, which was received from
the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 6051) to amend Public Law 110-196 to to
provide for a temporary extension of programs authorized by
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 beyond May
16, 2008.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 6051) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
SUSPENDING THE ACQUISITION OF PETROLEUM FOR THE STRATEGIC PETROLEUM
RESERVE
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6022, which was received
from the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 6022) to suspend the acquisition of petroleum
for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third
time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and
any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 6022) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
DESIGNATING MAY 15, 2008, AS MILITARY KIDS DAY
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 565, which was
submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 565) designating May 15, 2008, as
Military Kids Day.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to,
the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon
the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 565) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 565
Whereas the members of the Armed Forces of the United
States are the greatest soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
Marines in the world;
Whereas as individuals and as a group, the members Armed
Forces of the United States daily place their lives on the
line for the United States, both here or abroad;
Whereas the children of these patriots, even the youngest
of them, recognize the incredible service their parents
provide, and daily face the challenges of military life, with
frequent moves, separation from their loved ones, and
uncertainty about the future;
Whereas the voices of these children are seldom heard and
their own particular sacrifices seldom acknowledged;
Whereas the children of the members of the Armed Forces of
the United States have an important creative outlet through
the Annual Essay and Art Contest of the Armed Services YMCA;
Whereas the compelling essays and artwork by military
children will be published in My Hero: Military Kids Write
about their Moms and Dads; and
Whereas the strength of character, humor and honesty
offered by these children are a hallmark for all of us to
follow as we face the challenges of everyday life: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes the significance of the sacrifices made
every day by the thousands of families across the country and
the world in support of the members of the Armed Forces of
the United States;
(2) expresses gratitude for their fortitude, their
strength, their compassion, and their expertise;
(3) supports the efforts of the Armed Services YMCA and the
many other organizations that work to assist the military
families of the United States;
(4) designates May 15, 2008, as ``Military Kids Day'' in
the United States and at military installations throughout
the world.
____________________
NATIONAL APHASIA AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed
to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 566, submitted earlier today
by Senator Johnson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 566) designating June 2008 as
``National Aphasia Awareness Month'' and supporting efforts
to increase awareness of aphasia.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the
preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the
table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 566) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 566
Whereas aphasia is a communication impairment caused by
brain damage, typically resulting from a stroke;
Whereas, while aphasia is most often the result of stroke
or brain injury, it can also occur with other neurological
disorders, such as in the case of a brain tumor;
Whereas many people with aphasia also have weakness or
paralysis in their right leg and right arm, usually due to
damage to the left hemisphere of the brain, which controls
language and movement on the right side of the body;
Whereas the effects of aphasia may include a loss or
reduction in ability to speak, comprehend, read, and write,
while intelligence remains intact;
Whereas stroke is the 3rd leading cause of death in the
United States, ranking behind heart disease and cancer;
Whereas stroke is a leading cause of serious, long-term
disability in the United States;
Whereas there are about 5,000,000 stroke survivors in the
United States;
Whereas it is estimated that there are about 750,000
strokes per year in the United States, with approximately \1/
3\ of these resulting in aphasia;
Whereas aphasia affects at least 1,000,000 people in the
United States;
Whereas more than 200,000 Americans acquire the disorder
each year;
Whereas the National Aphasia Association is unique and
provides communication strategies, support, and education for
people with aphasia and their caregivers throughout the
United States; and
Whereas as an advocacy organization for people with aphasia
and their caregivers, the National Aphasia Association
envisions a world that recognizes this ``silent'' disability
and provides opportunity and fulfillment for
[[Page 9036]]
those affected by aphasia: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) supports the goals and ideals of, and encourages all
Americans to observe, National Aphasia Awareness Month in
June 2008;
(2) recognizes that strokes, a primary cause of aphasia,
are the third largest cause of death and disability in the
United States;
(3) acknowledges that aphasia deserves more attention and
study in order to find new solutions for serving individuals
experiencing aphasia and their caregivers; and
(4) must make the voices of those with aphasia heard
because they are often unable to communicate their condition
to others.
____________________
FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. It is my great pleasure to join my colleagues today to
speak about a wonderful bipartisan effort that took a lot of time and
effort, a lot of energy, but we all come to the floor tonight to
celebrate a very important food policy, conservation policy, energy
policy to the country. And certainly there are many people to thank.
It is wonderful to see a member of the Agriculture Committee as
Presiding Officer this evening. Mr. President, we thank you for your
efforts.
I certainly have to thank our chairman. We would not be here without
our chairman and his passion and his patience in working through what
has been an extremely challenging effort but one that--pardon the pun--
has borne fruit and vegetables. So we are very pleased. It was great.
I know Senator Chambliss is not here, but what a wonderful partner in
all of this as well. I know he is somewhere in the building.
I wish to say to Senator Crapo before he leaves that it has been
wonderful to work with him on issues related to specialty crops and
conservation, and also his wonderful leadership on the endangered
species legislation.
There were 250 different organizations, from environmental
organizations to businesses, that all came together. That alone is a
feat. So I congratulate the Senator.
Standing next to Senator Crapo, of course, is Senator Roberts, who
comes with such passion and experience himself, having led farm bills.
Despite his razzing me about cherries all of the time, and asparagus,
we are going to get you healthy by giving you a lot more fruits and
vegetables as a result of this wonderful bill.
So there are a lot of people to thank--Senators Baucus and Grassley
for their efforts on the Finance Committee, leading us. I am proud to
serve on both committees, as is the distinguished Presiding Officer,
who has been in a spot on both Finance and Agriculture to help bring
this all together.
Also, we would not be here without Senator Conrad and the incredible
knowledge he and his staff have in crunching the numbers and being able
to bring us to this point in so many ways. So thank you to him as well
and, of course, our House colleagues, Chairman Peterson and Ranking
Member Goodlatte and Chairman Rangel.
I also wish to say a special thank-you to a gentleman I have come to
call a friend, Congressman Cardoza, who was my partner on the issue of
specialty crops in the House. I very much appreciate all of his efforts
as well.
Of course, I have to say thank you to Senator Reid. We would not be
here if our leader had not focused on this and provided the kind of
leadership at the right times to be able to bring people together and
to once again provide us time on the floor, when time is a precious
commodity here as there is so much to be done. So I wish to thank
Senator Reid for always getting the priorities right in terms of what
is in front of us.
Then I finally, on a personal note, wish to thank two terrific, hard-
working members of my staff: Chris Adamo, who has worked every part of
this bill for months and months, and Oliver Kim, who did such terrific
work on the nutrition title for me. So I wish to thank both of them.
This was not, as I said before, an easy negotiation. But we are very
proud. I am very proud--I know we all are--of the end result. We have
created new opportunities for food and nutrition, significant new
opportunities. We have new investments in renewable energies--certainly
important to jobs in the great State of Michigan and around the country
as well as creating energy independence. We strengthened our research
efforts.
I am proud to have led an effort that began with our research
institutions, our land grant colleges proposing something called
CREATE-21. We used that structure to be able to put in place a research
structure to be able to focus more on the competitive research and
other important changes in this bill as well.
We also put in permanent disaster assistance. Due to some weather
very recently in Michigan, unfortunately, we may be finding ourselves
needing some of the disaster assistance for some of our specialty
crops. I am hopeful we will not but, weather being what it is, having a
permanent disaster assistance program is very important. I think it is
important to have it paid for and have it part of our policy. So I am
pleased we have that as well.
There is also an incredible conservation title that is in this bill,
as well as rural development and, of course, our support for our
Nation's farmers, while at the same time we achieve significant
reforms.
When you put it all together, it is an incredible picture of many
pieces coming together to create the right kind of values and
priorities and the right kind of policy. I hope we will pass this
conference report as we passed the original Senate farm bill and as the
House has passed the conference report with an overwhelming majority.
We will then send a very strong message to the White House that we have
incredibly strong bipartisan support, and we are hopeful, in fact, that
we will see the same support in the end from the White House. Even
though we have certainly received comments to the contrary, we hope we
will send a very strong message and that they will come together and
join with us and the overwhelming number of Members who have worked so
hard and supported this policy.
We have agreed on a monetary framework that has been talked about
before that is $10 billion above the baseline, above the last farm
bill. We actually started with fewer dollars, $58 billion less than
last time because of commodity prices and so on. So there has been a
lot of work on the financial side to have a way for us to be able to
create some new investments. And it is significant that those
investments were done not by raising revenue or raising taxes but by
making reforms, by making changes within farm policy. That is very
significant.
I think it is also a credit to everyone involved that the $10 billion
in new spending all goes to food and nutrition programs--all of it; in
fact, a little bit more than that, $10.35 billion. That is extremely
significant in terms of where our values and priorities are.
It is important as well to indicate, as colleagues have, that 73
percent of the farm bill goes to food and nutrition programs for
America's families, primarily through the Food Stamp Program but
through other critical programs as well.
I can tell you, coming from Michigan, where we have been hard hit as
it relates to the economy and what has happened in the global economy
to manufacturing and so on, we have a lot of folks who never thought
they would need help, a lot of folks who have worked hard their whole
lives and have lost their jobs and now find themselves in a situation
that, in order to feed their families, they need some help. They paid
taxes their whole lives, and now they are in a situation where they
need to have some assistance. In fact, we have one out of eight
people--one out of eight--in Michigan today who is eligible for food
stamps because of the recession and the economy. I am proud we have
recognized the fact that we need to make sure in America that food
assistance is available at times of hardship when families need it.
We have also talked about other programs. In the nutrition title, the
school snack program is also critical in terms of supporting our fruit
and vegetables growers. We are talking about
[[Page 9037]]
expanding a program so that children in schools all across Michigan and
all across the country will have the ability, rather than going to the
vending machines, to be able to have a fresh apple, fresh blueberries,
fresh strawberries, plums, asparagus, celery, be able to eat fresh
fruits and vegetables, which we know is so important for their own
health and growth as well as a way to support our growers. With this
program, 81,000 Michigan students will be able to receive fresh fruits
and vegetables as a result of the policies we have set up.
There are also emergency food programs, community food banks,
seniors' farmers markets to be able to allow senior citizens to have
coupons to buy fresh fruit and vegetables. This is very significant.
I wish to also mention and say a special personal thank-you to a
member of my family who has advocated so strongly for these food
programs, my daughter Michelle, who works for the Capital Area
Community Services office in Lansing, MI. She works with low-income
families and seniors every day. On more than one occasion, I have been
e-mailed while we were working on the farm bill, with my daughter
expressing great concern about the small number of items available for
senior citizens when they come in once a month for food. She is giving
me lists of two potatoes, dried milk, rice, small little lists, and
then she says, ``Mom, these are seniors. Can't we do better than
this?'' Well, I am proud to say that with what we are doing here now,
we are going to be able to do better than that. I think personally
there is something wrong when we have these senior programs and they
can't get fresh milk or bread, which is not part of those programs. So
I wish to thank Michelle for pushing and pushing me to remember what it
is like for people who are having to live under the funding and the
policies we put forward.
There are many titles of the farm bill. Every title is significant.
Every title affects Michigan. I come from a State that everybody thinks
of as automobiles. And we are proud of our auto heritage, our
manufacturing heritage, but our No. 2 industry is agriculture. We have
more diversity of crops than any other State but California, and we are
very proud of that as well. And while our specialty crops--our fruit
and vegetable growers--are over half of what we grow, we also have corn
and soybeans and sugar beets and livestock and milk as major components
of Michigan agriculture.
I am proud to have helped author this bill, which maintains a strong
safety net and improves policies for all of our farmers and our
ranchers. Michigan is rural in many ways. Around Michigan, up north,
the Upper Peninsula, all of Michigan, we benefit greatly by the rural
development title. I do not think there is a community in Michigan that
has not, in some way, benefited by the rural development title.
I am very excited about the energy title and what we have been able
to do. The energy title really is not only about supporting growers but
about creating economic opportunities, jobs, and also addressing the
issue of gas prices and dependence on foreign oil. With billions of
dollars in new money for both titles, I know we can help grow jobs as
well as grow sources of energy--both incredibly important.
One of the most significant energy policies is the new cellulosic
ethanol tax credits. I know that our Presiding Officer has been a very
strong proponent of this as well. This tax incentive will build upon
corn ethanol, with new cellulosic-based fuels that can be made with a
variety of organic sources such as wood, with the great woods of the
Upper Peninsula in Michigan, to switchgrass or agricultural waste.
These new sources of ethanol will also alleviate the burden on corn and
food prices, as we know.
Furthermore, in Michigan, this new tax credit will provide certainty
and an incentive for investors like Mascoma, which is a partner with
General Motors on a cellulosic ethanol project; New Page, which is in
the Upper Peninsula and is partnering now to create commercially
produced cellulosic ethanol and, again, jobs in Michigan.
The farm bill also has one of our Federal Government's strongest
environmental investments, something that I know, among many passions,
has been the passion of our chairman, and we would not have the
conservation title we have if it were not for our chairman.
This is significant for natural resources across the Nation, but in
Michigan it is really crucial, not only to our farmers who use the
conservation title, but we have any number of ways, whether it is
preserving wetlands or whether it is focusing on water quality or
wildlife in the Great Lakes. This is extremely important to us,
protecting land and open spaces. Overall, the $4 billion in new
spending for conservation is vital for us in wetlands, grasslands,
forests, and maintaining some of our best stewards of the land, our
farmers and our ranchers.
I am extremely pleased to have included language that makes it clear
that we can use dollars from the conservation title to focus on soil
erosion, runoff, and other issues that address the challenges of our
Great Lakes, a very important national resource.
Of course I am especially proud of the new farm bill specialty crop
title. I think my colleagues have gotten tired of me talking about
specialty crops, but I am very grateful for the fact that half of the
growers in the country, half of our cash receipts in the country come
from what are called specialty crops, fruits and vegetable growers,
other specialty items, and they have not had a place in other farm
bills in our history. So I thank the chairman again for working with me
to create the specialty crop title. These are growers who have not
asked for direct payments, but they do ask that we recognize and
support them to be successful in a number of areas.
They have unique and significant challenges with pests and disease,
with trade barriers, with marketing, disaster relief, the need for
research. We know there are important things we can do to support fruit
and vegetable growers. We have all together, counting disaster
assistance, a little over $3 billion that will go toward the area of
specialty crops. I have to say that when we started this process, we
put together a bipartisan letter with 36 Members of the Senate asking,
in fact, that we invest $3.3 billion in specialty crops. We pretty much
hit that number at the end of the process. I am very grateful to all
colleagues who joined together in that effort.
These new funds will help the Nation and Michigan. For example,
Michigan orchards will benefit from competitive research grants that
will provide much needed support for efforts to research alternative
pesticides and solutions for new diseases. This is incredibly important
because the FDA zero tolerance policy for insect and larva in fruit is
something our growers have to address. Alternative pesticides have to
be found by 2012 to allow cherries and apples to continue to be
marketed in the United States. This is a very real challenge, and this
bill will help them address that. The cherry industry has invested
millions of its own dollars in partnering with my alma mater, Michigan
State University. This partnership will be in a very competitive
position to tap into these new dollars for specialty crop research.
USDA's ability to aid growers in times of surplus has been
strengthened significantly by this title. The addition of value-added
products to section 32, our commodity purchase program, will be of
great help to Michigan growers. Our cherry growers, for example, in
fact had a surplus year and a promised $8.1 million purchase is coming
soon. It is helpful to know in the future this program will be stronger
and even better.
Finally, let me stress the fruit and vegetable snack program.
Michigan's dried cherries are the single most popular dried fruit
served in the program, according to the USDA's own 2004 evaluation.
This new market expanding the fresh fruits and vegetables program is
something they are very excited about. There is no question this will
focus on and contribute to the health and welfare of our children.
There is much in this specialty crop package for both
[[Page 9038]]
growers and consumers. I am grateful for colleagues supporting this
effort.
Again, this is a bill that has reforms. It speaks to the future. I
would say when we look at not only the safety net that is important for
our growers, our ranchers, but when we look at new energy
opportunities, food and nutrition support for our families,
particularly now in challenging times, a major effort in conservation
to protect our land and water, and to provide the ability to protect
forests and lands for the future, rural development research, on and
on, this is a bill that touches every family, not only those in rural
America.
We specifically included some items such as community gardens to help
those in cities who live in areas that unfortunately have been now
dubbed food deserts, where the local store doesn't have fresh fruits
and vegetables. It is not something they are able to get. But being
able to support community groups to have community gardens so, again,
fresh fruits and vegetables are available, is something that is part of
this bill.
In every way, this is a bill deserving of a strong bipartisan vote.
It is an example of a complicated process that people came together to
work very hard on. I am very proud of Senate colleagues. We stuck
together. We pushed very hard for what we believed was the right set of
values and priorities. We were able to achieve it. I encourage and urge
colleagues tomorrow to join with us in support of this very important
bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the hour is late. Obviously, the
galleries are very nervous and full of people who wish to go home. The
aggie press covering this momentous event is tired, writing furiously,
as I was. And the chairman of the committee, we are trying his patience
as he has been sitting here all these hours listening to members of his
committee discuss the farm bill. I thank the chairman for his
perseverance. I thank the distinguished ranking member, Senator
Chambliss, who, I understand, like Elvis, has left the building, but
his presence is still here. So I shall try to be brief.
I rise today to speak on the farm bill conference agreement and, most
importantly, to stand up and support production agriculture. I want to
associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Arkansas who gave
a very good speech on the value of production agriculture. Apparently
our Nation enjoys, but too many times simply does not appreciate,
whether it be the national media or some in this Congress or whether it
be observers of agriculture program policy, the modern-day miracle
known as U.S. agriculture. That used to be a staple of all agriculture
speeches. I think we need to repeat it--the modern miracle that
provides the cheapest and highest quality food supply in the world.
We have heard claims throughout the debate that since commodity
prices are high, we don't need farm programs. That has been in the
print of many a newspaper and the subject of several topics within the
national media, on television, radio. Those who would make these claims
do not understand agriculture or the challenges our farmers and
ranchers face. I doubt seriously if they have ever set foot on any farm
ground. Prices were high in the past and, as quickly as they rose, they
fell. We could very well see history repeat itself. This is precisely
why we need a farm bill to begin with, a farm bill that provides an
adequate safety net so producers can compete in the global marketplace,
producers especially in high-risk States such as Kansas, who contribute
so much, 350 million bushels of wheat a year, maybe 400 million, and
many other grain products, a big beef State.
These producers may barely scrape by for 2, 3, 4, and even 5 years
due to inclement weather. High-risk agriculture is what we call it. But
the benefits are great. Then 1 year they make it big. When they do,
they are able to pay down some debt and maybe upgrade the equipment
they have been using for 15 years or they can take their wife and kids
on the first vacation they have been able to afford in years to take
time to enjoy. Yet as soon as they get a little bit of breathing room,
unfortunately, some in the media and other critics claim our producers
are taking advantage of taxpayers, and they are getting rich,
especially farms that farm a lot of acres. It seems to me now that we
have a new criteria. If you are a large farmer, meaning if you farm a
large number of acres, you are automatically rich, which is simply not
the case. What other business do you know of that can sustain such
prolonged periods of loss only to hold out for 1 year of reprieve? That
is why we need a safety net in our farm programs. That is it in a
nutshell, to help producers weather the storms of instability in the
marketplace.
It is the deficiency in the safety net protections for wheat and
sorghum, our producers of sorghum and wheat in this conference
agreement, that does give me pause. That certainly doesn't come as any
surprise to any member of the committee who has taken the time to
listen to this member. As a Senator from a State with high-risk
agriculture, many of our current farm programs simply don't work for my
farmers when they have no crop to harvest. This is especially true of
target prices and loan rates. However, two programs have worked. In
recent years direct payments, which should be called safety net
payments and crop insurance, have been a lifeline for Kansas farmers
and their lenders. Yet title I of this agreement increases target
prices and loan rates, the same programs that do not help producers
when disaster strikes and they have no crop to harvest, while at the
same time cutting the safety net payments or what is called a direct
payment and crop insurance.
Back in 2002, we discovered that the countercyclical program, when we
were considering that bill and I made the same speech on the floor at
that particular time, would not have provided assistance in 9 of the
previous 17 years in Kansas. That is over half the time. My question
was, why support a farm bill that does not help your State, one of the
biggest producing States in over half the number of years as we went
back the 17 years? And those 9 years represented some of our toughest
years in regard to weather in that period. Since that time, because of
a prolonged drought and late-season freezes, the countercyclical and
the loan programs have simply failed to provide assistance to Kansas
producers, even when they didn't get a crop. Direct payments or safety
net payments and crop insurance did provide the support.
Unfortunately, these key programs are treated as a bank in the
conference report. Even though both the House and Senate passed bills
that kept this direct payment completely intact, the conference report
reduces this producer support in years 2009, 2010, and 2011. Some of my
colleagues here and in the House have stated publicly they would like
to see the direct payment ended altogether and rely on the
countercyclical program. Again, it simply has not worked in most of the
years that it has been in effect on behalf of my State of Kansas. These
statements did create an atmosphere in which moving forward was
difficult and at times very frustrating. Thankfully, we were able to
protect salvage farmers who were getting ready to head into the fields
and harvest their 2008 winter wheat crop.
I am pleased the conferees worked with me and with others to ensure
that our producers would not face cuts to these direct payments in
2008. Long ago these producers signed operating notes with their
lenders for this crop year. They should not have the rules of the game
changed now. I am pleased we prevented that from happening.
Historically we had kept the crop insurance legislation separate from
the farm bill, but that changed in 2002. Unfortunately, it does
continue in this bill. I think it should be a separate bill. I remember
all the hard work Senator Bob Kerrey and I worked on in regard to that
bill. It was separate then. Perhaps we can do that down the road. Last
time around we took $2 billion out of crop insurance. I warned at that
time that that was a dangerous road to
[[Page 9039]]
take. This time the crop insurance program offers close to $6 billion
for the benefit of other programs in the bill. So we are taking from
crop insurance, using it as a bank for other programs. This is going to
have an effect on producers and providers, and don't let anybody tell
you differently. While these cuts may not unravel the program in low-
risk States, they are dangerously close to doing so in high-risk
States. You know very well I am talking about doing an excellent job of
representing Colorado, the neighboring State, to the west.
I am also concerned our producers will have to pay their premiums
earlier, beginning in 2011. This means they may have to secure credit
to cover the payment. I am hopeful that since we have a few years
before this takes effect, we can get it fixed before it does hit
farmers on their balance sheets.
Notwithstanding my concerns for the commodity and the crop insurance
sections of this bill, let me emphasize that there are strong, positive
provisions in this conference report that will go a long way to benefit
not only Kansas but the entire Nation. I thank Finance Committee
Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley and their staffs for
fighting so hard to ensure that the tax title of the Senate bill
remained in the conference report.
I am honored to serve on the Finance Committee under their
leadership, just as I am honored to serve on the Agriculture Committee.
They often take hits from all corners around here because of their
efforts to work together. But it is because of their bipartisanship
that we have been able to show the American people that we can work
together to get things done in Washington.
They have fashioned an agricultural tax relief package that provides
targeted tax relief for farmers and ranchers. It encourages significant
investments in conservation, it decreases our reliance on foreign
energy, and it invests in our rural communities.
Of particular importance to many of us is a provision that does
correct an inequity in the Tax Code that harms retired and disabled
farmers when they receive the Conservation Reserve Program payments. I
and many others on both sides of the aisle have worked for years to get
this fixed.
We also help agricultural businesses manage the growing costs of
securing agricultural pesticides and fertilizers. While important to
farmers and agricultural businesses, these can also be used for illegal
purposes. They have in the past, including the manufacture of
explosives, and other drugs very harmful, more especially to young
people. Those of us in the heartland who remember the attack on
Oklahoma City in 1995 know this risk all too well. Having served on the
Intelligence Committee, I know all too well about this risk.
Also included in this title is important tax assistance for a
community called Greensburg, KS. Ten days go, we marked the 1-year
anniversary of the EF-5 tornado--a mile and a half wide--an EF-5
tornado that literally wiped the town off the Kansas prairie. I have
seen tornado damage. Serving in the Armed Services, I have seen tornado
damage. I have never seen anything like this, destroying literally 95
percent of this community of 1,500 people. The grade school, high
school, city hall, hospital, water tower, fire station, every church,
and all but three businesses in the town were completely destroyed.
Lives were lost in this storm.
In the aftermath of this devastation, Senator Brownback and I put
together a very modest and temporary tax relief bill to help residents
and small businesses pick up the pieces and rebuild Greensburg. This
tax relief mirrors many of the same provisions Congress approved to
help those affected by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.
Some in the House actually questioned why this legislation was
necessary and why it belonged on a farm bill. It belonged in the farm
bill because this is a rural development and rural revitalization
issue. The provisions in the package will help residents rebuild the
1,000 homes that were damaged or destroyed and will help the 113 small
businesses in Greensburg to rebuild and grow their businesses.
This tax legislation represents exactly what our Government should do
to help in times of extreme need, and it belongs in this bill. Frankly,
the House should have passed it a year ago, as the Senate did
originally on May 25, 2007.
The tax title of this conference report is a solid win for rural
America, and it is a major reason why I will support this legislation--
despite my concerns with the commodity title and crop insurance, which
I have already gone over.
I also thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee and the
ranking member, Senator Chambliss, for working with me to address my
concerns with regard to the Rural Utilities Service's broadband loan
program. The reforms included here represent a rare bipartisan and
consensus-driven effort to bring broadband Internet to more Americans.
As has been noted by others, the conference report makes significant
investments in conservation programs that are popular in Kansas, such
as EQIP and the Open Fields program that Senator Conrad and I have been
working on for years.
I am also pleased to see the investments made in nutrition policy,
specifically the provisions which encourage our schoolchildren to eat
more whole grain foods. Whole grain products are an excellent source of
fiber and provide nutrients that help reduce the risk of heart disease.
Finally, the bill includes two sections that are extremely important
to Kansas.
First, through the livestock title of this bill, we have ensured that
competition is protected in the marketplace and that producers will
continue to be able to market their livestock as they see fit. I am
also pleased the livestock title allows for the implementation of the
COOL program, the country-of-origin labeling program, in a way that
does not require additional burdensome paperwork on our producers in
the beef industry. The beef industry is nearly a $6-billion-a-year
industry in Kansas. The livestock title of the bill helps us ensure it
will continue to be an important part of our State's economy.
The research title of this bill also includes an important provision
to allow DHS to continue plans to build a new National Bio and
AgroDefense Facility, NBAF.
The research that will be conducted at this facility will be crucial
in protecting our livestock and commodity industries, human health, and
the overall health of our Nation's economy. I thank the chairman and
ranking member for helping to ensure this provision was included in the
conference report.
So, Mr. President, as I have said before, this is not the best
possible bill. But it may be--and I think is--the best bill possible
under extremely difficult circumstances. Certainly the chairman
understands that.
While I am not pleased with the way our Kansas wheat and sorghum
producers are treated in this bill, I am worried that no farm bill or
revisiting the farm bill in the next year or two may lead to an even
less desirable outcome.
You have heard of ``The Last Picture Show.'' This may be ``The Last
Farm Bill.'' The fact is that we do have important provisions in this
bill. We also have producers who, in a few short days or weeks, will be
in the fields harvesting their 2008 winter wheat crops. They need--no,
they deserve the predictability and stability of a long-term bill. It
is time to let them know the rules of the game.
I wish, Mr. Chairman, we could seek unanimous consent simply to pass
the bill tonight and thereby relieve the President of any decision he
might have to make in terms of a possible veto, even though the vote in
the House was certainly overwhelming on behalf of the bill.
With that, I thank my chairman for his patience.
I thank you, Mr. President, for your patience.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak of my support for the
conference report on the farm bill. I am
[[Page 9040]]
delighted to follow my colleague, Senator Roberts, who supports the
bill, who has served on the conference committee and has been a
longtime worker and writer of farm bills. I think this is probably
Senator Roberts' fifth or sixth farm bill. So I am delighted to follow
in his wake here and to support the same farm bill.
I wish to commend my colleagues, Senator Harkin and Senator
Chambliss, for their leadership on this issue. I am proud to represent
an agriculture State, along with Senator Roberts, and I am proud to
represent Kansas producers and their interests here in Washington. I am
proud to be here representing my dad and brother who are full-time
farmers and people who both use the farm bill and swear at it from time
to time as well, complaining about different of its provisions that are
in the farm bill that hit them in an adverse way.
Still, I think overall this is a good farm bill. I think some of the
highlights of the farm bill are the expansion of ethanol and the
cellulosic ethanol field. It is an area we are seeing now--with grain
prices rising and people being concerned about the competition between
food and fuel moving into cellulosic--that makes enormous sense, and I
think it is clearly one of the ways of the future we need to go.
The expansion of biobased products that is in the bill, the expansion
of the conservation area in the bill, with a keen interest in the
environment that continues to grow in the country in its importance and
its importance to farmers--I think those are all highlights of the
bill.
I think weak aspects of the bill are its treatment, particularly in
my State, toward wheat and sorghum producers. I think those are weak
aspects of this bill.
So I think, overall, as my colleague from Kansas said, we need to get
some certainty of a bill done, and it is way past time for that to take
place--way past time. The extensions that have been taking place are an
insult to producers who have to have some form of planning on the
horizon to be able to move forward. They do not just buy inputs on a
whim. They have to have some planning on the horizon for buying fuels,
for being able to buy fertilizers and chemicals, and, obviously, with
us doing this in May, this spring planting season is over in many
places and certainly in the waning weeks in others. We need to get this
done.
Much has been said about this farm bill. It has been well over 2
years in the making. I do not believe it is a perfect farm bill. No
bill ever is. But I believe it is a bill we need to pass. My producers
back home simply want a bill passed. That is what I continue to hear
more and more: We just want to see a bill passed. They are tired of the
constant wrangling back and forth, and they are not pleased with the
commodity title that has been cut. Neither am I. But they would rather
have the certainty that this bill represents than continue living under
1- or 2-week extensions.
I would like to focus on reasons why I am supporting this farm bill.
First--and one of the provisions noted by my colleague--the tax
package attached to this bill has a lot of provisions my farmers and
ranchers should be able to take advantage of. There are several
programs and incentives for young and beginning farmers, as well as
mandatory funding for rural micro-entrepreneurs.
This is an issue I have been focused on for several years, along with
my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan. We and many others have
put forward the New Homestead Act, trying to target the outmigration
from rural areas, and to cause and to help investment in rural
communities, to help stem this tide of outmigration. While we have not
been successful in passing that New Homestead Act yet, I am pleased
that many of the initiatives in this farm bill are taken from or mirror
those provisions in the New Homestead Act. I think they will help in
the outmigration progress that is a big problem in my State, that is a
big problem, I know, in the chairman's State, in Iowa, as well.
Another piece of the tax package I am pleased is in this bill is the
provisions to help Greensburg, KS, rebuild. My colleague from Kansas
noted this is a town that was nearly wiped out. Ninety percent of the
town was wiped out. The President has visited there twice. He most
recently gave the commencement address at the high school, less than 2
weeks ago.
It is heartening to see the heart of the people in rebuilding. You
knew from when you saw Greensburg right after the tornado hit and when
you met with the people that this town was coming back, that the will
and the spirit of the people were there. They are building it back
green. It is really fascinating to see the number of small-scale and
large-scale windmills that are in the town, the number of green
construction sites and buildings that are going up. They want this town
to be green Greensburg, and they are doing it. It is a very interesting
thing to see.
I was visiting with the John Deere dealership there, and he was
showing me all of the green features they are putting in. This will be
the most environmentally sensitive John Deere dealership in the
country. You can say: Well, I am not sure if that title means a whole
lot, but it is going to be a model for dealerships around the country
in the farm equipment business. They are excited about it, and I am
excited for them.
This bill contains tax provisions that my colleague from Kansas,
Senator Roberts, has worked hard to get passed. They passed this body
three times but have never made it into law. With this bill, they will
become law and go into practice.
I am also pleased there are several initiatives in this bill to
develop the biofuels and biobased products. The agriculture industry is
now a food, fiber, and fuels business. For years, this has been the
dream of people in agriculture: to expand the base of the industry from
food and fiber to food, fiber, and fuels. Well, that has now taken
place. That is now here.
You travel across my State, you travel across the chairman's State,
and there have been enormous investments in ethanol and the expansion
of that industry, and it has been a great industry. I realize recently
a lot of people have taken to hitting at ethanol. I would ask them,
when they go to the gas pump and they are filling up and they are
looking at how high this price is, that they would consider that price
would be 25 to 40 cents higher without ethanol. Do they want that?
I would note as well that the price of corn is not the culprit on the
rising food prices. It has had an impact, but quite modest for what
people are experiencing, and it is keeping down your fuel prices in an
ecologically sound way. I think we can expand that ecologically sound
fashion with the cellulosic base. So I would hope in the future you
would not only have a corn stream going into the ethanol plant but you
would have a corn stover or fodder stream going into that same ethanol
plant that would build and create ethanol out of both cellulose and out
of the grain as well. That can happen with this title here.
I think one of the key provisions is loan guarantees and a new
production tax credit of $1.01 per gallon for cellulosic ethanol that
will be available through December of 2012. I think this is a key
provision and a very helpful provision in this bill.
We have been able to make numerous everyday household items recently
out of agricultural products. Not only do these products reduce our
need for petroleum, they also provide a new market for farmers in rural
areas to tap into.
For instance, the Kansas Polymer Research Center at Pittsburg State
University in Pittsburgh, KS, has been studying, developing, and
patenting ways to use various soybean oils to replace petroleum
products. The foam rubber in car seats now, they have a patent to be
able to make that--and it is being made in some places or soon will
be--out of soybean oil rather than out of oil products. They have come
up with ways to use soybean oil to create new chairs, materials in
carpet, and even green concrete. Now, the color of the concrete is not
actually green, but it is using soybean oil providing a new
[[Page 9041]]
market for our farmers and is up to four times stronger than regular
concrete. I am pleased to see this is being supported in the bill.
As I mentioned, I think cellulosic ethanol is one of the key titles
of the bill. One of the Nation's first cellulosic ethanol plants is
being built in Hugoton, KS. I am pleased it is there. I look forward to
the further development of cellulosic ethanol, and this bill helps us
get there.
Finally, while it is not specifically legislated through this bill,
it is my hope the USDA will hold ``New Uses Expos'' around the country
to showcase these bio-based products that we clearly have been
targeting the Congress to do and to expand with; that the marketplace
can expand with, that this title does, that this bill does, and we need
to show those products off in many places around this country and
around the world as a further greening of the United States and the use
of the agricultural industry in expanding its base. This simply makes
sense. Not only is the Federal Government required to procure bio-based
products when available and affordable, but these are the types of
innovative ideas that we should be pushing our agricultural industry to
further develop. We all want our farm economy to move toward a more
market-based system, and these new uses provide us with that
opportunity.
In the livestock title, I would like to also add that I am pleased to
see it is going to allow our livestock producers to produce for a
market and not create artificial barriers so the producer cannot get
closer to the consumer. There were provisions that were being suggested
before that would block our producers, our livestock producers,
particularly our beef producers in Kansas, from being able to get
closer to the consumer and thus more of the consumer dollar back to the
farmer. Those are not in here, and I am very pleased the livestock
title does not contain those and has worked with the producers, the
livestock producers, to help them out.
These are just a few reasons I am supporting this bill. I think the
circumstances have been very difficult, but I believe it is a bill
worth supporting. I wish to congratulate the chairman and ranking
member, Senator Chambliss, for their leadership on a very tough issue
and on a tough farm bill, and it is time to get it passed.
Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor, and I note the absence
of a quorum.
Mr. President, I will withhold that for just a minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Harkin). I thank the Senator from Kansas.
The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. Parliamentary inquiry: Are we in a quorum call?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. We are on the bill, and the Senator is
recognized for up to 26 minutes.
Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Mr. President and Mr. Chairman.
Thank you so much.
Let me first say thank you to all of the people who have worked on
this legislation in this body. Tonight is a night to celebrate what can
be done when people come together and work for a common effort. To the
chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the distinguished Presiding
Officer, I will only say it is his patience which is the kind of
patience of Job which has gotten us here tonight on the evening before
we pass the conference report on the farm bill and get it moved forward
to finality. It takes someone such as the Senator from Iowa who is the
only U.S. Senator who still lives in the same house that he was born
in, who really understands what it is like to be a salt-of-the-earth
farmer and rancher, to move forward with the kind of patience and
leadership to finally be at the point where we are going to get this
historic farm bill across the finish line. So I wish to thank him, as
well as Ranking Member Chambliss for his leadership.
This has been a work long in progress. I remember some 3 years ago
beginning some of the first conversations about the rewrite of the farm
bill. I fondly remember the chairman of the Agriculture Committee,
Senator Harkin, coming to the State of Colorado to hold the very first
hearing on this farm bill which is here before us tonight. For that,
the producers, the nutrition programs, the hunger programs, the farmers
and ranchers of the State of Colorado and of this Nation will always be
grateful.
I also wish to say thank you to Senator Baucus and to Senator
Grassley, the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee. I
have the privilege of sitting on both the Finance Committee and the
Energy Committee. At the end of the day, how both committees were able
to work together to develop a package that is one that we will be
rightfully proud of is in part a great tribute to both Chairman Baucus,
as well as Senator Grassley, for their work.
I also wish to thank Senator Conrad for his leadership in
understanding the numbers. He is in a unique situation as the chairman
of the Budget Committee and is the one who understands the Federal
budget perhaps better than anybody else in this entire Chamber. I wish
to thank also the others who served on the conference committee and who
labored so hard to get this bill across the finish line, and to my
colleagues on the Finance Committee, as well as on the Agriculture
Committee, for all of their great work.
Across the hallway, on the other side of this Capitol, I wish to
thank Chairman Peterson of the House Agriculture Committee and Chairman
Rangel for his hard work as well, and Congressman Salazar, a member of
the Agriculture Committee, one of the salt-of-the-earth, true farmers
still here in Washington, DC, who still wears the calluses on his hands
from the work that he does on tractors and out in the fields. I thank
him for his leadership.
Finally, in terms of thanking leadership, it is important for us also
to recognize that we would not be here were it not for Senator Harry
Reid, our majority leader, because it was through his efforts that he
steadfastly continued to push for us to get a final farm bill. His
multiple meetings with Speaker Pelosi and with the leadership in the
Senate in the committees to try to get us across the finish line is
something we must honor and we must pay tribute to because without his
leadership, we would not be here tonight.
I also wish to briefly say thank you to my wonderful staff and to the
producers of the State of Colorado, to Grant Leslie, my legislative
director, Brendan McGuire, to Tommy Olsen, and to all of my State staff
and Washington staff who worked so hard on this bill.
I strongly support this farm bill conference report and I wish to
thank everyone who has worked on this bill. It is a bill which is
bipartisan, forward-thinking, a balanced package, and it is one which I
think will pass overwhelmingly tomorrow.
There is a lot riding on this farm bill. This is a bill that helps
families put healthy and safe food on their tables. It helps kids get
fresh fruits and vegetables for their lunches. It helps protect our
land and our water. It helps us build a clean energy economy so vital
to the national security of America and of the 21st century. Nowhere,
however, is the farm bill more important, of course, than on farms and
ranches in small towns and rural communities all across our Nation.
Today, more than half of the counties in America are designated as
rural counties. Mr. President, 44 of the 64 counties in my State of
Colorado are defined as rural counties. For the last 8 years, many of
these counties which are home to 50 million Americans have, in my view,
been largely ignored by Washington, DC--ignored in its policies and
ignored in its priorities. This farm bill sets us on the right track
and in a new direction.
We can see the effects of Washington's neglect in places such as my
native Conejos County, one of the poorest counties in the entire United
States of America where almost a quarter of the residents today still
live below the poverty line. You can also see the difficulty in rural
America on many of the Main Streets across the country, including Main
Street of Brush, CO,
[[Page 9042]]
where you can drive down Main Street and probably half of the
businesses and stores have been closed down. The population in all of
those counties across all of the eastern plains of my State has been
declining.
The truth is, the rural communities across our country are
struggling. Median income in rural counties is around $11,000 less than
the national median--$11,000 less than the national median. So country
cousins and city cousins, when they compare their average per capita
income, they know if you happen to live in that part of the country,
you are going to end up making about $11,000 less than if you happen to
live in the city.
Jobs in many rural areas across America are disappearing. Hospitals
and health clinics are closing. Schools have declining enrollments, and
young people everywhere across rural America have to leave to find
opportunities elsewhere. It is an exodus that takes place from rural
America into urban America day after day, year after year, decade after
decade.
Of the 1,729 rural counties in the Nation, 865--that is about half of
those counties--lost population between 2000 and 2005. This map shows
all of those red counties which have been losing population between
those years, and it is those counties in all of America that we try to
address to provide a new direction, a new hope, a new opportunity and
optimism for rural America in this farm bill.
In my view, rural America has been forgotten for far too long, and
passing this farm bill is of the utmost urgency. This legislation will
help bring new life, new energy, and new opportunities for farmers and
ranchers and for small town populations all across America. As a
reminder of the importance of our farms and ranches in rural
communities for our food supply in our society, I have for a long time
since my days as attorney general in Colorado had a sign on my desk
that says: ``No Farms, No Food.''
Today, I have that sign on my desk in Washington, DC. I think it is
always important for all of us to understand the importance of
agriculture and the food security of this Nation to take every
opportunity to remind the world and to remind our fellow 300 million
American citizens that our food security ought never to be taken for
granted.
Tonight, this legislation, which has been led by Chairman Harkin, is
making that statement across America: No Farms, No Food. I will tell my
colleagues that anyone who goes without food for a day or two will
recognize how important our farms are to America's food security.
Unfortunately, I don't think the President of the United States has
understood what is at stake. I hope he doesn't veto this bill. He has
said multiple times that he will, even though his administration has
had ample opportunity and has been at the table of negotiations and
dialogue on the farm bill for many years now. So I am hopeful at the
end of the day, this President, who at least in pictures is from
Crawford, TX, would understand what those rural communities--including
the community of Crawford, TX, and the communities across all of rural
Texas--that signing this farm bill is an important way for him to stand
and say rural America is, in fact, important.
I am proud of this bill before us. The farm bill will spur the clean
energy revolution that is already underway on our farms and fields
across America. It will help us reach the goal of producing 25 percent
of our energy from renewable resources by the year 2025. There was a
provision that was included in the 2007 Energy bill which we passed out
of this Senate and signed by the President which Senator Grassley and
myself worked on during that Energy bill. This farm bill will stimulate
rural development because in a number of different ways it will provide
the stimulus needed for rural development to move forward, but in
particular broadband, which is really needed in the 21st century for
rural America to advance, is included and addressed in this bill in a
major way.
This farm bill--thank you, Mr. Chairman of the Agriculture
Committee--is also the strongest conservation farm bill in the history
of the United States of America. It will help in an unparalleled way,
unprecedented way to protect our lands, our water, and our air for
future generations to come.
This farm bill also makes significant major investments in nutrition.
Some of these changes are long overdue, including the changes to the
food stamps program. This bill will help make sure we have healthy and
safe food on dinner tables all across our country.
Finally, this bill will bring a better balance and certainty to
agricultural markets, while closing loopholes and carrying out needed
reforms for our farm programs.
Through a set of smart investments, this bill will help America build
a clean energy economy that has its roots in America's farms and
fields. I predict that in the decade ahead, we will see rural America
and agriculture start to bloom and flower as it embraces the new energy
frontier. With the $1 billion in the farm bill devoted to energy
programs and an additional $403 billion in tax incentives for the
production of renewable energy, farmers will be able to apply for
grants to develop biorefineries and improve the handling, harvest,
transport, and storage of feedstocks for biofuels.
This bill includes tax credits for small wind turbines and cellulosic
biofuel production, and it stimulates research into the methods and
technologies that will allow the most productive lands in the world to
provide more and more of our energy.
On rural development, this farm bill lays the infrastructure to rural
broadband and micro business loans, for accelerating economic
development in rural areas. The bill includes $150 million for
important rural development initiatives, including the $15 million for
the Micro Enterprise Loan Program, a provision I was honored to work on
with Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska. The program will also provide
technical assistance and small grants and loans to beginning rural
entrepreneurs. The micro loans will provide incentives for beginning
entrepreneurs to open their businesses in rural communities, thereby
creating jobs and increasing the rate of rural migration. According to
the Leeds School of Business at the University of Colorado,
microenterprises account for about 30 percent of the jobs in 37 of the
State's mostly rural counties. These types of important programs are
essential to economic development.
In my view, this is the strongest conservation bill in the history of
farm bills, building on the 2002 farm bill by investing an additional
$4.4 billion in conservation programs. Non-Federal agricultural and
forest lands occupy 1.4 billion acres here in the mainland of America.
That is about 70 percent of the land in the lower 48 States.
We all consume the air, the water, and open space, and enjoy them
all, so it makes sense that the farm bill should provide some incentive
for farmers and ranchers to deliver these public goods, along with all
the other products they grow.
That is why the farm bill increases spending on conservation programs
by $7.9 billion, including increasing funding to important programs
such as the one developed by the chairman of the Agriculture Committee,
the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, EQIP, increasing the
amount by $3.4 billion. It provides $1.3 billion to the Wetland Reserve
Program and extends the Conservation Reserve Program by 32 million
acres to be enrolled in the program from 2010 to 2012, all of which
have been very successful programs in the State of Colorado.
This is a picture of an EQIP conservation innovation grant at work in
my State of Colorado. These farmers from the Saint Vrain and Boulder
Creek watersheds are learning new practices that reduce tillage and
increase yields from those farmlands. At the end of the day, these
farmers went home with new ways to boost their bottom line, while
reducing erosion. These programs work. The EQIP program works. We know
that we, as a nation, will benefit from them.
On nutrition, sometimes people forget that the largest investments in
this
[[Page 9043]]
farm bill don't actually go to the commodity programs or the energy
programs or to any of the other titles of the farm bill; they go for
nutrition. Nutrition programs receive two-thirds of the funding of this
bill. This farm bill does some wonderful additional things for
nutrition and for hunger, including the more than $10 billion for
nutrition programs that will reduce hunger and provide kids with
healthy meals. That is $10 billion above what had been provided before.
That is a significant investment in nutrition.
I am particularly proud we are able to expand the chairman's Fresh
Fruit and Vegetable Program in all 50 States, including my State of
Colorado. That means that in my State--my small State of Colorado--
80,000 Colorado kids are going to get fresh fruits and vegetables in
their school lunches. This will reduce childhood obesity, increase
productivity in school, and it will teach the habits of a healthy
lifestyle.
In food production, there are benefits to rural development, energy
production, but this farm bill also ensures continued production of
safe, healthy food right here at home.
Growing up on our ranch and farm in the San Luis Valley in southern
Colorado taught me how tough it is to make a living off the land. You
work sun up to sundown all year. You cannot take Sundays off. It is a
7-day-a-week job--most of the time 365 days a year. You try to raise a
good crop or a healthy herd, and then without anything you can do to
prevent it, a disaster comes, something such as disease, drought, hail,
or flooding, which can wipe it all away. I still remember when
hailstorms would hit our farm. My mother would take and pour a salt
cross outside of our house in the hope that somehow the hail would
forego destroying our wheat and our alfalfa and other crops, because
that was our only way of subsisting. We have gone beyond the cross
here, although we all have faith. We have moved forward with the
creation of a disaster program that, hopefully, will help us address
the issue of disaster in rural America.
I know the time is late. I want to make a quick comment about some of
the reform efforts about which some have criticized this farm bill,
including the White House. I think those criticisms are wrongly placed.
I think there may be additional reform we can do and may do at another
time with the farm bill. But it is important to note we have included
reform in this farm bill. This farm bill requires direct attribution of
payments to individuals, rather than ``entities'' so that there is 100
percent transparency about who is receiving farm program payments.
The bill eliminates the three-entity rule and also includes a
provision that I helped with to eliminate the ``cowboy starter kits,''
which will prevent the distribution of commodity support payments for
land that has been subdivided for houses or transferred to
nonagricultural uses. This is an important fix.
I conclude by saying that those of us who have had the privilege of
being a part of rural America can appreciate how important agriculture
in our rural communities is to our country. That is why I am hopeful
the President's threat to veto the bill will be reconsidered.
The farm bill is not only about farms, it is about our future. It is
about the entrepreneur who wants to build a biofuels plant in eastern
Colorado; it is about the third grader who, for the first time, will
get fresh fruits and vegetables for lunch; it is about the mother who
wants us to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil so her children do
not have to fight a war far away in the Middle East. It is about all of
us who want to make sure we have a strong and secure America.
We have a lot at stake in the passage of this farm bill. I urge my
Democratic and Republican colleagues to join us and send a strong
statement about the importance of rural America, our food security, and
our energy security in an overwhelming vote on the conference report
tomorrow.
On my part, I will be very proud to take this farm bill back to the
State of Colorado and go throughout the great State of Colorado and
meet with those who care about rural America and the food security of
this country, and who care so much about nutrition, and to talk to them
about how it is that after 2\1/2\ years of hard labor, we have finally
gotten to the end of the journey and we have a farm bill of which we
can all rightfully be proud.
I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank the chairman of the
Agriculture Committee.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Iowa is
recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I believe there are no more speakers on
the farm bill tonight, or I should say the food, conservation and
energy bill. I will close by thanking all of the speakers tonight who
spoke so eloquently and strongly for this bill. I thank them for their
diligence and interest in and so many of them for their efforts in
bringing us to this point. It truly is a bipartisan bill.
A lot of times while I am traveling around Iowa and other States,
people will come up to me and say: Can't you people get together and
quit your bickering and get something done? I am sure the Presiding
Officer has heard that, too. We have all heard that. Well, this is a
time when we did that. We did get together in a bipartisan fashion on
our committee and we worked hard. We got it through our committee in a
day and a half. In December, we had the vote here and we had 79 votes
for the farm bill. You cannot get much more bipartisan than that. So we
did it. We worked together.
Tomorrow, we will have another hour and a half of debate, evenly
divided, on the bill. There will be at least one motion, which has
already been made, on a point of order. I don't know if there will be
any others tomorrow morning. Then we will proceed to final passage. I
will have more to say tomorrow morning.
Again, I thank all of the members of the Agriculture Committee on
both sides of the aisle. I can honestly say each member of our
committee had a hand in this bill in one way or the other, or on
certain parts of it--some more than others in different parts. The
Presiding Officer, my good friend from Colorado, Senator Salazar--if he
had one fingerprint on this bill, it would be the energy title and all
the great work he did to help focus us on getting more in the bill for
biomass energy, that is, energy from cellulose--to begin the process of
moving us toward more clean, renewable energy in this country. I thank
the Senator from Colorado for all of his hard work in that area.
However, the Senator also had a lot to do with the nutrition title, to
make sure that was a good title to help low-income Americans.
Everybody on our committee had a hand in this. I am privileged to
chair a great committee.
This is a committee of caring people. I know each of them. I can say
that characterization applies on both sides of the aisle. These are
people who care very deeply about fighting hard to represent the
minority of Americans who live on our farms and our ranches and in our
small towns and communities. But for, I think, the interest and
involvement of the members of this Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
Committee, the legislation that is passed here would leave a lot of our
rural people on the sidelines.
Let's face it, we don't have the votes here on farm and rural issues
like we used to in the old days. So it falls on the shoulders of those
of us on our Agriculture Committee who represent agriculture and people
who live in rural America, it falls on us to make sure their voices are
heard and their concerns are addressed.
That is why I say I am privileged to chair a committee of caring
people, who care very deeply about those minority of Americans who work
out there on farms and ranches every day, get up, feed the livestock,
plant the crops, harvest the crops, who never know from one day to the
next what the weather is going to bring or what foreign involvement may
mean to markets or what effect a crop failure or abundant crop in
another country has on this country and on our markets and prices.
Agriculture is different. A
[[Page 9044]]
lot of people say: Why do we have farm programs? We don't have a
program for this business or that business. It is because agriculture
is so unique. It is sort of the wellspring of everything else in our
society--the production of our food and fiber, for the health of our
country, and for our exports.
I was listening to the President of the United States give his State
of the Union Address earlier this year. I heard him say, there was one
passage--I will never forget--he reminded us that last year our trade
deficit had shrunk. I had hoped to hear him say in the next sentence,
thanks to our nation's farmers because were it not for the exports of
our agricultural commodities, our trade deficit would be much worse
than it is.
Again, I thank everyone for all of their statements. I thank all the
members of our committee. We will be here tomorrow morning, and we will
have a final vote. I hope we will have a strong vote. I hope we can
beat our 79 votes that we had in December. The House today had 318
votes. So I hope we have an equally strong vote in the Senate tomorrow.
____________________
ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m.
tomorrow, Thursday, May 15; that following the prayer and pledge, the
Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed
expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later
in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of the conference
report to accompany H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act,
as under the previous order; I further ask unanimous consent that the
mandatory quorum under rule XXII with respect to the cloture motions
filed be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, under the previous order, tomorrow there
will be 90 minutes for debate on the conference report prior to votes.
Senators should expect at least two rollcall votes beginning as early
as 11 a.m.
As a reminder, under rule XXII, there is a 1 p.m. filing deadline for
first-degree amendments to H.R. 980, the collective bargaining
legislation.
Tomorrow, Senators should also be prepared for votes in relation to
appointing conferees to the budget resolution conference.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned
under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 10:45 p.m., adjourned until
Thursday, May 15, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.
[[Page 9045]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The House met at 10 a.m.
The Reverend Hank Wilkins IV, St. James United Methodist Church, Pine
Bluff, Arkansas, offered the following prayer:
Almighty God of love and mercy, God of power and God of might, today
we pray the understanding to always seek Your wisdom and justice. It is
through Your authority, righteously administered, that our leaders are
enabled to govern this Nation with laws enacted for our betterment.
And so today we pray for Your spirit, that they might be properly
guided by Your divine charity and an unassuming faithfulness.
Give both counsel and courage to the leaders of this great body and
its Members, as well as other government leaders of these United States
of America.
May they always seek Your purpose and the well-being of this great
people. Grant now Your unfathomable protection, that they lead our
country with the honesty of providence and the integrity of high
ideals.
We ask all this through Christ our Lord. 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.
____________________
WELCOMING REVEREND HANK WILKINS, IV
The SPEAKER. Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Ross) is recognized for 1 minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. ROSS. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to recognize my dear friend,
Rev. Dr. and State Senator Hank Wilkins IV, of Pine Bluff, Arkansas,
who just delivered our opening prayer and is our guest chaplain of the
day.
Rev. Dr. Wilkins' deep faith and dedication to his community and
State is an inspiration to all of us who know him.
Throughout his 31 years in the ministry, Rev. Dr. Wilkins has
emphasized the need for faith in our daily lives.
I'm proud to have had the distinct honor to serve with Hank in the
Arkansas State legislature. As both senior pastor of St. James United
Methodist Church and as an Arkansas State Senator, Reverend Wilkins
puts the people he represents first and is a true ambassador for
Arkansas.
It's been a blessing for me to know Hank and his wife, Phyllis, and
their family, and I hope that this message of compassion, this prayer
of compassion and respect for others will be one that we all strive to
achieve.
As we go about doing the work of the people, let us remember the
prayer Rev. Dr. State Senator Hank Wilkins delivered on the floor of
the United States House of Representatives on this day.
____________________
CALENDAR WEDNESDAY
The SPEAKER. Today is the day of Calendar Wednesday. The Clerk will
call the roll of committees.
The Clerk called the committees.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor). The Chair will entertain up to
15 further requests for 1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.
____________________
PASS THE FARM BILL
(Mr. KAGEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, during the past year, I had the high honor of
working with Republicans and Democrats alike in the House Agriculture
Committee to bring forward a new reform-minded bill, one that would be
great for the health of the American people and Wisconsin's
agricultural economy.
I'm pleased to be able to say the farm bill has the overwhelming
support of Members of Congress, the farming communities everywhere, and
business leaders alike.
The new farm bill we intend to pass today will be good for our health
and our economy, and as a physician, I'm pleased to say that it will
begin to move our children's diets away from carbohydrates and more
towards the healthier choices, including fruits and vegetables.
It will also reward work instead of wealth by dramatically reducing
income caps for those qualifying for direct payments.
More importantly, this bill will determine what farmers plant, what
they grow, and ultimately, what we eat and what we look like.
The new farm bill also rewards the use of cellulosic biofuels which
will help ease the strain on rising food prices.
I urge all of my colleagues to support it in the strongest fashion.
____________________
COUNTY PAYMENTS FOR HARNEY COUNTY
(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, by refusing to renew the county
payments program, Congress, this Congress, has broken its pledge to
rural areas all across this country, such as Harney County, Oregon.
County payments account for 70 percent of the road budget in Harney
County, in part because 78 percent of Harney County is Federal land.
That's an area nearly the size of New Jersey.
Now, imagine if the tax revenue from 78 percent of the land in New
Jersey suddenly dried up. It would be paralyzing, just as paralyzing as
the loss of county payments is proving in the rural West.
Harney County Judge Steve Grasty said, ``It is now so bad that we've
got fewer road crew employees than snow removal equipment. Our road
department is now 50 percent of its historic staffing level.''
H.R. 3058 would give some relief to this problem and would help keep
the roads open in Harney County and schools open across the West.
Yet the Democratic leadership in the House has held this bill hostage
on the Union Calendar since January 15. Today is day 120 that this bill
could have been brought to the floor and voted on. It is a bipartisan
bill. The lead sponsor is my colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Keep the commitment to these rural communities. Pass H.R. 3058.
____________________
HONORING ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH
(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to address the
[[Page 9046]]
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in honor of Asian
Pacific American Heritage Month. As a member of the Congressional Asian
American Pacific American Caucus, and as the only Member of Congress
with any Filipino ancestry, I'm pleased to speak on the floor today in
honor of this great month.
Since the early 1800s, the AAPI community has played a vital role in
the development and growth of this country. I'd like to take just a
moment to highlight one of the many contributions that the AAPI
community has played in American history, and that is, the
accomplishments of the Filipino American veterans during World War II.
Members of the Commonwealth of the Philippines' military fought
tirelessly for the United States during World War II. The invaluable
service that the members of the military helped provide us the
necessary support to defeat the Japanese empire in the Pacific.
Last year, Congressman Filner introduced, and I cosponsored, the
Filipino Veterans Equity Act, which will ensure that the Filipino
veterans who served in World War II will receive the veterans benefits
promised to them over 60 years ago. We need to pass this bill as soon
as possible.
____________________
{time} 1015
SECOND LIFE
(Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, Second Life, it's not just a new job or a new
start, it's a virtual world online with over 6 million people. Run by
the San Francisco company Linden Lab, Second Life allows anyone in
their world to do anything. And the labs make $1 million each night.
And what is offered in Second Life? My staff found rooms leading
people to commit suicide, satanic worship, buying assault weapons,
leading human sacrifice, and rape rooms; game players choose to rape or
be raped. This content is totally inappropriate and leads to the
objectification lessons that are especially inappropriate for young
boys.
Linden Lab claims that it provides a teen area, but the fine print of
their user agreement clearly states that adults prowl in the children's
area and children are in the adult area.
Second Life's K Street lobbyists say, ``Trust us,'' but I think we
should trust informed and aware parents. I urge Members to join me in a
letter to the Federal Trade Commission worrying about the dangers of
Second Life.
____________________
NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK
(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FARR. I'd like to welcome our guests in the gallery today because
this week is the 25th anniversary of National Tourism Week.
As co-chair of the Congressional Tourism Caucus, along with my co-
chair Jon Porter of Nevada and nearly 100 Members of Congress, we
recognize the importance of the tourism industry to our national
economy and to our local communities.
It is the fastest growing industry in the world. From mom and pop
restaurants to local unique shops to local State and national parks to
this Capitol, which is a tourist attraction, there is so much to
experience in this great country.
The tourism industry also shows America's best face. Travelers
experience warm, friendly and compassionate people that make up our
country. This person-to-person contact between different cultures can
help dissolve stereotypes and misconceptions. As Mark Twain once said,
``Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness.''
So remember that while our economy grows, tourism plays a
multibillion-dollar aspect of that, employing more than 7.5 million
people. I hope you will join me in welcoming the representatives of the
tourism industry that are here this week and celebrating National
Tourism Week.
The world is a book, and those who do not travel read only one page.
____________________
HONORING OUR WORLD WAR II VETERANS
(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to welcome to
Washington, DC, a special group of World War II veterans from Georgia's
Sixth District. These proud patriots are here for one remarkable day as
part of the Honor Flight Program.
Thanks to the generosity of the Roswell Rotary Club, these men and
women will have the opportunity to visit the stirring World War II
memorial built in their honor and to pay their respect to fallen
comrades at Arlington National Cemetery.
As young Americans, these proud patriots showed courage and
compassion, answering the call to serve at a time of great need.
Through amazing sacrifice, they are responsible for the preservation of
our treasured American way of life. Our community is extremely proud to
be home to so many of the brave veterans who fought for freedom at a
critical moment in our history.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Georgia's Sixth District, I offer our
deepest appreciation. And I know that my colleagues will join me in
welcoming our veterans to our Nation's capital and thanking them, these
soldiers of the greatest generation, for their invaluable service.
____________________
MATERNAL MORTALITY
(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, the fact that more than half a million
women die in what is the most natural of processes and what should be
one of the happiest, pregnancy and birth, is totally unacceptable and
should call everyone in this world to action. But for simple and
inexpensive medication, adequate trained providers, and because of
poverty and poor sanitation, but mostly from the lack of an adequate
global response to this tragedy, a mother somewhere dies every 60
seconds.
These same factors, in addition to lack of access and other social
determinants of health, also cause maternal mortality rates among black
women in the United States to be three to four times higher than that
of white women. Because of this, the United States ranks 41st in the
world, with many poorer countries having lower mortality rates.
Reducing maternal mortality is the fifth Millennium Goal and we are
so far from reaching it. Last year, Johnson & Johnson and the
Government of Norway stepped up in a big way to help.
Just having celebrated Mother's Day, this is a good time for other
companies and other countries, especially ours, to make sure we meet
this goal and keep our, and all, mothers alive.
____________________
NATIONAL POLICE WEEK AND NATIONAL PEACE OFFICERS MEMORIAL DAY
(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, as we take time to recognize the
contributions of more than 900,000 Federal, State and local law
enforcement officials who serve this Nation and the more than 18,000
who have lost their lives over the years, I want to express my deep
appreciation to the law enforcement officials who keep the residents of
the First District of Ohio safe and secure.
Each day, police officers put their lives on the line to ensure that
our laws are enforced and our communities are safe. Too often their
critical work goes overlooked and underappreciated.
I would like to thank those who dedicate themselves each day, as well
as
[[Page 9047]]
honor those who have fallen in the line of duty, for their sacrifices
and dedication to our families, our communities, and our Nation.
I urge my colleagues to recognize the efforts of law enforcement
officials in their communities and nationwide by supporting National
Police Week and National Peace Officers Memorial Day.
____________________
CALLING ATTENTION TO MATERNAL HEALTH
(Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice
in support for keeping women around the world alive by ensuring they
have access to basic maternal health care services.
We are blessed to live in a country where women can access prenatal
and obstetric care, but that's not the case everywhere. In fact, more
than half a million women die every year of pregnancy-related causes,
along with nearly 10 million newborns and infants. Most of these deaths
are preventable and needless.
All women deserve the right to go through pregnancy and childbirth
without fear of losing their life. Basic access to maternal health care
is a human right that must no longer be ignored.
I want to thank Congresswoman Capps for sponsoring House Resolution
1022, which recognizes the need for quality health care for moms in the
U.S. as well as around the world.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to honor mothers by investing in
the necessary health care to keep them healthy and alive.
____________________
COAL
(Mr. LATTA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's industrial revolution was
powered by coal, and with the current state of our energy market, coal
should receive the attention it deserves. It is an important energy
source for our country.
Coal is the United States' most abundant and efficient fuel source,
and we hold over one-quarter of the world's coal reserves. The energy
content of the Nation's coal reserves exceeds that of all the world's
known oil reserves. In my home State of Ohio, we have reserves that
will last for 250 years.
Coal provides more than half the electricity consumed by Americans.
And work is currently being done in my district to develop coal
gasification, which is a process that increases the efficiency of coal
within a closed system.
The current Democratic leadership in Congress refuses to invest money
into the coal gasification process, while China at the same time is
investing $24 billion into the same technology.
We must embrace all forms of energy to keep our economy and products
competitive with the rest of the world.
____________________
IMPROVING MATERNAL HEALTH
(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend we celebrated Mother's
Day. I was fortunate enough to celebrate with my children and
grandchildren. Sadly, many women never get the chance to celebrate this
day with their family.
Throughout the world, a woman dies every single minute in childbirth.
I think most of our congressional colleagues would be shocked to learn
that this problem isn't faced by women in developing nations alone. The
United States ranks 41st in the world, lower than all other
industrialized nations, when it comes to maternal mortality. Let us use
this opportunity, while Mother's Day is fresh in our minds, to renew
our commitment to improving maternal health both at home and abroad.
I thank the 117 of our colleagues in the House of Representatives for
cosponsoring House Resolution 1022, a resolution underscoring our
challenges and urging us all to support the goal of a safe and healthy
childbirth for every mother and baby here in the United States and all
around the world.
____________________
DOMESTIC FUEL PRODUCTION
(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. On April 24, 2006, while campaigning to become Speaker of
the House, the Democrat leader said, ``Democrats have a commonsense
plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''
On the day the Democrats took control of Congress in January of 2007,
gas in my home State of Pennsylvania was averaging $2.37 a gallon.
Today, it's averaging over $3.75 a gallon.
Many people have taken to calling this $1.38 increase the ``Pelosi
premium.'' This Congress has yet to do anything substantive to help
American families who are paying nearly $4 a gallon at the pump.
The Democrats in Congress have been voting against increasing
domestic oil and natural gas production as well as domestic refining
capacity for years. This is a matter of supply and demand. We have
billions of barrels of oil in Alaska and in the deep waters off the
Outer Continental Shelf right here in the United States. Yet, due
mostly to the Democratic opposition, we have been unable to access
these vast resources. We should take steps now to increase production.
____________________
IN HONOR OF ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate May as Asian
Pacific American Heritage Month.
There are over 15 million Asian Americans living in the United
States, from the early Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Filipino
immigrants to recent Vietnamese, Laotian and Hmong communities. The
United States has benefited many ways from the contributions of these
diverse cultures.
Through the telling of the Asian Pacific American experience, we
illuminate the quality of opportunity that makes our country the
wonderful place it is. From community involvement to business
entrepreneurship, many Americans of Asian descent came to this country
with very little and have been able to achieve the American Dream.
Asian Americans have also played a critical role in protecting our
freedoms. During World War II, the Federal Government chose to intern
120,000 Americans of Japanese descent, including my mother and father
and their entire families. The country learned the importance of
balancing civil liberties with national security, and today, more than
ever, we must be aware of the significance of this fine balance.
I am proud to honor the courageous Americans who fight against
injustice and recognize the strength and vibrance of our country.
____________________
FARM BILL
(Mrs. MUSGRAVE asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, today we're going to be talking about the
farm bill. There will be many criticisms of the farm bill, but I
proudly stand in support of this farm bill. Rural America is looking to
us to make sure that there is a safety net for agriculture in this
country.
Reforms were asked for by our Speaker and by people on both sides of
the aisle. This farm bill increases funding to food banks when they're
suffering--dire need right now--it increases funding by $1.2 billion.
The farm bill increases funding to conservation programs. These
programs are very important to people around the Nation. And we know
that farmers are the very best stewards of
[[Page 9048]]
the land. It provides incentives for them when they implement
innovative soil and water conservation programs.
The farm bill increases investment in alternative energy research. We
know that one of the number one concerns of America right now is that
we lessen our dependence on foreign oil. But I believe the most
important thing about this farm bill is that it does provide Americans
with a safe and reliable food supply.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, announced
that the Senate has passed with an amendment in which the concurrence
of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the following title:
H.R. 3121. An act to restore the financial solvency of the
national flood insurance program and to provide for such
program to make available multiperil coverage for damage
resulting from windstorms and floods, and for other purposes.
____________________
ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH
(Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a proud associate member of the
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus chaired by a great leader,
Congressman Mike Honda of California, I rise today to join my
colleagues in celebrating Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.
Countless Asian Pacific Americans have contributed to our history,
culture and economy. We could not be the Nation that we are today
without the contributions of the Asian Pacific American community.
My home State of California has the largest and fastest growing Asian
American population with 4.6 million people. I represent a wonderful
and diverse mix of Asian Pacific Americans who are proud of their
cultural heritage and who share a strong link to people in their home
countries. We have many festivals that share music, food, dance,
culture, art and customs with the entire Bay Area.
On behalf of my constituents, I also want to take this moment to
express my great sadness for the recent tragedies that just occurred in
Burma and China. My heart and prayers go out to the millions of people
who have been affected by these natural disasters.
I especially want to extend my condolences to the families who have
lost loved ones. The people of my district and I will do everything we
can to help with the relief and recovery efforts during this tragic
time.
____________________
{time} 1030
MAJOR GENERAL CHARLES D. BARRETT
(Mr. KUHL of New York asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life
and astounding contributions of Major General Charles D. Barrett, a
resident of the 29th Congressional District of New York, who recently
died.
Major General Barrett began his military career early in life,
enrolling in the ROTC program while a student at Cornell University. He
entered active duty in 1956 and served as a shop officer and company
commander for 17 months with the Eighth Army in Korea.
During his four-plus decades of service to this country, he
accumulated many honors, including the Distinguished Service Medal, the
Meritorious Service Medal, and the Army Commendation Medal. These
medals exemplify the service, sacrifice, and the courage of this hero
and represent Major General Barrett as a man who put his country before
himself, a man who answered the call when the Nation needed him most,
and a man who represented the best that America had to offer.
Major General Barrett served his country with pride, with honor, and
with bravery, and there is nothing more noble than a person who is
willing to commit themselves to a cause as important as defending our
country.
Today I honor Major General Charles Barrett and all the brave men and
women who volunteer to fight for what is good and right about our
country.
____________________
FUND SCIENCE, NOT WEAPONS OF WAR
(Mr. COHEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, today or sometime this week, this House will
vote on additional funds for the wars in the Middle East, Iraq and
Afghanistan. I wish there was an opportunity for me to vote for funds
to support our troops in Afghanistan, who are making an effort in
defeating the Taliban and seeking out Osama bin Laden, the perpetrators
of 9/11. However, the bills are drawn together; so I will vote ``no.''
And I feel at this time we know the war in Iraq is going in the wrong
direction, but I also know that there are catastrophic illnesses and
diseases on mankind and womenkind in our world, and a great country
should use its resources for the best purposes, not weapons of war but
use our science and our intelligence to find ways to conquer disease.
I had polio when I was a child, and if we had put more money into
helping Jonas Salk, maybe I would not have had polio. It was months
after Salk's vaccine was introduced.
I lost a friend to cancer last week, Thomas Boggs. There will be a
time when people lose friends to cancer that could have been cured if
we had put more money into research earlier. Diabetes, Parkinson's,
heart disease. In Memphis we have St. Jude Children's Hospital looking
for cures to illnesses and diseases.
A great country should do great things. I encourage us to not fund
war but to fund science.
____________________
ISRAEL'S 60TH ANNIVERSARY
(Mrs. BACHMANN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, it was 60 years ago today that nothing
short of a miracle occurred. A nation arose in a day seemingly in
fulfillment of the words of the Prophet Isaiah. That nation is the
State of Israel.
In 70 A.D., Rome sacked Jerusalem, and the diaspora of the Jews
occurred. History teaches that when a people are five generations
removed from their homeland, the nation ceases. Yet after 2,000 years,
Israel was reborn and today has reclaimed its language, people, and has
once again become a land flowing with milk and honey.
May God bless Israel. Happy 60th birthday to the State of Israel and
many, many more.
____________________
RECOGNIZING ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH
(Mr. HONDA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific
American Caucus, I rise today to recognize Asian Pacific American
Heritage Month, the month of May.
As we celebrate the contributions and achievements of our community,
I also want to pay special attention to the 250,000 Filipino World War
II veterans President Roosevelt called into military service on July
26, 1941.
Of the 22,000 surviving Filipino veterans, I want to highlight
Faustino ``Peping'' Baclig. Peping was one of the 75,000 Filipino and
U.S. soldiers subjected to the 90-mile Bataan Death March. He survived
the Japanese atrocities and fought side by side with the Americans only
to have his service as a U.S. national and a veteran denied by the 1946
Rescission Act passed by Congress.
We now have a unique opportunity to undo the injustice of that act
and give them recognition of a grateful Nation that their service to
our country is just as equal as the soldiers with whom
[[Page 9049]]
they stood shoulder to shoulder on the field of battle.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Filipino Veterans
Equity Act.
____________________
ISRAEL'S 60TH ANNIVERSARY
(Ms. SUTTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my heartfelt
congratulations to the State of Israel on the occasion of its 60th
anniversary. Since its declaration of independence, Israel has stood as
a strong ally and friend of the United States. This friendship stems
from the commonalities that led to our respective foundings and our
shared hopes for the future of the global community.
In forging a new nation, Israel established a home for people that
were targeted for extermination and ostracism in other lands. From an
arduous beginning, Israel's rise has come to mirror our own. Hailing
from more than 100 countries on five continents, Israel's population
exudes a diversity of culture and ideas. Israel has flourished through
the development of a diverse and technologically advanced economy and
has come to exemplify the best of what a democracy can be.
Our countries have stood by one another in peace and in war. And we
will continue to stand together in fighting terrorism and threats from
stateless actors and rogue nations.
I congratulate and celebrate with Israel and am proud to be part of
the continued friendship between our countries.
____________________
THE FARM BILL
(Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I didn't plan to take any time today, but we
will be debating the farm bill later today, and the rule that has come
to the floor does not allow anyone to claim time in opposition to the
bill; so those of us who are opposed to this $300 billion piece of
legislation cannot even stand up and oppose the bill unless we get
time, if they are generous enough to give it to us, from those who
support the bill. Now, if I were wanting to hide what's in this bill,
that's what I would do too.
This legislation allows multimillionaires to still collect farm
subsidies. Under this legislation you can still make $2.5 million as a
couple in farm and nonfarm income and still collect subsidies. I would
have a closed rule or a highly structured rule as well if I had this in
a bill and wanted to hide it.
This bill needs to be rejected today. I hope we will all vote against
the farm bill.
____________________
HONORING ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, in honor of Asian Pacific Heritage
Month in which our Nation pays a special tribute to the contributions
of some 15 million of our fellow Americans who are of Asian Pacific
descent, I want to honor in particular the thousands of our Asian
Pacific Americans who serve in the Armed Forces of our Nation. In
particular, Mr. Speaker, the sacrifices of some 10,000 nisei or
Japanese American soldiers who fought for our Nation in the field of
battle during World War II.
It was a time in our Nation's history when there was so much hatred,
bigotry, and racism placed against Japanese Americans; yet despite all
this, leaving their parents, their brothers and sisters, their wives
behind barbed-wired fences in these concentration camps that were
established, the White House accepted the request of over 10,000
Japanese Americans who volunteered to join the Army. As a result, two
combat units were organized, the 100th Battalion and the 442nd Infantry
Combat Group.
Mr. Speaker, the military records of the 100th Battalion and the
442nd Infantry are without equal. A 314 percent casualty rate,
receiving over 18,000 individual declarations, most of them
posthumously: some 20 Congressional Medals of Honor, 33 Distinguished
Service Crosses, 560 Silver Stars, 9,480 Purple Hearts. That's quite a
record, Mr. Speaker.
President Truman was so moved by their bravery in the field of battle
as well as the contributions and the courage of the African American
soldiers who fought during World War II that President Truman issued an
executive order to finally desegregate all branches of the armed
services.
____________________
MATERNAL MORTALITY
(Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enthusiastically
support House Resolution 1022, a resolution recognizing maternal health
as a basic human right of all women. How appropriate it is to stand
here a week after Mother's Day in support of this commonsense
initiative.
One in eight women in Afghanistan die due to complications resulting
from pregnancy in childbirth. One in eight. And it's the same story in
many countries around the world.
But, unfortunately, this is not just a Third World problem. Although
the United States is a leader in medical technology and innovation, it
has one of the worst rankings for maternal mortality in all the
industrialized nations. We come in at a dismal 41st place, which means
that a mother and her baby have a greater chance of survival in Kuwait
or Croatia than they do in the United States.
In a relatively wealthy country, pregnancy should not be a death
sentence. There are inexpensive and effective solutions that can
significantly reduce the rates of maternal mortality, and I look
forward to working with the Women's Caucus.
____________________
CELEBRATING BOTH MOTHER'S DAY AND ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH
(Mr. PERLMUTTER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I feel very fortunate today to be able
to celebrate both Mother's Day as well as the Asian Pacific American
Heritage Month.
My mother-in-law was born on Molokai, has Filipino Hawaiian and
Chinese ancestry and has 14 brothers and sisters spread from Hawaii to
the Philippines. And she helped instill in my daughters the heritage
and the values of family, hard work, and indomitable spirit. And I feel
blessed to have those particular values from the Asian American
community instilled in my children.
This is a great country. To have that kind of heritage and that kind
of ancestry in my family now is what makes this country so great. So I
get to celebrate Mother's Day and I get to celebrate Asian Pacific
American Heritage Month.
____________________
IN SUPPORT OF ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH
(Mr. WU asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Asian Pacific American
Heritage Month, and some of the things I want to talk about are
personal and some are of a public policy nature.
I never cease to admire the courage of my parents in bringing our
family to this country, to a new country, a new language, a new
culture. And interestingly enough, I have never been really able to say
that to them in person across the kitchen table, and it's easier for me
to say it right here on the House floor.
There are other lessons that are important, and one of them has been
referred to earlier, the internment of the Japanese Americans during
World War II. It is not an old, cold, dead issue. We passed the
Military Commissions Act just before the 2006 elections. It
substantially restricted habeas corpus for
[[Page 9050]]
all Americans. And just as we apologize to Japanese Americans for the
internment during World War II, someday we'll be apologizing for
actions taken under the Military Commissions Act.
So some of the lessons learned from the Asian Pacific American
experience are positive ones, and others are cautionary ones that we
should continue to remember.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2419, FOOD,
CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1189 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1189
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other
purposes. All points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration are waived. The conference
report shall be considered as read. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the conference report
without intervening motion except (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Agriculture and (2) one
motion to recommit.
{time} 1045
Unfunded Mandate Point of Order
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1189
because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order
against consideration of the conference report which includes a waiver
of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation
of section 426(a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
The gentleman has met the threshold burden to identify the specific
language in the resolution on which the point of order is predicated.
Such a point of order shall be disposed of by the question of
consideration.
The gentleman from Arizona and a Member opposed, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cardoza), each will control 10 minutes of debate on the
question of consideration.
After that debate, the Chair will put the question of consideration,
to wit: ``Will the House now consider the resolution?''
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order realizing that it
is a bit of a stretch. The reason that we have this point of order in
law is to guard against unfunded mandates being levied on the States.
In this case, there are a lot of unfunded mandates being heaped upon
taxpayers. I realize, as I said, this is a stretch. But I have to do
this today because the rule that is before us does not allow anybody
opposed to the bill to claim time in opposition to the bill.
Now how is it that a bill of this import, a bill that will spend over
the next 10 years about $300 billion, is not important enough to allow
those who are opposed to the bill to claim time in opposition to it?
Instead, the structured rule before us today allows time to be split
between the majority and the minority. Now those who will be
controlling that time are people who are in support of the bill. How is
it that we can discuss a bill this large, this important, that spends
this much money, and that heaps this kind of burden on the taxpayer,
yet again, without having a real discussion?
When we have a bill before the House, we have time called ``general
debate.'' In this case, general debate is between those in the majority
who support the bill and those in the minority who support the bill.
Now how is that debate? Why is it that the Rules Committee can't see
fit to actually allow people who are opposed to the bill to claim time
in opposition to it?
With that, I would love to hear an explanation from the Rules
Committee why we have a structured rule that does this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This point of order is about whether or not to consider the rule and
ultimately the underlying conference report. In my opinion, it is
simply an effort to try to kill this bill without any debate, without
an up-or-down vote on the conference report itself. It is nothing more
than procedural roadblocks, something the other side has been using a
fair amount recently. I don't believe it will work.
The gentleman has talked about the fact that he is not able to speak
in opposition. The gentleman had an hour's worth of debate the other
day on a motion to recommit. It is also my understanding that the
chairman is working with the opposition to allow them time to discuss
the bill within the rules that were set up.
This conference report is far too important, Mr. Speaker, to be
blocked by a parliamentary tactic. We have worked on this bill for
nearly 2 years and have accomplished what many of us thought was an
impossible feat by bringing it to the floor.
Make no mistake about it. The Republican obstruction will ensure that
a farm bill will not pass during this Congress. So despite whatever
roadblocks the other side tries to use to stop this bill, we will stand
up for America's hardworking farmers, for the hungry and for the
millions of other Americans who will benefit from this farm bill.
We must consider this rule, and we must pass this important
conference report without further delay.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding I have the right to close. But in
the end, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider this
rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Again, I realize this bill has been in discussion for a
couple of years. And I will come to that a little later as we talk
about why earmarks had to be airdropped into the bill at the last
minute. If we have been discussing this bill for 2 years, then couldn't
we actually discuss these earmarks that were to be added to the bill
instead of airdropping them into the conference report when nobody in
the House or nobody in the Senate had even seen them? So it is hardly a
defense to say that we have been discussing this for 2 years, nor is it
a reason to deny those who are opposed to the bill an opportunity to
actually claim time in opposition.
Let me read from the House rules. If the floor manager for the
majority and the floor manager for the minority both support the
conference report or a motion, one-third of the time for debate thereon
shall be allotted to a Member, Delegate or Resident Commissioner who
opposes the conference report or motion on demand of that Member,
Delegate or Resident Commissioner.
We waived that. And we are not doing it. And let me tell you why I
think that is the case. Now if I were supporting this bill, and I had
been touting this bill as some big reform to our farm programs, I would
flat be plumb embarrassed to bring this bill to the floor in its
current form. I would be embarrassed.
What has got most of the attention, the problem that we all note,
that everybody across the country realizes, is how in the world can we
have a situation where multimillionaire farmers are collecting
subsidies courtesy of the taxpayer?
And the real effort in here, what the President wanted, what others
wanted, and what many of us here in the House argued for, was to put a
cap on how much income you can have and still receive subsidies. The
President suggested $200,000 adjusted gross income. Remember, adjusted
gross income is your income minus expenses. All of us here collect a
salary of about $169,000. By the time we deduct things for mortgage
interest, medical expenses and charitable contribution, it brings that
down by at least one-third, maybe even one-half. Under this
legislation, a farm couple can have farm income and nonfarm income
totaling $2.5 million and
[[Page 9051]]
still receive direct payments under this legislation.
Now, if I were bringing a bill to the floor and had touted this bill
as reforming, man, I would want to hide that as well. I would not want
somebody to be able to stand up and say, how is it that a
multimillionaire farm couple can still collect subsidies from the
taxpayers? So I commend the Rules Committee and those who are in
support of the bill for actually putting a rule together that minimizes
opposition that can be raised and that the only way people can stand up
and oppose and be guaranteed time in opposition is to use a maneuver
like raising a point of order against the bill.
I should mention there are other problems with this and other reasons
why this rule should not go forward. We are waiving PAYGO rules. Now
one thing the majority said when they came into power is we will not
waive PAYGO. We are going to live by PAYGO. When we give money out, we
have to make sure that that many money is in the Treasury or we won't
do it.
This waives PAYGO because there is simply no way you can be in
compliance with PAYGO and pass a $300 billion farm bill. And in this
case, the writers of the legislation did something very creative. They
actually went baseline shopping. What PAYGO says is that you have to
take the current baseline, the most current baseline of spending, and
total up your spending in the bill based on that current baseline.
Instead, what the authors of this legislation did was said, oh, let's
go to last year's baseline because we spent less money then and it
means we can spend more money in this legislation. Baseline shopping.
It is as if I were to say, I don't want to pay so much in taxes this
year. So I am going to use last year's wages that I was paid, and I am
going to report that instead. Now if I did that, I would be thrown in
jail. But we are allowed to do this here. We are allowed to say, we
will take whatever baseline we want as long as it allows us to spend
more money in the legislation. And then when the bill comes to the
floor, we will just waive the rule that required us to be honest in
terms of bringing legislation that complies with PAYGO.
I would love an explanation from the Rules Committee as to why PAYGO
was waived in this regard.
And I would reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to my friend from
Arizona with regard to the PAYGO issue, even though that is going to be
addressed in the rule and not in this motion that he has brought
forward now.
I didn't raise a point of order in your motion so you can have plenty
of time to speak.
Let me tell you also that the chairman and the ranking member have,
in my understanding, provided 10 minutes to both the Republic and
Democratic opposition to this bill out of their time today. So we will
be complying with the rules of the House. It is my understanding there
will be 20 minutes in opposition.
With regard to PAYGO, the Senate and the House have adopted different
rules. In the 1990s when the House and Senate had statutory PAYGO, both
Chambers had the same rules with regard to PAYGO. The House rules talk
about one issue with PAYGO. The Senate rules with another.
In this rule, we have tried to reconcile, we started this bill and
actually passed it in a conference report, or we passed it out in chief
from the Agriculture Committee to this floor and to a conference
committee in 2007. That work was not completed in 2007, and thus we
have this bill on the floor today.
There are many reasons why this bill didn't get finished in 2007. But
because we have different rules in the House and Senate, we have
decided that in order to make this bill work and achieve a conference
report that we can bring to this floor that we will be discussing this
further as we discussed the rule. But we have dealt with that in the
rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 3 minutes.
The gentleman from California has 6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. I will gladly yield to my colleague from California on the
Rules Committee for a question.
Did we waive the PAYGO rules in this rule?
Mr. CARDOZA. We have accommodated the Senate PAYGO rules as we have
moved forward. And it is my opinion that this is a technical situation
because we started this bill and passed this bill off the floor in
2007.
Mr. FLAKE. Reading from the House rules after the beginning of a new
calendar year----
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.
I believe we are supposed to be talking about the unfunded mandates
in this bill. If the gentleman would like to talk about the PAYGO
rules, we should talk about this when we bring up the rule which that
is germane to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman should confine his remarks to
the question of order.
Mr. FLAKE. I can well understand why the other side does not want to
talk about PAYGO and why I should confine this debate to unfunded
mandates because PAYGO was, in fact, waived here. PAYGO was waived. And
were it not waived, it would be subject to a point of order, the same
point of order that the gentleman is lodging against this debate right
now. So I can understand that. And I guess we will have to go with the
flow.
There is another point of order that will be raised shortly with
regard to the waiver of the earmark rules that we have in place as
well.
So let me get back. This is an unfunded mandate on the taxpayers, of
course. According to the Environmental Working Group, the Federal
Government handed out $13.4 billion in farm subsidies to 1.4 million
recipients, $11.2 billion of which related to various commodity support
programs, programs that the underlying bill simply does not change.
The taxpayers have a huge unfunded mandate here that we are going to
be paying off for a very, very long time.
With that I will gladly yield the balance of my time to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank my friend and colleague for yielding me a little bit of time
to speak on his motion.
There is one, I think, serious concern that many of us who have been
advocating reform under the commodity title, the so-called commodity
subsidy programs, and that is what was done with the two subsidy
programs now where funding currently isn't going out. And the reason it
is not going out under the loan deficiency program and the counter
cyclical program is because market prices are high.
{time} 1100
That's a good thing, because farm income is good, debt to asset ratio
has never been better in farm country.
But what this bill proposes to do, instead of holding those programs
constant, they are actually increasing the loan rate under the loan
deficiency program and the target price under the countercyclical
program, which means that if things do turn south in farm country, if
prices do drop--and we know how cyclical agriculture can be, and these
are safety net programs--those programs will trigger much sooner and at
a much greater expense than what I fear is being accounted for right
now in this bill.
That, I think, speaks to the unfunded mandate concern that the
gentleman from Arizona and myself, and others included, have in regards
to the so-called reforms that we are just not seeing under the
commodity title, not when they go in the opposite direction with the
LDP and the countercyclical programs by dialing up the loan rate and
the target prices of those two programs and triggering them at a much
earlier time and at a much greater expense for the taxpayers of this
country. There is a whole lot of other reform that we felt were
justifiable and reasonable under the commodity title.
[[Page 9052]]
Quite frankly, we don't get there. In fact, if you look at the
payment limitation caps that exist under the direct payments, it would
only affect two-tenths of 1 percent of farmers in this country, hardly
the type of reform we would like to see.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we will deal in
the debate on the bill chiefly with regard to what the level of reforms
is.
I would just like to tell my colleagues and my friends from both
Arizona and Wisconsin that there are, in fact, significant reforms. In
fact, if you take the ratio when this bill was first brought up in
2002, you have a situation where the nutrition part of this bill,
versus commodities, was by a ratio of 2-1, $2 for nutrition for every
dollar of commodity payments.
In this particular act that we are going to be bringing to the floor
later today, it is my understanding, and my work with regard to the
reforms, that there have been so many reforms put into this bill that
the nutrition title versus the commodity payments is actually a 5-1
ratio at this point. I would say that indicates, as just one of many
indicators, that you will see as we conduct this debate the significant
reform that has happened in this bill.
I believe this is good work. I am very proud to be a part of bringing
this bill to the floor. I believe it complies with the House Rules,
and, I, again, want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
motion to consider, so that we can pass this important piece of
legislation today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and ask for an
``aye'' vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House now consider
the resolution?
The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
Point of Order
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1189
under clause 9 of rule XXI, because the resolution contains a waiver of
all points of order against the conference report and its
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of
order that the resolution violates clause 9(b) of rule XXI.
Under clause 9(b) of rule XXI, the gentleman from Arizona and the
gentleman from California each will control 10 minutes of debate on the
question of consideration.
Following the debate, the Chair will put the question of
consideration as follows: ``Will the House now consider the
resolution?''
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, this second point of order, and I will be
calling for a vote on this one, is raised because of earmarks that have
been airdropped into the legislation.
As the gentleman mentioned, this is not a new bill. This is not
something that just popped up last week and that there was a need to
add $1 million for the National Sheep and Goat Industry Improvement
Center, but that was something that had to come up at midnight and be
dropped in when nobody had seen it in either the House or the Senate.
This bill has been under consideration for a long, long time, and
yet, still, we have earmarks that have been airdropped into the
legislation, a number of them. Now, the gentleman may say in defense,
we have listed the earmarks that have been airdropped in.
It is true that some have been listed. If all of them were listed,
why would we waive all points of order against the bill? If the
majority was confident enough that all earmarks have been listed, then
we wouldn't have waived the points of order against it. I will speak
specifically about a few of these earmarks.
But let me just mention some of them that are in the bill. There is
authorization language for a National Products Research Laboratory.
Again, this was airdropped in at the last minute when it hadn't been in
the House version of the bill, hadn't been in the Senate, it was
airdropped into the conference report. There is authorization language
for a Policy Research Center, authorization language for Housing
Assistance Council.
Now, what that has to do with the farm bill, I am not sure, and the
problem is, we will never know until the bill was passed because it was
airdropped in at the last minute.
That's the problem that the majority party correctly identified when
they took control of this body, that we have a problem with earmarks,
and they are being dropped in at the last minute without notice.
That's why decent rules were actually put in place to try to curb
this abuse. The problem is, in this rule, we are waiving those rules.
We are waiving those rules so the old practice can continue on just
like it always has.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As my colleague knows, this point of order is about whether or not to
consider this rule and the underlying conference report for the farm
bill. This point of order today is just another effort, in my opinion,
by the other side of the aisle to block this critical legislation that
we have worked on for nearly 2 years.
They don't want to debate, and they don't want to vote on this
conference report. They simply want to obstruct through a parliamentary
tactic.
I want to make it very clear that the farm bill fully complies with
the earmark disclosure rules contained in clause 9 of rule XXI. I would
suggest to those raising the point of order that they look in the
statement of managers, and they will see a list of the earmarks. If
they can't find that list, we will be happy to provide it for them.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and to consider
this important rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that we are being accused on
this side of trying to stifle debate on the bill, that we don't want
debate on the bill when I am here to argue against a rule that waives
these points of order and a rule that also does not allow opposition to
claim time.
Now, the majority will say, well, we will yield you time now. Now
that we have been caught on this, we will yield you some time. That's
not the same as controlling time.
When I control time, I can yield time to my colleagues. If I am
yielded time, I can't do that. I don't control time in opposition.
Our House Rules say that if both the majority and the minority are in
favor of the bill for the leadership, that somebody opposed to the bill
has a right to claim time in opposition.
That was not done here. With a bill this important, you wonder why
that has happened.
Back to the earmarks, the gentleman mentioned that there is a list of
earmarks that was listed, it's right here, a number of them. Now why in
the world we had to have more than a dozen earmarks airdropped into a
bill that has been under consideration for the past 2 years, I simply
don't know.
But when you read some of them, you kind of wonder why, like I said,
Housing Assistance Council, Sun Grant Insular Pacific Sub-Center,
Desert Terminal Lakes, Nevada. This is all we know about them.
If you dig into them, you might find something untoward, you might
not, but the fact is we don't have time to do that. That's why we have
earmark rules that give us time to actually vet them. Those rules are
being waived here, and we should not be doing that.
Let me mention also, the gentleman said they are all listed. They
aren't. There is quite a controversial earmark in this legislation that
does not show up on the list. It's a $250 million tax refund to the
Plum Tree Timber Company. Now, this is an earmark that allows the
Nature Conservancy to purchase that from the Plum Tree Timber Company.
Now, the Plum Tree Timber Company, as I understand, is not mentioned
in the legislation, it is simply described. It would be like saying I
am going to give a subsidy to the gentleman who stands 6-feet tall,
weighs 175 pounds, has blue eyes and his middle name is John, but we
won't say the rest of it.
[[Page 9053]]
That's exactly what we are doing here. In an effort to get around the
scrutiny that might come if somebody actually said now why is a subsidy
actually going to the Plum Tree Timber Company.
It is no wonder that the rules have been waived here. If I had
something like this in this bill, I would waive the rules too, because
I wouldn't want anybody to talk about it. I would also not want anybody
who is opposed to the bill to claim time in opposition to it.
If I were sponsoring this legislation that I said reformed the farm
subsidy program to make sure that multimillionaire farmers don't
continue to get subsidies on behalf of the taxpayer, I would hide it as
well. I would do exactly what the Rules Committee has done here and the
supporters of the legislation have done.
Because under this legislation, a farm couple earning as much as $2.5
million in adjusted gross income, that's your income after expenses are
taken out, can still receive direct payments under this legislation.
Also, the other subsidy programs, rather than reform or to get rid of
the loopholes that were allowing people to get extra subsidies, we
simply waive the limits there. This is called reform?
I mean, is it any wonder that the rules have been waived and debate
has been stifled here on this critical legislation?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
chairman of the committee, who I believe has done a fabulous job in
bringing this bill to the floor, Collin Peterson of Minnesota.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I haven't seen the entire list that's being talked about
here, but a couple of the things that have been mentioned are not
earmarks, and I don't know why the gentleman continues to characterize
them as such.
First of all, this is not an earmark, it does not define Plum Creek.
What it says is that these bonds can be used for any habitat
conservation plans that protect native fish or any forest land covered
by these habitat conservation plans.
We know of at least seven habitat conservation plans that would
qualify under this provision. So, therefore, it's not an earmark. The
Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan in King County,
Washington, the Plum Creek Timber plan, which is also in Washington,
the Washington Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices Habitat
Conservation Plan in Washington, the West Fork Timber plan in
Washington, the Plum Creek Native Fish Habitat Conservation Plan in
Montana and Idaho, Green Diamond and Pacific Lumber, both in
California.
So this is not an earmark, because any of these would qualify. There
are probably more that we don't know about. Now, this was in the Senate
bill, so I don't know what you are talking about airdropped.
A couple of the others that I heard you mention were also in the
Senate bill, and there is another one that you characterize as an
earmark, which is not an earmark, and that's the salmon recovery
disaster plan which was a plan that was actually first passed in the
2006 Congress by the Republican majority, was implemented in 2006.
Fifty million dollars at that time was put out to the people that were
in the commercial fishing industry, primarily off the coast of
California.
At that time there was a partial shutdown of the salmon season. Now,
this year, we have a complete shutdown of the salmon season all along
the coast from California to Oregon to Washington State. So it's much
broader, and it not only shut down the commercial fishing, it shut down
the recreational fishing in those areas.
What we are doing is replenishing this disaster fund with money that
is exactly similar to what was done, what was in the statute and it was
actually disbursed in 2006, because the disaster is much bigger this
year than it was in 2006 because we had a partial shutdown. Now we have
an entire shutdown of three States.
So this is clearly not an earmark, this is in the disaster title of
the farm bill that goes along with the other disaster provisions that
are in the farm bill. You know, I don't know, I guess because
apparently some people think that being against earmarks is popular
and, whatever, they try to make this into an issue.
But a number of the provisions that were raised by the gentleman are
clearly not earmarks. The House bill that passed out of here had no
earmarks.
We had to deal with the other body, and we took some provisions from
the other body, because that's how a conference works. You know, there
is a lot worse stuff that was in that bill that we took out. I just
want to clear the record that a number of things being talked about
here are not earmarks, and I would encourage my colleagues not to
support this point of order.
{time} 1115
Mr. FLAKE. The gentleman mentioned the National Marine Fishery
Service earmark. It was added at the last minute. It may have been in a
2006 bill, but it wasn't in this bill until it was air dropped into the
conference report. Now $170 million, that may well be a disaster there,
but why in the world, if it is a disaster, why isn't it covered?
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I would.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. The House bill didn't have a paid-for
disaster provision in it, the Senate bill did. And so when we molded
these together, we put these disaster provisions in, and we paid for
them, the first time that we actually paid for a disaster with pay-as-
you-go money, and we included the California disaster in the process
and paid for it.
This is not a new program. As I said, it is not an earmark, and it
was brought in because we were dealing with a disaster. This is clearly
a disaster. Any place that you have a complete shutdown of a commercial
fishery, they are going to be in asking for help from the Federal
Government. That is appropriate. This was brought in, the permanent
disaster program from the Senate, and funded when we molded them
together.
Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for the
clarification. I still would point out we have a $3.8 billion permanent
disaster title added to the bill; and still, in addition to that, we
are funding these kinds of programs directly and specifically.
The gentleman can argue that it is not an earmark. I think that a
casual or a tortured reading of this would both say this is an earmark
when you are naming a specific entity to receive a specific amount of
money and when it wasn't in the House bill, that is an earmark. So
there is a good reason for this point of order.
The gentleman said, and let me go back to the PAYGO issue. The
gentleman mentioned that this rule he thinks is in compliance with
PAYGO. Let me read what this conference report says and see if anybody
can decipher this.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman raised a point of order with
regard to earmarks, not with regard to the issue of PAYGO. That will be
discussed in the rule itself. It will be germane to that later
discussion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman may confine his remarks to
the question of order.
Mr. FLAKE. If I might respond, the gentleman, after he raised his
last point of order went on to talk about the reforms in the bill which
clearly didn't have anything to do with the unfunded mandates language
that I had raised or that I had talked about or that he had raised a
point of order for. Clearly, I understand that they don't want to talk
about this. I understand that. That's why the rules are waived. But to
stand now and to raise a point of order against my point of order
because I am not addressing specifically the question that they want to
address or that they would rather dispose of is, I think, a little
spurious.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 5 minutes
[[Page 9054]]
and the gentleman from Arizona has 1 minute.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman says we talked about
other issues in the last point of order, I was trying to be gracious
with regard to the time and the discussion and allow the gentleman to
speak. I raised an issue on the point of order on PAYGO because we are
going to discuss that in the rules discussion, in the discussion of the
rule.
I would just remind the gentleman that in the time he has taken on
these two points of order, he will probably have discussed this bill
more than any other Member on the floor, even after we agreed to give
him 20 minutes of debate on this topic. So I think that the gentleman
thus protests too greatly, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the other side. You notice the words used, that we
have graciously agreed to give them. Under the rules, the House rules,
those who are opposed to the bill are required to be given the chance
to claim time in opposition, not to be at the whims and graciousness of
those who support the legislation. That's why we have rules, and that's
why in this case the rules have been waived.
I understand completely if I had waived the PAYGO rules, when so many
on that side of the aisle, bless their hearts, have been diligent
sometimes on raising the issue of PAYGO and saying we shouldn't violate
it, if I had violated PAYGO and waived it like this, I would want to
waive every rule as well and stifle all the debate I could because it
is embarrassing, frankly.
I don't have time to yield.
I would just say in my remaining 15 seconds, we have a bill that
deserves a lot more debate than it is getting. This is important
legislation. We are waiving PAYGO rules, and let me just say what this
rule says: Therefore, while there is a technical violation of clause 10
of rule XXI, the conference report complies with the rule. It says
there is a technical violation, but we have complied. It simply doesn't
make sense.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that this conference
report fully complies with the earmark rule. In my opinion, it fully
complies with the spirit of PAYGO.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield to the chairman who would like
to respond on that question as well.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman, and I wasn't going
to prolong this, but just like I had to take issue with saying earmarks
were there that aren't there, I take very much issue with your saying
we are waiving PAYGO. We are not waiving PAYGO. We are not waiving
PAYGO in this bill. We are meeting PAYGO requirements based on the 2007
baseline which is what we started the bill under. This is what the
rules are in the Senate.
Let me explain my point first, and then I will be happy to yield.
So the Senate has a rule that says under whatever baseline you start
off with, that you continue under that baseline with the bill until a
new budget resolution is passed by both the House and the Senate. For
whatever reason, the House has a different rule when we adopted that,
and it says once you file the Budget Committee report in the House, not
when it is passed, if a new baseline comes along, you are supposed to
use that. But clearly, we cannot write a bill of this magnitude and
this scope having two different baselines. We can't have one baseline
in the Senate and another baseline in the House. That is number one.
Number two, the common practice around this place has always been to
follow this rule, that we always use the baseline that we started off
with. That is what we have done for years. So all we are doing is
complying with what the Senate rule is because we have to do that and
it makes sense. We are not trying to waive anything. We are not trying
to get around anything. This bill, it meets PAYGO requirements and it
meets it under the 2007 baseline which is what we started the bill
under. And we are not waiving PAYGO.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and
I would just like to make this point. This rule provides for waivers of
other rules. Last night when we were up in the Rules Committee----
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I control the time under the remainder of
my motion, and I believe the gentleman is discussing the rule.
I don't yield, and if the gentleman from Washington would just
suspend for a moment, I just would like to say that I do not yield
because we are talking about a whole different topic here. I would like
to make sure that we consider the point of order that has been raised
directly by the gentleman from Arizona and not make this a wide-ranging
debate with regard to the rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
each side receive an additional 2 minutes so we may discuss this issue.
Mr. CARDOZA. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
consideration on this point of order, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House now consider
the resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 189, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 309]
YEAS--228
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--189
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
[[Page 9055]]
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Bonner
Bono Mack
Carney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cummings
Gerlach
Hinojosa
Lewis (KY)
Mack
Myrick
Rush
Sali
Sullivan
Weller
{time} 1151
Messrs. HELLER of Nevada, CULBERSON, ADERHOLT, McHENRY, DOGGETT and
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) is
recognized.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Clause 10 of rule XXI, the so-called pay-as-
you-go point of order says that it is not in order to consider a bill
if it increases the deficit if applied today over a period of fiscal
years 2008 through 2013 and the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2018. The effect on the deficit is determined by the Budget Committee
relative to the most recent baseline supplied by the Congressional
Budget Office ``used in considering a concurrent resolution on the
budget.''
Mr. Speaker, according to the Congressional Budget Office relative to
its March 2008 baseline, the Farm Bill will increase the deficit by
$2.9 billion over the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2018. But if
using last year's outdated 2007 baseline, CBO states that it would
decrease the deficit by about $100 million over that same period, 2008
through 2017.
Mr. Speaker, under clause 10 of rule XXI, which baseline provided by
CBO is the most recent and should therefore be used by the Budget
Committee in order to determine pay-as-you-go compliance, the March
2007 baseline or the March 2008 baseline?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Whichever one is required under clause 10
should be the one used by the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
Does the rule not state that it is the most recent CBO baseline?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Whichever one is required under the
alternate branches of clause 10 shall be the one used by the Committee
on the Budget.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, according to clause 10(a) of rule
XXI, in advising the Chair, the Budget Committee must use ``the most
recent baseline estimates supplied by the Congressional Budget Office .
. . used in considering a concurrent resolution on the budget.''
Mr. Speaker, has Congress considered the concurrent resolution on the
budget this year?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The answer is ``yes.'' The House has
considered a concurrent resolution on the budget.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
Isn't it true that the concurrent budget resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2009 considered by the Budget Committee and considered and
passed by the House uses the most recent baseline which is the March
2008 baseline?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not aware of which baseline is
current.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Further parliamentary inquiry.
The rule providing for the consideration of the conference report to
accompany the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 includes a
waiver of all points of order against consideration.
Does that waiver include a waiver of clause 10 of rule XXI, the pay-
as-you-go point of order, and in addition, to all points of order under
the Congressional Budget Act? And does this mean that a Member of
Congress may not raise a point of order against consideration of the
bill even if it is in violation of the PAYGO rule, Budget Act points of
order, or the concurrent resolution on the budget?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That calls for an advisory opinion. The
pending resolution proposes to waive any point of order, so this is a
matter for debate.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
Does this waiver of these points of order mean that the PAYGO rule
and the Budget Act points of order are also waived and therefore, a
Member may not raise a point of order against consideration of the bill
on those grounds?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the pending resolution were adopted, then
any point of order would be waived.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The Rules Committee report accompanying the rule provided for
consideration of the conference report contains an explanation of
waivers and states: ``While there is a technical violation of clause 10
of rule XXI, the PAYGO rule, the conference report complies with the
rule.''
Mr. Speaker, my inquiry is this: Is it possible to be in violation of
the PAYGO rule yet comply with the rule at the same time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may engage his colleagues in
debate on the pending resolution on that point.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. We plan on doing that, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. CARDOZA. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time
yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Mr. CARDOZA. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on
House Resolution 1189.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
{time} 1200
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1189 provides for consideration of H.R.
2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, the continuation
of the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of
[[Page 9056]]
2007 which we passed off this floor in September of 2007.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report rule waives all points of order
against the conference report and against its consideration and
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Agriculture, and it also provides one motion to recommit.
It should also be noted that despite the blanket waiver, the
conference report does not violate clause 9 of rule XXI.
Furthermore, I want to point out that the conference report uses the
CBO 2007 baseline, the year in which the bill passed both the House and
the Senate, and under that baseline, CBO has determined that this
conference report will not increase the deficit in either of the years
2008 through 2012 or in the years 2008 through 2017 scoring window.
Therefore, while there is a technical violation of clause 10 of rule
XXI, this conference report complies with the rule by remaining budget
neutral with no net increase in direct spending. In other words, Mr.
Speaker, this bill does not increase the deficit and it is PAYGO
compliant.
Mr. Speaker, as chairman of a subcommittee on the House Agriculture
Committee, and as a member of the Rules Committee, I'm pleased to offer
the Farm, Conservation, and Energy Act conference report for
consideration today. This bipartisan conference report represents the
blood, sweat and tears of many Members of the House and Senate
Agriculture Committees, including myself. I would be remiss if I did
not single out a few individuals at this time.
First, I must recognize Chairman Collin Peterson, without whom this
farm bill would have never been completed. His unwavering dedication to
seeing this bill through to completion should be an example to us all,
and I am indeed grateful for his commitment, especially in the face of
tremendous adversity.
I also want to thank Ranking Member Goodlatte, Leader Hoyer, and
certainly, not least, our Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, for their
steadfast commitment to creating a farm bill that we can all be proud
of and to stand behind, and because of her leadership, there is, in
fact, significant reform in this bill.
It is hard to believe, but we actually started this process nearly 2
years ago, starting with traveling to nearly every corner of this
country to hear directly from farmers and ranchers from all walks of
life about what they needed in a modern farm bill. We took these wide-
ranging comments to heart and crafted a fiscally responsible, equitable
and unparalleled farm bill.
I wish I could say that it was all a walk in the park. The House and
the Senate passed their respective bills in 2007, and since January of
this year, Members of the House and the Senate have been hammering out
a compromise. There have been many battles, but in the end, this
conference report is something I believe this House should be very
proud of.
While people didn't get everything they wanted, the country got what
it needed. That speaks volumes about the quality of this bill and tells
me we ended up in exactly the right place.
The Farm, Conservation, and Energy Act builds upon the past successes
of Federal farm policy by maintaining the farm bill's safety net, while
at the same time providing for substantial increases in conservation,
nutrition and energy.
However, I'm most proud of the $2.3 billion in new Federal
investments for specialty crops, an industry that has been uniformly
neglected in previous farm bills despite comprising nearly 50 percent
of total farm gate value.
Furthermore, this farm bill contains unprecedented reforms to
commodity programs by revising program eligibility and strengthening
payment limitations.
Through major changes to the crop insurance program, we have also
increased government efficiency and reduced the waste, fraud and abuse
identified in the current farm programs.
More importantly, this bill is completely paid for. Through PAYGO,
Democrats are fulfilling our promise to live within our means like
every household in America is forced to do, and I believe the PAYGO
rules, Mr. Speaker, made this a leaner, meaner and better bill, despite
the complexities that the new rules presented at times.
We pledged to stop writing blank checks with reckless abandon and
shouldering our country's needs on the backs of our children and
grandchildren. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, this legislation
adheres to the spirit of PAYGO, proving that it can be done.
Mr. Speaker, our farmers have the capacity for immeasurable
innovation and success, and they deserve the Federal Government's
commitment that's included in this bill by supporting this farm bill.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to telling my constituents of the 18th
District of California that the United States Congress has accomplished
what many thought was an impossible feat in coming to an agreement on a
farm bill.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly and wholeheartedly urge my colleagues to
support this rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend
from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes,
and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of a final farm
bill, a farm bill that is over 7 months late. It was supposed to be
completed last September when the old farm bill law expired. It's long
past time for Congress to be voting on a final farm bill, and the one
the House will consider today is far from perfect.
It spends billions more than it was supposed to. Mr. Speaker, in
fact, despite this being called the farm bill, nearly 75 percent of the
spending in this bill doesn't even go to agriculture or farming. It
goes to pay for government food assistance programs. Mr. Speaker, let
me repeat that. In fact, despite this being called a farm bill, nearly
75 percent of the spending in this bill doesn't even go to agriculture
or farming. It goes to pay for government food assistance programs. To
me, that is very concerning.
There's also considerable dissatisfaction with the income limitations
being too high for farmers who may receive payments under this bill.
There are also concerns that while commodity prices in the
marketplace have risen since the last farm bill, the guarantees in this
farm bill have also gone up.
There are also special interest provisions that are unrelated to
farming or food stamps that have been stuck on this bill.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I agree that this farm bill is very far from
perfect, but like many of my colleagues in the House, I must measure
this bill by the impact on my constituents in my district.
And as the representative of one of the most diverse and productive
agricultural areas in this country, I will vote for the farm bill
because it does more to support the specialty crops that are grown in
my district than any other farm bill in history.
I must point out that the assistance provided for the specialty crops
grown in my district are not direct subsidy payments or handouts. What
matters most to farmers and growers in central Washington are research
dollars and help in opening up new markets abroad. Specifically, I'm
pleased that the farm bill includes a new initiative to fund research
projects for these specialty crops.
The conference report also expands the successful fresh fruit and
vegetable SNACK program to children in all 50 States. This worthwhile
program provides fresh fruits and vegetables for schoolchildren.
The Market Access Program is also very important in central
Washington and something that I've worked very
[[Page 9057]]
hard on to support for many years. The Market Access Program, or MAP,
assists our agriculture community in expanding access to markets
overseas.
For far too long, American farm products have had difficulty getting
into foreign countries, and sometimes are unfairly blocked outright.
Fair market access and fair trade agreements help our farmers compete,
and the MAP program has proven this to be very successful.
While I will vote to pass this farm bill, Mr. Speaker, I strongly
oppose this unfair rule because it shuts down fair opportunities for
debate and votes on the House floor and because, Mr. Speaker, it waives
new anti-earmark and PAYGO rules written just last January, a year ago
last January, by the Democrat majority.
And already today, Mr. Speaker, we have had a great deal of
discussion on PAYGO and the ramifications. We heard it says it complies
with the spirit of PAYGO and so forth.
Let me just make a point of what happened last night in the Rules
Committee. In the Rules Committee, there is a provision in this rule
that waives all points of order. We had discussion up there on PAYGO.
So the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, offered an
amendment to keep all the waivers, all the waivers in the farm bill
with the exception of the PAYGO provision that was adopted just a year
ago last January by the new majority. That amendment simply said if
there's no problem with PAYGO, then why not keep that provision in
there. It was voted down, Mr. Speaker, on a direct party-line vote.
So it appears what has happened here in this instance--because I
think the rules are very clear. I think Mr. Ryan from Wisconsin pointed
out exactly where we are on this and what the procedures are.
Apparently what we have done--and this to me I think is probably
unprecedented--we have adopted Senate rules in the House for
consideration of the farm bill. Maybe that's a pattern that we will see
hopefully in other things that we'll debate, like, for example, maybe
having more debate on issues because the Senate does have unlimited
debate under their house rules. So, if we're going to start adopting
Senate rules, maybe we ought to do that on the debate area.
Mr. Speaker, a conscious decision has been made to break the PAYGO
rules to increase spending by several billions of dollars.
The farm bill, Mr. Speaker, is long overdue, and I'm disappointed
that a bill that provides new levels of recognition to specialty crops,
as I pointed out in my earlier remarks, from central Washington is
coming before the House with so many other questionable provisions
within the bill.
And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington complains
that nearly 75 percent of this bill goes to a nutrition program. I
would submit to the House that if Republican policies with regard to
the economy weren't what they were we wouldn't have to be increasing
the nutritional support for our citizens.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
California for yielding me time.
I rise today in strong support of the rule we are considering on the
conference report to H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act.
Mr. Speaker, this important conference agreement outlines the funding
for our country's agriculture policy, its conservation approaches, and
its nutrition programs. These initiatives touch each of us in some way.
Whether we're from a rural area, suburban or urban area, the farm bill
has impact on every single one of us.
As a farmer's daughter, I understand how the food we produce is truly
the backbone of our country. I am proud of our Nation's commitment to a
strong farm economy and a long-standing tradition of providing a safe
and secure food supply, not only for our country but for the world.
That is why I support this bill. From the $10 billion increase in
nutrition programs to the $7.7 billion increase in conservation
funding, this legislation provides for our entire country. I've spoken
to our producers, and this legislation gives them the safety net they
need to continue producing the food supply our Nation relies upon. I am
pleased with the balance and vision in this bill, and that is why I
will strongly support it.
I'd like to thank Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for
all of their work on this bill. The chairman has shown exceptional
leadership and patience through this process. This bill turns the page
and helps start a new era of farm and nutrition policy.
I also want to thank Chairman Peterson and the committee for their
inclusion of provisions of the House-passed Regional Water Enhancement
Program. By including the Sacramento River Watershed as a national
priority in the conference report, my region will be able to preserve
farmlands, as well as provide a comprehensive approach to ground and
surface water.
Our initial focus should be on building a strong consensus on
conservation and its value for our region. We have a truly unique
opportunity to shape the vision for the watershed from the beginning.
This will help ensure that we build upon solid, local input.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be standing here today in support of this
well-crafted bill. I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the
final passage of the farm bill conference report.
{time} 1215
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield as much
time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Rules Committee,
Mr. Dreier of California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. And I thank
him for his very thoughtful statement, as always, in his management of
the rule.
I want to begin by extending congratulations to all of those who have
worked long and hard on this important conference report, Mr. Cardoza,
and I see Mr. Hastings here, I know are strong supporters of it. And I
know that there is, in fact, some bipartisan support for this measure,
but I will say that I personally am troubled with it and I am going to
be voting ``no'' on the conference report when we get to that point for
a number of reasons.
I do feel very strongly that as we look at the international food
crisis that exists with over a billion people on the face of the Earth
facing either malnutrition or out-and-out starvation, it seems to me
that we need to take very strong and bold steps to address that. I
don't think that dramatically expanding the food programs and feeding
is the solution to the problem of a billion people who are facing
malnutrition and starvation. I happen to think there are a number of
very important factors that unfortunately this farm bill doesn't
address.
First and foremost, it's key, as we look at the fact that developing
nations in the world have failed to open up their markets so that they
can get onto the first rung of the economic ladder, they are preventing
us from having the opportunity to address that crisis of starvation and
malnutrition. Similarly, we in the United States and the European Union
have unfortunately provided two-thirds of the farm subsidies that exist
in this world. And guess what? That creates a great distortion and
further diminishes the opportunity for those developing nations to
address this very important malnutrition and starvation crisis facing
one billion human beings. And so I just don't believe in any way that
this measure effectively addresses that.
And I think, again, as a number of people have said, if we were to
see the European Union diminish its level of subsidization, then we
would do that. I was very happy in the Rules Committee last night that
for the first time our good friend from Minnesota, the distinguished
chairman of the Agriculture Committee, did indicate that he would
ultimately support that. In the past he hasn't, as I know he has said
publicly and in conversations that I've had with him privately on that.
But nevertheless, it's imperative for us to show leadership on the
issue of
[[Page 9058]]
dramatic taxpayer subsidization of the agriculture sector of our
economy. It is just plain wrong. And I hope very much that my
colleagues, based on that, if they sincerely want to address this
starvation crisis facing a billion people, they will oppose this
measure.
Now, there was an interesting debate, Mr. Speaker, that took place
earlier on and has been going on. And Mr. Hastings made a very, very
compelling argument. Now, this is all inside baseball. I know our
colleagues understand it, and there are maybe some outside of this
Chamber who are following this debate. And it looks like it's very
arcane. I mean, we've got copies of the rules manual and we're looking
at this whole question of PAYGO and 2007 versus 2008. Well, this comes
down to a very simple and easily understood issue, and let me put it
this way:
Yesterday we had a debate on whether or not we should, in fact,
prevent 70,000 barrels a day of oil from going into the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. And the idea behind that was, of course, if we do
increase the supply of energy, prices might come down. Well, guess
what? The people whom I represent in southern California would very
much like to be able to pay maybe $2.50, $2.75 a gallon. And you know
what? If you go to last year, they were able to pay significantly less
than $4 a gallon for gasoline.
Well, how does that relate to the debate that we're having right
here? Very simply. What is it that our colleagues in the majority are
calling for? And that is, to use last year's numbers, to use last
year's numbers, not this year's numbers, in this debate. So that's what
it comes down to, Mr. Speaker. It is just plain wrong. I would like to
pay 2007 prices when I go to the pump and fill up, and unfortunately I
can't. And you know what? This majority should recognize their
responsibility in the exact same way.
Now, as Mr. Hastings said, last night in the Rules Committee I
offered what I thought was a very thoughtful amendment to the rule.
Everyone continued to say this is PAYGO-compliant, this complies with
PAYGO. Well, in one single sentence in the report, Mr. Speaker, they,
in fact, provide the most confusing explanation. It says, ``Therefore,
while there is a technical violation of clause 10 of rule XXI, the
conference report complies with the rule by remaining budget neutral
with no net increase in direct spending.'' What does that mean? So it
begins by saying there is a violation, and then it says there isn't. I
mean, it is so confusing.
Now, the amendment that I offered said, okay, if the majority is, in
fact, complying with the PAYGO requirements, what they should do is
they should say that they don't need to protect the item, clause 10 of
rule XXI, which very clearly states that they must be using this year's
numbers. And so, Mr. Speaker, as you said in your ruling--or your
predecessor in the Chair said, Mr. Pastor, who was serving as acting
Speaker at the time, we're having a debate on this. And it's obvious
that it can be confusing. But I bring it right back to the issue of the
desire that the people who we represent, that they would love to pay
last year's gasoline prices, but it can't be done. And in the exact
same way this is being mishandled. It is just wrong.
And so procedurally we're bringing up a bad conference report. And so
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, which, also, is a
lockdown rule, I should say, and very, very unfair in its treatment of
the rights of the minority--not that anyone cares about that. But
procedurally and institutionally I think that there should be some
concern about the fact that it's a lockdown rule, and if it does pass,
it will allow us to bring up what I think is a bill that has some good
things in it, but on an overall basis will not deal with the very
important challenges that we face.
So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the
conference report.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague
from California. I would just like to reiterate that this bill and this
rule fully complies with the Senate PAYGO rules and it is totally in
keeping with the spirit of PAYGO by complying with the 2007 PAYGO
baselines as my Republican colleague, Mr. Neugebauer, said last night
when he presented the rule to the committee as the Republican ranking
member at that time, and his words were that this bill is fully PAYGO
compliant.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his work on
this bill.
Mr. Speaker, from my point of view the farm bill conference report is
a mixed bag. There are many things in this farm bill that I don't like.
I don't like what I consider to be an extravagant disaster assistance
program. I don't like the minuscule cuts to direct payments, and I
don't like the unnecessary subsidies. And I don't like the fact that
this bill reduces the mandatory funding for the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition program by $756
million.
This is a program that is close to my heart, Mr. Speaker, a program
that is proven to work. Named after George McGovern and Bob Dole, this
program feeds hungry children around the world in a school setting. The
only thing crueler than not feeding a hungry child is to feed that
child for a while and then stop. And that's what has happened,
unfortunately, in this process and it's flat wrong.
I would like to insert a recently published Washington Post Op-Ed
written by both Senators McGovern and Dole into the Congressional
Record at the end of my statement.
Let me be clear, this is not the end of our fight for funds for
McGovern-Dole. And I look forward to working with the appropriators and
the authorizers to ensure that there is proper funding for this program
in the upcoming appropriations bill. I believe it is a moral
imperative.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the bill that I would have written. And, Mr.
Speaker, I suppose that I could find enough reasons to justify a vote
against this conference report. But when I look at the whole bill, I
have concluded that a ``no'' vote is the wrong vote to take today. And
let me explain why I will vote for this bill today.
Thanks to the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Congresswoman DeLauro
and Chairman Peterson, this bill includes the most sweeping expansion
in the domestic anti-hunger safety net ever. This bill will do more to
fight hunger in America over the next 5 years than anything Congress
has done in decades. Over $10 billion will go to improve the food stamp
benefit, to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to children in schools
around this country, and to invest in America's food banks.
Over 73 percent of the spending in this bill will fund the anti-
hunger safety net. Damage that has been done over the years, the
erosion of both the food stamp benefit and the emergency food
assistance system, for example, is fixed in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the nutrition title of the farm bill is not perfect, but
it is very, very good. I'm voting for this bill on the strength of
these improvements, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to do the same.
These enhancements will improve the lives of real people around the
country, people who desperately need help putting food on their tables
in this time of spiking energy costs and rising food prices. This bill
will help more than 10 million people afford an adequate diet,
including over 200,000 people in my home State of Massachusetts.
Unfortunately, though, it will not end hunger in America, and it won't
end hunger around the world.
Mr. Speaker, I believe strongly that hunger is a political condition.
And I believe we can end hunger here at home and around the world if we
find the political will to do so. But ending hunger will take
leadership, leadership to stand up to the powerful special interests
that don't care about ending hunger, leadership to stand up for the
people whose interests aren't always represented here in the halls of
Congress, leadership to simply do the right thing. And ending hunger is
doing the right thing.
[[Page 9059]]
The face of hunger here in America is not one of sunken eyes and
swollen bellies. No, the hungry in America are our neighbors, our
children's classmates, and the seniors we see every day. Some serve in
the military, and others take their kids to soccer and baseball
practice all over this country.
The face of hunger is the face of too many in America, but that
doesn't have to be the case any longer. This bill, the effort put forth
by the anti-hunger community, that deserves such great credit, and by
many Members of Congress is just a start. With a continued and
dedicated effort, this can truly be the beginning of the end of hunger.
This bill is a solid down payment on our efforts to end the scourge
of hunger in America once and for all, and for that reason alone it
deserves our support.
[From the Washington Post, May 6, 2008]
A Slap at Schoolchildren
(By George McGovern and Bob Dole)
How can the world's hungriest schoolchildren be denied
meals while the farm bill being debated in a House-Senate
conference provides millions in subsidies for wealthy
farmers? That's what Congress proposes. In all fairness, it
should not become law.
We are puzzled that Congress wants to increase overall farm
bill spending by billions of dollars yet reduce by more than
90 percent the mandatory funding to feed hungry children. The
program at issue saves lives and has a proven ability to
break the cycle of poverty and hopelessness in poor
countries.
We are not expressing disagreement because the program,
supported by Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush,
bears our names. We believe, simply put, that a costly
humanitarian mistake would be made. Funding for the program
would go from $840 million over five years to $60 million
this coming year. After that, there would be no guarantee of
funding at all. The $840 million in funding represents less
than 1 percent of the proposed total spending in the farm
bill. At a time when increasingly high food prices are
pushing millions of families around the globe deeper into
poverty, we must step up, not reduce, our efforts to feed
hungry schoolchildren.
For just a few cents a day per child, the McGovern-Dole
Program has made a critical difference in the lives of
children and communities worldwide, promoted American values
in the most positive terms, and helped achieve U.S. foreign
policy and national security goals. By providing meals to
children who attend school in the poorest countries, the
program increases attendance rates and student productivity
and gives hope to a new generation of impoverished children
around the world. The impact on young girls is particularly
important. As their school attendance increases, they marry
later and birthrates are reduced.
During our careers in public service, we were honored to
assist U.S. efforts to reduce hunger at home and abroad.
Americans should be proud of the bipartisan progress our
country has made. As a nation, we must not retreat from the
compassion we've shown when the world's poorest children
needed us most. We respectfully ask farm bill conferees to
restore the $840 million in mandatory funding for the
McGovern-Dole Program. Our nation must not turn its back on
the world's poorest. On the contrary, we must demonstrate
again that the United States will continue to be a nation of
compassion.
As former senators, we both know how difficult it is to put
together and pass sound farm legislation. We also know, as
does every member of Congress, how important it is to help
take care of the world's neediest and most vulnerable
children. We believe that a vast majority of the proposed
farm bill beneficiaries share our view. Americans care and
will respond positively if this needed change is made.
George McGovern, a Democrat, was appointed a U.N. global
ambassador on world hunger in 2001. Bob Dole, a Republican,
is a former Senate majority leader.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased my friend from
California said we are complying with Senate rules, but I believe this
is the U.S. House of Representatives, and the fact is we have waived
the House PAYGO rules.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule.
I find it fascinating that our Speaker, when she became our Speaker,
said that we were going to have the most open democratic Congress in
the history of America, and yet we have a rule coming to the floor that
doesn't even allow dissenting voices to speak in general debate.
Our Speaker also at one time said the 110th Congress will commit
itself to a higher standard, pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending.
But instead, we waive the PAYGO rule. And we baseline shop. I know
that's inside baseball, but as the gentleman from California said, it's
kind of like deciding you're going to pay last year's gasoline prices.
Well, I wish we could do that.
And now we have the whole question of earmarks. Our Speaker at one
time said that she would just as soon do without earmarks. Instead what
we have are airdropped earmarks, secret earmarks coming in in a
conference report that nobody can challenge, including one, apparently,
according to press reports, that was requested by none other than the
Speaker of the House.
And so for all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, this rule ought to be
defeated. This is too important of legislation to come before us to be
treated in such a frivolous manner.
Now, let's talk about the matter at hand, the actual substance of the
bill. At a time when we're looking at some of the worst food inflation
in the last two decades, what do we have coming before us, Mr. Speaker?
A bill that will pay out billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies to a
select group of farmers. You know, it kind of begs the question, Mr.
Speaker: Why do we have a farm subsidy program?
You know, I'm thinking about all the people who are going to have to
pay these billions of dollars in taxes to subsidize a select group of
farmers. You know, I think about the auto mechanic in Mesquite, Texas;
I think about the guy working at the grocery store in Mineola, Texas; I
think about the school teacher or the factory worker in Garland; where
is their government subsidy program? Why are we bestowing billions of
dollars in subsidies on this one select group?
{time} 1230
This is a relic of the New Deal. We are paying out money to
millionaires. We are teaching more people to be reliant upon government
programs. Now, Mr. Speaker, we need a farm program. We just don't need
a farm subsidy program.
Let me tell you what farmers in the Fifth Congressional District of
Texas that I have the honor of representing need. They need some relief
in their energy cost. The energy that it takes to run their tractors,
their combines, their farm equipment, and the cost of diesel, they need
some relief there.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The gentleman's time has
expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1
additional minute.
Mr. HENSARLING. And yet there is absolutely nothing that our friends
do on the other side of the aisle to produce any American energy, to
get us any more independent, to have independent American energy.
Also, we benefit one set of farmers at the cost of another. This
continues the ethanol mandates. It continues the tariff on imported
ethanol. Now, if you've got a bunch of corn growers, it may be very
good for them. I would say they're in high cotton, but I guess they're
in high corn. But it's not too good for the cattle raisers, not too
good for the poultry people. It's not too good for the hog farmers or
the other livestock people who are all of a sudden seeing their feed
prices almost triple. What are we doing for them?
Then let's talk about trade. Ninety-six percent of the world's
consumers live outside of America, and yet this is an anti-trade
Congress under Democrat leadership. You had the Colombian Trade
Agreement totally one way. Farmers and ranchers want to export, and
they're being disallowed the opportunity to do that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has again expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman
another 30 seconds.
Mr. HENSARLING. So we need a farm bill that promotes trade, Mr.
Speaker.
Next, we need death tax relief for our farmers and ranchers. Somebody
in the Fifth Congressional District worked his whole life building a
farm and told me, ``Congressman, after the government takes theirs,
there's just not
[[Page 9060]]
enough to go around.'' You shouldn't work your whole life building a
family farm only to have Uncle Sam take 55 percent. We need income tax
relief. That's what a farm bill needs to help the true agricultural
producers. Not a subsidy program, an assistance program for those who
work hard.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my good friend from California for
yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in vigorous support of this rule. I would
like to thank Chairman Peterson, Chairwoman DeLauro, Chairman Rangel,
and Mr. Goodlatte, who I feel have crafted a sound bipartisan
compromise bill for all of us to support, and they are to be
complimented for their hard work during these fiscally challenging
times.
The underlying legislation makes important reforms that benefit
farmers across our Nation and assist many industries which are the
economic engine of the congressional district that I'm privileged to
serve. The bill before us today is an important achievement for the
State of Florida and for the constituents that I serve.
As many of my colleagues know, I represent, along with my colleague
from Florida (Mr. Mahoney), the second largest sugar-producing district
in the country. The Florida sugar industry has a $3.1 billion economic
impact on the State of Florida, and I thank the committees for
including the provisions that assist this important industry.
I also thank the committees for including the Pollinator Protection
Act, which I authored and which was carried by Mr. Cardoza, who is
carrying this rule and working with me. This act authorizes funding to
conduct research on colony collapse disorder to prevent the continuing
decline of the pollinator population. People, if there ain't no bees,
there ain't no food.
Finally, this bill addresses rising food prices here at home and
overseas by substantially increasing funding for nutrition programs and
food banks and promoting duty-free imports in the Caribbean, thanks to
Mr. Rangel, and to Haiti, where citizens are forced now to eat mud
cakes to survive.
Having worked as a boy in farms, I understand firsthand how food gets
to the table. I am proud to say that this bill serves our farmers well.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we've detailed many of the problems with this rule, one
of the worst aspects of which is that, as has been mentioned, it allows
a bit of time travel here for the purpose of going back and choosing
another baseline that allows you to actually comply with PAYGO rules.
That should not be allowed under the rule, and that's why the PAYGO
rules are actually waived in this bill. For all the talk on the other
side about PAYGO compliance, if this bill was PAYGO compliant, the
PAYGO rule would not have been waived.
The same goes with earmarks. More than a dozen earmarks were added,
airdropped into the bill; yet we still have a waiver because we know
there are likely other earmarks added in the bill as well. So we want
to protect against that.
Also, I mentioned about the rule. It stifles debate. I don't know of
another example where a conference report has come to the floor,
particularly one of this magnitude, where those who are opposed to the
bill have not been given the opportunity to claim time in opposition.
Instead, we have to rely on the good graces of those who support the
bill to actually be yielded time to actually speak in opposition to the
bill.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have a real problem in this country in terms
of entitlements. We're going to have to reform Social Security and
Medicare. Tell me how, tell me why anybody out there, outside of the
beltway, should believe that we are capable of doing that kind of
reform when we can't tell a farm couple making up to $2.5 million in
adjusted gross income every year, that's income after expenses, if we
can't tell them that the subsidy party is over? How are we ever going
to reform entitlements? I asked that of my party; I ask that of the
Democrats. How in the world can anybody take us seriously here if we
can't have a farm bill that reforms the subsidy program?
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee, without which we could not have done this bill.
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the pride I want to express is, as being a member of the
Agriculture Committee, which I also serve on, a day like today makes me
especially proud of that membership because what is before us is a
collaborative product, the majority, the minority, arm in arm, working
this through to build the best farm bill we possibly could. A bill that
attends to the nutrition needs of our country; a bill that provides the
safety net for family farmers; and a bill that safeguards the highest
quality, most affordable food supply in the Western world. This
collaborative effort would not have been possible but for the
leadership of Chairman Peterson, who, at every step of the way, wanted
to be inclusive in his leadership style, having not just the majority
but the minority fully involved in writing this bill.
I also salute Bob Goodlatte, ranking member of the committee, because
he could have walked away, could have said we're just going to do the
partisan thing on this bill, but, no, instead played a very important
role substantially improving the product of this bill, by virtue of Bob
Goodlatte's contribution and the contribution of the members of his
caucus on the Ways and Means Committee.
Our farmers are putting into the ground the most expensive crop in
the history of U.S. agriculture. I had a farmer tell me last week that
running three tractors to get his crop in was running a $10,000-a-day
fuel bill. They've got horrific exposure. They need the protection of
this farm bill. Please adopt it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am at this time pleased to
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleague in a
little colloquy.
I understand you're going to offer a previous question on this rule?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman would yield, I am going
to urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we
can amend the rule, not replace the rule, amend the rule so that we can
discuss energy prices and legislation to bring the price of gasoline at
the pump down.
Mr. SHIMKUS. And I would assume a way in which we would do that would
be to bring in more supply?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. It would be based on supply and demand.
The gentleman is exactly correct.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to thank my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, one of the best things we can do for the family farmer
in this economy is to lower energy costs. And that's why I'm coming to
the floor because I am excited about my colleague's previous question
to bring on more supply.
Now, I was pleased to see that my friends on the other side have
accepted the supply debate, and we did that yesterday with great
acclamation, saying that bringing in 70,000 barrels of crude oil onto
the market would lower gasoline prices, your quote, not mine, between 5
cents to 25 cents.
Well, just imagine if we brought a million barrels of crude oil onto
our market, a million barrels from U.S. territory. And I think that's
what my colleague is going to bring in the previous question, because
1\1/2\ years ago, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $58. Today the
price of a barrel of crude oil is $125.09. I'm telling you the public
is starting to wake up. I'm hearing it from soccer moms. I'm hearing it
from labor individuals. They understand that the cost of energy is too
high. The price of diesel has doubled.
In an agricultural country, my farmers are trying to get their corn
in. It's
[[Page 9061]]
been really wet. And it's diesel fuel. Diesel fuel has doubled. We've
got small local truckers going on strike because they can't afford to
fill up the tractor-trailers because diesel costs are too high. Why are
diesel costs too high? Because we won't open up any supply.
I think the previous question will be an opportunity to open up
supply on U.S. soil, and maybe we will get a chance to talk about
opening up supply on the Outer Continental Shelf.
You all agreed to it. Supply will lower prices, based upon our vote
yesterday. But that was 70,000 barrels. Our challenge is to bring a
million barrels, locally produced crude oil and natural gas. Because we
can't sustain these high prices. We can't sustain them in the family
farm.
And that's why I'm excited to be here today to continue to raise this
debate on the price of a barrel of crude oil.
Another thing we could do is take our locally produced coal----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to thank my colleague for yielding.
Because we want to highlight the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a
coastal plain the size of South Carolina, a drilling platform the size
of Dulles Airport. We want to address the Outer Continental Shelf, both
on the east coast and the western seaboard and the eastern gulf. We
want to address coal-to-liquid technology, where we take coal
underneath the soil or on our upper plain, build a refinery, U.S. jobs;
operate a coal mine, U.S. jobs; build a pipeline, U.S. jobs; and lower
the cost for jet fuel so that we can have U.S. jobs.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who absolutely has been an undying
advocate on behalf of those who need it the most, those who are going
hungry in our country.
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, and
I thank him for his perseverance in this effort as well.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the underlying bill,
historic change that will meet the nutritional needs of all Americans.
I want to thank the Speaker for her vision and clear priorities on
this bill and Chairman Peterson for his tireless leadership and
perseverance. Thank you for welcoming my input on something so critical
as the nutrition title.
Today, as the country faces rising food costs, food banks cannot
handle the demand, and families struggle just to keep up. Today 35.5
million Americans live in households where not everyone has had enough
food in the United States of America.
With this bill we are finally taking the right steps to provide
people with a fighting chance, ending the erosion in food stamps by
increasing the standard deduction and the minimum benefit, which has
been frozen at $10 for the past 30 years, then indexing them to
inflation. Commitments to help almost 11 million people, families with
children, seniors, and people with disabilities.
Yet the current administration is looking for ways to undermine the
legislation. The administration has argued against expanding
eligibility by excluding retirement, education savings, and combat pay
when determining that eligibility.
{time} 1245
What does it say when our soldiers who fight so bravely for our
Nation abroad are forced to scrape and scrounge for food upon their
return?
And this bill does more. It increases funding for the Emergency Food
Assistance Program, including an immediate infusion of $50 million to
address supply shortages as more families than ever are relying on food
banks, soup kitchens and food pantries for help. There is also a
dramatic increase in funding for the fruits and vegetables snack
program for our schools giving more children greater access to healthy
fresh fruits and vegetables at school. And we are providing $84 million
in funding for the McGovern-Dole program which helps reduce child
hunger, promotes education and represents a powerful opportunity for
our Nation to export goodwill around the world.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. For too long we have
failed to meet our obligations as a Congress and as a Nation, failed to
act while too many Americans have gone without adequate food, healthy
food, and are facing hunger in our Nation today. Today, we can begin to
do something about it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire again how much
time remains on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 7 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from California has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time to
allow more equity in the time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I was remiss when I introduced my
colleague, Alcee Hastings from Florida, for his undying support and
work with regard to specialty crops. He was joined in this effort by
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney) who has been just a stalwart
in helping me get the specialty crop title into this bill. And I would
like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mahoney).
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Thank you, Chairman Cardoza.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Peterson and
thanking Chairman Cardoza for their tireless resolve to bring this
historic legislation to a vote today. I also want to thank Commissioner
Bronson and my good friends and colleagues, Allen Boyd and Adam Putnam,
for their work in delivering to the ranchers, farmers and growers of
Florida the best farm bill in history.
This farm bill, in combination with the energy bill already signed
into law, completes the foundation upon which Florida will build a
biofuels industry that will power America's engines and make us more
secure. It means more jobs for our State. It means our children will be
able to stay in rural Florida and have jobs for the future. This farm
bill, after more than 70 years, begins to give Florida's growers and
farmers parity with commodity crops.
In Florida, we grow over 270 different varieties of specialty crops.
I welcome this $1.3 billion investment in new programs that supports
research, pest management, trade promotion and nutrition for the
industry.
Finally, this bill makes an investment in our environment by making
an additional $7.9 billion available for conservation programs. This
bill brings farmers and environmentalists together to protect our land,
our waters, and one of our Nation's greatest treasures, the Everglades.
As a Blue Dog Democrat, I am especially proud that we have been able
to accomplish all of the above without having to raise taxes or go into
debt. We don't have to mortgage the farm to pay for this farm bill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Chairman Cardoza, for all of your work on behalf of the
farmers and growers of Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Once again I will continue to reserve,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).
Mr. HODES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the rule
on the farm bill. Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte have
worked hard to put together this bipartisan bill that helps working
class families struggling with the soaring cost of food. On balance it
is a good bill for nutrition and for the small farmers of the
Northeast.
The bill will also help my home State of New Hampshire because it
includes the Northern Border Regional Development Commission Act. I
introduced this bill to help the struggling communities in the north
country of New Hampshire and the region. The commission will help bring
investment, leadership and focus to the north country's economic
development efforts.
[[Page 9062]]
Thirty-six counties in four States that would become part of this
commission have poverty levels above the national average, median
household income that is more than $6,500 below the national average,
persistent unemployment fed by constant layoffs in traditional
manufacturing industries, and a significant out-migration and loss of
younger workers.
The recent announcements of mill closures in Groveton, Gorham, Berlin
and Littleton, New Hampshire, confirm a clear, persistent pattern of
economic distress in this region and across the northern border.
The people of the north country need a new start and more resources
to rebuild their communities for a new economy. The northern border
commission, coupled with other efforts, will help revitalize the region
and rebuild communities which need our help.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this rule. The people of New
Hampshire's north country, and the northeast northern border region are
counting on us.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).
Mr. SPACE. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding his
time. I would like to thank our chairman, Collin Peterson, and Ranking
Member Goodlatte for their hard work on this good, bipartisan piece of
legislation that does a lot of good things.
It enhances conservation. It provides a safety net that our farmers
need to do the work that is so important to this country. It does some
very exciting things with energy. And in the end, it allows these small
family farms that make up most of southern and eastern Ohio to meet
their margins in a very difficult profession. But it does something
more than that. It helps meet the growing needs associated with
poverty; rising food prices, a diminishing manufacturing base, rising
costs of living.
Seventy-five percent of this bill is devoted toward nutrition, being
mindful of the fact that most of those who will be fed pursuant to the
nutritional programs of this bill constitute the working poor. In my
district many of the counties have poverty rates exceeding 20 percent
and unemployment rates at 6 or 7 percent. This means that thousands of
people in my district alone are working full-time but can't afford to
feed their families. This bill will help mitigate that crisis.
This bill is good for farmers. It helps diminish the effects of
poverty and fight the ever-growing fight against poverty in this
country and will allow for the farmers of this country to continue to
provide the safest, cheapest and most abundant source of agriculture on
the planet.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about the
energy issue also. There are some good things in this bill for our
farmers. I especially think the dairy provision was well done. Dairy is
very important to Pennsylvania.
I was in the food business 26 years of my life. I know how people
struggle with their family budgets. But let me tell you, the farmers
are reeling with fertilizer costs. Why are fertilizer costs doubling
and tripling year after year? And why is 50 percent of our fertilizer
now being imported? Because of natural gas costs. Ninety percent of the
cost of ammonia fertilizer is natural gas, clean, green natural gas.
This Congress refuses to produce natural gas in this country. There has
never been a gas well that polluted a beach. Look at this chart. Off-
limits. Off-limits. Off-limits. There should be another one in the
middle. There should be one up here in Alaska.
We have said that we are not going to produce fossil fuel. Natural
gas is a fossil fuel. We are not going to produce oil.
Our farmers need relief. They need affordable energy to drive their
tractors, to dry their grain after they harvest it, and to buy their
fertilizer.
Folks, this country's economic future, not just farming, but our
ability to manufacture, our ability to heat our homes this winter--
right today, we are putting $11.50 natural gas in the ground for next
winter's use. Last year at this time, it was $6.50 to $7. Do the math.
That's a 40 to 50 percent increase in natural gas costs.
We have lost half of the fertilizer factories in America. That's why
our farmers are now using foreign fertilizer. That's why it is costing
them 300, 400 and 500 percent more than it did just several years ago.
Folks, we have to produce energy in America if we are going to farm and
have affordable food, if we are going to manufacture products and if we
are going to have an economy that competes in the global economy.
We are not in a sole economy any more. We are in a global economy. We
have to compete.
In America, we pay $125 for oil. Everybody does. But we have had the
highest natural gas prices in the world for 8 years. And the margin is
increasing because we refuse to produce energy for America. All of
these other debates are going to be academic. We won't have factories.
We won't have successful farmers. We'll be buying foreign fertilizer to
grow products in this country. We'll be buying foreign tractors to
produce our farms. We'll be driving foreign cars because we won't have
a manufacturing base left.
Clean, green natural gas is the answer.
And we need to open up. And we need to drill for oil, too. There has
never been a natural gas well that has harmed us economically and
environmentally. Clean, green natural gas.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
The committee has taken this bill as far as they can. There are some
modest reforms, as they nibbled around the edges. But the fact is, with
the passage of this bill, most farmers will still get no help. Most
conservation needs will be unmet. And we are going to continue to give
money to people who don't need it, up to $2.5 million of farm and
unrelated farm income and as over the last 12 years, 75 percent of the
direct payments went to just 10 percent of the largest farmers. We
don't need to that.
To add insult to injury, section 1619 will hide information under the
Freedom of Information Act so the American public won't even know the
facts. This is wrong. We can do better. We can stop giving assistance
to the richest of farmers. We can redirect it to further strengthen
nutrition and the environment.
I strongly urge a rejection of the rule and the bill. And if the
President has the fortitude to veto it, I hope people will join us in
bipartisan support to sustain the veto.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I ask how much time is remaining on either
side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 4 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from California has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CARDOZA. At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, despite a President that has been unwilling to negotiate
in good faith, the Agriculture Committee, on both sides of the aisle,
has produced a solid compromise. And for the first time, under Chairman
Collin Peterson's leadership, this House has provided authority for the
agricultural interests of this country to lead America forward into a
new energy age.
The committee also has provided $1 billion to secure specialty crop
production in America for a change, to try to stunt foreign imports,
while also providing critical increases for farmers markets to help
empower local family farmers. And while there are some trade provisions
that were airdropped into this bill, not by the Agriculture Committee
that should have been considered in a different manner, the agriculture
provisions of this bill are critical for transforming our economy into
the 21st century.
[[Page 9063]]
In a world of increasing trade deficits and economic instability, the
production of food, fiber, forestry and now fuel, are all critical for
protecting America's economic independence, and her food security.
I want to congratulate Chairman Peterson for his incredible
leadership. He is the right man at the right place at the right time. I
urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the base bill. I thank the
gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman without whose leadership on the bill we simply
would not be bringing the bill to the floor today, the chairman of the
Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
{time} 1300
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying
bill. This has been a long, drawn-out process. It has been a long time
since last July when we first passed this bill out of the House.
I want to first of all commend my ranking member and good friend and
colleague, Mr. Goodlatte, for the tremendous work that he did on behalf
of this bill and his caucus. As was said earlier, this bill is a much
better bill because of the involvement of Mr. Goodlatte and the great
work that he did. I very much thank him for sticking with us here to
the end.
We obviously would have preferred to have been here earlier, but this
was a difficult bill to work out because of all the competing
interests, and the fact that we started off with $58 billion less in
baseline than we had back in the 2002 bill.
In order to make all the accommodations for the different folks that
were interested in improvements in this bill, we had to find additional
resources outside of the Agriculture Committee, which caused additional
problems. We had to deal with a much different bill in the Senate,
where you had a lot of powerful committee chairmen that brought issues
into the bill that were not in the House bill.
We have worked through all of that, and we have produced a product
here that I think it isn't perfect, but satisfies, in most cases, the
different interests in this bill. We maintain a safety net for farmers
along the lines of what we have had in the past.
I, personally, would like the safety net to be stronger than it is,
but it's what can be accomplished at this point. We have $10 billion of
new spending above the baseline in this bill, and that $10 billion is--
I guess money is fungible, but the increase in this bill for nutrition
is $10.3 billion. You could say that we have improved the nutrition
funding to the amount of new money that's put in the bill. This is
money going into the food shelves, food banks that right now are empty
and very much needed. There is a new fresh food and vegetable snack
program for kids in low-income schools, and there is improvement in
food stamps.
We have a good bill that has a lot of other components. I urge my
colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I realize how difficult it is to put a farm bill
together in this place, but this truly represents a missed opportunity.
The so-called reforms that are being advocated under the commodity
subsidy title would only affect, at best, two-tenth's of 1 percent of
farm entities throughout the country.
With an adjusted gross income limit of $2.5 million, these income
limits don't even apply to the loan deficiency program or the
countercyclical program, two of the three subsidy programs that exist
today. At the end of the day we should produce a farm bill that's less
market and less trade distorting and more responsible to the American
taxpayer.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, who, along
with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, their persistence was
such to bring this product to the floor.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just want to say to all of my colleagues that this has been, as the
chairman described, a very long and arduous process that began more
than 2\1/2\ years ago by listening to farmers and ranchers and other
people all across the country and holding a multitude of hearings
there, and here in Washington as well. It began under my chairmanship.
I have never seen anybody who has pursued the passage of legislation as
tenaciously and with such dedication, but also listening to so many
different people, as the chairman of the committee has done.
Mr. Speaker, as a result, this is not your father's farm bill, nor is
it even the farm bill that passed out of this House last summer. This
farm bill has more reform than any farm bill that the Congress has ever
taken up. It imposes payment limitations on farmers and those who own
land and have substantial nonfarm income alike and is well worth
consideration in this body, and I urge its passage.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for a farm bill that is 7 months
overdue, and I want to again commend Chairman Peterson and Ranking
Member Goodlatte for their persistence in bringing this product to the
floor.
But there is another concern for farmers in our country that this
Democrat Congress is totally neglecting, and that's addressing
skyrocketing gasoline, diesel and energy costs. The cost of running a
tractor, trucking products to market, and running a farm has risen
dramatically since Democrats took control of Congress, and they have
done nothing to help farmers, truckers or millions of Americans hurt by
rising fuel costs.
One of the principles of the farm bill is ensuring that America does
not become dependent on foreign nations for our food supply. We, as a
country, have fertile fields that can produce as much food as our
country needs to eat and even export billions of dollars of foodstuffs
overseas. But we, as a country, are not using our energy sources like
farmers use our fields.
For decades, our country has been handicapped by not tapping into our
existing oil reserves. The effort to develop just a tiny portion of
ANWR has been fought and blocked to the detriment of America's energy
independence and with high prices that we are now paying at the pump.
Today I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so this
House can finally consider solutions to rising energy costs. By
defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule, not
rewrite it, just amend it, to allow for consideration of H.R. 5984, the
Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008, introduced by Mr. Bartlett of
Maryland, as well as ``any amendment which the proponent asserts, if
enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national average price
per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing
the domestic supply of oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.''
With diesel and gasoline prices going up and American farmers having
to cope with these skyrocketing costs, it's time for Congress to act.
The Democrat majority has refused time and again to act. We can act by
defeating the previous question.
Defeating the previous question will be simply to allow the House to
debate rising energy prices. The farm bill will still be considered and
voted upon.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the
vote on the previous question.
[[Page 9064]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do
something about rising fuel costs, and the way to do that is by voting
to defeat the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will note that the gentleman from
California has 90 seconds remaining.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, this is a once-in-a-lifetime bill that will
meet our country's needs. Every major group, commodities, specialty
crops, nutrition groups, conservationists and others support this bill.
A ``yes'' vote on this rule and the underlying bill is a vote for
America's hungry, a vote for our environment, a vote for United States'
energy independence, and a vote to deliver on our long-standing
commitment to rural America.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all of our colleagues to support this rule and to
support the underlying bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on
the previous question.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1189 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. That upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker
shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the
House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5984)
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the
limited continuation of clean energy production incentives
and incentives to improve energy efficiency in order to
prevent a downturn in these sectors that would result from a
lapse in the tax law. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and contolled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill
shall be in order except any amendment which the proponent
asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the
national average price per gallon of regular unleaded
gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of
oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. Such amendments shall be considered
as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 1189; motion to
suspend the rules on H. Res. 1134; and motion to suspend the rules on
H. Res. 1176.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 188, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 310]
YEAS--232
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
[[Page 9065]]
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--188
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Bono Mack
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Gerlach
Lewis (KY)
Mack
McDermott
Myrick
Rush
Schmidt
Stark
Weller
{time} 1335
Messrs. LAMPSON and TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. INGLIS of South Carolina, SHAYS and JOHNSON of Illinois
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 310, I missed the vote
because I was talking to military officers from the U.S. Army War
College. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 193, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 311]
YEAS--228
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--193
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
[[Page 9066]]
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Bono Mack
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Gerlach
Lewis (KY)
Mack
Myrick
Paul
Rush
Schmidt
Weller
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain on this
vote.
{time} 1345
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
MENTAL HEALTH MONTH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 1134.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
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 agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1134.
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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 421,
nays 0, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 312]
YEAS--421
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
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)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
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
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
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 Sandlin
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
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
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
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
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
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
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
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)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Bono Mack
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Gerlach
Lewis (KY)
Mack
Myrick
Paul
Rush
Schmidt
Weller
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes are remaining
on this vote.
{time} 1353
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
NATIONAL TRAIN DAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 1176.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1176.
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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 415,
nays 0, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 313]
YEAS--415
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
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)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
[[Page 9067]]
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
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
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gillibrand
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 Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
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
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
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
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
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)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Andrews
Bilbray
Bono Mack
Braley (IA)
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Hooley
Kagen
Lewis (KY)
Mack
Myrick
Paul
Rush
Schmidt
Weller
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes are remaining
on this vote.
{time} 1401
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
ELECTING A MINORITY MEMBER TO CERTAIN STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Republican
Conference, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1196
Resolved, That the following Member is, and is hereby,
elected to the following standing committees:
(1) Committee on natural resources.--Mr. Scalise; and,
(2) Committee on veterans' affairs.--Mr. Scalise.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 5534
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name
removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 5534.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2419, FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF
2008
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference
report on the bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of
agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1189, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
May 13, 2008, at page 8545.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1189, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) and the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes of my time
to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and ask unanimous consent
that he be allowed to control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, it's been a long road to get to this point, and I want
to start off by thanking Mr. Goodlatte, the ranking member of the
committee, again for his great work; my subcommittee chairmen, who
started this process off; the ranking members on the Republican side;
my friends on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel especially, Mr.
Pomeroy, for their hard work to get to this point; the Speaker for
backing us up and helping us keep on track here to get to a final
consideration; and for all of my colleagues in the House for being
patient and working with us and giving us your input.
We have come to a point where I believe we have a good bill that
should be supported by all Members of this Congress from both urban,
suburban and rural areas.
I have here a chart that shows how the current farm bill spending is
going to be allocated on a 10-year basis, which is what we have to go
by.
Nutrition in this new Food, Conservation, and Energy Act is 74
percent of the spending over the next 10 years in this food bill,
commodities are 16 percent. Back in 2002, these numbers were 65 and 35
or something. Conservation is 7 percent; and energy and the specialty
crops, the other items, are 3 percent.
This shows on another chart how we got to those numbers. We had a $58
billion reduction in our baseline. What
[[Page 9068]]
happened, before we started because the prices were up and the amount
of money going out to farmers was down, so we started off $58 billion
in the hole. We were provided $10 billion from our friends in the Ways
and Means Committee of additional spending over the baseline, and this
is how that spending was allocated out.
Nutrition was more than the $10 billion of new money that was put in
the bill, $10.3 billion; conservation, an additional $4 billion;
specialty crops, $2.3 billion; and in the commodity title, we actually
had a reduction. In addition to the $58 billion that we reduced, we had
another $3.6 billion that we took out of the commodity title to help
put money into these other areas.
Having done that, we still have an adequate safety net for farmers.
It's very much like the current law that we have been operating under.
We have made some minor changes, and we have brought the AGI limits
down from $2.5 million to $500,000 on non-farm income, $750,000 on farm
income. So we've made some reform, not as much as some people would
like, but more than others would like. We got both sides a little bit
upset so I think we're doing something pretty close to what we should.
And to show you how the allocation is based on what the 2002 bill was
and what the current bill is, this shows in yellow the 2002 bill and in
the kind of purple color the current bill. In nutrition, you can see
there's a substantial increase. Conservation, the commodity title is
down, and energy is up a little bit.
So we have I think a balanced bill that maintains a safety net. It
includes a new disaster program that is paid for. This bill is paid
for. The $10 billion comes out of a custom user fee extension which is
not a tax increase, which has allowed us to have a bipartisan bill.
We've put a bill together here that I think addresses what people are
concerned about in this country. It has a loan guarantee program for
cellulosic ethanol.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
It has a bioenergy reserve program to allow us to learn how to grow
switch grass and how to harvest it and store it and move it; woody
biomass so we can get cellulosic ethanol going.
We have for the first time significant money in for fruits and
vegetables, which are 50 percent of the agriculture in the United
States.
We have country-of-origin labeling. It's going to be mandatory on
fruits and vegetables and meats starting September 30. We have
interstate meat shipment, another issue that's been hanging on for 20
years.
We've solved a lot of problems in this bill. We have a bill I think
that covers all the interests in the country, and we have a bill that
we should all be proud to vote for in this House.
Again, I want to thank all my colleagues for their hard work and look
forward to having a strong vote on this and encourage you all to
support this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes
of the time allocated to me be granted to the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) so that he can manage that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I rise today in support of the farm bill conference report. I thank
the chairman and all of the other members of the Agriculture Committee
on both sides of the aisle for working in such a bipartisan spirit to
produce good legislation. I also thank my staff and the majority staff
for their hard and, I know to them, seemingly endless work on this
legislation.
This farm bill contains solid reforms while addressing a variety of
issues including forestry, rural development, renewable energy,
nutrition, conservation, research, specialty crops, and livestock and
still maintains the safety net necessary to ensure a safe, reliable and
affordable domestic food supply. This farm bill is a good work product,
and I am proud of the work we have done.
The bill contains more reforms than any previous farm bill,
eliminating payments to millionaire farmers, eliminating the three-
entity rule, and increasing the efficiency of the crop insurance
program among numerous other reforms.
It's 100 percent PAYGO-compliant and is fiscally responsible, scoring
$4 billion less than the House bill and $5 billion less than the Senate
bill. I think you would be hard-pressed, Mr. Speaker, to find a
conference report in the history of this body that came back scoring
less than the House and Senate bills. That is a significant
achievement, and I think it would be foolish to overlook the positive
changes this farm bill has undergone.
When we talk about the farm bill, many believe that the Congress is
voting on a $288 billion bill that goes directly to farmers. The truth
is that only 17 percent of the farm bill spending is devoted to farm
programs, while nearly 70 percent goes to the nutrition title alone. In
fact, there is very little farm in a farm bill anymore.
In 2002, the farm program funding comprised just three-quarters of 1
percent of the Federal budget. Today, farm program funding accounts for
just one-quarter of 1 percent of the Federal budget, a twofold
reduction in just 5 years.
Agriculture policy is essential to the lives of every American, and
it is important that the policy we formulate is responsible, effective
and at a low cost to the taxpayer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
This bill meets those requirements. I support the farm bill because I
believe American agriculture is vital to our national security, health
and way of life, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
important legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, it's planting season back home in Wisconsin. I still
represent one of the largest agricultural producing districts in the
entire Nation. Our farmers need a new farm bill. They need to know what
the rules are that they have to work and live under.
But we need to do a farm bill the right way, not the wrong way, one
that maintains an important safety net for family farmers across the
country and is also responsible to the American taxpayer.
Unfortunately, I kind of feel like Paul Harvey here in the well today
about to give the rest of the story. This farm bill could be summed up
in simple words, it's a missed opportunity. In fact, it could be
summarized by the phrase: Where's the beef? Where's the real reform?
Why do I say that? Let's take a look for a second at the so-called
reforms under the commodity subsidy programs. By the time you include
off-farm and on-farm income and allow double entities, dual entities on
the same farm, and their adjusted gross income, you have adjusted gross
income up to $2.5 million and you still qualify for taxpayer subsidies.
That would constitute approximately two-tenths of 1 percent of farm
entities throughout the country that might be affected by these so-
called reforms under the direct payments.
Now let's remind ourselves, these direct payments are $25 billion,
that go out over the next 5 years, regardless of price, regardless of
production. It's not a safety net. It's an entitlement program that
each and every one of us will have to go home and look our taxpayers in
the eyes and try to explain to them why some of their tax dollars are
going to go to a farm entity with an adjusted gross income of $2.5
million.
{time} 1415
If you look at the loan deficiency program and the countercyclical,
the two other subsidy programs that currently exist, we went in the
wrong direction rather than the right direction with reform.
[[Page 9069]]
There will still be allowed double dipping under the loan deficiency
program. And the loan rates are being increased rather than decreased.
And under the countercyclical, the target prices are going to be
increased. What does that mean? It means that they will be triggered
much earlier and will cost the taxpayer much more if prices start to
decline.
One of the reasons there is less funding under the commodity title is
because we're at a record time of commodity prices throughout the
country. In fact, since the last time the farm bill was on the floor
last year for consideration, you look at the five major commodity
titles, and they have gone up tremendously since that time: Wheat, an
additional 126 percent; soybeans up 57 percent; corn up 45 percent;
cotton, 32 percent; and rice, 31 percent. Those are the main subsidized
crops that we have throughout the country. Yet, instead of going
forward with some reasonable and imminently justifiable reform to
tighten up these programs so it is more justifiable to the taxpayer,
they're going in the opposite direction.
I always believed that we had the capability, in light of current
market prices, to produce a farm bill that maintains an important
safety net for our family farmers but in a way that's less market and
less trade distorting and is also justifiable to the American taxpayer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. KIND. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
Unfortunately, this farm bill falls short on that worthwhile goal.
And unfortunately it's the American taxpayer who is currently facing
increased costs of food and fuel that will be paying more over the next
5 to 6 or 7 years by the time we get a chance to look at the next farm
bill and talk about the reforms that may be needed.
I led an effort 5 years ago under the last farm bill for some
commonsense reforms. People back then said wait for the next one, it's
coming. Well, I've been here long enough to understand that tomorrow
never comes, and today is the opportunity we have, in light of current
market prices, to do the right thing.
I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the farm bill.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am going to recognize my
good friend, Mr. Rangel, but before I do I would like to recognize Mr.
Hall for a colloquy.
Mr. HALL of New York. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me in
a colloquy regarding this bill, which I do support.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I would be happy to engage in a colloquy
with my friend from New York.
Mr. HALL of New York. I thank the chairman for his prior support of a
muck soils conservation program. Unfortunately, this House language did
not survive in conference.
Existing programs like CREP do not address the needs of muck farmers,
like the black dirt farmers in Orange County, New York. In the Hudson
Valley, this has led to full retirement of soil and rent inflation.
The needs that would have been addressed in the House bill remain.
Proposed administrative changes in future CREP contracts will not
address impacts of contracts that are in place today and will be for
several years. These are ongoing challenges for farmers in my district
and throughout the northeast, growers of specialty crops and producers
of muck crops who have been thrice underserved by previous farm bills.
Again, I thank the chairman and ask if he would be willing to
continue working with USDA on solutions that will meet conservation
goals and address unintended economic consequences of existing
programs.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the Congressman from New York for
his remarks and his work on this issue.
These are, indeed, some serious concerns about the implementation of
the New York CREP and its impact on the gentleman's muck farmers. It is
my understanding that USDA and the State of New York have taken steps
to ensure that any new enrollments will not have such negative impacts.
The conference report under consideration directs the Secretary to
work with the producers in New York's muck soil areas to use existing
programs to help implement farm bill conservation programs on acres
still under production.
I look forward to continuing to work with the Congressman from New
York on this issue in the future.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good
friend, the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee, without whose tremendous work we wouldn't be here today. So,
Mr. Rangel, we very much appreciate, on the Agriculture Committee, your
effort, and you, Mr. Pomeroy, as well, to help us get this bill to the
final end.
Mr. RANGEL. I know that some of you may wonder why an old man like me
from Harlem would have an interest in the ag bill, but when I hear my
distinguished colleague from New York talk about muck farming, it's
very important to us as a farm State that we be involved in those type
of things. But the truth of the matter is that, while I recognize there
are times to be quiet and to listen and look intelligent, I had Earl
Pomeroy right there at my side asking, what are they talking about?
I've learned a lot about trust funds that I didn't even know
existed--and some of you didn't know. But the truth of the matter is
that, while I recognize that Mr. Kind was looking for a bill that, as a
person that concerned themselves in agriculture, that at the end of the
day we have to play the cards that have been given to us. And so I do
know the good that has come out of this bill and the pride that I got
as a Member of this Congress and seeing the work that Mr. Peterson has
been able to do, working with the Republicans on the other side, in all
parts of the bill, in all parts of the leadership on the House and on
the Senate side and with them. And I'm telling you, if all of us could
have the optimism that he has displayed in the last few years about the
salvation of our country, we would have no problems.
It was like a big jigsaw puzzle, and each time he told me we got the
last piece there, and when he plugged it in, something even bigger
dropped out. We buried this bill so many times, but I'm glad to see
that, through the bipartisanship, the friendship, and the cooperation,
we will be able to give this country and the world a product that we're
proud of, a product that our farmers have worked on to be able to be
the food basket not only of the world, with special provisions, but of
the many people in our great country that are so in need of food. I'm
proud to be a Member and proud to be a part of this.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I say this regretfully, but this bill is an absence of
leadership. This bill shows that we're not leading, that America is not
leading, that the new majority is not leading.
Why do I say that? The new majority brought this bill to the floor
and they waived PAYGO. They swept PAYGO under the rug and they're
violating PAYGO in two places in this bill alone. They'll say, we're
trying to conform with the Senate PAYGO rules. Well, that does so at
the very expense of the House PAYGO rules. What I find interesting is,
right after this bill is passed they're bringing up the new budget
resolution, which if that passed before this bill passed would violate
the Senate PAYGO rules. How convenient.
The point is this: We're sweeping money under the rug; this bill is
hiding $23 billion in extra costs, it's not even measuring the amount
of payment increases and price increases that are in here. But where
this is really a loss in leadership is, I don't think the American
taxpayer, who is having a hard time making ends meet today, who is
stretching their paycheck really far with high gas and food prices,
likes the idea that we're going to give couples earning $2.5 million
subsidies for growing agriculture. Why are we giving agriculture
subsidies to multimillionaires? This does not reflect the values
[[Page 9070]]
that the taxpayers sent us here to achieve.
More to the point, Mr. Speaker, this will hurt the family farmers.
That's what a farm bill ought to be about, helping family farmers, not
corporate farmers. But by doing it this way, we're making it harder to
open up markets for our family farmers so they can sell their corn,
their beans, their dairy, and all their other products in foreign
markets. Ninety-seven percent of the world's consumers don't live in
this country, they're in other countries. We should open those markets
for their products.
This bill, with its huge subsidies, closes those markets, it hurts
the Third World from being able to lift their life out of poverty, and
it wastes taxpayer dollars. And all you have to do is look at the rule
that passed that says, ``Waive PAYGO one more time. The rules don't
apply. Let's hide all this extra spending.''
This, among many other reasons, is why people should vote against
this bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a ranking member of
one of our subcommittees.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a few brief
observations about H.R. 2419, the farm bill.
Now, let me preface my comments by noting that this is a
representative democracy. And while I may not always agree with the
actions of this body, I am obligated to vote the will of my Oklahoma
constituents.
My farmers and ranchers want a farm bill. They know how important it
is to have a comprehensive Federal farm policy for both producers and
consumers of American's food and fiber. They've watched as the majority
leadership of this body ordered the cut of $300 million of direct farm
commodity support. And soon they will figure out that a single--maybe
earmark is not the proper phrase, a single project in this package will
spend almost $250 million to subsidize the land purchased by a private
entity.
They know that the committee had no new money to spend on production
agriculture when we started to write this bill. And they will be amazed
when they realize that the majority leadership of the House demanded
and received $10 billion in new government nutrition programs.
They thrived under the flexibility of the last two farm bills. They
understand that raising target prices and loan rates is a step back to
the old days of Federal Government making planting decisions for them.
Mr. Speaker, it's not hard to read between the lines. The elected
leaderships of my farm groups back home fear that this is the best that
this body is capable of with this House leadership. And they are
frightened of all the leading candidates for President.
I understand the fear my fellow farmers and ranchers in Oklahoma have
for the future of agriculture, and at their request I will vote for
this, as we would say back home in Oklahoma, ``half a loaf.'' But this
process and this policy, I fear, aren't good for American food
producers or American food consumers.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to my vice chairman and the distinguished chairman of the
Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research Subcommittee, Mr. Holden
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. HOLDEN. I thank the chairman for yielding to me and I rise in
support of the conference report. But I also rise to congratulate and
commend our chairman and ranking member for a job well done.
This is a bipartisan product. This committee, we very seldom have
partisan disagreements, but we have regional differences, and this bill
reflects those regional differences. It also reflects that all of us
had to give, all of us had to compromise. Every title of this bill is a
compromise that all of us worked together so that we can accomplish.
In title I, we were able to maintain the safety net at the same time
to have reform written into this law. Title II on conservation, an
increase of $4 billion of investment in conservation programs.
Everyone is talking about the price of energy in this country, and
for the first time in an ag bill we have a significant investment in
energy. We have a loan guarantee program for cellulosic ethanol that's
going to allow us to begin to wean ourselves off dependency on foreign
energy.
And the nutrition title in this bill is over a $10 billion increase
in investment in nutrition programs in the Department of Agriculture.
This is a good bipartisan agreement, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I represent one of the largest
agriculture districts in the Nation, western Wisconsin. We do a lot of
corn, a lot of soybeans, a lot of beef cattle, obviously a lot of
dairy. I've got a 200-acre farm myself, and we rotate corn and
soybeans, have some beef cattle on it. One of the additional concerns I
have with the subsidy programs is how skewed it is to the very biggest
entities.
Over two-thirds of these commodity subsidy programs are going to the
10 percent largest entities in agriculture today. Why is this a problem
where I'm from? Well, a lot of these big entities are using the
additional subsidy money to gobble up the family farms that exist
around them. It's driving up land prices in Wisconsin and making it
virtually impossible for new beginning farmers to enter agriculture.
If you look at the reforms that are being touted in this farm bill
before us today, they just don't meet the test of time. The income
limits that apply currently to direct payments, by the time you count
dual incomes on the same farm go as high as 2.5 million in adjusted
gross income. That's after expenses. That's after all the cost of doing
business is deducted out. And according to last year's tax returns, for
those who filed a Schedule F Farm Income Report for tax purposes, these
reforms that are being touted today might affect two-tenths of 1
percent of farm entities throughout the country, two-tenths of 1
percent. Give me a break. And the income limits have been lifted for
the other two subsidy programs, the loan deficiency program and the
countercyclical program.
And to top it all off, they've created the granddaddy of all earmarks
in this Permanent Disaster Fund, which we all know, based on past
history, is going to be a very targeted, very regional dispersion of
this new Disaster Relief Fund.
{time} 1430
Now, when you think about the fact you've got three existing subsidy
programs already, LDP, counter-cyclical, the direct payments, you throw
on top of that the crop insurance subsidization that goes on in the
farm bill, why do we need to add another layer of entitlement funding
with this new disaster relief program? But we all understand how these
farm bills come together. They usually go above baseline. They have to
come to the Ways and Means Committee to find offsets in order to pay
for it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
They come up with enough money to throw at enough groups, at enough
individuals, at enough programs in order to buy people off around here.
And it's the reform effort that's the first casualty in this entire
process. We saw it 5 years ago. We're seeing it today. My fear is we're
going to see it 6 or 7 years from now when the next farm bill is up for
consideration.
It is a missed opportunity. The President is right. We ought not be
giving taxpayer subsidies to wealthy individuals at a time of record-
high commodity prices in the marketplace.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the
chairman of the Specialty Crops, Rural Development and Foreign
Agriculture Subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
McIntyre) for 1 minute.
[[Page 9071]]
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a victory for farmers, a
victory for communities, a victory for rural America.
As chairman of the Rural Development Subcommittee, I'm pleased that
this conference report contains strong rural development title that
supports small business, expands access to broadband, and addresses the
critical infrastructure backlog at the USDA. I'm very excited that this
conference report also authorizes regional development economic
commissions across the country to put a Federal focus on jobs and
economic development.
At a time when our economy is struggling, the authorization of the
Southeast Crescent Authority, or called the Southern Regional Economic
Commission in this bill, represents a great opportunity to help our
rural communities thrive for generations to come. It will also help
small business through the new Rural Entrepreneur and Microenterprise
Assistance Program that will provide technical and financial assistance
to businesses employing less than ten people, which are the fastest
generators of new jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have an opportunity to move rural
America forward and no longer leave it behind with business and
economic opportunity, and that's what this farm bill does. And may
Congress follow suit to do the same.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes here in Washington, we tend to drink our own
bath water and believe our own press releases. And to hear some of the
debate here, you would think this is the best bill in the world and
that everybody out there has got to support it.
Let me just read a couple of editorials from around the country to
give you an idea of how this bill is being played outside of
Washington:
The Columbus Dispatch: ``The current compromise version of the farm
bill includes little retreat from the subsidy program that for decades
has bled taxpayers, fattened the already fat, distorted market
incentives, soured U.S. trade, hurt the environment, and done little
for family farmers.''
The San Francisco Chronicle: ``From the fiscal watchdog perspective,
this bill is a sign that the new Democratic leadership is as profligate
as the Republican leadership it replaced. Make that more profligate . .
. The $286 billion farm bill is good politics only because the millions
of taxpayers who are paying the bill are not pushing as hard as the
relatively few who benefit.''
The Albany Times: ``Corn prices are up. Same for flour. That means
farmers are enjoying boom times . . . So why would Congress even think
of giving more generous subsidies?'' That's a good question.
The Spartanburg Herald-Journal:
`` . . . The fact that reform has failed, and Congress is about to pass
a renewal of the same failed, wasteful subsidies, is a testament to all
that's wrong with politics in Washington . . . Congress has reached a
House/Senate compromise bill that will continue to take money from you
and other families struggling with high food prices to further enrich
big corporate farmers who are already earning record prices for their
crops.''
The Dallas Morning News: ``The legislators negotiating the new farm
bill evidently don't do their own grocery shopping. Otherwise, they'd
have seen the dramatic rise in food prices. And they'd have done more
than trim only $400 million from the $26 billion in direct-payment
subsidies they're planning for farmers . . .''
We can do a lot better than this. I want to associate myself with the
comments of Mr. Kind from Wisconsin. Taxpayers expect more.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes),
a ranking member on the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. HAYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this farm bill and especially to
thank Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte and really
especially the incredible members of the House Republican and Democrat
staff for their tremendous work on this very difficult legislation.
However, I must oppose a provision that should not be in this
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation needs an agriculture policy for the 21st
century. Anyone who is paying attention to their grocery bill lately
can see that things are changing around the world and in this country.
It's showing up in the price of food. If you're keeping up with the
news, the changes we are seeing in higher prices are being played out
as full-blown food shortages in other parts of the world. Sound
agriculture policy is not just about our economy; it's a key component
in our national security.
Mr. Speaker, we need this legislation, and I support the passage of
the agriculture provisions. But there is a provision that was added
late in the process that has nothing to do with agriculture, nothing to
do with farmers or our food supply. It's a provision that will
liberalize our current trade practices with Haiti.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the impact of this Haiti provision
will be. Two of the leading textile groups say the impact will be
minimal while the positive benefits of the farm bill will be much
greater. While I would reject this policy change under any procedure,
this Haiti provision was added without hearings, without any debate.
Mr. Speaker, out of principle I don't think this is the time or the
place to add this trade provision with Haiti. And, therefore, to make
that point, I am going to cast a ``no'' vote on the farm bill
conference report today.
Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. My vote today is to protest this
Haiti provision, but my goal is to ensure passage of the farm bill. I
know there's a veto threat from the White House. If the President
decides to follow through, I will be there voting to override him
because we need this update for our Nation's policy.
Mr. Speaker, after a very lengthy conference process, I am pleased to
report significant victories in the ag portion of this bill. As the
Ranking Member of Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, I worked with my
colleagues to eliminate or water down many of the Livestock Competition
issues that were included in the Senate passed Farm bill. Most
importantly, we were able to defeat the inclusion of the ban on packer
ownership. This ban would have been detrimental to North Carolina and
the livestock industry across the nation.
The economic adjustment assistance program for textile mills is
another significant provision included in this bill. This important
provision will provide critical assistance to textile manufactures for
the modernization of equipment and operations. This is a priority for
our leading domestic textile organizations including the National
Council of Textile Organizations, the Cotton Council and the American
Manufacturing and Trade Action Coalition.
The White House or anyone else watching, should not read my ``no''
vote today as opposition to passage of the agriculture provisions in
the Farm Bill. Our Nation needs updated agriculture policy. As a member
of the Agriculture Committee and conferee to this bill, I had a hand in
shaping these changes. We ultimately need to get this done, and I will
be there to make sure it does.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize
the distinguished chairman of the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry
Subcommittee, who is responsible for having the first-ever livestock
title in the farm bill, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) for 1
minute.
Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Peterson, for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. And I would
just say to my friend Mr. Kind, we all want the whole loaf of bread but
sometimes we take a few slices, and you have to know that lots of
reform has taken place.
As chairman of the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee,
working with my ranking member over here, Mr. Hayes, we have got the
first-ever livestock title. It offers producers much-needed protections
and ensures fairness and transparency within the marketplace.
[[Page 9072]]
I'm proud of this bipartisan bill. It also has a strong title for the
dairy industry. Together we were able to bring producers and processors
together on issues that have divided the industry for years. We were
able to bring together the National Milk Producers Association and the
International Dairy Food Association, with their excellent leadership,
to avoid a very controversial issue in the dairy forward pricing
program. Also, in the dairy title we ensure our dairy producers have an
adequate safety net and our dairy industry continues to thrive.
The farm bill will provide a safety net for farmers and increase
conservation efforts so that we can protect the land for future
generations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 10 seconds.
Mr. BOSWELL. Everybody, every man, woman, and child, has a vested
interest in the farm bill. We have access to the most plentiful,
safest, least expensive food in the world. Mr. Rangel gets it. Mr.
Ackerman gets it. We should all get it.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, Indiana is agriculture, but Hoosiers on and
off the farm also believe in fiscal discipline and reform. And it's for
these reasons that I regretfully express my opposition to this farm
bill, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
During my years of service on the House Agriculture Committee, I have
sought to be a voice for Indiana family farmers and an advocate for
reform. I have worked to advocate changes in this legislation. And I
want to express my profound appreciation to Chairman Peterson and to
Ranking Member Goodlatte for including provisions in this farm bill
that will save Indiana jobs and create new opportunities for farmers
across the Midwest. While I differ ultimately in the support for the
final product, I respect deeply these two men and am grateful for their
work on behalf of these issues.
I'm opposing the farm bill because I believe it's fiscally
irresponsible and does not contain the kind of reforms in American
agriculture that these times demand. This bill fails to reduce
government subsidies to farmers, fails to encourage market-based
reforms to the Nation's agricultural policy, and fails to promote
international trade. It also fails to meet our Nation's farm policy
needs within our own budget guidelines.
The farm bill being considered today will actually increase the size
and scope of government and will cost taxpayers more than $650 billion
over the next 10 years. In comparison with the previous farm bill, this
bill will cost $65 billion a year as opposed to the $45 billion before.
It is in effect a 44 percent increase in spending.
And let me say I support family farming and I loathe the demagoguery
of many who criticize farm subsidy programs, ignoring completely the
real world input costs that American farmers face. But this bill still
goes too far, in my judgment. It will continue to allow married couples
with household incomes up to $2.5 million to receive subsidies. Subsidy
payments oftentimes, under this legislation and previous bills, are
concentrated in the hands of a few with the top 10 percent of
recipients receiving nearly two-thirds of all farm payments.
There are other problems with this bill as well. It will allow
farmers to lock in price support payments at the lowest possible market
price and sell their crops at the highest price. And the bill also
ignores the plight of consumers facing skyrocketing food prices by
making a bad sugar program worse.
Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor with a sense of melancholy about
this, having been on the Agriculture Committee during development of
the last farm bill and coming from the great State of Indiana. It has
always been my ambition to support Indiana farmers, to support them
with Federal policy that enables farmers to sustain the American
cutting edge in global agriculture. But I have always sought to do that
in a way that protects our Federal budget and protects the American
taxpayer at large.
It's for those reasons that I am opposing this farm bill legislation
and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized
for 2 minutes.
Mr. HULSHOF. I thank the tag team here for allowing me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, and I
commend my friend for his patience and his persistence in bringing to
this body this consensus product.
I realize that fewer and fewer Americans have a direct connection to
the land. One reason is because it's becoming quite tough to make a
living in production agriculture. And certainly that disconnect to
rural America is evident here on the floor of the House. Dwight
Eisenhower once said, ``Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a
pencil and you're a thousand miles away from the cornfield.''
Or to put it another way, Mr. Chairman, I quote from the saying on
the plaque in your office that says, ``If farming were easy,
Congressmen would do it.''
Well, I am a farmer. I'm the son of a farmer. I'm the grandson of a
farmer.
Agriculture runs in cycles, and sometimes those cycles are pretty
volatile. In September of 2005 during our corn harvest after Hurricane
Katrina, the price of corn at a river terminal in Southeast Missouri
was $1.40, and I don't recall anybody other than yours truly coming to
the floor to extol that fact.
{time} 1445
Yesterday, that same bushel of corn would have brought $5.97 at least
on the Chicago Board of Trade, and even that isn't a windfall. And
because we know that it is 47 percent more this year to plant one acre
of corn in Missouri than it was last year, fertilizer is up 112
percent. Grain contracts and loans are getting harder to come by. Debt
has increased by 30 percent in the last 5 years. We know farming looks
a lot today like it did before the crash of the 1980s.
And we also know with all respect to those who talk about profligate
spending, that about three-quarters of the farm bill dollar in this
bill will not go to farmers but to the equally noble goal of ensuring
that Americans have enough to eat. And quite frankly I expect that most
of the farm payments to production agriculture in this bill will never
have to be paid because the market price is going to be above the
trigger level.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the farm bill. In doing so, I thank
my good friend Chairman Peterson for bringing a bill we can all support
to the floor. I must say that without his leadership, we would have
never reached this point.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the last farm bill I will vote on as a Member
of this great House. And as I do so, I think of my dad, the founder of
my family's farm. He built our farm using not Government handouts but
hard work, business savvy and penny-pinching.
By creating this successful small business he was able to save just
enough to plant the next year's crop and send his only son to college.
Many who oppose this bill would probably point to my dad as one of
those rich farmers who doesn't need a safety net. In response, I quote
Dwight Eisenhower, ``farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a
pencil and you're a thousand miles from the corn field.''
Those of us who actually farm, know farming isn't easy. We know that
it now costs $534, or 47 percent more than last year, to plant 1 acre
of corn in Missouri and we know fertilizer is up 112 percent from last
year. We know that farming looks a lot like it did in the 1970s.
For those who don't remember, during the 1970s we had conditions much
like today; healthy world demand took prices to all-time highs. Many
farmers cashed in their land's equity and bought new land to chase
these high prices. Then Government policies changed, including the
grain embargo to the Soviet Union after their invasion of Afghanistan,
and the market crashed.
[[Page 9073]]
I remember that policy well; it was the first time I realized that
factors beyond our farm gate could determine the fate of our farm. I
later learned that it nearly cost us our farm.
Ultimately, the crash of the 1980s caused thousands of farms to go
under and when they did they took with them 300 agricultural banks,
countless business that depended on farmers, and even some entire rural
communities.
The similarities to today are striking. Today farm debt sets a new
record every year, increasing 30 percent, or $52.8 billion, in the last
5 years. The price of land has once again risen to 1970s-esque highs,
climbing 67 percent since 2003.
Now I am not saying that we can expect a crash, I don't know what the
market will do over the next few years--no one does. What I am saying
is that now is not the time to support irresponsible cuts to the safety
net.
Now I know, the opponents of the farm bill will say they don't
support irresponsible cuts, they only want ``reform.'' There is reform
in this bill, there is a lower income cap, there are reforms to the
loan programs and the bill does away with the three-entity rule.
I know, the reformers will counter by saying these reforms don't go
far enough. But if their reform plan--the Kind-Flake Amendment--would
have passed and prices would have declined during the life of the farm
bill, then ``most of the farms and ranches would not be able to survive
the erosion in farm income,'' according to the independent Agriculture
and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M University.
The bottom line is that Chairman Peterson has engineered an excellent
compromise. It provides $209 billion for food stamps and school
lunches. The bill also provides $25 billion for conservation programs,
including enough funding to enroll nearly 13 million acres, or an area
the size of West Virginia, into the Conservation Security Program. And
the bill provides $35 billion to help farmers stay afloat.
The good news is if prices stay at their current level, most of those
authorized dollars will never have to be paid. The safety net in the
2002 Farm Bill cost $20 billion less than what it was projected to
cost, because commodity prices stayed high.
This bill is not a windfall; it is a basic safety net for our
farmers. This safety net costs each taxpayer 6 cents a day. In return,
farmers provide the safest, most abundant food supply at the lowest
cost--just 11 percent of our income goes toward food, the lowest total
in the world.
So I ask all of my colleagues to support this compromise. I am sure
every Member can find things to oppose in this bill, there are
certainly parts I oppose and I know there are even parts of the bill
that Chairman Peterson opposes. But at the end of the day, we cannot
allow the perfect to be the enemy of the farmer. Support the farm bill.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize
the chairman of the General Farm Commodities and Risk Management
subcommittee, the outstanding chairman from North Carolina (Mr.
Etheridge) for 1 minute.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, let me commend the chairman and ranking
member for their hard work. And I stand in support of this conference
report.
This truly is a bipartisan piece of legislation that the House
Agriculture Committee has produced and one that affects every citizen
in this country.
Agriculture is the number one industry in my home State of North
Carolina. It is responsible for $66 billion in income and employs
almost one-fifth of the State's workforce.
Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we have a stable farm policy in this
country, not just for North Carolina, but for every child that
participates in the nutrition program, for every food bank and for
every school lunch program.
The bill increases the funding for the Nation's nutrition programs by
over $10 billion, provides over $1.1 billion for renewable energy, and
increases funding for conservation efforts by $6.6 billion.
And for new and growing sectors of agriculture like organic foods, we
have included, for the first time, mandatory funding for specialty crop
research and marketing.
And we are able to do all this while ensuring that the safety net for
our farmers remains intact, ensuring that no matter what, our citizens
will always have a stable food supply.
Mr. FLAKE. I yield 1 minute to the minority leader, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I have been around the House
Agriculture Committee for nearly 18 years. The chairman and I came
together. We are good friends, and so is the ranking Republican, Mr.
Goodlatte. And I know they have worked hard to produce this bill.
But clearly, most Americans think that Washington is broken. And this
farm bill frankly is another example of that. I know there is some
reform in this bill. But when you begin to step back and look at the
bill, we didn't get anywhere near the reform that I think most
Americans would expect.
At a time when we have got the highest commodity prices that we have
seen in a generation, you would think that we would take a slightly
different approach to the farm bill. But unfortunately, because of the
process, because of the negotiations, it didn't happen. I just want to
point out what I would describe as the most egregious part of this.
I, or one of my designees, will have a motion to recommit this
conference report. And it is no secret that politicians have
traditionally used and abused the farm bill for their own pet projects.
There are three pet projects in this bill that I am going to single out
in my motion to recommit.
One, it would strip out the ``Trail to Nowhere,'' a land swap that
was airdropped into the bill by the senior Senator from Vermont. The
language would require the U.S. Forest Service to sell portions of the
Green Mountain National Forest exclusively to Vermont's Bromley Ski
Resort. And believe it or not, to accommodate this obscure demand,
portions of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail may have to be moved.
They are actually going to move the Appalachian Scenic Trail, possibly
have to move it, because we are going to sell this land to a ski
resort. I don't think the taxpayers ought to have to bankroll this
boondoggle.
Secondly, our motion will strip out a $170 million earmark for the
salmon industry that was airdropped into this bill in secret. The
provision was never considered in the House. It was never considered in
the Senate. One hundred seventy million dollars to bail out salmon
fisheries. Now you should also note that after Hurricane Katrina, when
the entire gulf coast fishing industry was annihilated, they actually
only got $126 million from the Federal Government to fix their
fisheries. I don't think taxpayers ought to be required to put up the
money for an airdropped earmark that was brought into this bill never
having been considered in either body.
Finally, our proposal would strip out a $250 million earmark secured
by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the gentleman from
Montana. This earmark, incredibly enough, is targeted for forests to
house fish. Yes. We are going to target a forest that houses fish,
incredibly, what we would call ``forest fish.'' Only one forest in the
country happens to have fish in it. And it just happens to be based in
Montana, located in Montana where the Senator is from. I don't think
the taxpayers ought to have to pay $250 million to take care of forest
fish.
Listen, the American people are struggling with the high cost of
living, whether it is the cost of gasoline, the cost of food, trying to
make sure that they have got health care, concerned about whether they
have a job tomorrow or will be able to afford their home mortgage. And
here we are moving a farm bill that has earmarks in it that just don't
pass the straight-face test.
And so I would ask my colleagues, if you think that this is a wise
use of taxpayer funds, you can go ahead and vote against this motion to
recommit. But I would invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle,
if you think that taxpayer funds could be spent more wisely, vote for
the motion to recommit, and let's make this bill a better bill. We can
do better.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes
to a strong advocate of reform and for a strong conservation title in
this farm bill, my good friend from Oregon, Earl Blumenauer.
[[Page 9074]]
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate
his leadership.
I heard my friend from Missouri talk about the lack of connection to
rural America. And I think that is, in fact, the case. And we are
missing an opportunity with this farm bill to try to strengthen it
because this farm bill continues to shortchange most farmers. It will
fail to fund the majority of the environmental programs that go
lacking. And most farmers will continue to get nothing, nothing from
this bill. The richest 10 percent will get two-thirds to three-quarters
of the total direct farm payments.
There are a number of things in this bill that I like, that I have
been working for since the last farm bill to help provide some support
for people who grow food, not just the five big commodities. I am glad
that there is an increase in nutrition. But the reason the President
should, and I think will, veto this bill has nothing to do with the
good stuff. It is time to reform the farm bill, to reduce to $200,000
limit on AGI to qualify for subsidy. That is what the President is
arguing for. That is the right thing to do. It is something that we
ought to be able to have a bipartisan majority to support.
It will save the taxpayers money. It will enable us to fully fund the
environmental programs that are so critical, particularly for small and
medium-sized farmers and ranchers. We don't have to shortchange
nutrition. The nutrition provisions ought to be strengthened with money
we save from unneeded payments to the rich.
We have lots of money that is flowing to the richest farmers in
America who don't need it. That's wrong. In fact, they have assumed
that this bill is so egregious, I invite any of my colleagues to look
at section 1619. The authors of the bill carve out an exemption to the
Freedom of Information Act so that the recent Circuit Court ruling that
would open this up to a spotlight is off limits.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Oregon has
expired.
Mr. KIND. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. We should not drop a veil of secrecy over this bill.
We should open it up. Let the American public know what is in it. If
for no other reason, the notion that we are going to play a game of
``hide-the-marble'' with them, and not be honest about the true cost
and the true benefits is another illustration of what is wrong with
this bill, why the President should veto it, and why each and every
Member should sustain that veto.
We can do a lot better for less money to help more farmers and
ranchers. And I urge my colleagues to do so.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize
the distinguished chairman of the Department Operations, Oversight,
Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee, one of our outstanding chairmen,
Mr. Baca of California.
Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. I want to
thank our chairman, Collin Peterson, for his leadership. I want to
thank the minority ranking member, Mr. Goodlatte, in supporting this
historic farm bill which I strongly support. As Chair of the Department
Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee, I am
strongly supportive of this bill that increases nutrition by $10.364
billion.
Right now, there are 38 million Americans who do not have enough food
to eat. This farm bill helps these people. It fights hunger in America
by making an historic investment in nutrition programs that will help
13 million American families. This will help an additional 10 million
Americans, including 320,000 working poor families, 380,000 elderly and
disabled, plus our veterans. This will help put food on the table for
many individuals that don't have food.
This farm bill also ensures that low-income elementary school
children will have access to fresh fruits and vegetables in schools by
expanding the USDA snack program to all 50 States leaving no child
behind who is left hungry.
I ask you to support this farm bill. It is an important farm bill. I
urge everyone to vote for it.
Mr. FLAKE. I yield myself 1 minute.
We have mentioned the generous subsidies that still flow to
multimillionaire farmers. Let me just put that in perspective in this
legislation. With this legislation, a farm couple earning $2.5 million
in combined on-farm and off-farm income is still eligible for hundreds
of thousands of dollars in farm payments. Yet an urban couple earning a
little more than $17,800 or owning more than one vehicle can become
ineligible for food stamp benefits.
Now I am not making an argument that we should raise the threshold
for food stamp benefits. But look at the difference here. How in the
world can you justify having a farm couple with on-farm and off-farm
income of $2.5 million still eligible for hundreds of thousands of
dollars in subsidies? It is simply indefensible.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 12\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota has 6\1/4\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Arizona has 15 seconds remaining. The
gentleman from Wisconsin has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my
friend from Arizona that if you know of the farm couple where each
person has $500,000 in off-farm income and each has $750,000 in farm
income, the two limits we have imposed, down from $2.5 million to
$500,000 for nonfarm income and never before limited to $750,000, I
would like to meet that couple, and then we will fix that problem.
I yield to the gentleman from New York 1 minute.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues
in congratulating Chairman Peterson and Ranking Minority Member
Goodlatte in bringing this bill to the floor in very difficult times. I
rise in support of the farm bill conference agreement.
Agriculture is one of the most important industries in New York
State, believe it or not. In the 29th District alone, there are over
6,000 farms covering more than 1.2 million acres and employing
thousands of workers. Annually, the farm economy generates over $360
million in my district alone.
During the writing of the farm bill, I hoped to address some of the
most pressing issues facing New York farmers without destroying
important provisions for other States, districts or industries.
{time} 1500
The committee held a field hearing in my district, where we heard
about issues such as extending the MILC program, increasing funding for
specialty crops such as apples and grapes, enhancing conservation
programs such as FRPP and EQIP, augmenting nutrition and food
assistance policy, and utilizing our crops to assist in developing a
strong renewable energy portfolio.
This bill makes historic investments in priorities to strengthen the
fruit and the vegetable industry and expands a variety of things like
the snack program. I hope my colleagues will support it.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize
one of the members of the conference committee, a valuable member of
our committee, Mr. Scott of Georgia, for 1 minute.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, is this a perfect
bill? No, but is it a good bill, yes. It's a good bill for the people
of America in response precisely to their needs now.
The American people are concerned about high food prices, this brings
it down. They are concerned about high gas prices, this bill brings it
down. One of the most pressing areas that this bill does good on, it
corrects a major injustice to African American farmers by passing a
bill which includes $100 million to set up a fund so that these black
farmers can have their day in court, something they fought for for
years.
It also has money in here to set up research grants for predominantly
African American land-grant colleges of 1890, Florida A&M University,
agriculture, mechanical; Arkansas A&M
[[Page 9075]]
University, agriculture, mechanical; North Carolina A&T, agriculture
and technical. These schools were grounded in agriculture. But, yet,
because of past discrimination, the black farmers and black colleges
have been denied.
This good bill corrects that. We must pass this bill and make sure
that this bill passes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) who is a
subcommittee ranking member on the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
There have been a lot of figures and a lot of terms thrown around in
this room today about payment limits and adjusted gross income, but
let's really talk about what this bill is about, and what this bill is
about is feeding and clothing the American people, to making sure that
they continue to have access to the safest, highest quality products in
the world. By the way, they are also the most affordable.
Now, one of the things that some people talk about is all of these
rich farmers. Now, I will tell you it's very interesting. If it is as
lucrative as everyone says, why is the number of farmers in America
dropping? Go to a Farm Bureau meeting some evening in west Texas and
see how many young farmers are dying to get into the farming business,
or even have the capacity to get into the farming business.
I think it's also interesting, when we look at this bill, that about
70 percent of this bill has to do with providing an opportunity for
those people that need a little extra helping hand to make sure that
they do have a quality meal during the day, and that is in some of our
food stamp and nutrition programs. Yet only 12 percent of this bill has
anything to do with growing something.
Now, let me tell you that if you are going to feed and clothe people,
I want everybody to know that those things just don't show up at the
department store and the grocery store. Somebody actually has to
produce it. We have hardworking farm families all over America that are
fulfilling that commitment.
Let me tell you, it's difficult, the prices that some people have
been talking about, well, the prices of these commodities are up. Yes,
they are up, but let me tell you, look back 2 or 3 years ago when a lot
of people wouldn't plant certain commodities because they couldn't make
any money doing it.
The other question about this bill is, yes, it's about making sure
Americans have quality agricultural products, but it's also about who
is going to provide it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. We have to make a decision today. In this energy
situation this country is in, we are relying on other people to provide
energy for America. Are we going to let American agriculture die so we
have to let other countries feed and clothe America? I don't think the
American people want that.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the
committee.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his hard
work and the chairman for his hard work.
Mr. Speaker, I will hit a quick list in my 1 minute. This bill cuts
direct payments. We should not do that. That's green box, and that
helps us stay in compliance with WTO.
It cuts a blenders' credit on ethanol. We should not do that, because
that slows capital investment into ethanol production from corn.
It requires Davis-Bacon wage scales, which will reduce the numbers of
ethanol plants we can build from five with the same money down to four.
It imposes union scale in the countryside. We should not do that.
It has in it Pigford farms, which the gentleman spoke to, that's ripe
with fraud. I will prove that over the months as it unfolds.
The other side of this coin is--you have to ask and answer this
question--how does this bill get better if it fails here on the floor
of this Congress? What comes out of the House and the Senate in a
better configuration? Does it get better or does it get worse?
If you can paint a scenario by which it gets better, then you vote
``no.'' If you paint a scenario by which it gets worse, you vote
``yes.''
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentlelady from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth Sandlin), a
valuable member of our committee.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I want to congratulate the chairman and the
ranking member of the full committee for this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the important reforms and preserving the
safety net and the commodity title as well as important increases in
the nutrition and conservation titles, I worked with the chairman of
the full committee during the House version of the markup to place an
emphasis on beginning farmers and ranchers. This conference report
includes a number of important provisions, including reauthorizing tax-
exempt bonds to provide low-interest loans to beginning farmers and
ranchers, increasing the loan limit for them from $250,000 to $450,000
and indexing that limit amount for inflation. There are also important
provisions in the credit and research titles of this conference report
for beginning farmers and ranchers.
The energy title is another area that as Mr. Holden, the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy and Research, pointed
out, the loan guarantees for advance biofuel production plants,
reauthorizing the Rural Energy for America Program which provides the
loans, loan guarantees and grants for producers to purchase and install
on-the-farm renewable energy systems, establishing a forest bioenergy
program; and, of course, championed by the chairman of the full
committee, the biomass crop assistance program.
I encourage all of my colleagues for these reasons, as pointed out by
many other colleagues, to support the conference report.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), another outstanding member of
our committee, for 1 minute.
Mr. COSTA. I, too, want to congratulate the chairman and the ranking
member for an effort that has extended now over 2\1/2\ years.
Mr. Speaker, certainly the measure before us, the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008, reflects a bipartisan compromise and consensus
not easily gained.
I represent three of the country's most productive agricultural
counties in the Nation. In my district alone, farmers grow over 300
various crops, which oftentimes are referred to as specialty crops,
fruits, vegetables all sorts of diversified good food in America.
For the first time the important segment of American agriculture is
being recognized, not in the form of subsidies, but in support of
research, competitiveness programs, focusing on pest and disease
prevention efforts. Not only does this help our growers, but it helps
our consumers to ensure availability of safe, healthy fruits and
vegetables for our citizens, a diet that's based upon good science.
Our farmers are working hard to implement better environmental
stewardship programs, but they face continued challenges as it relates
to air quality concerns and water shortages. This makes improvements in
those areas as well.
Is this bill perfect? Certainly not, but it represents a hard-fought
compromise.
I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, much has been said about whether or not there is reform
in the legislation.
[[Page 9076]]
Let me point out that there is very substantial reform. We have caps
on adjusted gross income limits on farmers and on nonfarmers. We
require direct attribution of benefits. We reform the dairy and sugar
support programs. We create revenue-based countercyclical programs. We
address the beneficial interest problem. We reform the crop insurance
program, and we eliminate the three-entity rule.
Those of you who are not in agriculture may wonder what some of those
things are. They are all significant reforms resulting in this. For
those who say we are not making cuts in the commodity programs, this
orange bar represents payment for commodity programs under the last 3
years of the so-called Freedom to Farm Act, which some have touted as
being more reform oriented in agriculture, $24.7 billion a year.
During the last farm bill, the 2002 to 2007 farm bill, it averages
$12.1 billion per year. The projected average cost for the current farm
bill that we are debating right now, $7.6 billion a year, less than
one-third of what was spent per year under the Freedom to Farm program.
This is real reform, these are real cuts in the commodity title for
America's farmers and ranchers.
This gives you an illustration of what we are talking about, what we
are debating about. This thing that looks like a pin, this little tiny
slice of overall total Federal spending, is what goes to commodity
programs, one-quarter of 1 percent of the Federal budget, down from
three-fourths of 1 percent during the first year of the 2002 farm bill.
You might say we are dancing on the head of a pin when we have this
much debate about reform for one-fourth of 1 percent of the farm
programs.
I urge my colleagues to support this reform legislation.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, in my very short time remaining, let me
simply say that we have a huge problem with entitlements in this
country, one of which is the entitlement, direct payment system for
farmers. This is not serious reform, when you are still paying farmers
that make up to $2.5 million in subsidies from the taxpayer.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from Virginia, he
really is an expert on these programs, but he knows as well as anyone
the reason commodity spending is down is because commodity prices are
up.
Two of the three subsidy programs are based on the amount farmers are
getting in the marketplace. But that can all return in a heartbeat, and
he knows it.
The fact is that you need a few Members of Congress here today to
stand up and say the emperor has no clothes. As I said from the
beginning, where's the beef, where's the real reform?
When you still allow taxpayer subsidies going to a farm couple with
an adjusted gross of $2.5 million, that's not reform. When you lift the
income limits under the LDP and the countercyclical program, that's not
reform. When you increased the loan rate and the target price, it's not
reform.
You have marginal reform with the crop insurance. Instead of having a
farm bill today that has reasonable reform for taxpayers throughout the
country, and has the great conservation title for the 21st century, or
the healthy food bill of the 21st century, it's more status quo. It's
more wait for 5 years, we will do it then.
Well, those 5 years never come. The time has never been better today,
and the President is right. We should not be spending taxpayer
subsidies for wealthy individuals at a time of record prices in the
marketplace. When people are facing increased food and fuel costs, let
us not do this to the American taxpayer and use their money needlessly.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.'' We can do better. I know we
can do better in producing a bill that provides a safety net for family
farmers but is also responsible to the American taxpayer.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 2
minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I certainly thank the gentleman for yielding
and certainly appreciate his work and the chairman's very, very
diligent work on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the 2007 farm bill.
This bipartisan legislation will ensure a secure food supply and the
continuance of a strong agricultural sector. A very important part of
that agricultural sector in my district, actually, is the production of
sugar beets, which is helped greatly by this bill.
{time} 1515
The increase in sugar loan rates, the first since 1985, is widely
supported by Michigan farmers.
Also including sugar producers in the development of alternative
energies I think is very important and can help to make them an
integral part of developing energy resources that will only help
consumers and reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy.
While the sugar program faces some criticism, which we have all heard
on the floor today, I think it is important that Members be reminded
that this program comes at little or no cost to the taxpayers.
As well, our specialty crop farmers will also be protected in this
bill while ensuring that the wealthiest farmers are not receiving
government subsidies.
I don't believe anyone understands more about how to strengthen our
agricultural sector than farmers themselves, so I certainly listened,
as I am sure all Members did, to our local farmers while this bill was
being negotiated and I sought their input and their counsel, and I am
glad that much of what they stated was needed was included in this
legislation and they strongly support this final product.
I believe this bill is a great example of bipartisan compromise, and
I also believe it is good for the future of American agriculture and
thereby our entire Nation. I would urge my colleagues to support this
critical legislation.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize
for 1 minute the distinguished Speaker of the House without whose
support and backing we wouldn't be here today. From the start when she
came to Farm Fest a couple years ago until now, she has become an
agriculture expert. We appreciate her involvement.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
want to congratulate the distinguished chairman of our Agriculture
Committee for his important work in bringing this legislation to the
floor today. I also want to commend Mr. Goodlatte for his leadership as
well, so we can come to the floor with bipartisan legislation that will
help lower food prices, invest in energy independence, support
conservation, and recognize the importance of specialty crops.
I want to commend Mr. Kind also for his leadership. It is very
important for us to reform the farm subsidy programs in our country. I
think where we have a disagreement is I think this bill is a good first
step in that direction. I don't think we will ever see another bill
that will look this way. And when we come to the place where our
situation is addressed again in a bipartisan way on the next farm bill,
I think your work will be repaid. But I hope, Mr. Kind, that you take
some satisfaction in the fact that from your leadership and advocacy,
this farm bill is moving in the right direction. I too am not satisfied
that it does enough in terms of farm subsidies, but I want to talk
about what it does do.
And what it does do is much better because of the leadership of Mr.
Goodlatte, our distinguished chairman Mr. Peterson, the work of the
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee who just did a phenomenal job.
Chairman Rangel did a phenomenal job on his aspect of the bill. And Mr.
Pomeroy, who serves on both the Ways and Means Committee and the
Agriculture Committee, was a wonderful bridge in terms of these
initiatives. I also commend Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin for her
leadership, and all of our colleagues who are here today, including Mr.
Holden who is number two on the Ag Committee. All across America, we
are proud of the work that has been done.
[[Page 9077]]
In California, we are proud of the work of Dennis Cardoza, a member
of the Ag Committee, representing some new ideas about fresh fruits and
vegetables and how they should be part of this initiative. We on the
coast, to my colleague Mr. Scott, we wanted to see some initiatives
about fresh fruits and vegetables and specialty crops, and they are
contained in here. And I commend Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for her
incredible work on the nutrition piece of this.
As part of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Baca was a leader in terms
of the nutrition piece, and Congresswoman DeLauro as Chair of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture was an important voice and
strong leader and advocate for increasing the nutrition initiatives in
this legislation. If there was one reason for Members to vote for this
bill, it would be to support the nutrition piece of it, but there are
other reasons as well.
I talked about how it could lower grocery prices. Time magazine
recently had this on its Web site, four ways the farm bill could lower
grocery bills. First with the disaster relief, a $3.8 billion program
for farmers hit by drought and flooding could speed up compensation,
allowing them to bring crops to market faster.
Cuts in ethanol subsidies. Demand for corn-based ethanol has
increased corn prices. This bill cuts the producers' tax credit and
creates a subsidy for more efficient cellulosic ethanol made from
stalks, grass, and wood rather than from corn.
Food stamps. Payments to those on assistance will be more responsive
to inflation. The minimum monthly benefit will increase from $10, where
it has been since 1977, and may I say, probably since they put this
out.
The final bill has strong support for the food pantries, food banks
throughout America. Now if you go to a food bank, you will see a sign
that says you can only come one time a month to pick up food because
the shelves are bare in those food pantries. This bill will go a long
way to filling those shelves. So for emergency food assistance, this
program would supply food banks and pantries and could add up to $100
million more in funding per year as more Americans affected by the
sluggish economy visit its distribution centers.
Some people in our country are concerned as our economy is in a
downturn, they are concerned about losing their jobs. Many people are
concerned about losing their homes; but almost everyone is concerned
about losing his or her living standard. The purchasing power of
middle-income families has been reduced while costs have gone up for
necessities like gasoline and groceries and health care and education.
The issue of gasoline and groceries are addressed somewhat, one more
than the other, in this legislation.
In terms of energy, high energy costs are a contributing factor to
our high food prices, which is why the Food and Energy Security Act,
which this is, will help reduce gas prices and ensure that America's
family farmers fuel America's energy independence. Think of this. We
are talking about energy independence, and with this legislation we
take a step for America's farmers to fuel America's energy
independence, following up on the work we did last year in the energy
bill.
It makes a $1 billion investment in energy independence. In addition
to that, it takes a critical step in transitioning from biofuels, from
corn as I mentioned, and creates a new tax credit that will provide a
$400 million investment in cellulosic biofuels. These efforts will
ensure that we send our energy dollars to the Midwest instead of to the
Middle East.
In terms of conservation, the bill recognizes that those who work the
land, America's farmers and ranchers, are great stewards of the land.
The farm bill improves access to and funding for initiatives that take
environmentally sensitive lands out of production. It encourages
environmentally friendly practices on working lands, and it invests
$5.4 billion to preserve farm and ranchland, improve our air quality,
our water quality, and enhance soil conservation and wildlife habitats
on working lands.
Others have mentioned the issue of specialty crops. For the first
time, the farm bill makes an historic investment in specialty crops,
especially important to my State of California, and as I have said,
those of us living on the coast as well as in the rest of America. It
provides $1.3 billion in mandatory spending. This investment was made
possible by the leadership of Congressman Dennis Cardoza of California
who has worked to ensure that the producers who account for more than
half of all crop value in the United States are now represented in our
farm policy. Producers who provide one-half of all crop value in the
United States are now represented in our farm bill.
Specifically this bill invested $365 million in specialty crop block
grants, $230 million to create a new dedicated research program for
specialty crops, $377 million to create a new initiative for early
detection prevention and eradication of emerging pest and disease. I
know that Mr. Thompson of California has a special interest in this
aspect of the legislation.
The bill takes a critical step toward reforming farm programs, not
enough I agree, Mr. Kind, by eliminating payments to the ultra-rich and
closing loopholes that for decades have allowed some to evade farm-
payment limits. This is the most significant reform in farm policy in
more than 30 years. This Food and Energy Security Act will ensure that
future farm bills will never again look like this.
Thanks to the efforts of Chairman Peterson and many others who have
made this historic investment in energy independence and nutrition
assistance, this bill's effects will also be felt far from farm
country. As George Washington our first President whom we visit every
day when we come to the Chamber said, ``I know of no pursuit in which
more real and important services can be rendered to any country than by
improving its agriculture.'' Well, we were an agrarian society then,
but there is still a great deal of truth in that statement today.
With this legislation we will help families facing high food prices;
fuel our Nation's energy needs with American-made, renewable energy;
and be better stewards of the land and protect our environment. In
addition to all of that, we will have fresh snacks, fresh fruit and
vegetable snacks for our children in the schools.
I urge my colleagues to support this new direction in American farm
policy. I urge an ``aye'' vote. Again, I salute Mr. Peterson and Mr.
Goodlatte for their leadership. It is wonderful for us to have this
bipartisanship on the floor today.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota has 2\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to give one of my
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the Speaker just mentioned the bipartisanship in this
legislation, and that is very true. But this legislation is not
bipartisan because many Republicans will be supporting a Democratic
bill, this legislation is bipartisan because it was crafted by both
Republicans and Democrats throughout the conference process, and this
legislation is very, very different than the legislation that passed
the House last summer which I voted against primarily because there
were tax increases to pay for the legislation. There are no more tax
increases paying for this legislation. In fact, this legislation is
paid for by a means that is acceptable to both sides and acceptable to
the administration.
But there are more reforms in this legislation that Republicans
prevailed upon our Democratic colleagues on in the conference. The
effort to prohibit States, most particularly the State of Indiana, from
being able to seek outside help to reform their flawed food stamp
program was removed from this bill, and so now not just Indiana but all
[[Page 9078]]
50 States will be able to continue to use appropriate means to
modernize their food stamp programs.
Davis-Bacon provisions in the Northern Border Economic Development
Commission, the Southeast Crescent, and the Southwest Border Regional
Commissions, those Davis-Bacon provisions have been removed from this
legislation.
An effort to undermine the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 by providing
increased food stamp benefits to adults, able-bodied adults without
dependents was removed from this legislation.
And anticompetition livestock provisions, which were very troubling
to many Members on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the
aisle as well, were removed.
So while there are certainly advocates for each of those provisions
in this bill, this bill is bipartisan because we worked together to
give on both sides to make sure that we came up with a good farm bill
that could command strong bipartisan support.
{time} 1530
This bill promotes energy independence by expanding investment in
cellulosic biofuels and helping move away from corn-based ethanol. It
cuts the ethanol subsidy by 12 percent. It's fiscally responsible
because it contains no tax increases and is PAYGO compliant. It boosts
conservation programs benefiting our environment. It aids food banks
and nutrition in our schools in its nutrition programs. It preserves
the farm safety net and assures that we continue to have the safest,
most affordable, most abundant food supply in the world. This is real
reform. This is a real farm bill for the 21st century.
I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.
I want to thank, again, the chairman of the committee, the chairmen
of the subcommittees, the ranking members on my side of the aisle, but
most importantly, the staff on both the majority and the minority side
who worked many, many, many weekends over the last 2\1/2\ years, but
particularly in the last few months, to craft this legislation, to
address all of the concerns that were raised, to go down blind alleys,
find that something didn't work, come back up, find a different way to
make it work, and to reach this point today, the staff has helped make
that possible.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to echo Mr. Goodlatte's comments. I have a list
of all of the staff members, majority and minority, that I would like
entered into the Record to honor their work. You think we've been
through a process here. It's nothing compared to what the staff has
done, and so they deserve our thanks. And they're going to, hopefully,
get a little bit of rest now once we get this over with.
To follow on Mr. Goodlatte's comments, there's a lot of reform in
this bill that I would call real reform, as opposed to ginned-up reform
that's been done by different folks. We have made huge changes in the
conservation programs that are going to make those programs work a lot
better in the future, work for more different parts of the country.
We have a new revenue-based countercyclical program that we're going
to try out on an optional basis for the next 5 years that may be the
new future direction of the farm bill, depending on how it works out.
So we've got a lot of reforms in this bill that never get talked about
because all anybody wants to focus on is AGI.
Well, I don't have any problem putting an AGI limit on nonfarmers,
because, frankly, I don't think they should be in farming in the first
place. We've got enough capital in agriculture. We don't need folks
from outside of agriculture coming in and being involved. That's my
personal opinion.
But, you know, we've got a $500,000 limit. We'd have gone lower, but
that's as far as we could get.
We put a limit on farmers, on farm income for the first time, in
spite of the fact that this is the only part of business people in this
country that are getting benefits from the Federal Government that are
requiring an AGI, that I know of. I don't know why farmers get singled
out and nobody else does, why we don't have an AGI on oil companies and
whoever else is getting benefits from the Federal Government. That
continues to mystify me.
But I just have to clarify, you know, people keep manipulating these
statistics. We've fixed some of that in this bill as well, which I
would call reform. But as to what Mr. Goodlatte said earlier, we have a
$500,000 hard cap on nonfarm income. So I suppose that if you earn
$500,000 as a doctor or something, your wife earned $500,000 as a
doctor, and then you had a farm and you earned $750,000 as a farmer,
and your wife had a real farm and earned $750,000 you could get to $2.5
million. But I think you need to understand that, in order for you to
qualify for that, you're going to have a real genuine farm, and it has
to be your income, certified by a CPA or a lawyer, and if it's not, if
they do it wrong they're going to go to jail and you are, too.
So I think the likelihood of anybody getting to this $2.5 million
limit is almost nonexistent. That is a bogus argument that's being put
out there, being ginned up by people that want to keep this fight going
on.
So if you want to put a $200,000 cap on everybody that gets money
from the Federal Government on AGI, then we'll be right there with you.
But I don't think that's going to happen.
Just like we tried to put AGI limits on conservation. We had a
revolt. Some of these conservation groups that have been pushing these
payment limits, as soon as we said we're going to have the same limit
on them as farmers, we had a revolt.
This is a good bill. It's got a lot of reform. I thank everybody.
We'll appreciate a good vote to get this over with.
Majority Staff: Andy Baker, Christy Birdsong, Wynn Bott,
Aleta Botts, Claiborn Crain, Jack Danielson, Nona Darrell,
Adam Durand, Nathan Fretz, Alejandra Gonzalez-Arias, Chandler
Goule, Tony Jackson, Craig Jagger, Tyler Jameson, Keith
Jones, Martha Josephson, John Konya, Scott Kuschmider, Rob
Larew, Merrick Munday, Clark Ogilvie, John Riley, Sharon
Rusnak, Lisa Shelton, Anne Simmons, April Slayton, Cherie
Slayton, Debbie Smith, Kristin Sosanie, and Jamie Weyer.
Minority Staff: Patricia Barr, Brent Blevins, Bryan
Dierlam, Mike Dunlap, John Goldberg, Alise Kowalski, Kevin
Kramp, Scott Martin, Josh Maxwell, Pam Miller, Rita Neznek,
Bill O'Conner, Pelham Straughn, and Pete Thomson.
Fellow/Intern: Rob McAfee, Rachel Huhn, Randi Hughes,
Jennifer Spraberry, Olivia Vickers, Melinda Cep, and J.D.
Hale.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2419,
the 2008 Farm Bill Conference Report. This bill provides a breakthrough
for the Chesapeake Bay by providing an unprecedented level of funding
to aid in the cleanup of this national treasure. H.R. 2419 provides,
for the first time, a bay specific program to ensure that farmers in
the watershed will get their fair share of conservation funding. The
Conference Report provides $188 million, over 5 years, in bay-specific
conservation funding. Moreover, the bill includes a baseline of funding
in the amount of $438 million over 10 years. This will enable the
program to be extended at the expiration of this 5-year bill.
Additionally, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation estimates that farmers in
the bay watershed will be eligible for an additional $252 million in
national program funding in working land programs in addition to
conservation set-aside programs. This funding will be over and above
the annual conservation funding in the last year of the previous farm
bill that provided $80 million to the Bay watershed.
I want to thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Collin
Peterson, and the chairman of the Conservation Subcommittee, Tim
Holden, for the programs and funding that they have provided to assist
farmers in controlling sediment and nutrient runoff into the Chesapeake
Bay. Moreover, the program would not have been possible without the
support of the many Members of Congress on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Taskforce. In addition, the work of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, in
providing technical assistance and grass roots support, was essential
to the success of the establishment of this program. The Chesapeake Bay
Commission also provided assistance in the crafting of an initial
legislation, CHESSEA, that helped galvanize the support of Members who
are committed to restoring the health of the Bay.
[[Page 9079]]
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the U.S. Its watershed
includes 66,000 farms with an estimated 8.5 million acres of land. The
watershed contains 150 tributary streams and rivers. The watershed
spans 6 States and the District of Columbia. Almost half of the
nitrogen and phosphorus pollutant load in the bay is caused by
agricultural runoff--from fertilizer and animal waste.
In 1987 there was the first attempt to clean up the bay with an
agreement between the States and the Federal Government. The goal was
to clean up the bay by 2000. When the deadline passed, a more detailed
agreement was developed and the leaders of Maryland, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and the EPA pledged to fix the
bay's water, its oyster population, its beds of underwater grass, and
other environmental indicators by 2010--which will require the
reduction of 110 million pounds of pollution.
Every environmental assessment indicates that the 2010 deadline will
not be met and that the environmental condition of the bay is
continuing to deteriorate. A recent report by the Chesapeake Bay
Program's Health and Restoration Assessment found that most of the
bay's waters are degraded, the bay's critical habitats, like grasses,
are at risk and that many of the bay's blue crabs, striped bass and
oyster populations are below historic levels. This bill provides the
much needed resources to restore the Chesapeake Bay to its original
vitality.
national conservation
In addition to the conservation funding for the bay, this bill boosts
conservation programs by $7.9 billion, to nationally reduce soil
erosion, enhance water supplies, improve water and air quality,
increase wildlife habitat and reduce damage caused by floods and other
natural disasters. Moreover, fruit and vegetable producers will have
their own place in the farm bill for the first time and will benefit
from more than $1.3 billion for new programs that support research,
pest management, and trade promotion to help the industry.
nutrition
Nearly three-fourths of the farm bill before us today, an additional
$10.4 billion in new spending, goes to nutrition programs that help 38
million American families afford healthy food. These critical food
stamp provisions will help about 11 million people by 2012. Households
with children receive 77 percent of food stamp benefits. Moreover,
during this time of fiscal austerity for many families in our Nation,
this bill provides much-needed support to emergency feeding
organizations, such as food banks, food pantries, and soup kitchens, by
increasing funding for TEFAP by $1.25 billion--with $50 million for
immediate shortages at food pantries. The farm bill also will assist
schools in providing healthy snacks to students, with $1 billion for
free fresh fruits and vegetables. Finally, it provides international
nutrition assistance by providing $60 million, in addition to the
existing Food for Peace international aid program, to purchase
emergency food aid overseas and provides an additional $84 million for
the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Program for infant, child, and school nutrition programs in
underdeveloped countries.
renewable fuels
The farm bill we are considering today will assist Congress in
promoting the development of biofuels from noncorn sources. The
Renewable Fuels Standard that was part of the 2007 Energy law requires
that two-thirds of our fuel needs be met by nonfood feedstocks for
biofuels, such as switchgrass and woodchips. The farm bill takes
another critical step in transitioning biofuels beyond corn--by
reducing the current tax credit for corn-based ethanol by 6 cents per
gallon and creating a new tax credit to promote the production of
cellulosic biofuels. Moreover, the farm bill invests $1 billion in
renewable energy, focusing on new technologies and new sources,
including $320 million in loan guarantees for biorefineries that
produce advanced biofuels and a new program to encourage the production
of new biomass for cellulosic ethanol and other energy production,
helping producers learn how to harvest, store, and transport biomass to
bioenergy facilities.
critical reforms
The Conferees have made many reforms to commodity subsidies in this
bill. Commodity programs account for less than 13 percent of the farm
bill. This bill will reduce the cap for nonfarm income by 80 percent,
to $500,000, and puts in place the first-ever cap for farm income at
$750,000 for fixed direct payments. The bill reduces direct farm
payments by $300 million; the Administration proposed increasing these
fixed payments by $5.5 billion, even though they are paid out
regardless of farm prices. The bill also closes a loophole (the three-
entity rule) that for decades has permitted the collection of double
the farm payment limits by collecting cash on more than one business.
Moreover, it includes tax reforms to limit the use of farming losses to
reduce their taxes on nonfarm income.
I applaud the Conferees for these reforms. Unfortunately, these
measures do not go far enough. I would have preferred the elimination
of subsidies to wealthy agri-business interests in their entirety. We
need to continue to work to reduce the reliance of our farm program on
commodity supports that often benefit the farmers who need support the
least.
conclusion
However, the Commodity Title is included in a comprehensive bill that
contains many good programs, including: the Chesapeake Bay conservation
provision, as well as significant funding for farm conservation across
the Nation. Moreover, the robust nutrition program that aids the
disadvantaged here and abroad, coupled with the recognition of
specialty crops and the inclusion of the proper incentives to increase
the production and refinement of renewable fuel from nonfood sources
are extraordinary advancements that are worthy of support. I believe
that, on balance, this bill provides many worthwhile benefits which
prompt me to cast my vote in support of this Conference Agreement.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, the nutrition title in the Conference Report
for the 2008 Farm Bill is a monumental achievement for the millions of
Americans who struggle to put enough healthy, nutritious food on the
table. I know it's not always easy to make ends meet and to put food on
the table each day. I've walked in those shoes, and I've sat at that
table. But with this bill we start to fulfill our responsibility to our
neighbors. We have improved and strengthened food stamps and other
important nutrition programs for our children and seniors. I want to
take a few minutes to expand upon some of the accomplishments that are
in this nutrition title.
First off, we have updated the name of the program. The new name will
be SNAP: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. We needed a new
name because there are no places left in this country where food stamps
actually are ``stamps.'' Instead, like with other modern transactions,
people swipe their cards at the store to access their benefits. This
has been a huge success for reducing fraud and stigma in the program.
We hope and expect that the new name and new image for the program will
help us to continue to chip away at the stigma that keeps some proud
people, especially senior citizens, from signing up for help in paying
for their groceries and puts them at risk of hunger.
The name reflects the fact that the program provides a ``supplement''
to help people afford an adequate diet when their own resources are not
quite enough. We also say ``nutrition,'' instead of ``food,'' because
the program is about more than just food. It has got a vibrant
nutrition education component to help our low-income population learn
about healthy diets and make the choices that will improve their health
status over their lifetimes. So I'm very proud of this new name for
food stamps: an established program that is one of the best Government
programs we've got. Let me be clear, however, that in changing the name
and eliminating food stamp coupons we did not intend to make any other
policy changes to the program.
I think the biggest single accomplishment in the nutrition title is
to end the decades of erosion in the value of food stamp benefits.
We're all aware of the rising gas and food prices of recent months and
the bite they've taken out of the pocketbooks of most Americans. But
for many low-income Americans the squeeze has been getting tighter for
decades, as the value of their food stamps has been able to purchase
less and less food with each passing year. Food stamp benefits average
only $1 per person per day. It's not easy to purchase a healthy,
nutritious diet on such a limited amount.
So in this bill we have addressed this problem. We made critical
improvements, and, for the first time in the program's history, we have
ensured that, in every aspect, the food stamp program keeps its
purchasing power over time. We raise the standard deduction from $134
to $144 and index it for inflation. That is an important
accomplishment. It helps about 10 million people afford more food--
families, seniors, people with disabilities--all types of low-income
food stamp recipients are helped by this change. We raise the minimum
benefit, and index it for inflation. We uncap the dependent care
deduction so that families can deduct the full cost of the child care
they so desperately depend on to hold down their jobs. And we index the
asset limits. We don't know what the future will hold. Hopefully, the
high inflation of the past months will shortly subside as the country
gets back on track. But we now can rest assured, as never before,
[[Page 9080]]
that if there is substantial inflation our low-income families and
senior citizens won't lose out on food.
For me what this bill really is about is people. It's about our
senior citizens who have worked hard their whole lives and deserve
better than to face the fear of hunger in their last years. It's about
children, who come home from school and look to their parents to put a
nutritious meal on the table.
One of the groups that will be most helped are our Nation's senior
citizens. We were able to increase the minimum benefit, which goes
predominantly to senior citizens, from $10 to about $14 a month. This
is the first increase in almost 30 years in the minimum benefit. I
would have liked to have increased it even more, but this change will
help make it worthwhile for some of our seniors who qualify for a low
benefit to participate in the program. We did this by setting the
minimum benefit at 8 percent of the thrifty food plan for a single
person. Because USDA adjusts the thrifty food plan every year for
increases in food prices, so too will the minimum benefit now adjust.
In addition, because of higher food prices in some places, like Alaska,
Hawaii, and some of the territories, seniors in these places will now
also see a modestly higher minimum benefit. For example in some parts
of Alaska, the minimum benefit will be as high as $25 per month.
In this bill we've also excluded retirement accounts from assets and
indexed the asset limits to inflation. These changes will help seniors
and working families to save for the future. It makes no sense to
require people who fall on hard times to virtually liquidate all of the
savings they've managed to put away in order to get help paying for
groceries for themselves and their families. Our seniors, especially,
may have no ability to replace these savings, and as a result, no
cushion to deal with unexpected expenses. And a working family who is
forced to spend down savings now will be that much closer to poverty in
their older years. So this is an important change for the long-term
ability of low-income individuals to move toward financial independence
and for our senior citizens to be able to retain an ability to support
themselves in their retirement.
But I also want to reaffirm that we did not take away, as President
Bush proposed, the State option in the food stamp program to design a
more appropriate asset test at the State level. In my home State of
California the legislature and Governor have been working together to
design an ``expanded categorical eligibility'' program that will revise
the asset limit for many food stamp recipients and make it easier for
them to save for the future. I hope that other States consider this
option, and I urge USDA to work with other States to promote this
important policy.
In another major improvement for senior citizens, we have expanded to
seniors a State option from the 2002 farm bill that dramatically
reduces paperwork requirements. This policy is known as ``simplified
reporting'' and it will allow seniors to participate without filing
paperwork for 12-month periods, unless they have a major increase in
their income that makes them ineligible for food stamps. I urge USDA to
make this option as simple and streamlined for seniors and States as
possible, and to find ways to insulate food stamp benefits from
interactions with other programs that low-income seniors participate
in, particularly Medicaid.
Finally, we have heard reports that despite the overwhelming success
of the electronic benefits, some seniors can find the technology
confusing. For those at the minimum benefit who receive maybe only $10
to $20 a month, we've heard concerns that if they don't use their
benefits fast enough those benefits can be taken away--or moved
``offline''--sometimes in as short a period as 3 months, with the
senior citizen not understanding why this has occurred. I don't think
this is a very common problem, but it is understandable that a senior
citizen might want to store up small benefits to use at one shopping
trip every few months, rather than have to keep track of the card every
month. This bill allows States to move benefits off-line after 6 months
of inactivity, but requires them to notify the household and restore
the benefits within 48 hours upon request. This benefit reinstatement
should be a simple process, and States should aim to help seniors
navigate it, so we don't have our seniors being bounced around an EBT
call center trying to figure out what happened to their food stamp
benefits.
For children and families, the biggest change we make is the increase
and indexing of the standard deduction which will significantly boost
the ability of low-wage workers to afford food for their families,
especially over time. More than $5 billion of the nutrition title's 10-
year investment go to this change, which primarily benefits families
with children.
We also lift the limit on the dependent care deduction. This change
will help about 100,000 families who pay out-of-pocket child care costs
above $175 per child per month, or $200 for infants, by recognizing
that money that is needed to pay for child care so that a parent can
work is not available to purchase food. On average, families who are
helped will receive an additional $40 a month, or $500 a year,
according to the Congressional Budget Office. The dependent care cap
has not been raised since the early 1990s, despite the increases in the
costs of safe, reliable child care. Families incur all types of costs
in order to secure child care for their children, and USDA should
continue to allow all of these expenses to count toward the deduction--
such as transportation costs to and from day care and the cost of
informal care. Finally, as States roll this out to the 100,000 families
currently on the program, it is important that they make it easy for
eligible families to claim the new deduction. Families shouldn't have
to make extra trips to the food stamp office or be at risk of losing
benefits if they fail to claim a new higher deduction. A household
should never have its benefits cut or reduced because of a failure to
document child care expenses, but should be given a full opportunity to
receive the higher deduction if they have expenses above the current
capped amounts.
We hear all the time that despite the importance and success of the
food stamp program, for most families the benefits run out before the
end of the month. That is why it is so important that we provide more
than $1.2 billion in this farm bill for additional food purchases for
emergency food organizations, like church food pantries and soup
kitchens, to feed our families and seniors. We provide $50 million in
additional funds this year to help meet food banks' needs in light of
rising food costs. And, we increase the basic Emergency Food Assistance
Program annual funding level to $250 million. That amount will be
adjusted for inflation in future years to ensure that this program does
not lose any of its food purchasing power.
Another important provision for our children is a provision that
ensures that children who receive food stamps can automatically, or
``directly'' be certified as eligible for free meals. The eligibility
rules for the two programs overlap: Virtually every child who receives
food stamps is eligible for free meals. So making that connection in an
automated way can save the family from falling through the cracks or
from having to file duplicative paperwork. Unfortunately, too many
States and schools don't currently make the connection adequately. So
this bill requires USDA to report to Congress annually on each State's
progress in directly certifying food stamp recipients for free school
meals, and asks for USDA to report on best practices among the various
States and school districts. This is a provision that is about good
Government--there is no reason the Government can't make these
connections, instead of requiring school administrators and families to
be responsible for duplicative paperwork.
In addition to my role as Agriculture's Sub-committee Chair on
Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, I also have the great
pleasure to assess this bill from the perspective of my role as the
chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. More than 5 million
Latinos, or more than 10 percent of the Latino population, receive food
stamps each month. Food stamps constitute 25 percent of total monthly
income for a typical Latino family that participates in the Food Stamp
Program. All of the changes that I have just described will benefit
low-income Latinos who rely upon this program.
I must take one moment to express my deep personal disappointment
that we were not able to restore food stamp benefits to all legal
immigrants who are currently ineligible for the program. Keeping food
assistance from hard-working immigrants with whom we live side by side
is simply wrong and I will not stop fighting until we fully repeal the
benefit cuts to legal immigrants enacted in 1996.
In spite of this major setback, we have achieved a number of
important improvements for the Latino community. First, USDA will
conduct a study on the possibility of bringing the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico back into the national Food Stamp Program. Since 1982
Puerto Rico has received a fixed block grant amount for food
assistance, rather than be a part of the U.S. program like the 50
States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. This
block grant does not take into account changes in economic or
demographic conditions, such as unemployment or the number of people
who are in need of food assistance.
The poverty rate in Puerto Rico, 45 percent, is more than three times
the national poverty rate. However, because of the block grant, Puerto
Rico cannot afford to provide benefits
[[Page 9081]]
to all households poor enough to qualify for benefits using Food Stamp
Program standards. Instead, they have been forced to impose rigid
eligibility criteria. For example, a family of four with net income
above about $600 a month, or 34 percent of the Federal poverty level,
cannot get any food assistance in Puerto Rico. The same family living
in California, or any other State on the mainland, could have almost
three times as much income and still be eligible for food assistance.
An elderly person living alone faces an income limit of $192 per
month--just 23 percent of the poverty level.
Clearly, some of our most vulnerable American citizens are at risk of
being denied food assistance they greatly need. It seems just plain
wrong to knowingly leave some Americans with insufficient food. With
this study we hope to get a better understanding of what the local
conditions are in Puerto Rico, in terms of food costs, poverty and
other programmatic factors so that we can figure out how to address the
issue in the next farm bill, or earlier if possible.
Another important achievement of the bill is to ensure that both
Federal statute and regulations have the full force of law, ensuring
that clients who do not receive adequate service under these rules and
standards may bring suit. Recently, a district court in Ohio dismissed
a case brought against the State to enforce the Department's
regulations for serving people whose primary language is not English. I
can't speak to whether the case had any merit, but my colleagues and I
were surprised and disturbed to learn about the court's dismissal. We
felt that it was critical to clarify in this bill that it has always
been Congress's intent that the program's regulations should be fully
enforceable and fully complied with to the same extent as the statute.
The farm bill, therefore, clarifies that the Department's rules on
serving non- and limited-English speaking people have the force of law
and create rights for households.
Beyond the issue of bilingual access rules, this legislation makes
clear that the Department's civil rights regulations are among those
which have the full force of law and which households have the right to
enforce. Discrimination is not acceptable in any form or at any point
in the food stamp certification process. Households should not be
assisted, or not assisted, approved or denied for any reason other than
an individual assessment of their need for help or their eligibility by
the state. I am pleased to be playing a role in making clear that the
Committee and the Congress wish the program to be administered in
compliance with the Food Stamp Act and its regulations.
I'd like to also talk about a somewhat related matter that we did not
manage to agree to include in this farm bill, much to my
disappointment. I worked hard to include in the House bill, and
shepherd through the conference negotiations, a provision that would
have strengthened the longstanding policy in the food stamp program
that certification and eligibility decisions should be done by State
employees, rather than private companies. We would have added to the
traditional restrictions around merit systems and provided specific
exceptions for certain activities, such as outreach. In recent years
the Bush Administration has let two States, Texas and Indiana,
experiment with using private companies to collect and review food
stamp applications and conduct the sensitive eligibility interview. In
my view, these projects are not consistent with current law or good
sense. These experiments have been disastrous to the States' treasuries
but, more importantly, to the vulnerable families and senior citizens
who rely on food stamps and found their applications delayed or
improperly denied. Some people even had their private, personal
information shared inappropriately. The activities involved in
determining eligibility--and ineligibility--for food stamps should be
public functions and should not be governed by profit motive or a
company's responsibility to its shareholders.
While the House voted to include this provision in the Conference
agreement, the Senate did not because of opposition from the other
party and a veto threat from President Bush, I regret this outcome and
I am determined to not drop this issue until we have restored the
proper balance to food stamp administration.
But I urge my colleagues to not forget, that separate from this
``privatization'' issue, in recent years States have been experimenting
with a wide variety of changes to food stamp policies and practices
that incorporate new technologies and modern business practices. For
example, some States are using technology to create new pathways to
apply for and retain benefits such as food stamps, health insurance,
and child care, including online applications, online program
redetermination or recertification, phone interviews, and call centers
where changes in circumstances can be reported.
On the one hand, creating ways for families to participate in these
programs without having to travel to a human service office can expand
access and save time and money for States and families alike. In fact,
in this bill we've created a new option for States to accept food stamp
applications over the telephone. No doubt technology offers numerous
opportunities for improved customer service and simpler application and
retention processes.
On the other hand, if these processes are not well-designed,
evaluated, and implemented, then families can face new access barriers.
Moreover, some States are exploring these options at the same time that
they are reducing human service staffing and closing local welfare
offices. These steps can create new access barriers for certain groups
of families and need to be carefully monitored. And I am concerned
because neither States nor USDA appear to be asking the important
questions about what has been the effect of these technological changes
on access for food stamp households, particularly vulnerable
populations like seniors, people with physical or mental disabilities,
or people who do not speak English proficiently. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) last year published a report that found
that USDA has not sufficiently monitored the States' ``modernization''
efforts in terms of their effects on program access, payment accuracy,
or administrative costs.
So in this bill we have included several provisions to require that
States that are eager to pursue modernized systems are pausing to ask
the necessary questions about how to ensure that the new systems are
designed in such a way that they are effective tools for connecting
eligible families to benefits. In this bill we require USDA to
establish standards for when States are making major changes in program
operations and to monitor the effects on households, especially the
types of households I just mentioned. I urge USDA to do this in a way
that yields useful information so that States can refine and improve
their systems to make them as accessible as possible to all clients.
Another provision requires States to adequately pilot test new
computer systems before they go full-scale. This responds to situations
where States have implemented new computer systems without adequate
testing. This occurred even though some at USDA knew that there were
weaknesses in the system and that serious benefit delays and errors
were likely to occur. We also included a provision the Administration
suggested to require States, instead of households, to repay any
overissuances that occur because of one of these preventable major
systems failures.
Finally, in light of all of the modernization changes and the
potential access to sensitive information that new players may have, we
strengthened the Act's privacy protections to ensure that anyone
receiving confidential information for appropriate program purposes
cannot then share that information with a third party. In addition to
our fears that too many people may have access to private food stamp
information as a result of new technology, we were also concerned that
clients have not been able to access their private records. We heard
about clients in Texas who had their benefits cut off, or who never
were able to obtain benefits, and could not get access to their case
records in order to pursue claims against the State. That is
unacceptable. We also clarified that despite all of the changes in how
States are storing and maintaining client records, clients can access
these records in litigation. These changes are not in conflict because
confidential records would continue to be unavailable to the general
public and others not having a legitimate reason relating to program
administration.
Another concern I have is about two new provisions that would
disqualify certain people from food stamps for misusing their benefits.
One relates to situations where a recipient of food stamps
intentionally uses food stamp benefits to buy a product, like water,
that is in a disposable container that can be redeemed for cash, then
discards the product and redeems the container in order to obtain the
cash deposit. The other new disqualification addresses individuals who
intentionally purchase food with food stamp benefits in order to resell
the food for a cash profit. I agree that both of these practices are
contrary to the purposes of the food stamp program in assisting people
in obtaining an adequate diet and it's appropriate to address them in
this bill. However, I caution USDA to implement them in a way that
ensures that only those who intended to defraud the system in these
manners be disqualified. I do not want to see innocent people--who may
simply have bought groceries for a neighbor or relative be caught up as
somehow engaging in fraud under this provision.
[[Page 9082]]
My concerns here are not completely without precedent. In this bill
we are revisiting and clarifying a different disqualification rule that
was enacted in 1996, and that has, in fact, ensnared innocent people
and denied food stamp benefits in inappropriate ways. The intent of the
law was to aid law enforcement and prevent criminals who are fleeing to
avoid prosecution from receiving food stamps. Unfortunately, in
practice, the provision has disqualified innocent people who had their
identities stolen, or who have outstanding warrants for minor
infractions that are many years old and where the police have no
interest in apprehending and prosecuting the case.
So in this bill we direct USDA to clarify that people should only be
subject to disqualification if they are actively fleeing law
enforcement authorities who are, in fact, interested in bringing them
to justice.
In addition to the very important changes we have made to the food
stamp program and new funding for food banks through TEFAP, the bill
would expand and improve the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program under
the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. This program has been
receiving $9 million a year in mandatory funds and operates in 14
States. (Three Indian tribes also operate the program.)
Under the conference agreement, mandatory funding would increase to
$40 million for the 2008-2009 school year and continue to grow. By
2012, the program would be funded at nearly eight times its current
size: $150 million each year, with annual adjustments for inflation in
years after that.
In addition to providing increased funding, the conference agreement
takes important steps to target program funds to elementary schools
with a significant share of low-income children. Our goal is to provide
free fresh fruits and vegetables to all elementary schools in the
country where more than half of the children are eligible for free or
reduced price school meals. This program should expose a whole new
generation of children to a healthy way of eating.
To sum up, I am extremely proud of the work that our Committee and
our Congress have undertaken in the nutrition title of the farm bill.
With these changes, we are building a healthier better fed population.
As a result, we are taking a few important steps towards a stronger
future for our children and our communities.
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
2419, the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. This bipartisan piece
of legislation will better reflect our values, strengthening American
agriculture to meet the 21st century needs of the United States and the
world with a safe, stable food supply.
I want to commend the work of the chairman of the House Committee on
Agriculture, Colin Peterson, as well as the Senate chairman, Mr.
Harkin. Both men diligently worked to reconcile the differences in both
the House and Senate versions of the bill. All of that hard work has
paid off. This bill will ease the strain of rising food prices for
millions of families, take a first step on much-needed reforms to farm
payments, and make a substantial commitment to land conservation and to
the fruit and vegetable industry.
Mr. Speaker, while these are important and positive provisions of
this bill, I am particularly pleased with the nutrition titles of the
bill. An additional $10.4 billion in new spending will be allocated for
nutrition programs that help 38 million American families afford
healthy food. In addition, there are many updates in the food stamp
programs that reflect the current state of our economy. These critical
food stamp provisions will help about 11 million people by 2012.
In particular, the reforms found in this bill benefit those
individuals who need help. The bill helps these individuals adequately
cover food expenses and sustains participants in the Food Stamp Program
for the entire month. It also increases the minimum benefit for food
stamp recipients, which is especially important for our senior citizens
in need. I am also particularly proud that the 2008 Farm Bill extends
the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, CSFP, of which my grandmother,
the late Representative Julia Carson, was a champion. It is important
to help the many low-income elderly individuals in need of additional
assistance who are reluctant to apply for food stamps.
The legislation also goes far in addressing the health and nutrition
needs of our children by increasing funding by $1.02 billion for the
USDA Snack Program. Aiding schools in providing healthy snacks to
students during after-school activities and expanding the program to
all 50 States is something that Congress must do.
Mr. Speaker, I am also in support of the final bill because of its
provisions addressing ethanol. It goes without saying that ethanol is
helping to reduce fuel prices at the pump. The prices are almost 15
percent lower from where they might be if biofuel producers were not
increasing output. The farm bill also invests $1 billion in renewable
energy focusing on new technologies and new sources, including $320
million in loan guarantees for biorefineries that produce advanced
biofuels and a new program to encourage the production of biomass for
cellulosic ethanol and other energy production, helping producers learn
how to harvest, store, and transport biomass to bioenergy facilities.
I am also highly supportive of the bill's increased funding for the
Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP, by $1.26 billion. I believe
in providing commodities and other resources to States to help stock
food banks. It is important that Congress continue to provide much-
needed support to emergency feeding organizations, such as food banks,
food pantries, and soup kitchens by increasing this funding for TEFAP.
Mr. Speaker, from increasing conservation programs by $7.9 billion,
to containing provisions that help us meet global food shortages, this
is a good bill. The bill is fully paid for and prevents further
increases to the national debt. It expands food security programs,
protects our vital natural resources, promotes healthier foods and
local food networks, and reforms commodity and biofuel programs to
reflect the priorities of the Nation.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
farm bill conference report. I would like to commend conference
committee members for tackling the tough issues, offsetting costs, and
producing a conference report that I can support.
To be sure, this is not a perfect bill. Yet, in my estimation, no
amount of negotiation could produce a conference report that all would
agree is perfect. Rather, what has emerged is a farm bill that is good
for my home State of Colorado and good for the country.
For starters, this bill will provide millions of American families
with access to healthy food. Nearly three-quarters of the bill's cost
will support nutrition programs, including food stamps and emergency
food assistance programs, as well as an initiative to provide fresh
fruit and vegetables as healthy snack alternatives for a generation of
schoolchildren currently battling an epidemic obesity problem.
This farm bill will help Colorado continue to lead in the development
of homegrown energy programs that we need to help free us from our
national addiction to oil and protect our environment. It increases
investments in renewable energy technologies, while reducing the
burdensome tax credit for corn-based ethanol and creating a new tax
credit for the production of more efficient cellulosic biofuels.
Rural America can plant their fields with confidence, thanks to the
farm bill's new disaster relief program, and this provision of the bill
also might significantly lower future grocery bills by speeding up
compensation for farmers subject to natural disaster and allowing them
to bring crops to market faster.
In addition, American consumers will have added confidence knowing
that this farm bill mandates critical food labeling for our meat
supply, including country of origin, and improves oversight of USDA's
enforcement of rules governing meat packers and stockyards.
Along with promoting safe food and renewable energy production, this
legislation increases spending for conservation programs by nearly $8
billion. These programs will help protect agricultural lands from urban
sprawl; enhance and protect our natural resources; encourage public
access to private land; and protect sensitive wetlands and grasslands,
areas that are especially vulnerable in Colorado's eastern plains.
Of particular interest to Colorado is that the farm bill includes
provisions similar to those in a bill--H.R. 1182--I introduced dealing
with the tax treatment of exchanges of mutual ditch stock. Mutual ditch
companies are unique to Colorado and are organized for the mutual
benefit of shared water rights rather than for profit. This provision
allows for tax-free exchanges of shares of these mutual ditch
companies.
Another measure included in the farm bill, which I supported during
consideration in the House Natural Resources Committee, will protect
domestic timber producers by stopping the flow of illegally logged
foreign timber imported into the United States.
This bill will also help bolster America's international standing by
helping to meet global food shortage demands. America is already the
world's largest provider of food aid, but recent riots in developing
nations around the world have shown that we must increase our efforts.
This legislation will provide additional funding to purchase emergency
food aid overseas, and reauthorizes the McGovern-Dole
[[Page 9083]]
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program for
infant, child and school nutrition programs in underdeveloped
countries.
As I said before, this bill is not perfect. I applaud the conference
committee for trimming subsidies for already wealthy farmers, but I
would prefer tighter reform of these programs, especially at a time
when consumers must sacrifice to afford increasing food costs. And any
legislation of this size and scope--especially when it is developed as
a compromise between the two Chambers--is likely to include provisions
that might not deserve to pass on their own.
Taken in whole, however, the farm bill conference report successfully
addresses the most important food and agricultural issues facing the
Nation today, and fully pays for all new spending initiatives. I agree
with the editorial board of the Denver Post, which wrote, ``this latest
version of the Farm Bill is good for the entire country,'' and I urge
my colleagues to support it.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report to H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008. At
this time, I would like to recognize the hard work of the Gentleman
from Minnesota, Mr. Peterson, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Goodlatte, and the other conferees that culminated in the conference
report before the House today. I also would like to take a moment to
mention several items of interest to my constituents in northern and
central New York.
Very simply, I could not overstate the importance of dairy farming to
the economy of New York's 23rd Congressional District, which I
represent. In fact, its importance is readily apparent when one
considers that the 2002 Census of Agriculture reported there were 1,989
dairy farms with 188,305 milk cows in the 11 counties that comprise the
district. Accordingly, I am pleased that the conference report extends
and expands the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, Program, continues the
Dairy Price Support and Dairy Indemnity Programs, and reauthorizes the
Dairy Export Incentive Program.
The conference report also includes a provision to create a Northern
Border Regional Commission, which I have been working on a bipartisan
basis with the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Michaud, and others to enact
because it will help further economic development. There is no question
this assistance is needed, particularly when one considers that in
2000, seven of the 11 counties I have the privilege of representing had
poverty rates in excess of the national rate of 12.4 percent and
three--Franklin, Oswego and St. Lawrence counties--had poverty rates in
excess of 14 percent. Similarly, from 2004 to 2006, eight of my
constituent counties had unemployment rates in excess of the national
average.
I was also pleased that the conference report will provide $466
million for the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, $10 million
annually for efforts to address colony collapse disorder in honey bees,
grants and guaranteed loans for broadband development, tax incentives
for agricultural businesses to enhance chemical security, and at least
$1.19 billion for the Emergency Food Assistance Program. Finally, the
conference report increases the amount available for direct loans to
farmers and authorizes $120 million to fund pending rural
infrastructure programs of importance to my constituents such as the
Water and Waste Disposal Grants and the Rural Water and Wastewater
Circuit Rider Programs.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I commend my good friend and colleague
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture, for his leadership in bringing the Conference Report on
H.R. 2419, the ``Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008,'' to the
House. His outstanding work and dedication over the past year and a
half have culminated in this important legislation, which includes
critical authorizations for farm programs and addresses vital
nutrition, conservation, and economic development needs across the
Nation.
This Conference Report makes great strides in the fight against
hunger by providing an additional $10.4 billion for nutrition programs,
which help 35 million low-income families. For the first time in 30
years, the legislation increases the minimum benefit under the Food
Stamp Program, which keeps 26 million of our Nation's poorest
individuals from going hungry, and indexes the benefit amount to
inflation. The Conference Report also provides an additional $1.3
billion for the Emergency Food Assistance Program to provide food
banks, soup kitchens, and other emergency feeding sites with much
needed resources. The Conference Report also includes $50 million for
2008, which is available immediately to address food shortages at a
number of food banks.
The Conference Report also contains a number of provisions that fall
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, particularly economic and infrastructure development,
which I strongly support. The House-Senate agreement voted on today
represents a major step forward in delivering critical economic and
infrastructure development assistance to the most chronically poor and
economically distressed regions of the country. The Conference Report
reauthorizes two existing regional economic development commissions and
establishes three new regional economic development commissions in
economically distressed areas of the Nation.
Section 6026 of the Conference Report reauthorizes the Northern Great
Plains Regional Authority through fiscal year 2012 and provides $30
million per year to fully establish this Commission and fulfill the
mission Congress intended when it was first authorized in FY 2002. The
counties eligible for assistance under the Northern Great Plains
Regional Authority, including those in my district, will greatly
benefit from the grant funds and planning provisions included in the
Conference Report. Section 6025 reauthorizes the Delta Regional
Authority, DRA, through FY 2012 at current funding levels of $30
million per year, and includes 12 additional Louisiana parishes and
Mississippi counties in the DRA.
The Conference Report also authorizes three new commissions--the
Northern Border Regional Commission, the Southeast Crescent Regional
Commission, and the Southwest Border Regional Commission--through FY
2012, at an authorization level of $30 million per year for each
Commission. I commend Congressman Hodes, Congressman Michaud,
Congresswoman Shea-Porter, and other Members representing the Northeast
region of the United States for their strong support of regional
economic development and for their persistence in bringing this
important issue to the attention of Conferees on the farm bill.
These three Commissions are established under a unified
administration and management structure as developed in the Regional
Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246). We
moved this bill expeditiously through the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure to the House floor, where, on October 4, 2007, it
passed by a strong vote of 264-154. These administrative and management
procedures are modeled after the highly successful Appalachian Regional
Commission, provide for a consistent method for distributing economic
development funds, and ensure a comprehensive regional approach to
address problems of systemic poverty in the Nation's most severely
distressed areas.
The Conference Report on H.R. 2419 also makes a number of important
improvements to conservation programs, including increasing investment
in conservation programs that take environmentally sensitive land out
of farming and encourage environmentally friendly practices on working
farmland. Water conservation provisions under the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the final legislation
include the creation of a new Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program, which
provides a commitment of resources from the Department of Agriculture
to restore, improve, and protect water quality throughout the
Chesapeake Bay watershed; and reauthorization of the Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Act through 2012.
I am also pleased that the Conference Report includes a provision
which I strongly support to assist small logging companies who are
facing bankruptcy because they are not able to pay off their contracts
on National Forest System land. The language contained in Section 8401
gives the Chief of the Forest Service the right to cancel or
redetermine a qualified timber contract, and will help a number of
small businesses who are suffering, particularly in light of the
current housing downturn.
I am proud to lend my support to this important effort and commend
Chairman Peterson for his commitment and determination in getting this
legislation to the President's desk.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support the
Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 and I congratulate the Committee
on providing a bill that includes needed and critical reforms that
improve access to food and nutrition, provide more equitable access to
research funding and renew America's commitment to conservation.
This bill correctly focuses on the people who need the most help. In
fact, nearly three-quarters of the bill will be directed to nutrition
programs that will assist 38 million American families afford healthy
food. It updates that Food Stamp program and increases funding for food
banks, food pantries and soup kitchens.
[[Page 9084]]
I am particularly encouraged that the bill increases agricultural
research funding for Historically Black Colleges. This is important
because minority institutions are usually left out when it comes to
Federal research funding. As an example, I point to a Government
Accountability Office study conducted in 2003 which indicated that 1890
Land Grant institutions received less than 2 percent of the competitive
funding available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This bill
represents a step in the right direction.
The bill also provides for mandatory funding of the 2501 Socially
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Outreach Program. This should help
to slow the troubling trend of significant land loss by African
American and other socially disadvantaged producers.
Additionally, the bill significantly boosts spending for conservation
programs to reduce soil erosion, enhance water supplies, improve water
and air quality, increase wildlife habitat and reduce damage caused by
floods and other natural disasters.
Of particular interest to my home State of North Carolina, fruit and
vegetable producers will have their own place in the Farm Bill for the
first time. The bill includes more than $1.3 billion to support
research, pest management, trade promotion and nutrition for the
industry.
Also of interest to North Carolina, this bill takes another important
step in moving biofuels beyond focusing on corn. It reduces the current
tax credit for corn-based ethanol by 6 cents per gallon and creates a
new tax credit to promote the production of cellulosic biofuels.
While the Farm Bill may not be perfect, the good far outweighs any
shortcomings.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2419, the
Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, better known as the Farm
Bill. This measure, which reauthorizes federal agriculture and
nutrition programs for five years, reflects Rhode Island's priorities:
protecting our farmers and surrounding environment and caring for the
most vulnerable members of our society.
There has been much discussion about reforming the Farm Bill,
particularly with regard to how payments are structured to producers of
certain commodities like cotton, rice and sugar. H.R. 2419 begins this
process by lowering the annual adjusted gross income of farmers
eligible for subsidies from $2.5 million to $750,000 and also excludes
farmers making more than $500,000 from non-farm income. This structure
will prevent millionaires from receiving farm subsidy benefits, and
will also make payments transparent. While I believe we should go
further with reform, I look forward to building on this restructuring
in future legislation.
This legislation increases funding by nearly $8 billion for the
conservation title, which includes programs important to Rhode Island,
such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, the Farm and
Ranchland Protection Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive
Program. I am also pleased that H.R. 2419 includes funding for
specialty crops, which will benefit our fruit, vegetable and nursery
crop farmers. These farmers, who make up a large percentage of Rhode
Island's farming landscape, will now receive equal assistance and
access to conservation programs.
H.R. 2419 includes over $10 billion in increased funding for the
nutrition title, which includes food stamps and other programs aimed to
combat hunger and improve nutrition for children, the elderly and low-
income Americans. Unfortunately, these members of our society face a
stigma when they realize they must turn to the government for
assistance, and this Farm Bill works to end that by renaming the Food
Stamp Program as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and
replacing food stamp coupons with Electronic Benefit Transfer cards.
This bill also reauthorizes programs such as the Community Food
Projects program, which awards grants to non-profit groups that
establish community food projects targeted to low-income individuals,
and the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program, which provides
vouchers for low-income seniors to purchase fruits and vegetables at
farmers' markets.
This measure also increases funding for school nutrition programs,
including the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, which will help
purchase fruits, vegetables and nuts, and create more avenues for
produce to flow from local farmers to schools. This is especially
important in Rhode Island, where state lawmakers and local
organizations have already taken the initiative in improving the eating
habits of our students. In 2007, 26 of 38 RI school districts
participated in the Farm to School Program, where produce is purchased
from local farms. This Farm Bill will help those school districts
continue in a healthy direction.
H.R. 2419 also helps northeast dairy farmers, including those in
Rhode Island, by extending the Milk Income Loss Contract Program, which
compensates dairy producers when domestic milk prices fall below a
certain level. Further, this measure encourages the expansion of
renewable energy research and production, contains a new section for
horticulture and organic agriculture, and includes funding to make sure
our food supply is safe and stable.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill; however, this Farm Bill
helps farmers meet growing environmental challenges, gives consumers
more healthy food choices, and promotes critical renewable energy
development. It was also imperative that the Farm Bill take into
consideration the country's current economic state. This bill will help
stock food banks across our country by increasing funding to the
Emergency Food Assistance Program by $1.26 billion. I look forward to
passing this measure into law.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to a Farm Bill
Conference Report (H.R. 2419) that will continue our wasteful
agricultural policy for another five years. It is a rare day indeed
that I agree with President Bush, but he is absolutely right to have
issued a veto threat of this bill.
With farm income and food prices at or near record highs, now is the
perfect time for reform. Unfortunately, this conference report, while
masquerading as a reform package, simply tinkers around the edges of
our bloated agri-business subsidies. Our current ``farm policy'' is
little more than corporate welfare, with benefits flowing to large
corporate operations at the expense of small farmers, both here and
abroad, who actually need help. Under current policy the top 10 percent
of recipients received 75 percent of all subsidies, while 67 percent of
farms receive nothing. This is not good for rural communities, small
farms, or taxpayers.
At best, this conference report represents ``half a loaf,'' as the
group Bread for the World has said. The conferees got the nutrition
title right and I commend them for it. There are important changes to
the eligibility rules for the food stamps program as well as a raise in
the minimum benefit. These changes, along with increases in funding for
emergency food aid will have a real impact on the millions of families
who are struggling to put food on their tables. If all this bill
contained were the nutrition title, I would proudly support it. For all
the conference accomplished on nutrition, they failed in greater
measure on reforming farm subsidies.
Proponents of the conference report argue that it represents
``reform.'' They can't be serious. Under this so-called reform, farmers
filing jointly could have an adjusted gross income, AGI, of $2.5
million, or $1 million if their only source of income is farm-related
and they could still receive subsidies. This amounts to cutting off
only 0.3 percent of farmers from the dole. The report does nothing to
means test countercyclical payments. Furthermore, the report creates an
entirely new $4 billion permanent disaster program that is not only
wasteful and redundant, but will also encourage pushing marginal and
environmentally sensitive land into production. This is not reform.
Real reform would mean eliminating all subsidizes for corn-based
ethanol, which have driven up food costs around the world. Real reform
would mean ending direct payments except for farmers who actually need
assistance. By passing this bill, Congress is missing a golden
opportunity to enact real reform. We should not wait another five years
to make our farm policy equitable and responsible. By rejecting the
conference report we can begin the important work of enacting a fair
Farm Bill. I urge all of my colleagues to vote no.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of
the Conference Report on H.R. 2419, the Food and Energy Security Act of
2007.
With the U.S. economy faltering and food prices rising, this
conference agreement takes critical steps to reduce hunger, ensure that
healthy foods are included in federal nutrition programs, and meet the
nutritional needs of many low-income Americans.
To help low-income families hit especially hard by high food prices,
this legislation invests more than $7.8 billion in the food stamp
program, now renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
This commitment will slow the erosion of food stamp benefits caused
by increasing food prices, provide food assistance to recipients
without requiring them to spend down their education savings accounts
and retirement plan assets, and increase food assistance to households
with high child care expenses.
The bill also invests $1.25 billion in commodity purchases for food
banks, which will strengthen emergency food assistance programs'
efforts to serve needy families.
Our nation is facing a growing child obesity epidemic--an issue that
demands strong efforts to improve the quality and nutritional
[[Page 9085]]
value of foods offered through school meal programs.
H.R. 2419 includes important provisions that will expand children's
access to healthy foods during the school day, and that will help
inform our efforts to reauthorize the nation's child nutrition programs
next year.
I am also pleased that this report increases the volume of fresh
fruits and vegetables available through federally-supported domestic
nutrition programs, and, as part of that, invests more than one billion
dollars in expanding the fruit and vegetable snack program.
Thanks to this significant investment, the snack program, targeted
primarily to low- income children and to schools that
disproportionately serve low-income families, will now provide
thousands of students in every state with greater access to healthy
foods.
This bill also supports local food systems and farm-to-school
programs by encouraging child nutrition programs to use a geographic
preference when purchasing foods--allowing schools and other programs
to select more nutritious agricultural products such as fresh fruits
and vegetables, dairy products, eggs and meat.
In addition, it will require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to
conduct a national survey of the foods purchased by the school lunch
programs.
Science and research overwhelmingly tell us that providing our
children with healthy, nutritious foods from the earliest years on is
one of the best things we can do to help our children succeed.
I am very pleased that all of the child nutrition provisions
throughout this bill retain a focus on providing healthier foods and
nutritional benefits as supported by scientific research.
When we last reauthorized the child nutrition programs in 2004, we
required children in low-income households receiving food stamps to be
automatically enrolled for free meals at school through a process known
as ``direct certification.''
This simplification reduces work for school administrators,
eliminates a duplicative application process for low-income families,
and improves the accuracy of the school meal enrollment process.
We had hoped that school districts, states, and the USDA would do
everything in their power to make sure that every eligible low-income
child would benefit from this simplification. Unfortunately, the
evidence to date indicates that the implementation of this provision
has been inconsistent.
The USDA must act more aggressively to help states and school
districts reach all children who could benefit from this coordination
of efforts. This bill will ensure that we get information from USDA
that will allow us to monitor this progress and promote best practices
through their new annual reports on direct certification.
While this conference report contains many positive accomplishments,
I am disappointed that it does not include a proposal from the House-
passed bill that would ensure that public employees conduct eligibility
determinations for food stamp benefits.
Without this proposal, the food stamp determination process will now
be open to for-profit companies, many of which may be more focused on
boosting efficiency and revenue than serving the best interests of
vulnerable Americans.
The House provision would have re-established longstanding and
productive public-private partnerships that help ensure that the right
balance of private contractors and public employees are included in
this process. It is frustrating that this was excluded from what is
otherwise a very strong conference report.
By making the right investments to strengthen the quality of foods
provided to our Nation's children, this bill is a down payment on a
healthier future for this country.
I would especially like to thank Chairman Peterson, Congressman
Goodlatte, and Senators Harkin and Chambliss for their hard work on
this conference agreement.
The House Education and Labor Committee is committed to building on
this effort to improve child nutrition in this country, and to ensure
that the National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast program,
and the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and
children (WIC) are available to all eligible children and families.
I urge the passage of this bill.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Peterson for
working tirelessly over the past year and a half to craft this farm
bill--legislation that may not be perfect, but which takes our Nation
in a new direction in agriculture policy.
This farm bill makes important reforms in the commodity title, while
continuing to provide a safety net for our small- and mid-sized
farmers--farmers like those I represent in southern Maryland.
The bill tightens payment limits, eliminates loopholes that have been
exploited to get around those limits, and makes payments transparent by
requiring direct attribution to a single individual.
I am proud that this bill takes important steps to ensure that our
children and those in need will have the resources they need to live
healthy lives.
Its nutrition title includes more than $10 billion to better stock
food banks and pantries, provide healthy snacks to schoolchildren, and
reform the food stamp program by tying it to inflation.
It is important to note that this bill also makes record investments
in conservation, renewable energy, and rural development, which will
enable our producers to better protect our environment and bolster
economic development in our rural communities.
I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes $438 million
in direct assistance over the next 10 years to help our farmers in
their ongoing efforts to be good stewards of the Chesapeake Bay.
While we have been able to make some strides in our efforts to
restore this magnificent estuary, it is clear that there is much work
to be done.
Recently, the University of Maryland Center for Environment Science
issued a report card which rated the bay's health a C-minus.
Ironically, this slight improvement over the previous year was
largely due to drought conditions that limited nutrient and sediment
runoff into the bay.
The funds included in this farm bill will help farmers throughout the
watershed control erosion and reduce sediment and nutrient levels.
Their efforts will help enhance, restore, and conserve this
ecologically significant habitat.
The legislation also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to give
special consideration to producers in specific, targeted river
watersheds, including those of the Potomac and the Patuxent.
Our concerted effort to restore these significant tributaries will go
a long way to bolstering the health of the great body of water into
which they all empty--the Chesapeake Bay.
Finally, I want to express my support for the Enhanced Use Lease
Authority Pilot Program. This program seeks to create a national model
at the National Agricultural Library and our Nation's flagship
agricultural research facility--the Beltsville Agricultural Research
Center. This program will enable them to partner on-site with public
and private facilities to enhance the mission of USDA-ARS and address
much needed facilities upgrades in a timely and efficient fashion.
Again, I want to congratulate Chairman Peterson on this bill--a farm
bill that will be noted for putting America's agricultural policy on
the right track and laying the foundation for more far reaching reforms
in the future.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this legislation.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, as a representative of rural Missouri, let
me take this opportunity to share my support for the 2008 farm bill.
I commend Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for
producing a balanced and bipartisan bill that would bring a level of
stability to commodity markets and ensure farmers throughout the United
States can make long-term business decisions.
Important to farm families in the Show-Me State, the 2008 farm bill
would extend the farm program safety net for producers while also
reforming eligibility requirements and strengthening payment
limitations for those who receive farm program payments. While I cannot
overemphasize the importance of having a safety net in place to help
farmers recoup some expenses associated with agricultural production
and to ensure they are not put out of business if markets collapse, I
am pleased that reforms were made to address some concerns of the
administration and other farm program critics.
In addition to ensuring a strong safety net, the farm bill would make
historic commitments to food security and nutrition, expand
conservation, promote rural development, streamline agricultural
research, and invest in renewable energy.
The farm bill would make essential commitments to the health of the
American people and would help families in need by boosting nutrition
funding by over $10 billion. In Missouri and elsewhere, food pantries
are short of food and low-income Americans are having a difficult time
affording groceries. The legislation would allocate resources to food
banks, modernize the food stamp program, expand farmers' markets,
extend food programs for low-income senior citizens and pregnant women,
promote student health, and fight obesity.
[[Page 9086]]
The farm bill would expand popular conservation programs designed to
preserve farmland, improve water quality, and enhance soil
conservation, air quality, and wildlife habitat. In Missouri, the
Conservation Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, and the Wetlands Reserve Program, among others, have allowed
farmers to more easily address conservation problems and comply with
expensive, but important, environmental regulations.
By expanding USDA rural development loans and grants, the farm bill
would foster critical investments in small town America. The measure
would improve rural Internet broadband access, expand first responder
and emergency medical services in rural areas, and authorize grants for
weather radio transmitters to alert rural citizens about coming storms.
It would also provide grants for drinking water and wastewater
improvements, foster rural small business development, and provide for
greater value-added loans and grants for small farmers.
With respect to research and development, the farm bill would create
a National Institute of Food and Agriculture within the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, USDA, to maximize coordination throughout USDA's
research agencies. The bill would also create the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative to stimulate business development and access to
capital in rural America and create the Energy Research Program to
improve research on the production and sustainability of biofuels, like
ethanol and biodiesel. Additionally, the bill would address concerns
raised by livestock producers and others regarding the high cost of
corn by slightly reducing the corn ethanol producers' tax credit and
creating a subsidy to accelerate commercialization of advanced
biofuels, like cellulosic ethanol.
Also important to Missourians, the farm bill would continue price
supports for dairy farmers and increase funding for fruit and vegetable
producers. It also contains the first-ever Livestock Title, which would
increase market access for small, state-inspected meat processing
plants, better protect producers who have contracts with livestock
firms, and better enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act. Additionally,
the legislation would require that all meat sold to American consumers
have a country-of-origin label. But, importantly, this labeling
agreement represents a compromise that would simplify record keeping
and other requirements associated with the law.
The farm bill would also prohibit the closure or relocation of county
Farm Service Agency offices for 2 years, would encourage additional
funding directed to Historically Black Colleges, like Lincoln
University in Jefferson City, and would establish an Office of Homeland
Security within USDA to better protect our Nation from terrorist
attacks aimed at America's agricultural sector.
The people of Missouri and Americans from all walks of life do well
by the 2008 farm bill. I am pleased to lend my support to it and hope
it will pass the House with broad, bipartisan support. I further hope
that the President of the United States will reconsider his threat to
veto the farm bill, which would be a disservice to rural Americans and
to low-income citizens of our Nation who would benefit from the bill's
commitment to food security.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the nutrition
title of the pending conference report. It includes many urgently
needed improvements to our food assistance programs for low-income
people.
As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I am particularly
pleased to see this title includes language to correct a couple of
problems that have arisen relating to the enforceability of the act and
to ensure that no further problems exist.
The Food Stamp Act has long been recognized as fully enforceable on
behalf of active and prospective participants. This history of
enforceability is comparable to that of securities regulations, which
the courts have long accepted. When, many years ago, a panel of the
Fifth Circuit found no private right of action under the Food Stamp Act
in a case brought by a pro se plaintiff, several other circuits, and
ultimately the Fifth Circuit en banc, rejected that conclusion. Had
they not done so, I have no doubt we would have intervened.
Recently, a couple of Federal courts cast doubt on this long-held
principle, one by finding the Department's regulations on bilingual
service unenforceable and another by forcing plaintiffs to meet the
high standards for supervisory liability when suing a State to enforce
the act and regulations against local agencies. I am pleased that this
legislation overrules both of those decisions.
More broadly, the legislation recognizes that lawsuits by individual
households or classes of household to enforce their rights under the
act and regulations are an important part of the program. There now
should be no doubt, if there ever was any, that all provisions of the
act and regulations that help individuals get food assistance, or that
protect them from burdens in their pursuit of food aid, are intended to
create enforceable rights, with corrective injunctions or back
benefits, the latter subject to the limitations in the act, as
appropriate.
The act does not require States or the Department only to exercise
reasonable efforts or to substantially comply with its requirements and
those in the regulations: it gives each individual a right to be
treated as the act and rules provide. The act and regulations have an
unmistakable focus on the benefited class of participants and
prospective participants, they are written in mandatory, not precatory
terms, and they are concerned with the treatment of individuals as much
as they are with aggregate or system-wide performance.
I cannot imagine how Congress could be any clearer in this regard. I
anticipate that we will have no further confusion concerning the
enforceability of the act and regulations.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, because I believe that this legislation
represents a missed opportunity to modernize the regulation of our
Nation's futures and securities markets, I am unable to sign this
conference report.
Section 13106 of the conference report directs the members of the
President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC,
and the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, to
work to ensure that by September 30, 2009, the SEC and CFTC take action
under their existing authorities to permit risk-based portfolio
margining for security options and security futures products. Depending
on when this bill is approved and signed into law, the agencies would
have roughly 16 months to achieve this directive. Because the SEC and
CFTC have a fundamental disagreement over how to proceed, there is no
guarantee that a legislative directive to reconcile their differences
will yield a breakthrough in what has become a long-standing turf
battle between the two agencies over this issue.
Chairman Frank, Mr. Kanjorski and I proffered a solution to this
regulatory impasse during conference that would create a clear pathway
the agencies must follow in order to realize a state-of-the-art
portfolio-based margining system for customers of broker-dealers. Our
targeted amendment to the Securities Investor Protection Act, SIPA,
would extend Securities Investor Protection Corporation, SIPC,
insurance to futures positions held in a portfolio margining account
under an SEC-approved program, thereby significantly advancing the goal
of risk-based portfolio margining.
Our amendment is consistent with recent recommendations by the
Treasury Department in its Blueprint for a Modernized Financial
Regulatory Structure, which found that ``the realities of the current
marketplace have significantly diminished the original reason for the
regulatory bifurcation between the futures and securities markets.'' As
Treasury has recognized, there are many policy issues--portfolio
margining included--where a lack of action has placed U.S. markets at a
competitive disadvantage to other markets that do not draw the same
artificial distinctions between securities and futures products.
Portfolio margining recognizes the risk-reducing effects of
offsetting or hedged positions in calculating customer margin. Thus, a
portfolio margin system should align a customer's total margin
requirement, the amount of money they have to put up in order to fund
their investment positions, with the actual risk the customer is
taking.
Today, the portfolio margin rules already allow futures positions on
broad-based securities indexes such as the S&P 500 to be used to hedge
offsetting securities positions such as options and exchange traded
funds on the same index. There is uncertainty about how these existing
portfolio margin rules fit within the regime that protects investors in
the event of the liquidation of their broker-dealer. SIPA governs such
liquidations, which specifically excludes futures from the definition
of a ``security.'' Single stock securities futures are not excluded as
they are both futures and securities.
Consequently, if a broker-dealer carrying portfolio margin accounts
failed, its customers' net equity claims would not include the value of
futures positions in a portfolio margin account. This could result in
situations where gains in the futures positions are not allowed to
offset losses in the securities positions, thereby reducing the
protection the customer would be entitled to under SIPA. It also would
create severe operational challenges as the customers' futures
positions would need to be unwound separately from the offsetting
securities positions.
Some have argued that the Financial Services Committee's approach to
solving this
[[Page 9087]]
problem would somehow prejudice the so-called ``one-pot/two-pot''
debate over whether futures should be allowed to be kept in a
securities account. It does not. Allowing futures into a securities
account would still require action by the CFTC. Our language would
simply provide uniform investor protection in the event of a
liquidation of a broker-dealer with portfolio margin accounts for
whatever assets are in the securities account.
I am disappointed that the CFTC and the Agriculture Committee
rejected the Financial Services Committee's proposal, the adoption of
which would enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. markets and
streamline financial services regulation. While I will not be able to
sign a conference report that does not incorporate our language, I will
continue to work with Mr. Kanjorski and other members of the Financial
Services Committee to eliminate inefficiencies and redundancies in our
current financial regulatory regime that place U.S. firms at a
competitive disadvantage internationally.
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and
congratulate him on successfully bringing this conference report to the
floor after many months of hard work and committed effort. I also thank
him for his prior support for inclusion of a muck soils conservation
program to address serious challenges being faced by the farmers in my
district and throughout the country. Although such language was
included in the version of this bill passed by the House, it was
unfortunately not able to survive the conference negotiations.
Currently available conservation programs have shown that they do not
specifically address the needs of farmers who produce crops on muck
soil. The existing Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, CREP,
seeks to prevent erosion and protect water quality through a voluntary
retirement program. In areas like the Hudson Valley, this has created
unintended consequences including the full retirement of productive
soil and inflationary pressures on rental rates.
The program included in section 2303 of the House version of the
bill, which would have sought to meet conservation goals with practices
that would also keep these lands active and address local rent
pressures, will not become law as part of this bill, but the needs it
was meant to address remain. Similarly, efforts to make changes in
future CREP contracts at the administrative level will not address the
rent inflation that has been created in places like Orange County, NY,
by contracts that are in place today and will have standing for several
years.
The issues of unintended land retirement and rent inflation are
ongoing challenges for farmers in my district, who as farmers in the
Northeast, growers of specialty crops, and producers of muck land crops
have been thrice underserved by previous farm bills.
The chairman has been extraordinarily understanding and supportive of
efforts to address these challenges. Again, I thank him for his efforts
and ask if he would be willing to continue our work on this issue and
to work with USDA on solutions that will meet the conservation goals of
farmers on muck soils and address the unintended economic consequences
of existing programs.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
oppose H.R. 2419, a $289 billion bill which will subsidize wealthy
farmers and agribusiness, increase welfare benefits, violate pay-go
rules, and will not dent our current energy needs, all paid for by the
American taxpayer.
Folks, this country is facing an impending entitlement crisis. In the
next few years millions of baby boomers will begin to retire and begin
collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits. However, the
Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security will begin to
pay out more in benefits than it takes in payroll taxes by 2020, and
Medicare spending, that is already 13 percent of our Nations budget,
will double over the next 10 years. Yet, this Democrat lead Congress
sees fit to grant farm subsidies to farmers who are making up to $2.5
million in income per year.
As crop prices soar, American farm incomes are achieving record
highs. Since enactment of the last farm bill in 2002, key crop prices
have grown as much as 281 percent, and total farm income has more than
doubled. More and more farmers are now multimillionaires. With $20
billion in increased spending, this bill irresponsibly wastes taxpayer
dollars by subsidizing an industry whose profits are soaring. The
evidence is clear; the Department of Agriculture estimates that the
2007 farm income was $87.5 billion, which totals a 48 percent increase
from the previous year's level of $59 billion.
The search for alternative energy sources is vital to our country's
national and economic security. However, this farm bill will extend tax
and tariff subsidies for ethanol, while keeping in place the Federal
ethanol mandate. This has directly resulted in the price of a bushel of
corn in this country to triple and has failed to ease our energy
crisis. The ethanol mandate to produce alternative energy has pushed up
the prices not only of corn, but also of crops such as soybeans that
have been abandoned by many farmers during this current corn-planting
bonanza. Despite these steep price increases, large subsidies for these
crops will continue under this wasteful bill and rising food costs will
continue to be thrown upon our citizens.
I support our country's farmers and agree that a Federal farm program
should be in place to alleviate farming poverty. However, with crop
prices rising to record-breaking levels, and farm incomes doubling over
the past 7 years, I cannot support a bill that seeks to subsidize
multimillionaire farmers on the backs of tax paying Americans.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, section 12017 of H.R. 2419, the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, amends the Federal Crop Insurance
Act. Among other things, the changes provide that, during periodic
renegotiations with USDA's Federal Crop Insurance Corporation regarding
the standard reinsurance agreement for the FCIC's crop insurance
program, approved insurance companies may consult with each other, and
collectively with the FCIC.
As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I would like to provide a bit
of background, and to sound a cautionary note.
For a number of years, insurance companies participating in providing
reinsurance to the FCIC--that is, providing back-up insurance to the
insurance being provided by the FCIC--did indeed consult with each
other, and collectively with the FCIC. This occurred most recently in
the 1997 renegotiation. In fact, the insurers apparently used a common
agent to negotiate the terms of the agreement on their behalf.
I understand that that experience may have led USDA's Risk Management
Administration, which runs the FCIC, to begin reconsidering whether
joint discussions were a good idea from a competitive standpoint, in
achieving the best result with the taxpayers' dollars that the FCIC was
spending in the reinsurance marketplace. In any event, the RMA
evidently discussed the matter at some length with the Justice
Department's Antitrust Division, and came away with the clear
conviction that joint negotiations are anticompetitive--as experience
under the antitrust laws confirms time and time again.
As a result of its new understanding, the RMA restricted the kinds of
collaborative consultations it would permit during the 2004
renegotiation.
Some may believe that the RMA either went further than it needed to
in 2004, or that it may go further in future renegotiations,
prohibiting consultation even on aspects of the renegotiation that not
only are not competitively sensitive, but where the antitrust laws
recognize that cost-saving efficiencies can be gained without harm to
competition. To the extent that that has been a concern, the new
language being added to the Federal Crop Insurance Act may help clear
the way for that kind of competitively benign consultation.
I wish to emphasize, however, that the new language does not create
an antitrust exemption, or alter the antitrust laws in any way. The
Supreme Court has aptly referred to the antitrust laws as the Magna
Carta of our free enterprise system, and has said repeatedly that
exceptions to those laws are not to be lightly inferred. Therefore, any
insurer wishing to engage in consultations pursuant to this new
authorization should be careful to do so in compliance with the
antitrust laws.
Some observers have raised the question whether some of the conduct
that could be at issue here might be covered under the McCarran-
Ferguson Act's antitrust exemption for the business of insurance, to
the extent that such business is regulated by State law. It is far from
clear, however, that reinsurance being provided to the USDA's FCIC for
its federally administered crop insurance program is in fact regulated
by State law. And even if it were, the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not
apply to the antitrust prohibitions against boycott, which can all-too-
easily be implicated when competing firms start coordinating their
negotiation-related activities and strategies. These are serious
violations of the law, and those who would seek to avoid the pitfalls
here would be well advised to seek appropriate antitrust guidance.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I have sponsored legislation to allow farmers
who grow fruit and vegetables for processing to opt out of farm
programs on an acre for acre basis without limitation. That legislation
would reduce farm program costs and improve the environment by allowing
more extensive crop rotations. I am very pleased that the conference
report takes a step toward that proposal by establishing a pilot
project to allocate 75,000 acres
[[Page 9088]]
of new authority for production of fruit and vegetables for processing
in specified Midwestern states. USDA has broad discretion in
administration of this pilot project to meet the objectives of the
pilot project. The conference report does not specify a procedure for
allocation of the pilot project acreage or other administrative
matters, such as reallocation of unused acreage allocations among
States. However, USDA is clearly required to establish rules to assure
that this additional fruit and vegetable production authority will not
be abused. Only fruit and vegetables under contract for processing are
to be produced under this authority. USDA is to assure that all of the
crop produced is delivered to a processor and that the quantity of crop
delivered under the original contract, the contract in existence upon
Farm Service Agency certification, does not exceed the quantity that is
produced on the contracted acreage. Further, the effects of the pilot
project and FAV restrictions on the specialty crop industry, both fresh
and processed, are to be evaluated. These restrictions are intended to
ensure protection of the objectives of the pilot project, not to compel
food waste or excessive regulatory burden. Further, the conference
report includes an important statement of policy indicating that in the
next recalculation of base acreage, fruit and vegetable production will
not cause a reduction in farmer's base acreage. While this is a timid
step in reducing restrictions on production of fruits and vegetables, I
commend this step in the right direction.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2419, the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
Mr. Speaker I must state from the beginning--I have never been a
strong supporter of the previous farm bills that we have considered.
I and many of my constituents have long believed that the Federal
Government wastes far too much taxpayer money on subsidizing farmers
and farm programs.
While it is true that many small scale farmers should be protected
during cyclical downturns, far too much Federal funding is spent
subsidizing large scale agribusiness and wealthy farmers who don't need
our support.
That being said, I appreciate the efforts of the committee to address
some of the unnecessary spending in this bill. However I had hoped they
would have gone further to reform farm bill programs.
The reason I am able to support the conference report is because it
does include a very robust nutrition title that provides $10.361
billion in funding which will support 38 million families to purchase
healthy foods.
Among the key nutrition items included in the bill:
The food stamp program is modernized to help an additional 11 million
people by 2012.
The Emergency Food Assistance program is expanded and indexed for
inflation to help support food banks, soup kitchens and homeless
shelters.
The bill also provides $1 billion to help schools provide free fruits
and vegetables to schoolchildren.
These and other improvements to nutrition programs in the farm bill
will provide much needed funding to groups like the Alameda County
Community Food Bank and the Berkeley Food and Housing Project in my
district.
The conference report is also supported by a number of organizations,
including the California Association of Food Banks, California Food
Policy Advocates, California School Employees Association, National
Council of Jewish Women, Congressional Hunger Center, AARP, ACORN,
Families USA, National Association of Social Workers, National
Association of Counties, and the Center for Law and Social Policy.
Mr. Speaker, despite my concerns about continuing unnecessary
subsidies, I believe the robust nutrition title in the conference
report deserves our support.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Conference
Committee for its hard work on the Farm Bill, and for all of the
improvements the final bill makes to existing nutrition, conservation,
organic farming and other important programs. But I also must express
my great disappointment that, in this year of record crop prices and
soaring agricultural profits, we have let a precious opportunity go by
to implement real reform to the extremely outdated commodity and price
support programs in the bill.
The good news today fills a long list. According to the USDA, more
than 11 percent of U.S. households are food-insecure. Today, we will
approve more than $10 billion in funding for programs that provide
American families with low cost, healthy food, including more than $1
billion for The Emergency Food Assistance Program and more than $1
billion for the USDA Snack Program. This bill also increases the
minimum benefit for food stamp recipients and excludes retirement and
education savings accounts from the assets to be considered in
determining eligibility. And I am particularly pleased to see that it
includes $5 million in funding annually for Community Food Projects
grants, which funding I have previously urged Congress to maintain and
which I engaged in a colloquy about with the gentlelady from
Connecticut Ms. DeLauro in connection with the Fiscal Year 2008
Agriculture Appropriations Bill.
Similarly, the bill before us today will authorize almost $8 billion
in conservation funding, including increasing funding for the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program by $3.4 billion, adding more
than $1 billion in new funding for the Conservation Security Program,
reestablishing the funding level for the Wetlands Reserve Program at
$1.4 billion, and doubling funding for the Farm and Ranchland
Protection Program. And I was especially pleased to see that the House-
passed provision that would have restricted USDA conservation programs
from encouraging farmers to reduce their use of toxic pesticides in
implementing integrated pest management programs was removed from the
final bill, and I would like to thank the two dozen Members who joined
me in sending a letter to the Conferees to request that the pesticides
discrimination provision be removed.
The Farm Bill supports organic farmers by providing $22 million in
funding for the USDA's organic certification cost share program, which
defrays the costs that organic producers incur when seeking organic
certification, provides $5 million in funding for organic marketing
data, and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make payments of
up to $20,000 per year, capped at $80,000 over six years, to a producer
for conservation practices related to organic production or the
transition to organic production. I have long supported facilitating
the conversion to organic farming, and was delighted to have the
support of this chamber when it voted in favor of my amendment to the
Fiscal Year 2007 Agriculture Appropriations Bill to more than double
the funding for the Organic Transitions Research program.
Therefore, although I will be voting in favor of this bill today, for
all of the good that it will do, I note that there is still a
substantial amount of good that it should have done, and will not.
Although the commodity programs in the bill account for less than 13
percent of the Farm Bill funding, and represent a decrease of $60
billion compared to the last Farm Bill in 2002, we could have, and
should have, done better.
First, although cuts to direct payments totaled $300 million, that
represents a decrease of less than one percent to the $50 billion
program. At the same time, subsidies for commodities such as soybeans
and wheat have actually increased, despite the fact that prices for
those commodities have also increased--by more than 100 percent and 200
percent, respectively, since 2002. The House-passed Farm Bill would
have guaranteed $840 million in funding for the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program over five
years, but in the final bill the program was cut to one tenth that
amount--only $84 million. According to news reports, the amount of
international food aid provided represents less than 1 percent of the
Farm Bill's total cost, while at the same time the bill preserves the
trade-distorting subsidy programs that make it virtually impossible for
farmers in developing nations to compete.
And finally, I was troubled to learn that an 11th-hour change was
inserted into the bill by the Conference Committee, despite it not
having been debated or voted on in either Chamber, that would negate a
U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit ruling mandating disclosure of USDA
data relevant to producer compliance with subsidy programs. In reaching
its decision, the Court stated that ``there is a special need for
public scrutiny of agency action that distributes extensive amounts of
public funds in the form of subsidies and other financial benefits.''
No title of the Farm Bill has been more hotly debated than the
commodity title, the original justifications for which have all but
evaporated over time, and thus it troubles me that a provision that not
only goes to the very heart of that matter but also appears to fly
squarely in the face of a recent court ruling on the subject is being
put before this body without debate or a specific vote on the merits.
In fact, I intend to request a hearing on this last-minute language.
Therefore, this is one of those decisions that is not clear cut. On
balance, I feel that the good news in the Farm Bill outweighs the bad,
although not by much. I want to commend my colleague from Wisconsin Mr.
Kind for his continuing leadership in working to develop a Farm Bill
that more equitably reflects our modern day needs and economic
realities, and I
[[Page 9089]]
want him to know that I look forward to working with him and others in
the future to address the shortcomings of this bill.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I have supported and cosponsored
legislation to allow farmers who grow fruit and vegetables for
processing to opt out of farm programs on an acre for acre basis
without limitation. That legislation would reduce farm program costs
and improve the environment by allowing more extensive crop rotations.
I am very pleased that the conference report takes a step toward that
proposal by establishing a pilot project to allocate 75,000 acres of
new authority for production of fruit and vegetables for processing in
specified Midwestern states. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
has broad discretion in administration of this pilot project to meet
the objectives of the pilot project. The conference report does not
specify a procedure for allocation of the pilot project acreage or
other administrative matters, such as re-allocation of unused acreage
allocations among states. However, the USDA is clearly required to
establish rules to assure that this additional fruit and vegetable
production authority will not be abused. Only fruit and vegetables
under contract for processing are to be produced under this authority.
The USDA is to assure that all of the crop produced is delivered to a
processor and that the quantity of crop delivered under the original
contract (the contract in existence upon Farm Service Agency
certification) does not exceed the quantity that is produced on the
contracted acreage. Additionally, the effects of the pilot project and
fruit and vegetable restrictions on the specialty crop industry, both
fresh and processed, are to be evaluated. These restrictions are
intended to ensure protection of the objectives of the pilot project,
not to compel food waste or excessive regulatory burden. Further, the
conference report includes an important statement of policy indicating
that in the next recalculation of base acreage, fruit and vegetable
production will not cause a reduction in farmer's base acreage. While
this is a timid step in reducing restrictions on production of fruits
and vegetables, I commend this step in the right direction.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2419, the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act. It has been a long road to this
point, and while I must say that I am not entirely pleased with the
final bill, I do believe that it makes important steps forward to
reforming the priorities of our farm policy.
Michigan has had a tough go of things lately--and farming is no
exception. Just last spring and summer Michigan experienced severe
weather and droughts that caused enormous damage to local farms,
leading the USDA to designate 83 Michigan counties as disaster areas. I
have long said that farming is an inherently risky enterprise and with
the recent downturn in the economy and fickle Michigan weather, it is
clear to see why.
I will be frank and say that this bill is far from perfect.
Personally, I would have liked to see greater reforms in the areas of
conservation and fruit and vegetable programs, however, I do think
Michigan will benefit from the bill. Like the farm bill the House
passed last summer, I am pleased to note that most of our farmers in
the 15th District of Michigan will not see any significant negative
changes if the farm bill is enacted. All of the safety net programs
from the 2002 farm bill are maintained with minor changes--including
direct payments and the counter cyclical and the marketing loan
programs.
However, the conference report does take measures to curb wasteful
spending and distribute our resources to those in need. This bill
places a cap on payments to those with an adjusted gross income (AGI)
of $500,000 or more, and puts in place the first-ever cap for farm
income at $750,000 for fixed direct payments. In addition, the bill
would eliminate the ``3-entity'' rule that allows producers to collect
payments for multiple ownership interests.
As a diverse agricultural state, Michigan has the second-widest
variety of farm products after California, this legislation will
provide great support for specialty crops. In 2006 Michigan produced
825,470 tons of fresh market and processing vegetables and the state
ranks 5th in exports of fruits and 8th in exports of vegetables
nationally. This bill creates a brand new section dedicated to fruit
and vegetable producers and allocates a total of $1.3 billion for new
specialty crop programs including $466 million over ten years for the
specialty crop block grant program, which provides grants to states to
support projects in research, marketing, education, pest and disease
management, production and food safety.
The conference agreement will also create a pilot Farm Flex project
that will allow farmers to switch base acres to specified fruits or
vegetables for processing for 2009 through 2012 crop years. This pilot
project is limited to seven Midwestern States, including Michigan which
is allocated 9,000 acres. This planting flexibility pilot program
provides an important opportunity for specialty crop producers and I am
pleased Michigan is included. More importantly, this will help the 1.26
million Michiganders that are currently using food stamps.
Given Michigan's economic situation, I have advocated that a second
economic stimulus package include an increase in food stamp benefits,
and I am pleased that the Farm Bill has increased funding commitments
for the Food Stamp Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program
(TEFAP). The conference agreement includes $7.8 billion for the Food
Stamp program and would raise and index inflation for the program's
standard deduction and minimum benefit. This is the first time since
the program was created 40 years ago that the Food Stamp Program would
fully account for annual inflation. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, this will help 11 million low income people.
TEFAP, a program that has provided assistance to approximately one
million people in Michigan, will see $1.26 billion in funding that will
benefit food banks and food pantries across the country. More
importantly, this bill will increase annual funding for commodity
purchases from $140 million to $250 million allowing organizations to
meet the increasing demand for food services and the rising food
prices. The CBO estimates that Michigan alone will receive $45 million
in additional
TEFAP funding from fiscal year 2008 to 2017. This is critical to
organizations in Southeastern Michigan such as Gleaners Community Food
Bank, who just over the last holiday season provided over 34,000 meals
using the TEFAP program.
Now while this conference agreement contains many benefits for my
home state, as a lifetime conservationist I am extremely disappointed
in the conservation title. I was displeased to see that the cap for the
Conservation Reserve Program was lowered to 32 million acres. Both the
Senate and the House had reauthorized the current enrollment level of
39.2 million acres. Lowering the cap would result in a cut of almost 7
million acres. Each year this program helps produce 13.5 million
pheasants and 2.2 million ducks. As the largest land retirement
program, lowering the cap will be devastating.
And while the Wetlands Reserve Program is continued through 2012, it
is done so at a lower level than in the 2002 Farm Bill. This is
extremely disappointing because 50 percent of Michigan's threatened or
endangered species require healthy and functional wetlands. Michigan
currently has enrolled 125 easements of over 16,000 acres and has a
backlog of close to 25,000 acres. This reduction will be extremely
detrimental as it is the only conservation program solely dedicated to
restoring wetland habitat.
In addition, I have real concerns about the wisdom and merit of the
agricultural chemicals tax credit provided in Section 15343 that allows
a tax credit up to $2,000,000 per year until 2012 for eligible
agricultural businesses to pay for and offset the costs of security
measures taken to protect pesticides and fertilizers used in
agricultural operations. Fortune 500 companies that manufacture or
retail agricultural pesticides and fertilizers should not need the
taxpayer to help offset the costs of employee security training,
installation of security lighting, computer security measures, locks
and fences to protect their facilities, and other such security
measures.
Finally, Section 7524 amends current law to direct the Secretary of
Agriculture to issue a permit to the Department of Homeland Security to
transfer live foot-and-mouth disease virus from Plum Island, New York,
to the mainland United States. The majority of the research at Plum
Island is concentrated on foot-and-mouth disease, which is very highly
contagious, and which Federal law has for more than 50 years restricted
to Plum Island. An accidental release of this infectious virus could
have grave implications for the livestock industry and for the national
economy. This issue is highly controversial, yet it has not been the
subject of hearings nor open debate. I believe that it is a mistake to
proceed with this until Congress has fully examined whether USDA and
DHS have adequately assessed the health and economic risks,
environmental impacts, and cost-benefit of this proposal.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a perfect one, however, it has
bipartisan support. I know from my years in this institution that
compromise is necessary in order to be successful, and I know the
conferees worked night and day to come to this agreement. I feel
confident Michigan farmers and producers will benefit from this final
bill, as will the folks in Michigan who have fallen on hard times,
which is why I stand today to lend my support.
[[Page 9090]]
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Conference Report of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
I'd like to thank the conferees who worked diligently, day and night
for weeks, to craft this bipartisan agreement.
This bill provides an adequate safety net for our farmers and
guarantees an affordable and nutritious food supply for the youngest
and most vulnerable among us, all in a fiscally responsible way. This
bill also helps producers of all commodities stay on the land they hold
and love so they may continue with their livelihood, and encourages
conservation of natural resources and land for use by future
generations.
The bill before us today addresses many of the needs of those in
southwest Georgia and Georgia's Second Congressional District, which I
represent. The peanut rotation program in the conference agreement,
which we paved the way for in the House bill last summer, will bring
peanut growers into the next generation of agriculture by encouraging a
cleaner, greener method of planting while ensuring an affordable and
accessible supply to the markets that rely on U.S.-grown peanuts.
I'm also pleased that Congress has seen fit to include $100 million
for Pigford Claims. This funding will begin to make up for USDA's
historical inability to govern our Nation's agriculture programs in a
fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory manner.
Many in this legislative body believe this bill is not perfect; truth
be told, I am among them. I have concerns about this legislation's
ability to completely serve our family farmers in the face of
skyrocketing fertilizer and diesel costs, an unstable commodities
market that could see prices plummet just as easily as it saw prices
skyrocket, and increasingly unpredictable weather patterns that
decimate entire crops in mere seconds.
Despite those worries, I am even more concerned by those who view
this bill as not having reformed our commodity programs enough.
No, not every single reform requested by President Bush has been met.
No, we haven't reduced the AGI to $200,000, or completely rearranged
the accounting in this bill to deal with the changing baselines and
budgetary gimmicking touted by the White House.
But, there has been meaningful compromise on behalf of the lawmakers
to whom this legislation is most important. This legislation meets the
White House demands by more than half way; this legislation represents
billions of dollars to not just rural America, but to people living in
every corner of this country.
And, if we can spend billions of dollars fighting a war and
rebuilding another country, including supporting that country's land
use and agriculture programs, I think we ought to be able to find it
within our means here in Congress to support American agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, we must pass this conference report today, and we must
do it by a sizable margin to send a message to the President that we
will not be bullied by his negotiating tactics.
Today, I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle ``Let us not
let the `perfect' be the enemy of the `good'.'' Let us pass this
conference report today for our farmers and the others across this
great Nation who rely on a safe and domestically grown food source.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, along with the gentle lady from Wisconsin,
Representative Tammy Baldwin, I have sponsored legislation to allow
farmers who grow fruit and vegetables for processing to opt out of farm
programs on an acre for acre basis without limitation. That legislation
would reduce farm program costs and improve the environment by allowing
more extensive crop rotations. I am very pleased that the conference
report takes a step toward that proposal by establishing a pilot
project to allocate 75,000 acres of new authority for production of
fruit and vegetables for processing in specified Midwestern states.
USDA has broad discretion in administration of this pilot project to
meet the objectives of the pilot project. The conference report does
not specify a procedure for allocation of the pilot project acreage or
other administrative matters, such as re-allocation of unused acreage
allocations among states. However, USDA is clearly required to
establish rules to assure that this additional fruit and vegetable
production authority will not be abused. Only fruit and vegetables
under contract for processing are to be produced under this authority.
USDA is to assure that the crop produced is delivered to a processor
and that the quantity of crop delivered under the original contract,
the contract in existence upon Farm Service Agency certification, does
not exceed the quantity that is produced on the contracted acreage.
Further, the effects of the pilot project and FAV restrictions on the
specialty crop industry, both fresh and processed, are to be evaluated.
These restrictions are intended to ensure protection of the objectives
of the pilot project, not to compel food waste or excessive regulatory
burden. Further, the conference report includes an important statement
of policy indicating that in the next recalculation of base acreage,
fruit and vegetable production will not cause a reduction in farmer's
base acreage. While this is a timid step in reducing restrictions on
production of fruits and vegetables, I commend this step in the right
direction.
Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, as a Member who represents Illinois farmers
and rural communities, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2419, the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008.
The Food, Conservation and Energy Act, which is endorsed by every
major agriculture group in my home state of Illinois, is good for our
farmers and maintains our ability to provide a safe, affordable and
abundant food supply.
This bill improves nutrition and conservation programs, and supports
biofuel production at great benefit to the Illinois farm economy. Most
importantly, it extends a critical safety net to help farmers manage
production risks when facing unsustainably low prices or natural
disasters.
Illinois receives the 4th most nutrition dollars in the nation. I was
happy to see that nearly three-quarters of all farm bill spending will
go toward food and nutrition programs, including $50 million for food
pantries to address the rising costs of food and food shortages.
The bill also increases conservation spending to safeguard
agricultural lands from the pressures of urban and suburban
development, and to protect our natural resources.
Finally, the bill makes critical investments in Illinois' rural
communities through biofuel production, telecommunications and
wastewater infrastructure projects, and healthcare. In this time of
economic. hardship, we look to new industries to rebuild the economy of
Illinois and the rest of the country. This bill puts $1 billion in
programs that will leverage renewable energy industry investments in
new technologies and feedstocks. It also provides $320 million for
biorefineries producing advanced biofuels, and $300 million for the
Bioenergy Program, which directly impact Illinois.
I urge my colleagues to support final passage of this comprehensive
legislation that funds important programs for rural and urban
constituents across Illinois and our Nation.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to H.R.
2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. This version of
the Farm Bill bears significant improvements over its predecessors. I
fully support the inclusion of an unprecedented 10.4 billion dollars
over 10 years for the Nutrition Title that has been included in the
Conference Report.
Funding for the Nutrition Title will have a strong impact on efforts
to prevent domestic hunger by increasing the Food Stamp Program's
minimum monthly benefit and the Emergency Food Assistance Program's
mandatory funding level. Participation in the Food Stamp Program has
increased over the last several years, with an additional 1.3 million
people participating in the program in the last year alone. Portions of
my district, including Lakewood, Fairview Park and Parma, have
experienced a 74 percent increase in participation in the Food Stamp
Program between 2002 and 2007. The bill also provides assistance to
food banks by $1.25 billion. I have been a consistent supporter of
efforts in the House of Representatives to strengthen Food Stamp
Programs, nutritional assistance programs, and other programs to
increase the quantity and quality of food available to those most in
need. I will continue to do so.
These programs help to address a severe short term problem. The
purpose of the Farm Bill is to set long term priorities. However, this
bill maintains the very policies that are driving several underlying
problems.
For example, the single biggest share of subsidies under this bill
goes to corn. Yet this bill continues massive subsidies for ethanol
production from corn at only a slightly lower level than was previously
the case. Corn-based ethanol is a well-known driver of recent increases
in food costs. Some are predicting that 25 percent of the corn crop in
the U.S. will go toward ethanol by the end of the 2008 crop year. That
is great news for corporate agribusiness that produces most of the corn
in the U.S. But it's bad news for food prices and those families for
whom food costs are a large portion of their budget.
The vast majority of corn goes to cattle feed, which has health
implications. It increases stomach acidity in the cattle, which makes
them more susceptible to infection by E. Coli H:0157, the source of
many food recalls. A corn-based diet also increases the level of
saturated fat in the meat.
[[Page 9091]]
The ubiquity of corn in our diet is further implicated in various
health problems like the obesity epidemic and diabetes. Abundant corn
means that high fructose corn syrup, HFCS, a food sweetener, is cheap
and abundant. Most Americans would be hard-pressed to get through a
meal without consuming it. It is high in calories, with little to no
nutritional value. Between 1970 and 1990, HFCS consumption increased by
1000 percent, which is roughly the same period in which the obesity
epidemic accelerated. This bill continues to subsidize HFCS, while
taking only baby steps toward promoting healthy, locally grown fruits,
vegetables and meats. According to writer Michael Pollan, ``the real
price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by
nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (aka liquid corn)
declined by 23 percent.'' Unhealthy food is cheap. Healthy food is
expensive. The obesity and diabetes epidemics affect low-income
Americans more often and with more severity.
The bill contributes to a host of environmental problems. It
shortchanges conservation programs that can reduce global warming
pollution. It removes the sod saver program which would have
discouraged the alteration of valuable native grasslands and rangeland
into crop production. It includes cuts to the Conservation Reserve
Program and Wetland Reserve Program, which respectively substitute
crops for resource conserving plantings on highly erodible and
environmentally sensitive land and encourage restoration of lands to
their original natural conditions.
It continues to encourage factory farms where our antibiotics are
rendered weak or useless because of overuse on cattle, where cattle are
treated inhumanely, where toxic runoff contributes to contaminated
drinking water, and where employees suffer the highest rates of
workplace injuries of almost any other industry.
Finally, this Farm Bill maintains massive giveaways to corporate
agribusiness and rich families instead of helping the vanishing family
farmer. Though the thresholds have been lowered compared to the past,
this bill allows families with up to $2.5 million in income to get
subsidies. The result is that the top 10 percent of all the benefactors
will get about two-thirds of the payments. This bill continues the
failed policies that allow the profits of agribusiness to skyrocket
while pushing family farmers off their farms, forcing them to sell
their farms to survive.
Increasing funding to buy more nutritional foods is a good idea in
the short term. But we need to stop perpetuating the very policies that
cause food prices to increase and cause unhealthy food to be cheap. We
need to move away from corn-based ethanol. We must shift subsidies
toward healthier foods, like locally and regionally grown fruits,
vegetables, grains and meats if we ever hope to address nutritional
deficiencies. And we need to come to the aid of the family farmer. The
Farm Bill does little to address these problems, and I could not vote
for it.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R.
2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
Although I support many of the provisions included in the legislation
before us today, I continue to oppose elements of the commodity title,
which fall short of adequate reform. I have long opposed policy
inequities in farm law that have resulted in large subsidies going to a
few, mostly larger entities, leaving many small and family farms
behind, including those in the state of Delaware. Under this
legislation, millionaires will still be able to collect subsidies, even
with the implementation of a means test, and direct payments are only
cut by a minimal amount at a time when farm income is expected to reach
a record high. Instead, we should be working toward maintaining an
adequate safety net for farmers when food prices drop.
Addressing this issue would bring down the cost of the overall
legislation. Conferees working on H.R. 2419 have used last year's
baseline to score the bill, thereby avoiding pay-as-you-go-rules, in
order to hide a $2.9 billion increase in the deficit. It is clear to me
that these issues need to be addressed before moving forward with this
legislation.
With that said, I am pleased that H.R. 2419 would increase funding
for many of Delaware's priorities, including an additional $7.9 billion
for conservation programs. Specifically, I support funding for the Farm
and Ranchland Protection Program, which would be doubled above current
levels to provide the necessary resources to prevent farmland from
conversion into non-agricultural usage. Critical funding of $400
million would also be provided to aid producers in reducing run-off,
improve water quality, and restore the wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay,
a project that I strongly support.
This farm bill would also make significant boosts to nutrition
programs of $10.4 billion over current levels, including school
nutrition programs, and expands the number of families eligible for
food stamp assistance. This legislation provides increased assistance
to food banks at a time when many Americans are struggling to pay their
monthly bills. Funds would also be authorized to provide relief to
those facing hunger around the world.
Furthermore, investments in energy are also included in this
conference agreement as the ethanol tax credit is reduced, and instead,
the tax credit for cellulosic energy production is increased which may
alleviate some of the pressure corn-based ethanol has placed on food
prices. With initiatives like these, we are working toward real
alternatives to fossil fuels and moving one step closer to decreasing
our dependence on fossil fuels.
While I do support many of the provisions in H.R. 2419 and feel that
conferees have made significant strides toward a compromise farm
agreement, the commodity title has been left without substantial
reform, resulting in costs to the American taxpayer. I look forward to
working with my colleagues to address these issues.
Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great reluctance to oppose
the bill before us, H.R. 2419. After more than a year of negotiations,
this is heralded as the best compromise that this Congress could come
to. But with commodity prices through the roof, this bill rejects the
opportunity to make a difference and instead subsidizes millionaires
making up to $2.5 million. It makes only a cosmetic cut at best to
direct payments at a time when some farmers are receiving record prices
for their commodity crops.
Taxpayer dollars are not Monopoly money yet this $300 billion bill
treats them as such and at a time when middle-class families are
feeling the pinch at the pump and the grocery store and the college
admission office that is simply unconscionable.
Additionally, this bill creates a permanent disaster program that is
costly, unnecessary, and bureaucratic. The federal government already
pays for (1) crop insurance to assist farmers when a crop fails, (2)
counter-cyclical payments when prices drop, (3) marketing loans to
allow farmers to finance a crop and guarantee a price, and (4) Direct
Payments for no particular reason. Adding a whole new program to these
existing programs is simply wasteful.
Mr. Speaker, simply put: This is not a farm bill. This is not a bill
that provides a safety net for community farmers that need our help.
This is not a bill that addresses the skyrocketing costs of farm
products that struggling families experience every day. This bill is
business as usual Washington-style.
Our agricultural policies are in desperate need of commonsense
improvements and this bill fails to deliver. We should reject this bill
that does nothing to support family farmers and go back to the drawing
board for real reform.
Farming is an important part of Minnesota's culture. A true love of
the land and of nature's beauty is ingrained in our collective psyche
and I have too much respect for those who live by the land to support
this bill which does nothing to reform our farm programs but soaks the
American taxpayers--both those who farm for a living and those who do
not--with a deluge of unrelated pork and wasteful spending.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
the Conference Report on the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008, and I would like to commend my colleague from Minnesota, Chairman
Peterson, for his tireless efforts. He is a champion for rural American
and his leadership was essential for the success of this legislation.
The conference report--while not perfect--is a step in the right
direction. This farm bill makes unprecedented investments in nutrition
and conservation programs while also helping to address our Nation's
energy crisis. In addition, this farm bill begins to scale back the
commodity program by reducing spending on farmers who do not need the
help.
Three of every four dollars from this farm bill go towards nutrition
programs, which could not come at a better time for American families.
Even without the spike in food prices, millions of Americans are unable
to afford a sufficient and healthy diet. Unfortunately, community food
banks and our current nutrition programs have not been able to meet the
growing burden from rising food costs. That is why this farm bill
provides $50 million immediately to address the shortfalls that food
banks and food shelves are facing right now. It also increases funding
for nutrition programs by more than $10 billion. For the first time in
30 years individual benefits will be increased, and
for the first time ever we will take the important step of indexing
benefits to the cost of living. It is unacceptable that in the richest
Nation in the world, so many go hungry--especially children. This
legislation is a necessary step towards an America free from hunger.
[[Page 9092]]
The farm bill also increases our commitment to international
nutrition programs in response to growing humanitarian crises. As
global food prices continue to rise, the aid that the U.S. provides to
the developing world becomes more critical than ever. I am proud that
this farm bill does include an increase in mandatory funding for the
McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition program, but
unfortunately it provides much less--nearly $800 million less--than the
House included in our version. There is a nationwide consensus that we
need to do more to help feed hungry children around the world, and I
will continue working to increase funding for the McGovern-Dole
program.
Investing in conservation and domestic energy programs will benefit
Minnesota and the entire country. With almost 8 billion in new
conservation dollars, this conference report represents a shift towards
sustainability in U.S. farm policy. These funds will be used to extend
and expand a variety of programs that incentivize and provide technical
assistance for farming practices that improve the quality of soil,
water, and air on working lands. This legislation also represents a
real commitment to dealing with the energy crisis. With record oil
prices and new information about corn-based ethanol, it is crucial that
we invest in viable fuels for the future. That is why this farm bill
provides a billion dollars for R&D of advanced biofuels and shifts
incentives from corn-based ethanol to biofuels from feedstocks such as
switchgrass and woodchips.
The Food, Conservation and Energy Act modernizes and makes much
needed reforms to the commodity payment system; by closing loopholes,
eliminating payments to wealthy farmers, and capping direct payments,
this bill cuts $60 billion from the commodity programs. At the same
time, this farm bill strengthens the safety net for farmers that
protects them against price drops, droughts, floods and other
disasters.
This farm bill is a bipartisan compromise that addresses our urgent
needs and invests in our future. I urge my colleagues in joining me in
supporting the conference report.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my reluctant
opposition to the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. This
legislation is a real mixed bag for Kansas farmers. While there are
many provisions that will benefit them, it contains many provisions
that I believe will hurt them in the long run.
The latest information from the Congressional Budget Office indicates
that this bill will cost us $714.2 billion over the next ten years--a
pretty significant increase over the last farm bill. In fact, the only
reason we are having this debate on the floor today at all is because
the rule that provided for consideration of this bill waived points of
order against violations of the pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, rules, which
require any additional spending to be offset by tax increases, or
spending cuts.
House rules require the use of the most recent budget numbers
available from CBO. And although we have numbers for FY 2008 available,
the bill before us today is based on FY 2007's numbers. Why has this
legislation not been updated to reflect the current fiscal year?
Because doing so would reduce the baseline of available spending. If
the Farm Bill followed the rules and instead used the updated baseline,
it would violate PAYGO by $3.1 billion over 10 years. Ignoring the most
recent budget numbers is like going to the gas station, and instead of
paying $3.66 a gallon to fill up my car, I decide that I liked the
price of a year ago better, and only pay $2.60 a gallon. Someone ends
up getting stuck with the extra cost, and in our case, it's the
American taxpayer. Time shifts and budget gimmicks hide another $8.5
billion. That's $11.6 billion worth of hidden costs in this bill, all
born in the backs of American taxpayers.
Yet, with all of the extra money that seems to be magically available
in this bill, the majority could not find enough money to avoid cutting
$300 million from direct payments and $6 billion from crop insurance.
These are the two programs that benefit Kansas farmers the most. We
couldn't find the money to help them, which seems strange, as there was
plenty of money available for pet projects.
During the debate today, several of my colleagues have mentioned two
programs that were airdropped in conference. One would provide for the
purchase of 400,000 acres of forest land for the preservation of fish,
and allow the Nature Conservancy to receive a $250 million tax refund,
even though they are a non-profit organization, and pay no taxes. A
second program provides $170 million--more than we provided for the
victims of Hurricane Katrina--for the restoration of salmon fisheries.
By themselves, these are rather ridiculous and unnecessary programs
that should have been subject to House approval. Instead, they were
inserted into the Conference Report without undergoing the scrutiny of
this great body. That alone is disconcerting. But what makes these
provisions especially painful for the farmers in my district is the
fact that, if these two programs were eliminated, there would be more
than enough money to restore the $300 million cut from direct payments.
The cuts to crop insurance and direct payments remove the two most
important aspects of the farm bill for Kansans. Taking money from these
programs is unacceptable given the significant spending increases
elsewhere.
There are, however, good provisions in this bill. The conference
report addresses many of the concerns voiced to me by Kansas livestock
producers. Especially of note are the country-of-origin labeling
provisions that will allow producers to transition into compliance in a
smooth and cost-effective manner while providing consumers with more
information about where their food comes from.
This bill creates, for the first time, limitations on income for
those receiving federal farm assistance. It provides for nearly 49
million acres to be enrolled in conservation efforts, preserving the
land for future generations.
Another positive provision included in the farm bill is the tax
incentive for cellulosic ethanol production. Cellulosic ethanol has
great potential for helping lower the cost of fuel for American
consumers while lessoning the strain on food prices.
Mr. Speaker, this is the third farm bill I have had the privilege of
considering here on the House floor. As a Kansan, I take pride in the
work it does to help Kansas, its farmers, ranchers and producers. It
saddens me, however, that for the first time, I cannot vote for the
original bill or this conference report before us today. I cannot
endorse a bill that follows the same song and dance we've seen all too
often in Washington--a disregard for the rules of this House, coupled
with large increases in wasteful Federal spending.
This farm bill leaves farmers in the dust and sacrifices Kansas food
producers on the altar of special interest fish projects. It is a shame
some have forgotten the ``farm'' in our consideration of the farm bill.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments to
clarify the fruit and vegetable provisions that were in the conference
report.
In this and previous Congresses, Mr. Speaker, I have cosponsored
legislation to allow farmers who grow fruit and vegetables for
processing to opt out of farm programs on an acre-for-acre basis
without limitation, changes that would reduce farm program costs and
improve the environment by allowing more extensive crop rotations. I am
very pleased that the farm bill conference report takes a step in this
direction by establishing a pilot project to allocate 75,000 acres of
new authority for the production of fruit and vegetables for processing
in specified Midwestern states.
To administrate this pilot project, the conference agreement gives
the USDA broad discretion. It does not specify a procedure for
allocation of the pilot project acreage or other administrative
matters, such as re-allocation of unused acreage allocations among
states. However, the agreement does clearly state that USDA is required
to establish rules to assure that this additional fruit and vegetable
production authority will not be abused. For example, only fruit and
vegetables under contract for processing are to be produced under this
authority, and the USDA is to assure that all of the crop produced is
delivered to a processor and that the quantity of crop delivered under
the original contract (the contract in existence upon Farm Service
Agency certification) does not exceed the quantity that is produced on
the contracted acreage.
Furthermore, the effects of the pilot project and fruit and vegetable
restrictions on the specialty crop industry, both fresh and processed,
are to be evaluated. These restrictions are intended to protect the
objectives of the pilot project, not to compel food waste or
excessively burden Farmers with added regulation. Finally, the
conference report includes an important statement of policy indicating
that in the next recalculation of base acreage, fruit and vegetable
production will not cause a reduction in a farmer's base acreage. While
this is a small step in reducing restrictions on the production of
fruits and vegetables, it is a step in the right direction, and I
commend the conference committee for including it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1189, the
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Cantor
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference
report?
[[Page 9093]]
Mr. CANTOR. I am in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Cantor moves to recommit the conference report to
accompany the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the continuation
of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for
other purposes, to the committee on conference of the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment
to strike (1) section 8303, relating to the sale and exchange
of National Forest System land, Vermont, (2) section 12034,
relating to fisheries disaster assistance, and (3) section
15316, relating to qualified forestry conservation bonds.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I think Congress should act to
reform the earmark process.
That's why I have introduced H.R. 595, the Stimulating Leadership in
Limiting Expenditures (or `SLICE') Act, which would provide the
president with a constitutionally-sound version of a line-item veto
that could be used to force Congress to vote separately on any specific
spending earmark.
That's why I am a cosponsor of legislation (H. Res. 727) to put a
moratorium on considering any bill with any congressional earmarks
until a bipartisan panel has been set up and made recommendations for
that reform.
And that's why I am also cosponsoring the Earmark Transparency and
Accountability Act (H.R. 631) which would require any earmark, to be
effective, to be included in a bill's text--not just in a committee
report--so it would be subject to amendment.
But I cannot support this motion to recommit.
If we were considering this legislation for the first time, it might
make sense to consider sending it back to the Agriculture Committee for
revisions.
But we first considered this bill a year ago. Since then, the Senate
has also acted and the differences between their version and the one we
passed last year have been resolved by a committee of conferees
appointed for that sole purpose.
That purpose was fulfilled when the conferees filed their report, and
at that point the conference committee ceased to exist.
So, this motion would not really send the conference report back for
more work--it would send it into oblivion.
And while I know the conference report has flaws, I think they are
not so great as to require us to in effect tear it up completely.
So I urge rejection of this motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on adoption of the conference report, and motion to
suspend the rules on House Resolution 1133.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 193,
nays 230, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 314]
YEAS--193
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--230
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--11
Bono Mack
Cramer
Crenshaw
Gerlach
Lewis (KY)
Mack
Myrick
Pickering
Rush
Schmidt
Weller
{time} 1601
Messrs. PALLONE, HOYER, BERRY, FARR, FOSTER, HODES and LARSON of
Connecticut changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. WELDON of Florida, BACHUS, MORAN of Virginia, BURGESS and TIM
MURPHY of Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
[[Page 9094]]
Recorded Vote
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 318,
noes 106, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 315]
AYES--318
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frank (MA)
Gallegly
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
Kingston
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (OH)
Wittman (VA)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOES--106
Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boehner
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capuano
Castle
Chabot
Cooper
Culberson
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Goode
Granger
Harman
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Hobson
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCrery
McDermott
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Nunes
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Reichert
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Saxton
Scalise
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Stark
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Wamp
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Bono Mack
Cramer
Crenshaw
Gerlach
Lewis (KY)
Mack
Myrick
Rush
Schmidt
Weller
{time} 1607
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2419.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
____________________
CONGRESSIONAL SHOOTOUT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) is recognized for 1 minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the
event conducted by the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus
yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, last year the Democrats won the Congressional Shootout,
the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus trophy, between sporting clays,
trap and skeet, and the Democrats thought that there was a realignment
occurring in Congress, in America. They thought they were on a good run
for a long time.
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to say this year that the Republicans
reclaimed the trophy and won the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus
Shootout this year. The realignment was very short-lived.
In particular, Mr. Speaker, I would like to, on behalf of my co-
chairman Mr. Kind from Wisconsin; the vice chairmen, Mr. Pearce from
New Mexico and Mr. Boren from Oklahoma, I would like to give particular
note to the people who really shot straight yesterday.
Top gun: Congressman Hayes only dropped a few clays all day.
Top Republican: Congressman John Kline, Minnesota.
Top Democrat: Congressman Bennie Thompson.
Top Sporting Clays: Congressman Mike Ross.
Top Trap: Congressman Don Young.
And Top Skeet: Mike Thompson.
All together, a good bipartisan effort, but more to the point, the
Republicans reclaimed the trophy and reversed the realignment.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.
____________________
CONGRATULATING WINONA STATE UNIVERSITY ON WINNING THE 2008 DIVISION II
MEN'S BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 1133, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
[[Page 9095]]
Walz) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1133, as amended.
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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 413,
nays 0, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 316]
YEAS--413
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
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)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
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
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
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
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
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--20
Andrews
Bachmann
Bono Mack
Carnahan
Cramer
Crenshaw
DeGette
Ellison
Feeney
Gerlach
Gordon
Lewis (KY)
Mack
Myrick
Rush
Schmidt
Smith (NJ)
Walden (OR)
Weller
Wu
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are less than 2
minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1618
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF FARM PROGRAMS
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
the Committees on Agriculture and Foreign Affairs be discharged from
further consideration of the bill (H.R. 6051) to amend Public Law 110-
196 to provide for a temporary extension of programs authorized by the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 beyond May 16, 2008, and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6051
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AGRICULTURAL
PROGRAMS AND SUSPENSION OF PERMANENT PRICE
SUPPORT AUTHORITIES.
Effective May 16, 2008, section 1 of Public Law 110-196
(122 Stat. 653) (as amended by Public Law 110-200 (122 Stat.
695), Public Law 110-205 (122 Stat. 713), and Public Law 110-
208 (122 Stat. 720)) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``May 16, 2008'' and
inserting ``the earlier of May 23, 2008, or the date of the
enactment of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008''; and
(2) in subsection (d), by striking ``May 16, 2008'' and
inserting ``the earlier of May 23, 2008, or the date of the
enactment of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008''.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 14, 2008.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: Under Clause 2(g) of Rule II of the
Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, I herewith
designate Ms. Deborah M. Spriggs, Deputy Clerk and Mr. Robert
F. Reeves, Deputy Clerk, to sign any and all papers and do
all other acts for me under the name of the Clerk of the
House which they would be authorized to do by virtue of this
designation, except such as are provided by statute, in case
of my temporary absence or disability.
This designation shall remain in effect for the 110th
Congress or until modified by me.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Lorraine C. Miller,
Clerk of the House.
____________________
[[Page 9096]]
PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION OF S. CON. RES. 70, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1190 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1190
Resolved, That the House hereby (1) takes from the
Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 70)
setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 2009 and including the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 and 2010 through 2013,
(2) adopts an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of House Concurrent Resolution 312, as
adopted by the House, (3) adopts such Senate concurrent
resolution, as amended; (4) insists on its amendment; and (5)
requests a conference with the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, my very,
very good friend, Mr. Hastings. All time yielded during consideration
of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1190 provides for the adoption of the Senate
budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 70, with an amendment consisting of the
House-passed budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 312. It also provides that
the House request a conference with the Senate.
This rule simply allows the House to move quickly and efficiently to
a conference on the budget resolution. Let me be clear, the minority
still has the right to offer a motion to instruct conferees, and they
still have the ability to defeat this rule, denying the opportunity to
begin a conference on the budget resolution.
It's a simple and straightforward rule that allows the House to do
what the American people sent us here to do, legislate. The American
people don't want the partisan infighting that is being perpetrated by
the minority in this Chamber. Time after time the American people have
spoken, and their voices are being heard loud and clear. They want
action, not disruption. They want us to do our job. And this rule will
allow us to do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my very,
very, very good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding
me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is redundant and totally unnecessary. The
House doesn't need to pass this rule to go to conference with the
Senate. Democrats already have all the power they need to go to
conference on the budget. The Budget Committee chairman already has the
ability to make a motion to go to conference, and a rule that this
House passed 2 months ago also provides that authority. We have already
done this with the rule, H. Res. 1036, which my very, very, very good
friend, Mr. McGovern, managed only a couple of months ago. There is no
reason for the House to be considering this rule, except perhaps one,
Mr. Speaker, and that's so that the Democrat majority can deny
Republicans their rights as the minority party.
Democrats are going to get their way at the end of the day;
majorities always do that. But in putting this rule on the floor,
Democrats are saying that they needn't even bother with respecting
minority rights. This rule exists solely as an abuse of power.
Mr. Speaker, when Democrats won control of the Congress in 2006, they
promised the American people that they would run the most open and
honest House in history. They would seek to work in a bipartisan
manner. Instead of keeping that promise, the Democrat majority has
stooped to depths and gone to extremes that no previous majority in the
House has ever dared. When it comes time to shutting down debate,
silencing ideas, restricting minority rights, ignoring rules they
themselves wrote, and running the House in a top-down, shut-up, sit-
down manner, this Democrat majority has no peer.
The Democrat promise to run the most open, honest House in history
has been revealed as a hollow charade. They have passed more closed
rules that block all amendments and debate than any House in history.
They wrote new rules to prohibit votes from being held open to change
the vote's outcome, and then violated that rule time after time. They
passed new rules to ensure House and Senate conference committees are
more open and public, but instead they turn around and retreat even
further behind closed doors. They almost totally abandon even holding
conference committees.
Mr. Speaker, why is this rule suddenly on the House floor today? Why
the sudden interest of Democrats in the House to go to conference with
the Senate on a budget? The House passed their version of the budget on
March 13. The Senate passed their version on March 14. Today is May 14.
Why didn't we go to conference 2 months ago? Never mind, of course,
that the law sets April 15 as the deadline for Congress to pass a final
budget resolution. The facts are that this House could and should have
gone to conference 2 months ago. But Democrats have instead hid behind
closed doors to negotiate, bargain and cut deals to write a final
budget.
By reading media reports, Mr. Speaker, it appears the Democrat
majority in the House and Senate have reached a final agreement on the
final budget for fiscal year 2009. That agreement will apparently
increase spending by billions of dollars and include the largest tax
increase in history. So now they apparently are going to go to a phony
conference after all the true tax and spend work has been done in
secret. Mr. Speaker, they aren't doing this to be more open and honest.
They are doing this to force through their plan to massively increase
taxes and increase government spending.
Mr. Speaker, the news media also reports that the Democrat majority
has abandoned another of their promises it made to the American people
when they wrote the new law for the House that is known as PAYGO. This
is a rule that was sought by the Blue Dog Democrats. This rule places a
blanket requirement that any bill that lowers taxes or increases
spending must be correspondingly offset. Under the secret budget
agreement, it appears that the Democrat PAYGO rule was jettisoned.
Blue Dog Democrats have given up on their rule and their PAYGO
principle. They traded an enforceable House rule for a meaningless
promise from a Senator. It's meaningless because everyone knows that
this one Senator will in all likelihood be overridden by his Senate
colleagues. Mr. Speaker, one can respect my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle for standing on principle, but this is a principle
that's being abandoned.
This rule isn't necessary. The Democrats already have all the power
they need to go to conference. So the only reason we are here is
because the majority is trying to restrict the rights of the minority
to be heard and for the Republicans to have a fair opportunity to offer
alternative proposals to legislation Americans care about most, taxing
and spending.
We are being blocked, shut down, and unfairly restricted in our
rights. And as a result, our constituents will potentially be subjected
to higher taxes and more government spending. I really don't think
Americans want that.
When it comes to Democrat plans for billions of dollars in new
government spending, Republicans have the right to protest, to demand votes in the
House, to have the voices of Members representing almost half of this
country to be heard.
[[Page 9097]]
{time} 1630
We especially have the right to protest the Democrat majority's
writing of a $200 billion appropriations bill that just completely
skips over any hearing or markup in the Appropriations Committee.
Instead of passing a bill to fund our troops who are fighting to
protect America, Democrats are short-circuiting the legislative
process, shutting out Republicans and larding the bill up with billions
and billions of dollars of unrelated spending.
Right now, Mr. Speaker, upstairs in the Capitol on the third floor,
the House Rules Committee is meeting to consider this massive $200
billion supplemental spending bill. The text of this bill was just
released an hour before the committee met. It never went before the
Appropriations Committee. Republicans have obviously just had minutes
to read the bill. This is wrong and is abuse of power by the Democrat
majority. The American people deserve to have a more open process on
how their tax dollars are spent.
So, Mr. Speaker, I repeat again that this rule is totally
unnecessary. Democrats already have the power to go to conference.
They're just 2 months late in doing so. The Democrats have broken their
promise to the American people to operate the House in an open and
honest manner. They are conspiring in secret to write a budget that
increases taxes by the largest amount in history and use a vital troop
funding bill to try to pass billions and billions of new dollars in
unrelated government spending.
So for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose
this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis).
Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. I would like to thank the gentleman for
yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I'm glad we're talking about the budget, but I will tell
you the budget I want to talk about right now is the budget of the
American family and small businesses and the middle class across
America.
I was just in Elizabethton, Tennessee, over the weekend back at
Whitson's Barber Shop, and I can tell you the issue that is on people's
minds right now is not more taxes and more spending; it's the need for
a true energy policy in America. An energy policy that actually uses
American energy. We need a policy that will stop taxing and spending.
We need an energy policy that will break our dependence on foreign oil.
Right now we're buying our energy from people that hate us, hate our
freedoms, and, quite frankly, hate our religion. We need to go back to
the drawing board and have an energy plan that uses American energy.
I'm talking about clean coal technology. I'm talking about drilling off
the Outer Continental Shelf. I'm talking about drilling in ANWR. I'm
talking about wind technology. I'm talking about building safe nuclear
plants. Those are the things that will bring down the cost at the
pumps.
We have moms and dads right now that are worried about how they're
going to get their children to school in the mornings. They're worried
about how they're going to put food on their kitchen table. That's the
budget that the American people are concerned about. The American
people are looking for solutions. They are not looking for big
government, inside the beltway in Washington. The American people are
looking for solutions to make sure that we keep government as small as
possible, and they're looking to make sure that we pass an energy
policy that actually uses American energy. It's time for no more
excuses. It's time for us to pass an energy bill that will give some
relief to the American family.
It's basic economics. I talk to schools all across my district when I
go home, and it's basic economics. You can talk to any high school
student. They will understand supply and demand. If you have a lot of a
supply and a little bit of demand, the cost will go down; and,
conversely, if you have a lot of demand for a limited supply, cost will
go up. Right now we have a demand for a lot of energy, a lot of oil.
And right now we're dependent on the Middle East, on Venezuela, on
Russia, other countries; and we're actually begging the Middle East to
increase their energy production. And we have policies here in
Washington that won't allow us to use our own American natural
resources in energy.
The American people want solutions. They want solutions now. And they
don't want it in taxing and spending. It's time for no more excuses. We
need an energy plan that uses American energy.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire from my very
good friend from Massachusetts if he has any more requests for time on
his side.
Mr. McGOVERN. Thank you for inquiring. I'm it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
I would like to ask my good friend from Massachusetts just a very
straight-up question, and I will be happy to yield to him.
Why are we addressing and debating this redundant rule today?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. McGOVERN. Thank you for yielding.
We are debating this rule today to do the people's business, to
expedite the process so we can move to a conference on the budget
resolution.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, of
course, which we already did on H. Res. 1036, which my good friend
managed on the floor here just a couple of months ago.
Mr. Speaker, let me talk about an issue that's been talked a great
deal about here on the House floor by colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, and I certainly hear about it when I go home.
Mr. Speaker, since the Democrats took control of Congress in January
of 2007, the cost of gasoline has risen to record-setting prices. In
fact, the cost of gasoline has gone up more in 16 months than it had
gone up in the prior 6 years. According to a report from just 2 days
ago by AAA in my State of Washington, the price for a gallon of
gasoline is at a record $3.80. That's 26 cents higher than it was just
last month. The average price of a gallon of diesel is $4.53, which is
$1.46 higher than a year ago.
Speaker Pelosi made a promise that the Democrats had a ``commonsense
plan'' to ``lower the price at the pump.'' But this Congress has done
nothing and has only seen fuel prices rise.
Mr. Speaker, I really believe it's time for the House to act. It's
time for the House to debate ideas for lowering prices, and it's time
for the Democrats to reveal their promised plan.
So by defeating the previous question, this House can finally
consider solutions to rising energy costs. When the previous question
is defeated, I will move to add a section to the rule, not rewrite the
entire rule, just to add a section to the rule, that would allow the
House to consider H.R. 5984, the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008,
introduced by Representative Bartlett of Maryland, as well as ``any
amendment which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the
effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular
unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of
oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Outer Continental
Shelf.''
Mr. Speaker, the United States is the only developed nation in the
world that forbids safe energy production on its Outer Continental
Shelf. This puts our country and economy at a disadvantage to other
countries. According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, America's
deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf contain 420 trillion cubic
feet of natural gas and 86 billion barrels of oil. Let me repeat that,
Mr. Speaker. The Outer Continental Shelf
contains 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 86 billion barrels
of oil. That's 86 billion barrels of American oil that sits waiting
while we import a little over 4\1/2\ billion barrels from foreign
countries each year.
[[Page 9098]]
So, Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about addressing gas prices and
energy costs in America, we need to get serious about accessing our
country's energy resources.
Some will declare that it's unsafe to produce energy from reserves
beneath the ocean in the Outer Continental Shelf. But other countries
do it safely all around the world. As a matter of fact, our country
utilizes deep sea production in the Gulf of Mexico.
Mr. Speaker, this technology was severely tested, severely tested,
and proven safe when two back-to-back category five storms hit the Gulf
of Mexico in 2005. Almost 3,000 offshore platforms were in the direct
path of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Some experienced 5 to 6 hours of
sustained winds at 170 miles per hour and gusts over 200 miles per
hour.
Now, to be sure, production was halted and platform workers were
evacuated during these terrible hurricanes; so there was no loss of
life.
But, Mr. Speaker, do you know how many of these rigs ruptured? The
answer is zero. Zero. Some tops fell off but no platforms ruptured. So
I think we must make a distinction between concerns that production can
be done safely and scare tactics that oppose efforts to make use of
America's resources and reduce imports from foreign nations.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
defeat the previous question so that we can consider this vitally
important issue for America's families; workers; truckers; small
businesses; and, for that matter, our entire economy.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing from my very
good friend from Washington State explain his rationale on various
issues. But let me just say a couple of things.
If we want to have a serious discussion about the cost of energy in
this country, let's understand one thing. The Republicans had been in
control of this Congress for 12 years and the Republicans have
controlled the White House for nearly 8 years. When George Bush went
into office on January 22, 2001, the cost of a gallon of gas was $1.47.
As of last week, it was $3.61. It's gone up since last week, and part
of that is because of the failed, the failed policies of this
administration and the Republican Congress.
Yesterday, thanks to the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, we voted on a
bill to instruct the President not to continue putting oil in the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And guess what. President Bush said he's
going to veto it. He's going to veto a measure that will bring down
prices for oil and gas in the short term. That's where their priorities
are. Siding with Big Oil against the consumer. So enough is enough.
And I would say, Mr. Speaker, that what we're trying to do here today
is expedite consideration of a budget resolution. After nearly 8 years,
the Bush legacy is the highest deficits in our Nation's history. That
is what he has left our children and our grandchildren, the greatest
amount of national debt in our Nation's history. Future generations,
our kids and our grandchildren, will be forced to pay the price for
this unprecedented rise in debt and the Republicans' fiscally reckless
and irresponsible policies.
The budget resolution that Chairman Spratt, our leader here in the
House, has fashioned and the one that he is going to conference with is
a budget with a conscience. That's something we had not had when the
Republicans were in control of this Congress. It is a budget that
doesn't cut Medicare and doesn't cut Medicaid and doesn't cut the
Community Development Block Grant program and doesn't cut LIHEAP. It is
a budget that understands that average people have suffered under the
12 years that Republicans controlled this Congress and under the 8
years that George Bush has been in office. It is a budget that protects
priorities like SCHIP, infrastructure needs, homeland security,
innovation, energy, education, health care, veterans, and the
environment. It protects middle class tax relief, including the
alternative minimum tax, the child tax credit, and the marriage
penalties. In short, what the Democrats are trying to do is get a
budget passed that charts a new direction for a stronger, safer, more
compassionate America, a direction very different from the one that
this President and the previous Republican Congress has brought us
down.
Let me finally say, Mr. Speaker, this will be the first budget
resolution conference report to be considered in an election year since
Bill Clinton was in office. So for all the talk about process, the fact
of the matter is we have a Congress, a Democratic Congress, that is
actually committed to getting things done, including a budget
resolution.
{time} 1645
And again, when we bring the budget resolution to the floor, it will
be the first budget resolution conference report to be considered in an
election year since Bill Clinton was in office. And that is something I
think we all can be proud of and the American people can be proud of a
finished product which will be a budget that will reflect their
priorities.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question
and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1190 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. That upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker
shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the
House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5984)
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the
limited continuation of clean energy production incentives
and incentives to improve energy efficiency in order to
prevent a downturn in these sectors that would result from a
lapse in the tax law. The first reading of the bill shall he
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill
shall be in order except any amendment which the proponent
asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the
national average price per gallon of regular unleaded
gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of
oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Outer
Continental Shelf. Such amendments shall be considered as
read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the
consideration of the subject before the House being made by
the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to
give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the
House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920,
to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the
demand for the previous question passes the
[[Page 9099]]
control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an
amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party
offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous
question and a member of the opposition rose to a
parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on
adoption of H. Res. 1190; and motion to suspend the rules on H. Res.
1173.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 187, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 317]
YEAS--225
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--187
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cazayoux
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--21
Andrews
Bono Mack
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
DeGette
Gerlach
Gohmert
Hinojosa
Lewis (KY)
Mack
Meeks (NY)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Rush
Schmidt
Shuler
Weller
Wilson (NM)
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are less than 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1711
Messrs. UPTON, CANNON, SMITH of Nebraska, CAZAYOUX, YOUNG of Alaska
and SESSIONS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. KIRK, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Ms. CLARKE and Ms.
ROS-LEHTINEN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 317, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 317, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
personal explanation
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify my
vote on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule for the
[[Page 9100]]
Conference Report on S. Con. Res. 70, the Budget Resolution.
I have always strongly supported the current ban and worked to
protect Florida's beaches by helping to enact Public Law 109-432. With
the energy needs our Nation is facing, other States may decide to
explore for more energy sources and I support their right to drill off
of their coasts if that is what they choose to do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214,
nays 203, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 318]
YEAS--214
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--203
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Cazayoux
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Andrews
Bono Mack
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
DeGette
Gerlach
Honda
Lewis (KY)
Mack
Meeks (NY)
Myrick
Pickering
Rush
Schmidt
Wilson (NM)
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1719
Mr. CAZAYOUX changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1190, Senate
Concurrent Resolution 70, as amended, is considered as adopted and the
House is considered to have insisted on its amendment and requested a
conference with the Senate thereon.
Without objection, House Concurrent Resolution 312 is laid on the
table.
There was no objection.
The text of the Senate concurrent resolution is as follows:
S. Con. Res. 70
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring),
SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2009.
(a) Declaration.--Congress declares that this resolution is
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009
and that this resolution sets forth the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2008 and 2010 through 2013.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
concurrent resolution is as follows:
Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009.
TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS
Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Social Security.
Sec. 103. Postal Service discretionary administrative expenses.
Sec. 104. Major functional categories.
TITLE II--BUDGET PROCESS
Subtitle A--Direct Spending and Receipts
Sec. 201. Senate point of order against legislation increasing long-
term deficits.
Sec. 202. Point of order--20 percent limit on new direct spending in
reconciliation legislation.
Subtitle B--Discretionary Spending
Sec. 211. Discretionary spending limits, program integrity initiatives,
and other adjustments.
Sec. 212. Point of order against advance appropriations.
Sec. 213. Senate point of order against provisions of appropriations
legislation that constitute changes in mandatory programs
with net costs.
Sec. 214. Discretionary administrative expenses of the Postal Service.
Subtitle C--Other Provisions
Sec. 221. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 222. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 223. Debt disclosure requirement.
Sec. 224. Debt disclosures.
Sec. 225. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
Sec. 226. Circuit breaker to protect social security.
TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS
Sec. 301. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to strengthen and stimulate the
American economy and provide economic relief to American
families.
[[Page 9101]]
Sec. 302. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for improving education.
Sec. 303. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for investments in America's
infrastructure.
Sec. 304. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to invest in clean energy,
preserve the environment, and provide for certain
settlements.
Sec. 305. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's veterans and
wounded servicemembers and for a post 9/11 GI bill.
Sec. 306. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to improve America's health.
Sec. 307. Sense of the Senate regarding Medicaid administrative
regulations.
Sec. 308. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for judicial pay and judgeships.
Sec. 309. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reforming the alternative
minimum tax for individuals.
Sec. 310. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for repealing the 1993 increase
in the income tax on social security benefits.
Sec. 311. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to improve energy efficiency and
production.
Sec. 312. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for immigration reform and
enforcement.
Sec. 313. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for border security, immigration
enforcement, and criminal alien removal programs.
Sec. 314. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for science parks.
Sec. 315. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for 3-year extension of pilot
program for national and state background checks on
direct patient access employees of long-term care
facilities or providers.
Sec. 316. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for studying the effect of
cooperation with local law enforcement.
Sec. 317. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to terminate deductions from
mineral revenue payments to States.
Sec. 318. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the establishment of State
Internet sites for the disclosure of information relating
to payments made under the State Medicaid program.
Sec. 319. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for traumatic brain injury.
Sec. 320. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to improve animal health and
disease program.
Sec. 321. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for implementation of Yellow
Ribbon Reintegration Program for members of the National
Guard and Reserve.
Sec. 322. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reimbursing States for the
costs of housing undocumented criminal aliens.
Sec. 323. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for acceleration of phased-in
eligibility for concurrent receipt of benefits.
Sec. 324. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for increased use of recovery
audits.
Sec. 325. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for food safety.
Sec. 326. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for demonstration project
regarding Medicaid coverage of low-income HIV-infected
individuals.
Sec. 327. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reducing income threshold
for refundable child tax credit to $10,000 with no
inflation adjustment.
Sec. 328. Sense of the Senate regarding the diversion of funds set
aside for USPTO.
Sec. 329. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for education reform.
Sec. 330. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for processing naturalization
applications.
Sec. 331. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for access to quality and
affordable health insurance.
Sec. 332. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for a 9/11 health program.
Sec. 333. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to ban medicare advantage and
prescription drug plan sales and marketing abuses.
Sec. 334. Sense of the Senate regarding extending the ``Moving to Work
Agreement'' between the Philadelphia Housing Authority
and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
under the same terms and conditions for a period of one
year.
Sec. 335. Sense of the Senate regarding a balanced budget amendment to
the constitution of the United States.
Sec. 336. Sense of the Senate regarding the need for comprehensive
legislation to legalize the importation of prescription
drugs from highly industrialized countries with safe
pharmaceutical infrastructures.
TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS
SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.
The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2008 through 2013:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $1,871,888,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,012,123,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,198,259,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,404,151,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,488,673,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,613,013,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: -$7,652,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: -$85,001,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $15,395,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: -$23,874,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: -$164,642,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: -$141,727,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $2,579,255,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,533,754,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,555,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,687,858,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,731,412,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,860,070,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $2,476,755,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,575,733,417,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,616,367,415,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,709,059,134,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,722,339,034,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,852,077,000,000.
(4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this
resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $604,867,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $563,610,417,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $418,108,415,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $304,908,134,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $233,666,034,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $239,064,000,000.
(5) Public debt.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate levels of
the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $9,618,792,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $10,278,552,417,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $10,805,195,832,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $11,215,113,966,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $11,580,563,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $11,934,375,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $5,418,643,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $5,803,409,417,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $6,032,754,832,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $6,129,282,966,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $6,141,593,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $6,153,706,000,000.
SEC. 102. SOCIAL SECURITY.
(a) Social Security Revenues.--For purposes of Senate
enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of revenues of the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $666,705,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $695,876,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $733,571,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $772,468,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $809,798,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $845,044,000,000.
(b) Social Security Outlays.--For purposes of Senate
enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of outlays of the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $463,746,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $493,607,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $520,158,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $540,487,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $566,249,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $595,544,000,000.
(c) Social Security Administrative Expenses.--In the
Senate, the amounts of new budget authority and budget
outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust
Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund for
administrative expenses are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $5,160,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,989,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $5,473,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,476,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $5,623,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,581,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $5,788,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,759,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $5,962,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,932,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $6,147,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,115,000,000.
[[Page 9102]]
SEC. 103. POSTAL SERVICE DISCRETIONARY ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPENSES.
In the Senate, the amounts of new budget authority and
budget outlays of the Postal Service for discretionary
administrative expenses are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $250,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $237,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $258,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $258,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $267,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $267,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $275,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $275,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $284,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $284,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $293,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $293,000,000.
SEC. 104. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.
Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2008 through 2013 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $693,273,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $604,289,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $612,502,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $645,437,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $550,414,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $607,033,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $557,026,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $577,925,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $565,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $561,666,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $576,223,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $570,503,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $38,608,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,771,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $38,609,416,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,449,416,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $35,663,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,040,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $36,322,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,932,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $36,866,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,705,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $37,024,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,243,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $27,407,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,456,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $30,536,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,987,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $30,369,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,490,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $30,848,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,167,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $31,332,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,650,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $31,816,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,635,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $3,548,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,681,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $7,026,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,843,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $6,935,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,533,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $6,916,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,481,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $6,895,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,981,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $6,858,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,159,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $32,560,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,440,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $39,835,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,309,500,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $34,730,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,039,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $35,424,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,217,875,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $36,111,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,394,875,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $36,812,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,756,875,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $22,423,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,495,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,377,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,127,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $21,532,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,501,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $21,665,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,659,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,994,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,176,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $22,307,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,513,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $11,516,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,441,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $9,350,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,764,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $11,133,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,562,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $7,713,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $824,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $8,028,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $492,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $8,254,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $195,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $87,289,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $81,370,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $75,131,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $83,311,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $78,075,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,504,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $78,913,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,779,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $79,763,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $88,515,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $80,640,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,534,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $20,029,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,819,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $15,195,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,486,700,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $15,265,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,115,400,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $15,503,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,240,900,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $15,746,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,186,800,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $15,979,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,872,800,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $91,381,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,912,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $94,679,670,000.
(B) Outlays, $91,253,020,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $103,891,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $98,615,482,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $106,486,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $103,806,534,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $108,255,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $104,904,034,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $101,660,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $103,626,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $286,108,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $287,211,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $313,109,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $310,603,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $324,863,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $325,576,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $345,558,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $344,795,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $368,273,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $367,110,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $393,283,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $391,805,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $390,458,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $390,454,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $420,389,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $420,150,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $445,380,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $445,513,000,000.
[[Page 9103]]
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $494,477,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $494,305,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $491,399,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $491,163,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $551,039,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $551,161,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $393,591,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $394,613,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $414,369,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $419,023,200,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $416,322,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $418,871,200,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $425,435,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $426,242,100,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $411,468,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $411,597,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $426,718,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $426,611,400,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,378,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,378,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,308,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,308,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $23,794,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,794,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $27,330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,330,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $30,342,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,342,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $33,162,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,162,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $86,365,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $83,551,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $93,319,584,000.
(B) Outlays, $92,397,584,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $95,615,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,399,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $100,959,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $100,749,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $97,782,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,064,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $103,241,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $102,521,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $46,282,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,322,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $49,432,330,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,896,297,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $48,018,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,714,333,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $48,907,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,113,500,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $49,819,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,089,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $50,768,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,706,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $56,407,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,920,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $24,477,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,435,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $19,972,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,172,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $20,395,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,407,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $20,796,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,940,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $21,107,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,991,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $349,462,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $349,462,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $335,110,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $335,110,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $372,253,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $372,253,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $409,810,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $409,810,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $435,762,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $435,762,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $451,980,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $451,980,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $9,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$14,941,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$4,099,300,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$8,179,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$10,713,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$8,466,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$9,360,775,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$8,916,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$9,295,675,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$9,110,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$10,206,075,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$86,330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$86,330,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$67,060,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$67,060,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$70,645,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$70,645,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$73,364,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$73,364,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$76,104,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$76,104,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$79,691,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$79,691,000,000.
TITLE II--BUDGET PROCESS
Subtitle A--Direct Spending and Receipts
SEC. 201. SENATE POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION
INCREASING LONG-TERM DEFICITS.
(a) Congressional Budget Office Analysis of Proposals.--The
Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall, to the
extent practicable, prepare for each bill and joint
resolution reported from committee (except measures within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations), and
amendments thereto and conference reports thereon, an
estimate of whether the measure would cause, relative to
current law, a net increase in deficits in excess of $0 in
any of the 4 consecutive 10-year periods beginning with the
first fiscal year that is 10 years after the budget year
provided for in the most recently adopted concurrent
resolution on the budget.
(b) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that would cause a net increase in deficits
in excess of $0 in any of the 4 consecutive 10-year periods
described in subsection (a).
(c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal in the Senate.--
(1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended only
by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly
chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this section.
(d) Determinations of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this
section, the levels of net deficit increases shall be
determined on the basis of estimates provided by the Senate
Committee on the Budget.
(e) Sunset.--This section shall expire on September 30,
2017.
(f) Repeal.--In the Senate, subsections (a) through (d) and
subsection (f) of section 203 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th
Congress) shall no longer apply.
SEC. 202. POINT OF ORDER--20 PERCENT LIMIT ON NEW DIRECT
SPENDING IN RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION.
(a)(1) In the Senate, it shall not be in order to consider
any reconciliation bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,
or any conference report on, or an amendment between the
Houses in relation to, a reconciliation bill pursuant to
section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that
produces an increase in outlays, if--
(2) the effect of all the provisions in the jurisdiction of
any committee is to create gross new direct spending that
exceeds 20 percent of the total savings instruction to the
committee; or
(3) the effect of the adoption of an amendment would result
in gross new direct spending that exceeds 20 percent of the
total savings instruction to the committee.
(b) A point of order under paragraph (1) may be raised by a
Senator as provided in section 313(e) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
(1) Paragraph (1) may be waived or suspended only by an
affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen
and sworn. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members
of the Senate, duly chosen and
sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling
of the Chair on a point of order raised under paragraph (1).
(2) If a point of order is sustained under paragraph (1)
against a conference report in the Senate, the report shall
be disposed of as provided in section 313(d) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Subtitle B--Discretionary Spending
SEC. 211. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS, PROGRAM INTEGRITY
INITIATIVES, AND OTHER ADJUSTMENTS.
(a) Senate Point of Order.--
[[Page 9104]]
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider
any bill or joint resolution (or amendment, motion, or
conference report on that bill or joint resolution) that
would cause the discretionary spending limits in this section
to be exceeded.
(2) Supermajority waiver and appeals.--
(A) Waiver.--This subsection may be waived or suspended in
the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of
the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(B) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of this subsection shall
be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or
joint resolution. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under this subsection.
(b) Senate Discretionary Spending Limits.--In the Senate
and as used in this section, the term ``discretionary
spending limit'' means--
(1) for fiscal year 2008, $1,055,478,000,000 in new budget
authority and $1,093,343,000,000 in outlays; and
(2) for fiscal year 2009, $1,008,482,000,000 in new budget
authority and $1,108,449,000,000 in outlays;
as adjusted in conformance with the adjustment procedures in
subsection (c).
(c) Adjustments in the Senate.--
(1) In general.--After the reporting of a bill or joint
resolution relating to any matter described in paragraph (2),
or the offering of an amendment thereto or the submission of
a conference report thereon--
(A) the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
adjust the discretionary spending limits, budgetary
aggregates, and allocations pursuant to section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, by the amount of new budget
authority in that measure for that purpose and the outlays
flowing therefrom; and
(B) following any adjustment under subparagraph (A), the
Senate Committee on Appropriations may report appropriately
revised suballocations pursuant to section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this
subsection.
(2) Matters described.--Matters referred to in paragraph
(1) are as follows:
(A) Continuing disability reviews and ssi
redeterminations.--If a bill or joint resolution is reported
making appropriations for fiscal year 2009 that appropriates
$264,000,000 for continuing disability reviews and
Supplemental Security Income redeterminations for the Social
Security Administration, and provides an additional
appropriation of up to $240,000,000 for continuing disability
reviews and Supplemental Security Income redeterminations for
the Social Security Administration, then the discretionary
spending limits, allocation to the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, and aggregates may be adjusted by the amounts
provided in such legislation for that purpose, but not to
exceed $240,000,000 in budget authority and outlays flowing
therefrom for fiscal year 2009.
(B) Internal revenue service tax enforcement.--If a bill or
joint resolution is reported making appropriations for fiscal
year 2009 that appropriates $6,997,000,000 for the Internal
Revenue Service for enhanced tax enforcement to address the
Federal tax gap (taxes owed but not paid) and provides an
additional appropriation of up to $490,000,000 for the
Internal Revenue Service for enhanced tax enforcement to
address the Federal tax gap, then the discretionary spending
limits, allocation to the Senate Committee on Appropriations,
and aggregates may be adjusted by the amounts provided in
such legislation for that purpose, but not to exceed
$490,000,000 in budget authority and outlays flowing
therefrom for fiscal year 2009.
(C) Health care fraud and abuse control.--If a bill or
joint resolution is reported making appropriations for fiscal
year 2009 that appropriates up to $198,000,000 to the Health
Care Fraud and Abuse Control program at the Department of
Health and Human Services, then the discretionary spending
limits, allocation to the Senate Committee on Appropriations,
and aggregates may be adjusted by the amounts provided in
such legislation for that purpose, but not to exceed
$198,000,000 in budget authority and outlays flowing
therefrom for fiscal year 2009.
(D) Unemployment insurance improper payment reviews.--If a
bill or joint resolution is reported making appropriations
for fiscal year 2009 that appropriates $10,000,000 for in-
person reemployment and eligibility assessments and
unemployment insurance improper payment reviews, and provides
an additional appropriation of up to $40,000,000 for in-
person reemployment and eligibility assessments and
unemployment insurance improper payment reviews, then the
discretionary spending limits, allocation to the Senate
Committee on Appropriations, and aggregates may be adjusted
by the amounts provided in such legislation for that purpose,
but not to exceed $40,000,000 in budget authority and outlays
flowing therefrom for fiscal year 2009.
(E) Comparative effectiveness research at the agency for
healthcare research and quality.--If a bill or joint
resolution is reported making appropriations for fiscal year
2009 that appropriates $30,000,000 for comparative
effectiveness research as authorized under section 1013 of
the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization
Act of 2003, and provides an additional appropriation of up
to $70,000,000 for that purpose, then the discretionary
spending limits, allocation to the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, and aggregates may be adjusted by the amounts
provided in such legislation for that purpose, but not to
exceed $70,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal year 2009
and the outlays flowing therefrom.
(F) Reducing waste in defense contracting.--If a bill or
joint resolution is reported making appropriations for fiscal
year 2009 that appropriates up to $100,000,000 to the
Department of Defense for additional activities to reduce
waste, fraud, abuse, and overpayments in defense contracting;
achieve the legal requirement to submit auditable financial
statements; or reduce waste by improving accounting for and
ordering of spare parts; subject contracts performed outside
the United States to the same ethics, control, and reporting
requirements as those performed domestically, then the
discretionary spending limits, allocation to the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate, and aggregates may be adjusted
by the amounts provided in such legislation for that purpose,
but not to exceed $100,000,000 in budget authority and
outlays flowing therefrom for fiscal year 2009.
(3) Adjustments for costs of the wars in iraq and
afghanistan.--The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the
Budget may adjust the discretionary spending limits,
allocations to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and
aggregates for one or more--
(A) bills reported by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations or passed by the House of Representatives;
(B) joint resolutions or amendments reported by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations;
(C) amendments between the Houses received from the House
of Representatives or Senate amendments offered by the
authority of the Senate Committee on Appropriations; or
(D) conference reports;
making appropriations for fiscal year 2008 or 2009 for the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes (and so designated pursuant to
this paragraph), up to $108,056,000,000 in budget authority
for fiscal year 2008 and the new outlays flowing therefrom,
and up to $70,000,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal year
2009 and the new outlays flowing therefrom.
(d) Oversight of Government Performance.--In the Senate,
all committees are directed to review programs within their
jurisdictions to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in program
spending, giving particular scrutiny to issues raised by
Government Accountability Office reports. Based on these
oversight efforts and committee performance reviews of
programs within their jurisdictions, committees are directed
to include recommendations for improved governmental
performance in their annual views and estimates reports
required under section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 to the Committees on the Budget.
(e) Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2008.--If
legislation making supplemental appropriations for fiscal
year 2008 is enacted, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on
the Budget shall make the appropriate adjustments in
allocations, aggregates, discretionary spending limits, and
other levels of new budget authority and outlays to reflect
the difference between such measure and the corresponding
levels assumed in this resolution.
(f) Inapplicability.--In the Senate, subsections (a), (b),
(c), (e), and (f) of section 207 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th
Congress) shall no longer apply.
SEC. 212. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Point of order.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill,
joint resolution, motion, amendment, or conference report
that would provide an advance appropriation.
(2) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any new budget authority provided in a
bill or joint resolution making appropriations for fiscal
year 2009 that first becomes available for any fiscal year
after 2009, or any new budget authority provided in a bill or
joint resolution
making general appropriations or continuing appropriations
for fiscal year 2010, that first becomes available for any
fiscal year after 2010.
(b) Exceptions.--Advance appropriations may be provided--
(1) for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 for programs, projects,
activities, or accounts identified in the joint explanatory
statement of managers accompanying this resolution under the
heading ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in
an aggregate
[[Page 9105]]
amount not to exceed $29,352,000,000 in new
budget authority in each year; and
(2) for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
(c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--
(1) Waiver.--In the Senate, subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under subsection (a).
(d) Form of Point of Order.--A point of order under
subsection (a) may be raised by a Senator as provided in
section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(e) Conference Reports.--When the Senate is considering a
conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in
relation to, a bill, upon a point of order being made by any
Senator pursuant to this section, and such point of order
being sustained, such material contained in such conference
report shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate shall proceed
to consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede
from its amendment and concur with a further amendment, or
concur in the House amendment with a further amendment, as
the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of
only that portion of the conference report or House
amendment, as the case may be, not so stricken. Any such
motion in the Senate shall be debatable. In any case in which
such point of order is sustained against a conference report
(or Senate amendment derived from such conference report by
operation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be
in order.
(f) Inapplicability.--In the Senate, section 206(a) of S.
Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress) shall no longer apply.
SEC. 213. SENATE POINT OF ORDER AGAINST PROVISIONS OF
APPROPRIATIONS LEGISLATION THAT CONSTITUTE
CHANGES IN MANDATORY PROGRAMS WITH NET COSTS.
(a) In General.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order to
consider any appropriations legislation, including any
amendment thereto, motion in relation thereto, or conference
report thereon, that includes any provision which constitutes
a change in a mandatory program producing net costs, as
defined in subsection (b), that would have been estimated as
affecting direct spending or receipts under section 252 of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
(as in effect prior to September 30, 2002) were they included
in legislation other than appropriations legislation. A point
of order pursuant to this section shall be raised against
such provision or provisions as described in subsections (e)
and (f).
(b) Changes in Mandatory Programs Producing Net Costs.--A
provision or provisions shall be subject to a point of order
pursuant to this section if--
(1) the provision would increase budget authority in at
least 1 of the 9 fiscal years that follow the budget year and
over the period of the total of the budget year and the 9
fiscal years following the budget year;
(2) the provision would increase net outlays over the
period of the total of the 9 fiscal years following the
budget year; and
(3) the sum total of all changes in mandatory programs in
the legislation would increase net outlays as measured over
the period of the total of the 9 fiscal years following the
budget year.
(c) Determination.--The determination of whether a
provision is subject to a point of order pursuant to this
section shall be made by the Committee on the Budget of the
Senate.
(d) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be
waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote
of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An
affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the
Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this section.
(e) General Point of Order.--It shall be in order for a
Senator to raise a single point of order that several
provisions of a bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report violate this section. The Presiding Officer
may sustain the point of order as to some or all of the
provisions against which the Senator raised the point of
order. If the Presiding Officer so sustains the point of
order as to some of the provisions (including provisions of
an amendment, motion, or conference report) against which the
Senator raised the point of order, then only those provisions
(including provision of an amendment, motion, or conference
report) against which the Presiding Officer sustains the
point of order shall be deemed stricken pursuant to this
section. Before the Presiding Officer rules on such a point
of order, any Senator may move to waive such a point of order
as it applies to some or all of the provisions against which
the point of order was raised. Such a motion to waive is
amendable in accordance with rules and precedents of the
Senate. After the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of
order, any Senator may appeal the ruling of the Presiding
Officer on such a point of order as it applies to some or all
of the provisions on which the Presiding Officer ruled.
(f) Form of the Point of Order.--When the Senate is
considering a conference report on, or an amendment between
the Houses in relation to, a bill, upon a point of order
being made by any Senator pursuant to this section, and such
point of order being sustained, such material contained in
such conference report or amendment shall be deemed stricken,
and the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of
whether the Senate shall recede from its amendment and concur
with a further amendment, or concur in the House amendment
with a further amendment, as the case may be, which further
amendment shall consist of only that portion of the
conference report or House amendment, as the case may be, not
so stricken. Any such motion shall be debatable. In any case
in which such point of order is sustained against a
conference report (or Senate amendment derived from such
conference report by operation of this subsection), no
further amendment shall be in order.
(g) Effectiveness.--This section shall not apply to any
provision constituting a change in a mandatory program in
appropriations legislation if such provision has been enacted
in each of the 3 fiscal years prior to the budget year.
SEC. 214. DISCRETIONARY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF THE POSTAL
SERVICE.
In the Senate, notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 2009a of title
39, United States Code, the joint explanatory statement
accompanying the conference report on any concurrent
resolution on the budget shall include in its allocations
under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
to the Committee on Appropriations amounts for the
discretionary administrative expenses of the Postal Service.
Subtitle C--Other Provisions
SEC. 221. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.
(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and
aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in
this resolution.
(c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this
resolution the levels of new budget authority, outlays,
direct spending, new entitlement authority, revenues,
deficits, and surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal
years shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by
the Senate Committee on the Budget.
SEC. 222. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND
DEFINITIONS.
Upon the enactment of a bill or joint resolution providing
for a change in concepts or definitions, the Chairman of the
Senate Committee on the Budget may make adjustments to the
levels and allocations in this resolution in accordance with
section 251(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (as in effect prior to September 30,
2002).
SEC. 223. DEBT DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT.
(a) In General.--It shall not be in order to consider a
budget resolution in the Senate unless it contains a debt
disclosure section including all, and only, the following
disclosures regarding debt:
``SEC. __. DEBT DISCLOSURES.
``(a) In General.--The levels assumed in this budget
resolution allow the gross Federal debt of the nation to
rise/fall by $______ from the current year, fiscal year 20__,
to the fifth year of the budget window, fiscal year 20__.
``(b) Per Person.--The levels assumed in this budget
resolution allow the gross Federal debt of the nation to
rise/fall by $____ on every United States citizen from the
current year, fiscal year 20__ to the fifth year of the
budget window, fiscal year 20__.
``(c) Social Security.--The levels assumed in this budget
resolution project that $____ of the Social Security surplus
will be spent over the 5-year budget window, fiscal years
20__-20__, on things other than Social Security which
represents __ percent of the projected Social Security
surplus over this period.''.
(b) Social Security.--If any portion of the Social Security
surplus is projected to be spent and/or the gross Federal
debt in the fifth year of the budget window is greater
than the debt projected in the current year, as described in
the debt disclosure section described in subsection (a) of
this section, the report, print, or statement of managers
accompanying the budget resolution shall contain a section
that--
(1) details the circumstances making it in the national
interest to allow Federal debt to increase rather than taking
steps to reduce the debt; and
(2) provides a justification for allowing the surpluses in
the Social Security Trust Fund to be spent on other functions
of Government even as the baby boom generation retires,
program costs are projected to rise
[[Page 9106]]
dramatically, the debt
owed to Social Security is about to come due, and the Trust
Fund is projected to go insolvent.
(c) Definitions.--The term ``gross Federal debt'' described
above represents nominal increases in gross Federal debt
measured at the end of each fiscal year during the period of
the budget, not debt as a percentage of gross domestic
product, and not levels relative to baseline projections.
SEC. 224. DEBT DISCLOSURES.
(a) In General.--The levels assumed in this budget
resolution allow the gross Federal debt of the nation to rise
by $2,000,000,000,000 from the current year, fiscal year
2008, to the fifth year of the budget window, fiscal year
2013.
(b) Per Person.--The levels assumed in this budget
resolution allow the gross Federal debt of the nation to rise
by $6,440 on every United States citizen from the current
year, fiscal year 2008, to the fifth year of the budget
window, fiscal year 2013.
(c) Social Security.--The levels assumed in this budget
resolution project $800,000,000,000 of the Social Security
surplus will be spent over the 5-year budget window, fiscal
years 2009-2013, on things other than Social Security, which
represents 70 percent of the projected Social Security
surplus over this period.
SEC. 225. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.
Congress adopts the provisions of this title--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate,
and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of
the Senate and such rules shall supersede other rules only to
the extent that they are inconsistent with such other rules;
and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
the Senate to change those rules at any time, in the same
manner, and to the same extent as is the case of any other
rule of the Senate.
SEC. 226. CIRCUIT BREAKER TO PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY.
(a) Circuit Breaker.--If in any year the Congressional
Budget Office, in its report pursuant to section 202(e)(1) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 projects an on-budget
deficit (excluding Social Security) for the budget year or
any subsequent fiscal year covered by those projections, then
the concurrent resolution on the budget for the budget year
shall reduce on-budget deficits relative to the projections
of Congressional Budget Office and put the budget on a path
to achieve on-budget balance within 5 years, and shall
include such provisions as are necessary to protect Social
Security and facilitate deficit reduction, except it shall
not contain any reduction in Social Security benefits.
(b) Point of Order.--If in any year the Congressional
Budget Office, in its report pursuant to section 202(e)(1) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 projects an on-budget
deficit for the budget year or any subsequent fiscal year
covered by those projections, it shall not be in order in the
Senate to consider a concurrent resolution on the budget for
the budget year or any conference report thereon that fails
to reduce on-budget deficits relative to the projections of
Congressional Budget Office and put the budget on a path to
achieve on-budget balance within 5 years.
(c) Amendments to Budget Resolution.--If in any year the
Congressional Budget Office, in its report pursuant to
section 202(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
projects an on-budget deficit for the budget year or any
subsequent fiscal year covered by those projections, it shall
not be in order in the Senate to consider an amendment to a
concurrent resolution on the budget that would increase on-
budget deficits relative to the concurrent resolution on the
budget in any fiscal year covered by that concurrent
resolution on the budget or cause the budget to fail to
achieve on-budget balance within 5 years.
(d) Suspension of Requirement During War or Low Economic
Growth.--
(1) Low growth.--If the most recent of the Department of
Commerce's advance, preliminary, or final reports of actual
real economic growth indicate that the rate of real economic
growth (as measured by the real gross domestic product) for
each of the most recently reported quarter and the
immediately preceding quarter is less than zero percent, this
section is suspended.
(2) War.--If a declaration of war is in effect, this
section is suspended.
(e) Supermajority Waiver and Appeals.--
(1) Waiver.--Subsections (b) and (c) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of this subsection shall
be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or
joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of
three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and
sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling
of the Chair on a point of order raised under this
subsection.
(f) Budget Year.--In this section, the term ``budget year''
shall have the same meaning as in section 250(c)(12) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS
SEC. 301. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO STRENGTHEN AND
STIMULATE THE AMERICAN ECONOMY AND PROVIDE
ECONOMIC RELIEF TO AMERICAN FAMILIES.
(a) Tax Relief.--The Chairman of the Senate Committee on
the Budget may revise the aggregates, allocations, and other
appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills,
joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports
that would provide tax relief, including extensions of
expiring tax relief, reinstatement of expired tax relief,
such as enhanced charitable giving from individual retirement
accounts, including life-income gifts, and refundable tax
relief and incentivizing utilization of accumulated
alternative minimum tax and research and development credits,
by the amounts provided in that legislation for those
purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase
the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal
years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2008 through 2018.
(b) Manufacturing.--The Chairman of the Senate Committee on
the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other
appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills,
joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference
reports, including tax legislation, that would revitalize the
United States domestic manufacturing sector by increasing
Federal research and development, by expanding the scope and
effectiveness of manufacturing programs across the Federal
government, by increasing efforts to train and retrain
manufacturing workers, by increasing support for development
of alternative fuels and leap-ahead automotive and energy
technologies, or by establishing tax incentives to encourage
the continued production in the United States of advanced
technologies and the infrastructure to support such
technologies, by the amounts provided in that legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
(c) Housing.--The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the
Budget may revise the allocations of a committee or
committees, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that would provide housing
assistance, which may include low income rental assistance,
or establish an affordable housing fund financed by the
housing government sponsored enterprises or other sources, by
the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2018.
(d) Flood Insurance Reform.--The Chairman of the Senate
Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other levels in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports that would provide
for flood insurance reform and modernization, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through
2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.
(e) Trade.--The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the
Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports
relating to trade agreements, preferences, sanctions,
enforcement, or customs, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
(f) Economic Relief for American Families.--The Chairman of
the Senate Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations
of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other
appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills,
joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports
which--
(1) reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families supplemental grants or makes improvements to the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, child
welfare programs, or the child support enforcement program;
(2) provides up to $5,000,000,000 for the child care
entitlement to States;
(3) provides up to $40,000,000 for the emergency food
assistance program established under the Emergency Food
Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501 et seq.);
(4) improves the unemployment compensation program; or
(5) reauthorizes the trade adjustment assistance programs;
by the amounts provided in such legislation for those
purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase
the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal
years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2008 through 2018.
[[Page 9107]]
(g) America's Farms and Economic Investment in Rural
America.--
(1) Farm bill.--The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the
Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other
appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills,
joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports
that provide for the reauthorization of the programs of the
Food Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 or prior Acts,
authorize similar or related programs, provide for revenue
changes, or any combination of the preceding purposes, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes up to
$15,000,000,000 over the period of the total of fiscal years
2008 through 2013, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
(2) County payments.--The Chairman of the Senate Committee
on the Budget may revise the allocations of a committee or
committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels and
limits in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports that
provide for the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools
and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-
393), make changes to the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of
1976 (Public Law 94-565), or both, by the amounts provided by
that legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 302. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR IMPROVING
EDUCATION.
(a) Federal Pell Grant.--The Chairman of the Senate
Committee on the Budget may revise the aggregates,
allocations, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that would make higher
education more accessible or more affordable, which may
include increasing funding for the Federal Pell Grant program
or increasing Federal student loan limits, facilitate
modernization of school facilities through renovation or
construction bonds, reduce the cost of teachers' out-of-
pocket expenses for school supplies, or provide tax
incentives for highly-qualified teachers to serve in high-
needs schools, by the amounts provided in such legislation
for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2008 through 2018. The legislation may include
tax benefits and other revenue provisions.
(b) Improving Education.--The Chairman of the Senate
Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other levels and
limits in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports that
would improve student achievement during secondary education,
including middle school completion, high school graduation
and preparing students for higher education and the
workforce, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
such purpose, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 303. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INVESTMENTS IN
AMERICA'S INFRASTRUCTURE.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the aggregates, allocations, and other appropriate
levels and limits in this resolution for one or more bills,
joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports
that provide for a robust federal investment in America's
infrastructure, which may include projects for transit, rail
(including high-speed passenger rail), airport, seaport,
public housing, energy, water, highway, bridge, or other
infrastructure projects, by the amounts provided in that
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 304. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO INVEST IN CLEAN
ENERGY, PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT, AND PROVIDE
FOR CERTAIN SETTLEMENTS.
(a) Energy and the Environment.--The Chairman of the Senate
Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other levels and
limits in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports that
would decrease greenhouse gas emissions, reduce our Nation's
dependence on imported energy, produce green jobs, or
preserve or protect national parks, oceans, or coastal areas,
by the amounts provided in such legislation for those
purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase
the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal
years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2008 through 2018. The legislation may include tax
legislation such as a proposal to extend for 5 years energy
tax incentives like the production tax credit for electricity
produced from renewable resources, the biodiesel production
tax credit, or the Clean Renewable Energy Bond program, to
provide a tax credit for clean burning wood stoves, a tax
credit for production of cellulosic ethanol, a tax credit for
plug-in hybrid vehicles, or provisions to encourage energy
efficient buildings, products, and power plants. Tax
legislation under this section may be paid for by adjustments
to sections 167(h)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as
it relates to integrated oil companies.
(b) Settlements.--The Chairman of the Senate Committee on
the Budget may revise the allocations of a committee or
committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports that would fulfill
the purposes of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement
Act or implement a Navajo Nation water rights settlement and
other provisions authorized by the Northwestern New Mexico
Rural Water Projects Act, by the amounts provided by that
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 305. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR AMERICA'S VETERANS
AND WOUNDED SERVICEMEMBERS AND FOR A POST 9/11
GI BILL.
(a) Veterans and Wounded Servicemembers.--The Chairman of
the Senate Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations
of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other
appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills,
joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports
which would--
(1) enhance medical care, disability evaluations, or
disability benefits for wounded or disabled military
personnel or veterans;
(2) provide for or increase benefits to Filipino veterans
of World War II, their survivors and dependents;
(3) allow for the transfer of education benefits from
servicemembers to family members or veterans (including the
elimination of the offset between Survivor Benefit Plan
annuities and veterans' dependency and indemnity
compensation);
(4) providing for the continuing payment to members of the
Armed Forces who are retired or separated from the Armed
Forces due to a combat-related injury after September 11,
2001, of bonuses that such members were entitled to before
the retirement or separation and would continue to be
entitled to such members were not retired or separated; or
(5) enhance programs and activities to increase the
availability of health care and other veterans services for
veterans living in rural areas;
by the amounts provided in such legislation for those
purposes, provided that such legislation does not include
increased fees charged to veterans for pharmacy co-payments,
annual enrollment, or third-party insurance payment offsets,
and further provided that such legislation would not increase
the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal
years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2008 through 2018.
(b) Post 9/11 GI Bill.--The Chairman of the Senate
Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports which
would enhance educational benefits of service members and
veterans with service on active duty in the Armed Forces on
or after September 11, 2001, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 306. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO IMPROVE AMERICA'S
HEALTH.
(a) SCHIP.--The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the
Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other
appropriate levels in this resolution for a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that
provides up to $50,000,000,000 in outlays over the period of
the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 for
reauthorization of SCHIP, if such legislation maintains
coverage for those currently enrolled in SCHIP, continues
efforts to enroll uninsured children who are already eligible
for SCHIP or Medicaid but are not enrolled, or supports
States in their efforts to move forward in covering more
children or pregnant women, by the amounts provided in that
legislation for those purposes, provided that the outlay
adjustment shall not exceed $50,000,000,000 in outlays over
the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013,
and provided that such legislation would not increase the
deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years
2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years
2008 through 2018.
(b) Medicare Improvements.--
(1) Physician payments.--The Chairman of the Senate
Committee on the Budget may
[[Page 9108]]
revise the aggregates,
allocations, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that increases the reimbursement rate for
physician services under section 1848(d) of the Social
Security Act and that includes financial incentives for
physicians to improve the quality and efficiency of items and
services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries through the use
of consensus-based quality measures, by the amounts provided
in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
(2) Other improvements to medicare.--The Chairman of the
Senate Committee on the Budget may revise the aggregates,
allocations, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that makes improvements to the Medicare
program, which may include improvements to the prescription
drug benefit under Medicare Part D, adjustments to the
Medicare Savings Program, and reductions in beneficiary cost-
sharing for preventive benefits under Medicare Part B, or
measures to encourage physicians to train in primary care
residencies and attract more physicians and other health care
providers to States that face a shortage of health care
providers, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes up to $10,000,000,000, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
(3) Electronic prescribing.--The Chairman of the Senate
Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations,
aggregates, and other levels in this resolution for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or
conference reports that promote the deployment and use of
electronic prescribing technologies through financial
incentives, including grants and bonus payments, and
potential adjustments in the Medicare reimbursement
mechanisms for physicians, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
(4) Rural equity payment policies.--The Chairman of the
Senate Committee on the Budget may revise the aggregates,
allocations, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that--
(A) preserves existing Medicare payment provisions
supporting America's rural health care delivery system; and
(B) promotes Medicare payment policies that increase access
to quality health care in isolated and underserved rural
areas,
by the amounts provided in such legislation for those
purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase
the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal
years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2008 through 2018.
(5) Medicare low-income programs.--The Chairman of the
Senate Committee on the Budget may revise the aggregates,
allocations, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that makes improvements to the Medicare
Savings Program and the Medicare part D low-income subsidy
program, which may include the provisions that--
(A) provide for an increase in the asset allowance under
the Medicare Part D low-income subsidy program so that
individuals with very limited incomes, but modest retirement
savings, can obtain the assistance that the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003
was intended to deliver with respect to the payment of
premiums and cost-sharing under the Medicare part D
prescription drug benefit;
(B) provide for an update in the income and asset
allowances under the Medicare Savings Program and provide for
an annual inflationary adjustment for those allowances; and
(C) improve outreach and enrollment under the Medicare
Savings Program and the Medicare part D low-income subsidy
program to ensure that low-income senior citizens and other
low-income Medicare beneficiaries receive the low-income
assistance for which they are eligible in accordance with the
improvements provided for in such legislation,
by the amounts provided in such legislation for those
purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase
the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal
years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2008 through 2018.
(c) Health Care Quality, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and
Transparency.--
(1) Comparative effectiveness research.--The Chairman of
the Senate Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations
of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other
appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills,
joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports
that establish a new Federal or public-private initiative for
comparative effectiveness research, by the amounts provided
in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
(2) Improving the health care system.--The Chairman of the
Senate Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations,
aggregates, and other levels in this resolution for a bill,
joint resolution, motion, amendment, or conference report
that--
(A) creates a framework and parameters for the use of
Medicare data for the purpose of conducting research, public
reporting, and other activities to evaluate health care
safety, effectiveness, efficiency, quality, and resource
utilization in Federal programs and the private health care
system; and
(B) includes provisions to protect beneficiary privacy and
to prevent disclosure of proprietary or trade secret
information with respect to the transfer and use of such
data;
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal 2008
through 2018.
(3) Health information technology and adherence to best
practices.--
(A) Health information technology.--The Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and
other appropriate levels and limits in this resolution for 1
or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or
conference reports that provide incentives or other support
for adoption of modern information technology, including
incentives or other supports for the adoption of electronic
prescribing technology, to improve quality and protect
privacy in health care, such as activities by the Department
of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to
integrate their electronic health record data, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for that purpose, provided that
such legislation would not increase the deficit over either
the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or
the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
(B) Adherence to best practices.--The Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and
other appropriate levels and limits in this resolution for 1
or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or
conference reports that provide incentives for Medicare
providers or suppliers to comply with, where available and
medically appropriate, clinical protocols identified as best
practices, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
that purpose, provided in the Senate that such legislation
would not increase the deficit over either the period of the
total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the
total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
(d) Food and Drug Administration.--
(1) Regulation.--The Chairman of the Senate Committee on
the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other
appropriate levels in this resolution for a bill, joint
resolution, motion, amendment, or conference report that
authorizes the Food and Drug Administration to regulate
products and assess user fees on manufacturers and importers
of those products to cover the cost of the Food and Drug
Administration's regulatory activities, by the amounts
provided in that legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through
2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.
(2) Drug importation.--The Chairman of the Senate Committee
on the Budget may revise the aggregates, allocations, and
other levels in this resolution for a bill, joint resolution,
motion, amendment, or conference report that permits the safe
importation of prescription drugs approved by the Food and
Drug Administration from a specified list of countries, by
the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2018.
(e) Medicaid.--
(1) Rules or administrative actions.--The Chairman of the
Senate Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that includes provisions regarding the
final rule published on May 29, 2007, on pages 29748 through
29836 of volume 72, Federal Register (relating to parts 433,
447, and 457 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations) or any
other rule or other administrative action that would affect the
Medicaid program or SCHIP in a similar manner, or place
restrictions on coverage of or payment for graduate medical
education, rehabilitation services, or school-based
administration, school-based transportation, or optional case
management services under title XIX of the Social Security
Act, or includes provisions regarding administrative guidance
issued in August 2007 affecting SCHIP or any other
administrative action that would affect SCHIP in a similar
manner, so long as no provision in such bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion or conference report shall be
construed as prohibiting the Secretary of Health and Human
[[Page 9109]]
Services from promulgating or implementing any rule, action,
or guidance designed to prevent fraud and protect the
integrity of the Medicaid program or SCHIP or reduce
inappropriate spending under such programs, by the amounts
provided in that legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the total of the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2013 or the total of the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.
(2) Transitional medical assistance.--The Chairman of the
Senate Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations of
a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions or conference reports that
extend the Transitional Medical Assistance program, included
in title XIX of the Social Security Act, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the total of the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2013 or the total of the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.
(f) Other Improvements in Health.--The Chairman of the
Senate Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations of
a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports
which--
(1) make health insurance coverage more affordable or
available to small businesses and their employees, through
pooling arrangements that provide appropriate consumer
protections, and through reducing barriers to cafeteria
plans;
(2) improve health care, provide quality health insurance
for the uninsured and underinsured, and protect individuals
with current health coverage;
(3) reauthorize the special diabetes program for Indians
and the special diabetes programs for Type 1 diabetes;
(4) improve long-term care, enhance the safety and dignity
of patients, encourage appropriate use of institutional and
community-based care, promote quality care, or provide for
the cost-effective use of public resources; or
(5) provide parity between heath insurance coverage of
mental health benefits and benefits for medical and surgical
services, including parity in public programs;
by the amounts provided in such legislation for those
purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase
the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal
years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2008 through 2018.
(g) Pediatric Dental Care.--The Chairman of the Committee
on the Budget of the Senate may revise the aggregates,
allocations, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that would provide for improved access to
pediatric dental care for children from low-income families,
by the amounts provided in such legislation for such purpose,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2018.
SEC. 307. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MEDICAID
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS.
(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The Medicaid program provides essential health care and
long-term care services to approximately 60,000,000 low-
income children, pregnant women, parents, individuals with
disabilities, and senior citizens. It is a Federal guarantee
that ensures the most vulnerable will have access to needed
medical services.
(2) Medicaid provides critical access to long-term care and
other services for the elderly and individuals living with
disabilities, and is the single largest provider of long-term
care services. Medicaid also pays for personal care and other
supportive services that are typically not provided by
private health insurance or Medicare, but are necessary to
enable individuals with spinal cord injuries, developmental
disabilities, neurological degenerative diseases, serious and
persistent mental illnesses, HIV/AIDS, and other chronic
conditions to remain in the community, to work, and to
maintain independence.
(3) Medicaid supplements the Medicare program for about
7,500,000 low-income elderly or disabled Medicare
beneficiaries, assisting them with their Medicare premiums
and co-insurance, wrap-around benefits, and the costs of
nursing home care that Medicare does not cover. The Medicaid
program spends over $100,000,000,000 on uncovered Medicare
services.
(4) Medicaid provides health insurance for more than one-
quarter of America's children and is the largest purchaser of
maternity care, paying for more than one-third of all the
births in the United States each year. Medicaid also provides
critical access to care for children with disabilities,
covering more than 70 percent of poor children with
disabilities.
(5) More than 21,000,000 women depend on Medicaid for their
health care. Women comprise the majority of seniors (64
percent) on Medicaid. Half of nonelderly women with permanent
mental or physical disabilities have health coverage through
Medicaid. Medicaid provides treatment for low-income women
diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer in every State.
(6) Medicaid is the Nation's largest source of payment for
mental health services, HIV/AIDS care, and care for children
with special needs. Much of this care is either not covered
by private insurance or limited in scope or duration.
Medicaid is also a critical source of funding for health care
for children in foster care and for health services in
schools.
(7) Medicaid funds help ensure access to care for all
Americans. Medicaid is the single largest source of revenue
for the Nation's safety net hospitals, health centers, and
nursing homes, and is critical to the ability of these
providers to adequately serve all Americans.
(8) Medicaid serves a major role in ensuring that the
number of Americans without health insurance, approximately
47,000,000 in 2006, is not substantially higher. The system
of Federal matching for State Medicaid expenditures ensures
that Federal funds will grow as State spending increases in
response to unmet needs, enabling Medicaid to help buffer the
drop in private coverage during recessions.
(9) The Bush Administration has issued several regulations
that shift Medicaid cost burdens onto States and put at risk
the continued availability of much-needed services. The
regulations relate to Federal payments to public providers,
and for graduate medical education, rehabilitation services,
school-based administration, school-based transportation,
optional case management services.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that administrative regulations should not--
(1) undermine the role the Medicaid program plays as a
critical component of the health care system of the United
States;
(2) cap Federal Medicaid spending, or otherwise shift
Medicaid cost burdens to State or local governments and their
taxpayers and health providers, forcing a reduction in access
to essential health services for low-income elderly
individuals, individuals with disabilities, and children and
families; or
(3) undermine the Federal guarantee of health insurance
coverage Medicaid provides, which would threaten not only the
health care safety net of the United States, but the entire
health care system.
SEC. 308. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR JUDICIAL PAY AND
JUDGESHIPS.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other levels in this resolution for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or
conference reports that would authorize salary adjustments
for justices and judges of the United States or increase the
number of Federal judgeships, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 309. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REFORMING THE
ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX FOR INDIVIDUALS.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other levels in this resolution for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or
conference reports that would reinstate the pre-1993 rates
for the alternative minimum tax for individuals, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for such purpose,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2018.
SEC. 310. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REPEALING THE 1993
INCREASE IN THE INCOME TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY
BENEFITS.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other levels in this resolution for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or
conference reports that would repeal the 1993 increase in the
income tax on Social Security benefits, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for such purpose, provided that
such legislation would not increase the deficit over either
the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or
the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 311. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO IMPROVE ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTION.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of
the Senate Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution
by the amounts provided by a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that would
encourage--
(1) consumers to replace old conventional wood stoves with
new clean wood, pellet, or corn stoves certified by the
Environmental Protection Agency;
(2) consumers to install smart electricity meters in homes
and businesses;
(3) the capture and storage of carbon dioxide emissions
from coal projects; and
[[Page 9110]]
(4) the development of oil and natural gas resources
beneath the outer Continental Shelf in areas not covered by a
Presidential or Congressional moratorium.
(b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the
legislation described in subsection (a) would not increase
the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2018.
SEC. 312. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM
AND ENFORCEMENT.
(a) In General.--The Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other levels in this
resolution for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for the purposes described in
paragraphs (1) through (7), that--
(1) provide for increased border security, enforcement of
immigration laws, greater staffing, and immigration reform
measures;
(2) increase criminal and civil penalties against employers
who hire undocumented immigrants;
(3) prohibit employers who hire undocumented immigrants
from receiving Federal contracts;
(4) provide funding for the enforcement of the employer
sanctions described in paragraphs (2) and (3) and other
employer sanctions for hiring undocumented immigrants;
(5) deploy an appropriate number of National Guard troops
to the southern or northern border of the United States
provided that--
(A) the Secretary of Defense certifies that the deployment
would not negatively impact the safety of American forces in
Iraq and Afghanistan; and
(B) the Governor of the National Guard's home State
certifies that the deployment would not have a negative
impact on the safety and security of that State;
(6) evaluate the Federal, State, and local prison
populations that are noncitizens in order to identify
removable criminal aliens; or
(7) implement the exit data portion of the US-VISIT entry
and exit data system at airports, seaports, and land ports of
entry.
(b) Limitation.--The authority under subsection (a) may not
be used unless the legislation described in subsection (a)
would not increase the deficit over--
(1) the total period comprised of fiscal years 2008 through
2013; or
(2) the total period comprised of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.
SEC. 313. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR BORDER SECURITY,
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, AND CRIMINAL ALIEN
REMOVAL PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--The Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of 1 or more
committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution by the amounts authorized to be appropriated for
the programs described in paragraphs (1) through (6) in 1 or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or
conference reports that funds border security, immigration
enforcement, and criminal alien removal programs, including
programs that--
(1) expand the zero tolerance prosecution policy for
illegal entry (commonly known as ``Operation Streamline'') to
all 20 border sectors;
(2) complete the 700 miles of pedestrian fencing required
under section 102(b)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note);
(3) deploy up to 6,000 National Guard members to the
southern border of the United States;
(4) evaluate the 27 percent of the Federal, State, and
local prison populations who are noncitizens in order to
identify removable criminal aliens;
(5) train and reimburse State and local law enforcement
officers under Memorandums of Understanding entered into
under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1357(g)); or
(6) implement the exit data portion of the US-VISIT entry
and exit data system at airports, seaports, and land ports of
entry.
(b) Limitation.--The authority under subsection (a) may not
be used unless the appropriations in the legislation
described in subsection (a) would not increase the deficit
over--
(1) the 6-year period comprised of fiscal years 2008
through 2013; or
(2) the 11-year period comprised of fiscal years 2008
through 2018.
SEC. 314. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR SCIENCE PARKS.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other levels in this resolution for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or
conference reports that would provide grants and loan
guarantees for the development and construction of science
parks to promote the clustering of innovation through high
technology activities, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for such purpose, provided that such legislation
would not increase the deficit over either the period of the
total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the
total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 315. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR 3-YEAR EXTENSION
OF PILOT PROGRAM FOR NATIONAL AND STATE
BACKGROUND CHECKS ON DIRECT PATIENT ACCESS
EMPLOYEES OF LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES OR
PROVIDERS.
If the Senate Committee on Finance reports a bill or joint
resolution or an amendment is offered thereto or a conference
report is submitted thereon, that provides for a 3-year
extension of the pilot program for national and State
background checks on direct patient access employees of long-
term care facilities or providers under section 307 of the
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization
Act of 2003 (42 U.S.C. 1395aa note) and removes the limit on
the number of participating States under such pilot program,
the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may revise
the aggregates, allocations, and other appropriate levels in
this resolution by the amounts provided in such legislation
for those purposes up to $160,000,000, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 316. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR STUDYING THE
EFFECT OF COOPERATION WITH LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT.
(a) In General.--The Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other levels in this
resolution for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for the purposes described in
this subsection, that would require an assessment of the
impact of local ordinances that prohibit cooperation with the
Department of Homeland Security, with respect to--
(1) the effectiveness of law enforcement, success rates of
criminal prosecutions, reporting of criminal activity by
immigrant victims of crime, and level of public safety;
(2) changes in the number of reported incidents or
complaints of racial profiling; or
(3) wrongful detention of United States Citizens and Lawful
Permanent Residents.
(b) Limitation.--The authority under subsection (a) may not
be used unless the legislation described in subsection (a)
would not increase the deficit over--
(1) the total period comprised of fiscal years 2008 through
2013; or
(2) the total period comprised of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.
SEC. 317. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO TERMINATE
DEDUCTIONS FROM MINERAL REVENUE PAYMENTS TO
STATES.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of
the Senate Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution
by the amounts provided by a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that would terminate
the authority to deduct certain amounts from mineral revenues
payable to States under the second undesignated paragraph of
the matter under the heading ``administrative provisions''
under the heading ``Minerals Management Service'' of title I
of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161; 121
Stat. 2109).
(b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the
legislation described in subsection (a) would not increase
the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2018.
SEC. 318. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF STATE INTERNET SITES FOR THE DISCLOSURE OF
INFORMATION RELATING TO PAYMENTS MADE UNDER THE
STATE MEDICAID PROGRAM.
If the Senate Committee on Finance reports a bill or joint
resolution or an amendment is offered thereto or a conference
report is submitted thereon, that provides for States to
disclose, through a publicly accessible Internet site, each
hospital, nursing facility, outpatient surgery center,
intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded,
institution for mental diseases, or other institutional
provider that receives payment under the State Medicaid
program, the total amount paid to each such provider each
fiscal year, the number of patients treated by each such
provider, and the amount of dollars paid per patient to each
such provider, and provided that the Committee is within its
allocation as provided under section 302(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may make
the appropriate adjustments in the allocations and aggregates
to reflect such legislation if any such measure would not
increase the deficit over either the total of the period of
fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the total of the period of
fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 319. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRAUMATIC BRAIN
INJURY.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports
[[Page 9111]]
that provide at least $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 to funds traumatic
brain injury programs under sections 393A, 393B, 1252, and
1253 of the Public Health Service Act, if such legislation
would not increase the deficit over either the period of the
total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the
total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 320. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO IMPROVE ANIMAL
HEALTH AND DISEASE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of
the Senate Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution
by the amounts provided by a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that would ensure
that the animal health and disease program established under
section 1433 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3195) is
fully funded.
(b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the
legislation described in subsection (a) would not increase
the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2018.
SEC. 321. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
YELLOW RIBBON REINTEGRATION PROGRAM FOR MEMBERS
OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the aggregates, allocations, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports that
would provide for the implementation of the Yellow Ribbon
Reintegration Program for members of the National Guard and
Reserve under section 582 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181),
by the amounts provided in such legislation for that purpose,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over the total of the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2013.
SEC. 322. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REIMBURSING STATES
FOR THE COSTS OF HOUSING UNDOCUMENTED CRIMINAL
ALIENS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the aggregates, allocations, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for 1 or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports that
would reimburse States and units of local government for
costs incurred to house undocumented criminal aliens, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2018.
SEC. 323. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ACCELERATION OF
PHASED-IN ELIGIBILITY FOR CONCURRENT RECEIPT OF
BENEFITS.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels and limits in this resolution for a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that
provides for changing the date by which eligibility of
members of the Armed Forces for concurrent receipt of retired
pay and veterans' disability compensation under section 1414
of title 10, United States Code, is fully phased in from
December 31, 2013, to September 30, 2008, by the amounts
provided in that legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through
2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.
SEC. 324. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INCREASED USE OF
RECOVERY AUDITS.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other levels in this resolution for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or
conference reports that achieves savings by requiring that
agencies increase their use of recovery audits authorized
under subchapter VI of chapter 35 of title 31, United States
Code, (commonly referred to as the Erroneous Payments
Recovery Act of 2001) and uses such savings to reduce the
deficit, by the amounts provided in such legislation for such
purpose, provided that such legislation would not increase
the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal
years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 325. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR FOOD SAFETY.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other levels in this resolution for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or
conference reports that would expand the level of Food and
Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture food safety
inspection services, develop risk-based approaches to the
inspection of domestic and imported food products, provide
for infrastructure and information technology systems to
enhance the safety of the food supply, expand scientific
capacity and training programs, invest in improved
surveillance and testing technologies, provide for foodborne
illness awareness and education programs, and enhance the
Food and Drug Administration's recall authority, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for such purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2018.
SEC. 326. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT REGARDING MEDICAID COVERAGE OF LOW-
INCOME HIV-INFECTED INDIVIDUALS.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions
or conference reports that provide for a demonstration
project under which a State may apply under section 1115 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) to provide medical
assistance under a State Medicaid program to HIV-infected
individuals who are not eligible for medical assistance under
such program under section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)), by the amounts
provided in that legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the total of the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2013 or the total of the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.
SEC. 327. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REDUCING INCOME
THRESHOLD FOR REFUNDABLE CHILD TAX CREDIT TO
$10,000 WITH NO INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this
resolution by the amounts provided by a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that
would reduce the income threshold for the refundable child
tax credit under section 24 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to $10,000 for taxable years 2009 and 2010 with no
inflation adjustment, provided that such legislation would
not increase the deficit over either the period of the total
of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total
of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 328. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE DIVERSION OF
FUNDS SET ASIDE FOR USPTO.
It is the sense of the Senate that none of the funds
recommended by this resolution, or appropriated or otherwise
made available under any other Act, to the United States
Patent and Trademark Office shall be diverted, redirected,
transferred, or used for any other purpose than for which
such funds were intended.
SEC. 329. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR EDUCATION REFORM.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the aggregates, allocations, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports that
promote flexibility in existing Federal education programs,
restore State and local authority in education, ensure that
public schools are held accountable for results to parents
and the public, and prevent discrimination against
homeschoolers, by the amounts provided in such legislation
for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 330. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR PROCESSING
NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other levels in this resolution for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or
conference reports that would provide for the adjudication of
name check and security clearances by October 1, 2008 by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation for individuals who have
submitted or submit applications for naturalization before
March 1, 2008 or provide for the adjudication of
applications, including the interviewing and swearing-in of
applicants, by October 1, 2008 by the Department of Homeland
Security/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for
individuals who apply or have applied for naturalization
before March 1, 2008, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for such purpose, provided that such legislation
would not increase the deficit over either the period of the
total of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008
through 2018.
SEC. 331. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ACCESS TO QUALITY
AND AFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports that--
(1) promotes choice and competition to drive down costs and
improve access to health care for all Americans without
increasing taxes;
(2) strengthens health care quality by promoting wellness
and empowering consumers
[[Page 9112]]
with accurate and comprehensive information on quality and cost;
(3) protects Americans' economic security from catastrophic
events by expanding insurance options and improving health
insurance portability; and
(4) promotes the advanced research and development of new
treatments and cures to enhance health care quality;
if such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through
2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.
SEC. 332. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR A 9/11 HEALTH
PROGRAM.
If the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions reports out legislation to
establish a program, including medical monitoring and
treatment, addressing the adverse health impacts linked to
the September 11, 2001 attacks, and if the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions makes a finding that
previously spent World Trade Center Health Program funds were
used to provide screening, monitoring and treatment services,
and directly related program support, the Chairman of the
Senate Budget Committee may revise the aggregates,
allocations, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
if such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through
2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.
SEC. 333. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO BAN MEDICARE
ADVANTAGE AND PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN SALES AND
MARKETING ABUSES.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other levels in this resolution for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or
conference reports that would limit inappropriate or abusive
marketing tactics by private insurers and their agents
offering Medicare Advantage or Medicare prescription drug
plans by enacting any or all of the recommendations agreed to
by leaders of the health insurance industry on March 3, 2008,
including prohibitions on cold calling and telephone
solicitations for in-home sales appointments with Medicare
beneficiaries, free meals and inducements at sales events,
cross-selling of non-health products, and up-selling of
Medicare insurance products without prior consent of
beneficiaries, by the amounts provided in such legislation
for such purpose, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 334. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING EXTENDING THE
``MOVING TO WORK AGREEMENT'' BETWEEN THE
PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY AND THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
UNDER THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR A
PERIOD OF ONE YEAR.
(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The current ``Moving to Work Agreement'' between the
Philadelphia Housing Authority and the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development is set to expire on March 31,
2008.
(2) The Philadelphia Housing Authority has used this
agreement to leverage private and public resources to develop
mixed-income communities that address the needs of the very
poor while reshaping entire communities, and estimates that
it will lose $50,000,000 as a result of the agreement
expiring.
(3) The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
has refused to grant Philadelphia Housing Authority a 1-year
extension of its current agreement under the same terms and
conditions.
(4) The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
alleges that Philadelphia Housing Authority is in violation
of fair housing requirements.
(5) The Philadelphia Housing Authority denies this
assertion and is challenging the matter in Federal District
Court.
(6) That there is a suspicion of retaliation with regard to
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's
refusal to grant a one-year extension of Philadelphia Housing
Authorities current agreement under the same terms and
conditions.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that it was discovered that two senior level officials at the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development had the
following email exchange, referring to Philadelphia Housing
Authority Executive Director Carl R. Greene--
(1) Then-Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing
Orlando J. Cabrera wrote, ``Would you like me to make his
life less happy? If so, how?''
(2) Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity Kim Kendrick wrote, ``Take away all of his
Federal dollars?''
(3) Then-Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing
Orlando J. Cabrera wrote, ``Let me look into that
possibility.''
(A) That these emails were the subject of questioning by
Senator Casey to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson at a March 12, 2008
hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and
Urban Affairs; and by Senator Specter to Secretary Jackson at
a March 13, 2008 hearing before the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development
and Related Agencies.
(B) That the Philadelphia Housing Authority's allegation of
retaliation appears to be substantiated by these newly
discovered emails.
(C) That the expiration of the current agreement is
imminent and will negatively impact 84,000 low-income
residents of Philadelphia.
(4) It is the sense of the Senate that Philadelphia Housing
Authority should be granted a one-year extension of its
``Moving to Work Agreement'' with the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development under the same terms and
conditions as the current agreement.
SEC. 335. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A BALANCED BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) On January 26, 1996, the House of Representatives
passed H.J. Res. 1, the Balanced Budget Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, by the necessary two-
thirds majority (300-132);
(2) On June 6, 1996, the Senate fell three votes short of
the two-thirds majority vote needed to pass the Balanced
Budget Amendment; and
(3) Since the House of Representatives and Senate last
voted on the Balanced Budget Amendment, the debt held by the
public has grown from $3,700,000,000,000 to more than
$5,000,000,000,000.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States should be voted on at earliest opportunity.
SEC. 336. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NEED FOR
COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION TO LEGALIZE THE
IMPORTATION OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FROM HIGHLY
INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES WITH SAFE
PHARMACEUTICAL INFRASTRUCTURES.
(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The United States is the world's largest market for
pharmaceuticals, yet consumers still pay the world's highest
prices.
(2) In 2000, Congress took action to legalize the
importation of prescription drugs from other countries by
United States wholesalers and pharmacists, and before such a
program can go into effect, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (HHS) must certify that the program would have no
adverse impact on safety and that it would reduce costs for
American consumers.
(3) Since 2000, no Secretary of HHS has made the
certification required to permit the implementation of a
program for importation of prescription drugs.
(4) In July 2006, the Senate approved by a vote of 68-32 an
amendment to the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2007, that prohibits Customs and Border
Protection from preventing individuals not in the business of
importing prescription drugs from carrying them across the
border with Canada.
(5) In July 2007, the Senate adopted language similar to
the 2007 amendment in the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2008.
(6) In October 2007, the Senate adopted language in the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008,
that prohibits anti-reimportation activities within HHS.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) the leadership of the Senate should bring to the floor
for full debate in 2008 comprehensive legislation that
legalizes the importation of prescription drugs from highly
industrialized countries with safe pharmaceutical
infrastructures and creates a regulatory pathway to ensure
that such drugs are safe;
(2) such legislation should be given an up or down vote on
the floor of the Senate; and
(3) previous Senate approval of 3 amendments in support of
prescription drug importation shows the Senate's strong
support for passage of comprehensive importation legislation.
The text of the Senate concurrent resolution, as amended, is as
follows:
SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2009.
(a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008
is revised and replaced and that this is the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009, including
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2010 through
2013.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009.
TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS
Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Major functional categories.
[[Page 9113]]
TITLE II--RECONCILIATION
Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.
TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS
Sec. 301. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for SCHIP legislation.
Sec. 302. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for veterans and servicemembers.
Sec. 303. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for education benefits for
servicemembers, veterans, and their families.
Sec. 304. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for infrastructure investment.
Sec. 305. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for renewable energy and energy
efficiency.
Sec. 306. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for middle-income tax relief and
economic equity.
Sec. 307. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reform of the alternative
minimum tax.
Sec. 308. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for higher education.
Sec. 309. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for affordable housing.
Sec. 310. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for medicare improvements.
Sec. 311. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for health care quality,
effectiveness, and efficiency.
Sec. 312. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Medicaid and other programs.
Sec. 313. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for trade adjustment assistance
and unemployment insurance modernization.
Sec. 314. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for county payments legislation.
Sec. 315. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for San Joaquin River
restoration and Navajo Nation water rights settlements.
Sec. 316. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the National Park Centennial
Fund.
Sec. 317. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for child support enforcement.
TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT
Sec. 401. Program integrity initiatives.
Sec. 402. Oversight of government performance.
Sec. 403. Point of order against advance appropriations.
Sec. 404. Overseas deployments and emergency needs.
Sec. 405. Budgetary treatment of certain discretionary administrative
expenses.
Sec. 406. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 407. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 408. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
TITLE V--POLICY
Sec. 501. Policy on middle-income tax relief.
Sec. 502. Policy on defense priorities.
TITLE VI--SENSE OF THE HOUSE
Sec. 601. Sense of the House on the Innovation Agenda and America
Competes Act.
Sec. 602. Sense of the House on servicemembers' and veterans' health
care and other priorities.
Sec. 603. Sense of the House on homeland security.
Sec. 604. Sense of the House regarding long-term fiscal reform.
Sec. 605. Sense of the House regarding waste, fraud, and abuse.
Sec. 606. Sense of the House regarding extension of the statutory pay-
as-you-go rule.
Sec. 607. Sense of the House on long-term budgeting.
Sec. 608. Sense of the House regarding the need to maintain and build
upon efforts to fight hunger.
Sec. 609. Sense of the House regarding affordable health coverage.
Sec. 610. Sense of the House regarding pay parity.
Sec. 611. Sense of the House regarding subprime lending and
foreclosures.
Sec. 612. Sense of House regarding the importance of child support
enforcement.
TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS
SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.
The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2008 through 2013:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $1,879,540,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,027,124,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,205,864,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,442,025,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,669,315,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,771,740,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be adjusted are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $0.
Fiscal year 2009: -$70,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $23,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $14,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $16,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $17,000,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $2,556,254,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,529,246,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,564,161,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,698,039,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,740,065,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,866,862,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $2,462,616,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,563,380,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,622,295,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,716,979,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,728,965,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,857,394,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $583,076,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $536,256,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $416,431,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $274,954,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $59,650,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $85,654,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the debt subject to limit are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $9,567,484,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $10,199,551,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $10,724,264,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $11,103,954,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $11,295,107,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $11,495,218,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2008: $5,396,807,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $5,753,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $5,981,334,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $6,047,654,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $5,885,687,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $5,744,120,000,000.
SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.
The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2008 through 2013 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $590,686,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $576,173,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $542,497,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $573,362,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $550,414,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $560,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $557,026,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $560,099,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $565,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $556,699,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $576,223,000,000.
(B) Outlays, 568,829,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $32,648,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,843,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $37,111,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,702,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $38,516,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,918,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $39,433,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,679,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $40,247,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,154,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $40,677,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,346,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $27,407,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,456,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $29,934,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $31,165,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,604,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $32,474,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,201,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $33,853,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,564,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $35,298,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,477,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $3,548,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,681,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $4,674,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,192,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $4,645,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,878,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $4,712,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,371,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $4,803,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,738,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $4,895,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,020,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $32,560,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,440,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $38,651,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,576,000,000.
[[Page 9114]]
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $33,782,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,192,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $34,670,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,420,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $35,568,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,745,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $36,490,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,299,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $22,456,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,528,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,529,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,279,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $21,719,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,680,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $21,891,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,876,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $22,263,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,435,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $22,621,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,816,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $11,216,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,381,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $9,560,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,722,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $13,887,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,835,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $8,998,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,193,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $9,246,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,735,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $9,642,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,648,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $79,794,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,795,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $73,444,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $80,443,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $77,507,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $83,861,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $78,534,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,062,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $79,485,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $88,134,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $80,478,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,443,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $20,029,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,819,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $14,553,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,251,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $14,826,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,816,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $15,134,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,874,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $15,450,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,817,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $15,755,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,561,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $90,077,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,729,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $95,235,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,947,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $102,594,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $98,345,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $105,612,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $103,135,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $107,828,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $104,397,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $101,690,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $103,490,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $285,101,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $286,688,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $306,795,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $305,334,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $323,767,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $324,138,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $344,749,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $343,718,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $367,766,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $366,312,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $393,085,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $391,326,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $390,458,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $390,454,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $420,191,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $419,974,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $445,225,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $445,349,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $494,370,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $494,193,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $491,353,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $491,110,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $552,389,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $552,503,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $389,865,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $394,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $411,699,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $414,032,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $417,519,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $418,617,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $426,924,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $427,541,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $412,355,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $412,831,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $427,988,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $427,703,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,378,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,378,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,308,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,308,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $23,794,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,794,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $27,330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,330,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $30,342,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,342,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $33,162,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,162,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $86,365,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $83,551,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $93,268,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $92,443,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $96,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,710,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $101,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $101,475,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $99,115,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $98,271,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $105,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $104,266,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $46,237,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,282,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $48,104,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,936,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $49,101,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,602,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $50,338,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,596,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $51,622,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,501,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $52,967,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,542,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $56,407,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,920,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $23,520,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,890,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $19,961,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,987,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $20,611,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,496,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $21,319,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,332,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $22,007,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,787,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $349,296,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $349,296,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $334,233,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $334,233,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $370,534,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $370,534,000,000.
[[Page 9115]]
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $406,997,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $406,997,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $427,954,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $427,954,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $436,292,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $436,292,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $1,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $531,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $307,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$150,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$53,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$164,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$178,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$200,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$86,330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$86,330,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$67,060,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$67,060,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$70,645,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$70,645,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$73,364,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$73,364,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$76,104,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$76,104,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$79,691,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$79,691,000,000.
(21) Overseas Deployments and Other Activities (970):
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $108,056,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,901,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $70,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,809,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $47,407,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $18,251,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $5,176,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $1,775,000,000.
TITLE II--RECONCILIATION
SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
(a) Changes in Mandatory Spending.--Not later than
September 12, 2008, the House Committee on Ways and Means
shall report a reconciliation bill making changes in laws
within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce direct spending
by $750,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2013.
(b) Changes in Revenue.--Not later than July 15, 2008, the
House Committee on Ways and Means shall report a
reconciliation bill making changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that will reduce total revenues by
$70,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 and will increase total
revenues by $70,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2010 through 2013.
(c) Adjustments to Allocations and Aggregates.--
(1) Upon the reporting to the House of any bill that has
complied with reconciliation instructions, the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget may file with the House
appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional
levels and aggregates.
(2) Upon the submission to the House of any conference
report recommending a reconciliation bill in which a
committee has complied with its reconciliation instructions,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may file with the
House appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a)
of such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
(3) Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant to this
subsection shall be considered to be allocations and
aggregates established by the concurrent resolution on the
budget pursuant to section 301 of such Act.
TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS
SEC. 301. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR SCHIP LEGISLATION.
In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference
report, which contains matter within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce that expands coverage and
improves children's health through the State Childrens Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP) under title XXI of the Social
Security Act and the program under title XIX of such Act
(commonly known as Medicaid) and that increases new budget
authority that will result in no more than $50,000,000,000 in
outlays in fiscal years 2008 through 2013, and others which
contain offsets so designated for the purpose of this section
within the jurisdiction of another committee or committees,
if the combined changes would not increase the deficit or
decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or for the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.
SEC. 302. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR VETERANS AND
SERVICEMEMBERS.
In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that--
(1) enhances medical care for wounded or disabled military
personnel or veterans;
(2) maintains affordable health care for military retirees
and veterans;
(3) improves disability benefits or evaluations for wounded
or disabled military personnel or veterans, including
measures to expedite the claims process;
(4) expands eligibility to permit additional disabled
military retirees to receive both disability compensation and
retired pay;
(5) eliminates the offset between Survivor Benefit Plan
annuities and veterans' dependency and indemnity
compensation; or
(6) provides or increases benefits for Filipino veterans of
World War II or their survivors and dependents;
by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would
not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for the
period of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or for the period of
fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 303. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR EDUCATION BENEFITS
FOR SERVICEMEMBERS, VETERANS, AND THEIR
FAMILIES.
In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that enhances education
benefits or assistance for servicemembers (including Active
Duty, National Guard, and Reserve), veterans, or their
spouses, survivors, or dependents by the amounts provided in
such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit
or decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or for the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.
SEC. 304. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT.
In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that provides for increased
investment in infrastructure projects by the amounts provided
in such measure if such measure would not increase the
deficit or decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal
years 2008 through 2013 or for the period of fiscal years
2008 through 2018.
SEC. 305. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that provides tax incentives
for or otherwise encourages the production of renewable
energy or increased energy efficiency; encourages investment
in emerging energy or vehicle technologies or carbon capture
and sequestration; provides for reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions; or facilitates the training of workers for these
industries (``green collar jobs'') by the amounts provided in
such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit
or decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or for the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.
SEC. 306. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MIDDLE-INCOME TAX
RELIEF AND ECONOMIC EQUITY.
In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that provides for tax relief
for middle-income families and taxpayers or enhanced economic
equity, such as extension of the child tax credit, extension
of marriage penalty relief, extension of the 10 percent
individual income tax bracket, elimination of estate taxes on
all but a minute fraction of estates by reforming and
substantially increasing the unified credit, extension of the
research and experimentation tax credit, extension of the
deduction for small business expensing, extension of the
deduction for State and local sales taxes, and a
tax credit for school construction bonds, by the amounts
provided in such measure if such measure would not increase
the deficit or decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal
years 2008 through 2013 or for the period of fiscal years
2008 through 2018.
SEC. 307. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REFORM OF THE
ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.
In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that provides for reform of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by reducing the tax burden
of the alternative minimum tax on middle-income families by
the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would
not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for the
period of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or for the period of
fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
[[Page 9116]]
SEC. 308. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HIGHER EDUCATION.
In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that makes college more
affordable or accessible through reforms to the Higher
Education Act of 1965 or other legislation by the amounts
provided in such measure if such measure would not increase
the deficit or decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal
years 2008 through 2013 or for the period of fiscal years
2008 through 2018.
SEC. 309. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that provides for an
affordable housing fund, offset by reforming the regulation
of certain government-sponsored enterprises, by the amounts
provided in such measure if such measure would not increase
the deficit or decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal
years 2008 through 2013 or for the period of fiscal years
2008 through 2018.
SEC. 310. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE
IMPROVEMENTS.
In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that improves the Medicare
program for beneficiaries and protects access to care,
through measures such as increasing the reimbursement rate
for physicians while protecting beneficiaries from associated
premium increases and making improvements to the prescription
drug program under part D, by the amounts provided in such
measure if such measure would not increase the deficit or
decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or for the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.
SEC. 311. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HEALTH CARE
QUALITY, EFFECTIVENESS, AND EFFICIENCY.
In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that--
(1) provides incentives or other support for adoption of
modern information technology, including electronic
prescribing, to improve quality and protect privacy in health
care;
(2) establishes a new Federal or public-private initiative
for research on the comparative effectiveness of different
medical interventions; or
(3) provides parity between health insurance coverage of
mental health benefits and benefits for medical and surgical
services, including parity in public programs;
by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would
not increase the deficit or decrease the surplus for the
period of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or for the period of
fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 312. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICAID AND OTHER
PROGRAMS.
(a) Regulations and Administrative Actions.--In the House,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that prevents or delays the implementation
or administration of regulations or other administrative
actions that would affect the Medicaid, SCHIP, or other
programs by the amounts provided in such measure if such
measure would not increase the deficit or decrease the
surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or
for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
(b) Transitional Medical Assistance and Qualifying
Individuals.--In the House, the chairman of the Committee on
the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other
appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report that extends the
transitional medical assistance program or the qualifying
individuals program, which are included in title XIX of the
Social Security Act, by the amounts provided in such measure
if such measure would not increase the deficit or decrease
the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2013
or for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 313. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT
ASSISTANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
MODERNIZATION.
In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that reauthorizes the trade
adjustment assistance program to better meet the challenges
of globalization or modernizes the unemployment insurance
system to improve access to needed benefits by the amounts
provided in such measure if such measure would not increase
the deficit or decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal
years 2008 through 2013 or for the period of fiscal years
2008 through 2018.
SEC. 314. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR COUNTY PAYMENTS
LEGISLATION.
In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that provides for the
reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393) or makes
changes to the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 (Public
Law 94-565) by the amounts provided in such measure if such
measure would not increase the deficit or decrease the
surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or
for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 315. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
RESTORATION AND NAVAJO NATION WATER RIGHTS
SETTLEMENTS.
In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that would fulfill the
purposes of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act
or implement a Navajo Nation water rights settlement as
authorized by the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water
Projects Act by the amounts provided in such measure if such
measure would not increase the deficit or decrease the
surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or
for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.
SEC. 316. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE NATIONAL PARK
CENTENNIAL FUND.
In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that provides for the
establishment of the National Parks Centennial Fund by the
amounts provided in such measure for that purpose if such
measure would not increase the deficit or decrease the
surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or
for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2018
SEC. 317. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT.
In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that improves Federal child
support collection efforts or results in more collected child
support reaching families by the amounts provided in such
measure if such measure would not increase the deficit or
decrease the surplus for the period of fiscal years 2008
through 2013 or for the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2018.
TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 401. PROGRAM INTEGRITY INITIATIVES.
(a) Adjustments to Discretionary Spending Limits.--
(1) Continuing disability reviews and supplemental security
income redeterminations.--In the House, prior to
consideration of a bill or joint resolution making
appropriations for fiscal year 2009 that appropriates
$264,000,000 for continuing disability reviews and
Supplemental Security Income redeterminations for the Social
Security Administration, and provides an additional
appropriation of up to $240,000,000, and the amount is
designated for continuing disability reviews and Supplemental
Security Income redeterminations for the Social Security
Administration, the allocation to the Committee on
Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of the
additional budget authority and outlays resulting from that
budget authority for fiscal year 2009.
(2) Internal revenue service tax compliance.--In the House,
prior to consideration of a bill or joint resolution making
appropriations for fiscal year 2009 that appropriates
$6,997,000,000 to the Internal Revenue Service and the amount
is designated to improve compliance with the provisions of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and provides an additional
appropriation of up to $490,000,000, and the amount is
designated to improve compliance with the provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the allocation to the
Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the amount
of the additional budget authority and outlays resulting from
that budget authority for fiscal year 2009.
(3) Health care fraud and abuse control program.--In the
House, prior to consideration of a bill or joint resolution
making appropriations for fiscal year 2009 that appropriates
up to $198,000,000 and the amount is designated to the health
care fraud and abuse control program at the Department of
Health and Human Services, the allocation to the Committee on
Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of additional
budget authority and outlays resulting from that budget
authority for fiscal year 2009.
(4) Unemployment insurance program integrity activities.--
In the House, prior to consideration of a bill or joint
resolution making appropriations for fiscal year 2009 that
appropriates $10,000,000 for in-person reemployment
and eligibility assessments and unemployment insurance
improper payment reviews for the Department of Labor and
provides an additional appropriation of up to $40,000,000,
and the amount is designated for in-person reemployment and
eligibility assessments and unemployment insurance improper
payment reviews for the Department of Labor, the allocation
to the Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the
amount of additional budget authority and outlays resulting
from that budget authority for fiscal year 2009.
(b) Procedure for Adjustments.--
(1) In general.--In the House, prior to consideration of a
bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report, the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make the
adjustments set forth in subsection (a) for the incremental
new budget authority in that measure and the outlays
resulting from that budget authority if that measure meets
the requirements
[[Page 9117]]
set forth in subsection (a), except that no
adjustment shall be made for provisions exempted for the
purposes of titles III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 under section 404 of this resolution.
(2) Matters to be adjusted.--The adjustments referred to in
paragraph (1) are to be made to--
(A) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriate
concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section
302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
(B) the budgetary aggregates as set forth in this
resolution.
SEC. 402. OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE.
In the House, all committees are directed to review
programs within their jurisdiction to root out waste, fraud,
and abuse in program spending, giving particular scrutiny to
issues raised by Government Accountability Office reports.
Based on these oversight efforts and committee performance
reviews of programs within their jurisdiction, committees are
directed to include recommendations for improved governmental
performance in their annual views and estimates reports
required under section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 to the Committee on the Budget.
SEC. 403. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--In the House, except as provided in
subsection (b), a bill or joint resolution making a general
appropriation or continuing appropriation, or an amendment
thereto or a conference report thereon, may not provide for
advance appropriations.
(b) Exceptions.--In the House, an advance appropriation may
be provided for fiscal year 2010 for programs, projects,
activities, or accounts identified in the report to accompany
this resolution or the joint explanatory statement of
managers to accompany this resolution under the heading
``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in an
aggregate amount not to exceed $27,558,000,000 in new budget
authority, and for 2011, accounts separately identified under
the same heading.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority
provided in a bill or joint resolution making general
appropriations or any new discretionary budget authority
provided in a bill or joint resolution continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2009 that first becomes
available for any fiscal year after 2009.
SEC. 404. OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENTS AND EMERGENCY NEEDS.
(a) Overseas Deployments and Related Activities.--In the
House, if any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report makes appropriations for fiscal year 2008
or fiscal year 2009 for overseas deployments and related
activities, and such amounts are so designated pursuant to
this subsection, then new budget authority and outlays
resulting therefrom shall not count for the purposes of
titles III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(b) Emergency Needs.--In the House, if any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report makes
appropriations for discretionary amounts, and such amounts
are designated as necessary to meet emergency needs, then the
new budget authority and outlays resulting therefrom shall
not count for the purposes of titles III and IV of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
SEC. 405. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DISCRETIONARY
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
(a) In General.--In the House, notwithstanding section
302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section
13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 4001
of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the joint
explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on
any concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its
allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 to the Committee on Appropriations amounts for
the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social
Security Administration and of the Postal Service.
(b) Special Rule.--In the House, for purposes of applying
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
estimates of the level of total new budget authority and
total outlays provided by a measure shall include any off-
budget discretionary amounts.
SEC. 406. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.
(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and
aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in
this resolution.
(c) Budget Committee Determinations.--In the House, for
purposes of this resolution, the levels of new budget
authority, outlays, direct spending, new entitlement
authority, revenues, deficits, and surpluses for a fiscal
year or period of fiscal years shall be determined on the
basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget.
SEC. 407. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND
DEFINITIONS.
In the House, upon the enactment of any bill or joint
resolution providing for a change in concepts or definitions,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make
adjustments to the levels and allocations in this resolution
in accordance with section 251(b) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as in effect prior to
September 30, 2002).
SEC. 408. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.
The House adopts the provisions of this title--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House and
as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of the
House, and these rules shall supersede other rules of the
House only to the extent that they are inconsistent with
other such rules of the House; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
the House to change those rules at any time, in the same
manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other
rule of the House.
TITLE V--POLICY
SEC. 501. POLICY ON MIDDLE-INCOME TAX RELIEF.
It is the policy of this resolution to--
(1) minimize fiscal burdens on middle-income families and
their children and grandchildren;
(2) provide immediate relief for the tens of millions of
middle-income households who would otherwise be subject to
the alternative minimum tax (AMT) under current law, in the
context of permanent, revenue-neutral AMT reform; and
(3) support extension of middle-income tax relief and
enhanced economic equity through policies such as--
(A) extension of the child tax credit;
(B) extension of marriage penalty relief;
(C) extension of the 10 percent individual income tax
bracket;
(D) elimination of estate taxes on all but a minute
fraction of estates by reforming and substantially increasing
the unified tax credit;
(E) extension of the research and experimentation tax
credit;
(F) extension of the deduction for State and local sales
taxes;
(G) extension of the deduction for small business
expensing; and
(H) enactment of a tax credit for school construction
bonds.
This resolution assumes that the cost of enacting such
policies is offset by reforms within the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 that promote a fairer distribution of taxes
across families and generations, economic efficiency, higher
rates of tax compliance to close the ``tax gap,'' and reduced
taxpayer burdens through tax simplification.
SEC. 502. POLICY ON DEFENSE PRIORITIES.
It is the policy of this resolution that--
(1) the Administration's budget requests should comply with
section 1008, Public Law 109-364, the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, and the
Administration should no longer attempt to fund overseas
military operations through emergency supplemental
appropriations requests;
(2) the Department of Defense should exclude nonwar
requirements from its funding requests for Iraq and
Afghanistan;
(3) implementing the recommendation of the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
(commonly referred to as the 9/11 Commission) to adequately
fund cooperative threat reduction and nuclear
nonproliferation programs (securing ``loose nukes'') is a
high priority and should receive far greater emphasis than
the President's budget provides;
(4) readiness of our troops, particularly the National
Guard and Reserve, is a high priority, and that greater
emphasis needs to be placed on mitigating equipment and
training shortfalls;
(5) TRICARE fees for military retirees under the age of 65
should not be increased as the President's budget proposes;
(6) military pay and benefits should be enhanced to improve
the quality of life of military personnel;
(7) improving military health care services continues to be
a high priority and adequate funding to ensure quality health
care for returning combat veterans should be provided;
(8) higher priority defense needs could be addressed by
funding missile defense at an adequate but lower level, not
providing funding for development of space-based missile
defense interceptors, and by restraining excessive cost and
schedule growth in defense research, development and
procurement programs;
(9) the Department of Defense should reassess current
defense plans to ensure that weapons developed to counter
cold war-era threats are not redundant and are applicable to
21st century threats;
(10) sufficient resources should be provided for the
Department of Defense to do an aggressive
job of addressing as many as possible of the 1,260
unimplemented recommendations made by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) over the last 7 years to improve
practices at the Department of Defense, including
investigation of the billions of dollars of obligations,
disbursements and overcharges for which the Department of
Defense cannot account;
(11) savings from the actions recommended in paragraphs (8)
and (10) of this section should be used to fund the
priorities identified in paragraphs (3) through (7);
(12) the Department of Defense report to Congress on its
assessment of cold war weapons and progress on implementing
GAO recommendations as outlined in paragraphs (9) and (10) by
a time determined by the appropriate authorizing committees;
and
(13) the GAO report to the appropriate congressional
committees by the end of the 110th
[[Page 9118]]
Congress regarding the
Department of Defense's progress in implementing its audit
recommendations.
TITLE VI--SENSE OF THE HOUSE
SEC. 601. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON THE INNOVATION AGENDA AND
AMERICA COMPETES ACT.
It is the sense of the House that--
(1) the House should provide sufficient funding so that our
Nation may continue to be the world leader in education,
innovation and economic growth;
(2) last year, Congress passed and the President signed the
America COMPETES Act, bipartisan legislation designed to
ensure that American students, teachers, businesses, and
workers are prepared to continue leading the world in
innovation, research, and technology well into the future;
(3) this resolution supports the efforts authorized in the
America COMPETES Act, providing substantially increased
funding above the President's requested level for 2009, and
increased amounts after 2009 in Function 250 (General
Science, Space and Technology) and Function 270 (Energy);
(4) additional increases for scientific research and
education are included in Function 500 (Education,
Employment, Training and Social Services), Function 550
(Health), Function 300 (Environment and Natural Resources),
and Function 370 (Commerce and Housing Credit), all of which
receive more funding than the President's budget provides;
(5) because America's greatest resource for innovation
resides within classrooms across the country, the increased
funding provided in this resolution will support initiatives
within the America COMPETES Act to educate tens of thousands
of new scientists, engineers, and mathematicians, and place
highly qualified teachers in math and science K-12
classrooms; and
(6) because independent scientific research provides the
foundation for innovation and future technologies, this
resolution will keep us on the path toward doubling funding
for the National Science Foundation, basic research in the
physical sciences, and collaborative research partnerships,
and toward achieving energy independence through the
development of clean and sustainable alternative energy
technologies.
SEC. 602. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON SERVICEMEMBERS' AND VETERANS'
HEALTH CARE AND OTHER PRIORITIES.
It is the sense of the House that--
(1) the House supports excellent health care for current
and former members of the United States Armed Services--they
have served well and honorably and have made significant
sacrifices for this Nation;
(2) this resolution provides $48,150,000,000 in
discretionary budget authority for 2009 for Function 700
(Veterans Benefits and Services), including veterans' health
care, which is $4,888,000,000 more than the 2008 level,
$3,602,000,000 more than the Congressional Budget Office's
baseline level for 2009, and $3,232,000,000 more than the
President's budget for 2009; and also provides more
discretionary budget authority than the President's budget in
every year after 2009;
(3) this resolution provides funding to continue addressing
problems such as those identified at Walter Reed Army Medical
Center to improve military and veterans' health care
facilities and services;
(4) this resolution assumes the rejection of the health
care enrollment fees and pharmaceutical co-payment increases
in the President's budget;
(5) this resolution provides additional funding above the
President's inadequate budget levels for the Department of
Veterans Affairs to research and treat veterans' mental
health, post-traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain
injury; and
(6) this resolution provides additional funding above the
President's inadequate budget levels for the Department of
Veterans Affairs to improve the speed and accuracy of its
processing of disability compensation claims, including
funding to hire additional personnel above the President's
requested level.
SEC. 603. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON HOMELAND SECURITY.
It is the sense of the House that--
(1) this resolution assumes additional homeland security
funding above the President's requested level for 2009 and
every subsequent year;
(2) this resolution assumes funding above the President's
requested level for 2009, and additional amounts in
subsequent years, in the four budget functions--Function 400
(Transportation), Function 450 (Community and Regional
Development), Function 550 (Health), and Function 750
(Administration of Justice)--that fund most nondefense
homeland security activities; and
(3) the homeland security funding provided in this
resolution will help to strengthen the security of our
Nation's transportation system, particularly our ports where
significant security shortfalls still exist and foreign
ports, by expanding efforts to identify and scan all high-
risk United States-bound cargo, equip, train and support
first responders (including enhancing interoperable
communications and emergency management), strengthen border
patrol, and increase the preparedness of the public health
system.
SEC. 604. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING LONG-TERM FISCAL
REFORM.
It is the sense of the House that--
(1) both the Government Accountability Office and the
Congressional Budget Office have warned that the Federal
budget is on an unsustainable path of rising deficits and
debt;
(2) using recent trend data and reasonable policy
assumptions, CBO has projected that the gap between spending
and revenues over the next 75 years will reach 6.9 percent of
GDP;
(3) publicly held debt will rise from 36 percent today to
400 percent of GDP by the decade beginning in 2050 under
CBO's alternative policy scenario;
(4) the most significant factor affecting the long-term
Federal fiscal landscape is the expectation that total public
and private health spending will continue to grow faster than
the economy;
(5) the House calls upon governmental and nongovernmental
experts to develop specific options to reform the health care
system and control costs, that further research and analysis
on topics including comparative effectiveness, health
information technology, preventative care, and provider
incentives is needed, and that of critical importance is the
development of a consensus on the appropriate methods for
estimating the budgetary impact and health outcome effects of
these proposals; and
(6) immediate policy action is needed to address the long-
term fiscal challenges facing the United States, including
the rising costs of entitlements, in a manner that is
fiscally responsible, equitable, and lasting, and that also
honors commitments made to beneficiaries, and that such
action should be bipartisan, bicameral, involve both
legislative and executive branch participants, as well as
public participation, and be conducted in a manner that
ensures full, fair, and timely Congressional consideration.
SEC. 605. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING WASTE, FRAUD, AND
ABUSE.
It is the sense of the House that--
(1) all committees should examine programs within their
jurisdiction to identify wasteful and fraudulent spending;
(2) title IV of this resolution includes cap adjustments to
provide appropriations for agencies that control programs
that accounted for a significant share of improper payments
reported by Federal agencies: Social Security Administration
Continuing Disability Reviews, the Medicare/Medicaid Health
Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program, and Unemployment
Insurance Program Integrity;
(3) title IV also includes a cap adjustment for the
Internal Revenue Services for tax compliance efforts to close
the $300,000,000,000 tax gap;
(4) the resolution's deficit-neutral reserve funds require
authorizing committees to cut lower priority and wasteful
spending to accommodate any new high-priority entitlement
benefits; and
(5) title IV of the resolution directs all committees to
review the performance of programs within their jurisdiction
and report recommendations annually to the Committee on the
Budget as part of the views and estimates process required by
section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act.
SEC. 606. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING EXTENSION OF THE
STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO RULE.
It is the sense of the House that to reduce the deficit,
Congress should extend the PAYGO rules originally enacted in
the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.
SEC. 607. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON LONG-TERM BUDGETING.
It is the sense of the Congress that the determination of
the congressional budget for the United States Government and
the President's budget request should include consideration
of the Financial Report of the United States Government,
especially its information regarding the Governments net
operating cost, financial position, and long-term
liabilities.
SEC. 608. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE NEED TO MAINTAIN
AND BUILD UPON EFFORTS TO FIGHT HUNGER.
It is the sense of the House that--
(1) 35.5 million Americans (12.6 million of them children)
are food insecure--uncertain of having, or unable to acquire,
enough food, and that 11.1 million Americans are hungry
because of lack of food;
(2) despite the critical contributions of the Department of
Agriculture nutrition programs (particularly the food stamp
program), which significantly reduced payment error rates
while providing help to partially mitigate the effects of
rising poverty and unemployment, significant need remains,
even among families that receive food stamps;
(3) nearly 25 million people, including more than nine
million children and nearly three million seniors, sought
emergency food assistance from food pantries, soup kitchens,
shelters, and local charities last year;
(4) legislation that passed the House with bipartisan
support was an appropriate first step toward ensuring that
nutrition assistance keeps up with inflation and rising food
prices; and
(5) Department of Agriculture programs that help us fight
hunger should be maintained and that the House should
continue to seize opportunities to reach Americans in need
and to fight hunger.
SEC. 609. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING AFFORDABLE HEALTH
COVERAGE.
It is the sense of the House that--
(1) nearly 47 million Americans, including nine million
children, lack health insurance;
(2) people without health insurance are more likely to
experience problems getting medical care and to be
hospitalized for avoidable health problems;
(3) most Americans receive health coverage through their
employers, and a major issue facing all employers is the
rising cost of health insurance;
[[Page 9119]]
(4) small businesses, which have generated most of the new
jobs annually over the last decade, have an especially
difficult time affording health coverage, because of higher
administrative costs and fewer people over whom to spread the
risk of catastrophic costs;
(5) because it is especially costly for small businesses to
provide health coverage, their employees make up a large
proportion of the Nation's uninsured individuals; and
(6) legislation consistent with the pay-as-you-go principle
should be adopted that makes health insurance more affordable
and accessible, with attention to the special circumstances
affecting employees of small businesses, and that lowers
costs and improves the quality of health care by encouraging
integration of health information technology tools into the
practice of medicine, and by promoting improvements in
disease management and disease prevention.
SEC. 610. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING PAY PARITY.
It is the sense of the House that rates of compensation for
civilian employees of the United States should be adjusted at
the same time, and in the same proportion, as are rates of
compensation for members of the uniformed services.
SEC. 611. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING SUBPRIME LENDING AND
FORECLOSURES.
It is the sense of the House that--
(1) over the last six months, the Nation has experienced a
significant increase in the number of homeowners facing the
risk of foreclosure with estimates of as many as 2.8 million
subprime and other distressed borrowers facing the loss of
their homes over the next five years;
(2) the rise in foreclosures not only has an immediate,
devastating impact on homeowners and their families, but it
also has ripple effects--
(A) local communities experiencing high levels of
foreclosures experience deterioration as a result of the
large number of vacant foreclosed and abandoned homes;
(B) rising foreclosure rates can accelerate drops in home
prices, affecting all homeowners; and
(C) home mortgage default and foreclosure rates increase
risk for lenders, further restricting the availability of
credit, which can in turn slow economic growth; and
(3) the rise in foreclosures is not only a crisis for
subprime borrowers, but a larger problem for communities as a
whole, and considering the multi-layered effects of
increasing foreclosures, the House should consider steps to
address this complex problem.
SEC. 612. SENSE OF HOUSE REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF CHILD
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT.
It is the sense of the House that--
(1) additional legislative action is needed to ensure that
States have the necessary resources to collect all child
support that is owed to families and to allow them to pass
100 percent of support on to families without financial
penalty; and
(2) when 100 percent of child support payments are passed
to the child, rather than administrative expenses, program
integrity is improved and child support participation
increases.
____________________
AMERICORPS WEEK
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 1173.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1173.
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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 344,
nays 69, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 319]
YEAS--344
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NAYS--69
Akin
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Boehner
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Carter
Conaway
Culberson
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Hensarling
Herger
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latta
Marchant
McHenry
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Paul
Pearce
Pitts
Poe
Radanovich
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Sali
Sessions
Shadegg
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Thornberry
Walberg
Wamp
Westmoreland
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--20
Andrews
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
DeGette
Doggett
Gerlach
Lewis (KY)
Mack
Meeks (NY)
Myrick
Rush
Schmidt
Stark
Wilson (NM)
Wu
Wynn
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded there
are less than 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1728
Mr. SULLIVAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
[[Page 9120]]
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON S. CON. RES. 70, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct
conferees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin moves that the managers on the part
of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the House amendment to the concurrent
resolution on the budget, S. Con. Res. 70, be instructed to
increase negative budget authority and outlays in section
101(19), function 920 (Allowances) of the House amendment, by
$2.02 billion over the period of fiscal years 2009 through
2013.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt)
will be recognized for 30 minutes each.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First off, Mr. Speaker, I would like to celebrate the fact that we
are here in this well talking about this motion to go to conference,
and I want to compliment our chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr.
Spratt, the gentleman from South Carolina. And I mean this in a very
sincere way.
The budget process doesn't work if you don't have a budget, and I
want to compliment the gentleman from South Carolina for making it 2
years in a row for actually bringing forward and getting through a
budget resolution. It looked like it wasn't going to happen. We won't
be supporting it, but the fact that the budget chairman is keeping the
budget process intact speaks very good to this institution, good to the
process, and I want to compliment the gentleman from South Carolina for
doing that.
Now, on to the motion to instruct. Everyone agrees, Mr. Speaker, that
we need to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. But frankly, if we
really want to move forward with greater energy independence, we should
increase our petroleum supply by increasing our domestic production of
oil. The motion accomplishes just that.
The Republican motion calls on the conferees to increase the receipt
levels in the final budget resolution by expanding leasing in Federal
areas in the West, in the Outer Continental Shelf and in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge in an environmentally sound manner.
Yesterday, the House voted overwhelmingly to suspend the purchase of
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a means to increase oil supply and
reduce gasoline prices. It's unclear whether this will have any impact
on oil prices, much less gas prices.
This motion would accomplish that result. It would, No. 1, increase
domestic oil production and put downward pressure on oil prices and
gasoline prices; No. 2, it would reduce our reliance on foreign oil;
and, No. 3, it would reduce the deficit.
More than a year ago, the Democratic majority pledged to bring
gasoline prices down. On January 4, 2007, the day the Democratic
majority took control of the House, the price of gas was an average of
$2.33 a gallon. Today Americans are paying an average of $3.76 per
gallon to put fuel in their cars. Just 2 days ago in Kenosha, Wisconsin
it was $3.95. It's $4 in some areas. This is an increase of at least
$1.43 a gallon.
Republicans are seeking to tap into America's great natural resources
in an environmentally sound and effective way to provide the consumers
the relief at the pump that they deserve, while reducing our reliance
on foreign oil.
This Republican motion is a step in the right direction to enhance
our energy security and put in place a long-term plan to provide relief
at the pump. These are the steps we need to take to assist families,
communities, small businesses, those that are suffering with soaring
prices of oil and gasoline.
With that, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the chairman for yielding.
This is about energy and about the budget, and this is about the
Arctic wildlife range in Alaska.
We have voted 12 times on this floor; in fact, I think Mr. Spratt
voted for it, Mr. Dingell voted for it, or will vote for it, to try to
open the last great known elephant in oil fields in the continental
United States. If we were to do so today, we would deliver to the
American public 1 million barrels of oil for 30 continuing years--a
day. Thirty years, 1 million barrels a day. That's the very minor
estimate.
But more than that, it would provide, this year, if we were just to
lease it, $191 billion in revenue for the budget, $191 billion for the
lease and the development of ANWR. And in 3 years I can deliver to the
American public 1 million barrels a day or more. That's more than
Venezuela. That keeps Venezuela from jacking the prices around.
If we were to do it, my good friends, it would drop the price of oil
about $10 a barrel immediately; not because we're delivering it, but it
would be the first time this Congress has worked on the supply side,
and the speculators would stop speculating if they saw that Congress
was serious about developing our national and our Federal lands in
fossil fuels. Why we don't do that I cannot understand.
Yes, we do have to change our modes of transportation in a period of
time. But there's no way you can bridge the ability of not using fossil
fuels in the short-term.
Now, you think about the consumer today in Alaska, and you think
about the consumer in the rest of the Nation and what they have to do
at $4 a gallon, maybe $5. And I have estimates it may go as far as $10
by the end of the year, and that's going to be on your watch.
We're here talking about the budget. But if we want to solve the
budget problems, let's create some dollars. But more than that, let's
create less dependency on foreign oil.
How we can sit here as a body and send dollars overseas, and the
billions of dollars; to give you some idea, the average tax for every
man, woman and child, everybody listening to this station tonight is
paying $2,085 per every man, woman and child in tax to the foreign
countries, burning their oil. Seventy percent of their oil.
And some people say, well, it's the oil companies. Nonsense. This is
about demand globally and supply. We're not the only buyers anymore.
America's not the only ones that have automobiles. America's not the
only one using fossil fuels. China is burning more barrels of fuel
today than we are, and that drives the price up. We're no longer the
only buyer, and the seller can ask for the price they're going to get.
The only way you can relieve that is start developing our national,
on Federal lands, our oil for the good of the American people. Why
we're not doing this, I don't know.
And remember, you heard me before on this, well it's not your fault,
it's not our fault, it's this fault, the body of
this Congress. We've got to stop pandering for those who say no to
developing our fossil fuels. We have to stop pandering for those saying
it's going to be a total climate change because it is going to happen
in this world. They will be burning oil, and we'll be unable to take
and support our people until we develop our fields as we should develop
them.
I'm hoping America's listening. I hope America will wake up to the
fact. We have the ability to do it here today. We have the ability to
solve the budget problem, but we have a better ability to solve the
energy problem in America.
I'm asking my fellow colleagues, let's do it. Let's do it today.
Let's do it in the future. Let's solve the problems of energy in this
Nation.
[[Page 9121]]
Mr. SPRATT. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, on March 13, we passed the budget resolution. It's a
good resolution. It moves the budget to balance by the Year 2012 and,
along the way, it accumulates less debt than the Bush budget. It limits
spending to a reasonable level.
But I can truthfully say that this bill does more for education, more
for the environment, more for energy, more for science and innovation
than the President's budget or the Republicans' resolution. And also,
critically important, it avoids the deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid
that are provided for, called for in the President's budget. And it
protects the middle income tax cuts; provides AMT relief for middle
income families for whom it was never intended.
Therefore, we have the outline of a good budget for the coming fiscal
year, and we need to pass it, send it to conference, bring the
conference report back. We have an excellent chance, I think, of
passing the first conference report, back to back, since the year 2000.
What my friends on the other side of the aisle have introduced is, to
my way of thinking, a distraction, a red herring. ANWR is never
mentioned in our resolution. And to my recollection it was not
mentioned in your resolution. So the topic here is wholly out of the
scope of the resolution on either side, particularly ours, and wholly
outside the jurisdiction of our committee. We don't assume ANWR
revenues, we don't preclude ANWR revenues because we don't have the
authority to prescribe that.
The most we can provide for in a budget resolution is a certain
revenue floor, a certain amount of revenues be collected over the year
to be applied against the expenditures that we broadly distribute in
something called the 302(a) section of our bill and the 302(b),
providing for 302(b) allocations.
So this budget resolution, this resolution to instruct, motion to
instruct conferees, goes off on a tack that is totally different from
what the resolution's all about, what the committee's jurisdiction is.
If you want to debate this, there's another forum for debating it.
There's another committee, the Resources Committee.
We don't have the authority to do what you would call upon us to do.
We don't take a position for ANWR or against ANWR in the budget
resolution because it's not the place for that kind of policy
resolution. There are other places here for that to be established.
So we've got a good budget resolution. We do not need this
resolution, this motion to instruct conferees, to do anything towards
balancing the budget. You've got a very nominal sum of money in here
when it comes to a 5-year period of time.
And one question I would leave with you, is you call for an increase
in negative budget authority and outlays. If I didn't know what that
meant, I wouldn't know what it meant when I first saw it on the printed
page here. But I would take it that not only does oil revenues fall
under this rubric, but so would forest products, national parks and
things of that nature.
So it's not clear exactly what you're calling for here. I can only
say it's a distraction. It's a red herring, it's not needed, and it
does not really belong in the budget resolution process.
I retain the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time
remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 23 minutes.
The gentleman from South Carolina has 26\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I will yield myself 30 seconds simply to say,
using the chairman's argument, then there's no money in this budget for
veterans, no money in this budget for science, no money in this budget
for education if you use that line of argument. There's only money for
discretionary spending in here.
A budget resolution is a series of numbers, and we're saying, let's
adjust the numbers to accommodate the policy we're talking about here,
drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Outer
Continental Shelf, the Intermountain West.
At this time I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking
member of the Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton).
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the
Budget Committee.
Before I speak in favor of the Ryan motion to instruct conferees on
the budget, let me give you a post-SPR suspension update. The price of
oil went up $1.73 on the mercantile market yesterday after we voted to
suspend shipments into the SPR. At some point in time I sure hope it
does come down and we'll work together, hopefully, in a bipartisan
basis to bring oil and energy prices down. But our symbolic vote
yesterday had the opposite effect of what it was intended because
prices went up.
Let me speak now in favor of this motion to instruct. I would point
all the Members in the body to the quote above the Speaker's rostrum by
Daniel Webster. It says, the very first part of that quote, ``Let us
develop the resources of our land.'' And this motion to instruct is a
direct descendant of that sentiment.
We are not helpless, we are not hopeless in this country in terms of
energy. If we will develop the resources of our land, we could, in all
probability, within 5, maybe 6, 7 years, double the amount of oil or
oil equivalent that we're producing right now in the United States.
We're currently producing somewhere between 6 and 7, maybe a little
over 7 million barrels. As Congressman Young has just pointed out, if
we were to drill in ANWR, it would start out with a production
capacity, in all likelihood, of about 300,000 barrels a day. And in the
optimum case, it could be ramped up to about 2 million barrels a day
within 5 or 6 years.
We have over a million barrels a day of production off the coast of
California. We have 2 trillion barrels of oil equivalent in the shale
oil deposits in Wyoming and Colorado.
{time} 1745
We haven't even inventoried what is off the coast of the east coast
of the United States. We have the Chinese drilling between Cuba and
Florida, and yet we're not allowed, because of moratoria, to drill
there.
So we're not hopeless. We can also develop our coal resources.
Congressman Shimkus has a bill on coal-to-liquids that is very helpful,
and yet we stand here and refuse to adopt any supply-side policies at
all as prices go higher and higher and higher.
If you live in an urban area where you don't depend on an automobile,
you may not feel those high prices. But if you live in a suburban or
rural area, well, you have to drive to work and drive to shop. If you
work for a trucking company, if you work for an airline company and you
see the price of diesel and the price of aviation fuel go higher and
higher and higher, you feel it. It's not an academic exercise.
This motion to instruct simply says let's have some domestic
development of our resources. Let's try to bring those prices down not
with just the conservation component, but with the supply component.
And with world markets where they are today, production of oil is
somewhere around 85 million barrels a day. The consumption of oil is
somewhere around 85 million barrels a day. The demand for oil in the
United States in the last 2 months in a row has gone down, but the
demand for oil in the rest of the world has gone up. And it's gone up
more in the rest of the world than it's gone down here in the United
States.
But if we were to be producing another 1 million, 2 million, 3
million barrels of oil a day in the United States, that would create a
cushion that would take some of the heat out of the market and the
price would go down.
I can't imagine any Member of this body that doesn't have a
constituency that's concerned about higher food prices, higher energy
prices, and higher prices of living.
Let's vote for the motion to instruct and try to get a supply
component to our energy policy.
[[Page 9122]]
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. There is a certain absurdity to this debate that the poor
oil companies have had their hands tied. We've had a President from
Texas, an oil man; a Vice President from Texas, an oil man; the
chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee was from Texas; the
chairman of the subcommittee on energy was from Texas; the majority
leader was from Texas, all over the time that the Republicans
controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.
So during that time, by the way, and this is the good news, the Bush
administration actually gave to the oil and gas industry 268 million
acres of American land to drill on for oil and gas. Said, You just go
and drill there. And guess what we got? Last year, ExxonMobil, the
other four big companies, they reported $142 billion worth of profits.
Pretty good tipping the American people upside down.
How much of it do they put into renewables? How much do they put into
the supply side, the new energy sources: wind, solar, all of the new
technologies? ExxonMobil: $10 million. They made $42 billion. They put
$10 million into renewables. And what else do they say? When we come
and say, How about giving back some of those tax breaks so we can give
them over to wind and solar, the oil executives said, You can't touch
our tax breaks, and by the way, we're also not going to invest in
renewables.
Well, there's our future. Our future is saying let's go to the most
pristine parts of the country. Let's go drill there. Let's not invest
in solar; let's not invest in wind; let's not reinvest. That's the
plan.
By the way, the price of oil under the Bush watch has gone from $30 a
barrel to $126 a barrel. It's gone from $1.45 a gallon to $3.72 a
gallon. And the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, when the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve is filled and ready to go so we can deploy it, the
President says he doesn't want to use it.
Well, here's the spigot, Mr. President. It's on top of the White
House. You just have to turn it, deploy the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, the price of a barrel of oil will begin to drop immediately.
This is a phony debate.
Mr. RYAN from Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Illinois, a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I always love following my friend from Massachusetts.
You know, most countries view their resources as a strategic
advantage. But we in this country in the majority view our resources as
an environmental hazard. This motion to instruct is critical. If we can
get a million barrels out of ANWR at today's prices, do you know how
much money goes into the Federal Treasury? $192 billion. Go tell that
to your Blue Dogs who are holding up emergency supplemental bills
because of PAYGO.
That's just ANWR. Let's talk about the other resources that we have.
Here is the reality. It wasn't President Bush that promised in 2006
that the Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices. That was Speaker
Pelosi. In fact, she made the same mistake today. She claimed numerous
times that the ag bill would lower prices, gas prices.
Now, I voted for it. I'm an ethanol guy. I'm a cellulosic guy. But if
we don't bring more supply into the market, we're not going to lower
prices. The demand from China and the demand from India and the demand
from Europe just overwhelms us and is overwhelming the market. It was
$58 when this majority came into power, $125 today.
I haven't used this for a while, but the Pelosi Premium, $2.33 when
you came into the majority, Speaker Pelosi said, We're going to lower
gas prices. $3.77 today. Chairman Dingell is here. He's pulled this
bill off the table, but climate change would add 50 cents a gallon.
$4.20 is what we would be paying under climate change and current gas
prices.
What's the solution? The great Outer Continental Shelf. Billions of
barrels of oil, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. There are. You
can't deny it. The eastern gulf, off-limits by appropriation bill. Not
resources bill. It's an appropriation bill that puts this off-limits.
It's the OCS off the western coast. Billions of barrels of oil,
trillions of cubic feet; we can't have it.
What would we do with the $192 billion from ANWR royalties? Let's go
and take American coal, United Mine Worker jobs, let's build coal-to-
liquid refineries, operating engineer, building-trade jobs. Let's build
pipelines. Major organized labor jobs. And let's use it to lower the
cost of jet fuel so we don't have the aviation industry going bankrupt.
$192 billion would go a long way to do the solar, to do the wind power,
to do everything we want to do.
We want more supply, not less. Environmental resources is a national
advantage for our country, but we won't take use of it.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't really surprise me
that our good friends on the other side of the aisle have yet another
drilling solution to our energy problems. Because it seems that with
every energy problem, they have never found an energy problem that
drilling won't solve. When will our colleagues in the minority get it
into their heads that we cannot drill our way out of our energy
problems?
What I think is amazing is that they have actually finally realized
that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Some of them have
finally acknowledged that global warming is a problem. But they still
refuse to let go of the tired direction that they continue to want to
travel in, which is to prop up their wealthy corporate interests, prop
up the oil industry, which is the most profitable industry in this
country, with billions of dollars in oil subsidies.
And today's solution, in this motion to instruct, is that we should
drill for more oil in a pristine environmental track in Alaska, go off
the coast of Florida and the Outer Continental Shelf, drop some oil
drills so that we can really severely negatively impact the tourism
across the coastal regions instead of trying to make sure that we can
truly invest in alternative energy research. Which part of ``No, we
need an alternative'' don't they understand?
Well, consistently the voters have said they want to move this
country in a new direction. They want to make sure that we invest in
alternative energy research and wean ourselves truly off of our
dependence on oil. Not just hear more talk about it.
Mr. Speaker, drilling is not the answer. It is inappropriate to
suggest that we should have more drilling in ANWR, in Wyoming, off the
coast of Florida. We need to make sure that we can finally step up and
make a bipartisan commitment that we will invest in alternative energy
research so that we can finally end this energy crisis that we find
ourselves in.
I'm glad to see that the Republicans finally acknowledge it's a
problem.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity.
Let's look at this in perspective.
We just learned from Mr. Shimkus that over the lifetime of ANWR, if
we just opened up that area to produce, that we could provide revenues of
up to $192 billion on the lease bids and royalties. And we always seem
to be looking, at least the bills that keep coming forward from our
friends from the other side of the aisle, from the majority, always
seem to be trying to raise revenues. And certainly the $6 billion per
year that we could get just from the ANWR royalties in bids would pay
for the GI Bill that they're going to raise taxes for tomorrow.
Not only is this a bonus that we raise revenue. By the way, we have a
deficit that we're running. So I think where we can raise revenues
without raising taxes is somewhere we could look.
But over the weekend, I had the opportunity to sit down with a
trucking company in Omaha. They were telling
[[Page 9123]]
me that the average price
of diesel across the Nation is $4.50. It's costing them almost a dollar
per mile. What does that mean to the consumers? Well, it means that
your family budget is going in the tank, literally. That means that
when you go to the grocery store, that you're paying higher prices for
food, not because some portion of corn is being used for ethanol; what
it means is that the transportation costs of the food from the farm to
the grocery stores is so high and is being absorbed in the prices at
the grocery store.
So that's why your milk is going up, that's why the eggs have gone
up, that's why your grain-related foods, like cereals and bread, have
gone up. Yes, we need to focus on demand here. But we can also win-win
by focusing on supply.
Let's do the right thing. And good job, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding and his work on
putting forward a budget that brings us to balance and that is fiscally
responsible.
Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a repeat of what we heard during
the 12 years that our friends on the Republican side of the aisle tried
to push forward a very failed policy as our friend, Mr. Markey from
Massachusetts, mentioned with regard to ANWR.
This is a policy that was tried over the years by a Republican
Congress with a Republican President, and never once did it pass
because of the flaws and challenges that it would present.
What I think we have here is a classic case of what many of us will
recall from the George Foreman-Muhammad Ali fight: a case of rope-a-
dope where you're trying to deflect what's really going on on this
floor tonight. And that is the fact that this budget presented by this
Congress will bring us to a balanced budget faster than the President's
budget at the same time that it's providing for some fiscal
responsibility when it comes to tax cuts, energy policy, how we treat
our kids in school, what we do for our kids when it comes to health
care. All of that's done in a way that not only brings us to a point of
having fiscal sanity in the way we do things, but it does it without
having to deal with these gimmicks that we have now with ANWR.
The reality is that if you don't divert the American public's
attention to what's going on in this budget, they would be very happy.
The fact that we are restoring fiscal responsibility by making sure
that anything we propose to do that costs money will be paid for so
that we don't continue to see rising budget deficits is phenomenal and
it's new.
What we see here is an effort to devote resources to energy that's
renewable sources that provides with renewable sources on energy, that
provides us with efficient sources of energy that moves us towards
solar, towards wind; and we put money there, and we do it in a fiscally
responsible way.
{time} 1800
We don't cut the moneys that the President never provided for his No
Child Left Behind education program. We provide the money. We do all
those things, and we do them in fiscally responsible ways.
That's the story in this budget. You don't need to do rope-a-dope to
get past that. This is a time for us to move in a different direction.
We intend to do so. I urge Members to vote against this motion to
instruct.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, let me inquire as to how much
time remains on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Altmire). The gentleman from Wisconsin
has 13\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from South Carolina has 20\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the chairman of the Resources Committee.
Mr. RAHALL. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt,
for yielding me the time.
While the Republicans continue to argue that opening more land is
essential to lowering gasoline prices, the facts prove otherwise. We
simply cannot drill our way to lower prices at the pump, and let's look
at those facts.
Since 2000, the amount of drilling on Federal lands has steadily
increased. Between 1999 and 2007, drilling permits on public lands has
increased more than 361 percent; yet gas prices, as we all know too
acutely, have risen dramatically. There is simply no correlation
between the two.
Despite the Federal Government's willingness to make public lands
available to energy production, of the 42 million acres of onshore
Federal lands currently being leased by oil and gas companies, that's
the red column here, only about 12 million are actually in production
or producing oil and gas. The industry has this much available to them,
and this is all they're using right here. They are obviously
stockpiling these leases, and it's been evident for at least the past
decade.
In 2007, for example, the government issued 7,561 permits to drill.
Yet only 4,704 wells were started. Over the past 4 years, there have
been 9,800 more permits issued than the wells drilled.
Today, the oil and gas industry holds in excess of 3,000 permits for
onshore oil and gas development that they are not using to increase
domestic production.
Now, here's the most important point for my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle. Some would argue that the entire Outer Continental
Shelf should be opened to oil and gas development. This is a specious
argument as drilling off the coasts of California, Florida or Virginia
has been consistently and repeatedly opposed by both parties.
And for those on the minority side who may want to vote for this
motion to recommit, just remember: This will be viewed as a vote to
allow oil and gas drilling off your shores.
According to the Department of the Interior, the parts of the OCS,
primarily the Gulf of Mexico, that are currently open to drilling
contain 79 percent of the oil and 82 percent of the natural gas that
exists on the entire OCS.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. RAHALL. And as is the case with onshore, out of the 40 million
acres currently being held by oil and gas companies, under lease, in
the Outer Continental Shelf, the oil and gas industry has put less than
7 million of those acres into production. It's already there. It's
available to them. Yet they're not using it, and they want to go
elsewhere to drill.
In a nutshell, the industry has access to most of the estimated
technologically recoverable natural gas that's occurring in the Federal
OCS, in fact four times as much as is estimated by the Minerals
Management Service to occur in the moratoria areas, but the industry is
not developing it.
You cannot drill your way to lower gas prices at the pump. The
industry has plenty available to them. Let them use what they already
have before going into other pristine areas like ANWR.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I hope we will defeat this motion to recommit. I sit on the Energy
and Commerce Committee. I've done a lot of work on oil and gas, and I
was in my office when I heard all these myths coming from the other
side, and I thought we had to come down and refute this.
My friends on this side of the aisle keep saying Congress needs to
open more areas to domestic drilling. The U.S. has already increased
domestic drilling, and gas prices have continued to climb.
Since 2000, the number of wells drilled on Federal lands has
increased by 66 percent, from 3,000 to nearly 5,000 wells. During that
same time, the price of gas has doubled.
According to the Federal Government, 79 percent of the oil in the
Outer
[[Page 9124]]
Continental Shelf is already available for leasing. Eighty-two
percent of the gas in the Outer Continental Shelf is available for
leasing. And still, we open up more lands to leasing in 2006. The U.S.
cannot drill its way out of high energy costs.
The other fact that my friends always try to put forth is that
environmental laws are stopping oil companies from building refineries.
Completely false. In the 2005 Energy Policy Act, we actually put in
there a section that, as Secretary of Energy Bodman said, eases the
constraints that have strangled new refinery construction. We put that
in in 2005; yet no one has ever come forward and said we want to use
that provision to put forth more refineries.
The U.S. has actually shut down its refineries. Since 1981, there
were 324 refineries. Now, there are only 149 refineries. As chairman of
Oversight and Investigations, we have the memos from Texaco, Chevron,
Mobil that all said in order to raise our prices we have to shut down
refineries, and they've shut them down.
Mergers in the oil industry have affected prices. In 2004, the
Government Accountability Office found more than 2,600 mergers in the
U.S. petroleum industry since the 1990s.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. STUPAK. Gasoline inventories actually have a surplus. March 7,
2008, we had a surplus of 22 million barrels of gas more than the
previous year. Gas supplies are up. Oil gas demand is actually down.
And what do we have? We have a 51 percent increase in that same period
of time. Gas went from $3.10 to $3.61 since April 1.
Look, we've had mergers. We've had refineries not being built. We
have more exploratory. We have more supply. Supply is up, demand is
down, the prices have gone sky-high. Why is that? Look at the profits.
ExxonMobil, first quarter of 2008, $10.9 billion; Royal Dutch Shell,
$9.1 billion; BP, $7.6 billion, up 63 percent from last year; Chevron,
$5.2 billion; Conoco Phillips, $4.1 billion. That is almost $40 billion
in their first quarter. That's why gas prices are so high. That's why
this Congress must act to lower gas prices.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Well, I don't know what it's going to take, Mr. Speaker.
Indiana is right up there with the rest of the country pushing about $4
a gallon. We'll get people out on the road for vacations this summer,
and I don't know what it's going to take for Congress to take dramatic
action to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
I've got to tell you I was little bit encouraged last night, Mr.
Speaker. The Democrat majority brought a bill to the floor that
actually endorsed the idea that the cost of oil and gasoline is
affected by supply and demand. We voted to suspend purchases by the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, therefore lessening the demand on global
oil, believing that the price would come down.
Well, today, this motion to instruct conferees is all about
increasing the supply. Look, we hear a lot about oil profits; we always
have. And no one respects the previous speaker more than me. But who in
the world thinks that raising taxes on oil companies is going to lower
their prices at the pump?
I mean, for heaven's sakes, we understand as Americans that
commodities and the price of commodities are dictated by supply and
demand. We simply have to take those measures in an environmentally
responsible way to explore and further exploit the resources that we
have in the ground, and I speak specifically of the Alaska National
Wildlife region and the other areas that are affected by this motion to
instruct conferees.
As long as we are going to continue to look at the most volatile area
of the world for the majority of our energy needs, we are going to
continue to see the extraordinary per barrel prices that we're seeing
today, and Americans and Hoosiers are going to be suffering at the
pump.
Let's get real. Let's do something about the supply. Let's lessen our
dependence on foreign oil. Vote for this motion to instruct conferees
so that America can begin to realize on the vast natural resources that
this country has.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, a number of folks have mentioned on the
other side, brought up stories about talking about the Speaker and what
Democrats claim.
In 2005, when the Republican Congress passed the President's energy
bill, let me tell you what some folks said. The minority leader at that
time says, ``This will lower energy prices for consumers.'' The
minority whip, Mr. Blunt, said, ``Vote for lower gas prices and
increase energy independence for America.'' This is what was offered
and was sold when you did your energy bill. That's what you claimed.
My colleague from Illinois, Congressman Shimkus, says, ``I do believe
that it will help us become more independent of foreign oil, will
expand our use of renewable fuels, and will make our electricity
production and transmission more reliable. All of which will help slow
price increases.''
That hasn't been accomplished by any stretch of the imagination. When
you passed it at that point, gasoline was at $59 a barrel. Today, as
you know, it's 124 bucks a barrel. So it hasn't accomplished any of
that goal. This is all what you claimed in your marketing at that point
when you had an energy bill on the floor in 2005 because you only had
one strategy. You didn't want to do anything about conservation. You
didn't want to do anything about renewable energy sources and
investment in future technologies. And you didn't want to do anything,
as my colleague from West Virginia told you, that there were over 9,800
permits out there, force American companies to start drilling in those
permits rather than holding those permits here in the United States
where we have some of the energy. There's plenty of that to go around.
What we've done is put a budget together that breaks with the past.
It offers a change in the sense it puts our budget in balance. It
invests in education over what the President does. It invests in energy
technologies for the future, and also, it ensures that the middle class
gets a tax cut. This is a budget that's not only in balance but is in
balance with our values and our priorities here.
Now, you all have come up with a unique slogan, change you deserve.
That's what you've marketed. All you've offered is more of the same,
more of the same of $3 trillion of debt, the largest increase in debt
in the shortest period of time in American history. That's the change
America deserves?
You've offered 10 million children without health care to go walking.
Is that change you can deserve?
You've offered an energy policy that has continued to rely on just
drilling without looking at conservation, without looking at future
technology. Is that change you can deserve?
The American people deserve better, and they're offered here in a
budget that is in balance with our priorities, balance with our
economic goals. We put resources towards our education,
towards energy technology and towards, in fact, making sure the middle
class get a tax cut.
In 2005, when you controlled the House, the Senate and the White
House, you put together an energy bill that led America to where it is
today. I think the American people deserve a change.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 4
minutes to a senior member of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton from
Michigan.
{time} 1815
Mr. UPTON. I thank my friend, Mr. Ryan.
You know, gas prices yesterday in Kalamazoo, Michigan hit $3.99 a
gallon. You know, I can remember when our imports from other countries
for oil
[[Page 9125]]
and gas crossed the 50 percent threshold. And then it was 60
percent. In a few years, it's going to be 88 percent of the oil that we
consume is going to come from overseas. Sadly, I report that this
country is woefully unprepared for the future for a country that's
going to need 50 percent more energy by the year 2030.
Now, we've done some things on conservation. We've done some CAFE
standards, but that's not overnight, it's going to take a number of
years. We've done some things on building standards and appliance
standards, lighting. Those things kick in a few years from now. But you
know what? I think all of us here, based on last night's vote, believe
in the theory of supply and demand.
Worldwide, the demand is going up dramatically. China and India, 10,
15 percent annual growth rates. Our demand has actually declined
because of the price by about a percent over the last year, but the
supply has stayed the same. Yes, you can talk about more wells drilled,
but the old existing wells aren't producing the oil that they used to.
From the nineties to now, Alaskan oil has declined by 50 percent. And
yet Bill Clinton, when he vetoed the ANWR bill 10 years ago, said,
that's 10 years off, we don't need that now. Well, guess what? Ten
years later, we need that oil. We need greater supply.
Last night's vote, taking oil out of SPR, 60,000 barrels a day, a lot
of us voted for it because that means that the supply is going to go up
for consumers by 60,000 barrels a day. So we're onto that. That passed
overwhelmingly here in the House. But whether it's Alaska, whether it's
offshore drilling--I don't know how many of you here know that China is
drilling off Cuba, 45 miles off the Florida coast. China is drilling
off Florida, yet we can't do that. I think we have a limit of 100
miles. Eighty-five percent of our offshore drilling is off-bounds. We
need to reverse that.
Last year in this House, we had a vote that prevailed by six votes
that took land in our BLM lands, public lands out in Colorado, Utah,
and Wyoming, it took it off so that we can't allow the permits to get
oil shale. The oil shale reserves there are expected to exceed a
trillion barrels. That's more than the Saudis. And we can't even allow
the permitting for companies to go in and explore and perhaps increase
the supply so that we can decrease the price with such a provision. I
look forward to a revote on that same amendment perhaps this year.
The Canadians. I met with a Canadian Minister of Energy a couple of
weeks ago, with a Canadian ambassador. They are now successfully
extracting a million barrels a day from oil shale in Alberta. And
because of a certain section that was in the energy bill offered
successfully last year, we can't take that in this country. If you want
to increase the supply so that the price can come down, we have to look
at domestic resources, whether they be off our shores, whether they be
in our own lands and we know that we can produce it safely, or in
Alaska as well, ANWR.
We want the oil here. And we want to help have some decreasing
pressure on that price that is costing consumers in lots of ways, not
only their transportation, but food and all those different things.
So I would like to think that we can adopt this resolution, looking
for more receipts for the domestic industry.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, here we have the Republicans engaging in fuzzy
math again.
Unlike the eight budgets submitted by George Bush, which are taking
this country toward bankruptcy, they're so incredibly out of balance,
unlike the 12 budgets given to us by the Republican majority here, this
budget gets us to balance by 2012. And guess what? It has nothing to do
with the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, it's not an issue in the
budget. You want to have that debate, let's have that debate in the
Resources Committee and other appropriate venues.
But if you want to have that debate, I've got a few things to say. I
serve on the Resources Committee. We have 6,669 leases that are out
there with the oil and gas industry that aren't producing; 30 million
acres of land that's covered by that and offshore. We have nearly a
quarter of a million acres in the Naval Petroleum Reserve. Bill Clinton
leased our Naval Petroleum Reserve to the oil industry. Guess what?
They're not yet developing the Naval Petroleum Reserve. There is a
tremendous amount to be developed there. But you want to jump and
leapfrog somewhere else for imaginary bits of oil.
Under the most optimistic estimates, there's 100 days in ANWR. Now,
we could do better if every American properly inflated the tires on
their cars and their trucks and their SUVs. Try and find an air pump
these days, they're darn hard to find. You want to do something? Let's
have a Federal program to put air pumps out there and get people to
fully inflate their tires. There is a sustainable way to cut demand.
But the fantasy of ANWR, which the Republicans want to engage in, is to
distract us from the speculation, the profiteering by the oil
companies, speculation of the commodity markets driving up prices 50
cents a gallon--legislation they passed for Enron, now bankrupt and
defunct. And then we have the issue of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
We have come together on a bipartisan basis to say let's lower the
price of gas at the pump by not buying the most expensive oil in
history. They don't agree with us on going after the OPEC countries.
So, you know, let's not talk about something that's potentially 10
years out, that doesn't have anything to do with the budget. Let's talk
about real measures on energy. And let's talk about a real budget to
get this country back on the path to fiscal sustainability and
responsibility.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I'm delighted today that we're talking
about energy. I think it's vital because I want to tell you something;
if we don't get a lid on energy prices in America, there will be no
level of government with a budget that will balance. The cost to heat
our schools, the cost to heat our hospitals, the cost to do everything
is going to explode. The cost to move goods and services is exploding.
And it's about time, Americans.
I had a young lady say to me last week, she said, Mr. Peterson, I
make $320 a week. I used to spend $90 to drive to work, now I'm
spending $140. How do I pay my bills? What she doesn't know is she
heats her home with natural gas, and the natural gas that we're putting
in the ground today for next winter's heating is $11.50. Last year, it
was running between $6.50 and $7. She's looking at a 50 percent
increase in home heating costs next year, which she cannot meet.
Folks, the average working American is struggling to pay their bills
because of energy costs. Our State governments, our county governments
and our hospitals and our schools are going to take money away from the
classroom to heat those facilities. If this Congress does not address
the energy issue, we're going to collapse the economic viability of
this country.
Energy runs this country. We've had $2 gas and $10 oil most of our
lifetime, with a few spikes in the seventies,
eighties and nineties. Folks, we have $125 oil, $11.50 gas. We have not
had a storm in the gulf in 2 years that always causes spike prices.
We've not had a major country that supplies oil to us all tip over or
have a coup that took away the government and took away that supply of
oil.
I'm predicting that countries like China, who are amassing energy all
around the world, we'll read one of these days where they have
purchased all the oil and gas that one of the major contributing
countries can produce for the next decade and we won't get any of it.
Folks, if we have a storm in the gulf this summer like they're
predicting, and they're predicting them, if we have any kind of
terrorist attack on a supply system, $125 oil will seem cheap to
[[Page 9126]]
us. I'm not sure this economy can handle $125 oil.
I am for every renewable there is, but let's look at the Energy
Department's prediction: Oil, gas, coal, nuclear, renewables, hydro and
non-hydro, that's their prediction. We've spent $30 billion for
renewables. Folks, if we double wind and solar--and I wish we could
double it every year--but if we double it, we will still be less than
three-quarters of 1 percent of our energy needs.
Where is the renewable coming? The renewable that's grown the fastest
is wood waste. With pellet stoves heating hundreds of homes, with
factories heating their factories with wood waste, wood waste has been
the fastest growing energy renewable.
Folks, America better get serious. And we'd better open our Outer
Continental Shelf, we'd better do ANWR, we'd better do the Midwest.
Coal-to-liquid, coal-to-gas, wind, solar, we need it all, folks.
America is in an energy crisis.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, let me say again, but say more emphatically,
what I said at the outset, and that is that ANWR is never mentioned,
never mentioned in the budget resolution, never mentioned in the report
that accompanies the resolution. So it's wholly out of scope; it has
nothing to do with the budget resolution before us, And it's also
outside the jurisdiction of our Budget Committee. The jurisdiction over
this drilling in Alaska, or wherever in the continental United States,
belongs to the Resources Committee, not to the Budget Committee. So if
you want to do what they're proposing to do here, you're in the wrong
place before the wrong committee with the wrong proposal.
Revenues from ANWR are not provided for in this budget resolution,
they're not precluded in this resolution. The Budget Committee does not
have the jurisdiction, as my good friend, Mr. Ryan, knows to tell the
Ways and Means Committee or any other committee that has the power to
produce revenues exactly how to do it. We simply tell them how much,
not by what policy. We don't make policy prescriptions as to revenues
in our committee. We simply tell the Budget Committee, the Ways and
Means Committee, or the other committees that have the capacity to
raise revenues or offsetting receipts, or what we have here called
negative budget authority.
In addition, if you read the cryptic language of this resolution, you
will find it doesn't mention oil, or ANWR either, anywhere in it. You
have to make some mighty extrapolations to get to the conclusion that
this is talking about ANWR drilling and ANWR oil. It simply says we
should issue instructions to increase negative budget authority, which
could apply, in my estimation, to selling parkland, selling other
assets of the United States which would be negative budget authority
just like the revenues coming from a lease for drilling in ANWR.
In any event, this is a red herring when it comes to the resolution
before us. It has nothing to do with our budget resolution. Our budget
resolution should be looked upon on its own four legs, and let it stand
or fall on those merits. I think we've got a budget resolution.
As I also said at the outset, we come to balance by the year 2012.
And along the way we accumulate less debt than the President's budget.
We limit spending in a reasonable fashion, but we provide more for
education, more for the environment, more for energy, more for science
and innovation than the President's budget. We protect the income tax
cuts for middle-income Americans, we provide tax relief from the AMT
for middle-income Americans, for whom it was never intended.
This is a good budget outline for our country and will move us over
time, if we adhere to it--and we do adhere to the PAYGO rule throughout
the resolution--if we further adhere to it, it will move us to a
balanced budget within the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we do not have to vote for this motion to instruct
conferees. It's not necessary. We need to go to conference and come
back next week with a conference report that we can put to work so the
House can get on with its business.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of
the time.
I'll begin by stating what I said in the beginning, which is, as a
person who believes in having a strong and intact budget process, I
want to compliment the chairman for getting us to a Budget Resolution,
for doing it 2 years in a row. It's not an easy accomplishment. So on
behalf of the institution, it's important that we pass these budget
resolutions.
{time} 1830
The problem is we're not going to pass a good budget resolution. The
reason the gentleman's budget resolution achieves a balanced budget is
because it contains the largest tax increase in American history. It
cuts the child tax credit in half. It repeals the relief for the
marriage penalty, raises income taxes across the board, raises capital
gains and dividends taxes, brings the death tax back in, and puts us on
a path for the largest tax increase in American history by replacing
the alternative minimum tax. So, yes, the gentleman's budget does
balance because it only increases spending by $280 billion while it
increases taxes by $683 billion. That's how the gentleman balances the
budget.
But more to the point here, today the House voted to waive PAYGO to
give farm subsidies to millionaires. Tomorrow the House is going to
support PAYGO. They're going to enforce PAYGO to raise taxes on small
businesses.
So this is what we're doing here in this Congress. Whenever it's time
to keep PAYGO in place to control spending, it's out the door. It's
waived. It's swept under the rug. It's baseline shopping, number
cooking, gimmicking, cliffs. But whenever the time comes to raise
taxes, that's when we enforce PAYGO.
Mr. Speaker, PAYGO doesn't exist. PAYGO is not in place. It is not
being enforced. It is a sham. The only thing that PAYGO does today is
give the majority an excuse to raise taxes. It doesn't cut spending. It
doesn't reduce the deficit. It just raises taxes to fuel more spending.
Watch what happens tomorrow. Today millionaires get agriculture
subsidies because we waived PAYGO; tomorrow, taxing small businesses to
create a new entitlement program.
But to the point of this motion to instruct, what we are trying to
achieve with this motion to instruct is to try to make this budget a
little bit better, a little bit better by talking about the issue of
the day, which is people are not being able to spread their paychecks
as far as they were before. They can't get as much out of their
paychecks because of $4 gasoline.
Why do we have $4 gasoline? Because we don't have an energy policy in
this country. And what we are simply saying is one of the reasons is we
have so much supply we're not getting: 16 billion barrels at ANWR; 2
trillion barrels in oil shale in Wyoming and Montana; 86 billion
barrels in the Outer Continental Shelf.
Let me say that one more time: 16 billion barrels in Alaska, 2
trillion barrels in shale in the Intermountain West, and 86 billion
barrels in the Outer Continental Shelf. All off-limits.
If we just did ANWR, according to the CRS, the Federal Government
would see a surge in revenues, no new taxes, not even cutting spending,
$191 billion; $191 billion, according to the CRS, from just doing ANWR.
That's the smallest of all of our reserves. Think what we could do with
$191 billion. We could reduce the deficit. We could create a Manhattan
Project for research and development for renewable energies to put
fossil fuels out of business.
But, no, we're doing none of this. So this is the economic equivalent
of shooting yourself in the foot, of cutting off your nose to spite
your face. This is not an energy policy.
This is a bad budget resolution that raises taxes on the American
workers and families and businesses. The worst time we should be
raising taxes is when we are possibly in an economic recession, and the
last thing we ought to be
[[Page 9127]]
doing is raising taxes on people.
Furthermore, with high food prices, high gas prices, we shouldn't be
raising people's taxes. That's what this budget does.
So to try to make it a little bit better, let's get some of our own
oil and gas from our own country instead of being so reliant on
foreigners for it. We're giving the wrong people our money, people who
are not our friends overseas.
So pass this motion to instruct. Make this budget a little bit
better, and open up production so we can actually truly do something to
lower the price of oil and make us less dependent on foreign oil.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4040, CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
MODERNIZATION ACT
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4040) to establish consumer product
safety standards and other safety requirements for children's products
and to reauthorize and modernize the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate
amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky
Mr. WHITFIELD of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct
conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky moves that the managers on the
part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R.
4040 be instructed to insist upon the provisions contained in
the House bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell)
will be recognized for 30 minutes each.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. WHITFIELD of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
On December 19 of last year, this body spoke with a resounding voice
of approval for our Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act. The
measure passed by a unanimous vote of 407-0.
I would like to thank Chairman Dingell; Ranking Member Barton;
Chairman Rush; and my predecessor, Mr. Stearns, for the great job that
they did in getting this bill through the House.
H.R. 4040 is a bipartisan product. We worked for 4 months and in the
end came up with a stringent but reasoned approach to strengthen the
Consumer Product Safety Commission and to vastly improve the safety of
our children's products. The result was a bill that creates the
toughest lead standard in the world and imposes mandatory safety
standards on products for young children. To ensure such standards are
met, we require third-party testing and certification of children's
products and we nearly double the Consumer Product Safety Commission
budget over 4 years to ensure both the new safety standards and the
testing and certification requirements are met.
All the new standards and increased enforcement in the world will not
help parents unless they also know about dangerous products. We
therefore require improved public notice of recalls as well as tracking
labels on all children's products so parents can identify recalled toys
when they hear about them. We also loosened restrictions to allow the
Consumer Product Safety Commission to release critical product safety
information to the public when people face an imminent health and
safety standard.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 4040. I know that this is a work
product that will maximize our opportunity to protect children from
dangerous toys and products, and I urge and hope that the House
managers will stand by the provisions which passed this Chamber
unanimously only 5 months ago and insist upon the measures of H.R.
4040, as passed by the House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
General Leave
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on the motion to instruct under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of the
thoroughly bipartisan legislation underlying this motion. I begin with
a commendation to my good friend from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and to
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including Mr. Barton, the
ranking minority member, and the other members of the subcommittee and
full committee who have worked so hard on this legislation on both
sides of the aisle.
I would observe that this is a thoroughly bipartisan piece of
legislation. It passed out of the committee 51-0, and it passed the
House 407-0. It is one of the most important consumer protection bills
to come before this House in this Congress. It is crucially important
for us to have such legislation signed into law this year. And I want
to point out that without it, people will remain at risk from dangerous
products and from an important Federal regulator who will remain both
underfunded and incapable of acting properly to take care of consumers'
legitimate concerns with regard to the safety of all manner of products
from toys from the very beginning of life right through the time that
we enter the graveyard.
On December 19, 2007, the House passed this legislation then without
a dissenting vote. It represents extraordinary work by the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and it shows how bipartisanship can function, and
it shows how an excellent staff on both sides of the aisle working
together can bring before us legislation that is in the broad overall
public interest. The Senate substituted its version of the bill on
March 6, 2008. Some elements of the Senate bill are problematic, but
others are indeed worthy of serious consideration by the conference
committee. The differences between the two bills are outweighed by
their similarities. There is no reason why the House conferees should
not return here in short order with a workable, balanced, and strong
conference report deserving the full support of the House and upon
which I intend to work closely with my good friends on the minority
side, as we have so far.
I want to remind my colleagues what the House bill does. It bans lead
beyond the most minute amount in products intended for children under 12 years
of age. It mandates premarket testing by certified laboratories for
lead and other hazards in children's products, and it sees that those
laboratories are properly qualified and able to carry out their
important responsibilities. It places requirements on manufacturers to
enhance recalls. It empowers the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
CPSC, to share information about dangerous products immediately. It
requires CPSC to provide public access to a database of serious
injuries and deaths caused by consumer products, but it does so
requiring also that the information be truthful, correct, and properly
verified. It prohibits the sale and export of recalled products. It
ensures that CPSC effectively shares information with the States. And
it bans
[[Page 9128]]
industry-sponsored travel by CPSC Commissioners and their
staff.
I want to observe that the motion is a good one. I support it. I
commend my good friend from Kentucky for his offering of it and for his
leadership in the handling of this legislation.
I again want to pay my respects and compliments to my colleagues on
the Republican side and to my colleagues on this side for the
outstanding way in which they have put together this legislation.
I urge that the House support the motion to instruct offered by my
good friend from Kentucky.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
those kind remarks.
And, Mr. Speaker, I would just reiterate I think we have a great
product. I think we have a wonderful opportunity in conference to come
out with a great product.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, on December 19, 2007, the last day of the
session before the holiday season, the House of Representatives passed
H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act. The vote was
407-0. Today, with this Motion to Instruct Conferees, we are taking yet
another step towards fulfilling our pledge to the American people to
protect their children from dangerous products and overhaul the
Consumer Product Safety Commission. I am confident that in the coming
weeks, we can resolve all of the differences between the House and
Senate versions of their respective bills and send a strong piece of
legislation to the President that he will sign into law.
We have much to be proud of in the House version of consumer product
safety reform legislation. H.R. 4040 was introduced by Chairman
Dingell, Ranking Member Barton, Ranking Member Stearns, and me. This
historic bill, of which I am the lead sponsor, authorizes desperately
needed resources to the Commission and dramatically rewrites the
Consumer Product Safety Act, as well as the Federal Hazardous
Substances Act, both of which are administered by the CPSC. After
decades of neglect, the House bill restores the CPSC to its rightful
place of prominence and gives it the necessary tools to grapple with
the global marketplace and protect American consumers, particularly
children, from dangerous and defective products.
The House bill is the culmination of a deliberative, bipartisan
process that entailed countless meetings with consumer groups,
industry, and staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. In the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, we held five
hearings before our subcommittee markup. The full-committee reported
H.R. 4040 as amended with a vote of 51-0. As Chairman of the
Subcommittee, I am extremely proud of our collective efforts during
this process.
H.R. 4040 has two titles. Title I specifically addresses children's
products by establishing the strictest lead standard in the world for
children's products and requiring certification and testing. Title II
overhauls the CPSC itself, giving the beleaguered agency much needed
resources and strengthening its underlying organic statutes. At both
the Subcommittee and Full Committee mark-ups, the bill underwent
significant changes: We strengthened the lead standard, raised the age
requirement for mandatory testing to 12, required CPSC to appropriately
tailor their corrective action plans to fit consumer needs, granted
emergency recall authority to CPSC, bestowed enforcement authority to
state Attorneys General, banned corporate-sponsored travel for
Commission employees, and preserved state common law rights of action.
All of these excellent changes were made at the behest of members of
the Energy and Commerce Committee who offered their valuable input on
how to make the underlying bill better. The House bill is much stronger
than the Senate bill in numerous ways, and it is my hope that our
friends on the other side of the Capitol will agree to adopt those
provisions in the final version that becomes law. Of course, likewise,
the Senate bill has provisions absent in the House bill that are worthy
of consideration and adoption. Indeed, the final product of a good
conference should reflect the very best work of both bodies of
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot emphasize enough that ours is a bipartisan bill
that, from the very beginning, we drafted in consultation with
Democratic and Republican members, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, consumer groups, and industry. I want to sincerely thank
the distinguished Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my
dear friend, John Dingell, for his unparalleled leadership. This bill
simply would not be possible without his guidance. Of course, I also
want to thank my friends, the distinguished Ranking Member of the
Committee, Joe Barton, and the former Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, Cliff Stearns, for their leadership and unwavering
cooperation.
I hope H.R. 4040 returns to the floor in a few weeks in the form of a
conference report that the House can pass in unanimous fashion, just as
we did on the last day of session last year. If we continue our
deliberative approach of bipartisan cooperation, I am confident that we
can do so and will eventually send to the President's desk a bill that
will become law. I am confident that all of us will be able to go home
to our constituents and tell them that we have done our job to protect
American consumers and their families from dangerous and defective
products.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Motion to Instruct
Conferees.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, as a physician, parent, and policy maker, I
understand that we need to work together to protect our children. I'm
proud to say we have done that. The House crafted and passed a
comprehensive, commonsense bill that boosts CPSC funding and personnel,
bans lead in children's products, requires third-party product testing,
and increases penalties for those who break the law.
I went to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission labs. I saw
first hand the need for more resources.
I went to the International Toy Fair in New York City. I saw first
hand the increasing number of toys coming into this country, as well as
the measures that industry is taking to keep toys safe.
Our bill takes into account the needs the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, the needs of consumers, the needs of the industry, but most
importantly, the need to keep our children safe.
The House was able to put politics aside to keep children safe. While
also providing more resources in a pragmatic, bipartisan approach.
This Motion to Instruct recognizes these efforts and will help this
important bill to be enacted into law.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first state that it was a
pleasure, in my former capacity as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, to work with my good friend
from Illinois, Chairman Rush, in crafting this important legislation.
H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act, will
greatly enhance the ability of the CPSC to secure the proper funding
and sufficient number of employees to ensure that the products we
import from abroad and manufacture here at home will not harm those who
purchase them.
Millions of Americans are concerned with the safety of toys and other
children's products due to lead contamination found in millions of toys
imported from China. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
for coming together and taking action to safeguard consumers from lead
exposure, and to provide the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
with the tools and funding it needs to safeguard the public.
The House on December 19, 2007, overwhelmingly approved H.R. 4040, a
bill that will change current law and add more stringent lead paint and
lead content standards, making them the toughest in the world. It also
requires testing of children's products in accredited labs, and
tracking labels on all children's products.
Furthermore, the bill authorizes increased funding for the CPSC to
hire more personnel, creation of a new state-of-the-art laboratory, and
the institution of an expedited release of information on health safety
risks to the public. All of which will make the CPSC more effective.
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce worked tirelessly to
produce this bipartisan legislation and I now ask my colleagues to vote
``Yes'' on this Motion to Instruct conferees and support this
bipartisan House passed legislation and call for this bill to remain
unchanged through the conference negotiations with the Senate.
Mr. WHITFIELD of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
[[Page 9129]]
Mr. WHITFIELD. 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, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4040 will be
followed by 5-minute votes on the Ryan motion to instruct conferees on
S. Con. Res. 70; and the motion to suspend the rules and adopt House
Resolution 789, as amended.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 405,
nays 0, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 320]
YEAS--405
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
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
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
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
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--28
Bilbray
Boehner
Bono Mack
Braley (IA)
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
DeGette
Diaz-Balart, L.
Emanuel
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gordon
Hall (NY)
Hirono
Issa
Lewis (KY)
Mack
Miller, George
Myrick
Paul
Ross
Rush
Schmidt
Shimkus
Westmoreland
Wynn
{time} 1907
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 320, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the
following conferees on H.R. 4040: Messrs. Dingell, Waxman, Rush, Ms.
DeGette, Ms. Schakowsky, Messrs. Barton of Texas, Whitfield of
Kentucky, and Stearns.
There was no objection.
____________________
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON S. CON. RES. 70, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to instruct on S. Con. Res. 70 offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk will redesignate the motion.
The Clerk redesignated the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 185,
nays 229, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 321]
YEAS--185
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cazayoux
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Ortiz
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Scalise
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
[[Page 9130]]
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--229
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gillibrand
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Bilbray
Bono Mack
Braley (IA)
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
DeGette
Gerlach
Gordon
Hirono
Lewis (KY)
Mack
Myrick
Paul
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Schmidt
Shimkus
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes are remaining
in this vote.
{time} 1916
Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to instruct was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
personal explanation
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 320 and 321, had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on No. 320 and ``nay'' on No. 321.
personal explanation
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 320 and 321, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on
No. 320 and ``nay'' on No. 321.
Appointment of Conferees
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the
following conferees on Senate Concurrent Resolution 70: Mr. Spratt, Ms.
DeLauro, Messrs. Edwards, Ryan of Wisconsin, and Barrett of South
Carolina.
There was no objection.
____________________
HONORING PUBLIC CHILD WELFARE AGENCIES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 789, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 789, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 414,
noes 0, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 322]
AYES--414
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
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)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
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
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
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
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
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
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
[[Page 9131]]
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
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 (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--19
Becerra
Berman
Bono Mack
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Gerlach
Gordon
Hooley
Lewis (KY)
Mack
Myrick
Paul
Rush
Schmidt
Shimkus
Wynn
{time} 1924
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO
H.R. 2642, SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
Ms. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 110-636) on the resolution (H. Res. 1197) providing
for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2642)
making appropriations for military construction, the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, which was referred to the
House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
will postpone further proceedings today on the motion 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.
Any record vote on the postponed question will be taken tomorrow.
____________________
NATIONAL WOMEN'S HEALTH WEEK
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 331) supporting the goals and
ideals of National Women's Health Week, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 331
Whereas women of all backgrounds have the power to greatly
reduce their risk of common diseases through preventative
measures, such as engaging in regular physical activity,
eating a nutritious diet, and visiting a healthcare provider
to receive regular check-ups and preventative screenings;
Whereas significant disparities exist in the prevalence of
disease among women of different backgrounds, including women
with disabilities, African-American women, Asian/Pacific
Islander women, Latinas, and American Indian/Alaskan Native
women;
Whereas healthy habits should begin at a young age;
Whereas preventative care saves Federal dollars designated
for health care;
Whereas it is imperative to educate women and girls about
key female health issues;
Whereas it is recognized that offices of women's health
within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Food
and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the Health Resources and Services Administration,
the National Institutes of Health, and the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality are vital in providing
critical services that support women's health research,
education, and other necessary services that benefit women of
all ages, races, and ethnicities;
Whereas the annual National Women's Health Week begins on
Mother's Day and celebrates the efforts of national and
community organizations working with partners and volunteers
to improve awareness of key women's health issues; and
Whereas in 2008, the week of May 11 through May 17 is
designated National Women's Health Week: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress--
(1) recognizes the importance of preventing diseases that
commonly affect women;
(2) supports the goals and ideals of National Women's
Health Week;
(3) calls on the people of the United States to use
National Women's Health Week as an opportunity to learn about
the health issues women face;
(4) calls on the women of the United States to observe
National Women's Check-Up Day by receiving preventative
screenings from their health care providers; and
(5) recognizes the importance of federally funded programs
that provide research and collect data on common diseases in
women.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim
Murphy) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Mrs. CAPPS. 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 resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution
331. National Women's Health Week is celebrated annually during the
week following Mother's Day. The purpose of this week is twofold.
First, we can use it to raise awareness about the health risks all
women face, especially the risks that are unique to women. We use it to
learn that, for example, heart disease is the number one killer of
women, and half a million women die every year in childbirth.
But the second purpose is so we can take proactive measures to
improve women's health. We can use this opportunity to remind our
sisters, our mothers, our daughters and our friends to get annual
checkups and screenings that are recommended for them at their age. And
we can use this opportunity to adopt healthier lifestyles that are
essential to preventing chronic disease.
As co-chair of the Women's Caucus, I am very proud of several bills
that have been introduced and/or passed out during this Congress to
address women's health issues.
Last year, we reauthorized the National Breast and Cervical Cancer
Early Detection Program to provide low-income women with access to
these essential screenings.
We also passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. And
nearly every woman in the House is cosponsor of the Heart for Women
Act, H.R. 1014, as well as H. Res. 1022 regarding maternal health.
But we are also fortunate to have a few good men, actually more than
a few good men working with us, such as the ranking member on this
bill, and Maurice Hinchey who has taken the lead by introducing this
resolution for a few years now, along with Mary Bono Mack.
{time} 1930
I urge my colleagues to support the resolution in the House today,
and also to have a conversation with the women in their lives about
what steps they can take to improve their health.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I also thank the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for her thoughts and input on
this bill, which I'm pleased to be a cosponsor today.
[[Page 9132]]
Appropriately, National Women's Health Week began this Monday, May
12, the day after Mother's Day, and this past Monday was National
Women's Checkup Day. To this end, we encourage all women to discuss
with their doctor the importance of regular checkups, self exams.
We also should note that the government has a Web site on this; it's
www.womenshealth.gov/whw. There they recommend several tests that women
should get on a regular basis.
Also like to mention, as we're focusing on women's health, as my
colleague, my friend from California stated, this is also of interest
and importance to men. Whether you're fathers or spouses or relatives,
it's important to also be supportive of women's health and be
supportive of exams they may need to have.
As we focus on this, I want to mention a few other conditions that
impact women and the importance of Federal research funding.
Fibromyalgia, for example, is a chronic pain illness characterized by
widespread musculoskeletal aches, pains and stiffness, soft tissue
tenderness, general fatigue and sleep disturbances.
Depression is another very important condition to highlight. Women,
during and after pregnancy, for example, are at much greater risk to
develop depression, and folks who have a chronic illness are at risk to
develop depression.
Oftentimes, we neglect these important symptoms and aspects of health
care when meeting with a physician. It is very important to review any
concerns that anyone has, that women have when they have their annual
exams, such as sleep problems, changes in appetite, mood changes,
persistent sadness and other things. These are treatable conditions and
not ones to shun in bringing up and discussing openly and honestly with
their physician.
We have other things to comment on this, but at this point I will
reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes at this
time to the gentleman from New York, Maurice Hinchey.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, as the initiator of this resolution, I
would first like to take a moment to thank Chairman Dingell for
supporting the resolution and for bringing, being instrumental, rather,
in bringing it to the floor today.
I would also like to thank Speaker Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer for their
determination in bringing this measure to the floor during National
Women's Health Week, despite the very crowded legislative schedule.
I would also like to thank Chairman Pallone and all of the fine
members of the Health Subcommittee and their resolve in getting this
through the committee and to the floor.
Finally, I'd like to thank my good friends, Congresswoman Lois Capps
and Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack for taking the lead with me on this
resolution for the third time in a row.
This resolution has the bipartisan sponsorship of 114 Members of this
House. Also, the National Council of Women's Organizations fully
endorsed this bill on behalf of their 230 member organizations who
represent 11 million women across our country.
National Women's Health Week begins annually on Mother's Day. This
year marks the 9th Annual National Women's Health Week.
National Women's Health Week is a week celebrated across America.
During this week, families, communities, businesses, government, health
organizations and other groups work together to help educate women
about steps that they could take to improve their physical and mental
health, and to prevent various disease.
This week is also used as an opportunity to educate our population
about important health issues that women face.
This resolution recognizes the importance of several things,
including preventing diseases that commonly affect women; federally
funded programs that provide research and collect data on common
diseases in women, and it also calls on women to observe National
Women's Checkup Day by receiving preventive screenings.
It is vitally important that women have knowledge about the health
risks that confront them, and that they know they can greatly reduce
those risks through preventive measures such as a healthy lifestyle and
regular medical screening.
Healthy habits should begin at a young age. It is imperative that we
take the time to educate young girls on the benefits of exercise and
eating right. If these habits start at a young age, it is more likely
that they will continue through their life.
It is important and essential we do everything we can to prevent
disease. In this spirit, I encourage women to use this week to focus on
the necessary checkups and preventive screenings from their health care
providers so that they can live long, healthy and productive lives.
I urge full support and passage of this very important measure on
behalf of the women of our country.
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I now yield as much time
as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn),
a leader and advocate on women's health issues.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Tim Murphy) for the leadership that he brings to our Health
Subcommittee.
I also want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for
her attentiveness to women's health issues. She is an effective
advocate.
And to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) for his leadership
on the issue, and for honoring us, all women, with the resolution and
bringing the resolution forward to the body as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, as has been discussed, this is House Concurrent
Resolution 331, and I do join my colleagues in encouraging all of us,
not only to support the resolution, but to be effective spokespeople
for what the resolution means; that we move forward, actively, to
encourage women to gather the information that they need, because
indeed, one of the purposes is to encourage women to seek information,
to become health conscious and as the gentleman from New York said, to
develop those healthy habits.
And it is not only adult women that we are speaking to, but it is to
young girls also as they look at diet, as they look at exercise, as
they gather information about how to best take care of themselves. And
we do encourage them to seek that information, to get regular checkups,
to become knowledgeable of the preventive screenings that will help
them to stay healthy and to enjoy a better quality of life.
One thing that we also do is encourage women to have that
relationship with their primary care physician, somebody that they can
go to to gather the information about how to become knowledgeable on
taking care of their bodies.
We've talked a little bit about some of the diseases that affect
women, fibromyalgia, depression and, of course, postpartum depression,
which concerns us all with the young women and those in the child-
bearing years.
Heart disease also and some of the screenings that are important for
that. And as the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, there is the website
where individuals can access this information.
But we do stand together to promote prevention and awareness for
disease management so that the women of this Nation are certainly
taking better care of themselves, and are knowledgeable on the diseases
that could impair their quality of life and their productivity.
Again, I join my colleagues and thank them for the leadership on
Resolution 331. And I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak on
the importance of this, and again, encourage all Members, not only to
support it, but to actually be certain that we disseminate this
information to our constituents.
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Seeing as we have no more speakers,
we're willing to close at this point and again draw attention and thank
Mr. Hinchey for his support on this resolution. I ask all Members to be
supportive of it.
[[Page 9133]]
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. I want to thank again the authors of this resolution, Mr.
Hinchey, who is here, and Mary Bono Mack, who is also the other
coauthor; and to thank the speakers on behalf of this resolution. And
again, to remind us all the importance of Women's Health Week, setting
aside the time to call attention to the importance of women taking care
of their own health and providing the resources so they can do this,
because it's women's health at stake, but also, often since the woman
is the primary instigator within the family, and often the community as
well, of the health of every member, that this serves a purpose that is
very important to the health of our Nation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murphy of Connecticut). The question is
on the motion offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps)
that the House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent
resolution, H. Con. Res. 331.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
(Mr. HARE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 60th anniversary
of the modern State of Israel. Since its founding in 1948, Israel has
flourished as the only true democracy in the Middle East, and
established itself as America's greatest ally in the region.
Mr. Speaker, last August I had the pleasure of visiting Israel with
several of my colleagues, where I met with top officials and I toured
the country. While I have many fond memories of my trip, I was
particularly moved by the people's steadfast devotion to their
homeland.
In the town of Sderot, a constant target of rocket attacks from
neighboring Gaza, I met a woman who simply said to me, ``We can't move
from here. This is our home.'' Her resilience and perseverance is
indicative of the spirit of the Israeli people.
Amid constant threat from surrounding countries and terrorist groups,
it is critical that the United States stand in solidarity with Israel
as she fights to protect her people.
Mr. Speaker, my experience in Israel is one that I will never forget,
and I look forward to the day when Israel can live in peace with its
neighbors.
____________________
COMMEMORATING THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
(Mr. DENT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 60th
anniversary of the State of Israel, like my colleague just before me.
The State of Israel has held out the promise of hope for many who
have endured centuries of oppression. It was established by those who
sought peace, but has had to endure perpetual conflict.
From the date of its inception, Israel's neighbors declared war upon
the country and attempted to destroy it. Two major wars erupted after
the initial conflict of 1948, and even today it must suffer through
terrorist attacks orchestrated by those who continue to deny its right
to exist.
And yet Israel endures and it flourishes. It has made its part of the
desert bloom. It is a model of democracy that the rest of that region
would do well to emulate, and it has been a great partner to us in the
war on terror, cooperating with us on homeland security matters so that
we can be better prepared to counter the kinds of attacks that the
Israelis have had to endure for three generations.
I've had the privilege of visiting Israel on two separate occasions,
experiences that I will never forget.
And to Israel I say, ``Le Chaim.''
____________________
RECOGNIZING ISRAEL'S 60TH ANNIVERSARY
(Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I too rise to recognize the 60th
anniversary of the independence of the State of Israel, and to reaffirm
the steadfast friendship between our two strong democratic nations.
Sixty years ago today, on May 14, 1948, the State of Israel declared
sovereignty and independence as a homeland for the Jewish people. With
little resources and seemingly insurmountable obstacles, Israel has
become a thriving and prosperous democracy, and has made worldwide
contributions in technology, medicine, agriculture and environmental
innovation.
When we speak about Israel, too often we focus on Israel's troubles
and not on her beauty and her spirit. But what I want to focus on today
is her resolve. Since independence, Israel has continually overcome
every conceivable roadblock. She has beaten back hostile neighbors
during war, and now endures terrible emotional and economic hardship
from terrorist cowards who perpetrate hideous violence against innocent
victims.
As a critical partner in the fight against terror, and as the only
democracy in the region, Israel's strength and security is paramount.
Therefore, I encourage this House to continue to pass bipartisan bills
in support of Israel and her ability to protect herself from
antagonistic neighbors.
The blossoming of a nation that grew from desert sand into a thriving
example of democracy, economic progress and cultural diversity is a
magnificent achievement for this strong and vibrant country.
I congratulate Israel on all she has achieved in just 60 years, and I
look forward to a bright future for this extraordinary nation.
____________________
{time} 1945
HALLIE ELIZABETH POE--NEW TEXAN
(Mr. POE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, as the sun came up this morning bringing a new
spring day in America, a new Texan was born at 8:27 a.m. and took her
first breath of life. Hallie Elizabeth Poe, a 7-pound, 19\1/2\-inch
girl was born in The Woodlands, Texas.
Hallie's parents, Kurt and Suzy, are happy with boastful pride, but
they can't be prouder than I am because I'm the grandfather!
The miracle of birth is the Good Lord's gift to the people of the
world and renews a spirt of hope and freshness. A baby girl is one of
the most amazing miracles of life, one of the great joys of life, and
one of the reasons why there is a little extra sunshine, laughter, and
happiness in life.
Little girls are special. They bring a delight and innocence into the
world of ours. I know that Hallie will have the forcefulness of
Margaret Thatcher and the southern grace of Lady Bird Johnson.
Mr. Speaker, we pause for this moment in time for this most happy of
all events, the birth of a new baby girl.
So there's a new yellow rose in Texas tonight that will obviously
bring more warmth and beauty to our world. After all, Mr. Speaker,
there is nothing like a little girl.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murphy of Connecticut). 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.
____________________
MERIDIA INITIATIVE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
[[Page 9134]]
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, as a former prosecutor and long-time judge in
Texas, I'm concerned about, of course, drugs and corruption, especially
on the international border between the United States and Mexico. I
have great sympathy and compassion for the Mexicans living just south
of the border, especially those that have had the problem of dealing
with the drug cartels. It's an epidemic that occurs on our southern
border with Mexico.
According to the DEA, 500 people were murdered in Nuevo Laredo
recently. Most of those cases were never solved, and many of those
individuals were peace officers. There have been 400 kidnappings in
Nuevo Laredo; 41 of them were Americans, and none of them, not one of
those cases, have ever been solved. And we understand now that behind
most of those crimes of violence of murder and kidnappings are the drug
cartels. What you might be surprised, Mr. Speaker, to find out is that
many of those people involved in the drug cartels are former
individuals in the Mexican military that were trained in the United
States.
The Department of Homeland Security has reported that in the last 10
years also, there have been 250 documented cases of incursions by
suspected Mexican military units into the United States. Most of them
in Texas, California, and Arizona. Recently, I have been in a place
called Neely Pass in Hudspeth County where the Mexican military was
photographed coming into the United States.
In order to gain control of access corridors into the United States,
drug cartels are hiring hit men from the elite Mexican military force,
and this group is known as the Zetas. The Zetas are military deserters
that are trained in the United States at the School of the Americas in
Fort Benning, Georgia, as an elite force of anti-drug commandos. But
unfortunately, after they were trained by Americans, they went over to
the dark side. They were sent by the Mexican government to the U.S.-
Mexico border to combat drug trafficking, but they switched sides,
deserted the Mexican military, and worked for the drug cartels.
Officials suspect that there are more than 200 Zetas, including former
Mexican police officers.
And the problem isn't just at the border, either. The Zetas operate
in the United States. Authorities have believed that the drug cartels
and the Zetas are responsible for murders in the United States.
And there's a second group. The second group is called the Kaibiles.
The Kaibiles were a special operations force in the Guatemalan
military. Like the Zetas, many of them received training in the United
States in counter-insurgency operations. And like the Zetas, many of
them deserted the special forces and began to help the drug cartels.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a photograph taken by sheriff's deputies on
the Texas-Mexico border, and this is a group of the Kaibiles. You
notice they are all in uniform; they all have hoods on them. You notice
the first person in the front is carrying an AK-47, and they're
bringing cocaine into the United States in backpacks, and this is what
has happened to these individuals that were trained in the United
States and switched sides.
Now, the reason I bring all of this up, Mr. Speaker, is there is an
initiative called the Meridia Initiative where the United States
government is proposing to send $1.5 billion in training and equipment
south of the American border into Mexico to help combat drug
trafficking. While this may sound well and good, unfortunately, the
truth of the matter is that we cannot trust the local officials on the
Mexican side of the border because of the high rate of corruption
because of these individuals that continue to switch sides. And it
would be very unfortunate indeed if we sent equipment to the northern
portion of Mexico, south of the American border, turned over this
military equipment to the Mexican military to have it used against us
as shown in this photograph.
It would be better money spent in training to send this $1.5 billion
to the southern border to the second front where there is a war going
on but keep it on the American side. Let the local officials, the State
officials, let the sheriffs along the border use this equipment. Many
of them don't even have enough equipment. As one of them has told me,
they're outmanned and they're outgunned by the drug cartels.
So keep that equipment, keep that training on the American side of
the border. Support the American cause before we turn this equipment
and turn this training capability to the other side. And it's a sad
fact of life that we can't trust sending money, equipment, and training
south of the United States border because of the corruption that occurs
in northern Mexico.
So I would hope that Congress, when this initiative comes up, that we
have lively debate about this $1.5 billion; and before we send it all
south of the border, that we rethink that and maybe spend part of that
money, half of that money or most of that money, on the American side
and let the border sheriffs of Brownsville, Texas, to San Diego use
that equipment to fight the drug cartels, fight the crime on the
American side of the border. I think that would be better money spent,
American taxpayer money spent.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
NORMALCY IS NOT RETURNING TO IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the American people have begun to receive
their recovery rebate checks. Families will use this assistance to deal
with the rising cost of food, of gas, and for just hard times in
general. So Congress did the right thing when we wrote those checks.
But if we want to give our economy another boost, there is one check
that we should not write, and that's the check we will soon be asked to
write for the continued occupation of Iraq.
This occupation has already cost taxpayers over $1 trillion in direct
and indirect costs. And Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Peace Prize winner,
has calculated that the cost could soar, could, probably will soar to
$3 trillion or more. Think what that money could do for our economy if
we invested it wisely in job training, education, health care, child
care, green technology, and so many other critically important domestic
needs.
Some believe that the occupation of Iraq is more important than all
of these other needs combined. They believe that the billions of
dollars we're spending in Iraq are making things better. The President
actually told us recently that normalcy is returning back to Iraq. But
Iraq cannot be returning to normalcy when the fighting and dying
continues without any letup.
Over 3,000 Iraqi civilians and 170 of our brave troops have been
killed so far this year: 3,000; 170. Over 1,100 of our troops have been
wounded. Mr. Speaker, does that sound like normalcy to anyone? It
doesn't to me. I can't say it, actually.
Iraq cannot be returning to normalcy when over 5 million of its
citizens remain refugees. That number equals more than 20 percent of
the entire Iraqi population at the beginning of our invasion in the
year 2003.
Iraq cannot be returning to normalcy when tens of thousands of armed
military contractors roam its streets terrifying the people and
accountable to no one.
Iraq can't be returning to normalcy when we're planning for a 50-year
foreign occupation, and some voices, in fact, are even calling for a
100-year occupation.
And Iraq cannot be returning to normalcy when fear and destruction
continue to grip its people. The International Herald Tribune described
the Iraqi people's nightmare in an article published on April 23. It
said, ``A simple decision to run an errand or choose an alternate route
to work takes on life-altering consequences as the car bombs, stray
bullets, rockets, and mortars claim those who merely happen by.''
So, Mr. Speaker, as the war carries into its 6th year, nearly every
family is touched by the death of a member of a close friend.
[[Page 9135]]
Iraq can only become normal again when it gets its sovereignty back.
It can only become normal when it has the chance to rebuild and heal in
peace, and that can only happen when we responsibly redeploy our troops
and then lead a regional and international effort to bring social,
economic, and political reconciliation to that devastated country.
So when we review supplemental funding like we will tomorrow, let's
insist on a bill that fully funds the safe withdrawal of our troops but
does not include one more cent for an occupation that isn't making us
or the Iraqi people any safer.
Mr. Speaker, recovery rebate checks are great, but blank checks for
the occupation of Iraq must stop.
____________________
AMERICAN RELIGIOUS HERITAGE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the long American legacy
of religious freedom and religious expression that we have inherited as
a result of the wise foresight of our Nation's founders.
Throughout our history, we've been a Nation eager to rally to the cry
of the motto, ``In God We Trust,'' in times of peace and prosperity or
in war and upheaval. This phrase, etched not only on our coins and here
in this Chamber but also on our hearts, has captured a truly American
sentiment that our great historic experiment in democracy was founded
on, and today, thrives in a robust sense of religious freedom.
Religious freedoms were specifically included in our Constitution as
a reflection of the colonial experience of religious tolerance and free
expression. Yet as religions' detractors would have it, the
Constitution's enumeration of American religious freedoms is a paltry
clause intended to merely protect us from the forced religion of a
repressed central government.
This is a far cry from our Founders' full intentions. America's
Founders were indeed careful to ensure that the government did not
establish an official religion, but while they were at it, they crafted
protection that would ensure our natural religious life would not
falter under the machinations of those who would infringe on citizens'
religious expression.
The first amendment is clear: Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
This amendment does not establish the freedom from religion. Rather, it
grants every American freedom of religion.
{time} 2000
It is upon this freedom that our land was founded, and it is this
freedom that undergirds our strength and national character today.
As founding father John Adams wrote in 1776 on the eve of our
independence, ``Statesmen . . . may plan and speculate for Liberty, but
it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles,
upon which Freedom can securely stand end.''
By allowing for and encouraging the free exercise of religion, the
Constitution set the stage for a vigorous national religious life. Most
Americans are nothing if not a people of religion, committed to lives
of quiet reverence to God, the practice of prayer and the exercise of
their religion.
Our culture of religious life informs the way we raise families,
conduct business and serve our neighbors. Throughout the centuries this
culture also illuminated those who governed and served to temper our
laws and governmental practices with the timely wisdom of Judeo-
Christian ethics.
George Washington recognized that America would succeed if she
adhered to the long legacy of religious values informing our public
life and policy. In his first inaugural address, he said that ``the
foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and
immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free
government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the
affections of its citizens, and command the respect of the world.''
George Washington knew what we know today. A healthy culture of free
religious expression keeps our Nation on the right track and our
government's policies rooted in the values that we hold dear: life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. My continual prayer for America
is that we never forsake the Judeo-Christian values that ensure these
freedoms remain a centerpiece of our great Nation.
____________________
IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, recently I met with veterans in New Jersey,
some of whom had served in the Second World War, and earlier in the day
that I met with them, I had returned from a fact-finding trip to Iraq
with Representative Thompson of California, a colleague on the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
I told these veterans that they would not recognize this war in Iraq.
From a technological standpoint, the kind of battlefield sensors and
intelligence analysis capabilities available to our troops in Iraq are
so far beyond anything that was fielded by the military in the Second
World War or, in fact, even in more recent conflicts. That's the good
news.
The other thing that they would not recognize, the not-so-good news,
is that unlike say the Second World War, the United States cannot
control the outcome in Iraq or achieve success because we do not know
who the enemy is and what constitutes success.
While part of our trip involved classified briefings in which we
examined how the intelligence community is supporting our troops, we
also had the opportunity to meet at length with General David Petraeus
and Ambassador Crocker to discuss the situation on the ground,
including the status of the political reconciliation among Iraq's
warring factions. The two gave a positive report and spoke of a great
deal of progress.
Two outstanding patriots, a good general, a good diplomat, but the
presentation that America is making progress toward a successful
outcome in Iraq makes sense only if we continually redefine what we
mean by success. And for over 5 years, we've been redefining both our
rationale for invading Iraq and how we propose to measure success.
First, it was to go after those responsible for 9/11. Then it was to
remove Saddam Hussein from power and track down his WMDs. And then it
was to bring stability to the region. And then it was to bring free
elections and bring all the warring factions together in a model of
democracy for the Middle East. Then it was to create a road to peace in
Israel through Iraq. And then it was to give the Iraqis more time to
organize their government. Now, it seems to be to reduce the number of
members of al Qaeda in Iraq, the AQI, which was, of course, zero before
it all started.
These repeated rationalizations and redefinitions serve no one's
interests, particularly the interests of our men and women of our Armed
Forces who we've sent in harm's way in Iraq.
In Baghdad, I met with active duty soldiers, including some from New
Jersey. American troops are performing superbly in Iraq under difficult
conditions. As I told them, they, and the
New Jersey National Guard members who will be deploying later this
year, deserve not just our gratitude, but all the support they need to
do their job, the wherewithal they need to do their job, and I would
say just as much support when they return home as veterans.
Of course, we want our soldiers to succeed. We want the Iraqis to be
peaceful and prosperous. We want terrorists and other enemies of the
United States to be defanged and defeated. But for that to happen, it
must be in Iraq, at least the Iraqis, the Iraqi political factions who
must take the lead in ending their civil war.
It's impossible to hide the fact that the limited security gains
achieved since last fall have not been matched
[[Page 9136]]
by political reconciliation on the part of the Iraqis.
Unfortunately, Iraq's central government continues to lack legitimacy
in the eyes of its people, as the recent combat in Basra and Baghdad
have clearly shown. It is clear that the Iraqi government is, so far
anyway, unwilling or unable to take the steps necessary to reach a
political settlement that will end the violence.
One of the reasons I voted against the war resolution to go into Iraq
in the first place was that Iraq was not a threat to the United States
in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and that attacking Iraq would unleash
forces we could not control. I was not alone in making those arguments,
which tragically have been validated by events.
My latest trip to Iraq has, sadly, reinforced my belief that success
is being redefined only once again, and what we need to do is to take
decisive action to end our combat involvement in Iraq and refocus our
efforts on destroying al Qaeda and eliminating the conditions that
breed international terrorism and refocusing our resources on pressing
domestic and international needs.
____________________
FARM BILL
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Richardson). Under a previous order of
the House, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, today, the House of
Representatives debated the conference report on what we in Kansas call
the farm bill. Here in Washington, it's now called the Food,
Conservation, Energy Security Act, and I note that the word ``farm'' is
now missing from the farm bill.
As I indicate to Kansans, there probably is no more important piece
of legislation that this Congress will consider than the 2008 farm bill
from a Kansas perspective. Certainly, not every Kansan is a farmer, not
every Kansan is a rancher, but agriculture is the backbone of the
Kansas economy, and policies that we determine here today in the House
of Representatives and tonight later in the Senate affect the Kansas
economy and a way of life that we have revered in our State for
generations.
Agriculture is not only a business. It's not only a way of earning a
living. In fact, it's a very difficult way of earning a living. It is
the opportunity that we have in our State for sons and daughters to
work side-by-side with moms and dads. It's the opportunity for us to
pass on values from one generation to the next.
And today, Madam Speaker, I worry that the legislation that we will
soon be sending to the President is inadequate to meet the needs of
Kansas producers and American agriculture.
In the 2002 farm bill, we passed a security net, a safety net for our
farmers, and it's a three-pronged approach to making certain that our
farmers are secure and have an opportunity to survive in difficult
times, whether those times are difficult because of low commodity
prices or difficult because the weather does not cooperate.
And today, Madam Speaker, we chose to reduce that security, that
safety net that provides Kansans a future.
I had two criteria in trying to determine whether or not the farm
bill was something I should vote for. One: Is this farm bill better? Is
the 2007, now 2008, farm bill better than the one that was adopted by
Congress in 2002? And clearly, the answer to that is no.
And the second criteria comes from listening to farmers for the last
2 and 3 years about what a new farm bill should look like. In fact, I
listened to American producers from across the country. Since the
passage of the last farm bill, I've chaired or been the ranking
Republican, Republican leader on the subcommittee responsible for all
farm programs and participated in 15 hearings across the country. And
what I heard time and time again, especially from the folks back home
is, whatever you do, Jerry, make certain that we don't lose the direct
payment and make certain that crop insurance remains a viable option
for us to protect ourselves from risk. And unfortunately, once again,
those two criteria were not met today.
So Madam Speaker, I pledge to my colleagues in the House of
Representatives, and particularly my friends on the House Agriculture
Committee, to continue to work in a very strong and bipartisan way to
see if we can't improve the lives of farmers in Kansas and States
across the country.
I served on the conference committee that provided the report that we
have had before us today, and I offered amendments and supported
amendments that I think would make significant improvements in the 2008
farm bill. They were rejected on straight, party-line votes, and it's a
sad day for me because I've always enjoyed my work in the Agriculture
Committee because I care about farmers and ranchers, and I care about
their way of life. But never has our committee been partisan, and
again, I pledge myself to work with my colleagues to see if we can
restore the days in which we were in this together on behalf of
American agriculture.
Madam Speaker, it's my belief that if we're going to spend as much
money as we spend in this farm bill, which is a significant sum of
money, we ought to spend it in much more wise and prudent ways than
this conference report provides. We owe it to farmers across the
country, and we owe it to the taxpayers of this Nation.
____________________
FIGHTING CRIME
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, fighting crime is an issue that is important
to most Americans. That is because it is an issue that has a tremendous
impact on a community's quality of life.
I think most Members of Congress recognize this simple fact. However,
this Congress needs to take action in order to address this problem. On
our side of the aisle, we've tried to do our part. Republicans have
offered some 100 bills to help fight crime, but so far, only three have
been considered on this floor.
These legislative efforts should not be piecemeal, but should instead
be part of a grand strategy, to wit: we need to aggressively target
those individuals who are responsible for promoting criminal activity
in our society.
Our focus should not be on promoting efforts to decriminalize certain
drugs, but instead on targeting and jailing drug dealers.
Our focus should not be on protecting the rights of criminals, but
instead on protecting the rights of their child victims. More needs to
be done, for example, to combat the scourge of predators who stalk
young people over the Internet.
Finally, our focus should not only be on adult offenders, but on
youthful ones as well. Gang members, some of whom are as young as 12
and 13, and we see intergenerational gangs as well, are extorting
money, dealing drugs, and committing acts of violence. They need to be
stopped, and that is where my bill, H.R. 3157, the Anti-Gang Task Force
Act of 2007, comes into play.
H.R. 3157 will help our local law enforcement communities combat the
scourge of gang violence. It authorizes $20 million for each of fiscal
years 2008 through 2011 to establish new multijurisdictional anti-gang
task forces, bringing together State and local prosecutors with Federal
officials from the FBI, DEA, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives, DHS, and others.
Gangs are mobile, and they often cross jurisdictional lines in order
to facilitate the dealing of drugs or to avoid detection by local law
enforcement authorities. Thus, a multijurisdictional approach is
clearly necessary in order to stop the proliferation of gang violence
and gang activity.
My district encompasses a good portion of what is called the Route
222 corridor.
{time} 2015
This corridor bisects five cites--Easton, Bethlehem, Allentown,
Reading and Lancaster--located in four southeastern Pennsylvania
counties. It is
[[Page 9137]]
uniquely situated in that it is linked directly to New
York City, approximately 80 miles away via Interstate 78 and through
other easily accessible roads, including Route 222 to Philadelphia,
which is 60 miles to the southeast.
So gang violence along the Route 222 corridor, primarily involving
drug trafficking and armed robberies, dates back more than a decade and
has been a chronic problem affecting each of the five cities within
this corridor. The roadways that have allowed commerce to thrive in the
region have also strongly benefited the gangs, who can move between the
cities with relative ease, thereby making their operations much more
difficult to detect and to track. As a result, the 222 corridor has
been plagued by gang activity.
Fortunately, we're not standing idly by and letting the gangs take
over. The Route 222 corridor is one of six sites around the country
that has received funds under the Project Safe Neighborhoods program.
This Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) initiative involves a cooperative
law enforcement effort between the counties and cities along the
corridor, and there have been some notable successes.
First, there have been successful prosecutions of members of the
Mafia El Don Gang, which has conspired to distribute more than 50
kilograms of cocaine in the Lehigh Valley. Meanwhile, two members of
the 314 and a half Gang, allegedly responsible, according to the U.S.
Attorney's Office, for approximately 15 to 20 bank robberies in the
Valley, have been indicted. In addition, the initiative is committing
extensive resources to outreach of both at-risk youth and their parents
in order to discourage young people from joining such gangs. And we
have seen intergenerational gang activity in my community.
The Congress would do well to emulate the efforts of the U.S.
Attorney's Office and the local District Attorney's offices and law
enforcement agencies that are working hard to fight the gang problem in
my area. More than talk is required if we want to curb gang activity
and end gang-related violence, we need action. That action should take
the form of legislation, legislation that targets criminals, promotes
Federal-State cooperation, and that comes from both sides of the aisle.
____________________
PORK-BARREL SPENDING
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, we come tonight to speak about the
subject of pork barrel spending at a time when hardworking, middle-
income American families are having to cut back on their spending.
They're having to cut back on their spending because their paychecks
are shrinking; they're shrinking with the high cost of energy; they're
shrinking because of the high cost of food.
Since the Democrat majority took control of the economic policies of
our Nation almost 18 months ago, gasoline has now approached $4 a
gallon. Milk is already over $4 a gallon. And all over America people
are driving to their convenience stores or driving to their grocery
stores, making a decision about gasoline and milk.
It's tough times for hardworking, struggling, middle-income families.
And yet, the Democrat majority, in their Budget Resolution, the
conference report--which, of course, is the agreement between the
Senate and the House--their budget today was passed that included a tax
increase on these very same families of $3,000 for the average family
of four to be phased in over the next 3 years, Madam Speaker. Again,
while they're struggling to send their kids to college, struggling to
make their mortgage payments, struggling to fill up their cars, this is
what's happened.
Well, what is fueling the tax increase that the Democrat majority has
imposed upon middle-income families throughout our Nation? Well,
there's a culture of spending. They presented a budget that represents
the highest amount spent in the history of America. There is a culture
of spending, and it is fueled by irresponsible pork barrel spending,
also known as ``earmarks.''
Now, when the Democrat majority was in the minority, they made a
number of promises. They said earmarks were out of control under the
Republican majority. And Madam Speaker, you know, to some extent they
were right. But this is a Republican Conference that has learned its
lesson. But commitments were made by the Democrat majority that have
not been kept.
First of all, the Speaker of the House said we're going to come and
we're going to cut earmarks in half. But instead, Madam Speaker, what
did we get? Last year, 11,610 items of pork barrel spending put into
spending bills by the Democrat majority, the second highest level ever
in American history, totaling approximately $17 billion. Now, some
people say, well, $17 billion isn't a whole lot of money. Well, Madam
Speaker, I hope I'm never in Washington so long that I think $17
billion is not a lot of money. Millions of Americans could pay their
annual gasoline bills with the money that's being spent on the pork
barrel spending in Washington, DC. That's enough money to preserve the
child tax credit, which under the Budget Resolution passed by the
Democrat majority is going to disappear. And so I think that is a lot
of money. And not only is it a lot of money, it represents waste.
And too often what we see in this pork barrel spending promulgated by
the Democrat majority is that we see a triumph of secrecy over
transparency, and we see a triumph of the special interests over the
national interests, and we see a triumph of seniority and privilege
over merit. Now, again, the Democrat majority said they were going to
do things differently. Madam Speaker, then minority leader, now Speaker
Nancy Pelosi said in USA Today that there has to be transparency. ``I
would just as soon do away with all the earmarks,'' right here, USA
Today, late 2006. And instead, if we read the spending bills, what we
find out is, out of 435 Members of Congress, she's in the top 20, top
20 of pork barrel spending.
Then, chairman of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, Rahm
Emanuel, said, ``Well, for far too long business as usual has involved
individual Members doling out favors in appropriations and other bills
through earmarks. The American people deserve to know more than who
sponsored special interest legislation. They deserve earmark reform
that puts an end to special interest earmarking and prevents the
practice of earmark abuse.''
Now, Madam Speaker, that's what they said before they became the
majority party here. But what do we see now? And don't just take my
word for it, but let's look at what just happened today. Today, as the
farm bill was passed, what do we have in there? We have, again, pork
barrel spending that apparently appears out of nowhere. We have slush
funds for ski slopes. We had the language slipped by the Democrat
majority into the farm bill that would benefit a Democrat Senator in
Vermont. It would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service to sell portions of the Green Mountain National Forest
exclusively to the Bromley Ski Resort. And the ski resort advertises,
``Bromley's grooming and snowmaking are second to none, and with our 44
trails of varied terrain, from treed glades & true New England
cruisers to sun soft expert mogul fields, everyone in your family will
be smiling all day long.'' Well, Madam Speaker, I'm not sure the
American people, who have to put up with this kind of earmark abuse, I
don't think they're smiling. Now, maybe the people who own the Bromley
Ski Resort in Vermont, they're smiling, you know, they got a nice
little deal in the agricultural bill.
Then we had a quarter of a billion dollars slipped in for the Senate
Finance Committee Chairman, Max Baucus, to help the Plum Creek Timber
Company in Montana sell a parcel of land to the environmental group
called The Nature Conservancy. Now, technically, they get to claim a
$250 million tax refund even though they're a nonprofit institution and
they don't actually pay taxes.
[[Page 9138]]
Now, the language was quite careful, Madam Speaker. It was very
careful and clever. They wrote this language, they didn't name this
particular earmark, but they wrote it in such a way that it only
applies to one parcel of land in the entire United States of America,
and that is that belonging to the Plum Creek Timber Company in Montana.
And then, Madam Speaker, we have $170 million for the salmon earmark
requested apparently by our own Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. Clearly, there
is something fishy in the farm bill.
Now, we were told again that we wouldn't have these earmarks, this
pork barrel spending that just kind of drops down from the heavens in
these conference reports. We never had a chance to vote on this in the
House, Madam Speaker, it just kind of drops down. And so for a Speaker
who is supposed to lead by example, who tells the American people that
she would just as soon do without earmarks, that she wants an open and
ethical and transparent process to slip a $170 million fishy earmark
into the farm bill, this is something the American people need to know.
Why are their taxes being raised by $3,000 per family of four over
the next 3 years? Well, part of the reason is, Madam Speaker, to pay
$170 million for the salmon earmark in the farm bill, to help subsidize
the Plum Creek Timber Company, to help the Bromley Ski Resort. So much
for cleaning up the earmark process.
You know, we were also told that there certainly wouldn't be any more
secrecy in this earmark process.
You know, the former chairman of the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee told us that. Yet, that's not the case. Let me quote
from the New York Times, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought,
on one of the bills that came to this floor last year. ``Despite
promises by Congress to end the secrecy of earmarks and other pet
projects, the House of Representatives has quietly funneled hundreds of
millions of dollars to specific hospitals and health care providers.''
``Instead of naming the hospitals, the bill describes them in cryptic
terms so that identifying a beneficiary is like solving a riddle. Most
of the provisions were added to the bill at the request of Democrat law
makers.''
``Some Republicans have complained about what they call `hospital
pork.' '' This is the New York Times reporting this. This, from a
Democrat majority who said there would be no more secrecy. And instead,
out of all the hospitals throughout the Nation that I'm sure can all
use help, somehow the special privilege and secret pork barrel process
practiced by the Democrat majority manages to somehow favor a special
privileged few and does it in a cryptic secret manner. One more reason
that hardworking, middle-income families who are trying to get that
paycheck to go a little further are instead seeing that paycheck shrink
to pay for more Democratic pork.
And, Madam Speaker, I'm very happy tonight that I am joined by one of
the great leaders of fiscal responsibility in this House, one of the
most principled Members, one of the most active Members, one of the
most courageous Members that I have met in my congressional career. And
I am proud that he is a fellow member of the conservative caucus, the
Republican Study Committee, a man I am proud to call my friend.
And at this time, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
Georgia, Dr. Price, for his comments.
{time} 2030
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my good friend from Texas for
organizing this period of time and for highlighting what Americans all
across this land are concerned about, and that is the culture of
spending that you talked about, and you mentioned these wonderful
promises that were going to be enacted with this new majority.
And there is a culture of spending that continues and persists, but
there's also a culture of hypocrisy. It's saying one thing and doing
another. It's saying one thing on the campaign trail, and then when you
come to Washington, you do something exactly the opposite. And when I
go home to the Sixth District of Georgia, that's what I hear about. I
hear people say, ``Why on Earth can't people live up to their word? Why
can't they do what they said they were going to do when they ran for
office?''
And the spending is one of the things that gets them so terribly
irritated and so terribly annoyed because they see it. My good friend
from Texas talked about selling a piece of the Green Mountains in
Vermont to a specific entity. That's using hard-earned taxpayer money
to benefit one entity. Madam Speaker, that's wrong. That's not the way
we ought to do business here.
In fact, it hasn't been the way forever. There are some wonderful
quotes about pork barrel spending, about earmarks. One from Thomas
Jefferson, who said that, in essence, if we allow the process of
earmarking, pork barrel spending, to go forward, ``it will be a scene
of eternal scramble among the Members, who can get the most money
wasted in their State; and they will always get most who are the
meanest,'' which is a phenomenal quote when you think about it, Madam
Speaker, because what we have now are individuals in this House of
Representatives who have been so successful in getting earmarks,
getting pork barrel money back to their districts that we now have
defense contractors in this Nation who are moving their headquarters to
one specific district in Pennsylvania because they believe it will
benefit them to a greater degree in getting contracts from the Federal
Government. A phenomenal thing.
Madam Speaker, this process is corrupt and it's corrupting. When I
talk to folks back home about why it's imperative that we stop the
earmarking process, something that I believe we must do, and I tell
them that it's corrupt and it's corrupting, that didn't have the
resonance until I put a face on that, a face that we have seen in this
House by so many individuals but it's most championed in a corrupt way
by a gentleman by the name of Duke Cunningham.
Duke Cunningham now sits in a Federal prison in California. He does
so because he earmarked money for a personal company, that benefited
one company, one company, and then they, in turn, benefited him
politically. And it's happened on both sides of the aisle. But it's a
process that's corrupt and it's corrupting.
Now, why do I mention Duke Cunningham by name, Madam Speaker? I do so
because when he came to Washington, he was the individual who was the
inspiration for the ``Top Gun'' movie. He was a war hero. He was an
American hero. And what happened with the process of Washington was
that the corruption and the corrupting influence of Washington spending
that is being perpetrated and continued and expanded by this majority,
that process corrupted that individual. Now, there were certainly some
personal characteristic flaws, but the process itself that remains in
place right now and, in fact, is being championed by this majority is a
corrupt process and it's corrupting.
Madam Speaker, I would suggest to all of my colleagues that this is a
process and a system that has got to end. It's got to end. The American
people want fiscal responsibility. They want to make certain that they
have financial security and peace of mind. That peace of mind will
never come when we have a process that is this sordid, that
is this offensive to the American people.
So I want to commend my good friend from Texas for his remarkable
leadership in this and so many areas in Congress, a conservative
stalwart, an individual who understands the importance of being
fiscally responsible at the Federal level and the consequences of not
being fiscally responsible, which means that middle class Americans all
across this Nation are having more of their hard-earned taxpayer money
taken out of their back pocket, out of their wallet, and out of their
purses in order to fund the reckless spending, irresponsible spending,
culture of spending, and culture of hypocrisy that this majority has
brought to Washington.
So I want to commend my good friend from Texas, and thank you so
[[Page 9139]]
very much for the opportunity and the privilege of joining you tonight. I
thank you for your leadership in this area.
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for joining us
tonight. And, again, I thank him for his leadership here in the House
of Representatives in the area of earmark reform, clearly one of the
great champions against pork barrel spending and for family spending.
Again, Madam Speaker, I think it's important for us to reflect upon
what the Democrat majority said they were going to do and what they
have actually done. One of the prominent Members of the Democrat
leadership, the gentleman from Illinois, who was, in the last election,
the chairman of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, where
his job, obviously, is to find things for the Democrats to say to get
elected. Well, one of the things that he said on behalf of the Democrat
Party was, ``For far too long, business as usual has involved
individual Members doling out favors in appropriations and other bills
through earmarks. The American people deserve to know more than who
sponsored special interest legislation. They deserve earmark reform
that puts an end to special interest earmarking.''
But yet, Madam Speaker, the system appears to be alive and well. Now
that the Democrats have become the majority party, what do we figure
out? Well, let's read from a recent column in the New York Times dated
January of this year:
``Representative John Murtha has procured eye-popping chunks of pork
for contractors that he helped put in business in Johnstown,
Pennsylvania. Every one of the 26 beneficiaries of Mr. Murtha's
earmarks in last year's defense budget made contributions to his
campaign kitty, a total of $413,250, according to the newspaper Roll
Call.'' This is the New York Times. Again, not exactly a bastion of
conservative thought.
Now, Madam Speaker, I'm not here to imply that there is anything
illegal about that activity. I'm not here to even imply that this in
any way, shape, or form breaches House ethics rules. Now, perhaps it
should. Maybe that's a debate for a different day. But you know what,
Madam Speaker? It doesn't pass the taxpayer smell test. It doesn't do
what the Democrats claimed they would do when they were in the
minority. And now that they've been elected to the majority, now that
they've controlled this institution for almost 18 months, they are not
practicing what they are preaching.
Here's another example. I quote from the newspaper Roll Call: ``A new
political action committee, BEST PAC, created by the brother of House
Intelligence Committee Chair Representative Silvestre Reyes, raised
$50,000 this spring almost entirely from staff and clients of
powerhouse lobbying shop PMA Group, and within weeks those same donors
reaped millions of dollars in earmarks from Reyes and other Members of
Congress closely affiliated with PMA . . . Most of the donations were
made on May 7, 4 days before the intelligence panel approved the 2008
intelligence authorization bill, which included earmarks for several
donors to the PAC . . . ''
Again, Madam Speaker, I don't imply that this was illegal. I don't
imply that this somehow breached House ethics rules. And I'm familiar
with the gentleman from Texas, and I believe him to be an honorable
gentleman. But far too often what the American citizen sees is he sees
his paycheck shrinking to pay for earmarks so that some Member of
Congress can preserve his paycheck. And at a time when they are
struggling to fill up their gas tanks, at a time when they are
struggling to put bread on the table, it is an outrage, it is an
outrage that this pork barrel spending continues on. And,
unfortunately, Madam Speaker, what we are seeing under the Democrat
majority is Members of Congress passing pork barrel spending, earmarks,
whether recipients get it, and I guess they're showing their gratitude,
and all of a sudden they come up with a campaign donation, and then the
campaign donation ends up inuring to the benefit of that particular
Member of Congress, and the cycle goes on and on and on. And, again, it
may be legal. It may pass the House ethics test. It does not pass the
American taxpayer smell test. And even though I've been a Member of
Congress now for almost 6 years, I haven't lost my ability to be
outraged, and this, Madam Speaker, is outrageous.
And now I'm very happy to say, Madam Speaker, that we have been
joined by a distinguished member of our leadership, the chief deputy
whip, a great leader in the earmark reform movement in the House, a man
I am also very proud to call my friend, and I would be happy to yield
now to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for
yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on the issue of the
Federal budget and what we should be doing to ensure that we are
stewards of the Federal budget just as all the families across this
country are expected to be stewards of their own family budget.
Now, Madam Speaker, as a proud Virginian, I would like to point to a
few of the origins of the earmark discussion that occurred many, many
years ago, frankly, shortly after the founding of this country. And
that great Virginian Thomas Jefferson, he wrote a letter to James
Madison, another great Virginian, dated March 6, 1796, challenging
Madison's proposition for improvements to roads used in the system of
national mail delivery, and it was directed at the idea that we should
be, as Members, actually directing public funds, taxpayer dollars, into
our States.
President Jefferson wrote, in the context of directing Federal
dollars, ``It will be a scene of eternal scramble among the Members,
who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always
get most who are meanest.''
I think this shows that the debate around earmarks is not a new one,
and I think also that the impression of then Mr. Jefferson is something
that we ought to pay attention to and something that we ought to,
frankly, pay heed when we are talking about the challenges that we are
facing today in this country.
The gentleman from Texas talked about the tremendous lack of
confidence that the American public has in this Democrat-controlled
Congress. It is stunning to see the public opinion numbers of what the
American public thinks about the performance of this Congress. Nothing
to be proud of.
I believe that that dissatisfaction, frankly, is grounded, first of
all, in the inability of this Congress and this majority to solve the
problems that real people are facing in their lives each and every day
in their communities. All they hear are solutions based on the premise
that this government in Washington somehow needs more of their hard-
earned dollars. And over and over again, we continue to hear the
message, and we know that this town, that this Congress, and this
majority is broken. We are not rising to the occasion, fixing the
problems facing the American people. And yet we continue to see a
steady stream of bills making their way to the floor where we continue
to see proposals to raise taxes, to take people's hard-earned money,
and then we see those dollars turned around and appropriated into the
earmark process.
My friend from Texas was very accurate in his quotes, right on point.
We have heard over and again Members of
the majority leadership, when they were in the minority, when they have
become the majority leadership, continue to pledge, ``We pledge to make
this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.'' That was
from then minority leader Ms. Pelosi in 2006.
{time} 2045
She then went on to say, ``This is a place where we really need to
throw up the shades and pull back the curtains.'' And she said, ``We
have to have the fullest possible disclosure, and it has to be on
earmarks in appropriations, in authorizations and in taxation. And it
has to be across the board, with no escape hatches.''
[[Page 9140]]
There was another remark made, ``There has to be transparency. I'd
just as soon do away with all earmarks, but that probably isn't
realistic.''
Now, again, we need to dedicate ourselves to fixing the problems that
this country has to try to address their distrust of this government.
And the first thing that we ought to do is be mindful that the many,
many earmarks that make their way through this Congress frankly are not
out, shone in the light of day as the majority had promised. They are
not being held accountable for some of these expenditures that are
being made. This is at the crux of the public's distrust of Washington.
And again, while we are facing the prospects of $4 and $5 a dollar
gas at the pump, while families have real issues and their pocketbook
is being pinched, we continue to see the unbelievable, unprecedented
torrent of billions of dollars going into special interest projects and
into pork that, frankly, most American people don't approve of.
It should not be about pork. It should be about paychecks. We should
be focusing our attention and we should be focusing the investment of
taxpayer dollars towards job creation. We ought to be rewarding those
people who invest their dollars and give them back more of their hard-
earned money so that we can see more jobs created, because we do know
that more jobs, longer lasting jobs and a stronger economy will stem
from a strong private sector and a free-market system.
And with that, I want to again thank the gentleman from Texas for
organizing this Special Order tonight on the very important topic of
earmarks. And I yield back.
Mr. HENSARLING. Again, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for coming
down tonight and talking again about how the Democrat majority,
unfortunately, seems to speak out of both sides of their mouth when it
comes to pork barrel spending that is taking away from the paychecks of
hardworking middle-income families so that Members of Congress can
somehow keep their paychecks.
It is unfair.
And there's a big difference between the two parties. The Democrat
party said they would do something about it. And they did. They put the
pork barrel spending factory into high gear. The Republicans made
mistakes when it came to earmark spending. That is one of the reasons
that we lost in 2006.
But, Madam Speaker, we have learned our lesson. And that's why the
Republican Conference supports a moratorium, a moratorium on this pork
barrel spending, do away with this system and come up with a system
that is more transparent and more accountable to the American people.
The Democrat majority hasn't called for anything like that. They are
just doing fine taking money away from middle-income families
struggling to put food on the table, struggling to fill up their cars
and pickup trucks, take that money away and spend it on monuments
themselves and spend it on special interest favors for special interest
groups. It has got to stop.
Madam Speaker, another great leader we have in the earmark reform
movement in the United States House of Representatives, another fellow
member of the Conservative Caucus of the Republican Study Committee is
the gentlelady from North Carolina.
And I am happy to yield time to her at this time.
Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Congressman Hensarling. I appreciate very much
the leadership that you have provided to do this special order tonight.
As you've said, the system is broken. The earmark and pork barrel
system is broken. And we have to do something about it.
I will have to confess that in my first 2 years in Congress, I did
ask for earmarks. And my earmarks were very transparent. I felt that
every project I asked for was very valid and very worthy. They were all
designed to help with economic development in my district. The requests
came from county commissioners, airport commissions and economic
development groups. They all came very legitimately and very openly
from the people in the counties that I represented in the Fifth
District of North Carolina. And I have no problem at all defending
those.
However, what I learned in the process is that this earmark system is
badly broken. Not everybody who was requesting special funding was
being as transparent as I was being. And I have come to the conclusion
that we must have a moratorium on earmarks until we can fix the system.
I believe the American people have become very, very cynical about
the Congress and about Washington in general. And I didn't come here to
feed that cynicism. I came to Washington because I believe that I have
a limited amount of talents that I can use on behalf of the people of
my district and on behalf of the people of the United States of
America.
And I want to do that. I am very much in love with this country and
with what we stand for. And I want to make sure that I have done
everything that I can to help this country succeed. It is the greatest
country in the world. I have no doubt about that. And we have done
enormously good things in the little over 200 years that this country
has been formed.
And it is my goal to keep us as a beacon of hope for the world, to
keep us as the beacon of freedom for the world, and to do everything
that we can to keep the government going in a positive way.
But as I said, we have made mistakes. Democrats and Republicans have
made mistakes. But I will have to say that Republicans never promised
to make the kinds of reforms that the Democrats promised to make. The
Democrats said in 2006 a lot of things to get elected and to take over
the majority.
We have all kinds of charts to show they made many, many promises
which they have not kept. But I think this one, this promise about
earmarks and pork barrel spending, and they are broken promises related
to that, has made the American people even more cynical about
Washington and about elected officials than they were before. And I
frankly don't want to be a part of that.
If we are going to maintain our freedom, if we are going to maintain
the type of country that we want, we have to get people engaged in our
political process. We have to have people who want to run for office,
who want to get out and vote and who want to make sure that we can
continue this republic in all the positive ways that it has existed.
And frankly, we can't do that as long as we allow people to use the
money paid into the Treasury by hardworking Americans for projects that
they deem are important.
I don't believe that any Member of Congress should ever be able to
appropriate money to have any kind of facility, road or anything named
for him or her. That, to me, is one of the worst things that can be
done, because it is not our money. It is the money of the hardworking
taxpayers. And we have no right to take that money and use it,
particularly, again, in these very, very difficult times, as my
colleague from Texas said, when gas prices are going up, grocery prices
are going up, and the hardworking American families are really
struggling to make ends meet.
We came up with a phrase for what the Democrats have done since they
got elected in 2006: The House of Hypocrisy. Some of my colleagues are
uncomfortable with that because it is a blotch on the House of
Representatives which most of us love dearly. But they have turned it
into the House of Hypocrisy because they have not kept the promises
that they made.
They made lots of promises. And again, I am going to quote some of
them because I think we need to do that over and over and over again.
Speaker Pelosi, then Minority Leader Pelosi: ``We pledge to make this
the most honest, ethical and open Congress in history,'' Christian
Science Monitor, 11/14/2006.
``We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and
to the use of earmarks, and we will give the American people the
leadership they deserve.'' This was in a press release issued by
Speaker Pelosi
12/11/2006.
Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said, ``We are going to adopt rules that
make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't legislate
in the
[[Page 9141]]
dark of night, and the public and other Members can see what is
being done,'' the Washington Times, 11/25/2006.
Mr. Hoyer, again, ``Words will not do it. I have a good relationship
with Representative Roy Blunt. I have a good relationship with
Representative John Boehner. We'll work together. We'll include them in
the decision making.'' ``To the extent we create an atmosphere of
mutual respect, the American public will feel more comfortable with
Congress,'' Hoyer website, 12/10/2006.
That is what the American people expected from the Democrats when
they gave them the majority in 2006. And frankly, many of us were happy
to hear the kinds of pledges that they made. And we thought, great,
they have been out of power for 12 years. They have learned some
things, and things will be better.
DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel, ``Earmark reform must do more than
identify an earmark's sponsor. We need to curb the proliferation of
unnecessary and suspect earmarks,''
townhall.com 9/12/2006, before the election.
But what has happened is that the Democratic leadership believes they
don't have to keep their promises. But House conservatives are going to
stand with hardworking Americans and continually demand it. We continue
to offer amendments to bills that say, you cannot hide these earmarks.
They have been done over and over and over again. Every promise that
the Democrats made has been broken. None of them has been kept as it
relates to earmarks and pork barrel spending.
We have to hold them accountable. The American people expect us to be
accountable. I am accountable to the people that I represent. My work
is an open book. The Democrats have found more devious ways to hide
earmarks than any of us could ever have thought possible. But we are
going to continue to try to ferret out those earmarks and make them
public so that the American people will know what they are.
We may not be able to make the Democrats keep their promises. But we
are going to reveal when they break those promises and what the
consequence of breaking those promises is. We do not need to continue
this broken earmark process. We need to stop it. We need to stop pork
barrel spending. If we did that, we could reduce spending. We could
reduce taxes. We could help the average American family cope with the
increase in prices that they are coping with and help them meet those
challenges more readily.
I again want to thank Mr. Hensarling, Chairman Hensarling, for
organizing this special order on the earmark process, for bringing to
light the problems that the Democrats have brought to us, and the
broken promises that they have before us every day.
And I yield back to my friend from Texas.
Mr. HENSARLING. Again I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for
coming here tonight to participate in this Special Order and to try to
stand up for the hardworking middle-income American families that are
seeing their paychecks shrink. And one of the great reasons their
paychecks are getting ready to shrink even further is because of a
budget resolution conference report passed today that includes the
single largest tax increase in American history, passed courtesy of the
Democrat majority that will pose a $3,000 average tax increase on a
family of four of America while they are struggling to fill up their
cars and while they are struggling to put food on the table.
Why are taxes having to be increased? Well, Madam Speaker, part of
the reason is because of the culture of spending fueled by these
wasteful, pork barrel spending earmarks.
{time} 2100
They continue to proliferate and explode under the Democrats.
I mean, what kinds of earmarks are the American taxpayer having to
pay for? Well, one includes a monument that a single Member of Congress
decided to dedicate to himself. It's called the monument to me, to
benefit the chairman in the House Ways and Means Committee, Charles
Rangel.
Let me quote from the Wall Street Journal. ``New York's Charlie
Rangel provided smirks this week when news emerged that the Harlem
congressman was humbly seeking a $2 million earmark to celebrate the
`Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service' at the City College of
New York,'' that much money so that one Member of Congress can build a
monument to himself. These are tax increases on hard-working American
families so that Democrat Members of Congress can build monuments to
themselves.
Here is another one, let me quote from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
``Representative Mike Doyle, a Forest Hills Democrat and staunch Murtha
ally is an eager apprentice. One major achievement is the Doyle Center
for Manufacturing Technology based in South Oakland. Mr. Doyle helped
launch the center with a $1.5 million grant.'' Interesting. Here is
another monument to another Democrat Member of Congress, and the list
goes on and on and on.
Now, as the gentlelady from North Carolina said, not every earmark is
bad, but the system is bad. The system fuels a culture of spending that
is bankrupting hard-working American families as they are struggling to
make that paycheck stretch. It is waste. It's an insult to these
families to abuse their earnings in such a fashion.
I am very happy tonight also to see that we have been joined by one
of the great conservative leaders in America, a former chairman of the
House conservative caucus known as the Republican Study Committee and
somebody who has been a mentor to me, a man I am proud to call my
friend.
I am happy now to yield time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. I thank my friend and colleague from Texas. I want to
compliment him for conducting this special order on earmarks tonight.
It's an issue where the American people need to understand what is
going on in the government that they elect.
I think most of them, if they harken back to their civics class in
high school or grade school, would be stunned at what happens here and
would find it, quite frankly, disgusting, because it is. It is a
perversion of a system.
We use the term earmark, and we try to describe it. I am not certain
that many people at home fully understand how the process works. To
some degree, if you don't understand how the process works, you can't
understand why some of us think it is so outrageous.
I want to get kind of down to some basics. Let me talk about the
equity of the earmark process. Some of us think that we were each
elected to come here to represent our congressional districts, and we
were also elected in representing them to look at the good of the
Nation.
Some of us don't believe that we were elected primarily to come to
Washington and take as much money as humanly possible from the other
taxpayers around the country and rip it out of their taxpayers' pockets
and put it in our congressional districts. I don't remember being
taught that in my civics book. Yet, the way the earmark system works in
this Congress today, it is outrageously inequitable.
You might say, well, you know my congressman knows the needs of my
district, so why shouldn't he get a couple of projects in your
district. Every one of your congressmen who gets earmarks come back and
say, look, I got you this bridge, or I got this business
in our community, this money, and they say, aren't I great.
But, you know what they don't tell you? They don't tell you how much
somebody else got. They don't tell you that the congressman three
States over got 100 times as much money. They come and say, look, I got
us $2 million for this project right in our town. But they don't tell
you that the congressman from the State two States over was more
powerful than your congressman, and he didn't get $2 million, he got
$800 million.
So the taxpayers, you, the taxpayer and the congressman whose
district brought home $2 million, you got fleeced to the tune of the
$800 million that went to the powerful congressman, and that's how it
works. Earmarks in this Congress today go to
[[Page 9142]]
powerful Members. So if
you are the chairman of a powerful committee, or you are in the right
position to get it done, you get, literally hundreds of millions of
dollars, maybe even billions of dollars for projects that you get to
direct.
But, if you were a poor American taxpayer who lives in a district
where you don't have a mega powerful congressman, well, your junior
congressman, your fairly new congressman, your less-than-powerful
congressman, he brings home next to nothing, but he brags about what he
brought home. He just doesn't tell you that it was a fraction of what
was taken out of their pockets to pay for somebody else.
Mr. HENSARLING. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHADEGG. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. HENSARLING. You know, it's interesting, we sit here and assume
that a lot of people know what an earmark is and what pork barrel
spending is. Probably the best way to define it is money that Congress
takes out of their pocket to give to a specific entity that doesn't
have to be competitively bid. It can go to one particular corporation.
It can go to only one entity, and it doesn't go through any competitive
bidding process whatsoever.
As the gentleman said, well, some Members of Congress say I know my
district the best, and I am supposed to bring the pork home.
Well, the people in the Fifth District of Texas, they are not so
interested in me bringing the bacon home, they want to make sure that
Congress doesn't take it out of their smokehouse in the first place.
As the gentleman ably points out, when somebody is getting something
for nothing, there is somebody else who is getting something for
nothing.
Mr. SHADEGG. I am glad the gentleman brought that up. I am going to
go through a description that I think will help people understand what
we mean by earmarks and by the kind of a simple earmark that you might
think about, and then the more complex, the more subterfuge, the more
hidden ones.
First of all, you have powerful Members of Congress get billions,
not-so-powerful Members of Congress get next to nothing, but taxpayers
pay for it all. The other fascinating process that goes on here with
earmarks is the at-risk Members, that is a Member who is in a
competitive district and might lose, and their political party wants to
help them, oh, they bulldoze money to that Member's district.
But if you have some other congressman who is secure in her District
or secure in his district, well, too bad. So you better hope that your
congressman is an at-risk Member of Congress because then billions of
dollars will be steered to your congressman's congressional district
and to your community and to the business and the jobs in that
community.
But if you have a secure congressman who gets re-elected each year
easily, and he is not powerful, you get a fraction amount of that money
or you get zero, once again. Once again, money is coming out of your
pocket and being distributed on a completely inequitable basis. It goes
to the powerful Members of Congress, it goes to the at-risk Members of
Congress to get them reelected.
Let's see if we understand this, my tax dollars go to fund my Federal
Government, but they aren't distributed on the basis of merit to the
good projects. They aren't distributed on the basis of need, to people
who are in need. They aren't distributed to the Nation's needs. They
are distributed to some congressional district because that Member is
powerful or to some other congressional district because that Member is
at risk of losing his or her seat.
Now if you like your money being distributed on that kind of an
unfair basis, then you are for earmarks. Let's talk about kind of an
explanation of what earmarks are, as my colleague from Texas just
mentioned.
You know, there is the kind of mundane earmark, the routine earmark.
A Member of Congress gets asked to do a community project. I happen to
like one, they have got a harbor in their district, that harbor needs
to be dredged every few years and so they say, look, I just want to go
get an earmark to get that dredged. It's asked for by the community,
it's needed by the community, and it looks like a pretty innocent fair-
minded earmark.
If they were all like that, we might not have any problem as long as
they were allocated equally to all 435 districts in the country. Then
no one would be taken advantage of. But, guess what, that's not what
most earmarks are, at least that's not what many of them are. Many of
them are an earmark that goes to a local college or a university or an
earmark that goes to a private business. That's my favorite, earmarks
that go to private businesses.
I am a congressman, I have a business in my district, and it is not
quite making it, or it's a startup, so they come and see me and they
say, hey, Congressman, we would like an earmark. Give us some taxpayer
dollars because we can't survive in the marketplace. So I steer some
money to that small business or that big business in my district.
You know what happens? This is just surprising. Do you know what
happens? I would ask the gentleman to join me for a moment. Do you know
what often happens? Do you know that often the executives of the
company that get that earmark money, your Federal tax dollars, do they
make donations to that congressman?
Mr. HENSARLING. Well, as a matter of fact, we have clearly documented
that earlier this evening, and it's not just us saying it, The New York
Times has said it, and I quote again, ``Representative John Murtha has
procured eye-popping chunks of pork for contractors he helped put in
business in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.''
``Every one of the 26 beneficiaries of Mr. Murtha's earmarks in last
year's defense budget made contributions to his campaign kitty, a total
of $413,250,'' this from the New York Times.
If the gentleman will allow me, again, under this Democrat majority,
what we see too often is that Members of Congress direct earmarks to
special interest recipients. They turn around and give campaign
donations to the campaign, and then the campaign helps re-elect the
Member of Congress, and the cycle goes over and over under this
Democrat majority.
Mr. SHADEGG. Taking back my time, I think it's stunning, but I don't
like the words ``special interest,'' because that makes you think it
might be some kind of a public interest, maybe it's for hungry children
or maybe it's for needy families or maybe it's for dental care? No.
This is for a private for-profit corporation, a huge business advantage
for them and, interestingly, the executives of that corporation just
suddenly decide that they like that congressman and send him
contributions.
Well, that's pretty interesting, but what about the next level of
corruption in earmarks, what about could it have ever happened that a
Member of Congress creates a for-profit corporation or creates a
nonprofit corporation himself and puts his friends and cronies on the
board of directors of that nonprofit corporation or that for-profit
corporation and then earmarks money to them? Shocked. Tell me it
wouldn't be so.
We are taking earmark money, we are taking taxpayer money, hard-
earned money by American citizens, taking it away from them and giving
that money to an entity that we created that we incorporated, and we
put all the Members on its board of directors and, shock of shock, they
donate money back to our campaign or, in some instances, they might
hire the congressman's wife or his daughter or his son or some other
needy family member.
That's very appropriate. That ought to happen with our taxpayer
dollars. That's what we expected when we sent our taxes to Washington
that a congressman would take that money and donate it through an
earmark, direct it, force it through an earmark, not debate it on the
floor of this House, to go to a for-profit or a nonprofit corporation
that a congressman created that employs his son or daughter that makes
donations back to him.
[[Page 9143]]
We haven't even talked about the lobbyist who used to work for the
congressman who then went to work for a lobbying firm that seeks
earmarks who, by the way, shock of shocks, asked for the earmark, got
the earmark, got paid by the for-profit business or the nonprofit
business for getting the earmark, and then both executives of that for-
profit or nonprofit corporation and the lobbyist, former staffer,
donate to the Member of Congress. This is all above board, all
wonderful, all that the American taxpayers ought to think happening
with their dollars.
Mr. HENSARLING. If the gentleman would yield, it's a good time to
point out again what a difference there is between the two political
parties on this issue. The Democrats claim they would cut these
earmarks in half but they didn't do it. Instead we end up with the
second highest number of pork-barrel spending earmarks that we have
seen in the history of America. They claim no more secrecy in the
process. Yet we know that we have secret earmarks come in to benefit a
select number of hospitals.
It has been well documented. They claim they would bring integrity to
the system, and yet we continue to see earmarks coming out of this end
of Washington D.C., and we see campaign contributions coming in the
other end. How convenient.
Then they claimed that we can't continue to tax, we can't continue to
have bridges of nowhere for America's children to pay for, but
apparently we can have museums to honor Democrat Members of Congress,
apparently we can have money going to the so-called Hippie Museum.
Apparently we can send money to help the L.A. fashion district with
their signage and streetscape improvements.
{time} 2115
The Republican Party has called for a moratorium on earmarks. This
process needs to be reformed. The Democrat Party likes the status quo
as it is. The leader of our party takes no earmarks. The leader of
their party claims she would just as soon do without them; and instead,
she is in the top 20 recipients of earmarks.
The Republican presidential candidate says I will veto any spending
bill with an earmark. And you look at their two presidential
candidates, one is in the top 10, and the other, although only in the
bottom half, has still managed $91 million of pork-barrel spending.
To add her perspective, I am happy we are joined by the gentlewoman
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), and I yield to her at this time.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and
for his leadership on this issue.
Getting our hands around waste, rooting out waste, fraud and abuse is
something our freshmen class when we came to Congress said we were
going to be committed to. And certainly pushing forward earmarks and
the issue of pork-barrel spending is something we have committed much
of our time in this Congress to.
Madam Speaker, I think it is so appropriate as we talk about this
issue that we realize yes, indeed, we have called for a moratorium on
earmarks and would encourage all Members to join us, doing so partly
because this is an issue that over time has grown and grown and grown.
When you go back and look historically, the first correspondence on
this that we could find was Thomas Jefferson writing a letter to James
Madison March 6, 1796, and Jefferson wrote commending to Madison did he
think of all of the consequences that would come from the proposition
of using public money as a bottomless pit, if you will. It is a great
quote.
There are quotes from President Monroe in 1822 when he argued that
Federal money should be limited to great national works since if it was
unlimited, it would be liable to abuse and might be productive of evil.
That's 1822, how interesting.
As we look at the period of time through the 1950s and the 1960s and
1970s and 1980s, how this body repeatedly increased spending every
single year and increased the use of those earmarks every single year,
and how the practice became commonplace.
Well, some of us feel like enough is enough, that the American
taxpayer deserves greater consideration. Now is the time for an earmark
moratorium.
____________________
DEMOCRATS WORKING TO SOLVE AMERICA'S PROBLEMS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here once again
speaking on behalf of the majority makers, the freshmen Democrats
elected in 2006 to bring change to Washington and who have worked very
diligently over the last 16 months to begin to reverse the damage done
to this country over the last 7\1/2\ years.
It is interesting, I was planning to talk about what I saw as a very
encouraging sign over the last few days, the encouraging sign that we
had actually solid bipartisan participation in trying to come up with
solutions to some of the very daunting challenges that face this
country today, including energy prices.
We had a bipartisan vote, an overwhelming bipartisan vote, to
restrict additions to the strategic petroleum reserve, something which
the President opposes but which overwhelming numbers of both bodies of
Congress supported. And I was going to talk about the farm bill in
which we had significant Republican participation in coming to grips
with a new solution to our farm policy in this country. And I was going
to talk about our housing initiatives, how we had significant
Republican support last week in trying to craft policies that would
help alleviate the serious housing situation we have and to try to keep
things from getting worse.
But after listening to the partisan attack that I just heard, I have
to respond because what we have heard is something that is almost in a
parallel universe. It is interesting that my colleagues from the other
side speak as if the last 7 or 8 years didn't exist, as if the
Republicans weren't in charge of the entire government from 2001 until
2007, as if the national debt did not increase by $5 trillion during
their stewardship of this government, as if earmarks had not been
developed into an art form under Republican leadership. It is almost as
if there is no history that they choose to remember.
I can understand why they don't want to remember what went on from
2001 to 2006, and before that many of the policies that were developed
under Republican leadership in this Congress prior to George Bush's
presidency because they don't want the American people to be reminded.
But we know from all of the polls and the voter turnout that we have
seen in the last few months, we know that the American people remember
what has gone on in these last few years. We know because, as we have
seen in a poll over the weekend, when asked which party does the
American people trust to deal with the challenges we face as a country,
the American people prefer the Democratic policies by a margin of 20
percent, one of the largest margins ever recorded. It is not hard to
understand why. What we have seen are failed policies from people well
meaning, no question about it, but people who do not believe that
government has a role in solving our problems.
We see it when people come to the government, when the average
citizen comes to the government for help. We see them in our offices
every day, and we talk to them at home on weekends. We know that the
American people are hurting. They come to us for help. We know that
nurses come to us for help. Teachers come to us for help. Social
workers come to us for help. They are dealing with the pain of average
American citizens every day, and we are trying to do what we can to
help them.
We know that the other side does want to come to the help of American
citizens from time to time if they happen to be the CEO of ExxonMobil,
if they happen to be the CEO of Chevron, if they happen to be the
insurance executives. Those people can always find
[[Page 9144]]
assistance from the
Republicans. But when the average citizen comes for help, no, no, no,
we don't want to do that. Government is not in that business.
Well, that's why the American people turned to the Democratic Party
in 2006 and said, We have had enough, it is time for a change. We
believe that the Democratic Party can help working Americans solve some
of the problems that face them.
I think we have made a very, very good start. From the very beginning
of our leadership in the 110th Congress last January, we took steps
immediately to raise the minimum wage which had not been raised in 10
years. We took steps to change the rules under which drug companies
dealt with Medicare. We took steps to end the subsidy of oil companies
with huge tax breaks when they are making more money than they had ever
made in their history. We worked very diligently, and we talked about
earmarks.
My colleagues on the other side want to make it sound like we
invented earmarks, which we certainly didn't. We actually provided for
the first time some transparency in earmarks. We said if you are going
to put an earmark into a bill, then you have to identify that you
sponsor that earmark and you have to attest and swear that you did not
reap any personal benefit. You had no personal connection with the
recipient of that earmark. Those were not the policies under the
Republican Congress when they had in their last budget year 16,000
earmarks. No, you could slip them in there. Nobody knew you got the
earmark. You could take credit for it if you wanted to, but if you
tried to find out who gave money for XYZ, you couldn't find that unless
the person actually took credit for it. We changed that. We required
accountability in the earmark process.
So it is interesting to listen to my colleagues talk about the
horrible leadership that they contend of this Democratic Congress as if
the last decade had not occurred. I think the American people have seen
through that. I think there is no question that the recent results, not
just in polls but in special elections for Congress, reflect the fact
that the American people understand that the Republicans are out of
ideas. They just are out of ideas. The idea that government will play
no role in solving some of the challenges that we have has proven to be
a bankrupt idea. They persist in that philosophy, and they persist as
of earlier today, and we have to call the attention of the American
people that these are not the facts and that there is a very distinct
difference between our policies, the Democratic majority, in which we
are trying to use government to help the American people while
maintaining fiscal responsibility, while maintaining our PAYGO rules so
we make sure that we don't add to the Federal deficit and the national
debt and that we pay for what we do when we do it.
Now, there is a huge exception to that policy, as we all know. We are
going to see it on the House, on this floor in the next few days. We
are being asked once again to allocate billions and billions of dollars
to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are being asked by the
President, who now has the lowest job approval in modern history, we
are being asked by him to give him a blank check, once again no
constraints on his activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, no restrictions
on his troops, no new regulations regarding the deployment of troops,
just give him the money and let him try to accomplish the mission which
he said was accomplished 5 years ago but which has not only not been
accomplished in 2008 but which is something, a mission which we still
can't define.
I would like to ask the administration, and we have on many
occasions, if you want our support, if you want us to continue to fund
this failed policy in Iraq, tell us what the mission is. Tell us once
and for all what the clear objectives are, and we will listen and we
will use our judgment and see if that is the type of thing that the
American people will support.
But as always, we still don't have a clear idea what the mission in
Iraq is. It changes on a day-to-day basis. We are being asked once
again to spend billions and billions of American taxpayer dollars for a
policy which no one really can explain.
I think my colleagues, and several have joined me here now, are in
the same situation as I am. On a daily basis I speak to people from my
district, Louisville, Kentucky, and they say, we need money for this.
We have been cut this way. We are going to have to cut services, why
can't we just spend a little less in Iraq. Every day I get that
question. I probably got it six times today. Why can't we take some of
that money we are flushing down the toilet in Iraq and spend it on the
American people who are in desperate need of the things that government
needs to do. These are some of the issues we are confronted with today.
It is my great pleasure to be joined by two of my colleagues from the
class of 2006, the majority makers, Mr. Keith Ellison from Minnesota
and Dr. Steve Kagen from Wisconsin, and I am going to yield to Mr.
Ellison and have him continue this discussion about what we in the
majority makers and we in the Democratic majority are trying to do on
behalf of the American people.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from the great
State of Kentucky. He has been helping to lead our majority-maker class
in this leg of our two-term service, and has been doing a fine job of
it.
As I start, I want to invoke the memory of two young men, one Robert
Dixon and another one, Quising Lee.
{time} 2130
These are two young men who are from Minneapolis who were killed in
Iraq. There have been 64 Minnesotans killed in Iraq, and Robert Dixon
and Quising Lee are two gentlemen who lived in my district.
I'll never forget when I went to go see Quising Lee's family after he
was killed. He went to North High School. He was 20 years old when he
died, and he was killed in a roadside bomb in Iraq.
Robert Dixon was killed in a roadside bomb in Iraq as well. I wasn't
able to go to see Robert Dixon's funeral. I was here. My wife went for
me. Kim, thank you for doing that. And she sat there and listened to
stories about Robert Dixon and his life and his service to our country
and the things he hoped for and wanted.
But I did get a chance to visit the family and go to the funeral of
Quising Lee. Quising Lee, 20 years old when he was killed, went to
North High School, had his whole life in front of him. Only 20 years
old.
It's in the memory of those two young men from Minneapolis that I
offer remarks tonight, and on behalf of those 64 Minnesotans that have
been killed, and on behalf of those 4,500-some individuals, Americans
who've been killed in Iraq, and on behalf of those, probably as many as
perhaps 600,000, perhaps even 1 million Iraqis who've lost their lives
in Iraq.
That's the spirit in which I approach tonight, my fellow majority
makers, because, as you know, tomorrow is the big day we're going to be
voting on Iraq appropriation once again.
Just for the facts, I think it's important to point out this will be
a three-tier vote. One will be on appropriation for Iraq. I'll be
voting ``no.'' The second will be on certain terms and conditions to
get out of Iraq. I'll be voting ``yes'' on that. And the third will be
appropriations for GI bill and things like that, and I expect to be
voting ``yes'' on that.
And so I want to just lay this out tonight because I think people
that are listening should know that tomorrow is a big deal. Tomorrow is
a big day. We're all going to be casting votes, votes, I pray, of
conscience, votes that are not based on licking a finger and sticking
it in the wind, votes that we earnestly believe in. No matter what you
may conclude about how you should vote tomorrow, I pray that you do it
based on your conscience, consistent with your conscience.
And as we sit here tonight, you know, I reflect on the fact that I've
been to Iraq once, been to Afghanistan once, look forward to going
back. I think it's the responsibility of every
[[Page 9145]]
Member of Congress to
see the place that we have these soldiers struggling to survive in. I
don't think it's right to just send somebody there and then just expect
that they're going to be fine. We should at least go there, eat with
them, sit with them, listen to them, their hopes, dreams, aspirations,
what they hope to do if they make it out of there.
I think it's important for us, as Members of Congress, to go to the
VA hospitals in our local communities and here in Washington, DC.
I think that what we're dealing with is serious issues, life and
death. And more importantly, perhaps most importantly for me, we're
dealing with issues of how our Nation works in relation with other
nations in the world.
I believe that the United States should aspire to be a good neighbor
in the world. I believe that our country, blessed with tremendous
economic power, blessed with tremendous democracy, meaning not just
elections, but the power to respect minority rights, the power to
respect religious diversity, ethnic diversity. In America, we're not
saying that people don't discriminate, but it's illegal if you do it,
and good people fought and even died to make it so.
So I hope that tonight, as we reflect upon our great Nation, we
reflect upon our role in the world, reflect upon not only the hard
power but the soft power of America; that we all reflect on the
sacrifices that were made to make it that way; and that we say that
American history is not written yet, and that greater things are left
for us to do.
And the greatness of this country is not bound up in guns and bombs,
but, my friends, it's bound up in the goodness of the people and our
desire to say that we cannot rest on having a democracy at home, but we
should model it for the world, but not impose it or inflict it upon the
world; and that we are not the world's police officer, but we could be
a good example for what people might want to emulate, and that we
should use our power to beat swords into plowshares and make war no
more.
I'll be voting ``no'' on that appropriation tomorrow. And so I just
want to turn it back, as we reflect tonight, as I reflect on the lives
of Robert Dixon and Quising Lee. I know my friends from Kentucky and
Wisconsin have some young people, or not so young people who they're
remembering tonight as well.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentleman. And now it's a pleasure to
welcome Dr. Kagen from Wisconsin, someone who has been a steadfast
advocate for not just the veterans of this country, but for working
families everywhere, and has been a champion in trying to bring
attention to the serious flaws and opportunities in our health care
delivery system.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. KAGEN. Thank you for yielding, and thank you for carrying on for
the first few minutes before I was able to attend. Our Committee on
Transportation just ended its subcommittee meeting at 9:20 this evening
where we were hearing some testimony about the possible merger between
Delta and Northwest. And it was a very educational seminar, to say the
least.
But it's still an example of how we are working hard to gain
oversight over these mega mergers, and taking a look at big business
and big insurance and big corporations and the big war machine that's
now costing Americans millions and millions of dollars every day.
And if you like numbers, my friend, it's $14 million an hour that
we're spending in Iraq instead of here at home. It's $338 million per
day, $2.4 billion per week, and $10 to $12 billion per month that we
have our hard-earned tax money going over to the sands of Iraq and not
investing here at home in our own infrastructure, in our roads and our
bridges, in our schools and in our social system.
Now, if you like numbers, and I like numbers, I've got a head for
numbers. I'll give you the number 300, 200 and 13. 300 percent is the
increase in the gasoline price since the current administration took
office in 2001; three times as much as what you're paying at the pump
as when they started.
Now, my friend, Mr. Ellison, the right honorable sir, mentioned Iraq
and some Iraq tragedies. On Mother's Day I had the occasion, in
Wisconsin, to dial up and wish a happy Mother's Day to a fallen
soldier's mother, and I spoke with Donna Opicka. She had lost her son,
Dean. And in her words, quote, ``It's not working.''
She's been against our involvement in Iraq from the start. She has
two sons that are there. And we will always support our troops, but not
a failed policy. And in her words, ``It's just not working.''
They told us oil prices would go down. They've gone up 300 percent.
The Number 200, it's 200 percent, the increase in fuel oil that many
people in Northeast Wisconsin rely on to heat their homes. And it was a
long winter this year.
And what about the number 13? 13 percent increase in your cost for
groceries. Your food went up 13 percent.
My friends, if the cost of our food went up 200 and 300 percent, we'd
see a revolution in this country. And so earlier today we passed a farm
bill that will fundamentally and dramatically change the way we're
feeding ourselves. This farm bill determines what farmers will plant,
what they're going to grow and, ultimately, what we're going to eat and
what we're going to look like.
That farm bill had the overwhelming support of over 300 Members of
Congress, and it's a very good example of how Congress really ought to
work, in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats together putting
their minds together and working out a way in which we can feed not
just our own families but continue to feed the world.
Now, as this increase in energy for food and energy for oil has gone
skyrocketing, the food prices have held their own until recently, when
the energy cost has crept into our food supply.
At the same time as these costs are going up, your income is going
down. The median income went down 2 percent since 2001. So at the very
same time that middle class Americans are having a hard time keeping
their head above water with the escalation in the cost for energy, both
food and oil, their income is not going up.
And so I think people watching tonight have to ask a fundamental
question. Whose side are we on? Are we on the side of big business? Are
we on the side of big insurance, big oil companies? I think not. We're
not sitting in a boardroom. We're standing on the people's floor here
in the House. And I'm very honored to work with my Class of 2006, the
class I brand America's hope for a real positive and a new direction;
not just in our farm policy, not just in our foreign policy, but our
domestic policy as well, as we pay attention to and continue to work
hard for the American people to give them a fair shake in our future.
And I yield back.
Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentleman.
I want to pick up on two of the things that he mentioned because I
think these are fascinating contrasts and put into perspective some of
the challenges that we face.
First, on the subject of oil prices and gasoline prices, he mentioned
that 300, the price of gasoline has gone up 300 percent since 2001.
What's interesting is, when you look at what we're now paying in Iraq
for gasoline, this is one of the truly astounding and very disturbing
aspects of our involvement there.
And again, as my colleague, our colleague, Mr. Ellison said, we're
going to be voting on more funding for the Iraq war tomorrow. The
American people need to know that right now we are spending $153
million a month on gasoline in Iraq, $153 million a month. And we're
paying $3.23 a gallon for that gasoline. It's probably up since then,
but the time that we have the statistics, $3.23 we're paying for
gasoline in Iraq.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi people, and Iraq is sitting on one of the
largest oil reserves in the world, the Iraqi people are paying a
subsidized cost of $1.30 a gallon. Now, wouldn't we all love to pay
$1.30 a gallon?
Now, that's unrealistic, but it's interesting that we're paying for
the entire
[[Page 9146]]
reconstruction cost of Iraq, we have up to this point; we're
spending all this money to try and stabilize their country, and we're
paying $2 more per gallon for gasoline than the Iraqi people are.
That's just one of the strange quirks of our involvement there.
Mr. KAGEN. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. YARMUTH. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. KAGEN. Does it bother you at all that we don't have any oversight
in Iraq, where 20 percent of the money we're putting in, no receipts,
no oversight at all, and it's a culture of corruption? Does that bother
you at all?
Mr. YARMUTH. Well, certainly. And again, I referenced the fact that
not only are we being allowed to, or being asked to write a blank check
for hundreds of billions of dollars, as we've been writing for some
time now, somewhere over $500 billion total in direct appropriations
for the war in Iraq, but we're also being asked to give the Iraqi
government a blank check; do whatever you want, no accountability, you
get to it when you get to it, you'll decide when things are right for
us to be able to leave. It's all up to you. We're helpless.
It's a very uncomfortable position for us to be in.
Mr. KAGEN. Will the gentleman yield again for another question?
Mr. YARMUTH. Of course.
Mr. KAGEN. Does it not astound you that the administration today, and
our opposing party, has no answer when we say, look, we are budget red.
We have a budget deficit and Iraq has a budget surplus. Isn't it time
that they paid for their own reconstruction?
Isn't that a reasonable question?
Mr. YARMUTH. It's a reasonable question which we are addressing in
legislation. And I think the American people are totally justified in
demanding that the Iraqi people pick up some of the tab when they're
running a $70 billion surplus per year.
And I was actually encouraged to hear one of the representatives of
the government over the weekend talk about the fact that they intend to
do that. But just their intentions don't seem to be much because,
again, as you said, there is no accountability method in place.
But I want to reference one other thing. And it's getting off on a
little tangent, but you talked about the merger between Delta and
Northwest, and that's being examined by the Transportation Committee
now, and I'm glad it is.
One of the things that I've been talking about more and more when I'm
talking to the good people of Louisville, Kentucky is, you know, we've
allowed, over the last couple of decades, maybe 3 decades, companies to
get bigger and bigger and bigger in this country. We really haven't
enforced the anti-trust laws in this country in 30 years. And we did it
because they said, oh, you know, it's a global economy. We need to be
able to get big so we can compete.
Well, unfortunately, what they generally mean when they say they want
to get big is they want to get big in revenues. They don't want to get
big in job creation. They don't want to get big in many things that are
the goals that we hold for this country. And when they want to get big,
it generally means they want to save money. So they merge, and then
they eliminate jobs, and they close facilities, and they destabilize
communities, all in the name of being able to compete in the global
economy.
{time} 2145
And what concerns me is--and we had a hearing not too long ago in the
Oversight Committee in which we talked to several of the CEOs of very
large corporations, and this was about corporate executive
compensation. And I asked three of the executives, When you have these
compensation committee meetings when you're deciding what your CEO is
going to be paid and what your top management is going to be paid, do
you ever talk about the impact of these huge salaries and compensation
packages on the morale of your employees? Do you ever talk about how
you could make life better for your working people, your employees? Do
you ever talk about how you can improve the communities that you
occupy, that you serve?
And the answer was very candid, and they said, No. It's always about
just how we get the stock price up and how we compensate our
executives.
So the question I ask, and it's one that I hope we continue to ask in
this Congress, if you want to get big, we need to make sure that your
goals are the same as the American people's goals; and I think people
on both sides of the aisle would say we have the same goals for the
American people. We want good jobs, we want stable communities, and we
want secure families. And if we have a corporate world that has goals
that are antithetical to that, then we need to revise our policy on
anti-trust allowing these mergers and try to say if you want permission
from us to get big and you want to operate in a certain way, we want
you to operate in a way that benefits the American people and not just
your CEOs and your stockholders.
Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YARMUTH. Absolutely.
Mr. ELLISON. As we talk about this merger of Northwest Airlines and
Delta, I have a number of serious concerns I'd like to point out. One
is that Northwest has a pilots' union, has a mechanics' union, has an
airline attendants' union. Delta only has an airline pilots' union. And
the fact is that Delta is the bigger entity. And so when they merge,
what will happen with these organizations that are designed to make
sure working people have some rights? I'm very concerned about that.
And I think that's one of the reasons why I think--and I hope and
pray we can pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which we already passed
through this House, but we have not yet been able to make into law.
I'm also concerned that Delta and Northwest in the future, if they
merge, will never compete based on price or based on product. They will
never compete because they will be one entity. They won't make each
other better, and they won't make each other more efficient. They're
just going to bond together and make some money. And of course, they're
quite candid, and they tell you they are going to merge so they can get
efficiencies. So what is that? Well, that means somebody is getting
fired. That means somebody's got to go. You can't have two Employee
Relations offices; you can't have two H.R. offices. Can't have two of
everything. Somebody is going to go. And at the end of the day, a lot
of folks who are paying property taxes, who are raising families, who
are doing well, are going to be out of work and lose their jobs.
So I'm very concerned about this. I'm concerned about what consumers
are going to pay in terms of ticket prices. I'm concerned about loss of
jobs. I'm concerned about the fact that this Justice Department has
never seen a merger that it didn't like, and we are seeing an
increasing monopolization, oligopolization of our, what should be,
competitive markets.
And I would love to see some of these free-market advocates get out
there and fight for a competitive market. They seem to not be in favor
of competitive markets. They seem to be in favor of really big
business, not competitive markets, not free enterprise. These are
things that are on my mind, and I think Americans want to know what is
this Justice Department going to be about.
Because as I wrap up and toss it back to you, I would like to ask you
gentlemen a question. Did you know that in 1980, the average CEO made
about 42 times the average worker; but in 2005, which is the last year
I have data, the average CEO made about 411 times the average worker?
That is a problem. What do you guys think of that?
Mr. KAGEN. It wouldn't be so bad if everybody else was doing that
good. The reason it's bad is because we didn't get lifted up at the
same time.
Mr. ELLISON. Did the rising tide lift our boats?
Mr. KAGEN. Not the boats in my district, but median income might be
$28,000 to $32,000 a year.
[[Page 9147]]
When I was home in northeast Wisconsin, I was at a diner, Tina's
Roost, in Oconto. And I was meeting with some workers there, and I
said, well, listen. We're about to take up this discussion about an
economic stimulus package to revitalize our economy and get us out of
this upcoming recession; and one of the city workers stood up and took
apart some of the six layers of clothing because it was still pretty
cold in northern Wisconsin, and he said, Kagen, look out the window.
You can see it right there. The price of gas. You drop the price of
gasoline, I have got more money in my pocket. And while you're at it,
knock down my health care bills. Those are the two things we could do
immediately to put more money in people's pockets.
But my response was very direct and very honest. We're working hard
to do that, but it's hard to do it when you have a President who's an
oil person and you have a vice president who's an oil person and a
Secretary of State who is an oil person. So if you've got oil in the
White House, it's hard to move it out until we look forward to that
date in November when we get that real positive change that we really
need.
So we can drive our economy, but we have to have an energy policy
that makes sense, one that is designed in the open and not behind
closed doors; an energy policy that will be fashioned towards renewable
sources of energy, away from fossil fuels, and it has to make sense for
our environment at the same time.
But fundamentally, people are like back home in Wisconsin. A lot of
people are like turtles on their back. They just want to get back on
their feet and get started. And that's what we did with the energy
stimulus bill, and we're also doing that with this housing bill that we
put forward, trying to find a pricing floor in the housing market.
Mr. YARMUTH. The gentleman makes some very good points, and one of
the things I just mentioned before you arrived was that over the past
few days, we've actually done three things in a bipartisan way; and you
mentioned one of them. We passed a farm bill with substantial
Republican support. The housing bill, we had a number of Republicans
join us; and when we dealt with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in
which we said we don't need to be adding any more fuel to the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, taking it off the market, decreasing supply when
we're at 98 percent capacity; we've never been, in recent history,
below 600 million gallons of our 727-gallon capacity; and the bill, the
freshman class, we asked the President to do it by himself. The
President refused.
So what happened? The Senate yesterday voted 97-1; the House voted
385-25. I think it shows it was a pretty solid idea. There can't be
that many people who have bad judgment. Maybe there are. But 97-1, 385-
25 are pretty good odds. So we spoke to the President in a bipartisan
way.
So there are situations in which we have found ways to work together,
and as you said, that's the way it should be; and I think that's a very
encouraging sign. Unfortunately, we have a President who doesn't
recognize this body as having any say in policy in this country. He
believes he is the decider, and despite provisions in the Constitution
in article 1 to the contrary which says the American people are the
deciders of policy and the laws through their representatives of
Congress.
I think we are doing the people's business, and we're doing it in a
very responsible way. And I agree totally that it will be wonderful to
have a new chief executive in the White House who maybe understands
that government is a partnership and the Constitution was written so
that it would be--we would have three branches who are not constantly
in conflict but who are working together for the American people.
Mr. ELLISON. I think you're right, Mr. Yarmuth, and I appreciate you
pointing that point out.
The article 1, that's kind of our theme this year, isn't it?
Reasserting the power of the legislative branch.
I want to pick up on a theme that Dr. Kagen mentioned a moment ago as
he was laying out how he was speaking with some workers in northern
Wisconsin.
I was talking with some workers in Minneapolis recently, and we're
kind of like cousins, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Folks had talked about
how their pay has been stagnant and they haven't seen much of a pay
increase except in the late nineties. But the prices of everything
seems to be going up: health care, housing prices, and all of that. And
what people did in the early part of this decade is they were able to
get money out of their houses, right, which has led us into the
foreclosure crisis.
But what are people doing now that housing prices are flat? Well,
they're turning to credit cards. Charge it. They're putting it on the
plastic. And I think this is a big deal because I think we need to know
that people are essentially consuming not out of savings, they're
consuming out of pay-day loans, credit cards. They used to do it out of
the equity of their houses. And this is a serious problem, and people
cannot consume out of their savings but have to consume out of debt.
And what it has caused us in our economy today, gentlemen, is that we
have seen the credit card debt jump from 6.7 percent in the first
quarter of this year, a credit card increase of 6.7 percent in the
first quarter of this year to a whopping $957.2 billion. This is a very
serious issue for our economy.
That's why we need a high-wage strategy. We need to put more money in
people's pockets by reducing the costs of education, housing, health
care, gasoline, and by saying that folks are going to have a fair,
decent wage that they're going to be able to earn; and we need a
strategy to pull those things together for the American people.
Mr. KAGEN. What we did the other day in terms of trying not to put
more petrol into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is to increase the
supply. And the President said what we should be doing is increasing
supply by drilling more. But there's a fallacy in that argument. There
are thousands of acres available for drilling on public land, and
they're not drilling.
So the fallacy is the price of oil is going to shoot up and up and up
as long as we have fewer and fewer oil companies that are chasing down
the oil. But we cannot drill our way out of this energy crisis. We
can't drill and burn and drill and burn. We're going to end up choking
on our own exhaust. We're going to inflate the temperature so much in
this globe that we're going to melt not just the ice caps but our
future at the same time.
So we need to have that energy policy that is not based on increasing
supply but finding alternative sources of energy.
Mr. ELLISON. What do you think about an energy policy that would
incentivize the production of cars that get 100 miles to the gallon?
They're out there. The technology is there. There are a lot of things
that we're looking at here in Congress that could help people go a long
way. You plug that thing in at night when the load is a little lower,
nonpeak hours. What about getting some of these light bulbs that don't
use as much energy? What about converting some of these old windy
buildings so they don't waste as much energy?
Mr. KAGEN. We're doing that with the Department of Energy building
because our Transportation Committee has decided that the energy
building, the Department of Energy, should be led with some solar
power. It's called future fitting. And if you future fit your home, put
up solar cells, not to take it off the electrical grid but
knock down your electric footprint, your carbon footprint, you will
save much in your electric bill and also in terms of the CO2
production in the atmosphere.
These are the little things that when they add up, when thousands of
homes across the country begin to future fit their homes, we can gain a
great deal of energy independence and stimulate the economy. People
underestimate the millions of jobs that can be created by future
fitting their home, and we have to help them out here in Congress to
create that legislation to incentivize that.
Mr. YARMUTH. Exactly.
I would say you made the right statement. We will never drill our way
out
[[Page 9148]]
of the energy crisis, but we can invent our way out of the energy
crisis; and the private sector is in the process of doing that. We need
to give them the boost. We need to give them the incentives. We need to
provide the tax credits, and in fact, we have tried to do that. And if
anything, I think, represents a clear distinction--there is probably
nothing that represents a clear distinction between the President's
party and ours than the way we have handled the ideas of incentives.
The Republican Congress in 2005 voted a 15--well, the number is
vague--but it's around $15 billion a year in tax incentives to the oil
companies to drill. We've tried to take that tax incentive away, that
subsidy, and put it into the types of innovative technologies that will
be the answer to our energy crisis, will make us independent of
imported oil, and oil totally, and will stimulate and create new
economies and new economic opportunity in this country.
{time} 2200
Mr. ELLISON. I've got to ask the gentleman to yield on this one.
What is the opinion of you two esteemed gentlemen on the $40.7
billion ExxonMobil cleared? I mean, that's not revenue, that's profit,
and yet and still, this President does not want to take away their
incentives, their oil subsidies. What kind of sense does that make? Can
somebody please rescue me from my ignorance?
Mr. YARMUTH. That didn't make since in 2006 when they made $38 or $39
billion. It didn't make sense last year when they made $40 billion. It
doesn't make sense when they made over $40 billion. Record profits
every year since we gave them this huge tax subsidy.
Mr. ELLISON. Well, let me ask you this, do you think there will come
a day when the folks in the White House might just say, they might not
need that subsidy after all?
Mr. YARMUTH. Well, ironically, in a way, this President did say that
because in 2004, when he was campaigning for reelection, he said once
oil passes $55 a barrel, the oil companies will not need any incentive
to drill. That was his campaign statement in 2004.
Mr. ELLISON. That's the problem. He just doesn't know that oil is not
$55 a barrel, but actually hit about $126 a barrel. He just doesn't
know. Somebody ought to send him a news flash.
Mr. KAGEN. Let me put it in a different perspective, if you will
allow me to. It's not about profits. I'm in favor of profits. We have a
capitalistic marketplace. I'd like people to be profitable. It
certainly beats the alternative of being negative in red ink.
But let me submit to you that the oil that we're pulling up out of
the ground hasn't changed in millions of years. The gold we're mining
out of these mines, it's the same gold as it has been for millions of
years but it costs more. It costs more because the purchasing power of
your United States dollar has declined.
So there's a decline, a reevaluation south of everything you own and
everything you do. Every working man and woman today is earning money
that has less purchasing power than before, and it's because of our
failed economic policy of this administration and the Republican party,
the philosophy of borrow and spend and borrow and spend.
You cannot borrow your way into national prosperity. You cannot spend
your way into prosperity. We have to have a fiscally responsible and
socially progressive House and Nation, and when we do that, when we
reinstill these values, we'll begin to grow our way out of this current
recession and restore some balance to our economy, wherein an oil
company may not have to make that much money at the expense of every
consumer who is struggling just to keep their head above water.
Mr. ELLISON. You put your finger on a very important issue. You used
the word ``philosophy,'' and I think it's a good time to talk about the
philosophical framework that I believe is crumbling before our eyes.
The idea that the middle class doesn't matter, that the wealthiest
among us--and let me just tell you, I'm one who says, thank God that
you were able to do really, really well. I'm not against people in the
top 1 percent. I mean, I'm like great. But I think people in the top 1
percent say, you know what, I climbed up the ladder and I'm going to
leave it there so other people can climb up the ladder, too.
But the philosophy that I think we have seen over the last 8 years is
the philosophy that says, you know what, we're going to give every
opportunity, every incentive to the people at the very tiptop; we're
not going to make sure people in the middle are making it. And what
eventually happens is that those people there in the middle don't have
anymore money to spend. They are now spending out of debt, and then
what happens is that they can't even afford the basic necessities of
life, which then is going to have an impact on the consumer sector and
on corporate America.
Seventy percent of the whole GDP is what we spend, consumer spending,
but we ain't got no money. And so the point is, we are literally
killing the goose that laid the golden egg. We need to say that we need
new politics where the market is a part of our life but not a holy,
sacred grail. The market helps to propel productivity, but is not all
there is. But we have alongside the market, a regulated market, a
market that makes sure that competition is present, a market that says
that consumers cannot just get stuck and gouged and pinched and pulled
and taken advantage of, and a market that says that we want to have
innovation and room for small producers so that there's this
competition over goods and services and brand and innovation and, of
course, price.
We need a new market that has the middle class as the VIP of this
economy, not the CEO.
Mr. KAGEN. I think that you're headed toward the philosophy that I
think America really believes in, getting back to the basics and
putting the letters U-N-I-T-Y, unity, back into community.
Mr. ELLISON. Oh, yeah.
Mr. KAGEN. We can do that by helping to evolve our health care system
back to community-based ratings so there is no discrimination against
any citizen, not just because of the color of their skin but their skin
chemistry, not just the content of their heart but the arterial content
of their heart.
So we have to get back to a place, again, where American traditional
values are reinforced here in Congress. I think that's the hard work,
the working ethic. That's the hard work we have been doing here during
these past 15 months that we got here.
Mr. YARMUTH. There's another element to the philosophy that I think
we need to talk about now, and I see it in discussions that we have in
our caucus meetings, and I think it's a growing realization that we
have to embrace as a philosophy in this body that we can't think just
to the next election cycle. We have to start thinking very long-term,
and we have to start thinking about investment and investments that
will pay off over the long run but will not get us any immediate
gratification or recognition so that we can get votes at the next
election.
And you mentioned health care, and that's certainly an area in which
we have to start investing because every dollar we spend on early
childhood health care we know pays off 10, 20 times down the road. You
can't see it today. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, won't
score it and say, okay, you can take credit for that, but we know that
it happens. If children are tended to early on, preventive care,
diagnostic work, we catch a hearing problem, a sight problem, you catch
them before they get obese, we know how much that returns in savings
down the road.
The same way with infrastructure. We've neglected infrastructure in
this country for far too long. We know we have to make investments in
infrastructure, but those are the types of investments that do pay off.
It's not like Iraq where every dollar, once you shoot a bullet, once
you shoot a rocket, that's money gone. There's no investment there, no
return on investment.
But infrastructure, health care, medical research, if we could spend,
let's say we spent $100 billion over the next
[[Page 9149]]
10 years and we were to
cure cancer and diabetes, you're the doctor, it would save trillions of
dollars long-term.
Mr. KAGEN. Absolutely.
Mr. YARMUTH. And so we have to start thinking I think in that long-
term, let's invest money now. You're right, you can't spend your way to
solve these problems, but you can invest your way. And I think there's
sound, solid, predictable results that we can get from these types of
investments.
Mr. KAGEN. But that requires judgment. It requires good judgment at
every level of our government, not just a mayor or a county board
member, but here in Congress and in the White House. And this is why
this next election, I'm looking forward to having the opportunity to
work with a President who has good judgment and a philosophy that
believes in prevention, not just in health care, but by preventing
going to war, you prevent human tragedy and you save tremendous amounts
of money.
Mr. ELLISON. That's why I really believe that we need a philosophy
and a President who believes in the philosophy of the common good. The
common good because, you know, as Representative Yarmuth refers to
infrastructure, that's another word for our common wealth. That's our
common wealth. That's what we all own together. That's the roads, the
bridges, the dikes, the levees, the transit. That's the universities,
the public school system. That could be a health care system that we
own together, that's ours. And that's all of these things that when we
invest in them, they pay dividends back.
Like you just said, that military spending is a one-way good. You
shoot that bullet, and it's gone. But when you build that road, all of
us who use it for even just our businesses, just to truck stuff over
it, are using it, that's a return on investment. Those of us who go to
school on it, that's a return on investment. Those of us who use it
just for recreation, that's a return on our investment.
It's our common wealth, and we need to get back to the idea that, you
know, America is a country where we have our common good and we share
it, and we believe it and we have a common wealth that we share and we
keep and we promote. And our market is a part of the common wealth, but
it's in service to the people of the country. It's in service to tap
into the creativity and the productive power of the people so that they
can produce goods and services for the people of this country.
Our markets are another, not just to produce goods and services, but
to improve our social life because in that way, when I'm allowed to do
my thing, right, I can be more happy, more productivity, more creative.
And if I had health care and if I had a pension and if I had a school
system that my kids could go to, boy, I could sit in that garage and
come up with all kind of cool stuff.
The fact is we've got to get back to this place where it's about the
common good, it's about the common wealth, and not about just me for me
and I don't care about anybody else. Greed essentially elevated to a
political philosophy, we've got to get away from that. It has not
served us well.
Mr. YARMUTH. Well, the gentleman makes a wonderful point, and I'm
reminded in a very kind of maybe indirect way of a movie that came out
back in the early seventies, and it was called ``Rollerball.'' It was
remade several years ago in a very different way. But the movie early
in the 1970s was a science fiction movie, futuristic, looking to an era
in which geopolitical boundaries had ceased to exist. And the world,
instead of being divided into countries, was divided into economic
entities.
So James Caan, who starred in that movie, played Rollerball, a
futuristic game, for the Energy Corporation, and they played against
the Communications Corporation. And then there was the Food
Corporation, and that's the way the world was divided.
And sometimes when you see ExxonMobil with its volume of revenue and
profits and some of these other enormous corporations, you say maybe
we're not too far from that.
So we have to decide, as a Nation, it's one thing to say the world is
flat, but that doesn't mean the world has lost its distinctions yet and
its delineations into Nations that have souls and have people who
believe in their commonness, their common mission, their common
ambitions. And that's something that I think every American wants to
retain. We don't want to lose that.
And I think when we essentially wash our hands in Washington and say
corporate America, corporate world just go at it, do what you want to
do and we'll take whatever you give us, we're not too far from that
unfortunate scenario in ``Rollerball.''
Mr. KAGEN. Let me make a comment about that if I may, and many people
would like to say, well, why can't government run itself like a
business. And in one sense, we can because in business there are three
questions you have to ask yourself: Will it work? Will it be
profitable? And the third most important question is, is it the right
thing to do?
These are the three questions we can ask ourselves as well here as we
begin to fashion legislation. Will it really work? Is it going to have
the outcomes that we hoped that it would, whether it's health care or a
housing bill or a farm bill? Will it work?
Secondly, is it going to be profitable? Will it be something for
generations to come? Seven generations forward will feel that was a
good investment of your time and your natural and national resources?
And finally, is it the right thing to do? Is it the ethical thing to
be doing?
These are the three questions that apply to business. These are the
three questions I think apply to our government, and I'm happy to say
what we've been working on here in the 110th Congress, all three of
these questions have been asked and answered, and we're doing the right
thing for America. We're really moving it in a very positive direction.
Mr. ELLISON. I would say, and we have about maybe 5 or 6 more minutes
to go tonight. I just want to say it's always a pleasure to be on the
floor with the difference makers, the majority makers. It's an honor to
be able to stand in front of the American people and to project a
progressive vision that includes us all, that allows us to share in a
common good and a common wealth together and also allows us to, you
know, embrace the fact that we are an economy, that our society
embraces the free market as well, that we look at these two things as
complementary and not one superior to the other, that we see them as
something that enhances our life together.
{time} 2215
And I just want to say, as you mentioned, Mr. Yarmuth, that I don't
think Americans want to be under a corporatocracy. I think we like our
national identity.
And I'll say that you should know that before the 1870s, the
corporate entity was nothing close to what it is today. As a matter of
fact, you couldn't even own one unless the charter was issued by the
State, the same as it is today. That's the thing; we think of these
things as somehow natural or inevitable, but corporations are creatures
of the State. Without a State charter, they don't exist. And we should
say that corporations should ask, does it work, does it make money, and
is it the right thing to do? That is a perfectly legitimate question.
And I look forward to the day when that question is asked by all of us.
So with that, I again thank you two gentlemen, and also salute the
majority makers. And I look forward to a day when we have a cooperative
and productive relationship with the executive.
Mr. YARMUTH. That will be a nice day. And, you know, just following
up a little bit on that thought, the image that I get in my mind when I
look out over the economic landscape sometimes is that we have a lot of
very wealthy, very powerful people who are just playing Monopoly with
America, that this is just a game for them. And there are the little
houses and the little trains and all the little pieces that
[[Page 9150]]
are on the Monopoly board, and it's funny money. Unfortunately, it's funny money
that many people are being deprived of because of the great
concentrations of wealth in this country.
And I don't want to sound like somebody who's saying, oh, we've got
to redistribute the wealth, we've got to make sure everybody has the
same thing. That's not what any of us are talking about. But as Mr.
Ellison pointed out before, we have seen the greatest separation of
wealth, disparity in wealth in this country than we've seen in almost
100 years. And we've let the pendulum swing much too far to one side so
that we've allowed the very wealthiest people to become incredibly
wealthy, and almost everybody else has been treading water.
As we said, we have not been floating everybody's boat; in fact,
we've been drowning a lot of people. And we've got to make sure that
everybody has a boat. And I think that's one of the things that this
Congress is committed to.
So I would like to yield to my friend, Dr. Kagen, for some closing
remarks as we wind down this version of the majority makers.
Mr. KAGEN. Well, I would close by thanking you for the opportunity.
It's been a long day, another 15-hour day for both of us. And I want to
thank the American people for tuning in tonight. And you can guarantee
one thing, that we're working hard for you. We're on your side. We're
going to protect our country. We're going to grow our economy, expand
the middle class, and defend our planet against global climate change.
And on that positive note, I yield back my time.
Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Dr. Kagen. It's wonderful to be here with you
tonight, and also with Mr. Ellison.
And one of the things, I guess if I could capsulize what we've said
tonight and what the majority makers feel more than anything else, that
in this country every person matters. Every individual matters, and
every individual deserves our attention, our concern, and our action.
And that's what we've been doing for 16 months and pledge to be doing
for the rest of our tenure in office.
So with that, once again, thank you for joining me tonight.
____________________
MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Space). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I preface my remarks with a personal
statement that, while I am opposed to the advocates of man-made global
warming theories, I am committed to a clean and healthy environment, to
purifying our air, our water, and our soil; all of this for the sake of
the people of this planet, including my three children, Anika, Tristan
and Christian. I do this not because of some paranoid theory that
humans are changing the climate of the world, but instead, I am very
concerned about the health of the people of the world and, thus,
committed to clean air, clean soil, and clean water.
Thus, we have, today, to take a look at the issues of global warming
and pollution that confront our society because there are enormous
implications to this whole discussion of what has been called ``man-
made global warming.''
Only 18 months ago the refrain ``Case closed: Global warming is
real,'' was repeated as if the mantra from some religious zealots. It
was pounded into the public consciousness over the airwaves, in print,
and even at congressional hearings, ``Case closed.'' Well, this was
obviously a brazen attempt to end open discussion and to silence
differing views by dismissing the need for seriously contrary arguments
and seriously listening to both sides of an argument. And rather than
hearing both sides of the argument, this was an attempt to dismiss
arguments even though the person making the arguments might have a very
impressive credential or might be a very educated scientist or someone
else who should be listened to.
And yes, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of prominent scientists
and meteorologists, the heads of science departments at major
universities, and others, who are highly critical of the man-made
global warming theory. There is Dr. Richard Lindzen of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has been adamant in his
opposition, as has a Bjarne Andresen of the University of Copenhagen,
Adreas Prokoph, a professor of earth sciences at the University of
Ottawa, Dr. William Gray, a famous hurricane expert and former
President of the American Meteorological Association, and Dr. Kevin
Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National
Center of Atmospheric Research. All of these are respected scholars,
all skeptical of the unwarranted alarmism that we are being pressured
to accept.
But their views and those of so many more prominent scholars and
scientists don't matter. The debate is over. Al Gore has his Nobel
Prize, and the film, ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' its Academy Award. So
shut up and get your mind in lockstep with the politically correct
prevailing wisdom, or at least what the media tells us is the
prevailing wisdom. And no questions, please, the case is closed. We
heard that dozens and dozens of times.
So what is this theory that now is so accepted that no more debate is
needed or even tolerated? The man-made global warming theory may be
presented as scientific truism, but it is not. It is a disturbing
theory that the Earth began a warming cycle 150 years ago that differed
greatly from all the other warming and cooling cycles in the Earth's
past. This warming cycle of 150 years ago, we keep being told, is tied
directly to mankind's use of fossil fuels, basically oil and coal,
which, of course, oil and coal and these fuels, these so-called fossil
fuels, have powered our industries and made modern civilization
possible.
Fossil fuels, we are told, puts an ever-increasing so-called level of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and the most prevalent of these
gases, of course, being carbon dioxide, CO2. This increase
in CO2 causes the warming that we are supposedly
experiencing today. This man-made warming cycle, according to the
theory, is rapidly approaching a tipping point when the world's
temperatures will abruptly jump and accelerate with dire and perhaps
apocalyptic consequences for the entire planet.
For skeptics of this hypothesis, the consequence of accepting this
theory, the consequences are far more dire than any of the consequences
we're supposed to be suffering out of a predicted rise in temperature.
And by the way, that rise in temperature, of course, isn't really
happening, which we will discuss a little bit later.
If one accepts this as fact rather than theory, this idea that man-
made global warming is overwhelming our planet, then one would be
expected to also accept controls, regulations, taxation, international
planning and enforcement, mandated lifestyle changes, lowering
expectations, limiting consumer choice, as well as personal and family
sacrifices that are all going to be necessary for us to save the planet
from--well, from us.
It really takes a lot to frighten people into accepting such
personally restrictive mandates that would result from implementing a
global warming-based agenda. People's lives will change if we decide to
implement a global warming-based agenda. Yes, people's lives will
change, but not for the better if we have to end, for example, discount
airline tickets and cheap travel.
Most people who listen to the global warming advocates don't
understand that the global warming advocates believe that jet planes
are some of the worst CO2 polluters, and thus they have to
be restricted, according to the theory. So how many people really do
want to end the cheap airline tickets that can be had over the
Internet?
Obviously one of the goals will be to severely restrict the use of
private automobiles. Sure. Now, we know that. The fact that the
automobile has been targeted for the last 20 years certainly suggests
that automobiles are on the
[[Page 9151]]
hit list. But don't worry, we may have to
give up our automobiles, but the rich and the government officials will
still have their private jets, their Suburbans, and even their
limousines. But the rest of us, of course, will be relegated to public
transportation. And we will have very limited travel rights unless we
can, of course, afford the higher and higher prices.
Global warming predictions appear designed to strike fear into the
heart of those malcontents who just won't willingly accept the mandates
in their lifestyle changes that are needed in order to save the planet.
These people, of course, won't accept things like higher food prices,
which will come with an implementation of global warming mandates. And
of course they certainly won't accept less meat in their diet. That's
right, part of the manmade global warming theory and how we're going to
solve this is to wean mankind away from meat.
A 2006 report entitled ``Livestock's Long Shadow'' to the United
Nations mentions livestock emissions and grazing, and it places the
blame for global warming squarely on the hind parts of cows. Livestock,
the report claims, accounts for 18 percent of the gases that supposedly
cause the global warming of our climate. Cows are greenhouse-emitting
machines. Fuel for fertilizer and meat production and transportation,
as well as clearing the fields for grazing, produce 9 percent of the
global CO2 emissions, according to the report. And also,
cows produce ammonia, causing acid rain, of course.
Now, if that's not bad enough, all of these numbers are projected in
this report to double by the year 2050. Well, not only are we then
going to have to cut personal transportation, which will keep us at
home, but when we stay at home, we can't even have a barbecue. And
heck, they won't even let us have a hamburger.
I would like to point out that before the introduction of cattle,
millions upon millions of buffalo dominated the Great Plains of
America. They were so thick you could not see where the herd started
and where it ended. I can only assume that the anti-meat, manmade
global warming crowd must believe that buffalo farts have more socially
redeeming value than the same flatulence emitted by cattle. Yes, this
is absurd, but the deeper one looks into this global warming
juggernaut, the weirder this movement becomes and the more denial is
evident.
Ten years ago, for example, the alarmists predicted that by now we
would be clearly plagued by surging temperatures. In testimony before
Congress 20 years ago, now, says James Hansen, a man who has repeatedly
challenged people who simply want to make sure that his views are
balanced off at NASA, but NASA's James Hansen 20 years ago predicted
CO2 would shoot up and global temperatures would shoot up by
more than one-third of a degree Celsius during the 1990s.
So a rise in temperature was predicted, and it would lead to what?
Rising sea levels. In the end, we'll have rising sea levels, perhaps
even cities under water, droughts and famines, and of course an
increase in tropical diseases. Yes, tropical diseases. Sometimes it's
difficult for me to hear it when certain environmentalists use that as
an example, considering the fact that tropical diseases, namely
malaria, has killed millions of children in the Third World because the
environmentalists have been successful in banning DDT. But that's
another issue.
{time} 2230
But the point is there are serious consequences, perhaps unintended
consequences to following nonsensical extremism in the arena of the
environment.
So were the predictions of global heating correct? Forget ``case
closed.'' The question needs to be answered. Were all of these
predictions correct? Mr. Hansen said it would rise by a third of a
degree just a little over a decade ago. And the answer is that the
predictions of a decade ago have turned out to be dramatically wrong.
Temperatures during that decade rose only one-third of the jump
predicted by Hansen, a modest 0.11, one-third of what he had predicted.
Furthermore, numerous and powerful hurricanes that were forecast by
the National Hurricane Center, for example, at NOAA and others, well,
by now we haven't seen such a trend, and by now we were led to believe
there would be a drought and a melting of the ice caps would be clearly
upon us. My beautiful Sierra Nevada Mountains in California were due to
heat up, dry up, brown up, and burn, burn, burn. Yep, during the entire
Clinton administration, we heard these predictions over and over again.
During the Clinton administration, we saw scientists produce study
after study predicting the horrific impact of the unstoppable onslaught
of man-made global warming, which we were led to believe would be
overwhelming us right now. Right now. Of course, if there was even a
hint that the conclusion of their research wouldn't back up the theory
of man-made global warming, these scientists wouldn't have seen one red
cent from the Federal research pool during the Clinton administration.
In a September, 2005, article from Discovery Magazine, Dr. William
Gray, now an emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado
State University and a former president of the American Meteorological
Association, was asked if funding problems that he was experiencing and
has been experiencing could be traced to his skepticism of man-made
global warming. His response: ``I had NOAA money for 30 years, and then
when the Clinton administration came in and Gore started directing some
of the environmental stuff, I was cut off. I couldn't get any money
from NOAA. They turned down 13 straight proposals from me.'' This man
is one of the most prominent hurricane experts in the world, cut off
during the Clinton-Gore administration because he had been skeptical of
global warming.
In fact, Al Gore's first act as Vice President was to insist that
William Harper be fired as the Chief Scientist at the Department of
Energy. Now, why was that? Well, that's because William Harper had
uttered words indicating that he was open minded to the issue of global
warming. So off with his head. They didn't want someone who was open
minded. They wanted someone who was going to provide grants based on
people who would verify this man-made global warming theory. Now, that
was 1993 when Mr. Harper was relieved, the first year of the Clinton-
Gore administration. So for over a decade, all we got was a drumbeat of
one-sided research, setting the stage for the false claim that there is
a scientific consensus about whether or not man-made global warming is
real.
Unfortunately, for all those scientists who went along with the
scheme, now, over a decade later, there is a big problem. Contrary to
what all those scientists living on their Federal research grants
predicted, the world hasn't been getting warmer. In fact, for the last
7 years, there has been no warming at all, which has been verified even
by, for example, Michel Jarraud of the World Meteorological
Organization. He's their Secretary General. He reluctantly admitted
that global temperatures have not risen since 1998, according to a BBC
article. Global snowfall is at record levels and there are fewer, not
more, hurricanes.
Furthermore, there is some melting in the Arctic. We all know that
there is some melting in the Arctic because we hear about it over and
over again. In fact, NBC did some special on the melting of the Arctic
and how bad it is and showed the pictures of penguins sitting on a
diminishing piece of ice in the Arctic. Except there was a problem with
that story. You see, penguins don't live in the Arctic; they live in the Antarctic.
There are no penguins in the Arctic. So NBC had it wrong. Somebody must have told
them that the penguins from the Arctic were being victimized by global
warming. In fact, in the Antarctic, where the penguins are, there is a
buildup of ice. It is getting cooler. And in the Arctic, of course, we
do recognize there has been a warming in the Arctic, likely due to
ocean currents that have changed in the last few years and not due to
CO2 that comes from somebody's SUV.
After hearing about the extinction of the polar bear, which has been
[[Page 9152]]
drummed into our heads, we now hear that--and by the way, just today
the polar bear was put on an endangered species list. But are the polar
bears really disappearing? We now hear from Dr. Mitchell Taylor from
the Department of the Environment under the Canadian territory of
Nunavut and other experts, I might add, who suggest, yes, all but one
or two species of the polar bears are flourishing. Yes, of the twenty-
odd species, there are perhaps one or two that are suffering and not
doing well, but all the rest of the species of polar bear are
expanding. In fact, we don't have a situation with fewer polar bears;
we've got more polar bears. Yet our government is putting the polar
bear on an endangered species list, saying that if the ice cap melts,
the polar bears will all be going away because their habitat has been
destroyed.
Unfortunately, the debate on this case is not closed. So explaining
emerging obvious differences between the reality and the theory needs
to be addressed by the people who have been advocating global warming.
The case is not closed. The gnomes of climate theory now have to come
up with explanations for us of why it was predicted that the weather
would be this way at this time and it is not. Why is it that basically
we've had stable weather, if not a little cooler weather, for the last
8 years?
The first attempt to basically cover their tracks about this
noticeable dichotomy in what they predicted and what was happening
happened a few years ago, and it went very slowly but very cleverly.
The words ``climate change'' have now replaced the words ``global
warming.'' Get that? Every time you hear it now, half the time they are
going to be using the words ``climate change'' where those very same
people were so adamant about ``global warming'' only 4 or 5 years ago.
So no matter what happens now, now that they've changed it to ``climate
change'' rather than global warming, whatever happens to the weather
pattern, whether it's hotter or cooler, it can be presented as further
verification of human-caused change. If you just had ``human-caused
warming,'' it would have to be at least warming for them to actually
have any verification of what they were trying to say. But right now by
using ``climate change,'' they can bolster their right to be taken
seriously upon recommending policies, even though no matter what
direction the climate goes, it is justified by how they are labeling
themselves.
I'm sorry, fellows. Do you really think the world is filled with
morons? When it comes to bait and switch, used car salesmen are
paragons of virtue compared to this global warming crowd. Excuse me.
It's not the ``global warming'' crowd now; it's the ``climate change''
crowd. Of course, they don't want any of us to own automobiles; so what
the heck. They can act like used car salesmen because there will be
more jobs for them as being advocates in the climate change arena.
We just need to ask ourselves, if a salesman gives a strong pitch and
claims something that is later found to be wrong, totally wrong, when
does one stop trusting that salesman? Then if he starts playing word
games, changing the actual words that he's using about the same product
rather than just admitting an error, isn't it reasonable to stop
trusting him?
Yes, Al Gore and company, we have noticed that you are now saying
``climate change'' rather than ``global warming.'' I know that people
tried to slip it in, but we have noticed, and there is something behind
this that the American people should take note of. Why has that
changed? Well, that's because the world has not been getting warmer in
these last 7 years, as they predicted it would be.
So instead of word games, what these advocates need to explain is
what is happening in the real world today and why it doesn't match what
they said was going to happen based on their ``case closed, man-made
global warming is real.'' They must realize that someone is bound to
notice that last winter was unusually cold and that chilly weather
seems to be the trend. It actually snowed in Denver just less than a
month ago, and people have commented on the chilliness of the weather
this year.
So now we see a beehive of activity going on. Those federally funded
scientists are trying to save some modicum of credibility by adjusting
their computers and coming up with some explanations that keep man-made
global warming as a theory but explains away the current dichotomy
between what they said would happen and what is actually happening. Of
course, computer models were used to justify their hysteria and their
hysteric warming predictions to begin with. So now the computer's
information input is readjusted and we can see all these things coming
out of it.
Well, there's a lot of questions that need to be answered and a lot
of things that were told to us that obviously are not true and are not
consistent with what's been going on and what we see happening around
us today.
And why is this of such concern to us? Why are we concerned that
global warming as a theory has been presented and that it's false, and
why should we be so concerned that it's being accepted? What could be
the negative results of just accepting it from some people who might be
very sincere, very sincere and concerned about the planet?
Well, what happens in such cases as this is that we have situations
that occur and people then actually come to the point where they are
focused on aspects of what's going on in the world that will not make
it better but instead have terrible consequences in and of themselves.
For example, a deadly cyclone just brought death and destruction to
Burma, and it was a horrible thing. Burma is a country that is run by a
vicious dictatorship, and after the cyclone went through Burma, the
dictatorship wouldn't even permit our supplies to be given to those
people of Burma. Well, Al Gore is so committed to this idea of global
warming, which, of course, most people call ``climate change,'' that
when commenting on Burma, instead of talking about the monstrous nature
of the Burmese regime, instead he had to say, ``The trend toward more
category five storms--the larger ones and the trend toward stronger and
more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming and
specifically to the impact of global warming on higher ocean
temperatures in the top couple of hundred feet of the ocean, which
drives convection energy and moisture into these storms and makes them
more powerful.''
What should Al Gore's reaction have been? Well, what it should have
been was ``The Burmese regime is despicable. The Burmese people are
suffering. They are dying by the hundreds of thousands. It is
despicable for this dictatorship not to permit our aid in.'' But
instead that was ignored, and what Al Gore did focus on ``This is a
chance for me to explain global warming,'' as the quote I just gave
suggested.
{time} 2245
Well, the Burmese cyclone hit Burma. If you take a look at what Al
Gore's words were, he is trying to say that it is because of the
warming of the water. I have in front of me, which I will submit as
part of the Record, a satellite image of ocean temperatures taken by
NOAA on May 5 which suggests the ocean in the area of the Burmese
cyclone is one of the coldest water areas on Earth.
So what the heck is Mr. Gore talking about? What is all this mumbo
jumbo? Again, he is warning about global warming because he is grasping
at an attempt to try to verify in some way
his predictions that have been all wrong for the last 5 years.
Dr. William Gray, for example, as I mentioned, the former chairman of
the American Meteorological Association, a pre-eminent hurricane
expert, has noted ``there is no reliable data available to indicate
increased hurricane frequency or intensity in any of the globe's seven
tropical cyclone basins.'' So hurricanes and cyclones are not a product
of global warming. Dr. Gray, I think, has more credentials than Mr.
Gore. But most convincingly, the most
[[Page 9153]]
convincing part of this is that
no matter what Al Gore says about the warming of this water, that is
not what we are hearing from other sources.
I will now submit for the Record indications that actually the water
temperature is not warming and is expected to cool, especially in the
northern areas of the world.
So what is really important here is that we take a look and we see
that the world is not warming and that those people who have been
advocating this are grasping to try to find a way out of the fact that
they are telling us that we need to adopt the policies that they want
for our country, yet their predictions on the weather were wrong.
What is happening is, and the articles that I will submit for the
Record show, is that some of the organizations that were predicting
that we would be in global warming now are telling us that, yes, there
will be global warming. We are not giving it up. But it is going to be
10 to 15 years from now and not in the last 10 years, as was predicted.
In fact, as I said, we actually have this article that suggests that
the sea around Europe and North America will cool slightly during the
next decade, and the Pacific will be about the same. And the article
suggests that it will be a ``10-year time-out for global warming.''
This is based on studies that were conducted by organizations that only
a few years ago were predicting that global warming would be so evident
to us today. Well, they have to say something I guess.
To understand all of this nonsense, you have to go back and look at
the basic assumptions that are being used by global warming alarmists.
They believe that excessive amounts of manmade CO2 are being
deposited into the air which causes a greenhouse effect that warms the
atmosphere. They call this the ``carbon footprint.'' That is what we
are led to look for. We don't want to look in Burma for this vicious
dictatorship causing the death of hundreds of thousands of people
because of the repression. They won't even let our supplies in. We have
to blame it on global warming causing a cyclone which hit Burma. No. I
don't think so. But carbon footprinting is now what we should look at.
The global warming analysts want us to judge everything by its carbon
footprint. What that means is how much CO2 is being released
because of that activity, because they believe it is CO2
that causes the planet to warm.
This concept, just like these other extrapolations that we get from
computers, is wrong. It is dead wrong. A rise in CO2 comes
after global temperature increases, not before. This has been observed
in ice cores by prominent scientists, yet ignored by those screaming
their warnings at us. That's right. Ice cores indicate that there have
been periods, many periods, of warming and cooling in the history of
the world. But the warming that has happened preceded the increase in
the level of CO2 in the world. That is why we have warming.
That is why we can't say that if we control CO2 that it is
going to prevent the climate from warming.
Obviously, if the CO2 increase comes as a result of the
warming, by changing that, the warming is still going to be with us.
Well, that is getting things to the core. And I don't mean a pun by
that in terms of the ice core, but the fact is that this evidence is
confirmed by ice cores.
So take note that the very argument upon which global warming is
built has been proven to be false and that manmade global warming
advocates will not address that issue. I have been in hearing after
hearing. I have been involved with debates on this thing. When you tell
them ``no,'' and you name several scientists, and I will be happy to do
that for the Record, who are indicating that the CO2
increases come after the warming of the planet, well, that issue just
isn't addressed.
After all, the case is closed. We don't need to discuss any of those
type of details. To cite one example of experts' findings on this, by
the way, is Tom Scheffelin of the California Air Resources Board who
stated on November 5, 2007, that ``CO2 levels track
temperature changes between 300 to 1,000 years after the temperature
has changed. CO2 has no direct role in global warming;
rather, it responds to biological activity, which responds to climate
changes.''
The fact is that the global warming community is jumping through
hoops and bending over backwards struggling to find one little glint of
new information to cover their arrogant attempt to stampede humankind
into draconian policies and to cut off the debate and dismiss the
debate without addressing the issues. The government-financed
propaganda campaign to convince us that manmade global warming has been
and continues to be a major threat, this propaganda is a cacophony of
gibberish presented as a scientific explanation.
Go back and look at what Mr. Gore's words were about that cyclone.
That same sort of putting together of pseudoscience wording in order to
impress people is seen time and again. There are facts now evident, of
course, that this can't be ignored. And Mr. Gore's mumbo jumbo
notwithstanding, the predictions have been wrong. And the
CO2 premise is wrong. The methodology that has been used has
been wrong. The observations have been wrong. And the attempt to shut
up those people who disagree has been wrong.
I remember Al Gore labeling me a Stalinist because when I chaired the
subcommittee on Research and Science Education, I insisted that both
sides be presented. There was a study on research and the environment,
a subcommittee of the Science Committee. And I insisted when I was
chairman of the committee that expert witnesses on both sides be
present at hearings and that they address each other's contentions.
Well, to him, that is Stalinism. Well, I would suggest that the
propaganda campaign of the manmade global warming alarmists has far
more in common with Stalinism than does insisting that both sides of an
argument be heard.
One has to really believe that he or she has a corner on the truth to
make such a complaint as the one that he was making against me. He must
feel really safe in saying that he knows the truth and that is in order
to justify not having both sides of an argument presented at a hearing.
Of course, Mr. Gore's documentary, ``An Inconvenient Truth'' by its own
title suggests that it should be taken as the truth. And I won't go
into the numerous debatable points and outright errors that are
presented in the film. Something far worse has recently emerged
concerning the fundamental veracity and truthfulness of Vice President
Gore's film.
In the film, there are numerous film segments of climate and
environmental incidents to add credibility to the alleged scientific
points that were being documented in the film. However, what we see is
not necessarily what we are getting. The audience is being given
questionable information and questionable views because what they are
seeing is not necessarily a documentary view but, instead it is a
special effects creation in an attempt to convince the viewers that
they are watching an actual occurrence of something.
Specifically, let me note that the film portrays a huge cracking and
breaking away of a large portion of the polar ice cap. I have not seen
the film, but I am told the scene is awesome and somewhat overwhelming,
leaving the audience feeling that they are witnessing a massive
occurrence, and this massive occurrence, of course, Mr. Gore
conveniently ties to human activity, the human activity he wants to
regulate and of course the human activity that he will profit from if
we have this carbon credit scheme instituted by the various governments
of the world.
Unfortunately, that view of the breakaway of the ice there in the
Arctic is a total fake. It is not National Geographic footage of a huge
breaking away of a portion of the ice cap. It is not firsthand, grand
photographic evidence of the ice breaking. Instead, what the audience
is looking at is an example of special effects. It was not the ice cap
that was being looked at. It was Styrofoam. That's right. Styrofoam.
And the real sin of all of this was not only the sin of presenting
Styrofoam
[[Page 9154]]
and trying to trick people into thinking they are watching
something real, the ice breaking away, but that we haven't heard about
it. I have only seen this in one or two publications. We haven't heard
about it.
If such a trick and attempt to deceive was done by a conservative, I
could tell you that that conservative would be tarred and feathered in
the media. In fact, if there is anything wrong, I am sure that one or
two points that I have in this speech are debatable, and I am sure that
those will be looked at with a microscope. And if I am wrong, even a
little bit, they will try to use that to just say ``don't listen to
anything he says.'' But Mr. Gore can present the breaking away of
Styrofoam and present it to us as if it is really happening. And he
doesn't even apologize or comment on it when it is found out. Al Gore
has no comment on this deception.
Maybe it is inconvenient for him to comment because, yes, it might
hurt his credibility. And after all, the world is getting warmer in
these last 7 years, which is just the opposite of what he predicted.
And of course, maybe his predictions were based on a Styrofoam computer
model. But we will go into that later.
Well, the first time I met Vice President Gore was during my first
term in Congress back in 1989 and 1990. Al Gore then was a United
States Senator. And he marched into the Science Committee room followed
by a platoon of cameras and reporters. He sat in front of the Science
Committee, and he demanded that President Bush, that is George W.'s
father, declare an ozone emergency. And he waved in his hand a report
of evidence that an ozone hole was opening up over the Northeast United
States.
A few days later, the report touted by the Senator was found to have
been based on faulty data, data collected by one so-called researcher
flying a single-engine Piper Cub with limited technology and not much
expertise. Senator Gore was demanding emergency shutdowns of factories
and manufacturing plants in the Northeast. It would have had dire
consequences for the American economy and for those people who worked
in those plants. But they be damned, because we are out to save the
planet.
Now does anyone here see any type of a pattern here, the ozone hole
that wasn't there and then we are going to have this drastic action in
order to save the planet? The scare tactics, the Chicken Little-ism and
all the rest of these types of things that are trying to create
hysteria, this isn't a new tactic.
Let's look at some of the past examples of the nonsense being
portrayed as science.
{time} 2300
Cranberries, yes, cranberries, shield your children from Ocean Spray.
That's right, the cranberry industry suffered a loss of nearly $20
million back in 1957 when it was determined that perhaps cranberries,
there was something wrong with the cranberries. In fact, later on it
was admitted to be just a mistake.
But the cranberry industry went to hell for 2 or 3 years. But if you
are not growing cranberries, what do you care about cranberry farmers?
No, you care about people. Many peoples' lives were destroyed because
over a 2- or 3-year period, cranberries were basically labeled as
something that they should not have been labeled, and it was a
catastrophe for them, just like perhaps those people that worked in
factories that would have been closed up had we taken that ozone scare
seriously.
Then there was the scare over cyclamate. Cyclamate was used in
everyday items like soda, jams, ice cream. It was a sweetening element,
it's very low in calories, that industry, it was a very fine product
and generated an enormous profit. In the early 1970s, the FDA banned
cyclamates. I remember very well.
People spent billions of dollars building this industry. It was a
great industry, but it was labeled as a cancer hazard after someone,
some kind of a researcher, force-fed rats the equivalent of 350 cans of
soda a day. By giving these rats the equivalent of 350 soda cans a day,
8 out of 240 got sick.
Well, even that was a faulty test, and eventually the truth prevailed
and cyclamates were labeled okay, they were given an okay. That was
after about 10 years. Canada, by the way, never banned cyclamates, but
in order to protect us and save us, and it was a terrible situation,
yes, the cyclamate industry never recovered.
The damage, however, was done. This episode has had serious
consequences, because when the cyclamates were banned, that led to the
introduction of what, high fructose corn syrup, so, yes, and with all
of the obesity and problems that come with high fructose corn syrup.
That first got its hold in the food business at a time when cyclamates
were thought to be the answer, but they were banned.
So we have had examples of this over and over again, another American
industry that was decimated by a rotten theory that had hazardous
consequences for implementing.
The next example of fear mongering, of pseudoscience, happened in
1989. February 26, 1989, that evening thousands of Americans tuned into
``60 Minutes'' and heard Ed Bradley say the most potent cancer-causing
agent in our food supply is a substance sprayed on apples to keep them
on the trees longer and make them look better. That's the conclusion of
a number of scientific experts. And who is at risk? Children who may
someday develop cancer.
That one story, by the way, snowballed into a media blitz, a feeding
frenzy, Meryl Streep testified before Congress, spouting off, again,
pseudoscientific nonsense. Parents tossed apples out the window,
schools removed applesauce from the cafeteria and, of course, replaced
that with much safer nutritious substances like ice cream and pudding.
Of course, there was only one problem, the Alar didn't cause cancer,
the apples definitely didn't and even the Alar didn't. The study was
based on bad science, and 20,000 apple growers in the United States
suffered major financial harm.
Okay, so by now such alarmism has become a political tool that scares
people to try to get them to do things. That's what we are facing with
global warming, excuse me, climate change.
The Three Mile Island incident is another example of this. You
remember Three Mile Island, a near disaster in Pennsylvania which,
basically, coupled with the movie ``The China Syndrome'' led to a total
halt in the development of nuclear energy as a means for producing
energy in the United States.
The Jane Fonda movie, ``The China Syndrome,'' coupled with a mishap
at a nuclear power plant, that was, I might add, a mishap that no one
suffered any health consequences, no one died, no one was hurt. Yet it
was presented to the public as this catastrophe, and that led to a
shutdown of the efforts of building any new nuclear power plants.
Ironically, of course, nuclear power is the most effective means of
producing power with no carbon footprint. Again, it was a total con job
on the nuclear energy industry.
What about the ozone hole over the Antarctic? We are told that it
would grow and grow for decades, and it was totally out of control.
Well, Boyce Rensberger, Director of the Knight Fellowship of
Massachusetts Institute of Technology says that ozone depletion is a
cyclical event, expanding and contracting throughout the eons of
history. Here is a scientist from MIT telling us that the current ozone
depression has been simply part of a reoccurring cycle, not as a result
of the use of chlorofluorocarbons, meaning your aerosol cans.
So, what we have got is a situation where at a gigantic shift of
expense, of shifting away from aerosol, we have basically accomplished nothing
because the ozone hole opens and closes on its own. I might add, we
know now, of course, there have been many cycles of warming and
cooling, and is this a natural thing? Well, if you consider the sun
being natural, yes.
Instead of saying that CO2 that's coming out of the use of
fossil fuels is causing our climate to change now, as compared to all
the other times it changed in the past, maybe these people should look
at the sun, and maybe
[[Page 9155]]
there are natural cycles where you have sunspots
and it causes warming and cooling on the Earth.
Could that be an explanation? Well, let's think about it. Otherwise,
how do we explain the fact that on Jupiter and Mars we have cooling and
warming cycles that seem to be matching some of the cycles here on
Earth. Well, maybe there are some SUVs up there on Mars.
Well, the last example, one of the last examples, of course, that I
have in my memory of people trying to be frightened into supporting
policy with this kind of alarmism has been acid rain. The acid rain was
supposed to decimate our forests, destroy our fresh water bodies and
roads, our buildings and sidewalks, and, what happened? That was just
an onslaught that was going on, I worked for Ronald Reagan at the time,
he was just beaten without mercy for his unwillingness to take costly
action aimed at thwarting acid rain. He insisted on waiting for an in-
depth study to be completed.
While he waited, of course, he was vilified as if he doesn't care
about the environment, he doesn't really care about whether or not our
environment is being destroyed by acid rain which is being caused by
us. Well, a 10-year study was going on, Reagan knew about it. He
waited, as he well should have, and there was a study by the Nation
Acid Precipitation Assessment Project and was submitted to Congress in
the 1990s. It minimized the human impact on the acidity on the water
and especially the rain in America's northeast. The issue died quickly
after that report, and it just went away.
After all of the intense attacks on Ronald Reagan, once that report
was in, it just sort of went away. Well, one reason it went away, maybe
there was another alarmist scheme to go to.
Yes, there was, one was emerging about this time, and it was on the
cover of Time Magazine 30 years ago. This was probably the most pitiful
of all of these alarmist attempts. It was, three decades ago, the
scientists were warning us about global cooling. We were told early
that we were on the edge of another ice age.
Well, unfortunately, that one went away very quickly because the
temperatures immediately didn't do what they said it was going to do,
and the temperatures actually did not go down dramatically or freeze.
It did get a little bit warmer during those days. It was one of those
warming cycles, it went up for a few years and it went down.
It was getting warmer, so even as those predictions of frozen gloom
and doom, they just changed the words, those same people were making
the predictions of frozen gloom and doom now were sort of talking about
global warming gloom and doom. You guessed it, so global cooling became
global warming almost overnight. Now, after global warming, climate
change comes almost overnight.
So the scare tactics are nothing new. It is tied to a tried-and-true
method of how to try to manipulate people to accept things they
wouldn't otherwise accept. Unfortunately, there are long-term negative
consequences that will be very clear to our future generations. Of
course, they are being lied to all the time.
I often asked students from my district, who are here visiting in
Washington, whether they believe the air in southern California is
better now or worse now than when I went to high school in southern
California 40 years ago. A huge percentage, maybe 80 percent of these
students, believe that the air quality of 40 years ago was dramatically
better than today. Of course, that's not just a lie, that's a big lie.
This generation has every reason to be optimistic about the future,
and they are being lied to, being told that they are poisoned, and
things are getting worse and worse. In fact, man-made global warming is
going to devastate the whole planet any way. No, these kids now, when I
tell them that, no, when I went to high school, the air pollution in
southern California was much worse than it is today, they are
incredulous.
What is all this lying about? Why are all these children being lied
to? Why are we all being lied to?
I remember as a college student, the first Earth Day--I am quoting
someone here--``I remember as a college student at the first Earth Day
being told that it was a certainty that by the year 2000, the world
would be starving and out of energy,'' writes Dr. John Christy, a
professor of atmospheric science at University of Alabama.
Dr. Christy goes on to say ``Similar pronouncements today about
catastrophes due to human-induced climate change sound all too familiar
and all too exaggerated to me as someone who actually produces and
analyzes climate information.''
So, we are told that polar bears are dying, but they aren't. As we
have known that we have all of these other predictions, we are told
that the polar ice caps are melting, but now we know that the polar ice
caps are melting yes, only in the Arctic, but in the Antarctic, ice is
actually growing.
Hurricane Katrina, we were told would only be the first of many
horrendous hurricanes to hit the United States in the next few years
but, of course, no hurricane equal or close to has been on the horizon.
In fact, a hurricane that was just as strong as Katrina hit the United
States 100 years earlier, long before this effective ``global
warming.'' So when you look at facts like this, an honest debate is
long overdue but yet we see an attempt to shut down an honest debate.
I will submit an advertisement, the Hill newspaper from the
Environmental Defense Action Fund, and it says ``What's next? The Bond-
Voinovich Cigarettes Aren't Addictive Act?'' What they are saying, it's
a cute way of saying, anybody who questions global warning, it is the
equivalent of saying that cigarettes aren't addictive. Well, that's a
great way to dismiss someone's arguments without addressing them. It
says here, ``Some senators,'' this is in the add, ``are asking you to
ignore . . . an international scientific consensus.''
Well, let's put it this way, we hear that, there is a consensus over
and over again. There is no consensus. The world is not getting warmer,
and I would submit a list of 400 members of the scientific community
who do not agree with a man-made global warming theory and, I might
add, I quoted numerous very prestigious members of the scientific
community already in this speech. So what we have is alarmism at its
worst, and the consequences will be very, very severe if we let these
people get away with this.
Now, what we have done is we have, again, permitted people to make
their case without having to defend their case. This is never more
evident than in the dealings with the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, which is the United Nations panel.
I will submit several statements that indicate that the IPCC was
wrong in its approach, in its entire methodology in trying to determine
whether or not global warming, whether there is global warming and
whether or not it is caused by man-made activity.
So with this said, we need to look and say, What is the negative
impact of all of this lack of truthful information? What could possibly
happen? If someone says well, aren't we all against pollution? So what
if someone is making a claim that global warming exists and it is
caused by humankind and in reality it is just the pollution that we are
both trying to get it at. Well, that just doesn't work.
The fact is if we accept this theory of man-made global warming, we
will be focusing our activities on trying to eliminate CO2
rather than eliminate toxic substances from our air. If I am concerned
about my children, my three triplets, Christian, Anika and Tristan, I
am concerned about their health,
that is something that I think I share with every parent. Their health
is not in any way threatened by CO2. CO2 is
nontoxic. It is threatened by NOX and other toxin materials
that come out of engines in cars and other sources. So if we only focus
on CO2, we will end up focusing on the wrong target.
What we need to do is make sure that we develop clean energy sources,
not because of global warming but because of the health of our
children. And also, we need to be independent of foreign sources. The
fact is that foreign
[[Page 9156]]
sources of oil, because we are not developing our
own oil resources as a result of the dynamics created by the global
warming juggernaut that we have been experiencing, the fact is that we
have not drilled for our own oil. We have not focused on real
alternatives to energy like nuclear energy. The fact is that we need to
make sure right now that we do our very best not to be captured by
this, what I consider to be one of the greatest hoaxes that I have seen
in my lifetime, but instead focus our efforts on accomplishing
something that is real and positive for the people of the world and the
people of the United States of America. We should be drilling for oil
so that the terrorists overseas are denied the revenue when we are
forced to buy oil from countries that are allied with these terrorists.
We need to make sure that we develop better engines, and make sure
that those engines are not putting pollutants into the air and forget
about the CO2, go to the pollutants.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I will submit these articles for the
Record.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Cummings (at the request of Mr. Hoyer) for today until 1 p.m.
Ms. Richardson (at the request of Mr. Hoyer) for May 13, 2008.
Mrs. Schmidt (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today on account of
a family medical emergency.
Mr. Weller of Illinois (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today
before 5:15 p.m. on account of personal reasons.
____________________
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 Ms. Woolsey) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Neal, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Holt, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Ms. Foxx) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes, May 21.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina, for 5 minutes, May 21.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Foxx, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 18 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 15, 2008, 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:
6563. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Defense,
transmitting a letter on the approved retirement Vice Admiral
Mark J. Edwards, United States Navy, and his advancement to
the grade of vice admiral on the retired list; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
6564. A letter from the Deputy Secretary, Department of
Defense, transmitting the Department's notification of
payment-in-kind compensation negotiated with Germany for the
return of U.S.-funded improvements at 30 small sites,
pursuant to Public Law 101-510, section 2921(g); to the
Committee on Armed Services.
6565. A letter from the Principal Deputy Under Secretary
for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense,
transmitting a report to Congress on the use of Aviation
Continuation Pay (ACP) for Fiscal Year 2007, pursuant to 37
U.S.C. 301b(i); to the Committee on Armed Services.
6566. A letter from the Director, International
Cooperation, Department of Defense, transmitting Pursuant to
Section 27(f) of the Arms Export Control Act and Section 1(f)
of Executive Order 11958, Transmittal No. 04-08 informing of
an intent to sign the Memorandum of Understanding Between the
Secretary of Defense on Behalf of the Department of Defense
of the United States of America and the Department of
National Defence of Canada Concerning Operation and Support
of Advanced Extremely High Frequency Military Communications,
pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2767(f); to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
6567. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting as required by Executive Order 13313
of July 31, 2003 a six-month periodic report on the national
emergency with respect to Burma declared by Executive Order
13047 of May 20, 1997, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
6568. 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.
6569. A letter from the Deputy Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting pursuant to the reporting
requirements of Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control
Act, as amended, Transmittal No. 08-31 concerning the
Department of the Navy's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and
Acceptance to Australia for defense articles and services; to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
6570. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting determination and
memorandum of justification for suspending prohibitions on
certain sales and leases, pursuant to Public Law 103-236,
section 564; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
6571. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the
national emergency with respect to Sudan that was declared in
Executive Order 13067 of November 3, 1997, as required by
section 401(c) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C.
1641(c), and section 204(c) of the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1703(c), and pursuant to
Executive Order 13313 of July 31, 2003; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
6572. A letter from the Associate General Counsel for
General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
6573. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, transmitting a report pursuant
to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform.
6574. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, transmitting a report pursuant
to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform.
6575. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Justice, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
6576. A letter from the White House Liaison, Department of
Justice, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
6577. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Labor Relations
Authority, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
6578. A letter from the Deputy General Counsel, Office of
National Drug Control Policy, transmitting a report pursuant
to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform.
6579. A letter from the Deputy General Counsel, Office of
National Drug Control Policy, transmitting a report pursuant
to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform.
6580. A letter from the Attorney General, Department of
Justice, transmitting the report on the administration of the
Foreign Agents Registration Act covering the six months ended
June 30, 2007, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 621; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
6581. A letter from the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Department of Justice, transmitting the annual
report of the Office of Justice Programs' Bureau of Justice
Assistance for Fiscal Year 2006, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
3712(b); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
6582. A letter from the Chairman, United States Sentencing
Commission, transmitting a report of amendments to the sentencing
guidelines, policy statements, and official commentary, together with the
reasons for these amendments, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o);
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
6583. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-55,
DC-8F-54, and DC-8F-55 Airplanes; and Model DC-8-60, DC-8-70,
DC-8-60F, and DC-8-70F Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-
0216; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-122-AD;
[[Page 9157]]
Amendment 39-15435; AD 2008-06-23] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 12, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6584. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -
500 Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-0346; Directorate
Identifier 2007-NM-202-AD; Amendment 39-15436; AD 2008-06-24]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6585. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300,
A340-200, and A340-200 Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-
0396; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-282-AD; Amendment 39-
15438; AD 2008-06-26] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 12, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6586. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Series Airplanes
and Airbus Model A300-600 Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-
2007-28944; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-239-AD; Amendment
39-15430; AD 2008-06-18] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 12,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6587. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10
and DC-10-10F Airplanes, Model DC-10-15 Airplanes, Model DC-
10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) Airplanes, Model DC-
10-40 and DC-10-40F Airplanes, Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F
Airplanes, and Model MD-11 and MD-11F Airplanes [Docket No.
FAA-2007-0201; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-163-AD;
Amendment 39-15433; AD 2008-06-21] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6588. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070, 0100,
1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-
29030; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-284-AD; Amendment 39-
15432; AD 2008-06-20] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 12, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6589. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Corporation, Ltd
Model 750XL Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2008-0034 Directorate
Identifier 2007-CE-097-AD; Amendment 39-15428; AD 2008-06-16]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6590. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Goodrich Evacuation Systems
Approved Under Technical Standard Orders (TSOs) TSO-C69, TSO-
C69a, TS0-C69b, and TSO-C69c, Installed on Various Boeing,
McDonnell Douglas, and Airbus Transport Category Airplanes
[Docket No. FAA-2007-28370; Directorate Identifier 2003-NM-
239-AD; Amendment 39-15349; AD 2008-06-27] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6591. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model EC130 B4
Helicopters [Docket No. FAA-2007-28229; Directorate
Identifier 2006-SW-23-AD; Amendment 39-15434; AD 2008-06-22]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 2, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6592. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -
500 Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2008-0303; Directorate
Identifier 2008-NM-047-AD; Amendment 39-15441; AD 2008-06-29]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6593. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; APEX Aircraft Model CAP 10 B
Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2008-0057 Directorate Identifier
2007-CE-102-AD; Amendment 39-15445; AD 2008-07-04] (RIN:
2120-AA64) received May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6594. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F,
and -400ER Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-0203;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-105-AD; Amendment 39-15384; AD
2008-04-12] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 12, 2008, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
6595. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Wheatland, WY [Docket No.
FAA-2007-28649; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-10] received May
12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6596. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited Model DHC-6
Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-27192; Directorate
Identifier 2007-CE-008-AD; Amendment 39-15350; AD 2008-03-01]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6597. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc.
TFE731-2C, -3B, -3BR, -3C, -3CR, -3D, -3DR, -4R, -5AR, -5BR,
-5R, -20R, -20AR, -20BR, -40, -40AR, -40R, and -60 Series
Turbofan Engines [Docket No. FAA-2007-27891; Directorate
Identifier 2007-NE-14-AD; Amendment 39-15349; AD 2008-02-19]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6598. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica
S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135 Airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -
145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes
[Docket No. FAA-2008-0051; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-
001-AD; Amendment 39-15352; AD 2008-03-03] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6599. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model AS 355 F2
and AS 355 N Helicopters [Docket No. FAA-2008-0043;
Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-31-AD; Amendment 39-15340; AD
2008-02-10] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 12, 2008, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
6600. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Learjet Model 45 Airplanes [Docket
No. FAA-2006-25174; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-007-AD;
Amendment 39-15328; AD 2008-01-03] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6601. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 Series
Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-0183; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-146-AD; Amendment 39-15376; AD 2008-04-04] (RIN:
2120-AA64) received May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6602. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, and -
200CB Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2008-0226; Directorate
Identifier 2008-NM-016-AD; Amendment 39-15404; AD 2008-05-10]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6603. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727 Airplanes [Docket
No. FAA-2007-28382; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-179-AD;
Amendment 39-15382; AD 2008-04-10] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6604. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB
340B Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-0333; Directorate
Identifier 2007-NM-236-AD; Amendment 39-15379; AD 2008-04-07]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6605. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 707 Airplanes and
Model 720 and 720B Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-
0264; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-212-AD; Amendment 39-
15378; AD 2008-04-06] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 12,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6606. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-
2007-0335; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-292-AD; Amendment
39-15380; AD 2008-04-08] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 12,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
[[Page 9158]]
the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6607. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Taylorcraft A, B, and F Series
Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-0286; Directorate Identifier
2007-CE-086-AD; Amendment 39-15381; AD 2008-04-09] (RIN:
2120-AA64) received May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6608. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 707 Airplanes, and
Model 720 and 720B Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-
28381; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-164-AD; Amendment 39-
15383; AD 2008-04-11] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 12, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6609. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B4-600, A300 B4-
600R, A300 C4-600R, and A300 F4-600R Series Airplanes [Docket
No. FAA-2007-0172; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-225-AD;
Amendment 39-15353; AD 2008-03-04] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6610. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; ATR Model ATR42 and ATR72 Airplanes
[Docket No. FAA-2007-0334; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
206-AD; Amendment 39-15385; AD 2008-04-13] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6611. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Falcon 2000, Falcon
2000EX, Mystere-Falcon 900, Falcon 900EX, Fan Jet Falcon,
Mystere-Falcon 50, Mystere-Falcon 20, Mystere-Falcon 200, and
Falcon 10 Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-28941; Directorate
Identifier 2006-NM-276-AD; Amendment 39-15386; AD 2008-04-14]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6612. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E5 Airspace; Eagle Pass, TX [Docket
No. FAA-2008-027; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-3] received May
12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6613. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Skowhegan, ME [Docket No.
FAA-2007-0244; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANE-94] received May
12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6614. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Amendment of Class E Airspace; State College, PA [Docket No.
FAA-2007-29375; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-06] received May
12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6615. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Tappahannock, VA. [Docket
No. FAA-2007-29264; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-04] received
May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6616. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Amendment to Class E Airspace; Du Bois, PA [Docket No. FAA-
2005-22489; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-017] received May 12,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6617. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Muncy, PA [Docket No. FAA
2007-0023, Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-08] received May 12,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6618. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Montrose, PA. [Docket No.
FAA-2007-0165; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-11] received May
12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6619. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lewiston, ME [Docket No.
FAA-2007-0245; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANE-95] received May
12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6620. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Amendment of Class E Airspace; Pottsville, PA. [Docket No.
FAA-2005-22490; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-018] received May
12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6621. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Amendment of Class E Airspace; St. Marys, PA. [Docket No.
FAA-2005-22492; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-020] received May
12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6622. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E5 Airspace; Black River Falls, WI
[Docket No. FAA-2008-0024; Airspace Docket No. 08-AGL-4]
received May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6623. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Springfield, CO [Docket
FAA No. FAA-2007-27430; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-4]
received May 12, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Ms. SLAUGHTER: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 1197.
Resolution providing for consideration of the Senate
amendment to the bill (H.R. 2642) making appropriations for
military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs,
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2008, and for other purposes (Rept. 110-636). Referred to the
House Calendar.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. JONES of North Carolina:
H.R. 6047. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to mandate early access by desperately ill
patients to treatment use of new drugs under clinical
investigation for a serious or immediately life-threatening
disease condition for whom no comparable or satisfactory drug
or other therapy is available; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Mr. TURNER:
H.R. 6048. A bill to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act to provide for the protection of child custody
arrangements for parents who are members of the Armed Forces
deployed in support of a contingency operation; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr.
Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Crowley,
Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Davis of
Alabama, Mr. Arcuri, Ms. Giffords, Mr. Hall of New
York, Mr. Hodes, Mr. McNerney, Ms. Shea-Porter, and
Mr. Welch of Vermont):
H.R. 6049. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide incentives for energy production and
conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to
provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. REICHERT:
H.R. 6050. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide mandatory imprisonment for life for persons raping
young children; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota:
H.R. 6051. A bill to amend Public Law 110-196 to provide
for a temporary extension of programs authorized by the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 beyond May 16,
2008; to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, 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. OBERSTAR (for himself, Mr. Mica, and Mr.
DeFazio):
H.R. 6052. A bill to promote increased public
transportation use, to promote increased use of alternative
fuels in providing public transportation, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin (for himself and Mr. Fortuno):
H.R. 6053. A bill to require the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System to focus on price stability in
establishing monetary policy to ensure the stable, long-term
purchasing power of the currency, to repeal the Full
Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, and for other
purposes; to the
[[Page 9159]]
Committee on Financial Services, and in
addition to the Committees on Education and Labor, and the
Budget, 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. DELAHUNT:
H.R. 6054. A bill to establish a United States Human Rights
Commission to monitor compliance by the United States with
international human rights treaty obligations; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Ms. HARMAN:
H.R. 6055. A bill to require the Federal Communications
Commission to establish requirements and issue a nationwide
public safety broadband license, to establish a grant program
to fund administrative and operational costs of the licensee,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Mr. HINCHEY (for himself, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Nadler,
Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Towns, Mrs. Maloney of New
York, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Israel, Mr. Engel, Mr. Crowley,
Mr. McDermott, and Mr. McGovern):
H.R. 6056. A bill to authorize the Archivist of the United
States to make grants to States for the preservation and
dissemination of historical records; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. INSLEE (for himself and Mr. Hinchey):
H.R. 6057. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act to prohibit preleasing, leasing, and related
activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas
unless certain conditions are met; to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
By Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut:
H.R. 6058. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide Federal penalties for home invasions, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut:
H.R. 6059. A bill to clarify the use of Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grants for corrections and
community corrections programs, to enhance the data made
available by the National Adult and Juvenile Offender Reentry
Resource Center, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mr. SCHIFF (for himself, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Emanuel,
and Mr. Murphy of Connecticut):
H.R. 6060. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
enable increased federal prosecution of identity theft crimes
and to allow for restitution to victims of identity theft; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. COSTELLO (for himself, Mr. Shimkus, Mr.
Lipinski, Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Mr. LaHood, Mr.
Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Emanuel, Mr.
Roskam, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Bean, Ms.
Schakowsky, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Weller, Mrs. Biggert, Mr.
Foster, Mr. Hare, Mr. Manzullo, and Mr. Rush):
H.R. 6061. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 219 East Main Street in West
Frankfort, Illinois, as the ``Kenneth James Gray Post Office
Building''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
By Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN (for herself, Mrs. Maloney of New
York, Mr. Pence, and Mr. Klein of Florida):
H.J. Res. 84. A joint resolution expressing the commitment
of Congress to continue to make it a priority to fight anti-
Semitism and to promote tolerance at home and abroad; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. MARKEY:
H.J. Res. 85. A joint resolution expressing the disfavor of
the Congress regarding the proposed agreement for
cooperation; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. SHADEGG:
H. Con. Res. 349. Concurrent resolution honoring past and
current members of the Armed Forces of the United States and
their families by encouraging every American to wear a red
poppy on Memorial Day as a sign of admiration and thanks to
those individuals who died to preserve freedom and democracy
in the United States; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. RAHALL (for himself, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Delahunt,
Mr. Kildee, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr.
Shays, Mr. Rothman, and Mr. Hinchey):
H. Con. Res. 350. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress that the United States, through the
International Whaling Commission, should use all appropriate
measures to end commercial whaling in all of its forms,
including scientific and other special permit whaling,
coastal whaling, and community-based whaling, and seek to
strengthen the conservation and management measures to
facilitate the conservation of whale species, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. BERMAN (for himself, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Issa, and
Mr. Wexler):
H. Res. 1194. A resolution reaffirming the support of the
House of Representatives for the legitimate, democratically-
elected Government of Lebanon under Prime Minister Fouad
Siniora; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. WU (for himself, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Clyburn, Mr.
Blunt, Mr. Berman, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr.
Faleomavaega, Mr. Payne, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lampson, Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr.
Burton of Indiana, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Kirk,
Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Gene Green of Texas,
Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Terry,
Mr. Schiff, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Dreier, and Ms. Fallin):
H. Res. 1195. A resolution expressing condolences and
sympathy to the people of the People's Republic of China for
the grave loss of life and vast destruction caused by the
earthquake of May 12, 2008 in Sichuan Province; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. PUTNAM:
H. Res. 1196. A resolution electing a Minority Member to
certain standing committees of the House of Representatives;
considered and agreed to.
By Mr. GALLEGLY (for himself and Mr. Wexler):
H. Res. 1198. A resolution commending the people of the
Montenegro on holding free and fair presidential elections on
April 6, 2008, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's
decision at the Bucharest Summit to invite Montenegro to
enter into an Intensified Dialogue, and the reforms and
progress undertaken by Montenegro since its declaration of
independence; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Mr.
Calvert, Mr. Campbell of California, Mr. Gary G.
Miller of California, Mr. Rohrabacher, and Mr.
Royce):
H. Res. 1199. A resolution commending the Orange County
Water District and its employees for their sound financial
management and innovative groundwater management, water
quality, water efficiency, and environmental programs, on its
75th anniversary; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Ms. SUTTON:
H. Res. 1200. A resolution honoring the dedication and
outstanding work of military support groups across the
country for their steadfast support of the members of our
Armed Forces and their families; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 82: Mr. Ramstad.
H.R. 154: Mr. Ross and Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California.
H.R. 303: Mr. Cantor.
H.R. 368: Mr. Payne, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Mica, and Mr.
Brown of South Carolina.
H.R. 522: Mrs. Christensen and Ms. Kilpatrick.
H.R. 981: Mr. Levin.
H.R. 1069: Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H.R. 1185: Mr. Fattah, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Rothman, and Ms.
Norton.
H.R. 1589: Mr. McNerney.
H.R. 1647: Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Kuhl of New York, and Mr.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida.
H.R. 1665: Mr. Ortiz and Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 1738: Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr.
Oberstar, and Mrs. Tauscher.
H.R. 1881: Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
H.R. 1888: Mr. Barton of Texas.
H.R. 2021: Mr. Carson.
H.R. 2032: Mr. Doyle.
H.R. 2472: Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr. Scott of
Georgia, Ms. Berkley, and Mr. English of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 2493: Mrs. Drake and Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 2506: Ms. Hirono.
H.R. 2717: Mr. Shays.
H.R. 2744: Mr. Schiff.
H.R. 2762: Ms. Speier and Mr. Rahall.
H.R. 2802: Mr. Scott of Georgia, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and
Ms. Lee.
H.R. 2818: Mr. Nadler and Mrs. Blackburn.
H.R. 2991: Mr. Skelton.
H.R. 3089: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky.
H.R. 3186: Mr. Souder, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr.
Wexler, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Bishop of
Georgia.
H.R. 3187: Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Scott of
Georgia, and Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 3202: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 3232: Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Ms. Waters,
and Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 3245: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky.
H.R. 3282: Mr. Ruppersberger.
H.R. 3622: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 3681: Mr. Hall of New York.
H.R. 3700: Mrs. Capps.
H.R. 3800: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 3817: Mr. Braley of Iowa.
H.R. 3819: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
H.R. 3961: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 4059: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 4199: Mr. Hobson.
H.R. 4218: Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H.R. 4221: Mr. Engel and Mr. Hill.
H.R. 4304: Mr. Barrett of South Carolina.
[[Page 9160]]
H.R. 4318: Mr. Nunes.
H.R. 4335: Mr. Allen.
H.R. 4461: Mr. Scott of Virginia and Mr. Boozman.
H.R. 4544: Mr. Ortiz.
H.R. 4789: Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Hodes, Mr. Cohen, Mr.
Sherman, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms.
Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Towns, Ms.
Slaughter, Mr. Nadler, and Mr. Weiner.
H.R. 4836: Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, and Mr.
Engel.
H.R. 4900: Mr. Hill, Mr. Platts, Mr. Berry, Mrs. Bachmann,
Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Brady of Texas,
Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, and Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 4926: Ms. DeGette, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Inslee, Mr.
Altmire, Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of
California, Mr. Braley of Iowa, and Mr. Snyder.
H.R. 5134: Mr. Davis of Kentucky.
H.R. 5268: Mr. McGovern, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Sestak, Mr.
Conyers, and Mr. Ruppersberger.
H.R. 5426: Mr. Braley of Iowa.
H.R. 5444: Mr. Berman, Ms. Schakowsky, and Mr. Carson.
H.R. 5450: Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Gordon,
and Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
H.R. 5454: Mr. McGovern, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mrs. Maloney
of New York, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Oberstar, and Mr.
Hall of Texas.
H.R. 5515: Mr. Campbell of California.
H.R. 5534: Mr. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 5580: Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H.R. 5606: Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Platts, Mr. Keller, and Mr.
Allen.
H.R. 5629: Mr. Shimkus.
H.R. 5632: Mr. Hill.
H.R. 5674: Mr. Wu and Mr. Doggett.
H.R. 5684: Mr. Latham.
H.R. 5686: Mr. Altmire.
H.R. 5700: Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 5705: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 5731: Mr. Neugebauer.
H.R. 5740: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 5775: Mr. Kingston.
H.R. 5784: Mr. Terry.
H.R. 5804: Mr. Baca and Mr. Pomeroy.
H.R. 5838: Mr. Serrano.
H.R. 5846: Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
H.R. 5857: Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of
California, and Mr. Crenshaw.
H.R. 5869: Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H.R. 5873: Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida and Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 5898: Mr. Fortuno.
H.R. 5902: Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 5906: Mr. LoBiondo.
H.R. 5908: Mr. Paul.
H.R. 5924: Mr. Putnam and Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
H.R. 5941: Mr. Kagen.
H.R. 5944: Mr. Burgess and Mr. Hastings of Washington.
H.R. 5950: Mr. Conyers, Mr. Grijalva, and Mr. Farr.
H.R. 5958: Mr. Schiff.
H.R. 5960: Mr. Space.
H.R. 5965: Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 5971: Mr. Terry, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, and
Mr. Kingston.
H.R. 5978: Mrs. Lowey and Mr. Higgins.
H.R. 5984: Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mrs. Bono Mack, Mr.
Castle, and Mr. Heller.
H.R. 5995: Mr. Barrett of South Carolina.
H.R. 5998: Mr. Pascrell.
H.R. 6009: Mr. Jones of North Carolina.
H.R. 6026: Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 6029: Ms. Woolsey and Mr. Hare.
H.J. Res. 79: Mr. Rothman and Mr. Stark.
H. Con. Res. 134: Mr. Clyburn.
H. Con. Res. 216: Mr. Lucas and Mr. Walberg.
H. Con. Res. 244: Mr. Fortuno and Ms. Berkley.
H. Con. Res. 296: Mr. Price of Georgia and Mr. Kingston.
H. Con. Res. 299: Mr. Gordon.
H. Con. Res. 305: Mr. Cummings.
H. Con. Res. 332: Ms. Schakowsky.
H. Con. Res. 334: Mr. Gary G. Miller of California.
H. Con. Res. 336: Mr. Langevin, Mr. Porter, and Mr. Heller.
H. Con. Res. 341: Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr.
Pallone, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Lewis
of Kentucky, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Mitchell, Mr.
Visclosky, Mr. Rehberg, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Jones
of North Carolina, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Terry, Mr. Keller, Mr.
Ryan of Ohio, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Boyd of Florida,
Mr. Chandler, Mr. Culberson, and Mr. Costa.
H. Res. 111: Mr. Udall of Colorado.
H. Res. 389: Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Bishop of
Georgia, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Towns, and Mr. Meeks of New York.
H. Res. 896: Mr. Barrow, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Ross, Mr. Stupak,
and Mr. Weiner.
H. Res. 937: Mr. Chabot.
H. Res. 977: Mr. Allen.
H. Res. 1010: Mr. Chandler, Mr. Berry, Mr. Etheridge, Mr.
Kanjorski, and Mr. Capuano.
H. Res. 1019: Mr. Carson.
H. Res. 1022: Ms. Eshoo and Ms. Granger.
H. Res. 1028: Mr. Lewis of Georgia.
H. Res. 1078: Mr. Payne.
H. Res. 1110: Mr. Buyer.
H. Res. 1122: Mr. Gary G. Miller of California.
H. Res. 1137: Mr. Rahall.
H. Res. 1144: Mr. Young of Florida.
H. Res. 1177: Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Conyers, and Mr. Kagen.
H. Res. 1179: Mr. Weller, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Rohrabacher, and
Mr. Burton of Indiana.
H. Res. 1185: Mr. Stark, Mr. Weller, Mr. Lewis of Georgia,
Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Meek of Florida,
Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr. Cardoza, and Mr. Fattah.
H. Res. 1191: Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Davis of
Illinois, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Ms. Hooley, Mr.
Udall of Colorado, Mr. Sherman, Mrs. Davis of California, Ms.
Eshoo, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Jackson of Illinois,
Mr. Watt, Mr. Emanuel, Ms. Berkley, Ms. Baldwin, Ms.
Velazquez, Mr. Hare, Ms. Waters, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Johnson
of Georgia, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Patrick Murphy of
Pennsylvania, Mrs. Boyda of Kansas, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Space,
Mr. Berman, Mr. Hill, Ms. Schwartz, Ms. Solis, Mr. Kagen, Mr.
Conyers, Mrs. Capps, and Mr. Pallone.
____________________
CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, OR LIMITED TARIFF
BENEFITS
Under clause 9 of rule XXI, lists or statements on congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits were
submitted as follows:
Offered By Mr. Obey
Earmark Disclosure Statement for the House amendments to
the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642--the Military Construction
and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2008. Neither the
House amendments nor the explanatory statement contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives. However, the following
tables are submitted disclosing those earmarks included at
the request of the administration:
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Location Amount Request by
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Child Development Center--............. AK: FortWainwright.......... 17,000 Administration
Child Development Center--............... CA: Fort Irwin.............. 11,800 Administration
11th Marine Regiment HQ, Amory, BEQ...... CA: Camp Pendleton.......... 34,970 Administration
5th Marine Regiment Addition, San Mateo-- CA: Camp Pendleton.......... 10,890 Administration
Armory Intelligence Battalion, 16 Area... CA: Camp Pendleton.......... 4,180 Administration
Armory, Regiment & Battalion HQ, 53 Area. CA: Camp Pendleton.......... 5,160 Administration
BEQ & Mess Hall HQ (13) Area............. CA: Camp Pendleton.......... 24,390 Administration
EOD Operation Facility................... CA: Camp Pendleton.......... 13,090 Administration
ISR Camp--Intelligence Battalion......... CA: Camp Pendleton.......... 1,114 Administration
JIEDDO Battle Courses.................... CA: Camp Pendleton.......... 9,270 Administration
Military Police Company Facilities....... CA: Camp Pendleton.......... 8,240 Administration
Public-Private Venture, Phase 6B......... CA: Camp Pendleton.......... 10,692 Administration
Public-Private Venture, Phase 2A--....... CA: Twentynine Palms........ 1,074 Administration
Regimental Combat Team HQ Facility....... CA: Twentynine Palms........ 4,440 Administration
JIEDDO Battle Courses.................... CA China Lake NAWS.......... 7,210 Administration
JIEDDO Battle Courses.................... CA: Point Mugu.............. 7.250 Administration
Child Development Center--............... CA: San Diego............... 17,930 Administration
Recruit Barracks......................... CA: San Diego MCRD.......... 43,200 (\1\)
JIEDDO Battle Courses.................... CA: Twentynine Palms........ 11,250 Administration
Child Development Center--............... CA: Beale AFB............... 17,600 Administration
Child Development Center--............... CO: Fort Carson............. 8,400 Administration
Soldier Family Assistance Center......... CO: Fort Carson............. 8,100 Administration
JIEDDO Battle Courses.................... FL: Whiting Field NAS....... 780 Administration
Child Development Center................. FL: Eglin AFB............... 11,000 Administration
Classrooms & Battalion Dining Facilities. GA: Fort Benning............ 30,500 (\1\)
AIT Complex I, Phase I................... GA: Fort Gordon............. 32,000 (\1\)
[[Page 9161]]
Child Development Center................. GA: Fort Gordon............. 7,800 Administration
Soldier Family assistance Center......... GA: Fort Stewart............ 6,000 Administration
Hospital Repalcement..................... GA: Fort Benning............ 350,000 (\1\)
Child Development Center................. HI: Schofield Barracks...... 12,500 Administration
Transitioning Warrior Support Complex.... KS: Fort Riley.............. 50,000 Administration
Hospital Replacement..................... KS: Fort Riley.............. 404,000 (\1\)
Child Development Center................. KY: Fort Campbell........... 9,900 Administration
Soldier Family Assistance Center......... KY: Fort Campbell........... 7,400 Administration
Child Development Center................. KY: Fort Knox............... 7,400 Administration
Soldier Family Assistance Center......... LA: Fort Polk............... 4,900 Administration
Starbase Complex 6, Phase 1.............. MO: Fort Leonard Wood....... 50,000 (\1\)
JIEDDO Battle Courses.................... MS: Gulfport NCBC........... 6,570 Administration
Child Development Center................. NC: Camp Lejeune............ 16,000 Administration
JIEDDO Battle Courses.................... NC: Camp Lejeune............ 11,980 Administration
Maintenance/Operations Complex 2/9....... NC: Camp Lejeune............ 43,340 Administration
Child Development Center................. NC: Fort Bragg.............. 8,500 Administration
Hospital Addition/Alteration............. NC: Camp Lejuene............ 122,000 (\1\)
JIEDDO Battle Courses.................... NJ: McGuire AFB............. 6,200 Administration
Child Development Center................. NM: Cannon AFB.............. 8,000 Administration
Warrior in Transition Facilities......... NY: Fort Drum............... 38,000 Administration
Child Development Center................. OK: Fort Sill............... 9,000 Administration
Student Barracks......................... SC: Fort Jackson............ 27,000 (\1\)
Recruit Barracks......................... SC: Parris Island MCRD...... 19,900 (\1\)
Child Development Center................. TX: Fort Bliss.............. 5,700 Administration
Child Development Center................. TX: Fort Bliss.............. 5,900 Administration
Child Development Center................. TX: Fort Bliss.............. 5,700 Administration
Child Development Center................. TX: Fort Hood............... 7,200 Administration
Warrior in Transition Unit Ops Facilities TX: Fort Hood............... 9,100 Administration
AIT Barracks............................. TX: Fort Sam Houston........ 47,000 (\1\)
Child Development Center................. TX: Fort Sam Houston........ 7,000 Administration
Burn Rehabilitation Center............... TX: Fort Sam Houston........ 21,000 Administration
JIEDDO Battle Courses.................... VA: Yorktown NWS............ 8,070 Administration
AIT Complex 1, Phase 1................... VA: Fort Eustis............. 50,000 (\1\)
Child Development Center................. VA: Fort Lee................ 7,400 Administration
Administrative Building.................. Afghanistan: Bagram AB...... 13,800 Administration
Aircraft Maintenance Hangar.............. Afghanistan: Bagram AB...... 5,100 Administration
Ammunition Supply Point.................. Afghanistan: Bagram AB...... 62,000 Administration
Bulk Fuel Storage and Supply, Phase 3.... Afghanistan: Bagram AB...... 23,000 Administration
Bulk Fuel Storage and Supply, Phase 4.... Afghanistan: Bagram AB...... 21,000 Administration
New Roads................................ Afghanistan: Bagram AB...... 27,000 Administration
Power Plant.............................. Afghanistan: Bagram AB...... 41,000 Administration
East Side Helo Ramp...................... Afghanistan: Bagram AB...... 44,400 Administration
ISR Ramp................................. Afghanistan: Bagram AB...... 26,300 Administration
Parallel Taxiway Phase 2................. Afghanistan: Bagram AB...... 21,400 Administration
Strategic Ramp........................... Afghanistan: Bagram AB...... 43,000 Administration
Rotary Wing Parking...................... Afghanistan: Ghazni......... 5,000 Administration
Consolidated Compound.................... Afghanistan: Kabul.......... 36,000 Administration
Counter IED Road--Route Alaska........... Afghanistan: Various 16,500 Administration
Locations.
Counter IED Road--Route Connecticut...... Afghanistan: Various 54,000 Administration
Locations.
Hot Cargo Ramp........................... Iraq: Al Asad AB............ 18,500 Administration
Landfill................................. Iraq: Al Asad AB............ 3,100 Administration
South Airfield Apron (India Ramp)........ Iraq: Al Asad AB............ 28,000 Administration
Water Supply, Treatment & Storage Ph III. Iraq: Baghdad IAP........... 13,000 Administration
Convoy Support Center Relocation, Phase Iraq: Camp Adder............ 39,000 Administration
II.
Multi-Class Storage Warehouse............ Iraq: Camp Adder............ 17,000 Administration
POL Storage Area......................... Iraq: Camp Adder............ 10,000 Administration
Wastewater Treatment & Collection System. Iraq: Camp Adder............ 9,800 Administration
Hazardous Waste Incinerator.............. Iraq: Camp Anaconda......... 4,300 Administration
Landfill................................. Iraq: Camp Anaconda......... 6,200 Administration
Fighter Ramp............................. Iraq: Balad AB.............. 11,000 Administration
Foxtrot Taxiway.......................... Iraq: Balad AB.............. 12,700 Administration
Helicopter Maintenance Facilities........ Iraq: Balad AB.............. 34,600 Administration
Juvenile TIFRIC.......................... Iraq: Camp Constitution..... 11,700 Administration
Landfill................................. Iraq: Camp Marez............ 880 Administration
Landfill................................. Iraq: Camp Ramadi........... 880 Administration
Aviation Navigation Facilities........... Iraq: Camp Speicher......... 13,400 Administration
Landfill................................. Iraq: Camp Speicher......... 5,900 Administration
Military Control Point................... Iraq: Camp Speicher......... 5,800 Administration
Rotary Wing Parking Apron................ Iraq: Camp Speicher......... 49,000 Administration
Landfill................................. Iraq: Camp Taqqadum......... 880 Administration
Landfill................................. Iraq: Camp Warrior.......... 880 Administration
Landfill................................. Iraq: Fallujah.............. 880 Administration
North Entry Control Point................ Iraq: Qayyarah West......... 11,400 Administration
Perimeter Security Upgrade............... Iraq: Qayyarah West......... 14.600 Administration
Entry Control Point...................... Iraq: Scania................ 5,000 Administration
Water Storage Tanks...................... Iraq: Scania................ 9,200 Administration
Landfill................................. Iraq: Victory Base.......... 6,200 Administration
Level 3 Hospital......................... Iraq: Victory Base.......... 13,400 Administration
Wastewater Treatment & Collection System. Iraq: Victory Base.......... 9,800 Administration
Water Treatment & Storage Phase II....... Iraq: Victory Base.......... 18,000 Administration
Facilities Replacement................... Iraq: Various Locations..... 72,0000 Administration
Overhead Cover-eGlass.................... Iraq: Various Locations..... 135,000 Administration
CJTF-HOA HQ Facility..................... Djibouti: Camp Lemonier..... 29,710 Administration
Dining Facility.......................... Djibouti: Camp Lemonier..... 20,780 Administration
Fuel Farm................................ Djibouti: Camp Lemonier..... 4,000 Administration
Full Length Taxiway...................... Djibouti: Camp Lemonier..... 15,490 Administration
Network Infrastructure Expansion......... Djibouti: Camp Lemonier..... 6,270 Administration
Water Production......................... Djibouti: Camp Lemonier..... 19,140 Administration
Western Taxiway.......................... Djibouti: Camp Lemonier..... 2,900 Administration
Communication Center..................... Kuwait: Camp Arifjan........ 30,000 Administration
Strategic Ramp........................... Kyrgyzstan: Manas AB........ 30,300 Administration
Expeditionary Beddown Site............... Oman: Masirah AB............ 6,300 Administration
Facility Replacements.................... Qatar: Al Udeid AB.......... 40,000 Administration
Northwest (CAS) Ramp..................... Qatar: Al Udeid AB.......... 60,400 Administration
Logistics Storage Warehouse.............. Qatar: Al Udeid AB.......... 6,600 Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Committee learned through hearings, site visits, and Departmental briefings that trainee and recruit
facilities and medical treatment facilities are two high priority areas in dire need of additional funds. The
projects included were identified by the Department as high priority projects and were not included at the
request of Members of Congress.
[[Page 9162]]
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name State Amount Request by
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair and restore authorized protection LA......................... 393,000 Administration
and floodwalls.
Complete authorized protection.......... LA......................... 359,000 Administration
Plaquemines Parish-non-Federal levees... LA......................... 456,000 Administration
Outfall Canals--pumps and closures...... LA......................... 704,000 Administration
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal protection LA......................... 53,000 Administration
Armoring................................ LA......................... 459,000 Administration
Reinforce and replace floodwalls........ LA......................... 412,000 Administration
Storm-proof pumping stations............ LA......................... 90,000 Administration
Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (100- LA......................... 1,077,000 Administration
year protection).
Westbank and Vicinity (100-year LA......................... 920,000 Administration
protection).
Southeast Louisiana (interior drainage). LA......................... 838,000 Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________
DELETION OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills
and resolutions as follows:
H.R. 5534: Mr. Alexander.
[[Page 9163]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
FAITH IN DIPLOMACY
______
HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, I rise today to submit in the Record an
opinion piece by Marshall Breger, a former alternate delegate of the
U.S. to the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva, and currently a
professor of law at the Columbus School of Law, the Catholic University
of America. In it, he discusses the importance of religion in
negotiating peace through diplomacy.
Faith in Diplomacy
(By Marshall Breger)
Whatever one's view of the Oslo peace process, it is
remarkable that the 1993 signing ceremony on the White House
lawn did not include benedictions by rabbis, imams, or
priests. In an America where religious leaders open sessions
of Congress, pray for the success of our armies, and even
sometimes pray for fair winds and bless the fleet at yachting
regattas, this is passing strange.
The absence of religious content speaks volumes about the
assumptions that drive conventional diplomatic wisdom in
Washington. Foreign policy professionals instinctively recoil
at the notion that religion can or should play an important
role in foreign policy. They see it as a ``private matter,''
according to Tom Farr, former director of the State
Department's office of international religious freedom,
``properly beyond the bounds of policy analysis and action.''
Far too many American diplomats and think-tank gurus
continue to dismiss or, at best, ignore religion as ``a tool
of statecraft.'' They talk about promoting ``civil society''
but forget that in regions as diverse as the Middle East and
South Asia, the largest and most powerful actors in civil
society are religious. They assume that a ``moderate'' Muslim
is a less religious Muslim, and that an ``Islamist'' who
believes that Islam should play a role in politics must be in
his or her heart a bomb-throwing extremist. They treat
religion as a distraction to diplomacy and a threat to global
stability.
Academic theories of modernization teach that as societies
modernize they irrevocably grow more secular. But the truth
is otherwise. Sociologist Peter Berger contends that
religious sensibility does not wither in the modern world.
Even the State Department, long a bastion of secularist
thinking, is beginning to get the picture. In a powerful book
written after she left the State Department, former secretary
Madeleine Albright effectively offered a mea culpa for
ignoring religion while she was in office. And Karen Hughes,
former undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and
public affairs, said that President Bush wanted her ``to
reach out and meet with religious leaders--because faith is
such an important part of life for so many Americans and so
many people across the world.''
How should we incorporate religion in our foreign policy?
First, we must study it. You can't understand West Bank
settlers without understanding the ``Greater Israel''
theology of Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook and his disciples. Nor can
you follow Shia politics without an appreciation of the role
of the ashura--the commemoration of the death of the Prophet
Mohammed's grandson in the 680 battle of Karbala--as the
transformative event in Shia martyrology, or the oft-
misunderstood role of the mahdi--the ``hidden Imam'' expected
to bring justice and final judgment to the world--in Shia
eschatology. Or how the ``puritanism'' of 18th-century
theologian Mohammed Ibn Abd-al Wahab has affected the Salafi
understanding of the Quran.
Only by understanding religion can we mobilize it as a
force for reconciliation and as an ally in the search for
peaceful solutions. No one can deny the injurious role
religious fervor has had in foreign affairs--just think of
the Thirty Years' War and Osama bin Laden. Nonetheless, we
know of many examples of how religion can assist in the
process of making peace. Consider the Community of
Sant'Edigio, which has midwived cease-fires in conflict zones
like Mozambique. The Vatican mediated the Argentina-Chile
dispute over the Beagle Channel, and evangelical Christians
have helped place international religious freedom, AIDS, and
global poverty on the major powers' foreign policy agendas.
Jewish groups, for their part, have led the campaign to end
the violence in Darfur.
In 2002, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian leaders in the
Middle East signed the Alexandria Declaration of the
Religious Leaders of the Holy Land, committing themselves to
the dignity of the individual, whatever his or her religion,
and an end to bloodshed. That work is being carried on by
groups like Mosaica and the Adam Institute and by other
religious leaders such as Knesset member Rabbi Michael
Melchior and Sheikh Abdullah Nimr Darwish, founder of the
Islamic movement in Israel.
Religious leaders in Jerusalem have formed a Council of
Religious Institutions of the Holy Land to promote not just
interfaith dialogue, but also practical advances like access
to and protection of holy sites; religious freedom; education
for tolerance in mosques, synagogues, and churches; and
support for a two-state solution that recognizes the dignity
of both Israelis and Palestinians. This nascent enterprise
includes religious leaders such as the Latin patriarch, chief
rabbis, and Sheikh Taysir Al-Tamimi, head of the Sharia
courts of Palestine.
These developments make clear that religious leaders can
foster reconciliation in the Middle East and elsewhere. To
succeed, any new peace initiative must encompass their
efforts. Perhaps this time around we can avoid the religious
deficit of so much previous American diplomacy.
____________________
PRESIDENTIAL SCHOLARS
______
HON. DAVID G. REICHERT
of washington
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the incredible
talents of two young people who reside in the Eighth District of
Washington State. Both students represent the promise of America and
lead their peers inside and out of the classroom.
Ari J. Livne, a senior at Lakeside School in Seattle, and Anisha
Gulabani, a senior at Eastlake in Sammamish, Washington, were included
in the list of 141 Presidential Scholars for 2008. Since its inception
in 1964, the Presidential Scholars Program has honored more than 5,500
graduating high school seniors for academic excellence, artistic
accomplishments, and civic contributions. In short, the young men and
women named each year to the Presidential Scholars list represent the
best and brightest young people in America--the leaders of tomorrow.
Ari and Anisha are preparing themselves to lead this country into the
future.
Ari joined the list of Presidential Scholars in the Arts in 2008
because of his accomplishments in the visual, literary and performing
arts, as well as for his scholarship, leadership and public service.
Initially, more than 7,000 young people from across the Nation applied
for a spot on this prestigious list before it was narrowed down to just
Ari and 19 other young talents. Ari holds a 3.7 cumulative GPA and will
take his place among some of Lakeside's most outstanding graduates--
including Microsoft's Bill Gates and former Washington Governor Booth
Gardner--when he enters the next step in his educational journey in the
fall. After turning down a scholarship offer from Julliard, Ari decided
on Yale in order to pursue both his academic interests and incredible
musical gifts simultaneously.
Anisha will graduate this spring from Eastlake High School with a
perfect 4.0 GPA. She fills her school day with every Advanced Placement
course available to her. She is a co-captain on the debate team, a
member of the National Honor Society, a member of Mu Alpha Theta--
Lakeside's Mathematics Honor Society--and a member of the Children's
Hospital Guild in Seattle. I am told that initially she wanted to
become a medical doctor. However, after her sister's leg was amputated,
she decided to focus on bio-medical engineering with a special focus on
prosthetic limb design at Harvard University.
Ari and Anisha showcased incredible talent at their respective high
schools and clearly deserved the honor of being a part of the 2008
Presidential Scholars Program. I hope they continue on their promising
course and emerge as leaders in whatever field they choose.
[[Page 9164]]
____________________
TRIBUTE TO OTANA JAKPOR
______
HON. KEN CALVERT
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to
an extraordinary young woman from Riverside, California. Otana Jakpor
may only be 14 years old and a sophomore at Woodcrest Christian High
School but she is already establishing herself as a promising
scientist. Otana is the Region IX recipient of the 2007 President's
Environmental Youth Award (PEYA) for a science project titled ``Indoor
Air Pollution: The Pulmonary Effects of Ozone-Generating Air
Purifiers.''
Young people from around the country are invited annually to
participate in the PEYA program, which is aimed at encouraging
individuals, school classes, summer camps, youth organizations and
public interest groups to promote environmental awareness and encourage
positive community involvement. One award is given for each of the
Environmental Protection Agency's 10 regions. (EPA Region 9 includes
California, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii.) On April 17, 2008, President Bush
presented the award to Otana at a White House Ceremony.
Ms. Jakpor decided to focus her project on indoor pollution after she
read a Consumer Reports article titled ``New Concerns about Ionizing
Air Cleaners.'' The article reported that certain models of ionizing
air cleaners emit high amounts of ozone, but it did not include any
research data. Otana's findings indicated that indoor air purifiers,
neck air purifiers and ionizers emit high amounts of ozone, one result
was 15 times higher than the level of a State 3 smog alert.
Ms. Jakpor's findings were significant and on September 27, 2007, she
presented them to the California Air Resources Board at a hearing on
indoor air purifier pollution. The Board voted to adopt a regulation to
limit ozone emissions from air purifiers to less than 0.050 parts per
million, and now California is the first state in the nation to
regulate ozone generators.
Recognition for her scientific achievements are not new to Otana, she
has received the NAACP Los Angeles ACT-SO Competition Gold medal in
Medicine; eight awards from the RIMS Inland Science and Engineering
Fair for both her freshman and sophomore projects; and fourth place
award in the Pharmacology/Toxicology Category in the Senior Division
for her research on ozone at the California State Science Fair. She is
a spokesperson for the American Lung Association and has appeared on
the Discovery Channel.
Ms. Jakpor is first in her class at an excellent and competitive
school and has a 4.33 Grade Point Average. It is an honor to recognize
Otana for all her achievements at such a young age. I commend Ms.
Jakpor for her hard work, commitment and outstanding educational
achievements. I have no doubt she will continue to contribute to the
science community and look forward to hearing about the incredible
discoveries of Otana Jakpor in the years to come.
____________________
RECOGNITION FOR THE YOUGH COUGAR ROCKETRY TEAM
______
HON. JOHN P. MURTHA
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to
congratulate the Yough Cougar Rocketry team from Yough High School in
Herminie, Pennsylvania. The Cougar Rocketry was the only team from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania chosen to participate in the 2008 NASA
Student Launch Initiative and is one of only eighteen teams selected
nationally. The team was also selected in 2007.
NASA describes the Student Launch Initiative as a program which
``involves middle and high school students in designing, building and
testing reusable rockets with associated scientific payloads.'' The
program allows students to demonstrate their design's proof-of-concept
and allows them to apply previously abstract concepts to hands-on work.
Each team works to build a vehicle that is to reach an altitude of one
mile above ground level. The finale of each team's work ends with a
launch at Marshall Space Flight Center.
Madam Speaker, the members of the Yough Cougar Rocketry team, whom I
would like to personally recognize, include Ms. Stephanie Abbott, Ms.
Amy Bickerstaff, Ms. Alicia Bowser, Mr. Josh Sarosinski, and Ms. Ashley
Wiley. Mr. Donald Gilbert, Jr. is the team's teacher and advisor and
Mr. Eric Haberman is the team's mentor from Westinghouse Corporation. I
commend them all for their tremendous work.
____________________
SUPPORTING FUNDING TO REDUCE THE MATERNAL MORTALITY RATE THROUGHOUT THE
WORLD
______
HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, every minute a woman somewhere in the
world dies of pregnancy-related causes. This staggering fact is not a
failure of science but rather a failure of conscience. The United
States possesses the medical knowledge necessary to drastically reduce
the number of women killed during pregnancy each year. What we lack is
a commitment by our Government to make certain that medical resources
are readily available to women throughout the world.
The United States can and most do more. To demonstrate just how
attainable this goal is, I would like to bring my colleagues' attention
to an interesting and inspiring piece published in The Washington Post
on Sunday, May 11, that highlights the efforts of two remarkable
individuals to address maternal mortality rates in Haiti. Working
closely with the Haitian government, Paul Farmer, Ophelia Dahl, and
their nonprofit organization Partners in Health, have succeeded in
reducing the maternal mortality rate in Haiti to less than half what it
was a quarter-century ago. I hope that this piece will not only serve
as a reminder of the tremendous opportunity we have to save the lives
of hundreds of thousands of pregnant women all over the world.
Keeping New Mothers Alive--In Haiti and Rwanda, Reducing Tragedy in
Childbirth
(By Paul Farmer and Ophelia Dahl)
``Obscene'' is still the word that comes to mind when we
think of maternal mortality--and it has been almost 25 years
since we first witnessed death in childbirth. In 1983, as
students in one of central Haiti's fetid clinics, we prepared
to celebrate a birth. Although we'd just met the young woman
about to become a mother, her desperate expression as she
began to hemorrhage haunts us still. National statistics
could have predicted the outcome: A 1985 survey pegged
Haitian maternal mortality at 1,400 deaths per 100,000 live
births. By comparison, maternal mortality in the United
States last year was 14 deaths per 100,000 live births.
Worldwide, 500,000 women die in childbirth every year; more
than 90 percent live in Africa or Asia, and almost all are
poor by any standard. Obscene though it is, death during
childbirth isn't the end of the story. In the world's poorest
areas, many orphaned children wind up destitute and on the
streets within a few years of their mothers' deaths,
sometimes resorting to desperate or criminal measures for
food, shelter, clothes or school fees.
One of the 12 Millennium Development Goals is to reduce
maternal mortality 75 percent by the year 2015. But we are
moving too slowly to meet this goal, the United Nations says.
Today, the maternal mortality rate in Haiti is less than
half what it was a quarter-century ago. Across the broad
swath of central Haiti where we work, we estimate the number
to be well below 100 deaths per 100,000 live births--not good
enough but a vast improvement, most of it occurring in the
past decade. Change came largely for three reasons.
First, our nonprofit organization, Partners in Health, has
worked closely with the Haitian Ministry of Health to
strengthen public health infrastructure. We have rebuilt,
equipped, staffed and stocked hospitals and clinics; trained
nurse-midwives and other personnel, including more than a
thousand community health workers; linked villages and health
centers to district hospitals by modern telecommunications
and ambulance service; and established modern surgical
services for obstetrical emergencies.
Second, we have broken the rule that high-quality health
services are a privilege rationed by ability to pay, not a
right. The case was made first for affordable medicines. Now
it is being made for emergency Caesarean sections--an
essential tool to reduce maternal mortality. Faced with
evidence that maternal mortality was greater where fees were
higher, the district health commissioner for central Haiti
announced last August that all prenatal care and emergency
obstetrical services would henceforth be available free to
all patients. He was later echoed by Haitian President Rene
Preval.
Third, we have linked prenatal and obstetric care to an
all-out effort to improve access to primary health care. The
presence of functional, accessible public clinics and
hospitals restores faith in the health system, motivates
people to seek care before they are critically ill and allows
for preventive interventions such as prenatal care and family
planning. Consider Rwanda, another country
[[Page 9165]]
where we work, which is rising rapidly from its ashes
scarcely a dozen years after an appalling genocide. Rwandan
maternal mortality rates in 1995, the year after the
genocide, are unknown. But they are sure to have exceeded the
1,800 deaths per 100,000 live births reported that year in
relatively peaceful Malawi. The situation has improved
dramatically since then.
By helping to train and, importantly, pay community health
workers, the Rwandan Ministry of Health is taking steps to
link rural villages to health centers with the capacity to
make routine labor safe. Rwanda is also seeking to make
family planning available to citizens and to increase access
to preventive and primary care through basic health
insurance. Maternal mortality has dropped from more than
1,000 deaths per 100,000 live births between 1995 and 2000 to
less than 600 today--still terrible but well below the
average (940) reported for sub-Saharan Africa.
At the government's invitation, Partners in Health launched
efforts to strengthen AIDS treatment and primary health
services in one region of rural Rwanda in 2005. Mindful of
the lessons learned during two decades of work in rural
Haiti--and of that young Haitian woman whom we watched turn
abruptly from the anticipation of new life to a confrontation
with death--we have made reducing maternal mortality and
improving women's health top priorities. And we have welcomed
the opportunity to support Rwanda's commitment to breaking
the cycle of poverty and disease by including health care and
education (especially for girls) in its vision of the future.
It's probably no coincidence that Rwanda also boasts the
world's highest percentage of women in parliament.
____________________
IN SUPPORT OF H. CON. RES. 322--RECOGNIZING THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
FOUNDING OF THE MODERN STATE OF ISRAEL
______
HON. RAHM EMANUEL
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res.
322, recognizing the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern
State of Israel. Yom Ha'Atzmaut, Israel's Independence Day, marks a day
when Theodor Herzl's prophetic words became reality: ``If you will it,
it is no dream.''
Since its founding on May 14, 1948, the modern State of Israel has
established itself as a dynamic and democratic nation with a thriving
economy, a pluralistic political system, and a vibrant cultural and
intellectual center. The Israeli people have contributed greatly as
scholars, innovators, educators, and more, and I am pleased to have
this opportunity to recognize their accomplishments as well as those of
Israel.
Israel has been a vital ally of the United States since the beginning
of its existence, sharing democratic values, friendship, and respect
and enjoying a strategic partnership. America and Israel shall remain
close friends for years to come, particularly as Israel continues to
seek peace with her neighbors. H. Con. Res. 322 reaffirms these bonds
of friendship and cooperation and expresses a commitment to strengthen
these bonds.
On the Jewish calendar, Israel's Independence Day falls on the 5th of
Iyar, corresponding this year with May 8, 2008. This day is a joyous
time to reflect with pride on the work of the men and women who knew
that one day the dream of the State of Israel would become a reality.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 322 and
wish to extend warm congratulations and best wishes to the people of
Israel as they celebrate this 60th year of Israel's independence. I
wish them peace and prosperity in the years to come, kein yehi ratzon.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF TOM ED HAYS
______
HON. MIKE ROSS
of arkansas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of my dear
friend Tom Ed Hays of Hope, Arkansas, who passed away May 7, 2008, at
the age of 73.
I will forever remember Tom Ed Hays as a good friend, a keen
businessman and someone who cared deeply about improving the quality of
life in southwest Arkansas. As a natural born leader, he excelled at
every task he took on and was an inspiration to all of us who knew him.
Tom Ed Hays was born and raised in Arkansas, and was always proud to
call Arkansas his home. After beginning his banking career in Texas, he
returned home to Hope to join his father and uncle in the family-owned
bank, First National Bank of Hope. His ambition and dedication helped
him rise from cashier to president and CEO of the bank, a role which he
held until the time of his passing. Under his guidance and leadership,
the bank underwent significant expansion and spread to communities
throughout southwest Arkansas.
While Tom Ed Hays' economic development efforts had a tremendous
impact on the region and will never be forgotten, his gentlemanly
nature is what everyone will talk about for years to come. The numerous
accolades and awards he received over the years are a testament to his
deep conviction of community service and civic responsibility.
Tom Ed Hays will be remembered for his outstanding service to
Hempstead County, southwest Arkansas, and to the entire State of
Arkansas. Above all, he will be sorely missed as a friend. I extend my
deepest condolences to his wife, Betty Jo Fite Hays; his three sons,
Thomas Hays III of Cambridge, England, Daniel Fite Hays of Hope, and
John Julian Hays of Hope; his sister, Nancy Hays Gottwald of Richmond,
Virginia; and to his eight grandchildren and countless friends. Tom Ed
Hays will be greatly missed and I am truly saddened by this loss.
____________________
ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF FALLEN HERO'S DEATH--IN HONOR OF ARMY SPECIALIST
ARMER NATHAN BURKART
______
HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, I rise today to submit a poem penned by
Albert Caswell of The United States Capitol Guide Service, in honor of
a real American hero, Army Specialist Armer Nathan Burkart, on the eve
of the 2nd anniversary of his gallant life and most tragic death in
Baghdad, Iraq, on May 11, 2006. A Rockville native who gave that last
full measure for all of us. Remember him this coming Memorial Day.
Armer All
Armer All . . .
Strength in honor, an American Hero who heard the call!
Who so marched off to war like all of his fine forefathers
have done so before!
A man of character, and faith . . .
A brave heart, who but to his country 'tis of thee so gave
and gave!
But All . . . But, his fine life . . . he who so sacrificed,
showing us all how to behave!
A soul,
One's being, so deep down inside one's heart which holds!
The Armer, The Mantle of Gold . . . to go and do, to shine in
the light of a hero's glow!
To march forward, with clenched fists!
To stare straight into that the darkest of all faces, that of
death!
To give all until none lies left, to the future . . . our
most precious sons and daughters bless!
A Maryland Man,
Who so showed us all what a warm heart of Armer and faith so
can!
But, only the very few . . . can and have so done, as Heaven
won . . . our fine son . . . Armer you!
A leader of men,
An Angel on Earth, who our Lord would so send!
And now, as your short time is done . . . to Heaven rise my
son . . .as your new battle begins!
As an Angel in the Army of our Lord,
As on Earth you brought your light, from heaven now you
continue the fight . . . evermore!
For yours, your life Burkart . . . was but our Lord's work of
art . . . for what you so stood for!
Armer . . . You!
You, so lived and died for What Is Real . . . For What Is
True!
Can you but hear our tears? All for you, and your fine life .
. . and all of your lost years!
[[Page 9166]]
____________________
ASIAN PACIFIC HERITAGE MONTH
______
HON. DAVID G. REICHERT
of washington
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, in May, we honor Asian Pacific American
Heritage Month, a celebration of the culture and contributions of
millions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Their diverse
talents have contributed to communities all across our Nation.
The Eighth District of Washington has a vibrant Asian Pacific
community. Nearly 100,000 Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders reside
in my district, contributing to their individual communities through
business, education, volunteerism and public service, just to name a
few. I am also very aware of the bravery and patriotism many in the
Asian and Pacific Islander community have shown by serving honorably in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and other dangerous places.
The Asian Pacific American community is growing in my district and
our Nation at large. I know, as the influence of Asian Americans and
Pacific Islanders grow, the American people will more fully
understand--and respect--the many contributions they have made to our
communities and our Nation.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO CYNTHIA SCHNEIDER
______
HON. KEN CALVERT
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to
an individual whose dedication and contributions to the community of
Corona, California are exceptional. Corona has been fortunate to have
dynamic and dedicated community leaders who willingly and unselfishly
give their time and talent and make their communities a better place to
live and work. Cynthia Schneider is one of these individuals. On May
17, 2008, Cynthia will be recognized at the Corona-Norco Family YMCA's
13th Anniversary Distinguished Service Awards Dinner and will receive
the YMCA Distinguished Service Award.
Cynthia is senior vice president, director of marketing for American
Security Bank, headquartered in Santa Ana, California. She was
instrumental in the business case that convinced the bank to open its
loan and marketing administration offices and build a new branch office
in Corona. For more than 30 years, Cynthia has managed the marketing
functions of various Southern California financial institutions, as an
officer and as a private consultant. She specializes in improving
financial performance through consultative sales training and gaining
corporate visibility through strategic marketing and public relations
programs.
Cynthia has worked in Corona for 10 years and has been a resident for
8. During that time she has become an active community volunteer. She
is a longstanding member of the Corona Chamber of Commerce; has served
on their board for 7 years and was chairman of the board in 2006. She
currently chairs and is a contributing writer for the Chamber's Corona
Business Monthly magazine and heads their legislative action committee.
She is the founder and organizer of the Chamber Missions to China and
has run the program for 3 consecutive years. Cynthia was recognized by
Soroptomist International in 2006 as a Woman of Distinction for her
international contributions.
Cynthia was also instrumental in the grassroots campaign by the
Corona Chamber of Commerce to help the homeless. The campaign inspired
community members to contribute $100,000 during a 6-week period in 2006
to keep the doors of the homeless shelter open over the holidays.
Cynthia has also served for 6 years on the board of directors for the
Foundation for Community and Family Healthy, is currently president of
the Circle City Rotary, and proudly serves on the board of the Corona/
Norco YMCA.
Cynthia's tireless passion for community service has contributed
immensely to the betterment of the community of Corona, California. I
am proud to call Cynthia a fellow community member, American and
friend. I salute her and thank her for her service as she receives the
prestigious YMCA Distinguished Service Award.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MR. L. ROBERT KIMBALL
______
HON. JOHN P. MURTHA
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity on
the occasion of the 55th anniversary of L. Robert Kimball & Associates
to recognize the service and work of L. Robert Kimball, founder and
chairman of the board. As a military veteran and respected businessman,
Mr. Kimball is the epitome of the American entrepreneur. His original
two- person civil engineering company, founded in 1953, has grown to a
full-service architecture, engineering, technology, and consulting firm
of over 600 staff serving a wide variety of clients, including the
Federal Government.
Mr. Kimball served as a U.S. Army Air Corps Captain in World War II
and as a Major in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Korean
conflict. Among his World War II military decorations are the
Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters,
and the French Croix de Guerre. He is also a recipient of the Chapel of
the Four Chaplains Legion of Honor Award.
Following his military service, Mr. Kimball returned to his hometown
of Ebensburg, Pennsylvania, and established the company known as ``L.
Robert Kimball, Civil Engineer.'' In the 1960s, the firm began
providing service to branches of the United States military. Today,
Kimball provides professional services to, among others, the Department
of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of
Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers. Those services include cutting-edge building,
innovative modeling, laser terrain scanning, and telecommunication
system modernization.
The firm's reputation for consistent delivery of high-caliber
services is a direct result of the discipline and integrity that L.
Robert Kimball instilled throughout the company. The example he sets of
leadership and teamwork can be traced back to his military service to
the United States of America as a lead navigator for the 100th Bomb
Group, where he set the flight course. It was a matter of life and
death to make the right decisions and to work as a team to look out for
the others in the squadron. Those principles apply to the course he
sets for staff. He encourages every employee to be a good professional
and a good citizen.
With that, Madam Speaker, I recognize and congratulate Mr. L. Robert
Kimball.
____________________
IN HONOR OF AMERICA'S SECOND HARVEST
______
HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor America's Second
Harvest, which is being presented with this year's Ernest P. Bicknell
Disaster Response Excellence Award from the American Red Cross.
America's Second Harvest, based in Chicago, is the Nation's largest
charitable hunger-relief organization. I have long been an admirer of
its work in Illinois, where 8 America's Second Harvest food banks help
provide food to 900,000 people who are struggling with rising fuel,
health care, and food costs. Nationwide, America's Second Harvest has a
network of more than 200 member food banks and food-rescue
organizations that serves all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico.
The America's Second Harvest Network secures and distributes more
than 2 billion pounds of donated food and grocery products annually.
The Network supports approximately 63,000 local charitable agencies
operating more than 70,000 programs including food pantries, soup
kitchens, emergency shelters, afterschool programs, and community
kitchens. Each year, the America's Second Harvest Network provides food
assistance to more than 25 million low-income hungry people in the
United States, including more than 9 million children and nearly 3
million seniors.
America's Second Harvest is being been honored by the Red Cross
because it continues to be instrumental in improving preparedness and
the critical delivery of disaster relief to individuals and communities
across the country. America's Second Harvest has partnered with the
American Red Cross in disaster response through its leadership with the
National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (VOAD) Mass Care
Committee. It has also worked to establish standards of care for
victims of disaster, utilizing its proven expertise in providing 2
billion pounds of food and grocery products to our Nation's hungry each
year. Unfortunately, the news of the devastating cyclone in Myanmar,
and the catastrophic earthquakes that stole thousands of
[[Page 9167]]
lives in China this week, highlight just how critical disaster relief
plans are.
The Red Cross's Disaster Response Excellence Award is named in honor
of Ernest P. Bicknell, who was the Red Cross National Director from
1909 to 1917 after having served as, fittingly, the General
Superintendent of the Chicago Bureau of Charities. Today, America's
Second Harvest is at the forefront of charitable work, both in Chicago
and nationwide. As a proud representative of the City of Chicago, I am
honored to recognize their incredible work.
____________________
CONGRATULATING RICCARDO MUTI AS NEW MUSIC DIRECTOR OF CHICAGO SYMPHONY
ORCHESTRA
______
HON. RAHM EMANUEL
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Maestro
Riccardo Muti on being named the next music director of the Chicago
Symphony Orchestra (CSO). Maestro Muti will become the 10th music
director to take the baton in that capacity for the CSO.
Maestro Muti will succeed Daniel Barenboim, who held the position of
music director at the CSO for fifteen years when he left in 2006.
I am proud that Chicago will have a world-class maestro to follow in
the footsteps of legends like Sir Georg Solti as music director.
Maestro Muti's background is impressive and commands immense respect in
the musical community. He has conducted many important orchestras
around the world, including the New York Philharmonic, the Orchestre
National de France, the Berlin Philharmonic, the Bavarian Radio
Symphony Orchestra, the Vienna Philharmonic, and more.
Maestro Muti already has some familiarity with our City's outstanding
orchestra, having conducted the CSO at Ravinia in 1973 and returning to
Symphony Center in 1975 as well as three decades later in 2007. When he
begins his tenure as music director in 2010, I know that he and the CSO
will continue to excel in the years to come.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate Riccardo Muti in his new position as
music director at the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and wish him the best
of luck as Chicago's new maestro.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF EDDIE HARRISON
______
HON. MIKE ROSS
of arkansas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Eddie Harrison of
Waldron, Arkansas, and to recognize his 45 years of dedication and
commitment in the classroom at Waldron High School as he embarks on his
retirement from teaching.
I commend Mr. Eddie Harrison for his efforts and accomplishments over
the years and applaud his hard work and devotion to improving the
quality of education for countless students at Waldron High School. As
a son of public school educators, I believe the most important
component of a child's education is having a quality teacher like Mr.
Harrison in the classroom.
Mr. Harrison's school day did not start and end with a bell, instead
it began with early morning meetings and concluded when the last buzzer
sounded at a sporting event. He dedicated his time to multiple
organizations and was always the first to volunteer for projects at
hand.
When Mr. Harrison is not in the classroom or on the campus of Waldron
High School, he can be found at the Waldron First Baptist Church where
he serves as Deacon and is actively involved in his church's ministry.
He is also a proud uncle, whose devotion to his family is second to
none.
Eddie Harrison's presence in the classroom will be greatly missed by
the students, faculty and staff of Waldron High School, where his
legacy of excellence will forever be remembered. I know that his heart
will never drift far from Waldron, and that he will continue to be a
fixture in the community and a role model for all that have the
opportunity to know him.
I have always believed that there is no greater form of public
service than that performed by those who teach our children. I
congratulate Eddie Harrison on a job well done for 45 years of teaching
at Waldron High School. I wish him a successful future of happiness and
fulfillment in his next endeavor, and am proud to commend his selfless
work to help shape a new generation of innovators.
____________________
THE DAILY 45: PACOIMA SHOOTINGS
______
HON. BOBBY L. RUSH
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, the Department of Justice tells us that,
every day, 45 people, on average, are fatally shot in the United
States. From coast to coast, the stories ring familiar.
In Los Angeles, police said this morning that they are investigating
two separate shootings in Pacoima that left two men dead. One man,
whose name has not been released, suffered gunshot wounds to his head
and body. He was taken to a local hospital where he later died. In a
separate incident, in the same area, another man was fatally wounded in
an apparent drive-by shooting around 3 p.m. Tuesday. These daily
shootings must end.
Americans of conscience must come together to stop the senseless
death of ``The Daily 45.'' When will Americans say ``Enough is enough,
stop the killing!''
____________________
RECOGNIZING REALTORS AND THEIR ROLE IN THE AMERICAN DREAM
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize America's
realtors. I would like to specifically recognize fifteen realtors, who
are in Washington, D.C. today, for their commitment to the
neighborhoods and communities across North Texas, the place I am proud
to call home. I would also like to welcome these fellow Texans to our
Nation's capital city.
Realtors are a vital part of the American way of life. They help to
provide the citizens of the United States with one of the most basic
American Dreams: the joy of home ownership. I remember when I was
looking to buy my first home, I was unsure about what I could expect or
what processes I needed to take. Realtors helped me through the process
and I am very grateful for the kindness and generosity they
demonstrated.
I would like to recognize the fifteen realtors from my district who
are in Washington, D.C. right now: with the Greater Lewisville
Association of REALTORS, Inc., Connie Niedzwiecki, Cathy Smith, and
Lynda Bennett; with the North Texas Real Estate Information Services,
Inc., Mikie Doyle; with the Greater Denton/Wise County Association of
REALTORS, Inc., Chris Rosprim, Myra Oliver, Mary O'Conner, Kaki
Lybbert, and Kara Phelps; with the Greater Fort Worth Association of
REALTORS, Inc., Ken Jones, Dan Odom and Colleen Odom; and with the
MetroTex Association of REALTORS, Inc., Eloise Eriksson, Judy Jones and
Barbara Alsworth.
Madam Speaker, I am very grateful for the hard work of these
aforementioned professionals and the great service they provide to
their local communities. Their energy, skills and commitment have made
North Texas a better place to live and I am proud to have them here
today.
____________________
HONORING DR. ODETE AMARELO ON THE OCCASION OF HER RETIREMENT
______
HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a wonderful
Massachusetts resident, Dr. Odete Amarelo, on the occasion of her
retirement.
Maria Odete Cordeiro Morgado Amarelo was born in Arrifes, Rua da
Saude, in the Azores. After a visit from Cardinal Humberto de Sousa
Medeiros that served as a great inspiration, her family made the
decision to make a new life in the United States.
Dr. Odete used her great energy, drive and passion to help others.
She enrolled in a night program at Bristol Community College,
eventually transferring to the University of Massachusetts. Two years
later, she was hired by
[[Page 9168]]
the Fall River School Department as a Teacher Assistant in the
bilingual program. She later earned a BA from the University of Boston,
a Master's Degree from Lesley College and a Doctorate Degree in
Literacy from the Union Institute.
Madam Speaker, that final degree I mentioned, a Doctorate in
Literacy, says it all. Dr. Odete believes that education based upon
literacy is a fundamental right. This has been her life's work, and her
life's passion. As Dr. Odete has said, ``literacy can't exist in an
isolated form, it's a process that is a part of our continued
development.''
Currently, Dr. Odete serves as the School/Parent coordinator for the
Magnet Program in the Fall River Schools.
I am proud to rise today in honoring Dr. Odete Amarelo and to thank
her for her extraordinary work on behalf of the people of Fall River.
Dr. Odete once said, ``it's not sufficient to say that we care, but to
act and identify what is not right.'' Dr. Odete has been acting and
identifying--and fixing--what is not right for many, many years. I know
that my colleagues in the House join me in paying tribute to this
remarkable woman.
____________________
HONORING WOODCLIFF LAKE D.A.R.E. PROGRAM
______
HON. SCOTT GARRETT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, today, the Woodcliff Lake
Police Department will hold its D.A.R.E. graduation ceremony with the
students of Dorchester School. The young people participating in this
important program have made a commitment to say no to drugs, underage
drinking, and gang violence. They have done this with the support of
their principal, John Fierro, Chief of Police Anthony Jannicelli and
D.A.R.E. officers Chad Malloy and James Foley.
Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or D.A.R.E., began as a small
program in Los Angeles in 1983. Today, it is implemented in more than
75 percent of our Nation's school districts and in more than 43 other
nations. This program allows children to defeat the negative cultural
influences that they are challenged with daily by opening the lines of
communication between law enforcement and youth and empowering them
with confidence and courage to say no to drugs.
I am proud of the young boys and girls who participated in this
program in Woodcliff Lake, and I would like to recognize them all for
taking this step toward positive citizenship:
Christopher Acciardi, Nicole Alberta, Naseeb Ally, Max Aronson,
Maryanna Arundel, Noah Bardach, Albert Barragan, Alexis Bernstein,
Zachary Bernstein, Christopher Blake, Nicholas Bonnett, Alexandra
Castiel, Marc Castrillon, Karen Choi, Ellen Drennan, Matthew Evans,
Mackenzie Evans, Brandon Fazal, Rachel Fisher, Brandon Friedman, Keith
Gliksman, Michael Goldstein, Ian Groh, Erica Grunfeld, Alexandria Guo,
Karin Hadadan, Ashley Hahn, John Henrich, Gianna Hroncich, Ari
Jigarjian, Brigitte Josephson, Avantika Joshi, Senyoung Kim, Chelsea
Kirnum, Kathryn Klecanda, Katarina Kokkosis, Saniya Kumar, Morgan
Landman, Justin Lane, Adam Lefkowitz, Brett Levine, Hanna Levy, Sophia
Logothetis, Tomasso Lombardi, Chloe Mann, Brian Marolda, Samantha
McGovern, Kayla McGraw, Alexander Meleniak, Celine Mileham, Vernice
Miller, Nicole Miller, Daniel Miller, Cole Moran, Melissa Nachbaur,
Vicky Patel, Thomas Patire, Jordan Perez, Noah Personette, Alex Pettie,
Lianna Port, Austin Rahmin, Richard Rebori, Peter Rubenstein, Rachel
Samitt, Mihir Sangoi, Maximillian Sarbu, Devin Sargent, Maya Scharf,
Alexa Schecter, Connor Schultz, Kyle Schultz, Shunpei Seki, Isabel
Sella, Julia Shin, Jacqueline Skene, Alana Smolinsky, W. Maxwell Song,
Margo Spector, Constantine Stavrianidis, Alexander Todfield, Sere
Tonuzi, Natalia Torres, Christopher Toto, David VanPelt, Apoorva
Vasireddy, Harrison Weinfeld, Noah Winston, Rachel Yannelli, Vincent
Yannelli, Josephine Yao, Christopher Zariello.
____________________
HONORING JOHN ROGERS' DISTINGUISHED CAREER IN PUBLIC SERVICE
______
HON. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor John Rogers of
Rockland, Massachusetts, and to recognize his long and distinguished
career in public service.
John has devoted his life to educating young people most notably as a
teacher and then during his twenty-three-year tenure as Superintendent
of the Rockland Public Schools. In addition, he has worked to improve
the quality of life for people of all ages in Rockland through his
service as a Selectman and as President of the Rockland Chamber of
Commerce. In recent years, he has played an instrumental role in the
redevelopment of the South Weymouth Naval Air Station by representing
the people of Rockland on the Board of Directors of the South Shore
Tri-Town Development Corporation.
While serving on the Tri-Town board, he helped shape and build
consensus on a redevelopment master plan that will serve as an engine
of economic growth in the surrounding communities. The plan has won
accolades from local and national groups as a ``smart growth''
initiative and a model for future sustainable development projects
throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
John will continue his lifelong service to his community as a newly
elected member of the Rockland Housing Authority, and as he retires
from his position on the Tri-Town Board, I want to him to know that we
are forever grateful for all that he has done. We will always
appreciate his unwavering leadership, his vision and his tireless
commitment to advancing the quality of life for the people of Rockland
and the greater South Shore area.
On behalf of a grateful constituency, I rise today to thank John
Rogers for all that he has done for our community, and to wish him
success in all his future endeavors.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JOHN R. COUTS
______
HON. KEN CALVERT
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to
an individual whose dedication and contributions to the community of
Corona, California are exceptional. Corona has been fortunate to have
dynamic and dedicated community leaders who willingly and unselfishly
give their time and talent and make their communities a better place to
live and work. John Couts is one of these individuals. On May 17, 2008,
John will be recognized at the Corona-Norco Family YMCA's 13th
Anniversary Distinguished Service Awards Dinner and will receive the
YMCA Distinguished Service Award.
John Couts is President of Couts Heating and Cooling, Inc., a
mechanical contracting company that has operated in Corona for thirty
years. Cents Heating and Cooling, established in 1978, owes its long-
standing success to its simple, yet driving business philosophy:
honesty, integrity, and putting the best interest of the customer
first. Couts Heating and Cooling, Inc. is a Union Contractor providing
heating, ventilating and air-conditioning services in addition to
mechanical piping and energy management controls to commercial,
industrial, medical and educational facilities.
The story of Couts Heating and Cooling is a small business success
story that began with a team of four family members and a determination
to succeed. From their entrepreneurial beginnings, the business has
evolved into a major corporation, employing 200 people. A major
component of the growth of Couts Heating and Cooling has been their
unwavering commitment to family-owned values.
John's life has been woven into the fabric of the City of Corona for
more than three decades. He and his wife, Carolyn, raised and educated
two daughters in Corona. For many years both Carolyn and John were
active in booster and fundraising activities for cheerleading and
athletics, spending countless hours supporting their daughters'
endeavors. As their children grew into their own lives, John's
contributions to the community evolved from school and athletic events
into community causes.
John currently sits on the Board of the Foundation for Community and
Family Healthy were he has been instrumental in spearheading and
promoting an annual giving program that will provide long-term funding
for the Foundation's countless outreach programs. As a business owner,
not only has John been extremely active in industry and trade
associations at a local and state level, he has also been a member and
active supporter of the Corona Chamber of Commerce. For the past eight
months, John has shared his professional expertise as a member of a
selectively chosen group of business owners who comprise the Chamber's
Legislative Action Committee--monitoring and lobbying to pass
legislation that will have a positive impact on Corona businesses. John
and Carolyn also support numerous philanthropic causes and give
generously to support community programs funded by non-profit agencies.
[[Page 9169]]
John's tireless passion for the high quality of his business and
community service has contributed immensely to the betterment of the
community of Corona, California. I am proud to call John a fellow
community member, American and friend. I salute him and thank him for
his service as he receives the prestigious YMCA Distinguished Service
Award.
____________________
CONGRATULATING GRINNELL COLLEGE MEN'S TENNIS TEAM
______
HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY
of iowa
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
outstanding results achieved by head coach Andy Hamilton and the
Grinnell College men's tennis team this spring. In early May the
Pioneers won their first ever NCAA tournament match and their 5th
consecutive Midwest Conference title. Grinnell now has an 11th
conference championship trophy to add to their case!
I am extremely proud of the accomplishments of the Grinnell men's
tennis team, both on and off the court. Three Grinnell College tennis
players--Dan LaFountaine, Brij Patnaik, and Pete De Kock--have worked
for me and served the people of Iowa's First District. And countless
other Grinnellians, including my Legislative Director Mike Goodman, are
working in public life to build a stronger, more just Nation.
Arthur Ashe--the great American public intellectual, civil rights
advocate, and tennis player--said, ``From what we get, we can make a
living; what we give, however, makes a life.'' Grinnell faculty,
coaches, students, and alumni understand this truth. The Grinnell men's
tennis team had a great season in 2008, and these student athletes are
poised to give great things to our communities in the future.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF ASSISTANT SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE MICHAEL D.
DROMGOOLE, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
______
HON. PETE SESSIONS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) Michael
D. Dromgoole.
Prior to joining the DEA, Michael began his law enforcement career
with the Texas Department of Public Safety as a Highway Patrol Trooper
in 1973. In 1980, he began his DEA career as a Special Agent and
completed assignments in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, California
before coming to Texas. His work ethic and dedication led to multiple
promotions and in October 1998, he was reassigned as an Assistant
Special Agent in Charge in the Dallas Field Division. After twenty-
eight years of service with the DEA, Michael will be retiring this
year.
The Dallas area has greatly benefited from his vision and leadership.
He foresaw a safer and better community and took every effort to do
make this goal a reality. He helped enhance the cooperation between the
DEA and local and state agencies, making attempts to combat drug
trafficking and the enforcement of controlled substance laws more
successful. Michael leaves a legacy of civic duty that will be greatly
missed.
Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing
our deepest gratitude for his exemplary service to this great Nation.
____________________
HONORING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF MR. DON W. KASSING, PRESIDENT OF SAN JOSE
STATE UNIVERSITY
______
HON. MICHAEL M. HONDA
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of
California's most successful university presidents, Mr. Don W. Kassing.
Don will be retiring this year and I would like to highlight some of
the significant contributions he has made, not only to the university,
but also to the surrounding community. It is with mixed emotions that I
say farewell to Don--I am saddened to see him go, but do so with
tremendous pride and respect for the accomplishments he has made to my
alma mater, San Jose State University.
In August of 2004, following the unexpected resignation of his
predecessor, Don leapt into action as the newly appointed interim
president of San Jose State University. Accepting this position just
before the start of the school year, Don moved quickly to reassure an
apprehensive campus that all focus would remain on the important
business of starting the fall semester. His confidence in the
collective capabilities of the San Jose State University faculty and
staff, his generous and collegial management and leadership style, and
the trust and respect that he had garnered during his 11 years of
service as San Jose State University's vice president for
administration and finance quickly created a sense of stability.
One of Don's first actions as president was to galvanize the campus
to organize its first-ever campuswide strategic planning process. This
thorough planning involved a mobilization of all campus units and
resulted in a vibrant ``Vision 2010.'' San Jose State University is now
at the end of two full cycles of implementation.
Leading by example, Don repeatedly made thoughtful, public stands on
tough issues. He strongly supported a student initiative to honor two
San Jose State athletes and civil rights icons, Tommie Smith and John
Carlos, medal winners of the 1968 Olympics, who chose a non-violent
protest during the medals ceremony to bring attention to the American
civil rights movement. The groundbreaking and dedication ceremonies for
the campus sculpture in 2007 gave the University at long last the
opportunity to appropriately honor and embrace the athletes and their
actions.
Building upon the successful partnership with the city of San Jose to
develop the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, Don was instrumental
in forging the Beyond Martin Luther King collaborative, which initiated
a broader commitment and conversation with city and San Jose State
University leadership staff and community stakeholders. Since 2004, key
partnership projects have sparked neighborhood development, affordable
housing-to-workforce enhancement and co-production of major events.
This successful collaborative effort serves as a model of how a
positive, symbiotic relationship between a lively campus and a vibrant
downtown can be used to enhance the stature of both a city and its
university.
This year, Don led the campus in a decision to suspend blood drives,
citing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's lifetime blood donor
deferral affecting gay men as being in violation of the university's
nondiscrimination policy. The public stand taken by SJSU has re-ignited
debate across the country about FDA's policy. It is my hope that the
questions raised by Don's actions will lead to a thorough, thoughtful,
and scientifically sound reexamination of FDA policy.
Mr. Kassing's successes can best be summoned up in the words of its
accrediting body. In a letter last July, Western Association of Schools
and Colleges Executive Director Ralph Wolff said: ``The Commission
would like to extend its commendation to the San Jose State University
community on the truly remarkable distance it has traveled since fall
2004. The team report notes `significant progress' in assessment of
student learning and enrollment management; the positive influence of
recent appointments at the senior level; an operational strategic plan;
innovative new programs for student success; and above all, dramatic
changes in culture, energy and focus on campus.''
Madam Speaker, I will miss seeing my friend, Don Kassing, in San
Jose, but wish him and his spouse, Amy, only the best as they embark on
the next phase of their journey in Arizona.
____________________
CONGRATULATING MAJORS DAVID AND PAT WAITE ON THE OCCASION OF THEIR
RETIREMENT FROM THE SALVATION ARMY
______
HON. JO BONNER
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. BONNER. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and pleasure that I
rise to honor the long and distinguished careers of Majors David and
Pat Waite, on the occasion of their retirement from the Salvation Army.
With careers spanning over 40 years, the Waites' service has carried
them across the Southeast, to Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Texas, and
Alabama. Their ministry also carried them to South America, where they
served in Brazil for three years.
Majors David and Pat met as undergraduates while attending Asbury
College in Wilmore, Kentucky. David graduated with a
[[Page 9170]]
bachelor's degree in psychology, and Pat graduated with a degree in
elementary education. They married in 1966 while David was in seminary
school, and in 1969, David graduated from Asbury Theological Seminary
with a master's of divinity degree.
In 1969, David and Pat entered Officers' Training School. David spent
much of this first year of training attending Emory University's
Candler School of Theology. As Cadet-Lieutenants, the Waites spent
their second year of training in St. Petersburg, Florida, and in 1971,
David and Pat were commissioned as officers.
The Waites served in various locations throughout Florida, including
Fort Pierce, Jacksonville, Ocala, and Clearwater, before being assigned
to the College for Officers' Training in Atlanta, Georgia, where they
would stay for three years. Majors David and Pat then went on to serve
as corps officers at the Atlanta Temple Corps.
From Atlanta, David and Pat were assigned to Divisional Headquarters
in Louisville, Kentucky. Here, David served as the divisional secretary
and Pat served as assistant home league secretary. In 1995, the Waites
moved to Austin, Texas, where David was appointed territorial
candidates secretary and associate candidates secretary.
In 1997, David was named education secretary. His primary
responsibility in this capacity was to transition the Education
Department from Territorial Headquarters to the Evangeline Booth
College. David was also responsible for opening the School for
Continuing Education where he served as assistant principal. During
their assignment in Austin, Pat opened the Continuing Education Center
and served as its director. She also laid the ground work for the new
continuing education programs and the degree completion program.
The Waites received their orders assigning them to Brazil in 1999. In
Brazil, David served as associate public relations secretary, public
relations secretary, and personnel secretary for the Brazil territory.
Pat served as the territorial home league secretary and later, as
assistant to the personnel secretary.
The Waites arrived in Mobile in 2002 where David was named area
commander and Pat was named coordinator for women's activities. After
six years of service in Mobile, the Waites are retiring to San Antonio,
Florida, where many fellow Salvationists reside.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing two
dedicated community leaders and friends to many throughout Alabama. I
know their family, their children, and their many friends join me in
praising their accomplishments and extending thanks for their
outstanding service over the years on behalf of the First District and
the state of Alabama.
Majors David and Pat Waite will surely enjoy the well deserved time
they now have to spend with family and loved ones. On behalf of a
grateful community, I wish them the best of luck in all of their future
endeavors.
____________________
RECOGNIZING MISSISSIPPI SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 667
______
HON. CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. PICKERING. Madam Speaker, today I submit into the Record
Concurrent Resolution No. 667 adopted by the Mississippi Senate and
House of Representatives. The resolution urges the United States
Congress to accept the decision of the United States Air Force
concerning the award of the jet tanker contract to Northrop Grumman
Corporation and EADS North America. Each day we delay approving this
contract, we prevent the Air Force men and women from receiving the
equipment necessary to ensure our national security. I encourage my
colleagues to review this resolution.
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 667
Whereas, after an extensive evaluation process, the United
States Air Force awarded a $35 Billion jet tanker contract to
Northrop Grumman Corporation and EADS North America; and
Whereas, these vital military aircraft will be built at
Mobile Brookley Field Industrial Complex, creating more than
2,000 new jobs for workers in the States of Mississippi and
Alabama; and
Whereas, efforts to overturn the decision of the United
States Air Force concerning its detailed analysis are
irresponsible and a true threat to our national security; it
is imperative that elected officials support the decision
makers whom they entrust with these important determinations;
and
Whereas, Mississippi workers are ready, able and eager to
begin constructing the aircraft that the Untied States Air
Force has rated as superior in five-out-of-five categories,
and the interest of national defense should clearly rule over
regional political posturing: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate of the State of Mississippi, the
House of Representatives concurring therein, That the United
States Congress is respectfully encouraged to accept the
decision of the United States Air Force concerning the
awarding of the jet tanker contract to Northrop Grumman
Corporation and EADS North America, refrain from turning this
vital national security matter into a political free-for-all,
and allow the competent and capable workers of Mississippi to
immediately begin work on this critical contract. Be it
further
Resolved, That this resolution be transmitted by the
Secretary of the Senate to members of Mississippi's
congressional delegation and to the Secretary of Defense and
be made available to the Capitol Press Corps.
____________________
THE PASSING OF CONGRESSWOMAN BONO MACK'S FATHER CLAY WESTERFIELD
WHITAKER, M.D.
______
HON. DAVID DREIER
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness we share the news
of the passing of Clay Westerfield Whitaker, M.D., father of
Representative Mary Bono Mack, on May 13th after a long and valiant
battle with prostate cancer. It was an honor to have known Dr. Whitaker
and it is a privilege to serve with Congresswoman Bono Mack who is a
testament and tribute to her father. From the talks I had with Dr.
Whitaker, I know how proud he was of her great work.
Born in Greenville, Kentucky on April 17, 1924, Whitaker was the son
of Eva Nell Hunt Whitaker and Levi Whitaker. The youngest of six
siblings, all of whom preceded him in death, he was only five years old
when his father, a physician, died at the age of thirty. Whitaker's
mother, now a single parent, worked hard to make ends meet during the
years of the Great Depression. When speaking of those years, Whitaker
often said, ``We didn't think we were poor; we just didn't have any
money.'' His mother understood the importance of a good education, and
along with his sisters, he was admitted to Berea College in Kentucky.
At Berea, he met the love of his life, Karen Lee Taylor. Together, they
enjoyed music and an active campus life until his college education was
interrupted when he entered the Army Air Corps during WWII. Assigned to
the 8th Air Force, 95th Bomb Group, 334th Squadron stationed in Horham,
England, Whitaker served as a B-17 waist gunner and flew 19 missions
over Germany. After victory had been achieved, Whitaker wrote to his
college sweetheart asking for her hand in marriage when he returned to
Berea College.
Upon returning home, Whitaker was greeted at the train station by his
sister and future bride, Karen. As he stepped off the train, his sister
informed him that his wedding was scheduled for the very next day, June
30, 1944. So began a lifetime of mutual devotion. Whitaker completed
his college education at Berea with a degree in chemistry and applied
to Western Reserve medical school where he earned his M.D. in
otolaryngology (ear, nose & throat) and then set-up his medical
practice in Cleveland, Ohio. While living in Cleveland, he and Karen
had four children, Stephen, David, Katherine and Mary.
In 1963, Whitaker moved the family west to Los Angeles where he
accepted a position as co-chair of the ENT department at L.A. County--
USC Medical Center. As professor of ENT, he remained at USC until 1983
when he moved to Asheville, North Carolina, to chair the ENT department
at the VA hospital and establish an ENT program at that facility for
Duke University. He held that position until his retirement from the
practice of medicine.
Whitaker loved the outdoors, especially hiking, camping and the Land
Rovers that transported him to the backcountry. He loved classical
music, the arts, sciences, literature, cars and vintage war planes. But
most of all, he loved his family. Known by family and friends as a man
of immense generosity and compassion, he was a remarkably selfless and
humble individual. His quick wit and keen sense of humor enlivened many
family and social gatherings, and he was deeply respected in the
communities in which he lived.
Preceded in death by his beloved Karen, Whitaker is survived by his
four children, Stephen Whitaker and his wife, Teri, of Bruceville,
Indiana; David Whitaker and his wife, Carol, of
[[Page 9171]]
Sealy, Texas; Katherine Whitaker of Asheville, North Carolina; and
Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack of Palm Springs, California, and her
husband, Congressman Connie Mack. He is also survived by eight
grandchildren, Laura Kenney and her husband, Doug; Daniel and
Christopher Whitaker, Cameron and Ian Whitaker, Teresa Shuford, and
Chesare and Chianna Bono, and one great grandson, Thomas Kenney.
Our deepest condolences go out to our colleague Mary Bono Mack and
the entire Whitaker family.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT
THE UNITED STATES SHOULD USE ALL APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO END COMMERCIAL
WHALING
______
HON. NICK J. RAHALL II
of west virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution
expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States, through
the International Whaling Commission, IWC, should use all appropriate
measures to end commercial whaling in all of its existing or potential
forms and seek to strengthen whale conservation and management
measures.
Whales cannot be humanely killed, according to Dr. Peter Singer, a
professor of bioethics at Princeton University. As Dr. Singer said,
causing suffering to innocent beings, without an extremely weighty
reason for doing so, is wrong. Beyond subsistence needs, it is
difficult to think of a reason weighty enough to cause such suffering
to one of God's most magnificent creatures.
As such, the purpose of my resolution is to send a strong message to
the Administration as it prepares for the June 2008 meeting of the
International Whaling Commission, IWC, in Santiago. The message is
simple: now is not the time to capitulate to calls to weaken or
undermine the IWC ban on commercial whaling. The American people care
deeply about protecting whales, and the U.S. should continue to be an
international leader in whale conservation.
Established in 1946, the IWC's initial focus was the allocation of
whaling quotas among member countries. Unfortunately, whalers from many
countries routinely exceeded these quotas, and whale populations
plummeted. In response, the IWC instituted a moratorium on the
commercial killing of whales in 1986.
Despite this moratorium, significant whaling has continued. Norway
officially objected to the moratorium and resumed commercial whaling in
1993. Japan and Iceland have been using a provision in the Convention--
which allows countries to issue themselves permits for ``scientific
whaling''--to kill whales under the guise of science, and later sell
the meat commercially. More than 11,000 whales have been reportedly
killed in lethal scientific whaling programs since the adoption of the
commercial whaling moratorium, even though the IWC Scientific Committee
has repeatedly stated that such lethal takes are not necessary for
scientific research.
At the same time, Japan is calling for the IWC to once again sanction
commercial whaling in the form of ``coastal'' whaling, ``community''
whaling, or some other iteration of small-scale commercial whaling that
will effectively eviscerate the moratorium.
In contrast, the anti-whaling nations want the IWC to look to the
future--a future in which whales are protected and their nonlethal use
is promoted. With its 75-plus members almost evenly divided between
anti- and pro-whaling, it is imperative that the U.S. make clear its
strong stand against the resumption of any form of commercial whaling,
including community whaling, and that we press for the end of
``scientific'' whaling that is anything but scientific.
Therefore, the resolution I am introducing today calls on the U.S.
delegation to the IWC to remain firmly opposed to commercial whaling in
all its forms. The resolution urges the U.S. to not only initiate or
support efforts to oppose the unnecessary lethal taking of whales for
scientific purposes, but also seek to end the sale of meat and blubber
from whales killed for scientific research in order to remove this
perverse incentive. The resolution also calls on the U.S. to reject
proposals that would weaken or lift the moratorium on commercial
whaling by creating a new category of whaling deceptively called
coastal or community whaling.
It is more critical than ever that the U.S. remain firmly opposed to
any proposals to resume even a limited level of commercial whaling and
to maintain its leadership role in shaping global whale conservation
policies through the IWC. The administration must not undo more than 20
years of whale conservation and capitulate to Japan's demand for a
sanctioned resumption of coastal commercial whaling. Instead, the U.S.
should again demonstrate leadership in whale conservation and promote
nonlethal uses of whales--such as whale watching--a far more benign and
profitable venture. Worldwide, tourists spend an estimated $1.5 billion
on whale watching each year.
Whales constitute a vital component of the world's marine ecosystems
and are some of the largest and most intelligent mammals on Earth.
Conserving them requires us to uphold strong international agreements
and maintain an unwavering commitment to protecting these species from
killing for commercial gain. I thank my colleagues for cosponsoring
this resolution, and I urge all Members to support it.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. STEVE COHEN
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to explain both my leave of absence
from the House of Representatives on May 8, 2008, and how I intended to
vote with respect to the legislation that was before the House on that
day. I was unable to be in Washington on May 8 because I was serving as
a pallbearer at the funeral of Thomas Boggs--a close friend of mine for
over 30 years and an outstanding citizen of Memphis, Tennessee--at the
request of his widow.
While Thomas made a name for himself by rising from humble roots to
become a highly successful restaurateur in Memphis, his mark on the
city goes much deeper. He used his success in business to contribute
generously, both in terms of his money and his time, to causes that
have enriched Memphis. His contributions to the community have
benefited all Memphians, and his death leaves Memphis in grief. As a
reflection of how much esteem the Memphis community held him in, the
Memphis Commercial-Appeal ran a front-page, above-the-fold article
concerning his death, an almost unprecedented tribute.
I agonized over whether I should remain in Washington to vote on the
bills that the House was to consider on the day of Thomas' funeral. I
take my responsibilities as a Member of Congress very seriously,
particularly with respect to voting on legislation. In the end, I
decided that I needed to join the rest of the Memphis community as our
dear friend was eulogized and honored for one last time.
Had I been able to be in Washington on May 8, I would have voted for
final passage of H.R. 5818, the ``Neighborhood Stabilization Act of
2008,'' as amended. This legislation requires the Department of Housing
and Urban Development to provide loans and grants to States,
metropolitan cities, and urban counties to carry out housing stimulus
activities. Such activities include the purchase of or financing the
purchase of foreclosed homes for resale as housing, rental of such
homes, or rehabilitation of such homes. These measures are designed to
ensure that neighborhoods do not deteriorate as a result of a high
foreclosure rate caused by predatory lending. In short, this bill will
help to mitigate some of the negative effects of the foreclosure
crisis.
I also would have voted in favor of agreeing to the Senate amendment,
with House amendments, to H.R. 3221, the ``Foreclosure Prevention Act
of 2008.'' This bill helps homeowners who are in danger of losing their
homes to refinance into lower-cost, government-insured mortgages they
can afford to repay. It also expands affordable mortgage opportunities
for families who might otherwise turn to subprime mortgages to buy a
home. The bill, as amended by the House, will also expand tax benefits
for homeowners and first-time home buyers. This bill, when combined
with H.R. 5818, presents a comprehensive package for addressing the
predatory lending and foreclosure crises that our country faces.
In addition to the housing-related bills, I also would have voted in
favor of H.R. 4279, the ``Prioritizing Resources and Organization for
Intellectual Property Act of 2008'' (PRO-IP Act.) I am an original
cosponsor of this bill and spoke in favor of its passage when it was
being debated on the House floor a few days before the vote. As I noted
then, this legislation makes important improvements to intellectual
property law to help protect against counterfeiting and piracy,
including enhanced penalties for intellectual property crimes,
additional resources for law enforcement efforts at every level of
government, and the creation of a new organizational framework at the
Federal
[[Page 9172]]
level to better combat international piracy and counterfeiting. This
bill enjoys widespread support, and everyone from the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce to the Teamsters supports it. I am glad that it passed with
strong bipartisan support.
Finally, I note that I would have voted against the Flake and Cantor
Motions to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2419, the ``Farm, Nutrition, and
Bioenergy Act.''
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ROBERT RAUSCHENBERG, AMERICAN ARTIST
______
HON. CONNIE MACK
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. MACK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor one of America's
greatest art pioneers of the 20th century, Robert Rauschenberg, who
passed away on Monday at the age of 82 on Captiva Island. He led an
extraordinary life and his unique approach to abstract expressionism
helped to pave the way for a new generation of contemporary artists.
Mr. Rauschenberg was born in 1925 in Port Arthur, Texas. His love for
art grew while he served in the U.S. Navy during World War II and had a
chance to visit an art museum at the age of 18. When he returned home
from the war, he used his GI Bill benefits to pay his tuition at art
school.
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Mr. Rauschenberg's portfolio was
varied and diverse. He rejected abstract expressionism and searched for
a new method of painting. Incorporating his enthusiasm for popular
culture, he turned to pop art, and used materials traditionally outside
of the mainstream. He was also a sculptor and choreographer.
Mr. Rauschenberg moved to Captiva Island in the 1970s. Perhaps the
thing that Mr. Rauschenberg will most be remembered for in southwest
Florida was his contributions to the art community in our region. He
generously donated to the gallery on the Edison College campus in Fort
Myers, giving them the rights to reproduce his prints and posters and
thus allowing the institution to support itself financially.
In addition, Mr. Rauschenberg enjoyed sharing his love of art to art
students and the general public and was often on hand at gallery
openings to support local artists. He was also a strong supporter of
Arts for ACT, a charity that supports a shelter for abused women.
Although Mr. Rauschenberg is no longer with us on earth, his memory
will live on in the paintings he loved so much, the art community in
southwest Florida he fostered and supported, and the people he met and
inspired every day.
____________________
HONORING MR. IRV ZAKHEIM
______
HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS
of washington
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr.
Irv Zakheim, recipient of the Eastern Washington University 2008
Entrepreneur of the Year award. I am pleased to join with the EWU
Center for Entrepreneurial Activities in honoring Mr. Zakheim as a key
business leader, locally and globally.
Built on humble beginnings, Mr. Zakheim has grown his company, Zak!
Designs, from a small business to a major global competitor with nine
offices worldwide. Today, anyone with children would recognize the
products that first brought national attention to Zak! Designs.
Zak! Designs is a company that creates dinnerware, drinkware and
lunch kits featuring popular animated characters. They have recently
added travelware for on-the-go lifestyles, additional products at the
forefront of tabletop trends, and customized programs that bring fresh
looks to retailers.
In addition to his business pursuits, Mr. Zakheim plays an integral
role in the community. He is the founder of the Zak! Celebrity Open, an
annual golfing fundraiser that has brought in more than $1.5 million
for charitable organizations in its eight years of existence. Last year
alone, the Zak! Celebrity Open raised $450,000 for the Rypien
Foundation and YWCA's Child and Youth Services.
Madam Speaker, Irv Zakheim embodies the entrepreneurial and giving
spirit that makes this country so great. I commend Mr. Zakheim for his
important contribution to the business community and invite my
colleagues to join me in congratulating him on receiving this award.
____________________
CALLING ATTENTION TO THIS COUNTRY'S ORGAN DONATION CRISIS
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to note--with alarm--that
organ donations are not keeping pace with need in this country,
resulting in the deaths of 18 patients per day as they wait idly by for
lifelines. The shortage proves particularly detrimental to minority
patients, who together make up a staggering 50 percent of people on the
transplant waiting list. Because of a paucity of minority donors, and
the bruising effect of disparate and unequal access to health care,
minority patients find themselves most vulnerable to a deepening crisis
that should rally all Americans to the cause.
The health of our citizens should remain foremost on our minds. As
the leading power and example in the world, this country should strive
to carve out a premier health care system that works for everyone, not
just the politically connected, not just the moneyed. For every
American, we have safeguarded the promise of life, liberty, and
happiness--and we ought to make good on that. We can have none of the
three without adequate health care. This should be our national pride:
to continually develop and improve upon our remarkable successes in
medicine, to shape and mold a health care system that is the envy of
the world.
An April 22 New York CARIB News piece, titled ``Organ Donation A
Crisis Among Minorities'' and written by Dr. Jennifer Wider, denotes
these concerns and offers solutions.
Organ Donation a Crisis Among Minorities
The number of people needing organ transplants is rising
faster than the number of donors, according to statistics
from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Roughly 77 people receive organ transplants per day in the
United States, but 18 people die each day waiting for
transplants that will never happen due to the shortage of
available organs.
Organ transplantation involves putting organs or tissues
from one person into the body of another person, whose organs
or tissues have been damaged or are no longer working.
``The recipient has to be immunologically matched to the
donor well enough that the organ won't be immediately
rejected,'' says Mark Schnitzler, Ph.D., assistant professor
of health administration at Washington University School of
Medicine in St. Louis. ``Blood type match has to be
acceptable and the recipient can't be already sensitized to
the donor's tissue types.''
The need for transplants is particularly high among
minorities, especially among African-Americans. Of the 83,000
people on the national transplant waiting list, approximately
fifty percent are minorities, according to United Network for
Organ Sharing.
According to a recent study in the American Journal for
Respiratory Critical Care Medicine, David J. Lederer, M.D.,
and colleagues at Columbia University College of Physicians
and Surgeons in New York found that, ``After listing for lung
transplantation, African-American patients with chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease were less likely to undergo
transplantation and more likely to die or be removed from the
list compared with Caucasian patients.'' Unequal access to
care is among the likely reasons Lederer and his team cited
for this disparity.
Organ donation recipients are more likely to match up to
others of their own race and ethnicity. ``Both blood type and
tissue types have racial and ethnic patterns,'' Schnitzler
said. That is why it is important to look into ways to
increase minority organ donations.
The need for more donor organs among minority women is
especially great because minority women suffer
disproportionately from certain diseases of the kidney,
heart, lung, pancreas, and liver that can lead to organ
failure.
``Minority women are well represented as a share of the
total population that donates organs, but their need for
transplants is greater,'' said Sherry Marts, Ph.D., vice
president of scientific affairs for the Society for Women's
Health Research, a Washington, D.C., based advocacy
organization. ``Because of a shortage of appropriate donor
organs, minority women often have to wait longer for doctors
to find a match. Sadly, many die waiting. With more donated
organs from minority women, finding a match will be quicker,
waiting times will be cut and more lives will be saved.''
Further complicating matters are studies that show the
biological sex of the organ donor and recipient can affect
transplant success. At least one study has found that the
combinations least likely to result in organ rejection are
female recipient-male donor, followed by male recipient-male
donor.
``These findings have not yet affected clinical practice
because of the organ shortage,''
[[Page 9173]]
Marts said. ``Doctors can't afford to wait for the most
optimal donor-recipient combination where the sex of the
patients is concerned. They have to make the best decisions
possible with the limited organs available. As organ
preservation techniques improve, however, this could become a
factor.''
Health promotion and disease prevention programs are needed
to shed light on the diseases and negative lifestyle choices
that may increase the need for organ transplants. Diseases
such as diabetes and hypertension and behaviors including
alcohol and substance abuse, poor nutrition and lack of
exercise are all risk factors for diseases that can cause
permanent or irreversible damage to organs and tissues.
The Minority Organ Tissue Transplant Education Program is
working to increase awareness for minority organ donation.
This program also provides information that is vital to good
health and can delay or prevent the need for organ
transplants. Here are some of the program's key tips:
Have your blood pressure checked at least twice per year
after age 12; Diabetics should have blood pressure checked
regularly and follow diet and exercise instructions; Avoid
alcoholic beverages to help prevent liver disease; Avoid use
of illegal drugs such as marijuana, heroin and cocaine which
cause liver disease and kidney failure; Avoid smoking
cigarettes which can lead to heart and lung disease; Avoid
foods high in cholesterol and saturated fats such as fried
foods which can clog the arteries; Establish a regular
exercise routine which should be performed at least three
times per week; Visit your doctor at least once per year for
a check-up.
April is National Donate Life Month. Information about
organ and tissue donation is available on a special Web site
from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: http:/
/www.organdonor.gov/.
____________________
COMMEMORATING ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH
______
HON. NEIL ABERCROMBIE
of hawaii
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Asian
Pacific American--APA--Heritage Month. I am pleased to celebrate this
important event.
May 2008 marks 30 years since President Jimmy Carter signed a joint
Congressional resolution declaring the first 10 days of May as Asian
Pacific American Heritage Week. In 1992, the commemoration was extended
to the full month of May.
While it's an appropriate time to note the achievements of Asian
Pacific Americans, APAs, we cannot overlook the needs of the community,
including a fair and sensible immigration policy. I chair the
Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Asian Pacific American
Caucus's, CAPAC, and I will continue to fight for the needs of family
within the immigration debate.
The challenge has become much more difficult in the last year because
the presidential primary campaigns have poisoned the discussion,
focusing all their attention on undocumented immigrants from Mexico and
calls for higher fences and tougher enforcement. Completely ignored is
the fact that immigration issues facing Asian and Pacific Americans are
far different. And those issues have been completely drowned out by the
shrill demonization of illegal immigrants.
One of the major issues for the Asian Pacific American community is
family reunification: allowing relatives of legal permanent residents,
other than spouses and minor children, to immigrate legally and join
their families. It can take the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) as long as 23 years to even consider an application
for a family member from the Philippines.
The extended family is a foundation in many of our cultures, and it
provides real benefits to the greater society as well. Families often
pool resources to educate children or purchase homes and establish
roots in their communities. We often see extended family networks
starting businesses, providing economic development and jobs.
It is important that we move the debate on immigration past the
bumper sticker solutions that have dominated the public dialog and work
together to advocate for the needs of family. I believe we must find a
just, practical and humane response to the 12 million undocumented
immigrants living in the shadows of our society. But, we cannot forget
that families that are separated tear at the very fabric of what
America means. I urge my colleagues to learn more about this issue
during APA Heritage Month and throughout the year, and work for
comprehensive and human immigration reform for the APA community.
____________________
HONORING BARBARA KORNER
______
HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, Barbara Korner throughout her life,
interwoven with the strands of wife, mother, and teacher are patterns
that appear and reappear: Her devotion and love for the Sinai Free
Synagogue makes Kehillah Kedosha (sacred congregation) a way of life in
all that she does.
She reaches out to all, teaching the youngest, Beresheet Bunch, to
welcoming the eldest at services; to honoring the most revered as chair
of the Congregant of the Year dinner dance. She initiates new
relationships and strengthens existing ones in the Women's Spirituality
Circle, as well as giving herself to fundraising projects such as Honey
for Rosh Hashanah.
Whether serving food during a concert, shopping for bagels for an
adult education brunch, or selecting beautiful Judaica for the shop,
she brings friendship and caring to the synagogue community.
She has a long history of volunteerism at Sinai Free Synagogue, and
the Free Synagogue before that. She has been honored with the
Congregant of the Year Award, having served as Religious School Board
co-chair, Hospitality Chair for the successful congregational dinners,
and co-chair to the Jewish Festival.
She was born in New York City to Ruth and Murray Zucker, and
graduated from Hunter College. She taught at P.S. 100 for her entire
career and met her husband Ira there. They married in 1970 and have
three children, Matthew, Shelbey and Ari, and three grandchildren
Daniel, Maia and Gabriel.
Barbara Korner is a vital part of the leadership at the synagogue and
the community at large, with her enthusiasm, her artistic flair, and
her strong sense of tikkun olam in everything she does. She has made
Sinai Free Synagogue into a community, and helped to strengthen the
Jewish community in Mt. Vernon.
____________________
THANKING MR. FRANK JONES FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE HOUSE
______
HON. ROBERT A. BRADY
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, on the occasion of his
retirement on June 30, 2008, I rise to thank Mr. Frank Jones for his 32
years of outstanding service to the United States House of
Representatives.
Frank graduated from Brook High School in Calvert County, MD and
moved to DC in 1962. He started working at the Washington Post selling
subscriptions. He wanted to learn a trade and decided on printing.
Frank went to work at A&E Blueprinters learning all facets of the trade
from 1963-1969.
Looking for a change in profession, he obtained a job at Seibert
Decorators in Washington, DC in 1969. It was there that he began to
learn and hone his skills as an accomplished upholsterer. Frank came to
the House upholstery shop in February 1977 and worked there until his
retirement.
Over the next 15 years he artfully upholstered many pieces of House
furniture. Among his list of accomplishments is the upholstery shop's
most valued piece of furniture, the Turkish Chair. He has trained
numerous employees, teaching the techniques, touch, and feel needed to
upholster this chair. He redesigned and tufted the ``Sam Rayburn
Chair'' for the then Clerk of the House, Donald Anderson. Over the
years he has worked on the Lincoln Catafalque several times, preparing
it for ceremonies for Presidents lying-in-state at the Capitol. For the
last 17 years he has served as Foreman of the House Upholstery Shop,
passing on his wealth of knowledge and talent in the trade.
On a more personal note, Frank has always gone out of his way to
ensure that all of his customers are completely satisfied. Frank has
operated his own upholstery business for almost 40 years and the
quality of his work and dedication to his craft are well known in the
DC-MD-VA area. In addition, Frank is part owner and driver of
Millennium Tours bus service. He has always been interested in team
sports and played with many of his co-workers on the House Rockers
softball team from the late 1980s to the 1990s in the Congressional
Softball League. He now enjoys bowling and travels around the country
participating in tournaments. Frank is, and always has been, very
involved with his church, singing with the choir, performing solos, and
participating in services.
[[Page 9174]]
On behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives, I personally
congratulate Frank on his retirement and thank him for all he has done
for this institution. I wish Frank the best and good luck in all his
future endeavors.
____________________
HONORING LAWTON FIRE DEPARTMENT
______
HON. FRED UPTON
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to rise today in recognition
of the Lawton Fire Department of Lawton, Michigan on the occasion of
its 150th anniversary.
Since 1858, Lawton firefighters have bravely served their fellow
village residents, working endlessly to promote the health, safety, and
well-being of their community. In addition to providing protection and
emergency relief services, the department has actively invested itself
in the Lawton community, positively impacting those lives they seek to
protect.
I am proud and fortunate to represent the citizens of Southwest
Michigan because we believe in continually striving to improve our
quality of life. Because of the fine work of courageous men and women
at the Lawton Fire Department, Michigan is truly a better place to
live.
Again, it is my honor to stand today in recognition of the Lawton
Fire Department for its 150 years of outstanding and selfless service
to the residents of Lawton, Michigan.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF ISRAELI STATEHOOD
______
HON. STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I rise today in celebration of
Israel's 60th anniversary of statehood.
On May 14th, 1948, David Ben-Gurion announced to the world that the
State of Israel had been created. This declaration was made in
accordance with the United Nations Resolution 181 which was passed in
November 1947. The creation of two states was proposed, one Jewish and
one Palestinian. The new State of Israel established an opportunity for
Ben-Gurion and other Zionists to realize a return to the ``promised
land.''
Although the new state would be tested immediately following its
creation, its citizens, supporters and ideals would hold. Even at the
conclusion of the first Arab-Israeli War, a constant barrage of state
and non-state actors would seek to destroy this government. Sixty years
later this battle continues, as the entire world copes with the
challenging yet necessary task of respecting the beliefs of others and
protecting the natural rights of all mankind.
The ``land of milk and honey'' is significant not only for its
ability to offer refuge to a people who have been persecuted for the
past 2 millennia, but to also demonstrate the global communities'
determination to right wrongs and to help their fellow man. Today there
are close to 7 million individuals who inhabit Israel. Although the
vast majority of those persons happen to be Jewish, there are also
people who follow the Christian and Arab faiths. While there happens to
be conflict currently between the Jewish and Muslim populations, the
possibility of Israelis and Palestinians coexisting in peace is still
feasible.
As a Member of Congress, I have been blessed with the opportunity to
visit Israel, to talk with those that live there and to see the success
that it has become. There exists within the Eleventh Congressional
District of Ohio and across the United States, a strong community of
individuals who are committed to supporting our close ally. I am proud
to consider myself a fellow advocate and look forward to supporting the
State of Israel in the future.
May the people and the government of Israel continue to enjoy their
statehood and be blessed with peace.
____________________
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S ROLE IN FILLING THE STRATEGIC
PETROLEUM RESERVE AS IT RELATES TO H.R. 6022, THE STRATEGIC PETROLEUM
RESERVE FILL SUSPENSION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
______
HON. NICK J. RAHALL II
of west virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, May 13, 2008, the House
overwhelmingly passed H.R. 6022, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill
Suspension and Consumer Protection Act by a bipartisan vote of 385-25.
This important piece of legislation is now awaiting action by the
Senate, which passed a similar bill 97-1. Hopefully this bill will be
on the President's desk in the immediate future, and he will sign it
into law so that American consumers can experience some relief
immediately.
The purpose of the bill is to temporarily halt filling the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve (SPR) while oil is at recordbreaking highs. It makes
absolutely no sense for the Government to be buying oil at roughly $125
a barrel and pumping it underground. While this is a modest measure to
address gasoline prices, every little bit helps, as the President noted
over 2 years ago. Considering that American taxpayers are paying $9
million a day to continue filling the reserve, I think halting the
purchases is more than just a ``little bit.''
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created in 1975 to respond to the
first Arab oil embargo of the 1970s. Originally, the Department of
Energy was provided with appropriations to purchase oil to fill the
SPR, but in 1999 the situation changed, and it was announced that oil
taken as a ``royalty-in-kind'' from production in the Gulf of Mexico
would be used instead. Through the end of the last fiscal year, the
Department of the Interior has provided roughly 140 million barrels of
royalty-in-kind oil to fill the SPR, valued at approximately $4.6
billion. Today, the SPR is almost 97 percent full, yet royalty-in-kind
oil is still flowing into it at a rate of 70,000 barrels, worth, as
stated above, nearly $9 million per day.
As in any government contractual undertaking, the act of suspending
shipments of oil to the SPR cannot occur without some adjustments in
schedules, and it will take some time as well. For example, the
Department of Energy will have to suspend its contracts with those
entities that are delivering the oil to the SPR, and at any given
moment a huge quantity of oil is already in transit.
My interest, however, as chairman of the Committee on Natural
Resources, which has primary jurisdiction over the Department of the
Interior and the program that has been transferring royalty-in-kind oil
to the Department of Energy, is to ensure that proper guidance and
oversight is provided to that Department of the Interior.
To that end, we understand the language of Section 2(c) of H.R. 6022
to provide the necessary authority to the Secretary to terminate
existing SPR-related contracts and dispose of any remaining RIK oil
accordingly.
Under the terms of Federal oil and gas leases, the Federal Government
is entitled to a percentage of the proceeds derived from the sale of
oil and gas produced on Federal lands. The specific percentage is set
by the terms of the lease, and typically ranges from 12.5 and 18.75
percent. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to take that
percentage either in the form of a cash payment or in the form of oil
or gas itself. This latter method is called royalty-in-kind, RIK, and
when the Government chooses to take its royalty-in-kind, it then
typically sells--using private marketing companies--that oil and gas on
the open market, directly competing with private firms. Currently, some
of that RIK oil is not sold, but instead is directed towards filling
the SPR.
Under the terms of the RIK-SPR program, the Secretary of the Interior
enters into long-term transportation contracts with energy companies to
deliver royalty oil from the Gulf of Mexico to an onshore market
center, where title is transferred to the Department of Energy. These
contracts are typically for 6-month terms, and on May 1, the Interior
Department issued those contracts for the period of July 1 to December
31 of this year. These contracts have a contingency clause to convert
them from purely transportation to an outright sale contracts, but
there is a 45-day notification requirement before such a conversion can
occur.
In order to get the oil from the onshore market center to the SPR,
the Department of Energy enters into exchange contracts with energy
companies. Under the terms of the exchange contract, the contractor
takes title of the oil at the market center, and then delivers other
oil that meets SPR specifications at one of the SPR sites.
Consequently, the RIK oil does not directly flow into the SPR.
The language of H.R. 6022 directs the Secretary of the Interior to
``suspend acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
through the royalty-in-kind program.'' This means that the Department
must terminate its
[[Page 9175]]
transportation contracts and suspend delivery of the RIK oil to the
SPR. In order to ensure that the Department of the Interior does not
end up leaving RIK oil ``in the pipeline'' so to speak, H.R. 6022
intends that the Secretary convert the transportation contracts into
sales contracts as soon as practicable and in accordance with the terms
of the transportation contracts.
This is the obvious intention of the bill, as Congress would
certainly not want to strand tens of thousands of barrels of oil a day
in pipelines across America. Consequently, we envision that the
Department of Energy will continue to accept the oil at the market
centers for as long as the Department of the Interior is contractually
obligated to have it delivered, which we anticipate will not exceed 45
days from enactment of H.R. 6022.
Congressional intent in this matter is to require the Departments of
the Interior and Energy to end the process of filling the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve as rapidly as possible. The Department of the
Interior should immediately, upon enactment of this legislation,
provide the necessary notice to their contractors that RIK delivery
contracts will be converted to sale contracts within 45 days.
____________________
INTRODUCTION BY CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY
BROADBAND AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008
______
HON. JANE HARMAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that takes
a modest but essential step toward solving our Nation's emergency
communications crisis.
For over 6 years, I have worked passionately to prevent a tragic
repetition of the communications problems that led to the deaths of
hundreds of first responders on 9/11--namely, the lack of an
interoperable network that would have allowed police and firefighters
in the twin towers to communicate with each other. This issue has been
one of my highest priorities as a policymaker.
In recent years, Congress has appropriated grant funds for first
responder communications and freed 24 MHz of new spectrum for public
safety use. But our efforts have fallen short. Police, fire, and
emergency medical service agencies across the country still rely on a
balkanized patchwork of aging radio systems that hampers interagency
coordination and puts lives at risk.
This year is our best chance, and maybe our last chance for years, to
change our emergency communications landscape with a single,
interoperable network for all of our Nation's brave first responders.
Next February, the DTV transition will free valuable broadcast
spectrum in the 700 MHz band. Last year, the Federal Communications
Commission designed an innovative auction for a block of this spectrum.
The winner of the so-called ``D'' block would be required to build a
nationwide, wireless broadband network to serve both commercial and
public safety users.
This sensible, market-based approach recognized that public safety
agencies are cut off from the advances of the 21st century, plagued by
the lack of a national communications platform and chronically short of
funding. The FCC envisioned a public-private partnership to provide
state-of-the-art technology to public safety users and fund a multi-
billion dollar public safety network with private capital.
Unfortunately, the D block failed to attract a winning bid. In the
aftermath of that failure, we have learned much about the flaws of the
first auction and what we must do to get it right the second time. The
FCC is now laying the groundwork for a new auction that I fervently
hope will lead to a successful shared network.
Congress should be involved in this process and ensure that the
Public Safety Broadband Licensee, the not-for-profit entity
representing public safety in this partnership, is an independent and
effective voice for first responders.
The legislation I introduce today will start a conversation about how
to achieve that goal. It authorizes $4 million--a modest, interim
funding stream--to help the FCC establish this new interoperable
network and allows the FCC to grant part of these funds to the Public
Safety Broadband Licensee to cover its administrative and operational
costs.
My legislation includes requirements to ensure transparency and
promote vigorous oversight by both Congress and the FCC. It prohibits
the Public Safety Broadband Licensee from accepting third-party funds
after receiving FCC grants and from using government funding to repay
outstanding debts. The bill also mandates strict reporting requirements
to the FCC and Congress.
On 9/11, hundreds of firefighters and police officers died at the
World Trade Center, in part because of their hopelessly impaired
communications systems. Sadly, nearly 7 years later, public safety
agencies still struggle with the exact same problem.
The D block auction is our best chance to solve the interoperability
crisis that will plague our response to the next natural disaster or
terrorist attack. Congress should act now to ensure its success.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE RETIREMENT OF SERGEANT THOMAS SAVAGE RICE
______
HON. JEFF MILLER
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States
Congress, it is an honor for me to rise today in recognition of
Sergeant Thomas Savage Rice upon his retirement from the United States
Army Reserve.
Sergeant Rice's commitment to his country and community spans several
decades. With almost 40 years of service, Sergeant Rice has dutifully
devoted his time to assignments across the Nation. Ft. Eustis,
Virginia, Ft. Lewis, Washington, and Ft. McNair, Washington DC, are
just a few of the many locations that Sergeant Rice has nobly served.
He has ably worked in countless positions and various specialties,
resulting in seven promotions over a 25 year span including his current
rank of Sergeant.
Throughout his career with the United States Army and United States
Army Reserve, Sergeant Rice has received numerous accolades and awards
including the Joint Service Achievement Medal and the Saudi Arabian
Kuwait Liberation Medal; all of which attest to his hard work and
perseverance. In addition to recognition gained through his military
career, Sergeant Rice lives a highly exemplary civilian life. He is a
restaurant owner and serves on the board of the Florida Restaurant and
Lodging Association. He was also the 2004 recipient of Florida's Good
Neighbor Award from the National Restaurant Association.
The duty Sergeant Rice has performed, as well as his outstanding
tenure in the military, is a reflection of the dedication and valor he
possesses. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I am
proud to honor Sergeant Thomas Savage Rice for his enduring allegiance
to our great Nation and the State of Florida.
____________________
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN GAZA MUST BE IMPROVED
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, since late January 2008, the 1.5 million
people in Gaza have been enduring an Israeli-imposed blockade. The
blockade effectively restricts the entry of food, clean water, fuel,
and medical supplies. The lack of basic goods has severely deteriorated
Gaza's health, social fabric, and economy.
The World Bank reports that since Hamas ousted Fatah from Gaza last
June, 90 percent of businesses have shut down, costing workers more
than 100,000 jobs. Due to the closure of Gaza's borders and its
inability to import raw materials, farmers and businesses are unable to
produce and export their goods leaving nearly half a million people
without an income.
I encourage the Bush Administration to do everything it possibly can
to improve the economic livelihood of Gaza's population so that they do
not become the tragic victims of Israel's national security policies.
In particular, the Bush Administration should consider:
Expanding the list of food items permissible for import into Gaza.
Presently only twelve basic food items are allowed entry into Gaza and
this does not include salt or cattle;
Allowing entry of seed, seedlings, fertilizers, and chemicals
necessary for farmers to continue growing basic goods for humanitarian
needs and consumption;
Permitting the entry of raw materials intended for use by private
sector Gaza-based factories. More than 800 factories have been shut
down in Gaza since the blockade, exacerbating its unemployment
conditions;
Extending, on an urgent basis, the reach of recently launched West
Bank initiatives of the small loans and mortgage funding in order to
[[Page 9176]]
provide micro-lending to small businesses and to stimulate peaceful
economic activities;
Encouraging, and allowing entry of, European and other foreign
technical staff to enter Gaza and engage in assisting the private
sector as well as non-governmental organizations in Gaza; and
Permitting entry of construction materials into Gaza necessary for
the completion of $300 million dollars worth of projects which have
been suspended due to material shortages. These projects fall under the
umbrella of international organizations including the United Nations
Relief Works Agency, the United Nations Development Program, and the
World Bank. The necessary materials can be earmarked for specific
projects and their implementation can be supervised by these
international organizations thereby avoiding improper usage.
I urge the U.S. Administration to help end the humanitarian crisis in
Gaza and ensure the health, safety, and security for Palestinians and
Israelis.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ALBIO SIRES
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, I would like to state for the record my
position on the following vote I missed on Tuesday, May 13, 2008. If
present, I would have voted ``yes'' during rollcall No. 306 on H. Res.
1181, Expressing condolences and sympathy to the people of Burma for
the grave loss of life and vast destruction caused by Cyclone Nargis.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. RUBEN HINOJOSA
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained
in my Congressional District in Texas on Tuesday, May 13, 2008. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes 306, 307,
and 308.
____________________
ISRAEL'S 60TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. JOE SESTAK
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and honor
Israel on the 60th anniversary of its founding--May 14, 1948. Over the
past 60 years, the United States and Israel have developed a close
friendship based on our common democratic values and security
interests. I strongly believe that it is in our Nation's best interest
to further strengthen our relations with Israel and create a peaceful
Middle East.
There are over 3,500 Holocaust survivors living in the Greater
Philadelphia region, and many are in my district. These men and women
serve as a constant reminder to me to the history and birth of this
nation. I have been to Israel numerous times in the Navy, and I
recently met with Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Salai
Mender, and Commander-in-Chief for the Israeli Navy, Eli Marom, to
discuss how our countries' relationship can be developed further.
Our conversation touched on our nations' economic relationship: the
United States is Israel's top trading partners and American companies
have significant investments in Israel's economy. I believe Congress
has vested interest in continuing this economic relationship.
Furthermore, we discussed the state of Israeli's military as well as
foreign affairs, from Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism to the close
relationship between Israel and the United States and their militaries.
I firmly believe our economies would mutually benefit including the
potential of a joint venture between the United States and Israel, such
as the development of Littoral Combat Ships.
Joint ventures would result in great mutual benefit by providing not
only greater interoperability between American and Israeli militaries--
while also driving down costs for procurement by working together--but
would also greatly enhance the already strong relationship between
these two countries.
More than our common bond of trade and security, however, our people
share the common belief of Theodore Herzl, who once said ``if you will
it, it is no dream.'' A safe and secure Israel is necessary not only
for the people of Israel, but for the future of the democratic world. I
stand here to affirm my commitment to enhancing the relationship
between our nations and to congratulate Israel on its 60th anniversary.
____________________
JEWISH AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH
______
HON. ROBERT WEXLER
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. WEXLER. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to join my colleagues in
observing the third annual Jewish American Heritage Month, JAHM, which
takes place over the entire month of May.
As you know, Jewish American Heritage Month allows us to annually
recognize the historic contributions of the Jewish community to our
Nation. The Jewish community has a rich history in the growth of
America as we know it today, dating back nearly four centuries to the
founding of our country, and it is essential that Congress along with
local and State officials work together to promote greater awareness
about the contributions of this multifaceted group of people to the
fabric of America.
While American Jews make up only a small percentage of our Nation's
population, their contributions have been significant in a number of
arenas including technology, literature, entertainment, politics, and
medicine, as well as many other parts of our society and culture. In
celebration of these contributions, communities across the Nation--
including many in South Florida, which I am privileged to represent--
have scheduled creative programming and discussion to honor these great
Jewish Americans who have helped build this Nation.
The programming, which will take places across the country, will also
provide an important platform for the discussion of Judaism and Jewish
culture in areas of our Nation where Americans have had little or no
interaction with members of the Jewish community. Given that anti-
Semitism unfortunately remains prevalent throughout the country, it is
more important than ever that we work to break down barriers and
address ignorance and intolerance, which too often leads to anti-
Semitism, xenophobia, and hate.
I am proud to stand with the American Jewish Community during the
month of May to highlight past achievements and the ongoing
contributions of a community that cares deeply about the well-being and
future of this Nation. I urge all of my colleagues as well as the
American people to join me in recognizing the myriad of contributions
of the American Jewish community throughout this month and to take
concrete steps to observe JAHM.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR 2008 HONOR AWARD RECIPIENTS
______
HON. TOM DAVIS
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize an
outstanding group of men and women in Northern Virginia. Each year, the
Department of the Interior recognizes individuals who have contributed
immensely to their departments with the Honor Awards Ceremony.
There are several types of Honor Awards that can be awarded to an
employee: the Distinguished Service Award, the Safety Award, and the
Valor Award. The Distinguished Service Award recognizes individuals
that have gone above and beyond expectations and contributed to the
Department. The Safety Award recognizes safety and health employees who
performed outstanding service and played an important role in the
Department. The Valor Award is given to individuals that demonstrated
courage when they faced dangerous situations.
It is with great pride that we enter into the record the names of the
recipients of the 2008 Honor Awards. Receiving the Distinguished
Service Award: Ms. Barbara L. Chadwick; Mr. Robert Labelle; Mr. David
Bama; Mr. Bruce Sheaffer; and The Safety Award: Ms. Louis Rowe.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, we would like to take this opportunity to
thank all the men and women who serve in the Department of Interior.
Their efforts, made on behalf of the American public, are selfless acts
of heroism and truly merit our highest praise. We ask our colleagues to
join us in applauding this group of remarkable citizens.
[[Page 9177]]
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I wish to clarify
my vote on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule for the
Conference Report on S. Con. Res. 70, the Budget Resolution.
In the 109th Congress, the Florida delegation, on a bi-partisan
basis, worked hard to protect Florida's environmental treasures. The
bill we achieved passage of, Public Law 109-432 (HR 6111), provided
Florida with 125 mile protection off our coast. Furthermore, the
legislation codified the ban on drilling within the ``military mission
line''--approximately 234 miles from Tampa--to provide even more
protection for Florida's west coast through the year 2022. I strongly
support the current ban. I also believe other states should have the
right to search for energy if they wish to do so.
____________________
LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I sent the following letter to the
President on May 13, 2008:
President George W. Bush,
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
Dear President Bush: I strongly urge you to reconsider
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's trip to the Czech
Republic in early June to sign the European Ground-Based Mid-
Course Defense, GMD, agreement. You have urged that the
United States Ballistic Missile Defense System must include a
European theatre to defend the country against an Iranian
deployment of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, ICBM. I
remain unconvinced that the arguments for the European GMD
are valid.
The claim that the GMD will prevent a missile attack on the
United States stands in contravention of the facts. Iran
would have to overcome the many technical difficulties
associated with development and deployment of long-range
ballistic missiles. The longest range missile that Iran has
tested is 1,600 kilometers. The straight line distance from
Tehran to Washington, D.C. is 10,186 kilometers. The United
States has never deployed a missile with this range. Our
longest range missile, the MX or Peacekeeper, has a range of
approximately 8,000 kilometers. Only five countries have
deployed any long-range ballistic missiles to date.
In fact, it is conceivable that the U.S. will have its own
technical difficulties to overcome before such a system can
be proven viable. Two stage interceptors, proposed to be used
in the European GMD, have never before been flight tested and
therefore have no proven track record of viability. The Test
and Evaluation department of the Pentagon cautions that many
more tests under realistic conditions would be needed before
conceding our capability to shoot down an offensive missile.
The citizens of the Czech Republic and Poland clearly
reject the proposed agreement. Public opinion polls in the
Czech Republic reflect strong opposition to the placement of
the radar in their country. A poll conducted in the summer of
2007 shows that three-quarters of the population is calling
for a public referendum on the proposed agreement. Opinion
polls show that a consistent majority of the Polish public is
opposed to the agreement and argues that they feel no
particular threat from Iran. However, they indicated that the
installment of interceptors would strain diplomatic relations
with Russia. Similar concerns have been voiced about the
prospect of Czech participation in the installment of the
radar.
The GMD proposal has by some accounts exacerbated U.S.-
Russia relations. The U.S. has shared information but not
meaningfully cooperated with Russia in these negotiations.
Because the Czech Republic and Poland fall within the
boundaries of former Russian influence, U.S. actions with
regard to the GMD have been perceived by Russia as an
intrusion. There can be no doubt that U.S. efforts to impose
the GMD are perceived as an obstruction to the diplomatic
ties between our nations.
Assertions made by the Administration that the U.S. ICBM
system could be used to protect the European Union reflect a
flawed policy. If the Administration is concerned about the
threat of ICBM attack on Europe it should cooperate with the
international community to address these concerns instead of
pursuing even more unilateral international policing. NATO is
a better forum in which to address these concerns.
The timing of Secretary Rice's trip to sign the agreement
is also questionable. The Conference Report for the FY 2008
Department of Defense, DOD, authorization requires an
independent assessment of the two stage interceptors as well
as an independent analysis to assess alternatives to the
European GMD. The assessment will not be released until after
Secretary Rice's trip. If the assessment finds the GMD and
the interceptors to be as unnecessary, unviable, and
counterproductive to diplomacy as I have outlined in this
letter, it will make it difficult to turn back. Additionally,
the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran
states that Tehran halted its nuclear program in 2003 and as
such, reaffirms the lack of an impending nuclear threat to
the United States from Iran. This further confirms that there
is no urgent need to sign a formal agreement with the Czech
Republic in June.
The viability, necessity and prudence of the fulfillment of
a formal agreement with both the Czech Republic and Poland on
the European GMD are called into question. Furthermore, this
$4 billion project will be solely funded by U.S. taxpayers. I
urge you to cancel the upcoming trip by Secretary Rice to the
Czech Republic and instead focus on the more pressing
diplomatic efforts that are needed to protect U.S. security
through our relationships with the international community.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich,
Member of Congress.
____________________
CELEBRATING ISRAEL'S 60TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. TODD TIAHRT
of kansas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, congratulations to the people of Israel
and their fore bearers on the 60th anniversary of the reestablishment
of the State of Israel. Born out of genocide and conflict, the modern
State of Israel has developed into a free, democratic and prosperous
country. An unfailing ally of the United States, Israel is a beacon of
freedom and religious tolerance in the Middle East. I am honored to
strongly support the modern State of Israel and reaffirm the bonds of
close friendship and cooperation between the United States and Israel.
The narrow strip of land that now constitutes modern Israel has been
important to the Jewish people for four millennia, and the first Jewish
kingdom was established in this region over 3,000 years ago. Although
forced to emigrate from the historical Jewish homeland over the
centuries, the Jewish people have continuously yearned for and often
returned to their home. History shows that waves of Jewish people
returned to the Holy Land at the very least during the 12th, 15th,
16th, and 18th centuries. Large-scale migration back to Israel started
in the late 1800s and continues through today.
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly formally
approved the partitioning of the British Mandate of Palestine and the
creation of a Jewish State. On May 14, 1948, the people of Israel
proclaimed the establishment of the modern State of Israel. Under the
leadership of President Harry S. Truman, the United States was the
first nation to recognize the State of Israel and establish full
diplomatic relations.
Over the course of three wars, countless military operations,
constant terrorism, and unjustified diplomatic and economic boycotts,
Israel's existence has been continuously threatened. But, through it
all, the Jewish people have remained vigilant and continue to build a
strong and vibrant state.
Today, Israel has one of the leading economies in the Middle East,
while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights, freedom of
speech, press and religion, and democratic values. With open and free
elections, and an independent judiciary, Israel remains the most
democratic country in the region.
Since the creation of the modern State of Israel, the hallmark of the
relationship with the United States has been a strong friendship.
Israel has been a trusted military ally and partner for six decades.
The close relationship between our governments and continued military
assistance are essential for promoting democracy and peace in the
Middle East and throughout the world.
In times of humanitarian need or global crisis, the United States can
always count on Israel to stand close and provide assistance. From
contributing search-and-rescue teams following the 1998 bombings of the
American Embassies in east Africa, to providing humanitarian aid
following the 2005 devastation of the
[[Page 9178]]
Gulf Coast from a series of hurricanes, the State of Israel has always
been a stalwart friend to the American people. The United States must
remain committed to supporting the State of Israel.
It is important to honor this historic milestone. The United States
Congress and the American people look forward to continued growth and
success of the State of Israel. I ask that all my colleagues honor this
important anniversary.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO THE LIFE OF ERNEST S. KINNEY
______
HON. JIM COSTA
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of
Ernest S. Kinney of Fresno, California who recently passed away at 63
years of age. He leaves behind a loving wife, Marion, two children and
several grandchildren.
Mr. Kinney was born and raised in Bishop, California. In 1962 he went
to Fresno State to play football, and in 1965 he served as student body
president and President of the 16th State College Student President's
Association. Upon graduating from Fresno State he joined the U.S.
Marine Corp in 1968 and served as a Captain until 1971.
After his military career Mr. Kinney attended the San Joaquin College
of Law while working as a social worker during the day. He graduated as
part of the school's second graduating class in 1975 and was inducted
into the Hall of Fame in 2007.
After only two and a half short years Ernest established his own
private practice in 1978 and formed the Ernest S. Kinney Law
Corporation. During more than three decades of practicing law he gained
the respect of the entire community. He was tough and dedicated and
admired by his colleagues, and he will be remembered mostly for his
colorful character and his skills in the courtroom.
Ernest enjoyed the simple things in life like going to football and
basketball games with friends, going to the beach with his
grandchildren and lunches with his friends. He had passion and he loved
people.
It goes without saying that Mr. Ernest Kinney was one of kind. His
commitment to family and clients will forever live in the lives of the
people he touched. His passion for justice under the law will be
remembered by all who knew him. I am honored and humbled to join his
family in celebrating the life of this amazing man who will never be
forgotten.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE SAVING ENERGY THROUGH PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ACT OF
2008
______
HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, together with Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member John L. Mica and Highways and
Transit Subcommittee Chairman Peter A. DeFazio, I am pleased to
introduce H.R. 6052, the ``Saving Energy Through Public Transportation
Act of 2008.''
We are introducing this bill to promote energy savings through
increased public transportation use in the United States. Recently,
public transportation has experienced a renaissance in American cities
and towns. In 2007, Americans took over 10.3 billion trips on public
transportation, the highest level in 50 years. Public transportation
use is up 32 percent since 1995, a figure that is more than double the
growth rate of the population and is substantially over the growth rate
for the vehicle miles traveled on our Nation's highways for that same
period. All around the country, voters continue to approve state and
local ballot initiatives to support public transportation, even when it
means local taxes will be raised or continued.
As the price of gas approaches $4 a gallon, even more commuters are
choosing to ride the train or the bus to work rather than drive alone
in their cars. Transit systems in metropolitan areas are reporting
increases in ridership of 5, 10, and even 15 percent over last year's
figures. Some of the biggest increases in ridership are occurring in
many areas in the South and West where new bus and light rail lines
have been built in the last few years.
Meeting this impressive new demand for public transportation services
is no small task for our transit agencies. While recordbreaking numbers
of commuters are riding transit, the cost of fuel and power for public
transportation has sharply increased, and the slowing economy means
less local money is available to increase or even maintain transit
services. This bill provides much needed support to public
transportation agencies and increases incentives for commuters to
choose transit options, thereby reducing their transportation-related
energy consumption and reliance on foreign oil.
A primary objective of H.R. 6052, the ``Saving Energy Through Public
Transportation Act of 2008,'' is to reduce the United States dependence
on foreign oil by encouraging more people to use public transportation.
According to a recent study, if Americans used public transit at the
same rate as Europeans--for roughly 10 percent of their daily travel
needs--the United States could reduce its dependence on imported oil by
more than 40 percent, nearly equal to the 550 million barrels of crude
oil that we import from Saudi Arabia each year.
To increase public transportation use across the United States, H.R.
6052, the ``Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008,''
authorizes $1.7 billion in funding over 2 years for transit agencies
nationwide that are temporarily reducing transit fares or expanding
transit services to meet the needs of the growing number of transit
commuters. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study
Commission, established to develop a national transportation vision to
address surface transportation needs for the next 50 years, calls for a
total annual investment of between $26 billion to $46 billion for
public transportation. We consider this bill an important first step in
increasing our investment in public transit infrastructure.
H.R. 6052 also increases the Federal share for clean fuel and
alternative fuel transit bus, ferry or locomotive-related equipment or
facilities, thereby assisting transit agencies in reducing
transportation-related emissions. In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the
increased Federal share for these activities is 100 percent of the net
capital cost of the project. Public transportation use is estimated to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 37 million metric tons annually.
When a solo commuter switches from a single occupancy vehicle to a
transit commute, this single mode shift can reduce carbon dioxide
emissions by 20 pounds per day--more than 4,800 pounds in a year. This
provision will allow American commuters to further decrease their
greenhouse gas emissions.
H.R. 6052 also extends the Federal transit pass benefits program to
require that all Federal agencies offer transit passes to Federal
employees throughout the United States. Current law requires that all
Federal agencies within the National Capital Region implement a transit
pass fringe benefits program and offer employees transit passes. This
requirement originated from Executive Order 13150, signed by President
Clinton on April 21, 2000. The Executive Order also required the
Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
the Department of Energy to implement a nationwide 3-year pilot transit
pass benefit program for all qualified Federal employees of those
agencies.
Data from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority
covering the first 3 years of the National Capital Region transit pass
program show that more than 15,500 automobiles were eliminated from
roads in the Washington, DC, area as a result of Federal employees
shifting their travel mode away from single occupancy vehicle, SOV, use
to public transportation use for commuting to work. The Department of
Transportation estimated that emissions and energy savings from this
mode shift included the reduction of more than 8 million gallons of
gasoline, nearly 40,000 tons of carbon dioxide, and over 675 tons of
carbon monoxide for each of the 3 years that they studied. DOT also
studied the results of the nationwide pilot program and found that,
within the three covered agencies, 11 percent of the participants
shifted their travel mode away from SOV use to public transportation
use for commuting to work, again producing marked energy and emissions
savings, reduced congestion and cleaner air.
The Department of Transportation has determined that both the
National Capital Region transit benefits program and the nationwide
pilot program produce marked energy and emissions savings, congestion
reductions, and cleaner air, and recommends that the transit pass
benefits program be extended to Federal employees nationwide. This
provision will implement the Department's recommendation by providing
more Federal employees the incentives to choose transit options,
thereby reducing their transportation-related energy consumption and
reliance on foreign oil.
H.R. 6052 also creates a pilot program to allow the amount expended
by private providers of public transportation by vanpool for the
acquisition of vans to be used as the non-Federal share for matching
Federal transit
[[Page 9179]]
funds in five communities. Under current law, only local public funds
may be used as local match; this pilot program would allow private
funds to be used in limited circumstances.
The provision will require the private providers of vanpool services
to use revenues they receive in providing public transportation, in
excess of their operating costs, for the purpose of acquiring vans,
excluding any amounts that the providers may have received in Federal,
State, or local government assistance for such acquisition. The
Department of Transportation will implement and oversee the vanpool
pilot projects, and will report back to Congress on the costs,
benefits, and efficiencies of the vanpool projects.
Finally, H.R. 6052, the ``Saving Energy Through Public Transportation
Act of 2008,'' increases the Federal share for additional parking
facilities at end-of-line fixed guideway stations. This provision
increases the total number of transit commuters who will have access to
those facilities.
Public transportation use in all of its forms--bus, rail, vanpool,
ferry, streetcar, and subway ridership to name a few--saves fuel,
reduces emissions, and saves money. The direct petroleum savings
attributable to current public transportation use in the United States
is 1.4 billion gallons per year. When the secondary effects of transit
availability on travel are also taken into account, the equivalent of
4.2 billion gallons of gasoline is saved annually--more than 11 million
gallons of gasoline per day.
Increasing public transportation use by providing incentives for
commuters to choose transit options, thereby reducing their
transportation-related energy consumption and reliance on foreign oil,
as well as decreasing their greenhouse gas emissions, is a priority of
this Congress.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important
legislation.
____________________
HONORING WILLIAM KEARNEY OF LAKE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
______
HON. MIKE THOMPSON
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize
Mr. Bill Kearney, who is being honored by the Lakeside Wellness
Foundation for his years of service to the citizens of Lake County. Mr.
Kearney is being recognized for his outstanding contributions to Sutter
Lakeside Hospital as well as the community at large.
Bill is deservedly known as ``Mr. Community.'' Having previously
served in the US Army in both Korea and Vietnam, he has since served on
the Board of Sutter Lakeside since 1999 and has been President of the
Board since 2005. He has given countless hours to the hospital over the
years and always goes the extra mile, be it helping with physician
recruitment or serving as a community ambassador. He also serves as the
emcee of the annual Lake County Stars awards, lending his considerable
charm and wit to what is always a memorable evening.
Mr. Kearney is not only a hero in the Lake County non-profit and
health care communities, but a business leader as well. He owns two
successful pharmacies and hosts a radio show discussing health issues.
Bill is equally generous with his time and abilities in the business
community. He has served two terms as President of the Chamber of
Commerce and is affiliated with all local service organizations. He
also leads the co-op for small pharmacies in Northern California.
Madam Speaker and colleagues, it is my distinct pleasure to recognize
Bill Kearney for his many years of service. He has been a model citizen
and leader in Lake County, his presence has enriched the lives of
everyone in our community and I am honored to call him a friend. I join
his wife Dana, four children and twelve grandchildren in wishing him
continued success and fulfillment.
____________________
HONORING THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF ISRAEL
______
HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Speaker, sixty years ago today, as the world was
still recovering from the horrors of the Second World War and the
devastation of the Holocaust, the modern state of Israel was founded.
In the sixty years since its founding, Israel has overcome numerous
security threats while serving as a model democracy in the Middle East
and a beacon of freedom in the region. Importantly, Israel has also
been one of America's strongest and most steadfast allies.
In fact, the strong relationship between our two countries dates back
to Israel's very founding.
Within eleven minutes of Israel's declaration of Independence,
President Harry Truman formally recognized the new nation and
established America as Israel's first and closest friend.
Today, the strong partnership between our two countries continues
through commerce, educational links, familial ties, and joint efforts
to stabilize and bring peace to the Middle East.
So as we mark this important date and pay tribute to Israel's
founding, let us also recommit to a continued friendship and
partnership with Israel and a renewed dedication to securing a lasting
peace in the Middle East.
____________________
CELEBRATING 60 YEARS OF REMARKABLE ACHIEVEMENTS BY OUR FRIEND AND ALLY
ISRAEL
______
HON. RUSH D. HOLT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, as we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the
founding of Israel, I am proud that the United States and Israel have
built a strong, unique, and special relationship.
It took the United States, under President Harry Truman's leadership,
only 11 minutes after Israel had been declared a state to officially
welcome her into the community of nations. After, President Truman
said, ``I had faith in Israel before it was established, I have faith
in it now. I believe it has a glorious future before it--not just
another sovereign nation, but as an embodiment of the great ideals of
our civilization.''
The creation of the State of Israel was a bold step in May of 1948.
The first prime minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, once said that
``courage is a special kind of knowledge: the knowledge of how to fear
what ought to be feared and how not to fear what ought not to be
feared.'' It is from such courage that the State of Israel was formed
and from which Israel continues to maintain its vibrant and strong
democracy today. We can all learn examples from the struggles that the
citizens have endured and the grief they have overcome to remain a
democratic outpost in the Middle East.
The achievements of the Israeli people and their government over the
past 60 years are remarkable. For instance, when it comes to education,
well over half of Israelis aged 20- 24 are enrolled in one of the
country's institutions of post-secondary or higher education.
Healthcare is guaranteed by law--for all Israelis--from infancy to old
age. As for agriculture, the country produces almost 70 percent of its
food requirements--from land that was once not remotely capable of
sustaining crops or livestock. Finally, despite the growing demand for
expansion of farmland and industrial centers, the Israeli government
has set aside land for 150 nature reserves and 65 national parks
throughout the country, with several hundred additional sites in
planning. While these achievements are each remarkable in their own
right, they are only a sample of what Israel has accomplished in a mere
60 years.
As a lifelong supporter of our most important ally in the Middle
East, I have had the pleasure of traveling to Israel. These visits have
only reinforced my strong conviction that Israel, like all states in
the world, has the right to respond in self-defense to protect her
sovereignty and citizens.
As chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations Special
Intelligence Oversight Panel, I know that Israel has been a loyal and
cooperative partner in combating terrorism. Our country has a lot to
learn from Israel and her experiences with acts of terrorism.
As Israel continues to face threats from her neighbors, America must
continue to stand with her. Additionally, a strong American
relationship with Israel is essential for regional stability. We have a
responsibility to help Israel stand up to and prevent terrorist
attacks. Last year, I supported $2.4 billion in military assistance for
Israel, and will continue to support additional U.S. foreign assistance
for Israel.
I also strongly believe that the United States must remain actively
engaged in ensuring a peaceful settlement of the current conflict
between the two parties.
It is essential that the United States become more involved
diplomatically to help diffuse conflicts like the one in Lebanon two
summers ago and help move the parties to a broader settlement that will
defang the militant and terrorist factions and will result in a
peaceful Middle East and a viable two states.
[[Page 9180]]
Much work remains unfinished. We are all troubled by the daily
rocket attacks by Hamas from Gaza against innocent civilians in Israel.
Israel clearly has a right to defend herself against these deadly
attacks. This has been yet another unique year for Israel, full of
challenges that were admirably met.
I am pleased to join with the Jewish community of New Jersey and all
Americans in celebrating 60 years of Israel's existence as a beacon of
democracy and hope in the Middle East. I look forward to future
anniversaries, and to the day when Israel and her citizens can live in
peace without fear.
____________________
SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate on February
4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized
schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees,
subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This
title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate
Daily Digest--designated by the Rules Committee--of the time, place,
and purpose of the meetings, when scheduled, and any cancellations or
changes in the meetings as they occur.
As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this
information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this
information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the
Congressional Record on Monday and Wednesday of each week.
Meetings scheduled for Thursday, May 15, 2008 may be found in the
Daily Digest of today's Record.
MEETINGS SCHEDULED
MAY 20
10 a.m.
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
To hold hearings to examine the nomination of Steven C.
Preston, of Illinois, to be Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development.
SD-538
Energy and Natural Resources
To hold hearings to examine energy and related economic
effects of global climate change legislation.
SD-366
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
To hold hearings to examine plant closings, focusing on
workers rights and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification (WARN) (Public Law 100-379) Act's 20th
anniversary.
SD-430
Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine global internet freedom,
focusing on corporate responsibility and the rule of
law.
SD-226
10:30 a.m.
Foreign Relations
To hold hearings to examine agreement on Extradition
between the United States of America and the European
Union (EU), signed on June 25, 2003 at Washington,
together with twenty-two bilateral instruments which
subsequently were signed between the United States and
each European Union Member State in order to implement
the Agreement with the EU. The Agreement includes an
explanatory note which is an integral part of the
Agreement (Treaty Doc. 109-14), extradition Treaty
between the United States of America and the Government
of the Republic of Latvia, signed on December 7, 2005,
at Riga (Treaty Doc. 109-15), extradition Treaty
between the United States of America and the Government
of the Republic of Estonia, signed on February 8, 2006,
at Tallinn (Treaty Doc. 109-16), extradition Treaty
between the United States of America and the Government
of Malta, signed on May 18, 2006, at Valletta, that
includes an exchange of letters that is an integral
part of the treaty (Treaty Doc. 109-17), extradition
Treaty between the United States of America and Romania
(the ``Extradition Treaty'' or the ``Treaty'') and the
Protocol to the Treaty between the United States of
America and Romania on Mutual Legal Assistance in
Criminal Matters (the ``Protocol''), both signed at
Bucharest on September 10, 2007 (Treaty Doc. 110-11),
extradition Treaty between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of the Republic of
Bulgaria (the ``Extradition Treaty'' or the ``Treaty'')
and the Agreement on Certain Aspects of Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Government
of the United States of America and the Government of
the Republic of Bulgaria (the ``MLA Agreement''), both
signed at Sofia on September 19, 2007 (Treaty Doc. 110-
12), treaty Between the Government of the United States
of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden
on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed
at Stockholm on December 17, 2001 (Treaty Doc. 107-12),
mutual Legal Assistance between the United States of
America and the European Union (EU), signed on June 25,
2003, at Washington, together with 25 bilateral
instruments that subsequently were signed between the
United States and each European Union Member State in
order to implement the Agreement with the EU, and an
explanatory note that is an integral part of the
Agreement (Treaty Doc. 109-13), and treaty between the
United States of America and Malaysia on Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed on July 28,
2006, at Kuala Lumpur (Treaty Doc. 109-22).
SD-419
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
To hold hearings to examine financial speculation in
commodity markets, focusing on institutional investors
and hedge funds contributing to food and energy price
inflation.
SD-342
11 a.m.
Appropriations
Defense Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine proposed budget estimates for
fiscal year 2009 for the Department of Defense.
SD-192
2:15 p.m.
Foreign Relations
Business meeting to consider pending calendar business.
S-116, Capitol
2:30 p.m.
Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine protecting the constitutional
right to vote for all Americans.
SD-226
Intelligence
To hold closed hearings to examine certain intelligence
matters.
SH-219
2:45 p.m.
Foreign Relations
Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs
Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine Pakistan's Federally
Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) challenge, focusing on
securing one of the worlds most dangerous areas.
SD-419
MAY 21
Time to be announced
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Business meeting to consider the nomination of Paul A.
Schneider, of Maryland, to be Deputy Secretary of
Homeland Security.
S-216, Capitol
9:15 a.m.
Foreign Relations
To hold hearings to examine treaty Between the Government
of the United States of America and the Government of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation, done at
Washington and London on June 21 and 26, 2007 (Treaty
Doc. 110-07), and treaty Between the Government of the
United States of America and the Government of
Australia Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation, done at
Sydney, September 5, 2007 (Treaty Doc. 110-10).
SD-419
9:30 a.m.
Veterans' Affairs
To hold hearings to examine pending health care
legislation.
SR-418
10 a.m.
Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine the skyrocketing price of
oil.
SD-226
MAY 22
9:30 a.m.
Armed Services
To hold hearings to examine the nominations of General
David H. Petraeus, USA, for reappointment to the grade
of general and to be Commander, United States Central
Command, and Lieutanant General Raymond T. Odierno,
USA, for appointment to the grade of general and to be
Commander, Multi-National Force-Iraq.
SD-106
10:30 a.m.
Aging
To hold hearings to examine improving Medicare for the
most vulnerable, focusing on senior citizens at risk.
SH-216
2 p.m.
Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine closing the justice gap,
focusing on providing civil legal assistance to low-
income Americans.
SD-226
[[Page 9181]]
JUNE 3
9:30 a.m.
Armed Services
To hold hearings to examine the acquisition of major
weapons systems by the Department of Defense.
SD-106
JUNE 4
9:30 a.m.
Veterans' Affairs
To hold an oversight hearing to examine veterans
disability compensation, focusing on undue delay in
claims processing.
SR-418
JUNE 5
9:30 a.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
To hold hearings to examine off-highway vehicle
management on public lands.
SD-366
JUNE 26
9:30 a.m.
Veterans' Affairs
Business meeting to markup pending calendar business.
SR-418
POSTPONEMENTS
MAY 20
10 a.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
To hold hearings to examine the Territorial Energy
Assessment as updated pursuant to the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (Public Law 109-58).
SD-366